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

by David Turell , Friday, April 01, 2022, 16:09 (965 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same old humanization. Of course He is pure purpose. my constant position.

dhw: What is “pure” purpose? According to you, his only purpose was to design us and our food, but he designed countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us. Please explain what you mean by “pure”.

God creates. We can know nothing more about Him. I see Him as directly purposeful with no emotional overlays concerning Himself.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Tell us how your peaceful biology would work given the energy requirement.

dhw: There are plenty of organisms, including ourselves, whose biological systems obtain their energy from sources that do not have to be killed or obtained by fighting other organisms.

DAVID: Really? You never eat meat?

dhw: It is perfectly possible for organisms, including you and me, to survive without eating meat! However, according to you, your God deliberately designed life forms that can only survive by eating meat. So clearly he wanted war – otherwise he wouldn’t have designed them. And so I ask why he chose war over peace. Do you think your all-powerful God would have been incapable of designing a world in which there were no meat-eaters?

I don't know how. Do you? Remember, I accept God's choices. You may need to think about answering your own questions for God. I don't need to.

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”

DAVID: Plants peacefully absorb energy and animals attack each other.

dhw: Correct.

DAVID: Tell me how totally peaceful animals would be in your God's world. Would they all eat veggies? Including how would bacteria eat?

dhw: Your God would not have designed carnivores, and bacteria can eat anything.

So your veggie eating bacteria would be passive? There goes Darwin's struggle for survival which included warring animals.

dhw: You accused me of “inflating” and “misusing” his [Shapiro’s] theory. The fact that you disagree with it does not mean that I have inflated or misused it.

DAVID: You just have used it: " He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty." He proposes a theory that, based on bacteria, might possibly help explain evolution. See the difference?

dhw: Why do you say “based on bacteria”? His theory as quoted is not limited to bacteria, and his conclusion does not even mention them! You are the one who is now deflating and misusing his theory!

What did Shapiro work with for his theory? Bacteria!!!

DAVID: Recognize his bacteria subjects are free-living organisms who need the ability to fully adapt to current constant challenges. They edit DNA and we have epigenetic methyl tags for minor changes. That is all we need. So I see you 'inflating' to satisfy your wish for intelligent cells.

dhw: It is not a wish, and I have neither inflated nor misused his theory. Read what you quoted (The Atheist Delusion, pp. 142-143). I also find it far more plausible than your 3.8-billion-year programme or your God dabbling every evolutionary novelty and natural wonder in life’s history, and doing so as “preparation” for humans plus our food.

Still plausibly conflating Shapiro, IMHO.