Evolution: fish to land animals transition (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, December 07, 2020, 11:32 (1229 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have no coherent development of your acceptance that God chose to evolve us.

Not just us! Every species in life's history! And I have several “coherent developments” (see my “numerous theistic theories" below), each of which you have agreed are logical. The only theory on offer that has no coherent development is your own: God’s purpose was to “evolve” H. sapiens (plus food supply) by directly designing him stage by stage, and therefore he directly designed millions of organisms (plus food supplies), 99% of which had no connection with humans.

DAVID: I think He designed all stages with mountains of evidence that design is required. You seem to deny design, so how did He directly do it?

I have never denied design, but I strongly doubt the incoherent interpretation of “evolution/design” bolded above. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: As for desiring humans Adler offers very strong philosophic evidence.

No problem. The problem with your own theory is bolded above. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: For the necessary food supply, you agree it is required. Early in evolution small bush, small food supply. Now huge bush huge human population, all logical.

Food is required for ALL life forms. But in your own words: “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.” Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I don't ignore the bold. It is your strawman.

Then please explain the logic behind the theory bolded above.

DAVID: The definition of evolution is development from the simple to the complex in stages!

I am not denying evolution. I am challenging your illogical interpretation of it as bolded above. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: You have agreed above God chose to evolve us.

I have agreed that if God exists, he chose evolution as the way to produce every single life form. Not just us! See the above bold for what I disagree with. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Our only difference I know of is I think He directly designed everything and you drag in cell intelligence provided by God.

The difference between us is the problem that you continue to dodge and which I will now repeat: if God’s goal was to evolve H. sapiens (= directly design him stage by stage) plus food supply, why did he directly design millions of now extinct organisms and food supplies, 99% of which had no connection with humans? I have offered you numerous theistic theories, including two that allow for sapiens as the goal (experimentation, or new ideas as he goes along), and a theory (your God’s invention of autonomous cellular intelligence) that explains the vast variety of life forms NOT designed for the sole purpose of designing humans.

DAVID: That is still an acceptance of God in charge, just a step removed from control. Why you need that I have no idea, but it diminishes God's direct control, and perhaps it is your agnostic way of diminishing God's personality and control of purpose.

There is no diminution if your God CHOSE not to control evolution but to create an ever changing world full of surprises and wonders, including all the surprises and wonders produced by H. sapiens – whose autonomy you acknowledge. Not one of your comments makes any attempt to solve the logical problem that forms the bolded issue between us. I wish you would simply acknowledge, as you have done in the past, that you have no idea why he would have chosen the method you have chosen for him to fulfil the purpose you have chosen for him. Then at last we could move on.