Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 26, 2022, 08:31 (757 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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”!

DAVID: It is obvious that in any evolutionary process as organisms disappear their supporting ecosystems will also disappear, creating what we are calling dead ends. You are creating a problem when there is none.

Yes, it is obvious, and it is no problem at all. The problem is your insistence that every one of those dead ends was necessary for your God’s fulfilment of what you say was his one and only purpose (to design us and our food), although by definition not one of them was necessary for the fulfilment of that purpose. Please stop this endless dodging.

The Cambrian Explosion

dhw: 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 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.

DAVID: Your humanized version of God does things that do make sense for Him, is not the God I accept.

I know you don’t accept any of these explanations, although you agree that they provide logical explanations for the dead ends which you can’t explain.

DAVID: Again, you are complaining about God's direct creation ability, as shown in the Big Bang and starting life.

I am not complaining about your God’s ability. I have agreed with you that he could do anything he liked. I complain about your illogical reasoning that dead ends which did not lead to us plus food were necessary for us and our food. And I complain about your self- contradiction in the theory bolded above.

DAVID: The only explanation for His use of evolution is, it was His choice.

If he exists, of course it was his choice. But you insist that he only had one purpose, and you insist that he chose to fulfil that purpose by bumbling through countless actions that had nothing to do with that purpose. Why do you insist on your God being so incompetent? In my alternatives, he does what he wants to do.

DAVID: It makes sense to me in that a huge human population requires a huge ecosystem provided by an evolved bush of life.

Of course that makes sense. You have simply left out all the theories discussed above that make no sense at all. Please stop dodging.

Cannibalism

DAVID: Human caloric need on a daily basis is a vital concept. dhw belittles it in his arguments about God's necessary roles. Note how the author makes it a critical point in studying human behavior in reference to food supply.

Please stop pretending that I am an idiot. Do you really think I am unaware that humans, just like every other organism, need food? The fact that humans ate one another does not in any way justify your absurd theory that in order to fulfil his sole purpose of designing humans plus food, he found it “necessary” to design countless, now extinct dead-end life forms and foods that were not “necessary” for him to fulfil his sole purpose.