Evolution: fish to land animals transition (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, December 02, 2020, 19:42 (1235 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Don't be sorry for your strange view.

dhw: This response does not explain why he “had to” directly design the brontosaurus et al, which had no connection with humans, in order to design the stages that led to H. sapiens.

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

dhw: Can’t you understand that “having to” directly design the brontosaurus - which had no direct connection with humans – because he couldn’t directly design humans (until he could directly design every individual hominid etc. leading to humans) makes no sense, and therefore it is possible that this was not his choice of purpose/method but he had OTHER reasons for designing the brontosaurus, or maybe he didn’t design the brontosaurus at all?

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

dhw: Nobody knows it, and that is why we have theories. I have offered you several, all of which you have accepted as logical. Two of them allowed for your interpretation of the history and the motive: experimentation to get to humans, or humans as a late idea.

Again a weak humanized God devised by your fertile imagination, wandering around from point to point, not sure of how to go forward.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: This was your own utterly confusing and inconsistent theory that your God has limitations and was incapable of directly designing humans without first directly designing the brontosaurus plus a few million other life forms first. See above. Even the complex universe of constant comings and goings could be the outcome of experimentation to create the right conditions for life. What is wrong with picturing God as an experimental scientist?

Not how I envision a powerful purposeful God who know exactly where He is headed in His creations. Proposing that God had to evolve us, for some unknown reason, is trying to be honestly complete in all considerations. Actually I don't believe it for a minute.

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: 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.

DAVID: 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.

dhw: It is blindingly obvious that all forms of life need food, which is fundamental to the processes of evolution. But that does not explain why your God had to design millions of species and food supplies unconnected with humans and their food supplies, as “part of the goal of evolving humans”. There really is no point in continuing this discussion if you continue to ignore the issue over which we disagree.

I don't ignore it. I find your complaint totally unreasonable, and without substance from my viewpoint of faith in God as the creator. I agree. We can go further on this point of disagreement.