Evolution: fish to land animals transition (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 08, 2020, 14:06 (1234 days ago) @ David Turell

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

dhw: 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: Totally incoherent reply. You bold simply describes evolution which God chose to produce.
And
DAVID: God chose to evolve us. How is that illogical? You call it illogical with no real explanation of your thinking. You come across as criticizing God's method.

If your God exists, he chose evolution as his method of producing the universe, planet Earth, and EVERY life form, not just us. Nothing illogical. Evolution has produced millions of life forms. Nothing illogical. It is perfectly logical for a theist like yourself to theorize that God designed every life form out of preceding life forms (= common descent). One of those life forms is humans. Nothing illogical. Humans are unique, and God may have deliberately designed them too. Nothing illogical. So far so good. But now we come to the illogical parts of your theory: 1) if God’s ONLY PURPOSE was to create H. sapiens and his food supply, why would he have chosen to directly design millions of life forms and food supplies which died out long before the first humans came on the scene and which had no connection with humans? 2) How could millions of life forms and food supplies that had no connection with humans have been “part of the goal of evolving humans?”

In fairness, you have tried to find an explanation: that your God is limited in his powers. He was perfectly capable of directly designing every other form of life, but he was incapable of directly designing H. sapiens. Unfortunately, this still doesn’t explain WHY he would have directly designed all those millions of life forms (plus food supplies) that had no connection with humans if he only wanted H. sapiens (plus food supply), but at least this weaker form of God shows that you acknowledge the problem raised by your theory. The rest of your post offers no answer to the two questions above. I suggest that you stick with your occasional response: namely, you have no idea why he would have chosen the theoretical means of fulfilling the theoretical purpose bolded at the start of this post. We could leave it at that.