Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, November 17, 2022, 09:06 (525 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: You don't approach history from my standpoint at all. I accept the history of evolution is God's creation.

If God exists, then we will all have to accept that, but the history is of countless life forms which have come and gone. It is not history that your God designed each one individually, or that his only purpose was to design us plus food, or that all the dead ends were necessary for the design of humans plus food!

DAVID: Therefore, everything you object is what He designed, and for His own reasons.

I accept that if he exists, he would have created the above bolded history for his own reasons. What I do not accept is your theory that his only reason was to design us and our food, and that his method was to design countless life forms and foods, the vast majority of which were dead ends that had no connection with us and our food. […]

DAVID: You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory. [dhw’s bold]

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.

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

dhw: 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.

DAVID: The bold is correct. The rest is your flannel. My comment above was from the human level of design which is what I thought was your level of discussion. To be quite clear: in my designing I had to look at alternatives; God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations.

This is the most ridiculous of your dodges so far! The point at issue is the dead ends, i.e those branches of evolution which did not lead to your God’s one and only purpose of sapiens plus food but which you tell us he had to design because “all evolution has branches that lead to dead ends as types of individuals don’t survive and the ecosystems they support stop”. When I propose that the dead ends might be the result of your God experimenting, you tell me that God does not need to experiment, and I don’t understand design theory. Then you tell me that design theory means experimenting! I say thank you for telling us that the dead ends could be the result of your God conforming to design theory by experimenting, but then you say he doesn’t! He is direct! So now he designed us without having to design all the dead ends which according to you and your design theory he had to design because all evolution has to have dead ends. Please stop contradicting yourself.