Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, October 07, 2022, 08:48 (567 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God's form of evolution produced us. Assuming that is a goal, His method worked. Your view of evolution as all dead ends is strange. From those dead ends we have all the bush of current living forms. It seems God knew exactly what He was doing. You are still dicing up evolution into disconnected parts as a way of criticizing what God accomplished.

dhw: This is the silliest distortion you have yet come up with! My view of evolution is not that it is ALL dead ends! You have even quoted what I wrote yesterday: "And yes, CURRENT ecosystems which are our food developed from past ecosystems (that’s how evolution works), but as always you have left out all those past ecosystems which did not lead to our CURRENT ecosystems and which make nonsense of your theory that they were ALL “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. Please stop repeating the same old dodges.

DAVID: God decides what is required for each stage of his designed evolution. That is what you do not understand about God!!! God is no frivolous!!

You have just complained that my view of evolution is “all dead ends”, and I have pointed out that this is a silly distortion. See the bold above. I don’t know where you get the idea of “frivolousness” from, but I have to say I find it hard to take your argument seriously. If God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus our food, how can all the dead ends which did not lead to us and our food have been required in order to fulfil his purpose? You don’t know. Your theory “makes sense only to God”. So please stop pretending that you understand God!

DAVID: I am arguing at the God level. You are not.

I assume that his actions will logically follow on from his purpose. Your theory shows him performing countless actions that do not follow on from his purpose. How does that put you “at the God level”?

DAVID: […] From all the dead ends of evolution new forms appeared with new supporting ecosystems and eventually we arrived. That is how evolution works either naturally or by God design.

dhw:[…]. New forms did not appear from dead ends, which by definition lead nowhere! New forms appeared from old forms which underwent countless mutations in the continuous process we call common descent. ALL current forms will have descended from earlier forms. THAT is how evolution works, but that does not mean that ALL earlier forms led to current forms! The majority came to a dead end!

DAVID: Despite all your illogic, God designed what He knew He had to do and we are here.

You said new forms appeared from dead ends! And then you tell me I’m illogical! I assume he did what he wanted to do, and according to you, he designed countless dead-end life forms that were here and had no connection with us or our food. So why did he “have to” design them? If he did design them, and if he is not incompetent, then maybe he was experimenting, or maybe he had a purpose other than to design us and our food. Why is that illogical?

Microbiome importance

QUOTE: Microbial life was the first to inhabit our planet and will probably be the last.

DAVID: the article is filled with examples of how to improve this basic diversity at the bottom of our Earth's primary ecosystem. It came from God's dead ends, despite dhw's objections to dead ends as useless. He needs a big re-think.

dhw: The vital importance of microbial life is beyond dispute, but a dead end refers to something that comes to an end and leads nowhere. A life form that is still alive, is of vital importance to all other forms of life, and will probably remain alive until there is no other life left on this planet, is not a dead end! Please stop making a mockery of language!

DAVID: What you are doing is making a mockery of God's necessary designs.

There is no mockery on my part. I acknowledge the vital importance of microbial life, and whether God designed it or not, it is still alive, is still of vital importance, and so it is not a dead end! Look again at your statement above, now bolded. Better still, take it back.