Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, August 26, 2022, 16:20 (818 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have given you the food supply reason and you reject it illogically. They make perfect sense to me.

dhw: You have consistently told us that we humans need a huge food supply. Who could possibly disagree? But you have not explained why your God designed countless life forms and food supplies that did not lead to us and our food supply.

All of the branches from the beginning lead to the present. Why is that forgotten??? With God's designs all the branches arrived here producing us and a hugh bush of ecosystems but in trouble (see the entries).

DAVID: I have always said all the past bushes form the current bush of food supply. Why do you distort again!

dhw: You must be joking. Since when have we humans dined on tinned trilobites and braised brontosaurus and roast raptor? How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life has no role in current time.” (Your own block capitals.)

All perfectly true. I don't understand how you misinterpret those quotes. What is past is past. What is present is present, but all is connected in the history of the recorded evolutionary tree.

DAVID: dhw makes slight of the necessary food supply in His constant illogical complaint. God knew the burgeoning human population had to have enough food. Look at this new analysis of our new food supply crisis:

QUOTES: "Food webs influence ecosystem diversity and functioning. Contemporary defaunation has reduced food web complexity, […] Food webs underwent steep regional declines in complexity through loss of food web links after the arrival and expansion of human populations."

DAVID: Same old story. All of the giant bush of evolution is a food supply for the huge human population. And all we do is unthinkingly damage it. And dhw distorts the importance of it.

dhw: The PAST bushes of evolution were not ALL a food supply for the huge human population, which did not even exist for 3.X billion years. But yes, we humans are unthinkingly damaging the current bush. As above, your dodges are become embarrassing.

I am constantly perplexed at how you distort my quotes meanings. All a debating ploy?

DAVID: He doesn't create out of self-interest.

dhw: How do you know? In any case, "self-interest" means you only care about yourself, and that is very different from creating things you enjoy creating and find interesting. We may want to have children because we like the idea of parenthood, but that doesn’t mean we only care about ourselves. If your God is loving, maybe he created life because he liked the idea of having something to love. Would you dismiss that as “self-interest”?

DAVID: I can see it as self-interest. Adler thinks He cares about us at the 50/50 level of possibility. Which means we cannot know.

Of course we can’t know. So please stop making authoritative comments like “He doesn’t create out of self-interest.” 50/50 is not a rejection, and besides, you think he does care!

dhw: […] you actually agree with me that your God wouldn’t create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and you are equally certain that he is interested in his creations. And so I find it incomprehensible that you should consider it impossible that he might create BECAUSE he enjoys creating and BECAUSE he wants to create things he will find interesting.

DAVID: Self-interesting aspects of His creations do not drive my form of my God's personality.

dhw: And yet you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested". But I know you reject any interpretation that differs from your own. That does not make your guesses any more valid than mine.

I simply think my form of God comports with what I was taught in "How to think about God".