Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 22, 2023, 18:36 (638 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

The load of nonsense is your tortured view of my attempt to discuss God's choice of creation. It is indirect and takes lots of time. Logically a strange choice using human reasoning. You have asked me to tell you why God chose that method. I replied at the same level of silliness, ask God. Conclusion, God does as He wants, but we can try to analyze what He has done for a purpose or purposes.

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'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".

dhw: “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.

God did not design anyone for living into perpetuity. It is not a fault in His designed evolution. It is a necessary attribute.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by “short of requiring a new species”, simply means that adaptation always falls sort of actual speciation.

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.

dhw: 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. […]

By God's cumbersome method, yes.

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.

dhw: 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?

Weird misunderstanding of evolution. To step into your silly analogy, my house can evolve into another house only by adding on some new structure. Every new form evolves directly from a past form, except when God creates gap.