Let's study ID: giraffe plumbing: cognition; A new answer (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, November 15, 2021, 11:56 (1102 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Food webs are vital to all living organisms. It is a fact dhw admits and then poopoos. The current huge human population was anticipated for by God and prepared for by the giant food bush appearing from all the branches of evolution designed by God.

dhw: I don’t poopoo the blindingly obvious fact that food webs are vital to all living organisms. I poopoo the illogical theory that your God’s only purpose was to design humans and our food and therefore he proceeded to design countless life forms, foods and econiches that had no connection with humans. You never cease to dodge this obvious illogicality and to contradict yourself on the subject of past “food webs”. Yet again, these are your wise words: “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: Your confusion is amazing. These statements simply recognize that different previous time periods differ from the present, nothing more.

They are an acknowledgement that there is no connection between the food bushes of the past and the food bush of the present, which makes it absurd to argue that the food bushes of the present were “prepared for” by the food bushes of the past. Hence my questioning your illogical theory above (now bolded).

DAVID (responding later to the same problem): The obvious answer which confuses you is God chose to create humans by a stepwise design process that mimics Darwin's natural evolution.

That simply adds to the illogicality, since you also believe that your God is capable of designing species with no “stepwise” precursors (Cambrian). If I ask why God would have chosen to design humans “stepwise” if he was perfectly capable of designing us directly, it is not an answer to tell me that he chose to design us stepwise! Your theory remains as illogical as ever.

DAVID: we debate from the positions of belief in God and a non-belief in God.

That is another of your absurd dodges, since all the alternative theories I have offered you are theistic.

A new answer
This turns out to be a rehash of all your old answers!

DAVID: Your constant complaint is God's actions in evolution are illogical to you. You are comparing your human logic to God's logic and finding fault with His.

Wrong. I am finding fault with your logic.

DAVID: God has His own reasons for evolving us by designed stages from bacteria. Since I believe God created all of history in making this reality, I find no reason to question the history He created.

If he exists, the history he created was of countless species coming and going, with humans as the last to appear. It is NOT history to say that we were his only purpose, and it is NOT history to say that he individually designed every life form etc.

DAVID: You start from a position of no God at all, and then step in to try and interpret a God's actions.

I start from a position of life’s history and an assumption that God does exist, as this discussion does not concern his existence but his possible purpose for creating life, and his possible methods of achieving his purpose.

DAVID: My only interpretation of God's history is to follow Adler's approach, that we are so unusual a result from evolution, we must have been intended to appear by God. And in that way our appearance is a proof of God, since we cannot be the result of a natural process.

The subject is not God’s existence, but if he exists, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that whatever happened was his intention. You tell us that Adler does not cover your theory of evolution as bolded above, so I don’t know why you keep bringing him into your defence of it.

DAVID: And along the way you constantly ignore the necessity for food issue, which requires the huge varied bush of life providing the highly organized ecosystems that supply the food for all, until I force the issue.

Food issue dealt with above.

DAVID: But that doesn't make you backtrack from your constant illogical complaining about God's logic that you call illogical.

I have never once dared to criticize your God’s logic, and have gone out of my way to offer you logical ALTERNATIVE interpretations of his purpose and methods. You accept that they are logical, but reject them because they entail human patterns of thought, although you agree that he may have human patterns of thought. It is only your interpretation of his purpose and methods that leaves you floundering, as you have no idea why he would have chosen it. And yet you still insist that you know your God’s mind, and your illogical theory is HIS logic!