Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, February 18, 2023, 20:15 (426 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, February 18, 2023, 20:22

DAVID: Since God is not controlling every environmental change precisely, the adaptive mechanisms He designed may not cover some fatal events. Raup's bad luck again.

dhw: As usual, you ignore my response, and now you are even changing your own terms! Previously he had no control over such environmental changes as forest to desert, but now it’s not always “precisely”.

God's non-control means exactly that: he doesn't use any precise controls over environment comparable to his precise controls over evolution direction and design.

dhw: Previously, his faulty design killed off 99”% of his creations, but now it “may not cover some non-survivals”. It is bad luck for the 99% that your God’s faulty design meant they could not cope with the new conditions he himself could not control. And you regard their non-survival as your God’s mistakes and faulty experiments, because they did not lead to the one purpose you impose on him: H. sapiens and our food. PLEASE STOP DODGING!

Total distortion as usual. Every organism survived until it died. Every species survived until it went extinct. However, during their presence advanced biochemical processes were developed and were present in the next forms. I don't ignore your flights of imagination about God as I see him and His works. You fail to understand my view of God.

DAVID: He could take evolution in any direction He wished, no precursors needed!

dhw: No, he couldn’t. You have told us that he was not in control of the environmental changes which caused the massive failure rate, and so any new designs had to fit in with the new conditions, regardless of the purpose you impose on him. If no precursors were needed, what was the point in his designing the 99% of life forms that had no connection with that purpose?

DAVID: […] The point of your weird question is?

dhw: The point of my question is that I can see no sense in an all-powerful God with a single purpose, which you believe he could achieve directly (no predecessors), deliberately choosing a method that forces him into designing 99% faulty experiments, and relying on luck to provide him with conditions suitable for his one and only purpose. Nor can you, which is why you keep dodging or telling us that your theory “makes sense only to God”. And now you’ve dodged again.

Yes, your same point which is God makes no sense to you and you do not like my approach to it. I've given God a purpose of creating us, following Adler's thinking which produced his proof of God. In this discussion we see God as using evolution to create all organisms and us. Therefore, it must be seen as God's choice of method,.

DAVID: All your God lack-of-control theories describe a God who is progressing along, not sure of where He is going. That doesn't fit any God I've heard described by theists, except Whitehead's.

dhw: Oh well, please tell us which theists advocate the lack-of-control God (he can’t control the environmental changes necessary for his purpose) described in the bold above. My first theory does have him knowing where he is going, and the other two have him deliberately creating something interesting to develop or to watch developing. No mistakes anywhere.

A totally misconception of God as I see Him, fully using the controls He feels he must have. So your are back to your God who must create entertainment for himself.

dhw: Again: Please tell me which parts of my bolded summary are inaccurate.

dhw: No answer.

I've answered, but it is difficult to keep up with your imagined distortions of my God's abilities to create whatever is necessary by His design actions. The stumbling blocks from your fertile mind are derogatory inventions because you do not understand my approach to Gods personality, or are unwilling to.

dhw: Once more: According to you the 99% failure rate was due to your God’s faulty design, which was bad luck for the organisms he had faultily designed. Thank you for agreeing he is responsible for the mess you accuse him of making.

God always designed organism which survived. Not faulty but succumbing to bad luck. To repeat:
"However, during their presence advanced biochemical processes were developed and were present in the next forms. I don't ignore your flights of imagination about God as I see him and His works. You fail to understand my view of God."

DAVID: So everything is topsy-turvy. You are fighting to preserve your agnostic version of a proper God. And I'm not at all troubled by my honest theistic version, based on known fact.

dhw: An all-powerful God who makes a mess of evolution with all his mistakes is certainly topsy-turvy. And you think theists regard your blunderer as “a proper God”. No, your version – honest though it may be with all its absurd contradictions – is not based on fact but on a topsy-turvy interpretation of fact.

Did evolution have a 99.9% extinction rate?? Yes!!! We are discussing a God who produced the known history of evolution. He owns it. He must be seen as responsible for it with its success rate of 0.1% through which He put us here. As the end point, we are the purpose. He created everything on Earth and put us in charge.