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

by dhw, Thursday, July 14, 2022, 09:00 (861 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've bolded once again your nonsensical view that you know better than God how to accomplish His creations. God's logic is not yours. You don't seem to understand my reasoning that leads me to simply accept that God has choices of method He chooses for His own reasons. I don't have to understand why, and I know you can't.

You simply refuse to acknowledge that your interpretation of your God’s motive for and method of “accomplishing his creations” is your own unproven theory. It is not a fact that his one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus food, or that he individually designed every life form and econiche, or that he did so because every life form etc. was an “absolute requirement” for his design of humans plus food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans plus food. It is your “nonsensical view” that your theory is the objective truth, even though it “makes sense only to God”, which means that it doesn’t make sense to you. Please stop dodging. It is your thinking that I am criticizing – not your God’s!

dhw: You agree that your version “makes sense only to God”, and you have always agreed that my alternatives fit in logically with life’s history. There is no point in your parroting my criticism of your theory (“disconnected and illogical”) if you agree that my alternatives are connected and logical. If you’ve changed your mind, please tell us which parts are NOT logical.

DAVID: Same old distortion of my view of your imagined God and His intentions. The experimentation, the need for free-for-all, and all the other weak human-like God proposals are logical only in the framework of a weak uncertain of his goals god. Fin ally, please respect that version I have of you so-called god.

I don’t see uncertainty or weakness in a being that deliberately tries out different ways to achieve a particular purpose, or deliberately sets out to explore new paths. Was your God’s desire to create humans a “need”? Actually, your own guess was that he wanted us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. That sounds more “needy” to me than the desire, for instance, to create something out of enjoyment and interest. In any case, your dismissal of my alternatives does not make your own theory any the less “nonsensical”.

DAVID: I'm sorry you are so confused about the issue of how to think about God as I do.

dhw: […] Please stop pretending that you know “how to think about God”. Only God knows that, if he exists!

DAVID: According to Adler there is a way as to how to properly think about God in a book by that name. I have the book. Yes, only God knows but there is human guidance.

Dawkins’ “God Delusion” also tells us how to think about God! Why do you always quote Adler, as if somehow he knows what only God knows. In any case, you have told us repeatedly that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory of evolution.

ID
dhw: We therefore have it on record that according to you all ID-ers believe in a theory which “makes sense only to God”. I strongly suspect that some of them would be surprised.

DAVID: Amazing you have such wisdom about ID folks.

I don’t. I am simply amazed (a) that you know them all, and (b) that they all accept a theory which doesn’t makes sense to anyone except your/their God.

Water flies adapt to avoid capture
QUOTE: "The fact that various defences such as behavioural adaptations and changes in body structure can simultaneously be observed shows how adaptable and fascinating these tiny animals are.'"

DAVID: back to the same issue: species adaptation or help from God.

“Help from God” in what form? According to you, he programmed all these adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept popping in to dabble – in this case changing water flies’ bodies presumably because that was an “absolute requirement” for us humans to have enough food to live on. How about God’s help in the form of autonomous cellular intelligence, which enables life forms to adapt in order to survive (though of course not always successfully – hence all the extinctions!) without his having to keep popping in to do a dabble?