Different in degree or kind: Sapiens begin brain use (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, October 29, 2016, 13:23 (2735 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: When I pointed out that the extinction of “less adequate” species did not explain why your God had preprogrammed them in the first place, you quoted Raup’s “bad luck” as the reason for their extinction. When I pointed out that bad luck does not sound like meticulous planning, you suggested God had “sized” Chicxulub, which = God’s meticulous planning and not bad luck. This is always the problem when you impose an illogical pattern on evolution: it just doesn’t fit…
DAVID: 'Less adequate' is your term for extinct species. They were perfectly adequate until the environment changed. You seize on a term that is not correct and then follow the illogicality of that concept to the wrong end.

I’m sorry, David, but you are getting confused. It was you who introduced the whole concept of inadequacy on Sunday 23 October at 19.18 (my bold):
Dhw: Any idea WHY your God would provide all these wrong choices, then? And what other guidelines can you think of?
DAVID: Not wrong, but inadequate for the stress.

The discussion continued as follows:
Dhw: So your God provides choices to solve every single problem for the next 3.7 billion years, and those that are inadequate for a particular problem are not wrong. That'll be a nice consolation for those who have to say goodbye.
DAVID: Evolution only advances with the passage of less adequate and less complex species. Death makes room for the living. Nothing 'wrong' about evolution. It produced us.
dhw: “Less adequate” ones dying out merely confirms the Darwinian process of natural selection. It doesn’t explain why your God preprogrammes “inadequate” solutions in the first place.

This led you to the first about-turn:
DAVID: And I keep repeating David Raup: extinction are 'bad luck' from extreme environmental changes, not inadequate organisms. Adequate organisms live in adequate comfortable environments. The dinos weren't prepared for Chicxulub. Should God have prepared them? Your comment makes no sense.

Initially what God had preprogrammed was “inadequate for the stress”, which raised the problem of why God designed organisms that way. So then it was not a matter of inadequacy – it was bad luck, and extinctions were accidental. However, when that turned out to mean God relied on luck for the progress of evolution, you switched to suggesting that God may even have ”sized” Chixculub (to ensure the survival of pre-pre-pre-pre humans). This U-turn takes over in your latest comment:

DAVID: And admit if God exists He could control the environment.

Extinction was due to “bad luck”, because organisms were “inadequate for the stress” of accidental environmental changes, and now we come full circle to God’s control of the environment with extinction being part of the great plan.

DAVID: You deny God so everything He might do is illogical to you. Remember faith involves belief.

As an agnostic I always allow for God’s existence, but I question the logic of your interpretation of God’s evolutionary purpose and method, which even you seem to find baffling. Compare this to the powerful logic you apply to the complexity of life’s mechanisms as a counter to atheistic faith in chance. Would you accept an atheist dismissing your argument by telling you to remember that faith involves belief?