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

by David Turell , Monday, May 23, 2022, 15:21 (697 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

Symbiosis and reproduction

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.

dhw: 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.

I interpret it as God's works, which is not illogical if one believes in a designer. Your psychiatric view of my mind's decisions is patently absurd. I don't explain God's actions. I attempt to interpret them, using a view of God, whose characteristics you won't accept.

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'.

dhw: 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.

Your offhand 'plus food' shows your lack of understanding. It is so simple: God chose to evolve humans over much time for his own reasons. Ecosystems provided necessary required food along the way. You simply criticize God's method.

dhw: 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.

Why can't you accept God's history? You simply criticise.

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.

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

How can the past also be part of the present? Evolution is a pure continuum

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!

dhw: 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”.

I said 50/50. Not a discount.