Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, November 20, 2022, 10:36 (522 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As usual you ignore or have forgotten my discussion of dead ends to which you have previously agreed. Living forms disappear as evolution moves to new stages. Living forms must eat and are supplied by ecosystems. As living forms disappear so do ecosystems. This naturally creates dead ends.

dhw: So far, so good – except that your use of the word “naturally” subtly omits your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every living form that came to a dead end.

DAVID: There is more than one way to use the word naturally. I don't need to list the synonyms.

You usually use it as a contrast to your God’s purposefulness. It doesn’t matter. You are merely confirming your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every dead end, knowing that it would not lead to the fulfilment of his one and only goal. Why would he do that? Only God knows – it certainly doesn’t make sense to anyone else.

DAVID: A continuously branching, designed evolution by God will have a definite direction to end in humans. But not just humans, but a giant bush of life supplying, we hope, enough food for humans.

dhw: Yes, there are continuous branches that have led to humans and to our food. Those branches were NOT dead ends. Your problem is all the branches that WERE dead ends, i.e. which did NOT lead to us and our food, but which you say your God deliberately designed because they were necessary for him to design the branches that DID lead to us and our food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: You've repeated a good view of my theory. Whatever is here God designed. What is the dodge???

That it is absurd to argue that life forms which had no connection with your God’s purpose (i.e all the dead ends) were necessary for the fulfilment of your God’s purpose. All you focused on in your reply were those branches which were NOT dead ends.

DAVID: I can see a careful plan by God, which anticipates our current population of eight billion. Why can't you?

dhw: I can see that all the specially designed dead ends that did NOT lead to us and our food, cannot have been necessary as preparation for your God to design the branches which DID lead to us. Why can’t you? Meanwhile, you have also dodged the rest of the paragraph at the start of this thread, in which I point out that you have inadvertently agreed to the theory of experimentation, but then backtracked in favour of direct design, as if all the dead ends were direct design of us and our food!

DAVID: Why can't you remember my 'backtrack' was carefully explained as a misunderstanding of who was designing, me or God. Whatever is here God designed. Whatever was 'then' God designed.

And when I pointed out to you that your version of God inexplicably designed countless life forms that had no connection with his purpose, you told me I didn’t understand design theory. It turned out that design theory supported one of my own explanations (experimentation). How can you possibly have interpreted the bold as a reference to YOUR method of designing? Why would you even have mentioned design theory if it wasn’t meant to be a response to my criticism of your illogical theory of evolution? There is nothing wrong with the theory of experimentation – you have already agreed that it fits in logically with the history of life, as do my other alternatives. You reject them all because their “humanizations” are different from your “humanizations”. The fact that experimentation fits in with your concept of “design theory” is simply an additional observation, and we can leave it at that.