Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 14:18 (23 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: But do they believe that all forms, served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: Not discussed by them.

dhw: Then please stop pretending that they support your theory!

DAVID: Their theory is God designed all of evolution. That is my theory!!

But it is also your theory that his purpose for designing all forms, including all those that had no connection with humans, was to design humans and their food. THAT is what they do not discuss, and THAT is the part of your theory which doesn’t make sense, and you know it […]

dhw: Thank you for confirming for the umpteenth time that Adler does not cover your one-man campaign for a God who designed every life form, including all those that had no connection with humans, “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans" plus food. You can’t even lean on Adler.

DAVID: Your complaint is a total distortion of my logic. Adler says human evolution proves God exists, and ID says God designed all of evolution from bacteria to humans. In that way I see humans as the desired endpoint for God. You can't erase 3.8 billion years of life getting from there to here.

But that is precisely what you do. You try to erase 3.8 billion years of your God individually designing countless forms of life that had no connection with humans plus food although you insist that designing humans plus food was his only purpose or “goal”!

dhw: I accept the “design” logic that underlies your opinion. I also accept the logical argument that if life and consciousness require design, the living, conscious being you call God must have been designed. You opt for the mystery of your first-cause God, and atheists opt for the mystery of how first-cause materials can combine into life and consciousness. I cannot put my faith in either option/opinion.

DAVID: And therefore deny the need for a designing mind.

I don’t deny anything! I accept the logic of both arguments, but since both arguments create an insoluble mystery, I find it impossible to make a decision.

Importance of ecosystems
DAVID: […] The connection you object to in your confusion is evolution involves progressive steps of which we are the last. How can we be the last if the previous rest played no role??

dhw: Evolution does not involve one line of progressive steps from bacteria to humans! It involves countless steps towards countless life forms, the vast majority of which did NOT lead to us! That is why, when I ask you why your God created all those life forms that had no connection with us, you reply that you have no idea and I should go and ask God.

DAVID: But you have had my answer for God's purpose: the bush must exist as a huge food supply for all.

Which bush? You agree that past bushes were necessary for past life forms and present for present life forms. Most past life forms had no connection with humans and their food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were “part of the goal of evolving humansand our food bush!

DAVID: My God is not the tunnel-visioned one you imagine but creates logically in His controlled fashion. But I've always challenged your imagined God, unlike one ever described.

If your God exists and only has one purpose – humans and their food – then he has tunnel vision. I challenge YOUR tunnel-visioned view of God, because according to you he also designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change
DAVID: the food supply controls the speed of evolution to some degree, just as it is assumed oxygen does, but neither substance, causes the speed. but allows it. This is why dhw's complaint about 'humans and their food' is so silly.

dhw: I agree that food supply and oxygen were vital conditions for the emergence of new species. ALL new species, including ALL those that had no connection with humans. How does that explain why your God would have specially designed ALL those that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, and if bush before was for ‘before’ and bush now is for ‘now’? Please stop trying to divert attention away from the illogicality of your two combined basic premises.

DAVID: When you accept God your illogicality dissolves. My basic premise is God designed evolution and once that is accepted all my theories fall into place.

Please stop kidding yourself. When asked why your God would have specially designed every extinct form that had no connection with humans plus food, although his only purpose was humans plus food, your answer is either to dodge the question or to agree that you have no idea and I should ask God. But if you now think you can explain it, please do so.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum