Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, December 20, 2023, 15:37 (129 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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.

That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God's. Why He chose to evolve us is for His unknown reasons to us.

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

dhw: 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.

Nothing God evolved was irrelevant to His goals. Humans dominate the Earth and use all of it.

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.

dhw: 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!

Pre-Camrian prepared for Cambrian forms.

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.

The existing bush is for our use. Nothing God evolved was irrelevant to His goals. Humans dominate the Earth and use all of it.

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.

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

You first pointed out evolution was inefficient compared to direct creation. I agree.