Evolution: fish to land animals transition (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, December 03, 2020, 19:18 (1449 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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?

As before I believe in a God who knows exactly what he is doing, and if He was forced to evolve us, He recogni9zed His problem and proceeded with evolution. As for the branching, God knew we would reach enormous numbers of us and all the ecosystems provide a necessary food supply, all logically explained before.

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.

dhw: 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.

I don't recognize your illogical complaint at all, from my belief in God. We've covered the point that He either had to evolve us or chose to evolve us. Either way I view him as in charge of creation, and your strange complaint as a criticism of God's methodology. The 99% simply represent evolution from bacteria to us and the huge current bush is food supply for a huge human population and is developed from all the previous 99% branching.