David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, September 30, 2019, 13:14 (16 days ago)

I am combining quotes from different threads in order to avoid the constant repetitions.

David’s theory of evolution is that his God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. David has no idea why God chose this method of fulfilling his one and only goal. He denies that this is his theory, and so I have quoted his own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” He agrees that this is his theory (“Of course.”)

dhw: Do please make up your mind. And let us not forget that you have no idea why he decided to “evolve humans over time” as described in your theory.

DAVID: Same Theory: God, the Creator, created evolution as His choice of life's creation. Obvious logical result of accepting God as Creator.

That is not the theory that is in dispute here! If God exists, then for those of us who believe in evolution, clearly evolution was his chosen means of achieving his purpose. The dispute is over your choice of God's possible purpose and of the possible means of fulfilling that purpose. Since the above theory makes no sense even to you, I have offered alternative explanations of purpose and method. For instance, if he really did specially design us humans with our very special level of consciousness, it may have been an idea that occurred to him only after 3.X billion years, or if he wanted us from the very beginning, he may have spent 3.X billion years experimenting to find a way of achieving this purpose.

DAVID: Experimentation strongly implies a humanized God. God knows what He is doing, and makes His own clear Choices.

Of course God, if he exists, would make his own choices, but an experimenting scientist or inventor “knows what he is doing” or his experiments will have no chance of success! “Humanizing” is your desperate attempt to escape from the illogicality of your theory, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” As indeed are your own. If he “very well could think like us”, a “humanizing” hypothesis is clearly just as likely to be true as a hypothesis based on the belief that he does not think like us. And so you are left with one last straw to clutch at: your theory is logical provided we jettison human logic:

DAVID: The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.
And
DAVID: You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking, It doesn't work.
Let us remember that your theory as summarized above is your personal interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. In contrast to my alternatives, apparently your theory is perfectly logical provided we do not use human logic to try and understand it. May I humbly suggest that if God “very well could think like us”, theories which ARE logical by human reasoning are more likely to be true than a theory which you as a human find illogical and which is based on the assumption that God does NOT think like us.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, September 30, 2019, 18:51 (16 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am combining quotes from different threads

David’s theory of evolution is that his God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. David has no idea why God chose this method of fulfilling his one and only goal. He denies that this is his theory, and so I have quoted his own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” He agrees that this is his theory (“Of course.”)

dhw: And let us not forget that you have no idea why he decided to “evolve humans over time” as described in your theory.

DAVID: Same Theory: God, the Creator, created evolution as His choice of life's creation. Obvious logical result of accepting God as Creator.

dhw: If God exists, then for those of us who believe in evolution, clearly evolution was his chosen means of achieving his purpose. The dispute is over your choice of God's possible purpose and of the possible means of fulfilling that purpose. Since the above theory makes no sense even to you, I have offered alternative explanations of purpose and method. For instance, if he really did specially design us humans with our very special level of consciousness, it may have been an idea that occurred to him only after 3.X billion years, or if he wanted us from the very beginning, he may have spent 3.X billion years experimenting to find a way of achieving this purpose.

DAVID: Experimentation strongly implies a humanized God. God knows what He is doing, and makes His own clear Choices.

dhw: Of course God, if he exists, would make his own choices, but an experimenting scientist or inventor “knows what he is doing” or his experiments will have no chance of success! “Humanizing” is your desperate attempt to escape from the illogicality of your theory, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” As indeed are your own. If he “very well could think like us”, a “humanizing” hypothesis is clearly just as likely to be true as a hypothesis based on the belief that he does not think like us. And so you are left with one last straw to clutch at: your theory is logical provided we jettison human logic:

DAVID: The history of creation tells us how God the Creator did it. Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.
And
DAVID: Yyou try to make God logical to fit your human thinking, It doesn't work.

dhw: Let us remember that your theory as summarized above is your personal interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. In contrast to my alternatives, apparently your theory is perfectly logical provided we do not use human logic to try and understand it. May I humbly suggest that if God “very well could think like us”, theories which ARE logical by human reasoning are more likely to be true than a theory which you as a human find illogical and which is based on the assumption that God does NOT think like us.

Rather than go through your garbled version of what I think and how I think, by spotting your distortions above and locally answering each one, I am answering in total here my series of logical points that lead to my conclusions:

First of all is the overwhelming evidence that God prefers to evolve, as in the history of the universe from the Big Bang to now, the evolving surface of the Earth and the start of life and its interlocking influence of the properties of the Earth. I view God as in charge starting his creation 13.78 byo and arriving at current humans with their big brained consciousness about 300,000 years ago. The stresses from environment were not severe enough to require humans to appear, as our closest relatives, the apes prove. That removes any Darwin theory from consideration as environmental tresses driving evolution. God, as designer, does the work. As Adler points out, consciousness is the obvious proof God exists, my shorthand for his 300+/- page book. It is obvious God took His own sweet time. He has no need to be swift, as you constantly wish with your illogical human thinking.

I simply look at history to tell me what God decided to do. He has His own reasons for evolving rather than direct creation as in Genesis. And Genesis word 'day' is a misinterpretation of the Hebrew word 'Yom', which really is any interval in time. You view Him from an impatient human view, of why not be quick? History says He wasn't.

Your problem is you cannot accept God as the Designer/creator. It is your problem, not mine, since you do not wish to follow my line of reasoning and arrive at what you call another mystery to answer the questions. I view the need for a designer as undeniable and irrefutable. God must exist to explain the designed complexity of living organisms. Not by chance. And design is what keeps you agnostic, as you admit. So how do you explain the obvious design? Your position doesn't, as you present a garbled humanized view of God in your attempt to approach Him. Your problem, not mine, noting that I started out as agnostic, but with an open mind in studying the design evidence.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 01, 2019, 09:39 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

“Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Rather than go through your garbled version of what I think and how I think, by spotting your distortions above and locally answering each one, I am answering in total here my series of logical points that lead to my conclusions:

This is your established method of avoiding the illogical sections of your theory, as above.

DAVID: First of all is the overwhelming evidence that God prefers to evolve, as in the history of the universe from the Big Bang to now, the evolving surface of the Earth and the start of life and its interlocking influence of the properties of the Earth. I view God as in charge starting his creation 13.78 byo and arriving at current humans with their big brained consciousness about 300,000 years ago.

If we accept the existence of God, this is perfectly logical and has nothing to do with the illogical parts of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: The stresses from environment were not severe enough to require humans to appear, as our closest relatives, the apes prove. That removes any Darwin theory from consideration as environmental Stresses driving evolution.

We have no idea what “stresses” or opportunities may or may not have driven our ancestors from the trees. But attacking Darwin does not make the bolded theory any more logical.

DAVID: God, as designer, does the work. As Adler points out, consciousness is the obvious proof God exists, my shorthand for his 300+/- page book. It is obvious God took His own sweet time. He has no need to be swift, as you constantly wish with your illogical human thinking.

The argument for design/complexity/consciousness being proof of a designer is not the issue. Nor is the fact that evolution has taken time. Yes, it’s gone on for approx. 3.8 billion years. The issues which you are dodging are bolded above.

