Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:01 (835 days ago)

PART ONE
dhw (transferred from “Insect migration”): We are not talking about your fixed belief in God, which I accept has a logical base (design), but about your illogical theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc., and he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although the majority of life forms etc. had no connection with humans and their food

DAVID: Same tired illogical complaint. I'll stick with Adler's approach, that the evolution of humans is the best proof of God we've got.

Once again: the issue here is not the EXISTENCE of God but your theory concerning his purpose and method! Stop dodging!

DAVID: […] your main concern is that God gave organisms more latitude in their own futuristic designs.

dhw: […] My main concern is the illogicality of the above bolded theory, which you constantly avoid discussing. “Latitude” or freedom is only one of my alternatives (see below), and designs are responses to changing conditions in the present, not “futuristic”.

DAVID: The gaps are leaps into the future, aren't they(?), which you continue to dodge by a hopeless prayer for more fossils which are not found. The Cambrian gap is 200 years old, isn't it?

I don’t know what your 200 years refers to. The Cambrian lasted for over 55 million years. The gaps relate to new life forms which do not appear to have had any predecessors, i.e. any links to past forms. How does that invalidate the theory that new species come into being in RESPONSE to changing conditions, as opposed to in ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

Transferred from “cellular intelligence”
DAVID: 'Adaptations' imply tiny steps, not the way to speciation which are giant steps into the future requiring major design.

dhw: It’s sometimes difficult to draw a borderline between adaptations and innovations (leg turning into flipper might be one example) but as usual you are missing or avoiding the point. We KNOW that small changes are a RESPONSE to new conditions. Why do you insist that large changes can only be made by anticipation of new conditions? Is it not far more logical to assume that all changes, large and small, will be a response rather than an act of clairvoyance? Why change something that is working perfectly well in the present?

DAVID: We are discussing God, aren't we? How did evolution work, but by introducing new forms into their new future which I pose as designed by God.

“Introducing new forms into their new future” is a neat obfuscation! Of course once a new form has arisen through its RESPONSE to new conditions it will then have a future under those conditions. And it will go on reproducing itself automatically for thousands of years until new conditions arise. Then it will RESPOND, change accordingly, and again have a new future under the new conditions. We are discussing the ORIGIN of species. So why do you think it is more logical for organisms to be changed BEFORE new conditions demand or allow for the changes? Do you really imagine your pre-whales sitting on the seashore with their new flippers, waiting for the moment when there is water for them to dive into?

DAVID: God obviously designed what He wished to design, pure history.

Obviously God, if he exists, would have done what he wanted to do! And yet again, it makes no sense for him to WANT only one species plus its food, and yet to design millions of life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food.

Dhw (transferred from “insect migration”): Obvious possible theistic alternatives: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

You have left out 1), 2) and 3), and you stick to a God who has one goal but inexplicably designs millions of life forms and natural wonders that have no relation to his goal. Some theory!

DAVID: I follow just as highly trained folks as your experts, but they believe in God and see evolution as I do. […]

dhw: How many of your scientists believe every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those unconnected with humans, was specially designed by your god “as part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Apparently not even Adler does so.

DAVID: Not part of his book, which you probably never knew about, copyright 1967.

Right. And who are all the other scientists who see evolution as you do, with every life form and natural wonder specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:07 (835 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO
dhw (transferred from “ more miscellany”): The rest of your post simply ignores all the arguments against your theories:

DAVID: It is your illogical thought constantly misinterpreting God's actions.

dhw?????? My anthropocentric theory is entirely comprehensible to clear thinking.
Stop bringing up your objections to my pure logic.

These are quotes from you, not from me!!!

DAVID: Logic which fits the personality of a severely humanized God.

It is you who claim that your theory is pure logic – even though you can’t understand it yourself! As before, why do think a laissez-faire God or an experimental scientist God is more “severely humanized” than a control freak who keeps digressing from his one and only purpose, and who is forced by circumstances beyond his control to create a system containing errors which he tries but often fails to correct?

DAVID: You don't realize how differently we approach thinking about God. I'll repeat, I fully accept history as telling us what God's choices of creation were.

I also accept that if God exists, history tells us his choice, which is the vast bush of life forms that we know exists and existed. The difference between us lies in our interpretation of how and why he produced the vast bush.

DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

DAVID: You look for a humanly consistent God which is not logical. God can do what he wants when He wants not following human reason for His reasons only. Why should He be at all like any human you know?

And off you go again, leaving out the fact that according to you all these designs served only one purpose, which was to design H. sapiens and his food. Yes, I look for logic in your God’s actions. You yourself, in your more enlightened moments, have agreed that we mimic him, and that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours. And I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:41 (835 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: It is you who claim that your theory is pure logic – even though you can’t understand it yourself! As before, why do think a laissez-faire God or an experimental scientist God is more “severely humanized” than a control freak who keeps digressing from his one and only purpose, and who is forced by circumstances beyond his control to create a system containing errors which he tries but often fails to correct?

Calling a purposeful God a 'control-freak' is a purposeful distortion, something you do all the time. It is shown in your final 'forced by circumstances' comment. The fact is God created life with the only system that works, warts and all, and edited for warts because He knew exactly what He was doing.

DAVID: You don't realize how differently we approach thinking about God. I'll repeat, I fully accept history as telling us what God's choices of creation were.

dhw: I also accept that if God exists, history tells us his choice, which is the vast bush of life forms that we know exists and existed. The difference between us lies in our interpretation of how and why he produced the vast bush.

Your interpretation is not mine.


DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

dhw: Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

Back we go to a weak, humanized God who hands off a major part of His job.


DAVID: You look for a humanly consistent God which is not logical. God can do what he wants when He wants not following human reason for His reasons only. Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: And off you go again, leaving out the fact that according to you all these designs served only one purpose, which was to design H. sapiens and his food. Yes, I look for logic in your God’s actions. You yourself, in your more enlightened moments, have agreed that we mimic him, and that he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours. And I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

Same problem: God is so advanced you completely misunderstand the concept of God. He knows all we know and so much more. It doesn't take 'enlightenment' to know we mimic Him slightly. Your imagined humanized God I see as Him mimicking us!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 17:26 (834 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO
dhw: […] who are all the other scientists who see evolution as you do, with every life form and natural wonder specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food?

