Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, December 22, 2023, 11:15 (335 days ago) @ David Turell

This whole post consists of one Davidian dodge after another. I shall answer each dodge, in the hope that the message will finally sink in, but I hope your future posts will stick to the point!

DAVID: That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God's.

Thank you for this confirmation, which I will refer to whenever your repeat your silly “humanization” objection to my alternative theories.

DAVID: Why He chose to evolve us is for His unknown reasons to us.

dhw: 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: Your millionth dodge is to distort history. Assuming God exists and creates reality, evolution was His method of producing humans.

If God exists, evolution was his method of producing all life forms that ever lived, including all the life forms that had no connection with humans or their food. NB: When you say evolution, you mean your God designed every individual species.

DAVID: Humans are now in charge and the whole of Earth's living forms can be used by humans.

Agreed.

DAVID: Your absurd proposal is He should have only have evolved us and not the rest?

I have made no such proposal. I have always, as in the bold above, coupled humans and our food (= us and Earth’s other living forms). But we and they have evolved from 0.1% of earlier forms, and our dispute is over your ridiculous theory that in order to produce us and our food, he specially designed and had to cull the other 99.9% which had no connection with us and our food. Please stop dodging and stop putting up these silly straw men!

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

dhw: 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!

DAVID: Do you know of another form of evolution? It takes time and is a very slow way compared to direct evolution of a desired form, which you seem to prefer. The historical record of evolution resulted in 99.9% disappearance of predecessors to reach the current living forms.

Sheer obfuscation. You are glossing over your belief that your God designed every species, and you are juggling with the word “predecessor”. 99.9% of the life forms that preceded us were not our ancestors or the ancestors of our food. And so you have your God specially designing them although they had no connection with his “desired form”.

DAVID: Because I theorize humans were God's major goal you complain and distort the whole picture of evolution. Evolution remains the same with or without a 'goal' for God.

Your last comment is spot on. The history is confined to the fact that 99.9% of species have disappeared, and we and our food are descended from only 0.1%. YOU impose a “goal”, YOU insist that God designed every species, and YOU insist that designing and culling 99.9% of irrelevant species was his messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving the goal you impose on him.

DAVID: […] What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.[…]

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.

dhw: 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.

DAVID: Humans were such an unexpected result from natural evolution, Adler used the point to prove God existed. If a highly respected philosopher of religion chose this position, I have great support for my theology.

Our dispute has nothing whatsoever to do with proving the existence of God, because it only concerns your absurd theory, bolded above, concerning your God’s goal and method of achieving it.

DAVID: Humans were God's goal in evolution. Whatever else God's evolution produced was for humans to use.

But 99.9% of what you say he designed throughout the history of evolution was not for humans to use, and you admit that you have no idea why he produced it. So perhaps as well as being totally illogical, and insulting your God as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, your combined theories are wrong.