Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, January 11, 2024, 16:29 (315 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

dhw: Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest?

More evidence God must be like humans, in your mind.

dhw: My second effort was a waste of space, as it has produced the following response:

DAVID: Raup dealt with evolution from the Cambrian on. Ediacaran's are our ancestors, 100% dead. Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now. Why do you try to slice up fully departed species into Raup's findings? The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%, of which we are a tiny portion.

dhw: Incoherent! 99.9% of what, if not of every organism that ever lived? Having agreed last week that we plus food are descended from 0.1% of past species, you now tell us that we plus food are descended from 990 out of 1000 Ediacarans, but maybe from NONE of the 1000 dinosaurs. Simple question: do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived? Yes or no?

No. From the 0.1% surviving. The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%, of which we are a tiny portion.

The immune system

DAVID: I guess I need to spend more time to be sure I am clear in my answers. I said the immune system is automatic. My cell brain comment was meant to be taken as sarcasm.

dhw: Clear answers have become a rarity, as illustrated by all your self-contradictions during discussions on your God’s motives, the 0.1% v 99.9% dispute, crystal ball speciation, and “irreducible complexity”.

DAVID: Your math for evolution is confused by slicing and dicing family groups; IC totally confuses you; and you still don't understand the ID view of speciation by a designing mind.

dhw: Your confusion over 99.9% ancestry is dealt with above; IC had you so totally confused that you invalidated your own definition; and I understand your belief that speciation was designed directly by your God, but you still don’t understand that design by intelligent cells (perhaps themselves designed by your God) is also intelligent design, though not by a single mind.

Totally rejected. Design requires consciousness. Are your cell committees' conscious?

Theodicy

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: (...)You raised the problem of theodicy in the first place, came up with the daft “solution” that there’s no problem so long as you ignore the evil, agreed to drop the subject, but for some reason decided to raise it again because Godel thinks God is perfect.

DAVID: Godel should be of interest in this website.

dhw: See “Miscellany Part Two” for his daft hypothesis concerning an afterlife. I still don’t know why, after we had agreed not to repeat the discussion on theodicy, you decided to start it again by telling us Godel thinks God is perfect.

Godel is a famous thinker in logic. Note his incompleteness theorem. His opinions are worth something to those with open minds.