DAVID: All of ID feels God designed evolution and humans through 3.8 billion years of evolution, after He designed life itself.

Yes I know. How many of them believe thathe individually designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans, as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans and their food”?

DAVID: You avoid reading ID as well as Adler, while defending your position. How well-rounded is your background of research studying thoughts of all great minds? I even follow Larry Moran!!

Yes, yes, you have read lots of books that I haven’t read. Now please save me years and years of research and let me into the great secret: name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

dhw: It is you who claim that your theory is pure logic – even though you can’t understand it yourself! As before, why do think a laissez-faire God or an experimental scientist God is more “severely humanized” than a control freak who keeps digressing from his one and only purpose, and who is forced by circumstances beyond his control to create a system containing errors which he tries but often fails to correct?

DAVID: Calling a purposeful God a 'control-freak' is a purposeful distortion, something you do all the time. It is shown in your final 'forced by circumstances' comment. The fact is God created life with the only system that works, warts and all, and edited for warts because He knew exactly what He was doing.

Suddenly your theory has become a fact. I used “control freak” as a counter to your dismissal of an experimenting God as weak, purposeless, bumbling etc. And since your God is supposed to have created everything from the beginning, and is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing, I find it somewhat belittling to claim that he could only find one way of creating life, knew there would be errors, and tried but frequently failed to correct them, leaving it to us humans to find a solution. I suggest that instead, the system devised by your all-powerful God – if he exists – was precisely the one he wanted, in which all life forms were given the freedom to find their own ways of survival. Hence the “good” and the “bad” which create the problem of theodicy for theologians. Why are you so opposed to the idea that your all-powerful God might have WANTED the existing system with its so-called “errors” instead of “having to” (you have used those words before) design it that way?

DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

dhw: Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

DAVID: Back we go to a weak, humanized God who hands off a major part of His job.

How do you know what his “job” was? It’s you who insist that his job was to design humans plus food! And why is it “weak” to create autonomous life? And why is your all-powerful though not all-powerful (see above re errors) puppet master or control freak less human than my laissez-faire creator?

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

DAVID: Same problem: God is so advanced you completely misunderstand the concept of God. He knows all we know and so much more. It doesn't take 'enlightenment' to know we mimic Him slightly. Your imagined humanized God I see as Him mimicking us!

I am not disputing the fact that if a being can create universes and life itself, he must know much more than we know! Thank you for yet again agreeing that we “mimic” him. I have no idea what “slightly” means in this context, since you have avoided answering my question directly. You can only mimic something that already exists, and so it is totally absurd to imagine that God mimicked us when he created us!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 18:52 (834 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: All of ID feels God designed evolution and humans through 3.8 billion years of evolution, after He designed life itself.

dhw: Yes I know. How many of them believe thathe individually designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans, as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans and their food”?

I think they all do.


DAVID: You avoid reading ID as well as Adler, while defending your position. How well-rounded is your background of research studying thoughts of all great minds? I even follow Larry Moran!!

dhw: Yes, yes, you have read lots of books that I haven’t read. Now please save me years and years of research and let me into the great secret: name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

Behe, Meyer, Demski.


DAVID: Calling a purposeful God a 'control-freak' is a purposeful distortion, something you do all the time. It is shown in your final 'forced by circumstances' comment. The fact is God created life with the only system that works, warts and all, and edited for warts because He knew exactly what He was doing.

dhw: Suddenly your theory has become a fact. I used “control freak” as a counter to your dismissal of an experimenting God as weak, purposeless, bumbling etc. And since your God is supposed to have created everything from the beginning, and is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing, I find it somewhat belittling to claim that he could only find one way of creating life, knew there would be errors, and tried but frequently failed to correct them, leaving it to us humans to find a solution. I suggest that instead, the system devised by your all-powerful God – if he exists – was precisely the one he wanted, in which all life forms were given the freedom to find their own ways of survival. Hence the “good” and the “bad” which create the problem of theodicy for theologians. Why are you so opposed to the idea that your all-powerful God might have WANTED the existing system with its so-called “errors” instead of “having to” (you have used those words before) design it that way?

My God had to have this system of life as the only one that will work at the speeds necessary. So, yes, this is what He wanted. But not from the weak humanized God you always imply. I repeat, we see very different Gods in characterizing God's personality.


DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

dhw: Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

DAVID: Back we go to a weak, humanized God who hands off a major part of His job.

dhw: How do you know what his “job” was? It’s you who insist that his job was to design humans plus food! And why is it “weak” to create autonomous life? And why is your all-powerful though not all-powerful (see above re errors) puppet master or control freak less human than my laissez-faire creator?

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.


DAVID: Same problem: God is so advanced you completely misunderstand the concept of God. He knows all we know and so much more. It doesn't take 'enlightenment' to know we mimic Him slightly. Your imagined humanized God I see as Him mimicking us!

dhw: I am not disputing the fact that if a being can create universes and life itself, he must know much more than we know! Thank you for yet again agreeing that we “mimic” him. I have no idea what “slightly” means in this context, since you have avoided answering my question directly. You can only mimic something that already exists, and so it is totally absurd to imagine that God mimicked us when he created us!

Since God is so powerful, our mimicking can only be in a small degree.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 11:22 (833 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO
dhw: Why are you so opposed to the idea that your all-powerful God might have WANTED the existing system with its so-called “errors” instead of “having to” (you have used those words before) design it that way?

DAVID: My God had to have this system of life as the only one that will work at the speeds necessary.

There you are: he “had to”. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was compelled by conditions of his own making to create a system with errors which he did not want, and tried – often unsuccessfully – to correct.

DAVID: So, yes, this is what He wanted. But not from the weak humanized God you always imply. I repeat, we see very different Gods in characterizing God's personality.

It is you who make him weak! I propose that his powers (if he exists) are unlimited, and the system with its capacity for all life forms from molecules upwards to do their own thing was what he WANTED to create, and not what he “had to” create.

