Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 04, 2022, 18:57 (6 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, August 04, 2022, 19:11

DAVID: I have never contradicted myself. All those quotes are accurate and make perfect sense to me. Past is past and present is present in the continuity of evolution. God's choice to evolve rather than directly create is obvious. I cannot know why He chose that path nor know as you ask below why He wished to create us.

dhw: So how can you possibly know that his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create us and our ecosystems, and that he individually designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle and natural wonder as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us, although most of them had no connection with us? And how can you know that he is not motivated by any form of self-interest, as below?

I don't know the absolute truths about God. I believe the logic that current biologic research tells me the complexity insists a designer did it. My concept of God's totally differs from yours as our discussions show. As for your question about God planning for us from the beginning, Adler's discussion is quite clear. Of course, Adler discusses it by saying our arrival proves God must exist, from his analysis of evolution.

dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. As above, how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? You make up his attributes (and non-attributes) as you go along in order to rescind all the humanizing features you have given him! And then you complain that my alternative theories of evolution “humanize” him!

My form of God does not need any type of self-gratification. When we attempt to ascribe some emotional reactions on His part, we must think of them as allegorical and perhaps humanizing. My descriptions of your God come from your desires for Him and descriptions of His emotions. Not pejorative, just very accurate. All His emotions and attributes I attempt to guess at I recognize as possibly humanizing, but I am forced to try and describe him and must use human terms.

De novo forms
QUOTE: "'The ancient, common origin of all these plate-like structures [in arthropods] suggests the gene networks that pattern these structures are very evolvable and plastic. They are capable of generating an awesome amount of diversity," Bruce says." (dhw's bold)

dhw: I see this statement as 100% compatible with the theory that as conditions have changed, cells/cell communities have used their evolvable plasticity to cope with or exploit them, thus generating the enormous diversity of species that characterizes the past and present history of life on Earth.

DAVID: Again, simple cells can design for the future with 'evolvable plasticity', a new unproven, not factual concept.

For the thousandth time, they do NOT design for the future. They design for their present, although what they design will survive into their future so long as it remains useful. And yes, it is a theory, as unproven as your own 3.8-billion-year-old book of divine instructions and your God performing endless operations on countless life forms in preparation for conditions that do not yet exist.

dhw: And you continue to promote your own theories, which are self-contradictory and apparently comprehensible only to your God.

DAVID: You will never recognize I accept what God has created for His own unknown reasons, without having to know the reasons.

dhw: But you insist that you DO know the reason: according to you, the reason was to design sapiens plus our food, although the vast majority of the life forms and ecosystems you say he individually designed had no connection with us and our food! And this is the contradiction which you never stop trying to dodge.

The whole thing is connected!!! Evolution is one continuum from bacteria to us. You are slicing and dicing again with no logic in your objection.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum