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

by dhw, Thursday, November 05, 2020, 10:07 (1477 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: This thread is based on your theory of evolution. You claim that your God directly designed every life form, that his purpose in doing so was to directly design H. sapiens and his food supply, that every extinct life form was “part of his goal to evolve [= directly design] humans”, and that he designed the ENTIRE bush of life for our food supply, even though we weren’t even there for the first 3.X billion years.

DAVID: Your usual problem of slicing up evolution into time periods as if there is no continuous relationship from stage to stage. The current huge bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.

There is no continuous relationship from every branch to every branch, and you have agreed that there is no direct connection between the brontosaurus (plus millions of other non-human life forms) and humans! You make the same point under “very early pre-mammal”: “So our branch goes way back showing how one cannot chop up evolution into segments. Everything present and past relates.” What about all the other branches? Was every extinct breed of fish, insect, reptile, bird directly designed as part of the goal of directly designing humans, or providing food for humans? But at last you’ve accepted that the current bush of food is for now, and the past bushes were for the past, and “extinct life has no role in current time”. So your God did NOT design the ENTIRE bush of life for our food supply – in which case he did not design every extinct life form as part of the goal of designing humans or our food supply. So if humans were his only goal, why do you think he would have directly designed all the extinct species and food supplies? This is the problem you keep trying so desperately to dodge.

DAVID: It is simply answered by my usual reply: "God chose to evolve us over time". You agree with it, when you posit God in charge, and then question it. You have never made any sense to me in this regard.

dhw: You have left out the fact that evolve = directly design, and your belief that if he exists he also directly designed every other non-human life form, and you claim that every one was part of the goal of directly designing humans, although there is no direct connection between 99% of them and us. If God exists, I posit him as the creator of life and of evolution. If by “in charge” you mean directly designing every life form and natural wonder in order to design H. sapiens, I do not agree.

DAVID: So we disagree. That will not change. Why then the bolded point? Humans are here as the last point in evolution, under God's workings.

You said that I posited God in charge, which for you means that he designed every life form etc. That is not what I posit – hence the bold. And again you ignore the other premises.

DAVID: [..] We are the endpoint and therefore God's purpose.

It is your belief that there will be no further speciation, and that may be true. But endpoint is not synonymous with purpose! Death is the endpoint of every life, so does that mean the purpose of every life is to die?

DAVID: We are the final pinnacle of evolution. Our only difference is I see the path and you worry about all the side twigs!!!

dhw: I don’t worry about them. The “final pinnacle” or “endpoint” (see above) is not the problem. This is what I mean by your persistently dodging the issue. The problem, yet again, is why your God, if his sole purpose was to design us and our food supply, would have designed millions of extinct non-human life forms and the ENTIRE bush of life in order to feed us [...].

DAVID: You can't accept the position that God decided to evolve us from first life.

You keep forgetting that according to you, your God directly designed EVERY species from first life. And that includes millions of life forms that had no direct connection to humans. And again you are dodging the problem I keep posing.

dhw: The fact that cells “appear” to act intelligently makes it feasible that they DO act intelligently.

DAVID: Same old, same old. Looking intelligent doesn't mean they are intrinsically intelligent.

dhw: It is a theory, and the fact that they appear to act intelligently makes the theory feasible.

DAVID: Feasible is correct. Not explanatory for evolutionary advances.

If it is feasible that cells are intelligent, and that they are capable of changing their own structures, as they do in minor adaptations, then it is feasible that they can do so in major adaptations and innovations, i.e. in evolutionary advances. Feasibility is the best that one can hope for in any theory relating to a mystery that no one on this Earth has yet been able to solve.