Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, May 23, 2022, 08:46 (697 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

Symbiosis and reproduction

dhw: If God exists, I also accept that the history would have been his doing. And the history is a long winding road leading off in countless directions, many of which came to a dead end and had no connection with humans plus their food. You cannot explain why God would have specially designed all the dead-end side roads if his only purpose was to build one road to humans plus food.

DAVID: See todays' entry on parasite contribution to ecosystems for an answer your confusion about ecosystems.

Your repeated effort to escape from your own confusion is dealt with under "Parasite good influence" below.

dhw: So maybe he had a different purpose for designing them, or maybe he didn’t design them at all. Please will you finally stop assuming that he individually designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. and that every one of them served the purpose of preparing the way for humans plus food. That is your theory – it is not the history!

DAVID: But I view it as the history of God's works.

The history is countless life forms, the vast majority of which did not lead to humans and our food. Your theory of God’s purpose (solely to create humans plus our food) and method (to individually design every life form, econiche etc, including all those that did NOT lead to humans) is not history but your personal INTERPRETATION of history, which is so illogical that you cannot explain it yourself.

Parasite good influence

DAVID: : dhw diminishes the true understanding of why ecosystems had to evolve and stabilize by repeatedly stating his view of my theories as 'God only wanted humans and their food'.

That is precisely your theory, repeated over and over again. You claim that every past ecosystem was preparation for/part of “the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food, and “the creation of a diversity of life is an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process to finally produce humans.” And you have no idea why the creation of 3.x billion years’ worth of mainly extinct organisms and ecosystems were absolutely necessary for your all-powerful God to produce the only species (plus food) that he wanted to produce. Nor have you any idea why your God, who was perfectly capable of producing new species without precursors, should have decided to produce the only species he wanted in its-bitsy stages. Your theory “makes sense only to God.” You simply refuse to contemplate the possibility that the history might denote a different purpose and/or method.

DAVID: What a lack of understanding the point! The evolutionary process had to develop a giant interlocking bush of ecosystems, all related to each other.

You think the 3.x billion years’ worth of specially designed and extinct ecosystems, life forms, natural wonders etc. were interlocking and related to one another and to our current bush/life forms/natural wonders etc., while at the same time you agree emphatically that past bushes were for the past, and extinct life has no role in current time. You keep tying yourself in knots with your contradictions.

DAVID: My form of belief was perfectly comfortable with IDer's I met. The way you propose to think about God has always been foreign to me, probing, doubting, and always conceiving of Him as partially human in thought.

dhw: You and ID-ers and all religious folk would be comfortable with the theory that God exists. But your antipathy towards the possibility that God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours would be bitterly opposed by most of the religious folk I know, and you have never yet succeeded in finding one single name to back the combination of contradictions that make up your theory of evolution, as dissected over and over again.

DAVID: I self-distill many expert thoughts to reach my own conclusions. All we who accept God can completely assume is that He created reality.

Of course. That includes the history described above: past species and ecosystems that have no role in the present.

DAVID: Beyond His role as a planner and creator, any guesses about his personal thoughts are sheer conjecture. I try to avoid considering the human conjectures in the various religious books. Adler's suggests that God having any feelings is 50/50!

Your assumption that he individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc., and did so for the sole purpose of design human plus food, is pure conjecture; In your less blinkered moments, you even dare to offer your own "human" conjectures: e.g. God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, is too kind to deliberately create harmful things (and even tries to correct the “errors” arising from his system), wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. And if Adler suggests that God having “feelings” is 50/50, it is plainly absurd to discount the possibility that God has “feelings”.