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

by dhw, Thursday, April 14, 2022, 11:09 (736 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution of humans was a design method God used to arrive at His goal.

dhw: If he exists, then evolution of ALL life forms including humans and all those life forms that did not lead to humans was his design method. According to you, his “goal” for the other life forms was for them to eat one another (“food for all”)! Nothing to do with “preparation” for us.

DAVID: The first part of your thought is correct. Without food evolutionary 'preparation' stops.

Without food, all life stops. That does not mean that all life forms and foods for 3.X thousand million years were specially designed as preparation for humans and our food! You know it’s nonsense.

dhw: […] if your God’s only goal was us and our food, WHY did he not design us and our food directly?

DAVID: Ask Him!!! He made a choice and did not announce why!

It’s YOU who say we plus our food were his only goal! If you can’t think of any reason why he would set out to achieve his goal by designing life forms etc. that did not lead to his goal, then please face up to the possibility that your theory might be wrong.

dhw: Having no choice limits his powers. An alternative is that perhaps your theory is wrong, and there are logical explanations for his choice.

DAVID: Use your logic and inform us!

I have offered you several alternatives, each of which you agreed was logical, but each of which you rejected on the grounds that although your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, he doesn’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

dhw: Illogical: trilobites, brontosauruses and the duckbilled platypus are all biochemical, and therefore they were all specially designed as preparation for us and our food???

DAVID: Food for all on the evolutionary way to us.

See above, item 1.

DAVID: No!!! Your bias again. God is not human. He is a pure creator, who knows exactly what He wishes to create. His own emotional reactions, if any exist, are secondary and like ours.

dhw: I have never claimed that he is human, or that he did NOT create what he wished to create. You believe he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. How does that come to mean that he could not possibly have done his creating BECAUSE he wished to create things he could watch with interest?

DAVID: Same comment as above.

It is not an answer.

DAVID: God never requires experimentation. He designs directly.

dhw: You have just agreed that he did NOT design directly: the “only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history”. You can’t explain it. Experimentation can.

DAVID: Evolution by God was not experimentation but carefully planned evolution.

You have just told us he designs directly after telling us he does not design directly. Experimentation would explain why – in your theory – he deliberately designed life forms which did not lead – in your theory – to his one and only goal. “Carefully planned evolution” can hardly match the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of countless life forms and foods that did not lead to his one and only goal.

dhw: You harp on about the existing system, and I ask why he chose it. You guess that he couldn’t avoid the “errors” (which makes him less than all-powerful),whereas I propose that he created what he wanted to create: a system in which the components were free to find their own ways of surviving.

DAVID:I don't harp on it, I defend it. As for your distortion in bold, God chose the only system that would work and knew errors were probable because of the high-speed requirement. Very accurate editing systems He designed work wonderfully watching over trillions of reactions per nanosecond. It is a wonder and you despise it.

The distortion is entirely yours. I do not despise it. I only question your claim that an all-powerful God had no choice, and that his system produced errors he could not control. Instead, I suggest that he designed precisely what he wanted to design.

dhw: 7)5) and 6) were the only systems that would work, and so he had no choice, although he chose to design them that way.

This was a reference to your self-contradictions concerning whether or not your God had a choice.

DAVID: God designed the only system that would work, NO choice involved.

Three days ago, you wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view.” These contradictions are inevitable when you try to defend theories which don’t make sense even to you.