Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, August 29, 2022, 07:39 (815 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There is no dispute over the fact that ecosystems are a kind of web, or that they can and do decline! You are focusing on something indisputable in order to distract attention from your illogical theory that your God designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and ecosystems, most of which did not lead to sapiens and our current ecosystems, although you believe every single one of them was an “absolute requirement” designed in preparation for sapiens and our current ecosystems.

DAVID: Since the past produces/evolves the present, the past forms are required. They all produce the current food webs/ecosystems.

Please explain why God had to specially design brontosauruses in order to produce the current food webs/ecosystems.

dhw: It is your accusation that I “distort” the importance of human damage to our ecosystems that is daft. And yes, our webs came from past evolution, but that does not mean that every single extinct web in the history of evolution was preparation for and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I'm not dodging. Study the articles.

See below. They say nothing whatsoever about your theory bolded above.

Secondhand design (taken from “Savannah theory fading”)

DAVID: Secondhand design is a cumbersome mess, that you don't seem to understand. You've never tried it and I have with firsthand experience. […]

DAVID: God's creation pattern is to evolve all forms stepwise: the universe from the BB, the Earth from its origin, life from its start to final sapiens from Erectus, etc. It is perfectly obvious pattern.

dhw: I’m not disputing stepwise evolution! I’m disputing your equation of your own single-minded, “firsthand” design of a single plan with what you believe to be your God’s countless “firsthand” designs which had no connection with what you believe to have been his single plan but which can be explained by my alternative theories.

DAVID: I know about your imagined theories which fit a humanized God.

All theories, including those concerning the existence and nature of God, are “imagined”, since nobody knows the truth. Your “humanizing” argument has been discredited so many times by your own “humanizations” that there is no point in responding to it. And you have dodged the whole issue of “secondhand” design, in which you illogically equate your own single-minded plan and direct execution with your version of God’s plan and his roundabout ways of fulfilling it.

DAVID: Your point now bolded is refuted by the studies I have quoted.

dhw: Those studies deal with the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the damage we are causing. They do NOT tell us that every extinct life form and ecosystem led to H. sapiens and our ecosystems, and THAT is the basis of your theories that “make sense only to God”. If you disagree, please tell us which of them “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

DAVID: Of course, many branches of evolution did not lead to humans but to the necessary food webs we all recognize. All part of a necessary arrangement.

Once again you are telling us that every single life form that became extinct over 3.X billion years was individually designed as “necessary” or an “absolute requirement” for us or for our current "food webs". And yet you tell us that your God designed the Cambrian species, from which we and many of our fellow animals (and foods) are descended, without any precursors.

DAVID: I accept it all as God's plan, noting God evolves all His creations for His own reasons.

What you accept is your own version of your God’s plan, along with all its illogicalities, and your version of events “makes sense only to God”. You dodged my request above, so I’ll make it again. Please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.