DAVID: Creating the underlying basic living process came first, then the design of new forms, some as in the Cambrian completely new. Other partial new design as adaptations of old ones. All God's choice at the time.

dhw: Alternatively, he created the mechanism whereby these forms were able to design themselves.

DAVID: Back we go to a weak, humanized God who hands off a major part of His job.

dhw: How do you know what his “job” was? It’s you who insist that his job was to design humans plus food! And why is it “weak” to create autonomous life? And why is your all-powerful though not all-powerful (see above re errors) puppet master or control freak less human than my laissez-faire creator?

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.

Then we see the same God, since if he exists, according to you only he could have created them!

DAVID: Same problem: God is so advanced you completely misunderstand the concept of God. He knows all we know and so much more. It doesn't take 'enlightenment' to know we mimic Him slightly. Your imagined humanized God I see as Him mimicking us!

dhw: I am not disputing the fact that if a being can create universes and life itself, he must know much more than we know! Thank you for yet again agreeing that we “mimic” him. I have no idea what “slightly” means in this context, since you have avoided answering my question directly. You can only mimic something that already exists, and so it is totally absurd to imagine that God mimicked us when he created us!

DAVID: Since God is so powerful, our mimicking can only be in a small degree.

Yes, yes, we are minuscule compared to his almightiness. But that still leaves plenty of room for him to want a free-for-all, or to experiment, or to have new ideas as he goes along, and above all in the context of our discussion, it leaves plenty of room for him to act logically and, if he has a single purpose, to fulfil it without all the diversions you impose on him (i.e. God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, and therefore he designed the brontosaurus and the weaverbird’s nest, neither of which had/has any connection to humans.)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 16:15 (833 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 16:22

PART TWO

DAVID: My God had to have this system of life as the only one that will work at the speeds necessary.

dhw: There you are: he “had to”. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was compelled by conditions of his own making to create a system with errors which he did not want, and tried – often unsuccessfully – to correct.

Don't you understand the phrase: "the only one that will work" implies that is all there is to pick from. Nothing else will work. God was not stuck. He arrived at the only correct answer to the question of 'how do I create life'. And there is plenty of evidence He recognize the warts in the designed editing systems all over the place. Open your completely closed mind. All presented before, copiously.


DAVID: So, yes, this is what He wanted. But not from the weak humanized God you always imply. I repeat, we see very different Gods in characterizing God's personality.

dhw: It is you who make him weak! I propose that his powers (if he exists) are unlimited, and the system with its capacity for all life forms from molecules upwards to do their own thing was what he WANTED to create, and not what he “had to” create.

Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?


dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.

dhw: Then we see the same God, since if he exists, according to you only he could have created them!

He created us so we could have emotions, al of them.


DAVID: Since God is so powerful, our mimicking can only be in a small degree.

dhw: Yes, yes, we are minuscule compared to his almightiness. But that still leaves plenty of room for him to want a free-for-all, or to experiment, or to have new ideas as he goes along, and above all in the context of our discussion, it leaves plenty of room for him to act logically and, if he has a single purpose, to fulfil it without all the diversions you impose on him (i.e. God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, and therefore he designed the brontosaurus and the weaverbird’s nest, neither of which had/has any connection to humans.)

Evolution required past stages, past ecosystems as part of God's choice of method of creation. Without ecosystems for food we wouldn't be here. Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth. Adler used the appearance of humans as a proof of God. Are you afraid of read his opinions as developed? No, you must protect your rigidity. And don't complain to me you can't. I was agnostic like you until with open mind I started reading in my 50's. In the other thread you have shown you have no idea of ID's philosophic approach to purposely not using any sniff of religion or God in how they present design as a sole argument.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Friday, December 17, 2021, 15:06 (832 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO
DAVID: My God had to have this system of life as the only one that will work at the speeds necessary.

dhw: There you are: he “had to”. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was compelled by conditions of his own making to create a system with errors which he did not want, and tried – often unsuccessfully – to correct.

DAVID: Don't you understand the phrase: "the only one that will work" implies that is all there is to pick from. Nothing else will work.

I understand it. I just don’t believe that an all-powerful God is incapable of designing a system that doesn’t make errors, or that he is incapable of correcting some of the errors. And I propose that the system he designed was the system he WANTED to design.

DAVID: So, yes, this is what He wanted. But not from the weak humanized God you always imply. […]

dhw: It is you who make him weak! I propose that his powers (if he exists) are unlimited, and the system with its capacity for all life forms from molecules upwards to do their own thing was what he WANTED to create, and not what he “had to” create.

DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

DAVID: Why should He be at all like any human you know?

dhw: […] I find it totally logical that if God exists as first cause, whatever he creates will reflect some aspect of himself, since it never existed until he thought of it. Do you really think your God has no idea what it means to love, hate, enjoy, be bored, be sad, be happy? Are we that much more advanced than he is? If he exists.

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.

dhw: Then we see the same God, since if he exists, according to you only he could have created them!

DAVID: He created us so we could have emotions, all of them.

So how does that come to mean we don’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his?

DAVID: Since God is so powerful, our mimicking can only be in a small degree.

dhw: Yes, yes, we are minuscule compared to his almightiness. But that still leaves plenty of room for him to want a free-for-all, or to experiment, or to have new ideas as he goes along, and above all in the context of our discussion, it leaves plenty of room for him to act logically and, if he has a single purpose, to fulfil it without all the diversions you impose on him (i.e. God’s only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, and therefore he designed the brontosaurus and the weaverbird’s nest, neither of which had/has any connection to humans.)

DAVID: Evolution required past stages, past ecosystems as part of God's choice of method of creation. Without ecosystems for food we wouldn't be here.

Nor would all the other life forms that had/have no connection with humans, so why did he design them if the only species he wanted to design were us and our food? Stop dodging!

DAVID: Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth.

I’m sorry, but there are no lies here. Your mantra is the illogical premise I have questioned in bold and for which you admit you can find no logical explanation. I have proposed alternative scenarios which you agree are logical. There is no “lying”.

DAVID: Adler used the appearance of humans as a proof of God. Are you afraid of read his opinions as developed? No, you must protect your rigidity.