DAVID: I simply look at history to tell me what God decided to do. He has His own reasons for evolving rather than direct creation as in Genesis. And Genesis word 'day' is a misinterpretation of the Hebrew word 'Yom', which really is any interval in time. You view Him from an impatient human view, of why not be quick? History says He wasn't.

But history does not say that he set out with the aim and method bolded above. My alternatives offer logical explanations for the evolutionary bush, as you admit. No “impatience” involved.

DAVID: Your problem is you cannot accept God as the Designer/creator. It is your problem, not mine, since you do not wish to follow my line of reasoning and arrive at what you call another mystery to answer the questions. I view the need for a designer as undeniable and irrefutable. God must exist to explain the designed complexity of living organisms. Not by chance. And design is what keeps you agnostic, as you admit. So how do you explain the obvious design? Your position doesn't, as you present a garbled humanized view of God in your attempt to approach Him. Your problem, not mine, noting that I started out as agnostic, but with an open mind in studying the design evidence.

None of this even remotely justifies your own fixed belief in the theory of evolution bolded above.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 02, 2019, 00:25 (14 days ago) @ dhw

David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

“Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Rather than go through your garbled version of what I think and how I think, by spotting your distortions above and locally answering each one, I am answering in total here my series of logical points that lead to my conclusions:

dhw: This is your established method of avoiding the illogical sections of your theory, as above.

DAVID: First of all is the overwhelming evidence that God prefers to evolve, as in the history of the universe from the Big Bang to now, the evolving surface of the Earth and the start of life and its interlocking influence of the properties of the Earth. I view God as in charge starting his creation 13.78 byo and arriving at current humans with their big brained consciousness about 300,000 years ago.

dhw: If we accept the existence of God, this is perfectly logical and has nothing to do with the illogical parts of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: The stresses from environment were not severe enough to require humans to appear, as our closest relatives, the apes prove. That removes any Darwin theory from consideration as environmental Stresses driving evolution.

We have no idea what “stresses” or opportunities may or may not have driven our ancestors from the trees. But attacking Darwin does not make the bolded theory any more logical.

DAVID: God, as designer, does the work. As Adler points out, consciousness is the obvious proof God exists, my shorthand for his 300+/- page book. It is obvious God took His own sweet time. He has no need to be swift, as you constantly wish with your illogical human thinking.

dhw: The argument for design/complexity/consciousness being proof of a designer is not the issue. Nor is the fact that evolution has taken time. Yes, it’s gone on for approx. 3.8 billion years. The issues which you are dodging are bolded above.

DAVID: I simply look at history to tell me what God decided to do. He has His own reasons for evolving rather than direct creation as in Genesis. And Genesis word 'day' is a misinterpretation of the Hebrew word 'Yom', which really is any interval in time. You view Him from an impatient human view, of why not be quick? History says He wasn't.

dhw: But history does not say that he set out with the aim and method bolded above. My alternatives offer logical explanations for the evolutionary bush, as you admit. No “impatience” involved.

DAVID: Your problem is you cannot accept God as the Designer/creator. It is your problem, not mine, since you do not wish to follow my line of reasoning and arrive at what you call another mystery to answer the questions. I view the need for a designer as undeniable and irrefutable. God must exist to explain the designed complexity of living organisms. Not by chance. And design is what keeps you agnostic, as you admit. So how do you explain the obvious design? Your position doesn't, as you present a garbled humanized view of God in your attempt to approach Him. Your problem, not mine, noting that I started out as agnostic, but with an open mind in studying the design evidence.

dhw: None of this even remotely justifies your own fixed belief in the theory of evolution bolded above.

This might as well be the end of this debate. I believe in God and the reasoning and positioning I have presented. We will always fully disagree on these points as our concepts of God totally differ. I find you just as illogical as you find me.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 02, 2019, 10:20 (14 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)
“Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Rather than go through your garbled version of what I think and how I think, by spotting your distortions above and locally answering each one, I am answering in total here my series of logical points that lead to my conclusions:

I shan’t reproduce the rest of the post, as it reiterates those parts of your theory which are not the subject of our disagreement.

DAVID: This might as well be the end of this debate. I believe in God and the reasoning and positioning I have presented. We will always fully disagree on these points as our concepts of God totally differ. I find you just as illogical as you find me.

I have offered you several alternative versions of your God’s possible purposes and methods, all of which you have accepted as logical but have dismissed because you believe we “should not apply human reasoning to the history”. Of course if we are to turn our backs on human reasoning, the debate concerning this particular theory can go no further. It’s important, however, not to confuse this issue with other aspects of your beliefs for which I have the highest respect, such as the evidence for design (dealt with in masterly fashion in your book The Atheist Delusion, and reinforced again and again on this website), the importance of psychic experiences like NDEs, and our shared belief in common descent. But whenever you make reference to the theory bolded above, I shall feel obliged to point out its illogicality!

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 02, 2019, 19:23 (14 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

dhw wishes to continue this discussion; fine. Lets review my position. I view God as Creator and boss of the universe. dhw has not denied this when he assumes a position as a theist. The result of my conclusion is that history will obviously tell us what God decided to do. This cannot be denied. I fully accept the Adler point that the advent of humans with unexplained consciousness proves God must exist. Consciousness cannot be explained through natural development by chance natural evolution. I don't question God's choice since history presents it. dhw's paragraph above is a total distortion of this reasoning, as he tries to misinterpret my direct quotes. My approach through a study of history does not require me to know why God made these choices. I can't know, but I do know we evolved, well beyond any surviving animal species.

dhw: “Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.[/i]

Yes we can humanly reason about God, but I have chosen to do it as in my first paragraph answer and no further, as all dhw has done is humanly guess as to God's possible motives. Just guesses, all logical at our human level, but worthless since they are just guesses. Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

dhw: It’s important, however, not to confuse this issue with other aspects of your beliefs for which I have the highest respect, such as the evidence for design (dealt with in masterly fashion in your book The Atheist Delusion, and reinforced again and again on this website), the importance of psychic experiences like NDEs, and our shared belief in common descent. But whenever you make reference to the theory bolded above, I shall feel obliged to point out its illogicality!

Thank you for the compliments. As for illogicality, it is yours not mine.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 03, 2019, 13:00 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

DAVID: dhw wishes to continue this discussion; fine. Lets review my position. I view God as Creator and boss of the universe. dhw has not denied this when he assumes a position as a theist. The result of my conclusion is that history will obviously tell us what God decided to do. This cannot be denied. I fully accept the Adler point that the advent of humans with unexplained consciousness proves God must exist. Consciousness cannot be explained through natural development by chance natural evolution. I don't question God's choice since history presents it.

And with my theist hat on, I don’t question any of this either, but none of it covers your illogical theory of what constitutes “God’s choice”, as bolded above.

DAVID: dhw's paragraph above is a total distortion of this reasoning, as he tries to misinterpret my direct quotes. My approach through a study of history does not require me to know why God made these choices. I can't know, but I do know we evolved, well beyond any surviving animal species.

I also believe we evolved and have survived. Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

dhw: “Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Yes we can humanly reason about God, but I have chosen to do it as in my first paragraph answer and no further, as all dhw has done is humanly guess as to God's possible motives. Just guesses, all logical at our human level, but worthless since they are just guesses.

Your theory, as bolded in your own words above, is just a guess, but is illogical at our human level, which is why you tell us that it is only logical if we do not apply human reasoning to the history!

DAVID: Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

If God exists, I accept that he has created the universe and life, but I do not accept your guess concerning his one and only goal and his method of achieving it. (See also “Feedback loops”.) You have agreed many times that my alternatives are logical, i.e. the reasoning is not distorted.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 03, 2019, 20:51 (13 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: David has chosen not to deal with the salient points of his theory which make it illogical, and he calls my summary a “garbled version”. Here in bold are the salient points again, and perhaps David would care to point out which of them are “garbled”.

dhw: You say your God is in total control, and H. sapiens was his one and only goal; God decided to take 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his goal, therefore he had to specially design all the other life forms in order to cover the time involved. You have “no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”. You deny that this is your theory, and so I have quoted your own words: “He knew those designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take.” You agree that this is your theory (“Of course.”)

DAVID: dhw wishes to continue this discussion; fine. Lets review my position. I view God as Creator and boss of the universe. dhw has not denied this when he assumes a position as a theist. The result of my conclusion is that history will obviously tell us what God decided to do. This cannot be denied. I fully accept the Adler point that the advent of humans with unexplained consciousness proves God must exist. Consciousness cannot be explained through natural development by chance natural evolution. I don't question God's choice since history presents it.

And with my theist hat on, I don’t question any of this either, but none of it covers your illogical theory of what constitutes “God’s choice”, as bolded above.

DAVID: dhw's paragraph above is a total distortion of this reasoning, as he tries to misinterpret my direct quotes. My approach through a study of history does not require me to know why God made these choices. I can't know, but I do know we evolved, well beyond any surviving animal species.

dhw: I also believe we evolved and have survived. Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.


dhw: “Humanizing” is your argument against alternative explanations, but you have admitted that “He very well could think like us, but it is only a guess, as your suppositions about His thoughts are.” Your final defence of your theory is that it is logical provided we do not attempt to apply human logic to it: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history.” And “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn't work.” No it doesn’t, and I suggest that if the theory is against human logic, and God “very well could think like us”, then maybe a logical theory has more chance of being right than your own illogical theory.

DAVID: Yes we can humanly reason about God, but I have chosen to do it as in my first paragraph answer and no further, as all dhw has done is humanly guess as to God's possible motives. Just guesses, all logical at our human level, but worthless since they are just guesses.

dhw: Your theory, as bolded in your own words above, is just a guess, but is illogical at our human level, which is why you tell us that it is only logical if we do not apply human reasoning to the history!

You are analyzing God at a human logic level which means you are humanizing Him. Applying human logic to his choices are just guesses.


DAVID: Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

dhw: If God exists, I accept that he has created the universe and life, but I do not accept your guess concerning his one and only goal and his method of achieving it. (See also “Feedback loops”.) You have agreed many times that my alternatives are logical, i.e. the reasoning is not distorted.

The problem is that they are just humanizing guesses.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 04, 2019, 10:04 (12 days ago) @ David Turell

I am combining this thread with “feedback loops”, since they now overlap.

dhw: […] Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

DAVID: Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.

There is no recorded history telling us even that God exists, let alone that he maintains total control, had only one aim etc. etc. as bolded above! The only recorded history of life is that there has been a bush of different organisms extant and extinct!

DAVID: Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

dhw: If God exists, I accept that he has created the universe and life, but I do not accept your guess concerning his one and only goal and his method of achieving it. You have agreed many times that my alternatives are logical, i.e. the reasoning is not distorted.

DAVID: The problem is that they are just humanizing guesses.

Your own guess is that your God’s “choice” is incomprehensible to human logic. However, you have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, so at least my various alternative guesses have the merit of making sense to both of us.

dhw: […] you believe every decision made not only by brainless bacteria but also by some organisms (I presume you exclude humans and other large organisms) with brains was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, to be passed on by the very first cells. These decisions apply to all the natural wonders you have listed, […] even though your God’s one and only intention was to specially design H. sapiens. You agree that this seems illogical (you have “no idea” why he chose this method),

DAVID: Your constant distortion: My 'no idea' simply means I don't guess at His reasons for his choices, not that I think it is illogical. I'm sure God is perfectly logical.

But you guess at his choices! And then you tell us: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” No, human logic doesn’t work if you apply human reasoning to your guess at his choices! You wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?” Sounds to me as though your human logic has failed to come up with any explanation of the choice you have imposed on your God.

dhw: Since you are not prepared to use human reasoning, the discussion could well end there, but it is bound to be reopened whenever you try to justify your preprogramming theory.

DAVID: I don't try to apply human logic to it, that is the point, which for some unknown reason you refuse to recognize.

How do you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at your God’s choice if you haven’t tried to apply it?

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 04, 2019, 18:18 (12 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.

dhw: There is no recorded history telling us even that God exists, let alone that he maintains total control, had only one aim etc. etc. as bolded above! The only recorded history of life is that there has been a bush of different organisms extant and extinct!

Our difference is I believe God is in charge of the history. Thus we will disagree.


DAVID: Why not simply accept what God has done as Creator, as the religious do? But then you are not a religious person, and you have distorted reasoning when you think you are acting in a theistic role.

dhw: If God exists, I accept that he has created the universe and life, but I do not accept your guess concerning his one and only goal and his method of achieving it. You have agreed many times that my alternatives are logical, i.e. the reasoning is not distorted.

DAVID: The problem is that they are just humanizing guesses.

dhw: Your own guess is that your God’s “choice” is incomprehensible to human logic. However, you have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, so at least my various alternative guesses have the merit of making sense to both of us.

Yes they do at a human level of logic.


dhw: […] you believe every decision made not only by brainless bacteria but also by some organisms (I presume you exclude humans and other large organisms) with brains was preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, to be passed on by the very first cells. These decisions apply to all the natural wonders you have listed, […] even though your God’s one and only intention was to specially design H. sapiens. You agree that this seems illogical (you have “no idea” why he chose this method),

DAVID: Your constant distortion: My 'no idea' simply means I don't guess at His reasons for his choices, not that I think it is illogical. I'm sure God is perfectly logical.

dhw: But you guess at his choices!

But I don't guess. I take the position God is in charge and therefore the course of history mirror his choices.

dhw: And then you tell us: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” No, human logic doesn’t work if you apply human reasoning to your guess at his choices! You wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?” Sounds to me as though your human logic has failed to come up with any explanation of the choice you have imposed on your God.

The difference in our positions is my view of God as above.


dhw: Since you are not prepared to use human reasoning, the discussion could well end there, but it is bound to be reopened whenever you try to justify your preprogramming theory.

