Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, February 22, 2023, 10:54 (638 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design.

dhw: Your God’s only purpose is to design us and our food. He deliberately designs 100 forms of organism so that 99 of them will fail to survive new conditions. They are all dead ends that do not lead to us and our food. You call them his “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions” caused by the faults in his design, but there are no failures and it’s good design, but you never contradict yourself.

DAVID: I've used those terms in the past to open up an answer your question as to why God evolved us. Yes, itis messy. Please accept my current statement without referring to past complete discussions.

What do you mean? I am referring to the theory you are currently promoting and defending. Or do you now wish to withdraw your theory that your God’s good design included deliberately designing 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices etc. in his messy attempt to design us and our food? If you now think this is a load of nonsense, then please say so, and we can draw a line under it.

dhw: I’m not questioning the 99% loss, and it’s you who would like to throw it out in order to justify your topsy-turvy argument.

DAVID: I have reason to want to throw it out. It is history. Stop trying to mind read me.

dhw: Thank you for confirming my reading of your mind. The history (99% failure as a result of your God’s design) contradicts your theory of “no failure. Good design”, although this contradicts your theory that your God’s form of evolution was full of mistakes. You simply cannot find any way of reconciling the history with your messy theories, and so you want to throw out the history.

DAVID: I've not thrown out the history. Again: "God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design".

“Limited adaptation abilities” are the faults in his design that led to the extinction of the 99% of life forms which were dead ends that did not lead to what you believe to have been his only purpose: us and our food. I have no idea what you mean by “short of requiring a new species”, but since you are adamant that the species which led to his only purpose (us and our food) were designed without predecessors, you have made even the 100% of his previous designs redundant to his purpose. What do you mean by his “job”? Who employs him? How can the 99% of what you call failures mean “no failure, good design”?

dhw: But you cannot bear the thought of our not being his prime purpose, and so you blame your God for incompetence, and refuse to consider the possibility that his purpose in designing, for example, the 99% of dinosaurs which had no connection with us and our food (the other 1% was birds) may NOT have been to act as what you used to call “absolute requirements” for designing us and our food.

DAVID: God designed the great bush of life to be under our control and provide our food.

The great bush of life grew and changed for 3.X billion years before we came on the scene, and you have told us that 99% of its twigs and branches were mistakes and failures. Only 1% survived to evolve into us and the bush that provides our food. […]

DAVID: Failure to survive allows God to evolve the 1% that became what exists today as a set of huge and small ecosystems, most of which supplies our food.

Now what are you saying? That your God could not have designed the 1% of survivors if he hadn’t designed the 99% per cent that didn’t survive? To use your own analogy, in order to design your house, did you have to build and then knock down 99 other houses that you knew you didn’t want to build?