Back to theodicy and David's theories (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by David Turell , Saturday, May 08, 2021, 16:06 (1085 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You agree evolution is a continuum and then ignore it and chop it up into unrelated time segments.

dhw: On Thursday I challenged your statement that you “recognized that there were different time frames for different segments of evolutionary history”, and then YOU accused ME of dividing evolution into segments, which I have never done anyway! I responded: “…evolution, like time, is a continuum”. But evolution split into branches that were not connected with one another.

DAVID: The bush then was for food then, the bush now for food now.

dhw: Correct.

dhw: So please would you finally agree that the 99% which died away and had no connection with humans were NOT “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans”, and you have no idea why he specially designed the 99% and their food bushes if his only goal was to design us humans and our food bush. It won’t hurt you to say it explicitly, and then we can put an end to this discussion.

DAVID: I won't give in to your distorted illogical view of evolution. The bold is your constant dishonest interpretation of what I have granted: I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. The 99% are a necessary step in any evolutionary process; an obvious statement.

dhw: Necessary for what? There is nothing dishonest in my objection to your illogical statement that the 99% which had no connection with humans, were “part of the goal of evolving [= specially designing] humans.” I am not going to insult you by calling you dishonest. I am simply asking you to acknowledge that if you have no idea why your God chose to evolve us, and you cannot explain why in choosing to evolve (design) us he chose to evolve (design) all these life forms that had no connection with us, then we shall both simply have to accept that this is your fixed belief, and we can end this discussion.

If you accept we are in total disagreement about the necessary parts of past evolution and never bring up the subject again in any other related discussions I will stop telling you you are illogical on this aspect of evolutionary history study