DAVID: I don't try to apply human logic to it, that is the point, which for some unknown reason you refuse to recognize.

dhw: How do you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at your God’s choice if you haven’t tried to apply it?

Note my statements about God's role, as I believe it.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 05, 2019, 11:22 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

DAVID: Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.

dhw: There is no recorded history telling us even that God exists, let alone that he maintains total control, had only one aim etc. etc. as bolded above! The only recorded history of life is that there has been a bush of different organisms extant and extinct!

DAVID: Our difference is I believe God is in charge of the history. Thus we will disagree.

If your God decided to invent a mechanism which would enable organisms to make their own designs (with the proviso that he could always dabble if he wanted to), he would still be “in charge”. Our difference is in the bold above, which apparently is only logical if we abandon human reasoning, as in this next exchange:

dhw: Your own guess is that your God’s “choice” is incomprehensible to human logic. However, you have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, so at least my various alternative guesses have the merit of making sense to both of us.

DAVID: Yes they do at a human level of logic.

That is your only defence of your illogical guess: in order for it to be logical, we must abandon all human logic.

DAVID My 'no idea' simply means I don't guess at His reasons for his choices, not that I think it is illogical. I'm sure God is perfectly logical.

dhw: But you guess at his choices!

DAVID: But I don't guess. I take the position God is in charge and therefore the course of history mirror his choices.

The position you take is bolded above, and it is such a wild guess that you can only justify it by saying that we mustn’t apply human logic!

DAVID: I don't try to apply human logic to it […]

dhw: How do you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at your God’s choice if you haven’t tried to apply it?

DAVID: Note my statements about God's role, as I believe it.

I have noted them and I have replied to every single one of them. So do please tell us how you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at God’s choice, even though you acknowledge that God “very well could think like us.”

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 05, 2019, 18:41 (11 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] Your interpretation of God’s “choices”, as the quotes make perfectly clear, is that [/b] he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take[/b]. THAT, as shown by your own words, is the theory that I dispute!

DAVID: Since you accept God is in control and evolved all of life's bush, I don't understand how you can dispute my theory which is taken directly from recorded history.

dhw: There is no recorded history telling us even that God exists, let alone that he maintains total control, had only one aim etc. etc. as bolded above! The only recorded history of life is that there has been a bush of different organisms extant and extinct!

DAVID: Our difference is I believe God is in charge of the history. Thus we will disagree.

dhw: If your God decided to invent a mechanism which would enable organisms to make their own designs (with the proviso that he could always dabble if he wanted to), he would still be “in charge”. Our difference is in the bold above, which apparently is only logical if we abandon human reasoning, as in this next exchange:

dhw: Your own guess is that your God’s “choice” is incomprehensible to human logic. However, you have agreed that your God “very well could think like us”, so at least my various alternative guesses have the merit of making sense to both of us.

DAVID: Yes they do at a human level of logic.

dhw: That is your only defence of your illogical guess: in order for it to be logical, we must abandon all human logic.

DAVID My 'no idea' simply means I don't guess at His reasons for his choices, not that I think it is illogical. I'm sure God is perfectly logical.

dhw: But you guess at his choices!

DAVID: But I don't guess. I take the position God is in charge and therefore the course of history mirror his choices.

dhw: The position you take is bolded above, and it is such a wild guess that you can only justify it by saying that we mustn’t apply human logic!

DAVID: I don't try to apply human logic to it […]

dhw: How do you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at your God’s choice if you haven’t tried to apply it?

DAVID: Note my statements about God's role, as I believe it.

dhw: I have noted them and I have replied to every single one of them. So do please tell us how you know that human logic cannot be applied to your guess at God’s choice, even though you acknowledge that God “very well could think like us.”

Your distortion of my theory : " he is in total control, had only one aim, decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to specially design every non-human life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in order to cover the time he had decided to take, is answered in the other thread on monarchs:

You've simply repeated your illogical distortions, implying God should have been humanly impatient and gotten right to His goal of producing humans. Instead it is obvious to me God, in charge, chose to evolve us over time and had to design the bush of life to arrange for the energy needed for the time period involved, 3.8 billion years. Note the bush is also the result of evolving life from bacteria to humans. His choice of methodology is obvious, and yes, we do not know His reasons, nor can we. You like to guess and complain about Him, when it is clearly what He has done.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 06, 2019, 10:22 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

Under “monarch adaptation”:

dhw: I agree with you that these mutations could not have been by chance. But I don’t understand why a designer whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens would, 3.8 billion years ago, have provided the first cells with a programme for these three mutations in the monarch butterfly. Clearly the cell communities of the monarch’s immediate ancestor are what changed (mutated), and so an alternative to divine programming and/or dabbling might have been the intelligence (possibly God-given) of the cells themselves enabling them to find new ways to survive.

DAVID: That is your theory, not mine. The monarchs are necessary part of their econiche and therefore part of God's design.

dhw: Yes, the alternative is my suggested explanation, and yes, all organisms could be called a “necessary part of their econiche” until they become extinct and the econiche changes. You seem to have forgotten the theory which I find so illogical, so let me remind you yet again: “He knew these designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, i.e. 3.X billion years NOT fulfilling his actual goal, which was to specially design piece after piece of hominin and homo until he finally specially designed H. sapiens – and you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal, but it’s quite logical provided we humans don’t try to figure out its logic.

DAVID: You've simply repeated your illogical distortions, implying God should have been humanly impatient and gotten right to His goal of producing humans. Instead it is obvious to me God, in charge, chose to evolve us over time and had to design the bush of life to arrange for the energy needed for the time period involved, 3.8 billion years. Note the bush is also the result of evolving life from bacteria to humans. His choice of methodology is obvious, and yes, we do not know His reasons, nor can we. You like to guess and complain about Him, when it is clearly what He has done.

I am not implying that your God should have been humanly impatient, I am not querying the known fact that evolution has so far lasted 3.8 billion years and that humans came very late on the scene, and I am not complaining about God. I am complaining about your illogical assumption that he only had one goal, but for reasons you cannot imagine decided not to pursue it for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to design the bush of life”, with each non-human innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder being an “interim goal” in order to cover the time he had decided to take. I have offered you several perfectly logical alternative reasons for the bush, all of which by your own admission fit in with the history of life. I see no reason why you should reject them all because of your assumption that your God has a purpose and method which by your own admission defy human logic, especially since you even agree that “he very well could think like us”.

Another example, under “Nature’s wonders: echolocation
"Remarkably, the researchers found that their unbiased analysis homed in on the cochlear ganglion as the single most affected tissue among echolocating mammals. In particular, 25 "convergent" amino acid changes occurred in 18 genes known to be involved in the development of the cochlear ganglion. Only two of the 25 changes had been previously identified in past echolocation studies." (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Chance evolution with chance mutations could not have achieved this result where diverse species all develop the same changes in the same genes; this is what Simon Conway -Morris calls convergence as a proof of God's control.

