Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, August 06, 2022, 13:26 (628 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So how can you possibly know that his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create us and our ecosystems, and that he individually designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle and natural wonder as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us, although most of them had no connection with us?

DAVID: I don't know the absolute truths about God. I believe the logic that current biologic research tells me the complexity insists a designer did it. My concept of God's totally differs from yours as our discussions show. As for your question about God planning for us from the beginning, Adler's discussion is quite clear. Of course, Adler discusses it by saying our arrival proves God must exist, from his analysis of evolution.

dhw: We are not discussing what Adler believes or doesn’t believe, but in any case, the logic of the design argument as evidence for God’s existence has never been the subject of this disagreement. You keep using it as a way of dodging the illogicality of your theory as bolded above.

DAVID: How can I not use design??? Its basis is having to recognize a designer and noting an endpoint of humans, which is so unusual that it also supports a purposeful designer with an obvious endpoint in mind. How you cannot follow this reasoning is beyond me.

As usual, you are dodging the point at issue by editing out those factors which make your theory illogical. All of the above IS logical. What is not logical is your claim that your all-powerful God started out with the sole purpose of designing sapiens and his food, but individually designed 3.X billion years’ worth of species, ecosystems, lifestyles and natural wonders the majority of which had no connection with sapiens plus food. A further illogicality is your claim that your all-powerful God was able to created species that had no precursors, and yet the only species he actually wanted to design (apart from our food) passed through stage after stage. You cannot explain either of these anomalies, and admit that they "make sense only to God". But you refuse even to consider the possibility that one or more of them might be wrong.

dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. As above, how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? You make up his attributes (and non-attributes) as you go along in order to rescind all the humanizing features you have given him! And then you complain that my alternative theories of evolution “humanize” him.

You abandoned this discussion.

DAVID: What makes sense to God is His choice to evolve us, which makes perfect sense to me. Any absurdity is your lack of logic in recognizing complex design by not the obvious need for an existing designer.

The same old dodge: focusing on the argument for God’s existence, the logic of which I accept, and ignoring all the above illogicalities of your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method.

DAVID: You will never recognize I accept what God has created for His own unknown reasons, without having to know the reasons.

dhw: But you insist that you DO know the reason: the reason was to design sapiens plus our food, although the vast majority of the life forms and ecosystems you say he individually designed had no connection with us and our food! And this is the contradiction which you never stop trying to dodge.

DAVID: The whole thing is connected!!! Evolution is one continuum from bacteria to us. You are slicing and dicing again with no logic in your objection.

dhw: You have acknowledged over and over again that evolution is NOT one continuum from bacteria to us. It is one continuum from bacteria to countless branches of life forms and ecosystems including us and ours, and that is why it is illogical to propose that your God designed every single one, and did so because every single one was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems although the vast majority of them had no connection with us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: There is a continuum from bacteria to us if one traces out the proper branches.

But the problem you keep dodging is all the other branches that did NOT lead to us although you claim they were all an absolute requirement for us! Please stop dodging!

DAVID: As for ecosystems for food. they are complexly intertwined to provide food for all living forms. And please recognize the bush is so large because our population has grown so large as God expected it would.

And they were complexly intertwined to provide for ALL the forms that lived for 3.X billion years before us, and you have no idea why he designed all those that had no connection with us and our large population. Please stop dodging!