I have a thousand times accepted the logic of your argument and Adler’s that humans (and indeed all other life forms) are so complex that they must have been designed, and design requires a designer. I have other reasons for my agnosticism, but you know perfectly well that in our discussions on evolution I am, for the sake of argument, speculating on your God’s motives and methods, not in his existence! So please stop dodging!

DAVID: […] In the other thread you have shown you have no idea of ID's philosophic approach to purposely not using any sniff of religion or God in how they present design as a sole argument.

See the other thread for your usual avoidance of the question I asked.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, December 17, 2021, 16:00 (832 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, December 17, 2021, 16:12

PART TWO

DAVID: Don't you understand the phrase: "the only one that will work" implies that is all there is to pick from. Nothing else will work.

dhw: I understand it. I just don’t believe that an all-powerful God is incapable of designing a system that doesn’t make errors, or that he is incapable of correcting some of the errors. And I propose that the system he designed was the system he WANTED to design.

Once again, you do not accept the limitation in life's system design.


DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

My concept of your humanized God is very weakly answered by trying to make my God human. You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.


dhw: Then we see the same God, since if he exists, according to you only he could have created them!

DAVID: He created us so we could have emotions, all of them.

dhw; So how does that come to mean we don’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his?

DAVID: We see very different Gods. Of course He knows all of our emotions.>

DAVID: Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth.

dhw: I'm sorry but there are no lies here. Your mantra is the illogical premise I have questioned in bold and for which you admit you can find no logical explanation. I have proposed alternative scenarios which you agree are logical. There is no “lying”.

Again your fully distorted 'no logical explanation' meaningless response. I cannot know why God chose to evolve all of reality, as history tells us. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Adler used the appearance of humans as a proof of God. Are you afraid of read his opinions as developed? No, you must protect your rigidity.

dhw: have a thousand times accepted the logic of your argument and Adler’s that humans (and indeed all other life forms) are so complex that they must have been designed, and design requires a designer. I have other reasons for my agnosticism, but you know perfectly well that in our discussions on evolution I am, for the sake of argument, speculating on your God’s motives and methods, not in his existence! So please stop dodging!

DAVID: […] In the other thread you have shown you have no idea of ID's philosophic approach to purposely not using any sniff of religion or God in how they present design as a sole argument.

dhw: See the other thread for your usual avoidance of the question I asked.

The other thread explains how ID works, since you have limited your reading to areas that support your agnosticism. If you accept the design argument, why/how can you possibly have other reasons for disbelief? A 'required designer' MUST, therefore, exist.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 07:56 (832 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: Don't you understand the phrase: "the only one that will work" implies that is all there is to pick from. Nothing else will work.

dhw: I understand it. I just don’t believe that an all-powerful God is incapable of designing a system that doesn’t make errors, or that he is incapable of correcting some of the errors. And I propose that the system he designed was the system he WANTED to design.

DAVID: Once again, you do not accept the limitation in life's system design.

Of course I accept that the system keeps breaking down! But once again, I do not accept your theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God is incapable of designing an error-free system, as well as being incapable of correcting many of its “errors”, and I would find it more logical that being all-powerful and all-knowing, he CHOSE to invent the system – not with errors, but with the freedom to diversify into what we consider to be the “good” and the “bad”.

DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

DAVID: My concept of your humanized God is very weakly answered by trying to make my God human.

Please answer my questions.

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: Your constantly repeated illogical negative mantra fills space and reminds me of Joe Goebel's belief. Repeating a lie often enough becomes the truth.

dhw: I'm sorry but there are no lies here. Your mantra is the illogical premise I have questioned in bold and for which you admit you can find no logical explanation. I have proposed alternative scenarios which you agree are logical. There is no “lying”.

DAVID: Again your fully distorted 'no logical explanation' meaningless response. I cannot know why God chose to evolve all of reality, as history tells us. Stop dodging.

I do not question your belief that God – if he exists – chose to evolve all of reality, because I too believe that evolution happened. I only question your rigid belief that he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc. (he could equally have chosen to give them the means of designing themselves) for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food although the vast majority of his designs had no connection with humans plus food. You always dodge the illogicality by leaving out one or other of these basic, conflicting premises.

DAVID: […] In the other thread you have shown you have no idea of ID's philosophic approach to purposely not using any sniff of religion or God in how they present design as a sole argument.

dhw: See the other thread for your usual avoidance of the question I asked.

DAVID: The other thread explains how ID works, since you have limited your reading to areas that support your agnosticism. If you accept the design argument, why/how can you possibly have other reasons for disbelief? A 'required designer' MUST, therefore, exist.

I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer. But I have also said again and again that if we accept the idea that life and consciousness are too complex NOT to have been designed, how can we possibly believe that there is a form of life and consciousness infinitely more powerful than our own which was NOT designed? The philosophical/theological cop-out is the idea of “first cause”, but that does not answer the question. We might just as well believe in an eternal, impersonal mass of energy and matter which eventually produced the conditions for life and the rudiments of consciousness, which then evolved into all their complexities, as believe in a know-it-all mind that has always simply been there, without a source. I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe, as I have explained over and over again, and that is why I remain agnostic.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 19:02 (831 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 19:12

PART TWO

DAVID: Once again, you do not accept the limitation in life's system design.

dhw: Of course I accept that the system keeps breaking down! But once again, I do not accept your theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God is incapable of designing an error-free system, as well as being incapable of correcting many of its “errors”,

Your imagination about your God runs wild. My contention is this is the only working system available for Him to create. My God created all of our reality and it runs very well. God's editing systems clearly shows He knew errors were possible and editing required.

dhw: and I would find it more logical that being all-powerful and all-knowing, he CHOSE to invent the system – not with errors, but with the freedom to diversify into what we consider to be the “good” and the “bad”.

Your so-called God chooses errors (chance mutations) to advance evolution. Who knows what monsters might be created. As below:


DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

DAVID: My concept of your humanized God is very weakly answered by trying to make my God human.

dhw: Please answer my questions.

Your God invention is purely humanized and makes a real conception of God confused


DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

dhw: You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

Nothing.


dhw: I do not question your belief that God – if he exists – chose to evolve all of reality, because I too believe that evolution happened. I only question your rigid belief that he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc. (he could equally have chosen to give them the means of designing themselves)

If God designed reality, as you accept, your question is patently illogical. The God I see dos not give out secondhand designing abilities requiring His mind.

dhw: I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer.

You did not know ID never mentions God, except now in Meyer's book.

dhw: But I have also said again and again that if we accept the idea that life and consciousness are too complex NOT to have been designed, how can we possibly believe that there is a form of life and consciousness infinitely more powerful than our own which was NOT designed?

There logically must be a powerful designing mind.

dhw: The philosophical/theological cop-out is the idea of “first cause”, but that does not answer the question. We might just as well believe in an eternal, impersonal mass of energy and matter which eventually produced the conditions for life and the rudiments of consciousness, which then evolved into all their complexities, as believe in a know-it-all mind that has always simply been there, without a source. I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe, as I have explained over and over again, and that is why I remain agnostic.

So you conjure up an 'eternal mass of energy and matter' to do the complex designs. Can this mess think up the designs for reality? How? It still takes brilliant mentation. Something cannot appear without cause except a first cause. Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 13:01 (830 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: Invent the God you need to avoid a belief in God. Yours is illogically very human, not God-like.

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

DAVID: My concept of your humanized God is very weakly answered by trying to make my God human.

dhw: Please answer my questions.

DAVID: Your God invention is purely humanized and makes a real conception of God confused.

You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

dhw: You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: Nothing.

So please stop accusing me of misinterpreting your view of God.

dhw: I do not question your belief that God – if he exists – chose to evolve all of reality, because I too believe that evolution happened. I only question your rigid belief that he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc. (he could equally have chosen to give them the means of designing themselves)

DAVID: If God designed reality, as you accept, your question is patently illogical. The God I see dos not give out secondhand designing abilities requiring His mind.

You have distorted my comment. If God exists, I accept that he chose to EVOLVE reality, because I believe that life evolved! That does not mean he DESIGNED every life form etc., and why have you left out the second part of what I do not believe, which is that he “did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food”? My alternative proposal for the “reality” is a free-for-all, as opposed to your puppet show. I do not regard human free will as secondhand designing ability, and I propose that evolution itself depends on a similar autonomous, decision-making ability in cell communities other than our own, possibly designed by your God.

dhw: I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer.

DAVID: You did not know ID never mentions God, except now in Meyer's book.

You named Behe, Meyer and Dembski as supporters of your illogical theory. On Thursday 16 December I replied: “I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.” Dembski turned out to be the same. I knew nothing about Meyer, and I’m sorry, but his wonderful achievement in mentioning God has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot name a single scientist who supports your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

dhw: But I have also said again and again that if we accept the idea that life and consciousness are too complex NOT to have been designed, how can we possibly believe that there is a form of life and consciousness infinitely more powerful than our own which was NOT designed?

DAVID: There logically must be a powerful designing mind.

I accept the logic of the argument, just as I accept the logic of my question.

dhw: The philosophical/theological cop-out is the idea of “first cause”, but that does not answer the question. We might just as well believe in an eternal, impersonal mass of energy and matter which eventually produced the conditions for life and the rudiments of consciousness, which then evolved into all their complexities, as believe in a know-it-all mind that has always simply been there, without a source. I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe, as I have explained over and over again, and that is why I remain agnostic.

DAVID: So you conjure up an 'eternal mass of energy and matter' to do the complex designs. Can this mess think up the designs for reality? How? It still takes brilliant mentation. Something cannot appear without cause except a first cause. Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

I do not conjure it up! Once more: “I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe.” I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe”. Why do you find it so hard to understand or even take in the fact that I find two hypotheses equally difficult to believe? In answer to your questions: If your inferior consciousness must have been designed, how did your magical, all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause consciousness simply exist without being designed? Sheer magic? Totally illogical. But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 16:26 (830 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.


DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

dhw: You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: Nothing.

dhw: So please stop accusing me of misinterpreting your view of God.

Only your paragraph above is correct, not the other numerous distorted complaints


dhw: You have distorted my comment. If God exists, I accept that he chose to EVOLVE reality, because I believe that life evolved! That does not mean he DESIGNED every life form etc., and why have you left out the second part of what I do not believe, which is that he “did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food”? My alternative proposal for the “reality” is a free-for-all, as opposed to your puppet show. I do not regard human free will as secondhand designing ability, and I propose that evolution itself depends on a similar autonomous, decision-making ability in cell communities other than our own, possibly designed by your God.

Same unproven intelligent cell theory, based on single cell studies in which all reactions act intelligently and appear to be automatic.


dhw: I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer.

DAVID: You did not know ID never mentions God, except now in Meyer's book.

dhw: You named Behe, Meyer and Dembski as supporters of your illogical theory. On Thursday 16 December I replied: “I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.” Dembski turned out to be the same. I knew nothing about Meyer, and I’m sorry, but his wonderful achievement in mentioning God has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot name a single scientist who supports your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

ID does and you won't accept it. Read ID. Not my problem. I've personally chatted with Behe!!


dhw: But I have also said again and again that if we accept the idea that life and consciousness are too complex NOT to have been designed, how can we possibly believe that there is a form of life and consciousness infinitely more powerful than our own which was NOT designed?

DAVID: There logically must be a powerful designing mind.

dhw: I accept the logic of the argument, just as I accept the logic of my question.

There must be an eternal first cause.


dhw: The philosophical/theological cop-out is the idea of “first cause”, but that does not answer the question. We might just as well believe in an eternal, impersonal mass of energy and matter which eventually produced the conditions for life and the rudiments of consciousness, which then evolved into all their complexities, as believe in a know-it-all mind that has always simply been there, without a source. I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe, as I have explained over and over again, and that is why I remain agnostic.

