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

by David Turell , Wednesday, February 14, 2024, 16:51 (281 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

dhw: The current estimate is that there are 8.7 million species of plants and animals alive today, compared to 5000,000,000 that were “culled”. (Of course nobody can possibly know the exact figures.) That would be a percentage of 0.18 connected with us. Why would your all-powerful, one-purpose God design and cull 99.82 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose?

DAVID: Where do you get the "5 billion extinct species" authority?

dhw: (Another example of how to avoid an awkward question.) From Wikipedia, but I’ve now looked elsewhere and found 4 billion. As I said above, we can't know the exact figures, but all agree that approx. 99.9% of past species are extinct, and you have agreed that only 0.1% of past species were the ancestors of current species. So whatever the figures, you’re still left with your illogical theory that your all-powerful God deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.

Same complaint God should not have evolved us. The intended species are here following lines from the beginning of life,

References:
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Extinction
5 billion

Dinosaurs
QUOTE: Not all dinosaurs evolved into birds, but all living birds are dinosaurs. […] Long before the asteroid hit, some of the members of a group of dinosaurs called Penneraptorans began to evolve feathers and the ability to fly.

dhw: I’ve no idea what percentage of dinosaur species was made up of Penneraptorans, but one website suggests there were 700 known species of dinosaur. This would at least suggest that the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of birds or of any other contemporary species.

DAVID: Many forms had multiple species which became extinct as ancestors of the small number living. 99.9% gone is a huge percentage compared to the now living total. If 5 billion are extinct they form part of the 99.9%.

dhw:99.9% of the ancestors of the current 0.1% are extinct and form a small percentage of the 99.9% of ALL extinct life forms. Last month, you wrote: “Dinosaurs are all dead. They might be ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now.” If they were not the ancestors, then they were 100% unconnected with the present. Now apparently ONE GROUP (Penneraptorans) were the ancestors. So the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT our ancestors.

They were only bird ancestors. They were not in our development evolutionary line. Separate lines led to the separate species living. Separate lines produced 99.9% extinct. God did not make 99.9% useless species!!!

dhw: So why would your God have deliberately designed and culled all the creatures that were NOT the ancestors of the 0.1% that “He wanted here”? Apparently only God knows why he’s been so inefficient.

Still total confusion.

Purpose

(Re David’s earlier beliefs that God wants to be recognized and worshipped, and enjoys creating):
DAVID: These words are not what they MEAN to God as you phrase it. It is, can they describe God in any meaningful way?

dhw: Correct, so stop this silly talk of the words being “allegorical” We both know what they mean. Do they describe God in any meaningful way? Yes, of course they do. He wants us to recognize and worship him is perfectly meaningful. The question is whether the description is true or false.

DAVID: Right, therefore allegorical.

"Allegorical" doesn't mean right or wrong, and the words “recognize”,“worship” etc. are not symbols! We both know what they mean, and the question is whether it’s true or not that your God wants us to worship him.

DAVID: My image of God is totally unknown to you, based on your criticisms.

dhw: I’m fully aware of his alleged desire for recognition and worship – it’s at the heart of religious services - and it may well be correct, in which case it’s ridiculous for you to claim he has no self-interest. It’s equally ridiculous for you to say you are certain he enjoys creating and yet to reject the possibility that his purpose might be to give himself the enjoyment of creating.

DAVID: God does not create to satisfy an inner need or self-interest.
But:
DAVID: I agree all of us has the right to imagine God in their own way.

dhw: So stop pretending you know best, and therefore my alternatives (e.g. experimentation, discovery, enjoyment) are impossible. Nobody knows the truth, and our theories are equally subjective. The only difference is that mine logically fit history without criticizing your God, whereas yours defy logic and ridicule your God.

DAVID: Thank you for protecting my God.

dhw: I don’t understand why you insist that he’s inefficient, just because you can’t conceive that at least one of your illogical theories might be wrong.

I'm honest about my view of God. If you see only purpose, your muddled mind will understand,