An excellent example of convergent evolution. I don’t know why it has to be “under God’s control”. It makes perfect sense for organisms to work out similar solutions to similar problems, and if God exists, then he would have set up the mechanisms that enable organisms to do this. What doesn’t make perfect sense, yet again, is to argue that God only wanted to design H. sapiens, decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore either did one dabble after another, or provided the first cells with programmes to be passed on for each of these examples of echolocation in order to cover the time he had decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal. This is the illogical “guess” which I keep complaining about.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 06, 2019, 19:36 (10 days ago) @ dhw

Under “monarch adaptation”:

dhw: I agree with you that these mutations could not have been by chance. But I don’t understand why a designer whose only purpose was to design H. sapiens would, 3.8 billion years ago, have provided the first cells with a programme for these three mutations in the monarch butterfly. Clearly the cell communities of the monarch’s immediate ancestor are what changed (mutated), and so an alternative to divine programming and/or dabbling might have been the intelligence (possibly God-given) of the cells themselves enabling them to find new ways to survive.

DAVID: That is your theory, not mine. The monarchs are necessary part of their econiche and therefore part of God's design.

dhw: Yes, the alternative is my suggested explanation, and yes, all organisms could be called a “necessary part of their econiche” until they become extinct and the econiche changes. You seem to have forgotten the theory which I find so illogical, so let me remind you yet again: “He knew these designs were required interim goals to establish the necessary food supply to cover the time he knew he had decided to take”, i.e. 3.X billion years NOT fulfilling his actual goal, which was to specially design piece after piece of hominin and homo until he finally specially designed H. sapiens – and you have “no idea” why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a goal, but it’s quite logical provided we humans don’t try to figure out its logic.

DAVID: You've simply repeated your illogical distortions, implying God should have been humanly impatient and gotten right to His goal of producing humans. Instead it is obvious to me God, in charge, chose to evolve us over time and had to design the bush of life to arrange for the energy needed for the time period involved, 3.8 billion years. Note the bush is also the result of evolving life from bacteria to humans. His choice of methodology is obvious, and yes, we do not know His reasons, nor can we. You like to guess and complain about Him, when it is clearly what He has done.

dhw: I am not implying that your God should have been humanly impatient, I am not querying the known fact that evolution has so far lasted 3.8 billion years and that humans came very late on the scene, and I am not complaining about God. I am complaining about your illogical assumption that he only had one goal, but for reasons you cannot imagine decided not to pursue it for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to design the bush of life”, with each non-human innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder being an “interim goal” in order to cover the time he had decided to take. I have offered you several perfectly logical alternative reasons for the bush, all of which by your own admission fit in with the history of life. I see no reason why you should reject them all because of your assumption that your God has a purpose and method which by your own admission defy human logic, especially since you even agree that “he very well could think like us”.

Another example, under “Nature’s wonders: echolocation
"Remarkably, the researchers found that their unbiased analysis homed in on the cochlear ganglion as the single most affected tissue among echolocating mammals. In particular, 25 "convergent" amino acid changes occurred in 18 genes known to be involved in the development of the cochlear ganglion. Only two of the 25 changes had been previously identified in past echolocation studies." (DAVID’s bold)

DAVID: Chance evolution with chance mutations could not have achieved this result where diverse species all develop the same changes in the same genes; this is what Simon Conway -Morris calls convergence as a proof of God's control.

dhw: An excellent example of convergent evolution. I don’t know why it has to be “under God’s control”. It makes perfect sense for organisms to work out similar solutions to similar problems, and if God exists, then he would have set up the mechanisms that enable organisms to do this. What doesn’t make perfect sense, yet again, is to argue that God only wanted to design H. sapiens, decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore either did one dabble after another, or provided the first cells with programmes to be passed on for each of these examples of echolocation in order to cover the time he had decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal. This is the illogical “guess” which I keep complaining about.

Same brief logical response. I assume God is in charge of what happened historically as He created our current reality. That humans are an extremely different result expected from a natural process of evolution makes them extremely strong evidence as to God's intent from the beginning. I know you have not read Adler and have rejected his religious philosophy, but he cannot be rejected out of hand.

As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 07, 2019, 08:49 (9 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Chance evolution with chance mutations could not have achieved this result where diverse species all develop the same changes in the same genes; this is what Simon Conway -Morris calls convergence as a proof of God's control.

dhw: An excellent example of convergent evolution. I don’t know why it has to be “under God’s control”. It makes perfect sense for organisms to work out similar solutions to similar problems, and if God exists, then he would have set up the mechanisms that enable organisms to do this. What doesn’t make perfect sense, yet again, is to argue that God only wanted to design H. sapiens, decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore either did one dabble after another, or provided the first cells with programmes to be passed on for each of these examples of echolocation in order to cover the time he had decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal. This is the illogical “guess” which I keep complaining about.

DAVID: Same brief logical response. I assume God is in charge of what happened historically as He created our current reality. That humans are an extremely different result expected from a natural process of evolution makes them extremely strong evidence as to God's intent from the beginning. I know you have not read Adler and have rejected his religious philosophy, but he cannot be rejected out of hand.

Yet again: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

You know perfectly well that I reject both chance mutations and your illogical belief as summarized above, and propose instead (theistic version) that your God may have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to do their own designing. I accept that this is as unproven as your own theory, but it too would have God as the creator of life and its history, and it avoids all the pitfalls that leave you with “no idea why he chose to evolve humans over time”.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 07, 2019, 17:33 (9 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Chance evolution with chance mutations could not have achieved this result where diverse species all develop the same changes in the same genes; this is what Simon Conway -Morris calls convergence as a proof of God's control.

dhw: An excellent example of convergent evolution. I don’t know why it has to be “under God’s control”. It makes perfect sense for organisms to work out similar solutions to similar problems, and if God exists, then he would have set up the mechanisms that enable organisms to do this. What doesn’t make perfect sense, yet again, is to argue that God only wanted to design H. sapiens, decided not to do so for 3.X billion years, and therefore either did one dabble after another, or provided the first cells with programmes to be passed on for each of these examples of echolocation in order to cover the time he had decided to take before pursuing his one and only goal. This is the illogical “guess” which I keep complaining about.

DAVID: Same brief logical response. I assume God is in charge of what happened historically as He created our current reality. That humans are an extremely different result expected from a natural process of evolution makes them extremely strong evidence as to God's intent from the beginning. I know you have not read Adler and have rejected his religious philosophy, but he cannot be rejected out of hand.

dhw: Yet again: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”.

Constant repeating of your illogical mantra dos not make it logical. All I've said about Adler is his book does not discuss my theory, but my theory is based on Adler's philosophic theism as it refers to our obvious difference..


DAVID: As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I reject both chance mutations and your illogical belief as summarized above, and propose instead (theistic version) that your God may have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to do their own designing. I accept that this is as unproven as your own theory, but it too would have God as the creator of life and its history, and it avoids all the pitfalls that leave you with “no idea why he chose to evolve humans over time”.

Again, distortion: I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 08, 2019, 13:30 (8 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Constant repeating of your illogical mantra dos not make it logical.

I have not repeated any mantra of my own. I have merely repeated all the sections of your own illogical mantra.