DAVID: So you conjure up an 'eternal mass of energy and matter' to do the complex designs. Can this mess think up the designs for reality? How? It still takes brilliant mentation. Something cannot appear without cause except a first cause. Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: I do not conjure it up! Once more: “I find BOTH hypotheses equally difficult to believe.” I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe”. Why do you find it so hard to understand or even take in the fact that I find two hypotheses equally difficult to believe? In answer to your questions: If your inferior consciousness must have been designed, how did your magical, all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause consciousness simply exist without being designed? Sheer magic? Totally illogical. But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

I'll accept it not as confession but confusion. Your 'eternal mass of energy and matter' admits an eternal first cause must exist. You recognize design, so why not a designer?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Monday, December 20, 2021, 07:13 (830 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How can a theory about an all-powerful God who knows exactly what he wants and proceeds to design it be an attempt to avoid a belief in God? Why is it more human for your God to design exactly what he wanted to design than for him to try – sometimes in vain – to correct the errors he could not avoid in the system he had designed?

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

How does this fixed belief of yours come to mean that a theory about God knowing what he wants and designing it denotes an attempt to avoid a belief in God? And how does your fixed belief in God’s inability to design a system without errors, and his designing editing systems which sometimes don’t work, make him less human than a God who designs exactly what he WANTS to design and designs it?

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

dhw: You have said explicitly that your God “had to” design the system this way as no other system was possible, and you have said explicitly that he took measures to correct some of the errors, but he could not correct them all. What have I misinterpreted?

DAVID: Nothing.

dhw: So please stop accusing me of misinterpreting your view of God.

DAVID: Only your paragraph above is correct, not the other numerous distorted complaints.

You believe he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. Is that a distortion? Please pinpoint just one of my “distortions”.

dhw: You have distorted my comment. If God exists, I accept that he chose to EVOLVE reality, because I believe that life evolved! That does not mean he DESIGNED every life form etc., and why have you left out the second part of what I do not believe, which is that he “did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food”? My alternative proposal for the “reality” is a free-for-all, as opposed to your puppet show. I do not regard human free will as secondhand designing ability, and I propose that evolution itself depends on a similar autonomous, decision-making ability in cell communities other than our own, possibly designed by your God.

DAVID: Same unproven intelligent cell theory, based on single cell studies in which all reactions act intelligently and appear to be automatic.

How can they simultaneously react intelligently and appear to be automatic? If they react intelligently, maybe they ARE intelligent. But yes, all the theories are unproven – otherwise there would be no discussion.

dhw: I know how ID works, and I have said over and over again that I accept the logic of ID: i.e. I accept that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and if we believe in design, we should believe there is a designer.

DAVID: You did not know ID never mentions God, except now in Meyer's book.

dhw: You named Behe, Meyer and Dembski as supporters of your illogical theory. On Thursday 16 December I replied: “I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.” Dembski turned out to be the same. I knew nothing about Meyer, and I’m sorry, but his wonderful achievement in mentioning God has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot name a single scientist who supports your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

DAVID: ID does and you won't accept it. Read ID. Not my problem. I've personally chatted with Behe!!

Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: […] I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe”. In answer to your questions: If your inferior consciousness must have been designed, how did your magical, all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause consciousness simply exist without being designed? Sheer magic? Totally illogical. But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

DAVID: I'll accept it not as confession but confusion. Your 'eternal mass of energy and matter' admits an eternal first cause must exist. You recognize design, so why not a designer?

I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I keep presenting you with two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe, which is why I am an agnostic.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, December 20, 2021, 17:02 (829 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: How does this fixed belief of yours come to mean that a theory about God knowing what he wants and designing it denotes an attempt to avoid a belief in God? And how does your fixed belief in God’s inability to design a system without errors, and his designing editing systems which sometimes don’t work, make him less human than a God who designs exactly what he WANTS to design and designs it?

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

See PART ONE in red.

dhw: You believe he specially designed every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. Is that a distortion? Please pinpoint just one of my “distortions”.

The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Hum ansd plus food" is another And food must be always available, no food, no life.


DAVID: Same unproven intelligent cell theory, based on single cell studies in which all reactions act intelligently and appear to be automatic.

dhw: How can they simultaneously react intelligently and appear to be automatic? If they react intelligently, maybe they ARE intelligent. But yes, all the theories are unproven – otherwise there would be no discussion.

Automatic intelligently functioning cells makes perfect sense. Intelligent design!!!


dhw: You named Behe, Meyer and Dembski as supporters of your illogical theory. On Thursday 16 December I replied: “I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.” Dembski turned out to be the same. I knew nothing about Meyer, and I’m sorry, but his wonderful achievement in mentioning God has nothing to do with the fact that you cannot name a single scientist who supports your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

DAVID: ID does and you won't accept it. Read ID. Not my problem. I've personally chatted with Behe!!

dhw: Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

Behe believes God designed all forms of life. My personal thoughts as to God's methods and Adler's thoughts did not come up. Agreeing folks don't need to dissect

DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: […] I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe”. In answer to your questions: If your inferior consciousness must have been designed, how did your magical, all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause consciousness simply exist without being designed? Sheer magic? Totally illogical. But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

DAVID: I'll accept it not as confession but confusion. Your 'eternal mass of energy and matter' admits an eternal first cause must exist. You recognize design, so why not a designer?

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I keep presenting you with two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe, which is why I am an agnostic.

It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, December 22, 2021, 22:17 (827 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: How does this fixed belief of yours come to mean that a theory about God knowing what he wants and designing it denotes an attempt to avoid a belief in God? And how does your fixed belief in God’s inability to design a system without errors, and his designing editing systems which sometimes don’t work, make him less human than a God who designs exactly what he WANTS to design and designs it?

DAVID: You can't read my mind as to how I view Him. I tell you and you purposely misinterpret.

You have not yet pinpointed ANY misinterpretation!

DAVID: The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Humans plus food" is another. And food must be always available, no food, no life.

Evolution branched out into all kinds of simple and then more complex life forms, and yes “humans plus food is another”. It is not the only one. There were countless “other” more complex forms that were not on the human branch! And all of them, not just humans, had to have food. There is no distortion – only your constant attempt to justify or digress from your claim that all of them were part of the goal of evolving humans plus our food!

DAVID: Same unproven intelligent cell theory, based on single cell studies in which all reactions act intelligently and appear to be automatic.

Please clarify: do they appear to be automatic, or do they appear to be intelligent? I always thought you thought they appeared to be intelligent but in fact were automatic.In any case, I agree that the theory – like your own – is unproven. We are simply testing the possibility of their being true.

