A possible God's possible purpose and nature (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by dhw, Friday, July 23, 2021, 10:33 (93 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My point is survival doesn't drive evolution.

dhw: Not survival but the NEED to find ways of surviving or improving ways of surviving. Even if you think your God designed every single method, the reason for eating, adapting, hunting, self-defence etc. is to improve chances of survival, and it is absurd to say that the reason for something is not a driving force.

DAVID: Does survival force changes that drive evolution to advance? There is no evidence, just Darwinist proposals. That is my point you leave unchallenged as pure theory.

Please tell us what is the purpose of adapting to new conditions, and improving methods of finding food and of self-protection, if it is not to improve chances of survival.

Venus sea sponge
QUOTE: "That lingering could help the filter feeders catch more plankton. And because Venus’s-flower-baskets can reproduce sexually, it could also enhance the chances that free-floating sperm encounter eggs, the researchers say."

DAVID: there is no way this developed step wise by chance mutations. To protect the organism from damage by uncontrolled currents this had to be designed all at once. Tentative adaptations would have had current damage the organism. Try to deny a designer with this example.

dhw: When have I ever proposed chance mutations for such developments? You could hardly have a better example of the manner in which Shapiro’s intelligent cells could design methods of improving their chances of survival. Please note the emphasis on MORE plankton, and ENHANCING the chances of reproduction. You claim to believe in common descent: so why can’t you believe that earlier forms caught LESS plankton and were LESS productive?

DAVID: I implied none of your statement.

You claimed “it had to be designed all at once” – as if there were no predecessors, and this was creation “de novo”.

dhw: All the branches of all the complex organisms that had no connection with humans had to have food. How does that come to mean that all the branches that had no connection with humans were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food?

DAVID: The multiple branches are all part of ecosystems that help supply food for an enormous human population.

How can all the past multiple branches and ecosystems have supplied food for the present human population? How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.

DAVID: My theory is fully explained by stating God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Nothing is left out.

dhw: Your statement does not explain why he chose to evolve every other life form plus food from bacteria if his only goal was to evolve humans plus food.

DAVID: It is amazing you don't recognize that what I state is how evolution works!!! Same tired old illogical complaint.

It is amazing that you should think “evolution works” by God individually designing every life form and food supply that ever existed solely for the purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food supply.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum