Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Friday, August 05, 2022, 19:54 (5 days ago) @ dhw

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?

DAVID: 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: We are not discussing what Adler believes or doesn’t believe, but in any case, the logic of the design argument as evidence for God’s existence has never been the subject of this disagreement. You keep using it as a way of dodging the illogicality of your theory as bolded above.

How can I not use design??? Its basis is having to recognize a designer and noting an endpoint of humans, which is so unusual that it also supports a purposeful designer with an obvious endpoint in mind. How you cannot follow this reasoning is beyond me.


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!

DAVID: 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.

dhw: Nobody “forced” you to say that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or that he must have created us because he wanted us to recognize him, or that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions in common with ours, just as nobody is forcing you to say your God does not need self-gratification. You know exactly what all these words mean, but if one minute you tell us you are sure of something, and then the next minute you take it all back, you make a mockery of our discussions. NOBODY knows the truth. So we discuss each theory to test whether it sounds feasible. You are very happy to use human logic when it comes to design, but when human logic indicates the absurdity of your theory of evolution, as bolded above, you insist that the theory must be right, although “it makes sense only to God” – i.e. not to you.

What makes sense to God is His choice to evolve us, which makes perfect sense to me. Any absurdity is your lack of logic in recognizing complex design by not the obvious need for an existing designer.


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: 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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: You have acknowledged over and over again that evolution is NOT one continuum from bacteria to us. It is one continuum from bacteria to countless branches of life forms and ecosystems including us and ours, and that is why it is illogical to propose that your God designed every single one, and did so because every single one was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems although the vast majority of them had no connection with us and our ecosystems.

There is a continuum from bacteria to us if one traces out the proper branches. As for ecosystems for food. they are complexly intertwined to provide food for all living forms. And please recognize the bush is so large because our population has grown so large as
God expected it would.

dhw: This is the theory which you cannot explain, admit makes sense only to God, and then dodge by editing it out of our discussion, as you have done at the beginning of this post. Believe it if you will, but please don’t go on repeating this endless series of dodges.

The fact that I have fully explained it to my satisfaction just indicates your confusion. I won't back down, as long as you repeat your confused mantra of distorted logic


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum