Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Thursday, February 08, 2024, 18:46 (79 days ago) @ dhw

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.

dhw: 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”.

Your misinterpreted bold distorts what I wrote. The 0.1% existing came from 99.9% extinct ancestors. Each line had extinctions which combined produce Raup's analysis.

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.

dhw: 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.

dhw: 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.

Once again, every line of survivors, the 0.1%, produced the 99.9% statistic. Everything we use on Earth came from ancestors, who make up the 99.9$. Our line is part of that statistic.

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

dhw: 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.

Weird. The bold is totally backward. What is here is what God wanted here. Each species here had a line of ancestors from the early beginning of life.

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.

dhw: 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.

Your God example ignores a directly purposeful approach and youc offer your usual humanized God made in our image.

dhw: 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!

More distortion. I offered those possible attributes as answers to your enquires into my thoughts about God's personality. Of course, recognizing that in theological thoughts one must learn to understand the words are allegorical when used to describe God. That bold above is your made in our kind sort of God. Mine is purposeful with no intent to satisfy His own 'needs' and has no need to experiment or enjoy a free-for-all.