Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, September 11, 2022, 11:13 (586 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: You always forget I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations. One branch led to us, the rest to food. There are no contradictions except the ones you invent. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: If God exists, then he would certainly have created life, and the history of life must be what he wanted. 1) That does not mean he deliberately and individually designed every single organism and ecosystem that ever existed.

DAVID: I mean exactly that. I believe in design of everything. You don't.

I know you do, but even for a theist, the individual design of every organism, natural wonder etc. is a theory and not a fact.

DAVID: […] the giant interlocking ecosystems today are God's deliberate plan to provide food for all living organisms. All developed from past branches!!! Those are the reasons you say I cannot think of!

Once again you are editing evolution. Yes, all organisms eat/ate food and are/were eaten in their own ecosystems, and all current living things are developed from past branches. But you are deliberately editing out all the past branches that did NOT lead to all the things that are alive today but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for us and our food!

DAVID (under “Neandertals”): It is obvious when we use the word 'evolution,' we see different concepts. I see it as purely stepwise development by design. The designer can skip a step if He wishes (Cambrian). He is not required to have your human consistency complaint.

I also see evolution as stepwise development. It is your combination of purpose and method that “makes sense only to God” and therefore not to you. If his one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus food, as you claim, and if he had the power to create species without any precursors, as you claim, it makes no sense for him to design umpteen hominins and homos in itsy-bitsy stages. So I look for a logical theory to explain the stages.[…]

DAVID: I fully believe as Adler did, humans were a special purpose for God, and Adler used that thought to prove God!! Read his word games and be educated in religious philosophy.

Why do you keep dodging from sapiens as THE special purpose to A special purpose. Our subject is not “proof of God”, but why and how your God might have designed evolution. Please stop hiding behind Adler to defend theories which do not make sense even to you and which you have repeatedly said do NOT play a part in Adler’ religious philosophy.

DAVID: I don't have any idea where you start. What is your initial premise about God?

dhw: If God exists, my initial premises are that he would have had a purpose for creating life, and the history of life as we know it would logically reflect his purpose, which in turn would reflect his nature. The importance of this discussion for me is that if God exists, I would like to know as much as possible about his nature and his attitude towards his creations (especially us humans). No one can know the objective truth, but at least we can extrapolate theories from the reality we know, and we can test their feasibility by using the same human reasoning that enables us to formulate those theories in the first place. You use human reasoning to support your belief in your God’s existence, but when human reasoning shows the flaws in your theories about his purpose, method and nature, you turn your back on it.

DAVID: Thank you for this. The flaws in your approach to my theories are numerous. You keep denying the design approach which accepts everything is designed.

I accept A, not YOUR design approach. “Design” does not automatically mean your God individually designed every species, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., or that his sole purpose was to design us plus our food.

DAVID: Everything now existing reflects His purpose.

If God exists, I agree, but would add everything that existed before now. And it is clear that life’s history does not reflect the one and only purpose you impose on your God, which was to design H. sapiens plus his food. That is why your theory “makes sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

DAVID: The giant ecosystems are here for a purpose which I have explained as food for all.

Every ecosystem since the beginning of life has provided food for all the living things within it. That does not mean every ecosystem since the beginning of life was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for sapiens plus food!

DAVID: You complain about all the evolutionary branches that do not lead to us. Illogical! Only one branch can lead to us.

I do not complain. I use the facts to show that your theory makes no sense. Yes, only one branch can lead to us. Some other branches led to our food. Other branches – the vast majority – led neither to us nor our food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food! You admit that your theories are illogical (they make sense only to God), and then you play word games to try and hide the illogicality you have already acknowledged. Please stop it.