Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, June 05, 2022, 15:50 (900 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The original 50/50 refers to "one or the other, nothing else probable". I don't know if God's thoughts and emotions are similar to ours, but I think it probable.

dhw: Thank you. If it is probable, then that is all the more reason why you should stop objecting to my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution solely on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

That is still over-humanizing God!

DAVID: The other 50/50 is from Adler who presents that as whether God really cares about us.

dhw: Fair enough. We also have your agreement that there is a 50/50 chance that cells are intelligent beings as opposed to automatons obeying your God’s instructions.

dhw: You accept your own theory that his sole “desire” was to design us and our food and therefore he designed all the species and foods that had no connection with us; and you accept your own theory that he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors and yet decided to design in stages the only species he wanted to create (plus its food). And it makes perfect sense to you that only your God can make sense of your illogical theories.

DAVID: If you could only come to the realization my explantions make perfect sense to many folks who believe as in ID.

dhw: ID makes perfect sense, but you keep admitting that even you can't explain your combination of evolutionary theories. Only God can!

DAVID: Of course what God does is inscrutable. We all theorize.

dhw: You can’t see any logic in your own combination of theistic theories of evolution, and you acknowledge that my theistic theories are logical, but you refuse to acknowledge that one or other of yours might be wrong.

I don't view my theories as illogical, so why should I agree with your illogical complaints?

Dhw; You have agreed that all my alternatives fit logically into the history of life.

DAVID:The bold exists only from my previous comment about your God theories that they are logical only by assuming a very humanized form of God. A comment you constantly distort to make it seem I support your views.

dhw: Please stop trying to flog the dead horse of “humanization”, which you have yet again buried for ever in your first comment at the start of this post. There is no distortion, and I do not expect you to support any of the alternatives I offer. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that you can’t find any logic in the combination of your own theories. And so I merely ask you to admit that at least one of your theories might be wrong, and one or other of my own might be right.

I have never agreed that my thoeries might be wrong, much as you try to imagine it. My thoughts are sufficient logical for me to be satisfied with them. You illogically criticise God because He didn't just create us forthwith! And all the while you agree God can do whatever He wishes to do. Can't have it both ways.