Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, January 26, 2024, 17:56 (300 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I’m going to try to bring some order into this discussion, which has degenerated almost into farce.

The farce is your making. Evolution had to cull 99.9% to reach today's surviving 0.1%. From a species standpoint humans are tiny part of the millions of species on Earth.

dhw: 1) David’s current theory, following Tony’s intervention: God designed every species that has ever existed and culled 99.9% of them in order to design humans and our food, and in order to put us in charge of everything on Earth and to use all of its resources. However, this was only part of his plan.

2) David has agreed on numerous occasions that 99.9% of species that ever lived had no connection with us or our food, i.e. current species (I can provide quotes), but also insists that 99.9% of them were the ancestors of ourselves and our food, i.e.current species. Mixed in with this explicit contradiction is the acceptable point that 99.9% of our ancestors and those of current species are extinct. This of course is totally different from saying that we and our contemporary species are directly descended from 99.9% of all extinct organisms.

3) David has agreed on numerous occasions that he has no idea why his God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his goal. (I can provide quotes.) He now agrees with Tony, however, that designing us and our food would only have been part of his God’s purpose or plan.

Here your farce continues. God designed millions of species that are not us. The 0.1%, of which we are a part, are the survivors of the culling process. You have morphed a statistical analysis of extinction into a weird description of evolution. Your continued complaint (You don't like that term but that is what it is) is God shouldn't have evolved us. I needn't repeat I don't know why He chose evolution as His method of creating the present case on Earth.

dhw: 4) When asked what other purposes or parts of the plan he envisages, David has replied: ”It is our future”.

Assuming the existence of God, here are four points for David to clarify (and for Tony to comment on if he wishes to):

a) Do we now agree that we and our contemporary species are not directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that ever lived, but are descended from only 0.1% of the organisms that ever lived? (We are accepting the current estimates, but they are not set in stone.)

Finally, a true point.

dhw: b) We cannot think of a single reason why God should create and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose David imposes on him in 1).

c) It therefore makes sense to consider a different purpose for the creation of the 99.9%.

d) Re other purposes or parts of the plan, planning the future of a species which is supposed to have free will does not provide a purpose for the 99.9 extinct species that had no connection with us and our food.

Again, complaining God evolved us and everything else. Tony and I make the same point, what is here is meant for our use.