Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, November 22, 2022, 16:47 (515 days ago) @ dhw

> DAVID:My theory makes sense to me and you tell me it doesn't? How do you read my mind? What a God does is perfect, making perfect sense to Him.

dhw: You keep repeating that you cannot know his reasons. That can only mean that you yourself don’t understand your theory (which "makes sense only to God”). But of course if God exists, what he does will make perfect sense to HIM! That doesn’t mean that he does what you say he does and why he does it is why you say he does it! Please stop dodging!

WE both see the same evolutionary history. My interpretation is not yours. I have the same right to reject your interpretation as you do mine. It is a standoff.

DAVID: Which means I trust in God and accept what He has done. He evolved humans from Archaea. It had what you think are messy dead ends. Any type of evolutionary process will necessarily have dead ends. Your objection boils down to God stupidly decided to evolve us.

dhw: I also believe that we are evolved from Archaea, but you do not accept what he has done! You accept what you think he has done and why you think he has done it. We only know of one “evolutionary process” that has produced the history of life, and that process has resulted in countless dead ends, i.e life forms that had no connection with what you believe was your God’s one and only purpose. You know as well as I do that my objection is to your nonsensical theory. I have offered you two logical explanations for the dead ends (experimentation and the pursuit of new ideas) both of which allow for your God’s decision to evolve us, and even the third (a free-for all) gives him the option to dabble. These would even explain another of your contradictions: your belief that he designed Cambrian species which had no predecessors and from which we and our food supplies are directly descended, although you also say that we are descended from Archaea and all the dead ends that preceded the Cambrian.

Again you go off on your tangents. You've again introduced your woolly weak God. And again (!) a repetition of your misunderstanding of a designer God who can create gaps at will.

dhw: Sadly, though, it won’t end the repetitive discussion concerning why you think your God would have deliberately designed all the dead ends which had nothing to do with what you believe was his sole purpose (us and our food). See your non-stop dodging on the “More miscellany” thread.

DAVID: I am convinced I give you very direct answers. You ended this discussion. I agreed, and back again you go. The main problem is your definition of possible Gods is not mine. Mine is pure perfection, no need for experimenting, just as a starter example.

dhw: You have misunderstood what I ended. You had contradicted yourself by attacking me for not understanding “design theory”, but when it turned out that your “design theory” was identical to my experimentation theory, for some reason it turned out that your attack on me and your reference to “design theory” was meant to prove that God did NOT experiment. Hence my single comment above, now bolded, which enabled us to finish the discussion on “design theory”.
As for “perfection”, your definition would appear to be “whatever fits in with David Turell’s theories”.

My God does not ever experiment. Your hilarious complaint about the designed Cambrian gap shows your total lack of understanding a designer God. The gap is the prime example of the need for a designing mind. In his own say Darwin knew it. And you have misunderstood my wish to stop this ping-pong discussion. It is endless repetition of our positions. &