Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Saturday, October 15, 2022, 10:01 (556 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The point you miss is if God is in charge and designed our evolution, all that pre-existed us in history was purposefully created by Him!! All dead ends were ecosystems no longer needed, by-passed by progress in new forms and their different needs. God knew humans would take charge of Earth, grow to a huge population and need extensive ecosystems to supply enough food. The huge bush of life is that supply. See ecosystem entry yesterday to make the point. your complaint is an empty barrel of distorted invention.

dhw: You are repeating bits of your theory, and as usual leaving out the sections that make your theory illogical: you believe that he purposefully created everything that pre-existed us, you accept that this included dead ends that led nowhere and were replaced by different organisms and ecosystems with different needs, but – the bit you fail to mention – you insist that all of the dead ends that did not lead to us and our food were specially designed as “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food!

DAVID: "Absolute requirements" are your objections. Consider what you ignore: if God created all of evolution's history including all your dead ends, then God considered them required. Not my absolute requirements, God's!!

You have repeated this throughout your post, the latest in your endless list of evasions. If God exists, then I have no doubt that he created what he wanted to create. In that sense, of course whatever he created was “required” to fulfil whatever was his purpose. But that does not mean his one and only purpose was to create us and our current ecosystems! (That is the part of your theory that you keep editing out.) Quite clearly, the dead ends which did not lead to us and our current ecosystems were not absolutely “required” to fulfil the purpose of creating us and our current ecosystems, and so if he really did create the dead ends, they must have been “required” for some other purpose. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: I don't need to know His reasoning. Neither do you.

dhw: Agreed. But I do need to know your reasoning, and if you offer me a theory that makes no sense to you or to me, I don’t think it is in any way out of order for me to challenge it, or to suggest alternatives that do make sense even to you.

DAVID: Your objections wrongly interpret God's actions.

My objections do not interpret God’s actions. They simply point out the absurd illogicality of YOUR interpretation of God’s actions, i.e. deliberate creation of life forms and ecosystems that were not required to fulfil what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. The fact that you object to my alternative theories (although you admit that they fit in logically with the history of life) does not remove the illogicality which results in your admission that your combined theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.