Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, February 11, 2024, 18:46 (284 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

dhw: Yes, 99.9% of species in our ancestral/descendant lines are extinct, and yes, they contributed to the 99.9% of extinct species. But there were millions of lines that did not lead to us, and so if your God’s sole purpose was to design nothing but today’s species, the 99.9% of organisms that were NOT our ancestors were irrelevant to his purpose. You have agreed, and admitted that you don’t have a clue why your God would have designed and culled them, and only he can explain it.

Most of this post simply repeats your refusal to acknowledge all the lines that did NOT lead to us. I’ll skip to this one:

DAVID: Raup would not recognize your interpretations. I read Raup!!! The 99.8% are today's ancestors. Remember my triangle example. The point is the start of life; the base is the present life, and the area of the triangle is the 99.9%.

dhw: Your triangle was discredited. Life is a bush. All species go back to its roots, but the branches do not join up, as in a triangle; they spread out far and wide, and 99.9% died out, leaving just 0.1% surviving at the top. I have no doubt that Raup came up with the figure of 99.9% of species being extinct, but I’d be amazed if he said that current species were descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that had ever lived. You yourself said they weren’t – as quoted at the start of this post.

My triangle represents the spreading bush. Its' area is the 99.9% ancestors. Of course, some lines were dead ends, and they part of the 99.9% Raup statistic of extinctions which led to the present surviving life. As in Darwin's view of breeding, culling shaped lines, and the culling adds up to the 99.9% per Raup. With a designer in charge, He created the final species He wanted. Raup's number includes every average extinction in every line and also dead ends. DEAD ENDS WERE NOT GIVEN A SPECIAL STATISTIC.

Purpose

DAVID: Yor sense of purpose in life is laughable. Every reaction is purposeful. Every step in evolution is purposeful.

dhw: I agree that every step is purposeful: from the viewpoint of every organism, the purpose is survival, though we humans have devised a vast range of additional purposes for ourselves. From your God’s point of view, I have offered you alternative purposes for every step – but as you have said elsewhere, you first choose a form of God you wish to believe in. The rest follows.

DAVID: Your meander about God is from baselessness.

dhw: Each of my alternatives is based fairly and squarely on the history of evolution as we know it, and none of them impose a purpose and method on your God that could be described as “messy”, “cumbersome” or “inefficient”. Please tell us why you have denigrated your God’s work in this manner.

Evolution is obviously cumbersome.

DAVID: Allegorical means those words relate to God in a special way.

dhw: When you used the words “recognize him”, “worship him”, “have a relationship with him”, he “enjoys”, he is “interested”, did you think to yourself that they didn’t mean recognize, worship, relationship, enjoy, interested? YOU knew what YOU meant, and if you think the words mean something else, then there is no point in using them.

DAVID: Why do I have to repeat? Those words in our meaning might be altered in some way when applied to God. God does not tell us what those words mean to Him.

dhw: You told me why you thought your God might have wanted to design us. There is no point in using such words unless you mean what you and I know they mean! Do you think your God has his own dictionary which says “worship” means don’t show me how much you love and respect me?

Of course, we know the words meanings for us. Tell me how they apply to God. You have no answer like all of us.

DAVID: God obviously wished us here.

dhw: If God created millions of species that had no connection with us, then presumably he “wished” them here as well.

Same old distortion of Raup's statistic. Millions of species lines were not culled. What is here is exactly what God planned to be here.

DAVID: A purposeful God has no needs for Himself to satisfy. I think God assumes we will worship Him. As for creating, I think God likes everything He does.

dhw: Only you keep using the word “need”. Why do you think enjoyment and interest can’t be a purpose? Why do you think your God would want us to worship him? Why do you think he would want to create something he will like? I‘d appreciate some answers.

That God created a thinking species that might recognize Him is a realistic view. Beyond that is all guesswork. That He thoughtfully gave us an Earth full of life for our use is obvious. Does that make Him a loving God, in religion's image, is a possibility. That He 'wanted' us to worship Him is not clear. My view of God tells me He does not need worship.