Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, January 20, 2022, 11:36 (129 days ago) @ David Turell

Taken from “More miscellany”, as this covers most of the entries on this thread.

dhw: […] when will you (leave Adler out, since you say he doesn’t deal with your theory) finally explain to us why a God whose one and only goal was to design humans plus food took all the trouble to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Simple answer you refuse to accept: God chose to evolve us from bacteria. And all life needs food which the vast variety of life provides. A full answer to your empty illogical complaint.

But according to you, he also chose to individually design countless other life forms that had no connection with us, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Yes, all life needs and always needed food, but that does not mean that all extinct life forms and all extinct foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food. If an all-powerful God has ONE purpose, why would he devote himself to designing things that have no connection with his purpose? One of your answers:
I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” By “evolve” you mean design, and we can emphasize the word “all”. Why don’t you leave it at that and stop pretending that you have given me a “full” answer?

DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks. […] Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

dhw: You mean your illogical theory never enters their minds, just as you say it never entered Adler’s.

DAVID: They follow the same theory as I do and Adler assumes. God designed all life as He wished to do.

If God exists, then of course he would have designed what he wished to design! How do you manage to jump from that to your illogical theory that he only wished to design us, and therefore wished to design countless life forms that had no connection with us? Stop dodging!

dhw: […] please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: Same confusion. Survival does not drive speciation is the issue. What group of scientists say what?

Why do you keep using the same formula, which of course makes no sense? You’re just playing with language. Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival. You wrote that this theory is disputed by a large group of trained scientists. And I expressed my surprise, since this seems to me to be so obvious. Whether your God designed autonomous mechanisms, or a computer programme, or popped in to perform operations, the changes would still be for the same purpose: to improve the organism’s chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum