Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, September 09, 2022, 15:48 (592 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance

dhw: You keep making the same point over and over again:

DAVID: (Bees) … Years ago both dhw and I agreed it is bush of life, not a simple tree. That huge bush is the evidence of planning for the needed diversity. Yet dhw refuses to see the real picture of all leading to our food supply.

dhw: All living things play or played a role in their ecosystems. But there were countless living things and ecosystems in the huge bush of life before we appeared, and the majority did not lead to us or to our ecosystems. However, you insist that your God designed all those that did not lead to us or our ecosystems as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems, which you insist were his one and only goal. You can’t find any logical reason for this blatant contradiction, which is why you say your theories “make sense only to God”

You always forget I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations. One branch led to us, the rest to food. There are no contradictions except the ones you invent.

dhw: Neandertals: dhw's worries about all the hominins and homos before us should be dispensed by my theory about God that He carefully takes evolutionary steps with everything He creates, as shown by known history.

dhw: I’m not worried. I just don’t understand why an all-powerful God who only wanted to create H. sapiens should have bothered creating all the other homos first, although you believe he is perfectly capable of creating species without precursors (the Cambrian). You can’t understand it either – it “makes sense only to God”. NB I am not denying evolution by stages. I am suggesting that there may be a better explanation than the one you say "makes sense only to God", i.e. not to you.

God evolves. The pattern is clear.

DAVID: The bolded objection comes from the fact I think about God totally differently than your thought patterns about God.

dhw: Yes, you do. You think about him in such a way that your beliefs concerning his purpose and method make no sense to you. You find all my theistic alternatives logical, but reject them even when they are based on your own guesses concerning his human thought patterns.

Your psychiatric analysis of my thinking continues. From above: " I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations". I don't think you really apprehend what that IMPLIES. And I reject your approach to your very humanized form of God, even as I've agreed your theories are consistent with a very humanized God..

DAVID: Your repeated use of past quotes must be in context. They are theoretical guesses about the personality we don't know, and can't know, as God is a personage like no other one. Again Adler.

dhw: We agree that nobody can possibly know God’s personality. Your guesses concerning his combined purpose and method make no sense to you (they “make sense only to God”). How does that make them more likely than my logical alternatives?

You will never understand the approach I use. I can never know God's personal reasoning, but I accept all of reality as His creation. That should make sense to all. I don't have any idea where you start. What is your initial premise about God?