Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Tuesday, September 13, 2022, 17:32 (589 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: I view the way you cling to cell intelligence as a means of reducing God's direct control of evolution.

dhw: Of course. One possible explanation for the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of life forms and ecosystems is that this is what your God wanted: a free-for-all (though with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). It is your obsession with the idea that God wanted total control that leads to most of the contradictions in your theories of evolution.

Why shouldn't an all-powerful God keep total control?

DAVID: Let's understand belief: every organism on Earth is here because God desired to put it here. Even dead ends were desired, and how proven is it as dead ends they didn't play an advancing role?

dhw: Let’s understand your beliefs: your God’s one and only aim was to design H. sapiens and our foods, and so he individually designed countless organisms and foods that did not lead to us (dead ends), “extinct life has no role in current life”, but every dead end was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens plus food. “How proven is it” that every single dead end played an advancing role in the individual design of H. sapiens plus food?

It is obvious to me the entire current ecosystem provides food for all. And we human are here. God reached His goal. Your obsession with past evolutionary branches is unreasonable. God did all of this and He knows exactly what He is doing.

DAVID: Adler is rolling over!! And what are your logical alternatives to the series of hominins/homos? Do you challenge that God builds in stages, and so it be said He evolves everything He creates?

dhw: How many times must I repeat that I do not challenge the theory of evolution, which has all organisms evolving in stages? I challenge your absurd conclusion that every organism that came to a dead end was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food. I also point out that if your God had wanted to design H. sapiens directly, you demonstrate that he could have done so, since you believe he created some species without any precursors (Cambrian). These are the logical flaws in your theories which “make sense only to God”, and therefore not to you. Two of my theistic alternatives do allow for us humans and our food as a goal (not the goal), and you recognize their logic but try to wriggle out of it by insisting that your God has to correspond to your personal image of him.

A designer can do what He wishes. Stepwise or jump ahead. You don't undersand the concept.

DASVID: Narrowness again. Every organism put on Earth was a desired result by God. You can't analyze God down to the last dot and tittle.

dhw: A free-for-all, or humans arrived at through experimentation, or arrived at as a new idea after all the preceding dead ends, could also be a “desired result by God”, and it is you who try to “analyze to the last dot and tittle” by insisting that every extinct, dead-end dot and tittle (trilobite, brontosaurus, moa) was specially designed for the one and only purpose of preparing the way for us and our food.

Again, your total purpose is to humanize God's thinking