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

by David Turell , Friday, May 27, 2022, 17:15 (909 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: 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)?

His endpoint was/is us. For the millionth time I can't answer your question. That it was the method God chose is obvious. Your human level objection is that it is roundabout. And Adler's point that we are an amazing unexpected result is absolutely valid.

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.

dhw: 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.

Same irrational criticism of God's method.

dhw: 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.

I'm happy to continue this discussion until you understand how irrational your objections are to me. We think about 'my God' totally differently. Your 'God' is unrecognizable to me.

Source of information

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.

dhw: 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.

The 50/50 differs from your statement: it is whether God cares about us at all.