Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Wednesday, January 24, 2024, 12:45 (302 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your question is a distortion of evolutionary math. To end with 0.1%, 99.9% died. Evolution happened, and my belief is God did it.
Later:
DAVID: My theory is based on analyzing God's works assuming God evolved us as His method of creation.

dhw: Yes, evolution happened, and if God exists, he used it as his method of creation. But you simply keep omitting your theory that he did it for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food and yet, according to you, he deliberately designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. What is the “distortion”? Is that your belief or not? Please answer.

DAVID: I have bolded the false part of your stated objection. I have previously modified my theory. Why do you purposely forget it??? God designed evolution to produce us and the diversity of life on Earth for our use.

Your modification does not solve the problem you have created with your insistence that he specially designed and culled 99.9% of diverse past species that had no connection with his sole purpose of designing us so that we could use the current diversity. However:

dhw: if he chose to provide the Earth with a vast diversity of forms, extinct and extant, we can joyfully discard your totally illogical combination of theories. Diversity unconnected with us and our food becomes an end in itself, which fits in beautifully with his enjoyment of creation and his interest in his creations. Gone is the single purpose (us plus food) which makes such utter nonsense of your previous theories. This looks promising.

DAVID: The bold is promising agreement.

And it leads logically to the non-bold as a possible explanation for the vast diversity of past life forms.

Tony: "sole purpose" This is one of those phrases I always took issue with. Why do we (humans) have to be the 'sole purpose' as opposed to 'part of the plan'?

DAVID: Part of the plan is better.
And under “euglenids”:
dhw: Once more, could it possibly be that your God did not want just us and our food, but actually wanted a vast variety of living forms even before our late arrival on the scene?

DAVID: Yes to the now bolded.

We are making huge progress. Many thanks, Tony, for your intervention – and it’s great to hear from you! (I hope you and your family are flourishing. See also “More miscellany, Part Two.) We can now discuss what might be the other parts of the plan. Question to Tony and David: Why do you think your God might have wanted the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans and our use of current resources?

In case you might wonder why this matters, it ultimately concerns the very nature of a possible God if we assume he exists.