Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]My interpretation in your other words. A dabble is total control, since it can appear whenever He wishes.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Agreed. But he will only dabble if he wants to change the process he set in motion – which here is evolution. So he set the process of evolution in motion and let it continue to go its own way unless he wanted to do a dabble. I’m glad you regard this as “total control”, since it removes one of your major objections to my theory. I don’t see it as “total control”, but thank you all the same.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Still total control, because it implies He is always watching to be sure the process achieves His goals or He interferes with it and must be altered. You imply He must be hands-on for every tiny reaction and total control need not be that strict.[/i]
> 
> That’s fine with me. It really doesn’t matter which of your three options you go for (preprogramming, occasional dabbling or total hands-on). The fact remains that at long last, you have your God setting the process in motion and letting it continue unless he decides to interfere. This is precisely the process of evolution that I have been suggesting for years, so thank you for accepting this as a possible explanation of evolution's history.
> 
> DAVID:  [i]I don't question what His choices are.I can guess at His reasons and when I do, you usually take an opposite tack, still all guesswork.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Sorry, but no, you don’t question [b]what you believe was his choice[/b]: namely [b]one purpose (H. sapiens) and one method, namely to directly design 3.X billion years’ worth of non-humans and their food before directly designing non-sapiens homos and their food before directly designing sapiens and our food.[/b] This is your guesswork, and you have no idea why he would have chosen such a method to achieve such a purpose.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]The huge difference is I do not try to understand why He chose evolution. There is no answer! It is all guesswork. Why don't you accept the history as I do?[/i]
> 
> I do accept the history, because I believe evolution happened, and if God exists, then of course he chose it. But what I have bolded above is NOT history. It is your illogical interpretation of God’s purpose and method of achieving that purpose! Meanwhile, you have agreed that all my alternative explanations of evolution’s history are logical.
>  
> DAVID: [i]Once again, I will only accept that God uses the same logic we do. I will not humanize God as you constantly try to do.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]But you have no idea what could be the logic behind the one and only guess you are prepared to consider, and you reject any logical theory which entails a thought pattern similar to ours, although God probably has thought patterns similar to ours.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]We do not know if God thinks of purposes as we do.[/i]
> 
> So why do you assume that he doesn’t and has therefore chosen a combination of purpose and method which defies human logic?