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

by dhw, Monday, June 20, 2022, 08:39 (676 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I find your analyis totally illogical and always asked you if you want God to do direct creation for which history offers no evidence. Your tiny human logic is no match for God's choices.

dhw: Re direct creation, according to you, your God individually designed every species etc. – although there is much confusion here, because you also believe in common descent. This would mean he redesigned existing species into new ones, but apparently in the Cambrian he did no such thing: he created new species without precursors. Re humans, there is indeed clear evidence that we evolved in stages, but since you believe your God could create new species without precursors, and humans (plus food) were the only species he wanted to design from the very beginning, I ask why you think he chose to design us in stages. You have no idea. It “makes sense only to God.” How does your cluelessness make my analysis illogical?

Your response to this is sheer waffle, dodging from one point to another as you try to avoid the plain fact that you can’t explain your combination of theories, which “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: Not clueless. You still do not follow my reasoning: God made us through stages of evolution He created.

The fact that we evolved in stages is not in dispute.

DAVID: We can create a pattern of history that shows a common descent in the branches of the bush of life from simple to complex.

Also true, but it does not mean that your God created every single species individually, or that every individual species was an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food.

DAVID: The basis of life in its biochemistry means specialized proteins like the example neuropeptides must have precursors before specialized organs can be created to use them.

Agreed. In the process of common descent, existing materials are put to new uses.

DAVID: A designer God can create the gaps we see in forms when the chemistry allows.

Fudge. The “gaps” we see in forms refers to your belief that during the Cambrian he designed species that had no precursors. “When the chemistry allows” is fudge for when conditions change (e.g. an increase in oxygen). In Part Two I asked if you believed in common descent, and you have referred me to this load of waffle, which does not answer my question. However, you point out the following:
DAVID: Common descent, in a definition, does not have to be defined as tiny changes by generations. All Darwinists like Gould describe gaps, not itty bitty steps.

Agreed. If you believe in common descent, then your God would take an existing species and introduce an innovation from one generation to the next. The same would apply if your God had given cells the intelligence to design their own innovations. And subsequent generations might well improve on the innovation – just as one generation of humans invents something new and subsequent generations improve on it. Do you believe in common descent, i.e. that all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: As for human progression, it is mainly based on brain size and development and then full bipedalism. And yes, a dssigner God knows exactly what to do.

We know that humans evolved in stages. I am not questioning the history, and you know that I’m not. You also know that you cannot find an explanation that will enable your combined theories to fit in with the history, as I have pointed out at the start of this post. Your combined theories “make sense only to God” – and as far as I know, you are not God.

DAVID: How likely is chance vs an active mind? The picket fence as usual.

dhw: Since both options seem equally irrational, it requires faith to believe in either.

DAVID: The necessity for a designing mind is a very rational thought.

dhw: That is what I said in the very first sentence above (now bolded). Why have you ignored the last sentence, which describes the irrational side of your faith?

DAVID: What is irrational is your clear view of design and refusal to decide a designer is required. Do you really see how complex the design is? That it is beyond chance.

I keep agreeing, and you keep ignoring the reason why I find the God theory equally irrational. So I will repeat it: “I find it equally difficult to believe that there is an eternal, immaterial mind that had no source, and has simply been “there” forever, somehow creating vast quantities of matter out of its own immateriality, and exercising its powers of psychokinesis to manipulate the materials into galaxies and solar systems, bacteria and dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus.”