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

by David Turell , Saturday, May 20, 2023, 16:48 (551 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: By 'we humans' I meant 'us humans'. I referred directly to your point. I didn't know Kingsley was such a quotable authority in old times. Your proposals are for a weak humanized God.

dhw: Your generalisation that “we humans” see evolution as cumbersome is absurd. Most humans couldn’t care less, I have quoted a well-known believer in God who clearly disagrees with you, and I would frankly be amazed if even your dearest friends would agree that your God’s evolutionary methods were messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have no idea why you think my theories, all of which have your God doing precisely what he wants to do, make him weaker, wimpier (used later) and more human than yours, who invents a method which forces him into designing 99 out of 100 life forms irrelevant to his purpose.

Are you and I human as we humans? That was my reference. All forms of God must evolve life to fit the known history pf creation. Your twist is to invent a guy who, unsure of Himself, is experimenting, inventing new ideas for goals which helps explain the broad expanse of the tree of life by blaming a weak God.

DAVID: You are asking does God know what my free will, will conclude? I suspect God knows my thoughts in advance as I freely make them.

dhw: Then I suggest you do not “accept” that God is all-knowing, but you “suspect” that he is. Hardly grounds for dismissing a theory which suggests that he may not be all-knowing.

DAVID: Remember theory is not factual!!!

dhw: That is what I keep telling you, when you inform us authoritatively that your God’s purpose was us, his method was inefficient, he is all-knowing, he does not experiment, and cells are not intelligent.

DAVID: I'll remove the word suspect and change it to it is likely God knows my next thought as I develop them.

dhw: That is another of your bad habits: the moment I point out the implications of your statements, you try to change them: hence your desperate efforts to escape from his having thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, his enjoyment of creating, his interest in his creations, his failed experiments, his cumbersome inefficiency, the possibility of cellular intelligence, and now a suspicion which turns overnight into likelihood.

I do not desperately escape. I still think our thought patterns mimic His, He enjoys creating, He is interested in His creations, etc.

dhw: Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

dhw: I have just presented your theory. Which part of it do you now reject?

DAVID: None of it.

dhw: Then please stop pretending that I distort it!

In this way: that 99% of all evolved organisms must disappear is not a defect of the system. God does not need to control every aspect of climate or weather systems, as His design ability allows Him to design for any condition existing.