Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, February 09, 2024, 13:23 (78 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] 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”.

DAVID: 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.

Correct. The current 0.1% came from 99.9% extinct ancestors (part of Raup's overall 99.9% extinction rate), but they did not come from all the other extinct species which you agree were NOT our ancestors. (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.) The non-survivors, i.e. the rest of the 99.9% rate, were the dead ends you believe your God specially designed and culled, and you have no idea why he designed them in the first place if we were his one and only goal. Stop dodging!

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.

DAVID: 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.

How many more times? You believe he also designed and culled all the species that were NOT our ancestors, and you have no idea why – if he only wanted what is here now - he would use such a wasteful, messy, cumbersome and inefficient process to achieve his one and only purpose.

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.

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

My examples (plural) constitute a purposeful approach. Your “directly” purposeful is a big laugh, since you believe he designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. “Made in our image” can only be partial – I don’t think of him as an old man with a white beard – the “parts” being thought patterns and emotions like ours, to use your own expression, which you prefer to forget.

dhw: 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!

DAVID: More distortion. I offered those possible attributes as answers to your enquires into my thoughts about God's personality.

Yes, you did. And they are humanized.

DAVID: Of course, recognizing that in theological thoughts one must learn to understand the words are allegorical when used to describe God.

We’ve dealt with your silly use of “allegorical” before. You know what YOU meant when you used those words, and they cannot have any other meaning for you. And so you endow him with these “humanized” desires. (I have no objection to them, by the way. The Bible certainly offers you support. It’s only you who apparently object to your own ideas.)

DAVID: 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.

When did God tell you this? When you next talk to him, do please ask him why he messily and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you have allowed him to have. And since you seem to disagree with yourself over his purposes for designing us, perhaps he'll enlighten both of you.