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

by dhw, Monday, March 14, 2022, 11:15 (983 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.

dhw: The non-connected branches all descended from Archaea, but in what way could they have been “preparation” for humans if they ended up as non-humans and did not provide food for humans? You keep admitting you have no idea, and yet you keep obfuscating through your “food-for-all” evasion.

DAVID: You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.

I don’t “evade” it. I merely point out that “food for all” does not mean that all past foods and all past eaters and past eaten were “preparation” for humans, and were part of your God’s “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself…

dhw: But you guessed that his purpose for designing us was that we should admire his work and maybe have a relationship with him. You also guessed that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. How can these be “without regard to Himself”?

DAVID: Exactly guesses as how secondary effects of His works MIGHT affect him!

How can enjoying creating and being interested in his creations, and wanting admiration and a relationship, be “secondary effects”? Do you think he didn’t know he enjoyed, was interested, wanted admiration and a relationship until after he’d done his creating?

DAVID: …His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization.

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

DAVID: Somewhere in the past you discussed God changing course!

Perhaps this relates to one of my theories: that in the course of creating new life forms etc., he might have learned new things and come up with new ideas, including that of creating a life form with thought patterns, emotions and logic like his own. As you agreed, that would be a perfectly logical theistic explanation for that part of evolution’s history which you can’t explain.

DAVID: I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.

dhw: I have never twisted your comments into facts: on the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your theories and your guesses are NOT facts although you constantly present them as if they were. The worst of all is your assumption that your illogical theory of evolution (God designed every unconnected life form and food as preparation for humans plus food, and as part of his one and only goal of designing humans plus food) is fact, and I mustn’t query it.

DAVID: But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.

Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

DAVID: See today's ID video entry. Right on point,

It simply makes your own theory even more self-contradictory.

Let's study ID: no tree of life

An ID video of 15 minutes doesn't even accept a bush:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-tree-of-life-is-just-ground-cover/

DAVID: Homology and genetic comparisons don't work to make a tree. Really trying to deny Darwin's common descent. Mirrors dhw's complaint that the road to humans was too torturous as a reasonable approach for God to follow.

Too torturous if he started out with the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess!