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

by dhw, Monday, April 04, 2022, 09:46 (962 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 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.

DAVID: I have specifically said your God is human […].

The various theories I present all fit in with your own opinion that your God probably has some thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and we mimic him. But I do not for one second imagine that a human could create a universe and everything in it.

DAVID: As for your complaint I can't explain God's reasons, it is off point as to how I think about God.

If you offer us a theory that your God had only one purpose (humans plus food) and his method of achieving it was to design countless organisms that did not lead to humans plus food, it is hardly off point as to how you think about God!

DAVID: I fully accept God's reality as His intent.

The reality is a vast, ever changing bush of life forms and econiches extant and extinct. We all have to accept that.

DAVID: Then I try to analyze why He might have done it, recognizing what you don't.

What don’t I recognize? That his purpose was us and our food, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?

DAVID: I am convinced God is not doing it out of self-interest. That is all part of my belief system.

And yet at one time you were sure he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. Being “convinced” is not, I’m afraid, much of an argument.

DAVID: 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.

This is a tiresome dodge. I keep repeating that I accept the logic of the design argument for God’s existence. It is your theistic theory of evolution bolded above that is illogical, which is why you tell me to go and ask God for an explanation, because “God makes sense only to Himself”.

God's choice of war over peace

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?

DAVID: See above, humanizing as usual.

Irrelevant. Why do you consider this proposal to be an attack on your God?

DAVID: 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.

You are slowly moving in the right direction. You have described reality as a “constant war to survive by eating”. Now you give examples of peace and war! So I’ll ask you why you think he chose to design war when obviously he was perfectly capable of designing peace.

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: 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.

I’m afraid I haven’t been able to count the number of species and econiches that have gone extinct over the last 3.X billion years, but I wait in vain for you to explain how every one of them could have been “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and our food, although the majority did not lead to humans and our food. Dodging the issue, “as you always do”, except when you admit you can’t see the logic either, and “God makes sense only to Himself.”

Shapiro

dhw: […]Will you please not tell me that I have inflated and misused his theory when I have reproduced it word for word.

DAVID: Don't pout. Quoting Shapiro's words are simply quoting his suggestion as to how evolution might advance.

Yes, I have quoted his theory in his own words.

DAVID: All based on free-living bacteria who must have the abilities they have to survive. Still here with those abilities helping us live.

He refers to cells in general, not just bacteria, and I quoted his own words, e.g. “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modificaton and cell fusions.” I have neither inflated nor abused his theory. By confining it to bacteria, you have deflated and abused it yourself. Ts ts!