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

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 22, 2020, 18:51 (40 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All stages on all branches follow from previous stages. We are not in the brontosaurus branch which is the point of my quoted comment. But we are all related to bacteria as commonality in DNA's show. It can't be chopped up.

dhw: You are gradually beginning to get the message but still desperately trying to avoid the conclusion. Yes, all life forms (and their food supplies) are/were related to BACTERIA. All life forms (and their food supplies) were NOT related to humans. 99% of life forms (and their food supplies) had no connection with humans and “extinct life plays no role in current time”! Therefore, how can you argue that your God directly designed all life forms (and their food supplies) as “part of the goal of evolving [= directly designing] humans [and their food supplies]”?

Your message is God did not run the process of evolution. The history of evolution demonstrates exactly what He did. I still light-years part from your weird theory of chopping up evolution so say God shouldn't have done what He did. God can chose to do what
He wants. In your so-called theistic moments you have agreed and teh ntrun around and say it is all wrong.


dhw: The rest of your post circles round the same attempt to avoid this question, apart from your last comment on faith:

DAVID: There is no proof of God running evolution. It is my faith.

dhw: Your faith is not confined to God running evolution. It entails a rigid belief that 1) your God directly designed every extinct and extant life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., and 2) that every one of them was part of his goal of evolving (= directly designing) H. sapiens and his food supply, even though you acknowledge that 99% of them had no direct connection with humans. That is the part of your faith that makes no sense.

You don't have faith! So why should my faith make any sense to you. I see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

x
Under "Ironclad Beetle":

QUOTE: "This insect’s rugged exoskeleton is so tough that the beetle can survive getting run over by cars, and many would-be predators don’t stand a chance of cracking one open. […]

DAVID:[...] The question for me is what need caused this design. Darwin theory would want to know what caused this adaptation? My answer is the designer designs what He wants, as many designs in evolution show, appearing without need, as in the unwarranted/unreasonable appearance of humans.

dhw: I would have thought it was obvious that what caused the adaptation was the need for the beetle to protect itself against predators! The need to survive is the obvious cause for all adaptations! There are approx. 380,000 “species” of beetle, and apparently they’ve been around for millions and millions of years “without need”. If God directly designed the ironclad one, as opposed to it having designed its own means of survival, then presumably he would have designed the other 379,999 species as well, also “without need”, so please tell us in what way they and the ironclad beetle were/are “part of the goal of evolving humans”. Your comment above seems to suggest that he designed them because he wanted to design them. Maybe he just likes designing things! And is interested in them. Or maybe he gave cells the ability to do their own designing, and watched to see what they would come up with. Even more interesting. (See “Theodicy”)

Yep, humanizing God as usual. That beetle is a part of an ecosystem in the bush of life. I presented it ad an example of complex design that requires a designer.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum