More "miscellany" PARTS ONE & TWO (General)

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 14, 2023, 21:17 (20 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, September 14, 2023, 21:30


DAVID: Species designed by God contain plans for future events. Crystal ball necessary.

dhw; Species come into existence when existing forms change their structures. At the time when the structures change (i.e. when speciation takes place), do you think any of the new structures will not be used but will simply hang around until some future event makes them necessary?

Some species arrive with non-useful-now abilities that will be used later.

MICROBIOME (Back to theodicy)

DAVID: I repeat. My view are mine alone, totally consistent with ID.

dhw: As your views are yours alone, you can hardly attack my alternatives on the grounds that they are mine alone! You are quite right that your views concerning design are consistent with the theory of intelligent design. So are all my theistic alternatives. What is obviously not supported by ID is your unique theory that your God designed all species for the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% were irrelevant to us plus food. Stop dodging.

ID assumes God designed all of evolution. Not different than my theory.

Early pre-humans

DAVID: Raup's luck is true.

dhw: Then your God relied on luck to preserve the 0.1% of species relevant to his one and only purpose. Great planning!

DAVID: Raup referred to organism's luck in surviving. God knew what species would die so He could replace them with advanced forms.

dhw: Bang goes your God’s control of evolution. All he can do is react to events over which he has no control. Then he replaces the 99.9 irrelevant species with a whole lot of new irrelevant species until they also get blown away, and he can design more irrelevant species and so on. No wonder you regard his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

The Cambrian answers your straw man illogical premise. God designed as God needed to. He didn't mind how long it took. Your 'Irrelevant species' are our food.

DAVID: God's evolution created the current beneficial diversity of life.

dhw: And according to you, God’s evolution also produced the extinct diversity of life which had no relevance to his one and only purpose, and you don’t know why he had to or chose to design the irrelevant 99.9%. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Your usual distorted premise. An evolutionary process, by definition, produces losses and gains. Raup simply defined the degree of loss, as a natural result.

dhw: The only evolution of life that we know of has produced losses and gains. If your God invented evolution, do you think he defined it as “a process which will force me to design 99.9 species that will have no relevance to my one and only purpose and which chance must get rid of”?

Thankfully God never noticed your distorted take. He is clear thinking in comparison.

1) All animals have parasites 2) How plants changed the planet 3) dhw's obsession with 'humans plus food'; current studies

1) DAVID: the whole living world is simply an enormous interlocking series of ecosystems of who eats whom. It was created by an evolutionary system of massive proportions that brought into the present a huge bush of life for all to feast upon. It answers all of dhw's faulty premises feeding his obsession about humans and their food.

2) DAVID: […] dhw's obsession with 'humans and their food' is shown by this very long article to be a false premise. All of that food development as a giant bush of life, was actually a process of evolving the Earth through time.

dhw: Once more, thank you for these highly educational articles. No thanks, however, for your continued attempts to divert attention from your illogical theory of evolution by insulting me. Of course the “food development” was part of the evolution of the giant bush of life, extinct and extant. The false premise lies in your obsessive belief that all of it served your God’s one and only purpose for creating life, which was to design humans and our food, although 99.9% of what he designed had no connection with us and our food. Please stop dodging.

I'm only presenting clarity to dissipate your fog of weird premises.

3) DAVID: this article shows how we dominate the planet and how we use much of the bush of life for our purposes, food supply and otherwise.

dhw: And it highlights the fact that we are destroying the very environment that gives us sustenance. Yes, I am deeply concerned by our human destructiveness. So should you be. Why do you call this concern my “obsession with humans plus food”? Please stop pretending that our mismanagement of the environment has anything to do with my objections to your nonsensical theory of evolution.

The 'mismanagement' simply shows us how fine the line is between sufficiency of food supply and insufficiency. Note yesterday's entry:

Wednesday, September 13, 2023, 19:14 is right on point

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum