Evolution: fish to land animals transition (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, December 01, 2020, 18:20 (1235 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The illogical complaint that you offer about God's using evolution has nothing to do with the fact and I do not and cannot know his reasoning.

dhw: I am not complaining about God “using evolution”, but about your theory that he had one goal (humans) and proceeded to directly design anything but humans. Your theory has “nothing to do with the facts” and your inability to find a logical explanation suggests that your theory may be wrong.

Your complaint is always against God, not my interpretation. I fully believe God has created everything, and since history tells us we evolved, that is what He decided to do. Perfect theistic logic.

DAVID (under “Theodicy”): My thought is God had to evolve us, and was incapable of direct creation without the bush of life preceding us.

dhw: So your God was capable of directly designing all the unconnected species and bushes that preceded us, but he “had to” design THEM because he was incapable of directly designing the one he wanted (until he started directly designing the stages that led to the one he wanted.) Oh well, if that fits in with your image of God, so be it, but I still can’t see why he “had to” directly design the brontosaurus et al in order to design the stages that led to H. sapiens. Sorry.

Don't be sorry for your strange view.

dhw: Yet again, I’m not challenging your God but your INTERPRETATION of history, as bolded above, for which you are unable to provide a logical explanation.

Can't you understand I have no need to explain His choice of action. It's your lonely issue.

dhw: “I do not and cannot know his reasoning” is not much of a solution.

I accept what I see. Do you know God's reasoning? If so, you are the first ever.

DAVID: God is fully in charge, He knows exactly what He wishes to accomplish and evolved us over time. Not the wishy-washy semi-deity of your very fertile so-called theistic imagination.

dhw: There is nothing “wishy-washy” or “semi” about a God who experiments, or who learns as he goes along, or who watches his creations with interest and who created them for that very purpose.

A purposeful God who creates a complex universe, then invents life, and suddenly converts to a struggling God, who has to experiment with evolution, is an inconsistent theory of God's personality and abilities. Utter confusion on your part.

DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to humans is a continuum. You want to chop it up into unrelated segments when everything present is obviously related to the past.

dhw: Everything present is related to the past through common descent, but you have agreed that evolution branched out in millions of directions.[…]

DAVID: They are all connected to the original bacteria by common descent.

dhw: I have just said that (now bolded).

DAVID: They all use the same DNA. Even Darwin drew a tree of life in his famous notebook. I guess as you analyze you are a splitter, not a grouper.

dhw: You are deliberately missing the point. There can only be one “continuum” from bacteria to humans, but you insist that every life form on every branch was “part of the goal of evolving humans”, even though 99% had no direct connection with humans. Since you cannot find any logical explanation for this part of your theory but it is fixed in your mind, I suggest we leave it at that.

I never miss a point in your splitter approach. Of course evolution branched out with the purpose you keep minimizing of a necessary food supply for all. And as you back off you admit the need for food as a major part and purpose of the whole process of evolution..