Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, December 21, 2023, 10:39 (336 days ago) @ David Turell

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.

DAVID: 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.

For the thousandth time, the absurdity of your theory is not that he chose to evolve us, but that according to you he chose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose of designing us and our food. Stop dodging!

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

Why have you referred to “goals”, when you insist that he only had one? 99.9% of what he designed was irrelevant to us and our food. The fact that we are dominant and use the current bush does not explain why your God would have designed the millions of organisms and bushes that preceded us and our bush, since only 0.1% of them evolved into us and our bush. Stop dodging!

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?

DAVID: Pre-Cambrian prepared for Cambrian forms.

Not according to you, because you insist that Cambrian forms were designed “de novo”, which means they had no predecessors
.
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. […]

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?

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

It’s only inefficient if you insist that we (plus food) were your God’s only purpose and that he was perfectly capable of creating us directly but instead chose to design and cull the 99.9% of irrelevant life forms. What is the “myopic contortion”? Please stop all this dodging.