Evolution: fish to land animals transition (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, December 03, 2020, 11:54 (1449 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

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

But the history of evolution is precisely that: it branches out into millions of life forms and econiches and natural wonders, 99% of which have died out and had no connection with humans. “Point to point”. You cannot explain why your God would have directly designed them all if his goal was humans. You claim that they were all part of that goal but can find no connection yourself, and you come up with the idea that his powers were limited so he “had to design them” before he could design us. Why is this limitation of his powers any “weaker” than a God who experiments to get what he wants, or who learns and gets new ideas as he goes along?

DAVID: 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.

So you don’t believe your own proposal that he had limited powers, which leaves you with no explanation whatever for the 99% of extinct life forms which he directly designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” even though they had no connection with humans. But you still find this blatant illogicality preferable to alternatives you acknowledge as being logical.

DAVID: [...] 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.

You have yet again ignored the point of disagreement! I have no problem with your faith in God as the creator. It is your theory concerning his nature, purpose and method of achieving that purpose that I am challenging. If you find my “complaint” unreasonable, then please explain how 99% of his directly designed life forms could have been part of his goal of evolving humans when they had no direct connection with humans. I would like us to end this discussion, but not for the wrong reason.