Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, October 09, 2022, 11:14 (559 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have explained dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. I have explained God produces only what he feels is necessary. I view humans as a necessary goal. So I feel I do understand God. I can't answer for your confusion.

dhw: 1) Dead-end ecosystems were only “necessary” for the organisms which lived within them and depended on them!

DAVID: Yes. In all earlier stages up until now.

All ecosystems, including those of the present, are necessary for the organisms which live in them and depend on them. The point is that the dead-end organisms and ecosystems of the past did not lead to us and our ecosystems.

dhw: 2) If God’s only purpose (as you claim) was to produce sapiens plus food…[/b][dhw: you left out the rest of the question, which of course is the nub of our disagreement:)…. why would he have felt it was “necessary” for him to design dead ends which did not lead to (i.e. were not “necessary” for) sapiens plus food?

DAVID: This is how you distort the discussion thru the trick of transforming God into a tunnel-visioned fool, who has nothing else on His Mind. This God created a universe, invented life, designed evolution. He knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it.

If God exists, then of course he created the universe and invented life and designed evolution (which could include designing evolution as a free-for-all). And I would agree that he would have known exactly what he was doing (including designing a free-for-all, or experimenting for a particular purpose, or to see what would happen if…). But as usual, you have left out the only point on which we disagree – which is the question I have bolded above, concerning your theory of evolution! It is you who insist that your God invented life for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens and our food. Do you want me to give you a list of quotes in which you have stated this explicitly? But you also tell us that he designed countless life forms and econiches which were dead ends that did not lead to us and our food. This is illogical, and so it is you who transform your God into a tunnel-visioned fool! I am the one who tries to remove the illogicality of a theory - which, you admit, “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to yourself) - by offering logical alternatives.

dhw: 3) What are humans “necessary” for?

DAVID: Not just as the endpoint of evolution. In this civilized time with a large human population, we now control the Earth And must take care of it. God has done His job.

An interesting variation on Genesis, which raises a number of questions. The biggest threat to the Earth at the moment seems to be the large human population, with our astonishing intelligence having led to appalling destruction on a colossal scale. If, as you say, God has done his job, I wonder what he regarded as his “job” in the first place, especially if he is all-knowing, and therefore knew what a mess we humans would make of his special planet. Between ourselves, I reckon the Earth and our fellow animals would have a much better chance of survival if there were no humans at all.

The rest of this post, and parts of the “more miscellany” thread are devoted to your repeated avoidance of my second question above.