Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, July 08, 2022, 15:58 (867 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, July 08, 2022, 16:06

DAVID: And again you have carefully avoided the main issue: the short time for huge changes in forms as compared to all other gaps in fossil series.

dhw: You keep ignoring my response! I propose that whatever changed the Cambrian environment (maybe increased oxygen) must have allowed for far more novelties than in other periods. If we accept cellular intelligence (thank you for your 50/50), it is feasible that some intelligent organisms could not only adapt but might also have found new ways of exploiting the new conditions. And if we accept common descent, then existing organisms must have changed into different organisms, which could only happen through changes being reproduced from one generation to the next. Speciation is not caused by time passing but by the interaction between generations of existing organisms and their changed environment.

Same subterfuge of invoking generational changes while ignoring that this gap is like none other in the record, and the new forms are not like anything in its past. They MUST have been designed to change from very simple to very complex. All that palaver to cover your rigidity sticking to old Darwinian thinking.

Humanization
DAVID: He is a God you do not seem to understand, recognizing the only God you can imagine is overtly extremely human in thought.

dhw: You have just admitted that he does what he does for his own ”private” reasons […] so how does that mean come to mean that you understand him any more than I do? You have agreed that your own God may well enjoy creating and is sure to be interested in what he creates. Is this “overtly extremely human”? I would have thought it was a very logical assumption. Why would he do something he didn’t enjoy and wasn’t interested in? A God who experiments, gets new ideas as he goes along, or deliberately creates a free-for-all is no more “extremely human” than a God whose sole purpose is to create one species which might admire his work and even form a relationship with him, or who is too kind to design something he knows will harm us (three of your own speculations). […]

DAVID: Your distorted view of my God, now bolded, is not what I have presented to you in the past.

I’ve been referring to these beliefs of yours (later called “guesses”) for years, and it’s frustrating that you should try to disown them now. It would take me too long to hunt for the first quotes, but a quick look back has enabled me to provide a few to confirm ALL of the above:

March 2021: God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it.
He wouldn’t create unless he liked doing it.
April 2021: All God’s works are for the good.
Sep. 2020: It is difficult to imagine that God purposely allowed harm to his creations, and therefore added editing mechanisms to protect as much as possible.
His human attributes INHO are God-like, His concern for us like our concern for others.
Dec. 2020: I’m sure He likes what he creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.
October 2020: I’m sure He sees what is going on with his own level of interest
December 2018: dhw: Twice in the last few days, without my asking, you have stated that your God wants us to think about him and wants a relationship with us.
I do not believe a God, who so carefully produced human consciousness so that we can think about him, would abandon the project.
Since only we recognize God exists, and that creates a special relationship, why should we search for other motives?

dhw: Do you actually renounce these views now, and why do you regard them as less “humanizing” than my alternative theories concerning his possible purpose and method of producing the history of life?

DAVID: My very purposeful God is a marked contrast to yours. God knows exactly what to do at all stages of developments in the many processes He evolved, and He knew His endpoints in advance. […]

dhw: I am aware of the rigidity of your belief that he had ONE endpoint (purpose) - not plural endpoints (purposes) – in mind from the start, and that he designed countless forms that had no connection with that endpoint (purpose), and that you cannot discern any logical reason why he would choose such a method to fulfil such a purpose. I am also aware that you do understand the logic behind the different alternatives (not beliefs) that I have offered.

I am aware that your God actions as alternatives fit a very human-thinking God. I've agreed to your conclusions based on your strange form of god, that in that singular case they are logical. As for all the saved previous quotes, you always fail to mention they are my guesses as to how God might resemble or relate to us, guesses encouraged by your leading questions to which I politely responded. Your view of God has no resemblance to mine.