Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 25, 2022, 10:36 (758 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Remember? All explained as ecosystems required for a given period/stage of evolution.

dhw: This is what I keep telling you, though in more precise terms: the dead-end systems (as opposed to those that led to us and our food) were required/necessary for past organisms, and by definition neither the organisms nor their ecosystems had any connection with current organisms and ecosystems. Therefore it makes no sense to claim that they were all “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. This is the bit you keep leaving out.

DAVID: If God chose to evolve us, then everything He did during the evolution of us was necessary in His eyes. Your logic is not God's logic.

It should be obvious to you that dead ends which did not lead to us could not have been necessary for our evolution. Why do you keep harping on about necessity? Our starting point is purpose, and your theory has your God apparently saying: “I only want to create sapiens and his food and therefore it is necessary for me to create countless organisms and foods that are not necessary for my purpose.” And you think my alternatives (see below)– which you agree are logical - make him into a “bumbler”!

The Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: I've fully answered your illogical complaint. A designer God can create gaps is evolutionary progressions.

dhw: I agree. A designer God can do whatever he likes. That is why it makes no sense to tell us that from the very beginning, 3.8 thousand million years ago, all he wanted to design was us and our food, and yet he designed countless organisms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our food, and he didn’t even begin to design us until 500+ million years ago, when he designed our ancestors who had no predecessors!

DAVID: You start with "A designer God can do whatever he likes." And then go on to complain about what He did. Still no logic on your part about a designer God.

I am complaining about your interpretation of what he did and why he did it. I’ve dealt above with your illogical theory of “necessity”. Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)
You agree that all my alternative theistic explanations (a free-for-all, experimentation, an ongoing creative process in which your God enjoys working on new ideas) all make perfect sense, but you prefer your bumbling version to at least three which genuinely have your God doing what he likes.