Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 23, 2023, 15:56 (637 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 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: If God exists, there is very little in your response that I would disagree with. You have simply ignored the fact that you have described your God’s method as inefficient, full of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, faulty designs etc., and you have asked me not to refer to these terms. What level of “silliness” are you thinking of? You have proposed a theory that makes your God into an inefficient blunderer, and told me to ask him why he chose to be an inefficient blunderer, thereby admitting that you can find no justification for your theory. And then you ask me not to use the derogatory terms you have used to describe your vision of him.

God is not a blunderer. Your conclusion has no basis since God used a messy system to produce humans successfully. Try this view: God was able to overcome the imperfections of living evolution through His design abilities.

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

dhw: We are not talking about the death of individuals, but about the extinction of species. The faulty design you criticize him for is that which results in 99% of life forms being specially created although they have no connection with what you say is your God’s only purpose: us and our food. When will you stop dodging?

I cannot try to dodge your faulty reasoning. Dead ends are natural parts of an evolutionary process.

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. […]

DAVID: By God's cumbersome method, yes.

dhw: The cumbersome method being his design of 99% mistakes, failed experiments etc., which your cumbersome, inefficient God personally designed, knowing that they were going to be mistakes, and you haven’t a clue why he would choose such a daft method, so I should ask him why. Thank you for agreeing.

Same answer: "God is not a blunderer. Your conclusion has no basis since God used a messy system to produce humans successfully. Try this view: God was able to overcome the imperfections of living evolution through His design abilities."

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?

DAVID: 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 a gap.

dhw: It was your own analogy, but this is an excellent variation if one accepts the existence of your God. Much better than mine. Thank you. You now have him building a house, and adding new structures, 99% of which fall down because they are all wrong for the house he wants to build. Some designer!

Still weird analogy. I tried to use your house analogy to show descent with modification. Houses are material and we are discussing life and progressive speciation. Descent with modification, ignoring the known gaps (4) is what evolution is!!! The 99.9% loss is the way room is made for the best new forms.