DAVID: I've personally chatted with Behe!!

dhw: Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

DAVID: Behe believes God designed all forms of life. My personal thoughts as to God's methods and Adler's thoughts did not come up. Agreeing folks don't need to dissect.

I have no problem with the logic behind Behe’s belief in ID. But if you didn’t discuss your personal theory with him, how do you know he agrees that your God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens, and all other life forms were designed as part of that goal, including all those that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: […] I have not “refuted” the point that there has to be an eternal first cause! I have presented two possible first causes, each of which I find “equally difficult to believe […] But I am wrong one way or the other. Agnosticism is not a boast but a confession.

DAVID: I'll accept it not as confession but confusion. Your 'eternal mass of energy and matter' admits an eternal first cause must exist. You recognize design, so why not a designer?

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I offer two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.


Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 00:41 (827 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: You have not yet pinpointed ANY misinterpretation!

No, look below:


DAVID: The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Humans plus food" is another. And food must be always available, no food, no life.

dhw: Evolution branched out into all kinds of simple and then more complex life forms, and yes “humans plus food is another”. It is not the only one. There were countless “other” more complex forms that were not on the human branch! And all of them, not just humans, had to have food. There is no distortion – only your constant attempt to justify or digress from your claim that all of them were part of the goal of evolving humans plus our food!

Humans as the unusual pinnacle of evolution are proof.


DAVID: I've personally chatted with Behe!!

dhw: Good for you. So did Behe tell you he believed God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food? Has he ever published this theory?

DAVID: Behe believes God designed all forms of life. My personal thoughts as to God's methods and Adler's thoughts did not come up. Agreeing folks don't need to dissect.

dhw: I have no problem with the logic behind Behe’s belief in ID. But if you didn’t discuss your personal theory with him, how do you know he agrees that your God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens, and all other life forms were designed as part of that goal, including all those that had no connection with humans?

More word twisting. Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.


DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I offer two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

dhw: It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

And I see no equality in the two. God is a vastly more logical cause.

Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

Silly distortion as usual. Bush before was for 'before'. Bush now for 'now'. All required to support each stage of life of 3.8 billion years of evolution for simple stages to complex stages, finally reaching humans, the most complex of all..

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 09:26 (827 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: You still haven’t answered my questions.

DAVID: My answer is quite clear. He designed the only system that would work, and it allowed errors for which He designed editing systems.

dhw: You have not yet pinpointed ANY misinterpretation!

DAVID: No, look below:

DAVID: The 'no connection' is a huge distortion, All of evolution is more complex changes following simpler ones. 'Humans plus food" is another. And food must be always available, no food, no life.

dhw: Evolution branched out into all kinds of simple and then more complex life forms, and yes “humans plus food is another”. It is not the only one. There were countless “other” more complex forms that were not on the human branch! And all of them, not just humans, had to have food. There is no distortion – only your constant attempt to justify or digress from your claim that all of them were part of the goal of evolving humans plus our food!

DAVID: Humans as the unusual pinnacle of evolution are proof.

So humans are the proof that your God designed countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food! And you think this is logical.

DAVID: Something is eternal. Refute that point if you can. How did your magical rudiments of consciousness evolve themselves further? More magic? Totally illogical.

dhw: I keep saying that there has to be an eternal first cause, and I offer two possibilities – your sourceless superconsciousness, i.e. a top-down designer that was not designed, or a sourceless unconscious mass of matter and energy which eventually produces a form of consciousness that evolves into bottom up design. And I find both hypotheses equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: It is amazing that you understand first cause, see the complexity of biological design and deny a designing mind must exist. Where is the logic? I must conclude agnosticism is illogical.

dhw: It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: And I see no equality in the two. God is a vastly more logical cause.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

DAVID:Silly distortion as usual. Bush before was for 'before'. Bush now for 'now'. All required to support each stage of life of 3.8 billion years of evolution for simple stages to complex stages, finally reaching humans, the most complex of all.

Thank you for repeating my objection to your harping on about every life form etc. being required “for huge human population”. It is indeed silly. All bushes were required for the existence of each set of organisms, most of which had no connection with humans. Yes, humans came last, but that does not explain how each past bush was part of the goal of evolving humans plus food. Please stop dodging!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 16:04 (826 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: Humans as the unusual pinnacle of evolution are proof.

dhw: So humans are the proof that your God designed countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food! And you think this is logical.

Adler and I accept historical evolution evolution. Why don't you?


dhw: It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: And I see no equality in the two. God is a vastly more logical cause.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

I have more than opinion, since I believe logically.


Importance of ecosystems

QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

DAVID:Silly distortion as usual. Bush before was for 'before'. Bush now for 'now'. All required to support each stage of life of 3.8 billion years of evolution for simple stages to complex stages, finally reaching humans, the most complex of all.

dhw: Thank you for repeating my objection to your harping on about every life form etc. being required “for huge human population”. It is indeed silly. All bushes were required for the existence of each set of organisms, most of which had no connection with humans. Yes, humans came last, but that does not explain how each past bush was part of the goal of evolving humans plus food. Please stop dodging!

Your complaint is so illogical it doesn't create a dodge on my part. The connection you object to in your confusion is evolution involves progressive steps of which we are the last. How can we be the last if the previous rest played no role?? We are the endpoint as a final step in the process unless we evolve or are evolved by design.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Monday, December 27, 2021, 09:08 (823 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: Humans as the unusual pinnacle of evolution are proof.

dhw: So you think humans are the proof that your God designed countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food! And you think this is logical.

DAVID: Adler and I accept historical evolution. Why don't you?

Of course I accept “historical evolution”: it consists of a vast bush of life forms, most of which had no connection with humans, but as far as we know, sapiens were the last species to evolve. “Historical evolution” does not reveal that your God designed every life form, or that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. Why don’t you stop dodging?

dhw: It is amazing that you don’t understand that there are TWO possible first causes, each of which I find equally difficult to believe.

DAVID: And I see no equality in the two. God is a vastly more logical cause.

dhw: Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

DAVID: I have more than opinion, since I believe logically.

I accept the “design” logic that underlies your opinion. I also accept the logical argument that if life and consciousness require design, the living, conscious being you call God must have been designed. You opt for the mystery of your first-cause God, and atheists opt for the mystery of how first-cause materials can combine into life and consciousness. I cannot put my faith in either option/opinion.

