Evolution: fish to land animals transition (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, December 05, 2020, 16:03 (1231 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: How could ALL the ecosystems, 99% of which had no connection with us, have been necessary for us? Why do you keep ignoring your own statements: “The current huge bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID: Once again you are slicing and dicing evolution into time periods, as if an old period doesn't precede a new period. It is a continuous process from bacteria to now.

dhw: Evolution IS divided into time periods, and each period produces its own life forms and econiches and food supplies, and time is continuous, and of course old periods precede new periods. BUT THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN 99% OF PAST LIFE FORMS/ FOOD SUPPLIES AND PRESENT LIFE FORMS/FOOD SUPPLIES. Please read your own bolded quotes above. Hence it is absurd to argue that all life forms and food supplies were “part of the goal of evolving humans” even though 99% of them had no connection with humans!

You interpret in a distorted way as you read my words: the key to the interpretation is this from your bold of my words “Extinct life has no role in current time.” Is that true or not? I say not, but the true issue is the connection is common descent!!! Which obviously is an indirect role, but a real role, and a relationship. You cannot get from bacteria to humans without steady modification. But then again you refuses to accept the idea God chose to evolve us.

DAVID: God as creator can do anything He wants. He created life and evolved it to reach us. All His choices of action. End of argument from a theistic viewpoint.

dhw: Yes, if God exists, he can do anything he wants, yes he evolved life, yes it reached us. But that does not mean he directly designed every life form, and if he did, it does not mean that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans” even though 99% of them had no connection with humans! You keep using vague generalizations in order to avoid facing up to the fact that that your interpretation of his goal and his methodology makes no sense. But you are determined to stick to it and to keep pretending that it is logical by leaving out those parts of your theory that make it illogical. Time to end this game?

I will stick to the belief God is the designer of all forms of life. Your imagined view of God does not follow the rules I follow in thinking about Him. I have an established belief you cannot shake. It is not a game for me. Perhaps you come from a point of view where gaming is important. I got to my position from agnosticism well before discovering Adler solidified it. With our differing thought patterns, we will never agree.