Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, April 02, 2023, 11:41 (599 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In two streams the biochemistry advances allowing more advanced body forms, with the final result, the most complex item in the universe, our brain.

dhw: I don’t understand what you mean by “two streams”, but there is no question that the biochemistry advanced and body forms became more complex, and our brain is certainly far more complex than the brains from which it is descended. We don’t know whether this is the “final result”, but our subject of discussion is not what might happen in the next two or three thousand million years. Why have you skipped the 99% of body forms that did not lead to our brain (plus our food)?

DAVID: We've settled the 0.1% survivers are us.

Us and our food. But so far you have only reproduced facts on which we agree, and you have left out the subject of our disagreement, which is your insistence that your magnificent designer came up with an inefficient, cumbersome, messy method of achieving his one and only goal by designing 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to it. Your “explanation” is as follows:

DAVID: God chose to design them for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: You yourself can obviously find no logic whatsoever in your theory – hence your criticism of your inefficient God. On the other hand, experimentation is not “bumbling” if you stop assuming that it must be targeted at a purpose with which it has no connection.

DAVID: Experimenting toward a goal means you don't have any idea how to get there. Not a recognizable God.

In my first theory, instead of your goal being H. sapiens, I take over some of your own concepts and have him wanting to create a life form with thought patterns and emotions like his own. He then proceeds to design countless successful life forms (some of them survived for millions of years) as he gradually comes closer to that goal. In other words, his experiments are targeted, but you are right, he does not know from the very beginning that the life form will have two legs, two arms, a nose, a penis or vagina, and a waggly thumb. In my other alternatives, his goal is to see what new things he can come up with, having invented the first life forms, or to see what they can come up with themselves – in your own words, he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

dhw: Once more: Why would he invent a system that forces him deliberately to design them, kill them off, design another 99% of irrelevant forms etc., until he dabbles with the otherwise uncontrolled environment and starts all over again by designing our ancestors from scratch? Your answer: “for reasons unknown”.

DAVID: Remains your problem. A believer accepts God's choice of method.
And transferred from “More Miscellany”:
DAVID: I am not responsible to know God's exact reasoning for His choice of method. You are using an unanswerable question to attack me spuriously. Worthless debating tool!!!

You don’t know that this inefficient method is your God’s choice! It’s only your theory, and why should a believer accept your illogical theory about God’s purpose and choice of method, when not even you can understand it?

DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

DAVID: Pure historical fact.

What is “pure historical fact” – that your God exists and that he deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species in order that they should not survive because that was the only way he could design the only species he wanted to design? You call that historical fact?

DAVID: I still say God chose it. That is logical from the viewpoint of God the creator.

dhw: How the heck are you able to tell us your God’s viewpoint? Has God really agreed with you that his method of fulfilling his one and only purpose was inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

DAVID: I follow an expert opinion. Adler used God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: For the thousandth time, the subject is not God’s existence. Have both your God and Adler told you that God’s designs were inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

DAVID: The fact that Adler proved God is not the point.

Thank you.

DAVID: The point is Adler used the Darwinian view of evolution for His proof. Adler discussed the failings of Darwin on the subject of evolution (our current subject).

Our current subject is not the “failings of Darwin” but your daft theories of evolution, which you yourself find incomprehensible. You also dismiss alternative theistic theories (which you admit fit in with the history of life) because although you believe your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, you don’t think he has thought patterns and emotions like ours (except for some, like enjoyment and interest, but you’d rather forget those).