Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 20, 2023, 12:21 (129 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Our only difference is I recognize God's purpose to produce us by His choice method of evolution, and you offer God's who don't make choices or seem to not have any goals.

dhw: According to you, his one and only goal was to produce us plus our food, and his choice of method to produce us was to produce and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. This you describe as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. In all my theistic alternatives, God has a very specific goal (not necessarily the same as yours) and chooses a logical method to achieve his goal.

DAVID: There is only one method which culls 99.9%. All you present is alternative motives for the same events. Those motives all humanize a picture of God.

The history is the loss of 99.9%, and I present alternative reasons for the loss. We have dealt over and over again with your silly “humanizing” objection, in defence of a theory which makes your God a blundering idiot (messy, cumbersome and inefficient) and ignores your own agreement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and enjoys creating things that interest him.

DAVID: With only one method historically available, your God culls 99.9% also.

There is no debate about the loss of 99.9%, but only in one of my theistic versions does he start out with the sole intention of designing us and our food and experiments to find the best way to do it, as opposed to your blunderer who for some unfathomable reason deliberately creates species irrelevant to his goal.

dhw: […] if your all-powerful God only wanted us plus food right from the start and knew how to design us, why did he have to design all the pre-Cambrian forms that had no connection with us plus food? Might it be that he had to experiment first in order to “develop the necessary biochemistry”?

DAVID: Only your humanized form of God needs to experiment. My God makes a pre-planned designed evolution.

So he carefully plans to design 100 out of 100 pre-Cambrian species that are irrelevant to his purpose, and then designs our ancestors and food supply “de novo”, plus another 99.9% of irrelevant species. Great planning!

DAVID: God designed the huge bush of life for our use.

dhw: And 99.9% of history’s huge bush is extinct and was NOT designed for our use. Hence the question why he bothered to design it if he only wanted to design OUR bush.

DAVID: Because He prefers to evolve His creations.

According to you he designs all his creations, and so he designed 99.9 out of 100 that had no connection with us or our bush of food supplies.

DAVID: Stop attacking my God. I like Him just as He is. What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I’m not attacking your God but I’m attacking your illogical theories of evolution, for which you admit you can find no possible reason. There is no “myopic contortion” unless you now wish to deny that you believe your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. Are you now withdrawing this “myopic contortion” of history? (I wish you would. )

DAVID: I can't let you make a mockery of God. with your weird humanizing attempts.

What is the “myopic contortion”? Are you denying the bolded theory which mocks your God’s messy, cumbersome, inefficient designing method?