Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, October 20, 2022, 17:24 (553 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.”

dhw: I note your refusal to note that you said precisely what I said you said, and your accusation of distortion was a distortion.

I'm sorry you misunderstood: my point was God knew each physical outcome/phenotypic result.

DAVID: The God I know had goals: He had to create and evolve a fine-tuned universe; He had to create the Milky Way; He had to place the Earth in a safe spot; than He had to create early life and guide by design the endpoint of humans. So much for 'only humans plus food'

dhw: More dodging. According to you the one and only reason why he created all of this was to design us and our food. There is no dispute over the necessity for the universe (though one can certainly dispute the necessity for all the dead ends in the evolution of the universe), the Milky Way, safe Earth! If your God wanted to create life, of course he had to create a place where life could live! The dispute is over your belief that in order to design sapiens plus food, he “had to” design countless dead ends that had no connection with sapiens plus food. This is what makes no sense.

Please think! To evolve humans required 3.8 billion years and many necessary ecosystems along the way. The dead ends.

dhw: If your theory "makes sense only to God", and we can't know his reasons for doing what you say he did, then it doesn't make sense to you!

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me. His reasons for using evolution play no role in analyzing what He did and then guessing why He might have feelings about it.

dhw: His feelings have nothing to do with your theories that in order to design sapiens plus food, he had to design countless dead ends that had no connection with sapiens plus food, and he had to design us in stages although he was perfectly capable (according to you) of designing species without any precursors. These are the theories you admit you cannot explain, they “make sense only to God”, and we cannot know his reasons. Please stop this endless dodging.

Still distortion in my bold. His choice of using an evolutionary process makes sense to Him.

DAVID: Both your version of God and mine have the same dead ends in evolution. They are ecosystems no longer needed as evolution advances.

dhw: Yes, they are the same dead ends. And they were NEVER needed for the fulfilment of what you claim was your God’s one and only purpose: sapiens plus food. Please stop dodging!

Ecosystems throughout evolution supported the very process of evolution. You still don't like the idea God chose to evolve us. Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.

DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.
And:
DAVID: Unexpected is our human brain. It is Adler's point and mine.

dhw: And “unexpected” according to you is every form of life, and every natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest), all of which are so complex that they provide evidence of your God’s existence. But they still leave your God as a humanized, tunnel-visioned bumbler, in contrast to the alternatives I have presented.

DAVID: A humanized-God version who doesn't care if He is not in control.

dhw: The free-for-all alternative means that he doesn’t WANT to have control. The other alternatives allow for control. Your own version, in your own worda, which are well worth repeating in full, is a humanized, “tunnel-visioned bumbler who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.” I could not have expressed it better myself.

Don't turn my words on me. That was a derisive version of the type of God you turn my God into with your irrational distorted view of a God who chooses to evolve humans