Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, November 16, 2022, 11:58 (736 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If your God knew exactly how to produce humans plus food, then all he had to do was produce humans plus food (Creationism), but if he wanted to do it through evolution, then he could have stuck to the life forms that led to us and our food. That in fact is precisely what you think he did in the Cambrian, when he created life forms which had no predecessors and which led to us and our food. Although even then you have him also designing dead ends that did not lead to us and our food!

DAVID: When will you finally accept God does what God does. We must look at the known history, accept God created it, and then try to understand it. All you are doing is complaining about what God did and claim God should have done it differently. Try that approach and stop complaining.

Your customary flannel, in which you ignore the above arguments and your own contradictions (notably with your theory about the Cambrian). The known history is one of countless life forms and ecosystems that have come and gone. The vast majority of these had no link to us humans and our food, and yet you claim that they were all necessary for us and our food. That claim is totally illogical. I am not complaining about what your God did, but about your illogical interpretation of what he did and why he did it. And I have offered you alternative theistic explanations which you agree are logical, but which you reject because they “humanize” him in different ways from your own humanizations” of him. Please stop dodging. (But see below for your dramatic endorsement of one of my alternatives.)

DAVID: His reasons: 1) advance the complexity of living biochemistry; 2) advance the complexity of living forms: 3) feed the advancing forms with necessary ecosystems; 4) end with the human brain.

dhw: If he already knew all about “living biochemistry” and what advanced and complex living forms he wanted to design, why did he have to design countless forms, both less and more advanced and complex, that had no connection with his sole purpose - us and our food? And why did he have to design the brontosaurus’s brain if he only wanted to design the brains of mice and men?

DAVID: More complaining and criticizing God's works. See response above.

I have complained about your theories, have asked you specific questions concerning their logic, but you continue to dodge. See above.

DAVID: If God designed it, it was necessary. You have weird thoughts about God.
And under “toxoplasm”:
DAVID: Everything God designs was necessary, because if God designed it and it appeared, it was necessary. Everything found in evolution was God's creation!! Why do you forget that point?

dhw: The usual flannel, followed by the usual question: Necessary for what? You keep telling us that all the life forms and their food (mainly other life forms) which had no connection with us and our food were necessary for us and our food. “Why do you forget that (illogical) point”? I suggest that if God designed it, he wanted to design it. If he wanted a free-for-all he got it, but that means he did not design everything found in evolution. I needn’t repeat my other alternative explanations.

DAVID: The now bold is the problem! Free-for-all is your imagined, and desired weak God not in full control. If not in control, why need Him at all? The puzzled agnostic mind at work!

The bold is one of my alternative explanations of the history of evolution as we know it. If God decided to create a free-for-all (epitomized by the free will he apparently gave us humans) as being of greater interest to him than a puppet show in which he pulls all the strings, that would explain all the dead ends which you can’t explain. There is nothing weak about giving up control if it his wish to give up control, and this does not stop the “puzzled agnostic” from recognizing that the complexities of life may well point to the existence of a designer.

DAVID: You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory.

dhw: I don’t know of any design theory which stipulates that before you design what you want to design, you must first design countless things that have no connection with what you want to design.

Not answered.

DAVID: You have no idea about new designing. One tries different approaches and analyzes the best one. In evolution much design was food supply.

A God in full control of everything would know just how to design what he wanted to design. But thank you for endorsing my second theory, which explains all the dead ends as being due to his experimenting (trying different approaches) in order to find the best one. At last you are beginning to open your mind to my logical theistic alternatives.