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

by dhw, Thursday, May 12, 2022, 11:31 (924 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I think by now I 've established the overall importance of ecosystems created by the enormous diverse bush of life. Since living creatures must eat, and the human population has grown so big, the bush must be that enormous. That explains away dhw's compliant that God did not know what He was doing and creating all the bush instead of creating humans straightaway. Accepting humans as God's primary goal, it all makes perfect sense, with God preparing for the huge human population He knew would appear.(dhw’s bold)

dhw: Meanwhile, you still haven’t identified any intermediate goals. And finally, my complaint is not that “God did not know what he was doing”. My complaint is that your theory is riddled with contradictions.

DAVID: I have identified all the developed branches of the bush create the necessary ecosystems. Intermediate goals.

You cut out the whole of my answer to the above! Yet again, necessary for what??? You have left out the crucial part of your theory, plus your own repudiation of it! As bolded above, you insist that 3.X billion years’ worth of ecosystems were all preparation for the huge human population, and yet (as quoted yesterday) “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” These statements make perfect sense, and make nonsense of the claim that past ecosystems were preparation for the current population of humans.

DAVID: You see contradictions you invent because you do not understand how to view God as a purposeful being. Your constant humanizing is proof.

This is not a contradiction invented by me. And if God exists, I have no doubt that he would be purposeful. My alternative theories explain different possible purposes and/or methods, which you dismiss as “humanizing”, yet again contradicting your own perfectly rational agreement that as our creator he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own – not to mention your certainty (related to just one of my alternative theories) that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

Schroeder

DAVID: He explains it in his terms to me. My theories are from a distillation of Schroeder.
And:
DAVID: I'm sorry that I don't have time to go back and refresh my memory. What you have from me is a distillation of all I have read and my logical conclusions. In all of our discussions about God's possible personality, we are in wide disagreement. We do not think about God in the same way which keeps us far apart.

dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. (It won’t, because you continue to push your theory in other posts – e.g. today on fungi.)

Thank you for repeating this, and I fully understand your reluctance to reply. Perhaps I should simply keep repeating it whenever you tell us that your combined theories make perfect sense and that your inability to explain them is an explanation of those theories, which only make sense to God.