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

by dhw, Saturday, April 02, 2022, 07:57 (749 days ago) @ David Turell

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”.

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

We’re off again. We can’t even “know” if he exists. Your guess that his purpose has “no emotional overlays concerning Himself” has no more authority or evidence than the guess that his purpose does have such overlays. The fact of the matter is that you have guessed to the point of being certain that he enjoys creating (or he wouldn’t do it) and is interested in his creations. You therefore cannot claim that he definitely doesn’t feel enjoyment or interest, and so it would be perfectly logical for you to accept the possibility that satisfying these feelings may constitute his purpose.

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 your theory, 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 your version of an all-powerful God chose war over peace. Do you think he would have been incapable of designing a world in which there were no meat-eaters?

DAVID: I don't know how. Do you? Remember, I accept God's choices. […]

If your all-powerful God exists, then it was his choice to create a world in which survival depends on war. It’s not a matter of accepting or rejecting it. I’m asking why he would have made that choice! You keep telling us that despite his omnipotence he had to do it that way, because you can’t imagine him creating a Garden of Eden. I can, and I’d like to know why he didn’t, as this might give us some insight into his nature and purpose.

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.

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

Of course there would be no struggle for survival if your God chose peace! You seem to have forgotten that according to you, he designs every single species individually. So all he would have had to do is design happy vegetarians and bacteria that didn’t have to wage war in order to survive. Why didn’t he? Do you really believe he couldn’t?

Crazy ants

DAVID: We are aware that a fungus can attack leaf-eating ants and change their behaviour. This is sort of similar. The Crazy Ants are not a bad bug. as we have discussed about bacteria, just an ant in the wrong environment.

Like “bad” bacteria and viruses, they are in the right environment for them, just as the fungus is in its own right environment. Yet another example of the war you think your God chose to design.

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: The reason I presented this article is dhw's attitude about the need for food energy when he does not see to recognize how vital each system is for life to exist.

EVERY ORGANISM NEEDS FOOD! Each ecosystem is vital for the particular life forms that depend on it. That does not mean that every extinct ecosystem was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! Please stop dodging the illogicality of your theory of evolution by pretending I don’t know that life needs energy.

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!

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

Do you really think he hasn’t considered the research of other scientists in coming to his conclusion? His theory concerns all cells, not just bacteria, and I have not inflated or misused it. Your attempt to belittle it by sniping at his own particular field of expertise does not alter the theory itself, which is precisely what I presented, as quoted word for word in your book!