David's theory of evolution Part Two (Evolution)

by David Turell @, Monday, March 02, 2020, 22:41 (37 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: These are the different aspects of your theory that render it so illogical that you have “no idea” how to explain it.

I do not try to explain God's reasons for His creations


DAVID: Your usual false juxtapositions of my thinking. We cannot know God's reasons for His actions, although I'm sure He thinks logically as we do. As for emotions, I'm sure they are the same, but what does that have to do with logical reasoning? Neat tricky debate technique, no more.

dhw: You are sure He thinks logically, but you can’t understand his logic and so we mustn’t try to find it. Emotions would explain his purpose: e.g. enjoyment of life’s higgledy-piggledy bush. Or the desire for recognition, or even worship - and I would add that it is a total cop-out to suggest that his only purpose was to create H. sapiens and then to refuse to ask yourself why he would have wanted to create H. sapiens, let alone why he would have wanted to spend 3.X billion years NOT creating H. sapiens if we were his only purpose.

Your usual humanizing attempts. Adler's "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes" clearly gives us God's existence and purpose.


DAVID: Why can't God decide to do it His way, not yours, if as you note He can be considered totally in charge of creation?

I’ll ask you the same question? Why can’t God decide to do it His way, not yours? Neither of us knows “His way”. Where have I noted that he can be considered “totally in charge of creation”? The fact that if he exists he would have created the universe and all the mechanisms that have led to life and evolution does not mean that he could not have given evolution free rein (with dabbles). His way may have been any of the alternatives I have offered you, all of which you agree are logical.

Why did you add 'dabbles'? Afraid to propose a God without any controls as being too outlandish a thought about Him?? God creates and decides what to create.


dhw: Do you or don’t you believe that “extinctions are pure luck”? If you do, I really can’t see how “pure luck” comes to mean “part of his plan”, unless his plan was to allow luck to play a leading role in the process of evolution. Please clarify.

DAVID: I've been quite clear above. God let non-survival weed out unnecessary species to continue. It allows for population growth of succeeding species as evolution became more complex in the forms created. 99% are gone.

dhw: On 19 Feb you wrote: "Extinctions are pure luck (Raup) and the species drive to survive is day by day while alive."
On 20 Feb you wrote: "What survives is pure luck but those survivors do stay around to somehow speciate to the next stage of evolutionary complexity."

Please tell us whether you do or do not believe that extinction and survival are pure luck or not.

Please read my very clear statement above. God lets those disappear by not helping them. They are unlucky following His purposes


DAVID (on "SUCKERFISH"): ...as usual evolution produces new ideas for us to use. How did this develop? Not trial and error. It had to be designed.

dhw: There is no reason why trial and error should not play a role in design. Just as millions of bacteria die before a solution is found to new problems, lots of pre-suckerfish could have died before the cell communities perfected the system. Alternatively, they may have hit on their winning formula straight away.

DAVID: Straight away implies chance with luck. If none got stuck from the beginning how did they survive to even develop the process? Entirely illogical to me.

dhw: Straight away implies a highly efficient intelligence. But your question is a fair one, so I must modify my comment. There is no reason to suppose that all pre-suckerfish would have died because of the failure to stick. Innovations may improve chances of survival, and therefore become the norm that leads to one “species” replacing the other, but the ancestors would not all have died just because they couldn’t stick straight away.

Thank you for trying to explain your position. Your 'sticking' attempts sound like a trail and error approach. So you want a sudden stick by one lucky fish who showed others to copy him? Or he luckily inoculated a bunch of females with his new mutation(s)? Design is easier to comprehend.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum