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

by David Turell , Sunday, April 03, 2022, 15:24 (963 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course I can accept that and have in the past, when I have told you: if I accept your human form of God. Anything about God is possible, when possible personalities are considered.

dhw: This is a major breakthrough. You have previously rejected it BECAUSE you claim that it “humanizes” God, though this contradicts your belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. I do not ask you to believe any of my alternative theories. There are two things I ask you to accept: 1) that your own theory is illogical – you have repeatedly agreed that you can’t explain it, and then in the next breath have claimed that it is logical; 2) that my logical alternatives (enjoyment and interest, free-for-all, experimentation, ongoing learning) are all possible. This you have now done. Thank you.

I have specifically said your God is human, bolded above. As for your complaint I can't explain God's reasons, it is off point as to how I think about God. I fully accept God's reality as His intent. Then I try to analyze why He might have done it, recognizing what you don't. I am convinced God is not doing it out of self-interest. That is all part of my belief system. My theory is Adler's. God produced humans purposely and our extremely unusual result is a proof of God. Your twisted views of God force you to conclude Adler and I are illogical.

God's choice of war over peace

dhw: If your all-powerful God exists, then it was his choice to create a world in which survival depends on war. […] 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. […]

DAVID: You are attacking God's choice of method as usual.

dhw: I am NOT attacking it! Assuming God exists, it is painfully clear that his choice was war over peace, and so I am asking why he might have made that choice. Why do think it is an attack if I suggest that freedom is more interesting than automaticity, and interest is more enjoyable than boredom?

See above, humanizing as usual.

DAVID: Free moving and free will organisms can do as they wish, and you wish God programmed them to be passive. Is that your personal preference? That is obviously what God did not do. We are back to your unanswerable questions.

dhw: You have completely missed the point. I don’t have a wish or a personal preference, and it is obvious that your God did NOT choose peace. If, as I suppose, you are interested in discussing the nature, purpose and method of your God – assuming he exists – then we can hardly avoid discussing his choices and reasons, even if we can never know the objective truth (unless he tells us).

My answer stands: God's freely-acting organisms can be passive or aggressive. Horses eat grass and stallions fight. Same with deer, ram sheep, etc. Why does God need to tranquilize all? Many don't eat each other, many do.

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: What you never accept is the delicacy of the design of those vital systems, or their interrelation, as related to the current massive human population needs for food. The same needs were present in the past and the now and explains in large part the need for evolutionary bushiness all along. All anticipated in God's plans

dhw: I am not questioning the delicacy of those vital systems both past and present! But the current massive human population has only been around for about a minute in geological terms. And so what I question is your assumption that every past ecosystem for every past form of life was designed in “preparation”, as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food, although the vast majority of those past life forms and econiches did NOT lead to humans and our food.

You've lost the point as USUAL. A tiny bush in the past has become a giant bush of food now. The past creates the now. Slicing it up as you always do.

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

dhw: […] 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 [...]

DAVID: And I believe it fully, but I recognize its limits. You jump in hook line and sinker to try and salvage your hope that cells think for themselves, when all they are doing is following intelligent onboard instructions.

dhw: It is not a “hope”, and I recognize that it is a theory not a fact. You do not “recognize” its limits (Shapiro claims that intelligent cells design evolutionary novelties) – you simply disagree, because you believe cells are not intelligent and only follow your God’s instructions. Finally, will you please not tell me that I have inflated and misused his theory when I have reproduced it word for word.

Don't pout. Quoting Shapiro's words are simply quoting his suggestion as to how evolution might advance. All based on free-living bacteria who must have the abilities they have to survive. Still here with those abilities helping us live.