Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, March 24, 2023, 12:33 (608 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

I will again juxtapose exchanges to avoid excessive repetition

dhw: You insist that [God] directly created 100% of species, 99% of which had no connection with the one goal you impose on him. And you insist that this theory is the only possible truth, although only God knows why he would use what you agree is a messy, inefficient and cumbersome method.

DAVID: Evolution with its low survival rate happened. So we must deal with its facts. Since I assume God created everything, it is obvious to conclude He chose to evolve us over time. Why do you struggle with this logic?

No struggle. If he exists, however, he also chose to evolve (though by “evolve” you mean individually design) every other creature that ever existed, including 99% that did not lead to us or our food, although you say we and our food were his one and only goal. Why do you keep making vague generalizations which ignore the specific details that make your theory so illogical?

DAVID: Evolution, as a process, naturally produces a 99.9% loss rate.

But according to you, your God (not Nature) designed every species!!! So why did he design 99.9% which, according to you, had no connection with what according to you was his one and only goal?

DAVID: As for a goal or goals for God, humans are obvious. God may well have others not so obvious.

With this statement, you have opened a promising door. Please name what you think might have been his other goals. […]

DAVID: As for your snide oxygen remark, God knew well in advance it would be needed.

dhw: The snide remark concerns your theory that your God did not control environmental changes, but when I point out that this means he relied on luck, suddenly he starts controlling the environment.

DAVID: He only added oxygen when it was necessary, no control over day-to-day environmental changes.

We are not talking about day-to-day changes. For example, forests turning into deserts, and asteroids causing mass extinctions, are not day-to-day changes.

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]

dhw :[…] his lack of control over the environment (= reliance on luck) makes total nonsense of your theory that your God is in total control! It only makes sense if your God deliberately created a system which functioned independently of his control.

DAVID: Exactly my point about Earth's weather and environment.

I thought your point was that your God didn’t depend on luck. But his lack of control over weather and environment meant luck determined what he could and couldn’t design under current conditions. You also believe that luck determined which organisms failed to adapt when conditions changed, and so luck determined which 1% survived for him to work on at the next stage (until the Cambrian, when he started all over again).

dhw: […] If God exists, I’m perfectly happy to believe that he used scientific methods to change the course of evolution this way and that. It fits in with two of my three alternative theories. It is you who insisted that he had no control over the environment, and now you are going out of your way to show how he controlled the environment. […]

DAVID: in my view God is in total control of what has to be controlled for God to continue evolving more and more life. Snowball Earth is proof enough.

Another vague generalization which avoids the subject of our dispute: Why “more and more life”, if 99% of it was irrelevant to what you claim was his one and only purpose?

dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: I allegorically meant exactly what I wrote.

dhw: What do the words “enjoy”, “watch” and “interest” symbolize? The word “allegorically” is meaningless in this context, and you know it. Yes, you meant what you said, just as you meant what you said when you wrote that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. And why wouldn’t he? Why should he NOT create beings which in certain ways will be in his own image – especially if, as you once suggested, he wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him?

DAVID: I'm following Adler's instructions on how to think about God. It is a whole short book.

Please stop hiding behind Adler. You are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, and you know perfectly well what those words mean.