Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, February 08, 2024, 11:30 (287 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You continue to conflate the two sets of statistics. 1) Yes, all current species are the product of their own line, and 99.9% of their ancestors have disappeared. […] 2) No, 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed were NOT the ancestors of current species, but were dead ends, as you […] vividly illustrated with all your comments on dinosaurs.

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: So please stop pretending that you disagree with yourself, and face up to the fact that this statistic leads to the illogical combination of theories which you are so desperate to avoid discussing: If, as you believe, your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s one and only purpose was to design contemporary species, including us, why would he have deliberately and knowingly designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with that purpose?Your response so far has been one evasion after another […], or the frank admission that you have no idea, but as you won’t consider any other theory, yours must be true, and only God knows why he would act in such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient manner (your own description).

DAVID: I have never evaded your criticism. I see God as providing the vast bush of life for human use. Thus, there is nothing discarded as you state.

The vast bush of current life consists of 0.1% of all the species that ever lived. You are conveniently forgetting the fact that according to you, our 0.1% are NOT descended from 99.9% of the species which, according to you, your God deliberately designed and culled. And you have conveniently forgotten the obvious example of dinosaurs, whose only descendants may be birds, which means – as you made abundantly clear - that the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of any current species. They were “discarded”.

DAVID: Nothing with no connection. Following the assumption of God in charge, God produced the history of evolution we have discovered and in the development of all forms, 99.9% of their ancestors went extinct, the natural culling process of evolution.

Back to statistic 1). Yes, 99.9% of the ancestors of current species went extinct. Statistic 2). No, we are not descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that ever lived. And if God is in charge, there is no “natural culling process”: you have told us that he designed every species, and “planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling”. Will you ever stop contradicting yourself?

DAVID: No dead ends to God's purpose. You have distorted all of this in your amazing statement: "knowingly designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with that purpose", exactly the opposite to the facts as applied to God. All the species God wanted are here for our use.

But 99.9% of the species you say your God designed are NOT here for our use, and although 99.9% of the ancestors of those who are here are extinct, you have agreed that those who are here are NOT descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived. Please stop contradicting yourself, and stop pretending that I am distorting your statements. If the 99.9% were not our ancestors, then they had no connection with us.

DAVID: You see a wasteful process when there is none.

It is you who call your version of evolution messy, cumbersome and inefficient. By all means add “wasteful”, since it is you who tell us that he designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were NOT the ancestors of the only species he wanted to design.

DAVID: I think you deliberately avoid the concept of purpose. As for why God used the method, we call evolution, is obviously unknown. And yes, my description fits.

I have never avoided the concept of purpose, and for the umpteenth time I answered you yesterday on the “Miscellany” thread, but you chose to ignore the answer:
dhw: Enjoyment, interest, experimentation, discovery, learning are all purposes that could underlie the creation of a free-for-all, but of course you, who agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, cannot accept the possibility that he might have thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: Again, your humanized God appears […]

You say I “avoid the concept of purpose”, although I offer you alternative purposes. As they do not conform to the thought patterns you want your God to have, you pretend that they don’t count as possible purposes. Once upon a time, you had him wanting us to recognize his work, worship him, and maybe have a relationship with him. Not ”humanized”? And once upon a time you were certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. It seems to have become an automatic reaction that the moment you find yourself in agreement with me, you try to withdraw your statements!