David's theory of evolution: God's error corrections II (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, October 05, 2020, 10:54 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw (under “Davies’ current opinion"): A universal purpose would mean there is a God. You and I have been discussing what that God’s purpose might be, if he exists, and of course he would have had a purpose in designing life. But that brings us back to your theory of evolution, which you admit you cannot understand (you don’t know why he would have chosen to design millions of extinct non-human life forms when all he wanted was one life form plus its food supply), and to my own alternatives, all of which you admit are logical.

DAVID: Your summary is quite thorough and correct with the exception of the bold. In my acceptance of God, there is no requirement to understand His reasons for His actions. I do not try to understand what His reasons might be. I just see what He did and accept it. You sit on the outside of 'acceptance' and seem to demand logic for all His actions. My simple logic is at a level you refuse to accept. My view is God chose to evolve all of the bush of life on the way to a goal of human, an exact parallel to history.

You refuse to accept that what you call his “actions” and his “goal” are your subjective interpretations of his actions and goal, as is your concept of “evolve”. Evolution does not mean God directly designed every species, econiche and natural wonder. The fact that humans are the latest and by far the most intelligent species does not mean that every species, econiche and natural wonder was “part of the goal of evolving (= directly designing) H. sapiens”. Your simple logic may suffice to justify your belief that H. sapiens was the goal, but it cannot explain why an all-powerful God “could have created humans directly”, but didn’t. The only reason your simple logic offers us is that for 3.X billion years he was creating a food supply for a species that did not yet exist! (See below)

DAVID: From Thursday's comment you did not answer:

DAVID: Your thinking finally understands my theory. Of course He wanted all of the evolutionary stages on the way to humans, which are His final goal. The lack of understanding all these years shows your basic bias from the beginning. Your statement that He only wanted humans was your rigid misinterpretation of my thoughts all along.

DAVID: Do you understand my approach or not?

You claim that humans were his final goal, he had no other goal, and every extinct species, econiche and natural wonder was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, and so no, I do not understand why I am misinterpreting your thoughts when I ask how the direct design of every extinct species, econiche and natural wonder could have been part of the goal of evolving humans. I have pointed out that the “continuum” of evolution is the process of diversification from other life forms, but there is no continuum from dinosaurs and dodos and all the other extinct species to H. sapiens. You only have one explanation:

DAVID: The diversification is the necessary food supply which you do not deny. In evolution from simple to complex, it must go through many, many advancing-complexity stages. It's your same old complaint not willing to recognize God ran evolution as my basis for all statements. God is the designer. You play with the idea of a designer.

The necessary food supply for WHAT? 3.X billion years of food supply for extinct life forms are not necessary for species which exist now! You agree: “Extinct life plays no role in current time. The huge bush of life is in present time for our huge population now.” And the huge bush of life in past time was for the populations of past time. Yes, evolution has gone through many stages of complexification. Why must I accept that this means God “ran” evolution by directly designing every extinct life form and its food supply as “part of the goal of evolving (= directly designing) humans”? Why is my proposal that your God may have given organisms the mechanism to do their own designing regarded as “playing” with the idea of God as designer? And why won’t you accept its feasibility?

dhw: Your latest natural wonder, “brood parasites”, illustrates the point perfectly:

QUOTE: "Nestlings of these 'brood-parasitic' Vidua finches were found to mimic the appearance, sounds and movements of their grassfinch host's chicks, right down to the same elaborately colorful patterns on the inside of their mouths." (David’s bold)

DAVID: […] the bolded note about mouth coloring is a design issue and requires God to step in, in my view.

dhw: And in your view, how is this “part of the goal of evolving [or feeding] humans”?

DAVID: Back to the usual question. Same answer: Part of ecosystems necessary for food supply.

All organisms are and were part of “food supply”, either by eating or by being eaten. How does that prove that the colourful pattern inside the mouth of the vidua finch, and the patterns and camouflages and natural wonders of the past 3.8 billion years, were all “necessary” for the evolution and feeding of humans?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum