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

by David Turell , Thursday, May 26, 2022, 15:44 (910 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you denigrate the vital need for food energy to support life over 3.8 by of evolution. That is what all the branches that do not lead to human provide. We are worried now about ecosystem damage that might reduce food supply.

dhw: Once again: all forms of life require food. That does not mean that all the branches and foods that did not lead to humans and our food were specially designed as “an absolute requirement” in preparation for humans and our food! And the fact that our current ecosystems are in danger is totally irrelevant to the question of why your God specially designed countless extinct life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us and our ecosystems if his one and only aim was to design us and our ecosystems!

But evolution did lead to us. You can't deny it. And you still denigrate the food supply need, as evidenced by the 'worry'. Without all those existing branches of the bush evolution created our food supply would not handle our burgeoning population. You can't have it both ways. The designer foresaw His creatged future.

DAVID: Your mindset is relevant and rigid. You see the design that keeps you agnostic. The next logical step for a logical human mind is to recognize the design complexity must be created by a designing mind. Where or how that mind came from is irrelevant. All of the new information that exists in living matter has to come from somewhere. See today's entry.

dhw: I keep acknowledging the logic behind the design theory. But the same logic tells me that if our human minds require a source, then a mind infinitely more powerful than ours must also have a source. You acknowledge that belief in some sort of supernatural, eternal, sourceless, all-powerful form of consciousness requires faith, as does belief in the powers of chance to create life and consciousness. Both beliefs defy logic. You know all this, as we have gone over it again and again, and you have only switched the discussion in this direction as a means of dodging the issues raised by all the contradictions bolded above, that lead to theories which you can’t explain and which “make sense only to God”. Please stick to the subject.

DAVID: The subject is proof of a designer. The whole debate at its base is does God exist? And, yes, if God exists, He is sourceless. You don't like my interpretations of what I think are His actions and possible motives. but I like them, as they make perfect sense to me.

dhw: Look at the heading. The subject is “David’s theory of evolution”, and our discussion presupposes the existence of God and concerns the many contradictions in your theistic theory, as well as providing various theistic alternatives to it. See Part Two for your idea of “sense”.

Your headlines must guide discussion!!! Wow!!!