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

by dhw, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 13:27 (848 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You keep claiming that ID-ers and Adler support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food and yet he also designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Then in the same breath you tell us that they do not discuss your theory! How can they all be “with” you if they don’t ever mention your theory?

DAVID: My theory comes from their beliefs!!!

Your theory is an extension of their belief that God designed all life forms (ID-ers) and sapiens proves God's existence (Adler), and it is the extension (God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food) that makes no sense, because it raises the unanswerable question: if his only purpose was sapiens plus food, why did he design all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens plus food?

Later in your post:
dhw: How many “believers” believe that all the countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food prove that God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food? You have said yourself that not even your ID-ers or your beloved Adler even discuss such a theory!

DAVID: ID'ers theories and Adler lead directly to my theory.

And what an illogical mess it is. No wonder neither ID-ers nor Adler ever discuss it.

dhw: You jump from the beginning – bacteria – to humans, as if every single life form in between was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food, although the vast majority of them throughout 3.X billion years had no connection with humans!

DAVID: So in your view we cannot trace how humans developed from bacteria and evolution is discontinuous?

That is not my view at all! I don’t know how often you want me to say this: evolution branched out into countless life forms and econiches, the majority of which had no connection with humans plus food! You keep insisting that ALL branches were part of the goal of evolving humans plus food. Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

Importance of ecosystems

dhw: […] 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.

DAVID: I reject Deism fully. Where does that possibility appear here?

dhw: You claimed that the imagined God I present was “unlike one ever described”. This imagined God (all versions are imagined, since no one can “know” if he actually exists) is one who created life and then allowed life to pursue its own course (= a free-for-all). That view of God is called Deism.

DAVID: So you sort of believe in Deism?

I do not have a belief. I am an agnostic. But this does not stop me from speculating on what a possible God might have intended if he created life. You wrote that one of my proposals (the free-for-all) was “unlike one ever described”. You had forgotten about Deism.

DAVID: By the way you started this site to explore agnosticism as one purpose. Where are the agnostic comments from other agnostics to support you? All you've got is me.

Agnosticism is not a purpose! The purpose of the website was to have an open forum on all the mysteries for which nobody has a proven solution! Initially, we had lots of contributors who included atheists and reverends and other agnostics. But perhaps inevitably, all our discussions ended in a kind of stalemate, although I for one have learned an enormous amount in the course of the last 14 years. Especially, I must add, from you. Why are we now the only contributors? Probably because those who hoped to convert us to their views gave up trying, others may have felt that we were going round in circles (true) and getting nowhere (true). Nevertheless, there are still hundreds of people logging on to various posts – especially your natural wonders series – and even some of our own repetitive discussions are clearly of interest to a few readers! I’d be reluctant to close the site down so long as you are prepared to go on providing us with so much educational material, for which I myself am always extremely grateful.