Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, March 20, 2023, 07:24 (612 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: His watching is not the same as our watching. Remember our previous discussions about allegorically different.

dhw: The term “allegorically different” is meaningless. You are making a mockery of language. Please tell us what YOU mean by watching if you do not mean paying attention to what is happening.

DAVID: In God it is different. (ADLER)

dhw: So apparently when YOU say God enjoys, watches and is interested, you don’t mean what you and I understand by the words. [..]

DAVID: […] Allegorical applies only to God's personal emotions!!!

So what do YOU mean when you say you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest?

DAVID: […] God can design for any current environment and still advance evolution. Snowball Earth did not stop evolution.

dhw: He is limited to what can be designed in any current environment. And his limitations to what was possible in every current environment resulted in 99% of what you call mistakes and failed experiments. Only the 1% of survivors advanced evolution.

DAVID: Repeat: God limited adaptability as only He can speciate. My unchanged point is God used a cumbersome system to successfully produce us.

More nonsense talk. “Only he can speciate” does not explain why an all-powerful God would design 99% of organisms that had no connection with his only purpose! Or why he invented a “cumbersome system” which forced him to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments and come up with faulty designs!

DAVID (transferred from “late Devonian extinction”): I presented God's evolution that way to show its messiness. That was then, this is now. God purposely limited adaptation, because only He could speciate. Move on.

dhw: If you now wish to withdraw your vehement criticism of what you call your God’s “messy”, “inefficient” and “cumbersome” method of achieving what you call his one and only goal (us plus our food), and dependence [edited] on luck providing the right environment, then please say so, and I’ll be delighted to move on.

DAVID: I'll withdraw nothing. I've successfully gotten you to try to defend a God you don't believe in. I cheerfully believe in a God who successfully used evolution as a messy process to produce our brain.

My agnosticism is irrelevant, but of course you are welcome to believe cheerfully in an all-powerful, all-knowing God who has no power over the environment, deliberately designs 99% of organisms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and continues to make mistakes and failed experiments until luck provides him with the environment he needs (Cambrian), whereupon he starts afresh to produce our ancestors de novo, thereby rendering all his previous efforts irrelevant, although even after the Cambrian, he still continues to design life forms that do not lead to his goal. And with your newly discovered gift for language, you regard a messy, inefficient, cumbersome method of design as proof that your God is a marvellous designer.

dhw: The fact that Adler does not discuss YOUR theory of luck and blunders is why you should stop quoting him in defence of it. But perhaps you are now withdrawing your theory. Hope springs eternal...

DAVID: You still don't understand the nuance of Adler's proof. He tears Darwin's theory apart and demonstrates clearly natural evolution is a farce. Raup's view is never discussed and would be off point for Adler.

We are not discussing Adler or Raup, but your own illogical theory and denigration of your God.

Human gut biome controls health

DAVID: these bacteria play a vital role for us. It is not surprising they have such a degree of adaptability. Representing the first life, they have stayed around from the beginning to play an important role in evolution. They were designed for survival, not like the 99.9% loss described by Raup because of their usefulness, all neatly planned by purposeful God.

Since we are all descended from single cells, clearly bacteria are among the 1% of survivors, and their astonishingly adaptable intelligence may well have been a major factor in the whole history of evolution. How do the 99% of specially designed non-survivors which had nothing to do with your God’s only purpose but, on the contrary, have been described by you as his mistakes, failed experiments etc. constitute “neat planning” by an all-powerful God?