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

by dhw, Thursday, March 17, 2022, 09:05 (765 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.

dhw: You do not wish to recognize the obvious truth of your own statement that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and so it is patently absurd to argue that every extinct past food was specially designed in preparation for human food. Ditto your fixed belief that every extinct organism was specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.

Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. But as usual, you are sidestepping the issue, this time ignoring the fact that evolution is a bush that split up into countless branches, the majority of which have died out and did NOT lead to humans or to their food. We are at the end of only one branch, and past foods were for the past and not for the present. Don’t you ever get tired of dodging?

DAVID: I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

dhw: I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. [...] And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: Our guesses about the above attributes you list agree.

Then please stop moaning about my “humanizing” God, since you do exactly the same.

DAVID: The difference is in how God decides to create in the process of His designed evolution. He does not need to experiment, change his mind in midstream or create anything just for His enjoyment as in free-for-all.

Experimentation is an explanation for that part of your own theory which you can’t explain: if your God’s purpose was to design humans plus our food, why did he design all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us? You can reject it, of course, but then that leaves you with no idea how to explain your illogical theory. None of my theories have him changing his mind in midstream. Looking for new ideas, learning and discovering, can be a purpose in itself. If you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, why is it illogical to theorize that his purpose might be to enjoy creating something that will interest him?

DAVID: […] If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t disappear. The complexity of humans, just like the complexity of all life forms, is such that it is perfectly logical to argue that they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. You have told us repeatedly that Adler does NOT cover your own illogical theory, so please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: I'm not hiding behind him any more than you hide behind Shapiro. Adler uses evolution as I do with humans as the purposeful endpoint. My only difference with Adler is I try to analyze how God did it.

Shapiro proposes cellular intelligence, and I find his argument convincing. Adler proposes design and hence a designer, and I find his proposal convincing. You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT propose that your God individually designed every single life form, food, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food.

DAVID: And as usual your illogical complaint about my view of evolution is still highly illogical to me. It always comes across as why not direct creation?

Of course it does. You can’t explain why an all-powerful God with only one purpose would not fulfil that purpose directly! In view of the fact that he did NOT fulfil your version of his purpose directly, it is perfectly logical to suggest that maybe he had a different purpose!