DAVID: All I've said about Adler is his book does not discuss my theory, but my theory is based on Adler's philosophic theism as it refers to our obvious difference.

I couldn’t care less what your theory is based on. Since it can only be called logical if we abandon human logic, I suspect that most philosophers, theistic or otherwise, would dismiss it. If Adler doesn’t even discuss it, there is no point in constantly bringing him into our own discussion.

DAVID: As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I reject both chance mutations and your illogical belief as summarized above, and propose instead (theistic version) that your God may have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to do their own designing. I accept that this is as unproven as your own theory, but it too would have God as the creator of life and its history, and it avoids all the pitfalls that leave you with “no idea why he chose to evolve humans over time”.

DAVID: Again, distortion: I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

History tells us the result – the great bush of life. Once again: it does not tell us one single aspect of the theory bolded above, and “you can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.” The very fact that your proposal requires a suspension of all human logic does not even endow it with any credibility for me as a human!:-(

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 08, 2019, 15:54 (8 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Constant repeating of your illogical mantra dos not make it logical.

dhw: I have not repeated any mantra of my own. I have merely repeated all the sections of your own illogical mantra.

DAVID: All I've said about Adler is his book does not discuss my theory, but my theory is based on Adler's philosophic theism as it refers to our obvious difference.

dhw: I couldn’t care less what your theory is based on. Since it can only be called logical if we abandon human logic, I suspect that most philosophers, theistic or otherwise, would dismiss it. If Adler doesn’t even discuss it, there is no point in constantly bringing him into our own discussion.

He is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.


DAVID: As for convergence, a similar result with similar genes is not like to be the result of a chance mutation method of evolution, and reeks of design.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I reject both chance mutations and your illogical belief as summarized above, and propose instead (theistic version) that your God may have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) that enabled organisms to do their own designing. I accept that this is as unproven as your own theory, but it too would have God as the creator of life and its history, and it avoids all the pitfalls that leave you with “no idea why he chose to evolve humans over time”.

DAVID: Again, distortion: I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

dhw: History tells us the result – the great bush of life. Once again: it does not tell us one single aspect of the theory bolded above, and “you can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.” The very fact that your proposal requires a suspension of all human logic does not even endow it with any credibility for me as a human!:-(

Of course history tells us what God produced. It doesn't give us His reasons, which we must guess at. It is your logic that is absent. The bold above produced some of my guesses at which you laugh. Shouldn't I laugh at yours?

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 09, 2019, 12:02 (7 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)
0
DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities which he never discusses.

DAVID: […] I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

dhw: History tells us the result – the great bush of life. Once again: it does not tell us one single aspect of the theory bolded above, and “you can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.” The very fact that your proposal requires a suspension of all human logic does not even endow it with any credibility for me as a human! :-(

DAVID: Of course history tells us what God produced. It doesn't give us His reasons, which we must guess at. It is your logic that is absent. The bold above produced some of my guesses at which you laugh. Shouldn't I laugh at yours?

The little face is not laughing. You complain that my different proposals, all of which you acknowledge to be logical if we apply human reasoning, can’t be proved, and I am pointing out that your guess, which requires abandoning human reasoning, can’t be proved either.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 09, 2019, 15:49 (7 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)
0
DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities which he never discusses.

Yes, you do. You have consciousness evolving from earlier states.


DAVID: […] I don't question God's choices of mechanism, which is why I have 'no idea'. You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct. With the belief God is in charge of creation History tells us exactly what He did.

dhw: History tells us the result – the great bush of life. Once again: it does not tell us one single aspect of the theory bolded above, and “you can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.” The very fact that your proposal requires a suspension of all human logic does not even endow it with any credibility for me as a human! :-(

DAVID: Of course history tells us what God produced. It doesn't give us His reasons, which we must guess at. It is your logic that is absent. The bold above produced some of my guesses at which you laugh. Shouldn't I laugh at yours?

dhw: The little face is not laughing. You complain that my different proposals, all of which you acknowledge to be logical if we apply human reasoning, can’t be proved, and I am pointing out that your guess, which requires abandoning human reasoning, can’t be proved either.

You verbiage laughs. And you forget human logic does not explain God. Again keep it simple: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 10, 2019, 10:24 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities which he never discusses.

DAVID: Yes, you do. You have consciousness evolving from earlier states.

You persist in trying to distinguish between conscious and consciousness by saying that our fellow animals are conscious but only humans have consciousness. You are making a mockery of language. Only humans have extreme degrees of consciousness in the form of self-awareness, conceptualisation, creative imagination etc. The fact that I believe these evolved from earlier states of consciousness does not in any way minimize the “vast difference”, and it is no defence of the logical incongruities bolded above.

DAVID: […] You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.

Dhw: […] You complain that my different proposals, all of which you acknowledge to be logical if we apply human reasoning, can’t be proved, and I am pointing out that your guess, which requires abandoning human reasoning, can’t be proved either.

DAVID: And you forget human logic does not explain God. Again keep it simple: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

The fact that human logic does not explain God is one reason why I remain agnostic, but this particular discussion is not about the existence of God but about your fixed belief in a theistic theory which you can only defend by telling us that we must abandon human logic because you know he doesn’t think like us although “he very well could think like us”. You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. Meanwhile you reject any alternative which has your God creating evolution but which offers different reasons why he created what he did; you agree that these are humanly logical but you reject them because they make him think like a human, even though – once again – “he very well could think like us”.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 10, 2019, 21:08 (6 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not reject your argument that design/complexity provides evidence for the existence of God, which embraces Adler’s example of the human mind. But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities which he never discusses.

DAVID: Yes, you do. You have consciousness evolving from earlier states.

dhw: You persist in trying to distinguish between conscious and consciousness by saying that our fellow animals are conscious but only humans have consciousness. You are making a mockery of language. Only humans have extreme degrees of consciousness in the form of self-awareness, conceptualisation, creative imagination etc. The fact that I believe these evolved from earlier states of consciousness does not in any way minimize the “vast difference”, and it is no defence of the logical incongruities bolded above.

You are calling Adler a poor philosopher. I'm still with him. The 'vast difference' is all that counts. I have agreed that monkeys have a smidgen in that it is obvious they have some sense of what other monkeys are thinking (theory of mind) but smidgens is all they have.


DAVID: […] You can propose all you wish about God, while having no way of proving you might be even slightly correct.

Dhw: […] You complain that my different proposals, all of which you acknowledge to be logical if we apply human reasoning, can’t be proved, and I am pointing out that your guess, which requires abandoning human reasoning, can’t be proved either.

DAVID: And you forget human logic does not explain God. Again keep it simple: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

dhw; The fact that human logic does not explain God is one reason why I remain agnostic, but this particular discussion is not about the existence of God but about your fixed belief in a theistic theory which you can only defend by telling us that we must abandon human logic because you know he doesn’t think like us although “he very well could think like us”. You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. Meanwhile you reject any alternative which has your God creating evolution but which offers different reasons why he created what he did; you agree that these are humanly logical but you reject them because they make him think like a human, even though – once again – “he very well could think like us”.

I reject your illogical approach (in bold above) to God, because I simply say God created everything and history therefore tells the story. You simply wonder why He was so patient, and extend the idea that He should have gotten to the evolution of humans sooner. Remember I start with God as the driver of all. I understand you question that. You have accepted at times that if God ran evolution, He obviously was in change, but then you never reach my final conclusion and detour into an irrational side road of why did He wait? .

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 11, 2019, 13:19 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities [I summarized them earlier] which he never discusses.

DAVID: You are calling Adler a poor philosopher. I'm still with him. The 'vast difference' is all that counts. I have agreed that monkeys have a smidgen in that it is obvious they have some sense of what other monkeys are thinking (theory of mind) but smidgens is all they have.

I am not calling Adler anything. I have no quarrel with the argument that human consciousness is so complex that it can be used as evidence for God’s existence. You are simply trying to divert attention away from the list of bolded incongruities (see yesterday's post)that make YOUR theory (nothing to do with Adler, who never discusses it) so illogical.

DAVID: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

dhw: […] You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. […]

DAVID: I reject your illogical approach (in bold above) to God, because I simply say God created everything and history therefore tells the story.

The bold above is YOUR illogical approach! History is the bush: the purpose for creating the bush is the reason “why”!

DAVID: You simply wonder why He was so patient, and extend the idea that He should have gotten to the evolution of humans sooner. Remember I start with God as the driver of all. I understand you question that. You have accepted at times that if God ran evolution, He obviously was in change, but then you never reach my final conclusion and detour into an irrational side road of why did He wait?

It is not a matter of patience, but of logic, and logic suggests that if he was totally in charge and only had one purpose, he WOULD have got to the evolution of humans sooner, and even you admit that you have no idea why he didn’t (“I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”). Because of this inexplicable postponement which you have thrust into his thinking, he “had to” specially design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life. I therefore challenge your assumption that he only had one purpose, but I offer alternative explanations for the evolutionary bush, all of which you reject because although they are perfectly logical, you have a fixed belief that your God doesn’t think like us, even though he “very well could think like us”!

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 11, 2019, 19:29 (5 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, October 11, 2019, 19:49

DAVID: [Adler] is part of my reasoning that God is in charge. He recognizes our vast difference when you constantly try to smudge it.

dhw: I don’t smudge the vast difference (see the “consciousness” thread), and I don’t see the point in your harping on about Adler and totally ignoring the above list of incongruities [I summarized them earlier] which he never discusses.

DAVID: You are calling Adler a poor philosopher. I'm still with him. The 'vast difference' is all that counts. I have agreed that monkeys have a smidgen in that it is obvious they have some sense of what other monkeys are thinking (theory of mind) but smidgens is all they have.

dhw: I am not calling Adler anything. I have no quarrel with the argument that human consciousness is so complex that it can be used as evidence for God’s existence. You are simply trying to divert attention away from the list of bolded incongruities (see yesterday's post)that make YOUR theory (nothing to do with Adler, who never discusses it) so illogical.

You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.


DAVID: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

dhw: […] You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. […]

DAVID: I reject your illogical approach (in bold above) to God, because I simply say God created everything and history therefore tells the story.

dhw: The bold above is YOUR illogical approach! History is the bush: the purpose for creating the bush is the reason “why”!

Totally twisted: God wanted humans and used the bush to create them. He runs everything. His choice of method cannot be questioned, in my theology.


DAVID: You simply wonder why He was so patient, and extend the idea that He should have gotten to the evolution of humans sooner. Remember I start with God as the driver of all. I understand you question that. You have accepted at times that if God ran evolution, He obviously was in change, but then you never reach my final conclusion and detour into an irrational side road of why did He wait?

dhw: It is not a matter of patience, but of logic, and logic suggests that if he was totally in charge and only had one purpose, he WOULD have got to the evolution of humans sooner, and even you admit that you have no idea why he didn’t (“I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time”). Because of this inexplicable postponement which you have thrust into his thinking, he “had to” specially design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life.

Same silliness. I believe God is in charge and history tells us how He created humans. Again your total argument implies He should have been impatient to do it. It is the same weird thought as to why God made the universe so big if all He wanted was an Earth to start life? I have no way of knowing His reasons. Perhaps it was required.

dhw: I therefore challenge your assumption that he only had one purpose, but I offer alternative explanations for the evolutionary bush, all of which you reject because although they are perfectly logical, you have a fixed belief that your God doesn’t think like us, even though he “very well could think like us”!

The key to my approach is Adler and our specialness, and you've agreed that is a good argument for God.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 12, 2019, 12:24 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are calling Adler a poor philosopher.

dhw: I am not calling Adler anything. I have no quarrel with the argument that human consciousness is so complex that it can be used as evidence for God’s existence. You are simply trying to divert attention away from the list of bolded incongruities (see yesterday's post) that make YOUR theory (nothing to do with Adler, who never discusses it) so illogical.

DAVID: You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.

You force me to repeat the list of your incongruities:
But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal.And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us”.

DAVID: I believe God created/ran evolution and the history exposes what He did, not why.

dhw: […] You also insist on telling us why he created what he did, his one and only purpose having been to create H. sapiens, although for reasons unknown he decided to spend 3.X billion years creating the non-human evolutionary bush instead. […]

DAVID: I reject your illogical approach (in bold above) to God, because I simply say God created everything and history therefore tells the story.

dhw: The bold above is YOUR illogical approach! History is the bush: the purpose for creating the bush is the reason “why”!

DAVID: Totally twisted: God wanted humans and used the bush to create them. He runs everything. His choice of method cannot be questioned, in my theology.

No twisting! The bush is the history, “God wanted humans” is your interpretation of the purpose (reason why), and you have no idea why, if he runs everything, he decided not to create what he wanted, but “had to” (your words) create the non-human bush – not in order to create humans, but in order to cover the time until he did create humans!

[…]
dhw: I therefore challenge your assumption that he only had one purpose, but I offer alternative explanations for the evolutionary bush, all of which you reject because although they are perfectly logical, you have a fixed belief that your God doesn’t think like us, even though he “very well could think like us”!

DAVID: The key to my approach is Adler and our specialness, and you've agreed that is a good argument for God.

But it is no argument at all for the incongruities I have listed. Adler’s “key” is to the existence of a designer God, not to the incongruous theory bolded above.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 13, 2019, 05:10 (3 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.

dhw: You force me to repeat the list of your incongruities:
But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal.And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us

[/i]

Same old problem. I simply think God is in charge and chose to evolve humans over time. Nothing incongruous about that.

dhw: The bold above is YOUR illogical approach! History is the bush: the purpose for creating the bush is the reason “why”!

DAVID: Totally twisted: God wanted humans and used the bush to create them. He runs everything. His choice of method cannot be questioned, in my theology.

dhw: No twisting! The bush is the history, “God wanted humans” is your interpretation of the purpose (reason why), and you have no idea why, if he runs everything, he decided not to create what he wanted, but “had to” (your words) create the non-human bush – not in order to create humans, but in order to cover the time until he did create humans!

Same nutty objection. If God is in charge He cbose to evolv e humans. That is what happened


[…]
dhw: I therefore challenge your assumption that he only had one purpose, but I offer alternative explanations for the evolutionary bush, all of which you reject because although they are perfectly logical, you have a fixed belief that your God doesn’t think like us, even though he “very well could think like us”!

DAVID: The key to my approach is Adler and our specialness, and you've agreed that is a good argument for God.

dhw: But it is no argument at all for the incongruities I have listed. Adler’s “key” is to the existence of a designer God, not to the incongruous theory bolded above.

No incongruities as I view it. God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What yo u do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 13, 2019, 10:54 (3 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.

dhw: You force me to repeat the list of your incongruities:
But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us.

DAVID: Same old problem. I simply think God is in charge and chose to evolve humans over time. Nothing incongruous about that.
As usual, you leave out approximately half the items in the above list. (See also below.) Your other replies repeat the same diluted version of your theory:

DAVID: If God is in charge He chose to evolve humans. That is what happened
DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 13, 2019, 15:57 (3 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You agree Adler's approach is logical. Thanks. Your incongruities are your illogicality, not mine.

dhw: You force me to repeat the list of your incongruities:
But you have repeatedly admitted that Adler does NOT argue that H. sapiens was your always-in-total-control God’s intent from the beginning, that for some unknown reason he decided not to fulfil that intent for 3.X billion years and therefore had to preprogramme or dabble every single innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history as interim goals in order to cover the time before starting on the fulfilment of his one and only goal. And I doubt very much that Adler would tell us this theory is perfectly logical provided we do not try to apply human logic, and that any alternative to this theory must be wrong because it entails “humanizing” God, although God “very well could think like us.

DAVID: Same old problem. I simply think God is in charge and chose to evolve humans over time. Nothing incongruous about that.
As usual, you leave out approximately half the items in the above list. (See also below.) Your other replies repeat the same diluted version of your theory:

DAVID: If God is in charge He chose to evolve humans. That is what happened
DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

My beliefs remain the same.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 14, 2019, 12:57 (1 day, 21 hours, 12 min. ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If God is in charge He chose to evolve humans. That is what happened
DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

DAVID: My beliefs remain the same.

Fair enough, so long as you stick to your agreement that in order to stick to the above beliefs (which you keep leaving out whenever you respond), you must abandon all human reasoning, and you also accept the fact that my humanly logical alternatives are possible because God may very well think like us.

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 14, 2019, 18:49 (1 day, 15 hours, 20 min. ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If God is in charge He chose to evolve humans. That is what happened
DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

DAVID: My beliefs remain the same.

dhw: Fair enough, so long as you stick to your agreement that in order to stick to the above beliefs (which you keep leaving out whenever you respond), you must abandon all human reasoning, and you also accept the fact that my humanly logical alternatives are possible because God may very well think like us.

God may or may not follow human reasoning. We cannot know, only guess. That humans were His final goal is shown by our very special evolution and the arrival of human consciousness. My beliefs will continue and I view them as logical.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 15, 2019, 10:10 (23 hours, 59 minutes ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

DAVID: My beliefs remain the same.

dhw: Fair enough, so long as you stick to your agreement that in order to stick to the above beliefs (which you keep leaving out whenever you respond), you must abandon all human reasoning, and you also accept the fact that my humanly logical alternatives are possible because God may very well think like us.

DAVID: God may or may not follow human reasoning. We cannot know, only guess. That humans were His final goal is shown by our very special evolution and the arrival of human consciousness. My beliefs will continue and I view them as logical.

In relation to the incongruities, you have said quite openly: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” On the assumption that you are human, I don’t see how you can now claim that you view the collection of beliefs you keep omitting as “logical”. Your admission of illogicality is reinforced by your cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?

David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 15, 2019, 15:14 (18 hours, 55 minutes ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God in charge chose to evolve. Perfectly simple. What you do is keep complaining about a God who isn't impatient and should immediately reach His goal. How do you know He should? We will go round and round with no end.

dhw: You have left out your belief that the creation of H. sapiens was his one and only goal, that he decided not to pursue that goal for 3.X billion years and therefore “had to” specially design every non-human branch of the bush of life to keep life going, and that although you have no idea why he would have done so, it is logical provided we abandon human logic, and any other explanation of the bush and of his purpose can be dismissed as humanization, although it is possible that he does think like us.

DAVID: My beliefs remain the same.

dhw: Fair enough, so long as you stick to your agreement that in order to stick to the above beliefs (which you keep leaving out whenever you respond), you must abandon all human reasoning, and you also accept the fact that my humanly logical alternatives are possible because God may very well think like us.

DAVID: God may or may not follow human reasoning. We cannot know, only guess. That humans were His final goal is shown by our very special evolution and the arrival of human consciousness. My beliefs will continue and I view them as logical.

dhw: In relation to the incongruities, you have said quite openly: “Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” On the assumption that you are human, I don’t see how you can now claim that you view the collection of beliefs you keep omitting as “logical”. Your admission of illogicality is reinforced by your cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?

Remember, I refuse to recognize religious writing about God so as to use only history and science as a proof of God, as shown in my first book. I accept your theorizing about God's intentions the same as the Biblical writings, all conjectures. Karen Anderson 's book shows exactly what I mean, as each book, OT, NT and Quran all have different versions of His personality. All we know about evolution is God took His own sweet time.

David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 16, 2019, 10:06 (3 minutes ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God may or may not follow human reasoning. We cannot know, only guess. That humans were His final goal is shown by our very special evolution and the arrival of human consciousness. My beliefs will continue and I view them as logical.

dhw: In relation to the incongruities, you have said quite openly: Nothing illogical required if one does not apply human reasoning to the actual history” and “You try to make God logical to fit your human thinking. It doesn’t work.” On the assumption that you are human, I don’t see how you can now claim that you view the collection of beliefs you keep omitting as “logical”. Your admission of illogicality is reinforced by your cry: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?”[/i]

DAVID: Remember, I refuse to recognize religious writing about God so as to use only history and science as a proof of God, as shown in my first book. I accept your theorizing about God's intentions the same as the Biblical writings, all conjectures. Karen Anderson 's book shows exactly what I mean, as each book, OT, NT and Quran all have different versions of His personality. All we know about evolution is God took His own sweet time.

My objections to the incongruities of your theory, which demand the abandonment of human reason, have nothing whatsoever to do with religious writings about God. All we know about evolution is that it has gone on for approximately 3.8 billion years. That does not mean your God started off with the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens, decided to postpone his pet project for 3.X billion years and therefore had to specially design every branch of the non-human bush in order to cover the time he had decided to take before starting to fulfil his one and only purpose. I have offered you several alternatives to these incongruities, two of which actually allow for your anthropocentrism (experimentation, or the idea not occurring to him until late on). You reject them all, because we are supposed to accept that God doesn’t think like humans, although he very well may think like humans.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum