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

by dhw, Saturday, February 26, 2022, 07:30 (999 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there.

dhw: This is getting ridiculous. That is YOUR view! It is you who claim that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, and so he separately designed all those organisms that had no connection with us!

DAVID: 'One and only purpose' is your overemphasized version of my views. Adler relies on humans as an endpoint. Nothing wrong with it. All the other organisms are steps in evolution and food supply for all.

All the other organisms that were not connected with humans were obviously steps in evolution if you believe in evolution, and obviously all organisms require and provide food. If, for the second time, you now definitively agree that NOT all past life forms, foods, econiches, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc. were “in preparation for humans” and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” or, in other words, were your God’s one and only purpose, then we can end this discussion.

DAVID: You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe in.

dhw: How many goals? As above, do you now definitively withdraw your theory that all your God’s creations were “in preparation for humans”? The alternative theistic versions that I have offered all show a purposeful God working towards his goal(s).

DAVID: Name your god's goals

I have named them umpteen times! They are ALTERNATIVE THEORIES, though some are interrelated, and you have acknowledged that they all fit in logically with life’s history, but you reject them all because they suggest thought patterns and logic that your God might have passed on to us, although you agree that your God might have passed thought patterns and logic on to us:
1) To enjoy creation and to provide interesting things to watch.
2) To set in motion an unpredictable process which he does not control and which will be more interesting to watch than one he controls (free-for-all).
3) Your constantly repeated one and only goal, which you have now twice renounced: experimenting in order to create a being that might resemble himself and form a relationship with him. (You have inadvertently accepted experimentation under “biggest bacterium”.)
4) In the course of 1), constantly coming up with new ideas, and eventually hitting on 3) which becomes a new goal, as opposed to being the one and only goal from the beginning.

DAVID: Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.

dhw: And you have totally missed the point, which is that I create a situation in which ideas produce new ideas which constantly surprise me because – although I may dabble if I wish – I do NOT control the behaviour of the characters once the story gets underway. I “watch them with interest” (but record what they do and say).

DAVID: Substituting your self-God version of writing control does not answer my objection to your views of your God-imagination process. My God view is well known. He works toward His established goals.

It was you who tried to draw an analogy between my writing process and your God’s creative process. If he exists, then of course he works towards his established goals, but nobody knows what they are. The analogy, however, fits perfectly if his “established goals” are to enjoy what he is creating – as I do- and if he gets enjoyment from setting the creative process in motion and then allowing it to follow its own course instead of trying to push it in a predetermined direction.

DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

dhw: It was you who tried to draw the analogy! It’s not my fault if you got it wrong! What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

dhw: You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

Evolution is split into unrelated branches, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans. Hence the absurdity of claiming that they were all “in preparation for humans “ and were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, unless of course you now opt for theory (3) above.