Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, June 11, 2022, 15:56 (683 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again your reasoning against God's. I fully accept it as God's choice of method.

dhw: It is my reasoning against your interpretation of God’s goal and your interpretation of his method of achieving that goal. Stop pretending that I am criticizing God.

DAVID: We appeared from bacteria through a process of evolution. I view it as a God-controlled process, so yes, you are criticising my God.

dhw: We agree that ALL life forms appeared from bacteria through a process of evolution, and if God exists, then he invented the process of evolution. What I criticize is your insistence that 1) your God individually designed EVERY life form, and did so 2) for the sole purpose of designing us and our food, although the vast majority of the life forms he created had no connection with us and our food. It is you who make your God act in a manner which is inexplicable if both your theories are correct. So maybe at least one of them is wrong.

Your problem is viewing my theory as if there are two parts. If viewed as God's choice of method to reach His purposeful goal of humans, it consists of only one part.

dhw: I propose that an all-powerful God is more likely to have had a goal and method that logically explain the history of life as we know it (countless forms of life and food supplies - mainly unconnected with humans and our food supply – that have come and gone, the latest of these being us and our food supply).

DAVID: An irreligous view that fits Adler's point God cares about us or doesn't 50/50. If God ran evolution as we both agree, and with purpose, as the current endpoint, we are the goal.

dhw: Why is it “irreligious” to propose that if God exists, he would have had a goal and method that logically explain the history of life as we know it? What has religion and “caring about us” got to do with it anyway? The “current endpoint” does not explain why your version of God would have individually designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with us.

No connnection. Really? We are the current endpoint of an evolutionary process that went through all the stages you decry

dhw: So maybe sapiens and our ecosystems were NOT his one and only purpose right from the start, and/or maybe he did NOT individually design every life form and ecosystem that had no connection with sapiens (plus food).

DAVID: Still off on your woolly tangent of analysis. We both know what happened under God's control, which simply means He arrvied at producing us by that method.

dhw: According to you, he also arrived at producing millions and millions of life forms that had no connection with us. If he did so deliberately, and was in full control, his purpose could hardly have been confined to designing us and our food.

Again, a simple theory you try to slice up into disparate parts. One theory, once again, God's choice of method. Stop slicing!!!