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

by dhw, Friday, May 27, 2022, 08:20 (694 days ago) @ David Turell

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!

DAVID: But evolution did lead to us. You can't deny it.

Of course I don’t deny it. It also led to the duckbilled platypus. And according to you, your God specially designed countless numbers of extinct life forms and econiches that did not lead to us or our food. For the thousandth time, why would he specially design all of them if his one and only purpose was to design us (plus our food)?

DAVID: 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 created future.

All life needs food. The existing branches of our food supply, as you have so rightly observed, are for the PRESENT, and the vast majority of the food supplies you say your God specially designed over 3.X billion pre-human years were for the PAST, and “extinct life has no role to play in current time”. Please stop pretending that I denigrate the importance of food for us and every other species that ever lived. I denigrate a theory which claims that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our econiches, and therefore he designed countless life forms and econiches which did not lead to us and our econiches.

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.

DAVID: Your headlines must guide discussion!!! Wow!!!

Our discussion of your theory of evolution presupposes the existence of your God, and focuses on your interpretation of his purpose, method and nature. As you cannot explain your theory, which apparently “makes sense only to God”, I can understand why you are anxious to change the subject.

Source of information

DAVID: My theory of evolution fits exactly how a designer would have done it, as based on the actual history. I have explained an answer to each of your objections, but they don't satisfy your constant doubt.

dhw: Your various theories of evolution have led you to make the following statements:
“What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?”

dhw: I’m sorry, but I do not regard your inability to explain your theory as an explanation.

DAVID: I chose to accept what God did as His intent. There is no way I can know his underlying reasoning. I can't explain it for you is a reasonable retort.

All my alternative theories “choose to accept” what God did as his intent. If he exists, what he did is what constitutes life and its history of species and econiches that came and went, our own being the most recent. None of us can know his reasoning, and so we have various theories. You cannot find any sense in your own, whereas you admit my various alternatives are logical, and you dismiss them solely on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought and emotion, although even your hero Adler acknowledges that there is a 50/50 chance that your God has such thought patterns and emotions.