Importance of ecosystems
QUOTE: "Coccolithophores are tiny, tiny creatures, but they have such huge impacts on all life that most people are not even aware of," Godrijan said. "It brings me hope for our own lives to see how such small things can have such an influence on the planet.'" (David's bold)

DAVID: all of life on Earth is integrated in the way this study illustrates. All created by God-designed evolution. My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!

DAVID: Silly distortion as usual. Bush before was for 'before'. Bush now for 'now'. All required to support each stage of life of 3.8 billion years of evolution for simple stages to complex stages, finally reaching humans, the most complex of all.

dhw: Thank you for repeating my objection to your silly harping on about every life form etc. being required “for huge human population”. All bushes were required for the existence of each extinct set of organisms, most of which had no connection with humans. Yes, humans came last, but that does not explain how each past bush was "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Your complaint is so illogical it doesn't create a dodge on my part. The connection you object to in your confusion is evolution involves progressive steps of which we are the last. How can we be the last if the previous rest played no role??

Evolution does not involve one line of progressive steps from bacteria to humans! It involves countless steps towards countless life forms, the vast majority of which did NOT lead to us! That is why, when I ask you why your God created all those life forms that had no connection with us, you reply that you have no idea and I should go and ask God.

Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change
DAVID: the food supply controls the speed of evolution to some degree, just as it is assumed oxygen does, but neither substance, causes the speed. but allows it. This is why dhw's complaint about 'humans and their food' is so silly.

I agree that food supply and oxygen were vital conditions for the emergence of new species. ALL new species, including ALL those that had no connection with humans. How does that explain why your God would have specially designed ALL those that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, and if bush before was for ‘before’ and bush now is for ‘now’? Please stop trying to divert attention away from the illogicality of your two combined basic premises.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, December 27, 2021, 15:31 (822 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: Of course I accept “historical evolution”: it consists of a vast bush of life forms, most of which had no connection with humans, but as far as we know, sapiens were the last species to evolve. “Historical evolution” does not reveal that your God designed every life form, or that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. Why don’t you stop dodging?

No dodge, since I believe in God, who designed every form in evolution, and finally humans.


dhw: I accept the “design” logic that underlies your opinion. I also accept the logical argument that if life and consciousness require design, the living, conscious being you call God must have been designed. You opt for the mystery of your first-cause God, and atheists opt for the mystery of how first-cause materials can combine into life and consciousness. I cannot put my faith in either option/opinion.

And therefore deny the need for a designing mind.


Importance of ecosystems

DAVID: Your complaint is so illogical it doesn't create a dodge on my part. The connection you object to in your confusion is evolution involves progressive steps of which we are the last. How can we be the last if the previous rest played no role??

dhw: Evolution does not involve one line of progressive steps from bacteria to humans! It involves countless steps towards countless life forms, the vast majority of which did NOT lead to us! That is why, when I ask you why your God created all those life forms that had no connection with us, you reply that you have no idea and I should go and ask God.

But you have had my answer for God's purpose: the bush must exist as a huge food supply for all. My God is not the tunnel-visioned one you imagine but creates logically in His controlled fashion. But I've always challenged your imagined God, unlike one ever described.


Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change
DAVID: the food supply controls the speed of evolution to some degree, just as it is assumed oxygen does, but neither substance, causes the speed. but allows it. This is why dhw's complaint about 'humans and their food' is so silly.

dhw: I agree that food supply and oxygen were vital conditions for the emergence of new species. ALL new species, including ALL those that had no connection with humans. How does that explain why your God would have specially designed ALL those that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, and if bush before was for ‘before’ and bush now is for ‘now’? Please stop trying to divert attention away from the illogicality of your two combined basic premises.

When you accept God your illogicality dissolves. My basic premise is God designed evolution and once that is accepted all my theories fall into place.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 14:18 (821 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: But do they believe that all forms, served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: Not discussed by them.

dhw: Then please stop pretending that they support your theory!

DAVID: Their theory is God designed all of evolution. That is my theory!!

But it is also your theory that his purpose for designing all forms, including all those that had no connection with humans, was to design humans and their food. THAT is what they do not discuss, and THAT is the part of your theory which doesn’t make sense, and you know it […]

dhw: Thank you for confirming for the umpteenth time that Adler does not cover your one-man campaign for a God who designed every life form, including all those that had no connection with humans, “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans" plus food. You can’t even lean on Adler.

DAVID: Your complaint is a total distortion of my logic. Adler says human evolution proves God exists, and ID says God designed all of evolution from bacteria to humans. In that way I see humans as the desired endpoint for God. You can't erase 3.8 billion years of life getting from there to here.

But that is precisely what you do. You try to erase 3.8 billion years of your God individually designing countless forms of life that had no connection with humans plus food although you insist that designing humans plus food was his only purpose or “goal”!

dhw: I accept the “design” logic that underlies your opinion. I also accept the logical argument that if life and consciousness require design, the living, conscious being you call God must have been designed. You opt for the mystery of your first-cause God, and atheists opt for the mystery of how first-cause materials can combine into life and consciousness. I cannot put my faith in either option/opinion.

DAVID: And therefore deny the need for a designing mind.

I don’t deny anything! I accept the logic of both arguments, but since both arguments create an insoluble mystery, I find it impossible to make a decision.

Importance of ecosystems
DAVID: […] The connection you object to in your confusion is evolution involves progressive steps of which we are the last. How can we be the last if the previous rest played no role??

dhw: Evolution does not involve one line of progressive steps from bacteria to humans! It involves countless steps towards countless life forms, the vast majority of which did NOT lead to us! That is why, when I ask you why your God created all those life forms that had no connection with us, you reply that you have no idea and I should go and ask God.

DAVID: But you have had my answer for God's purpose: the bush must exist as a huge food supply for all.

Which bush? You agree that past bushes were necessary for past life forms and present for present life forms. Most past life forms had no connection with humans and their food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were “part of the goal of evolving humansand our food bush!

DAVID: My God is not the tunnel-visioned one you imagine but creates logically in His controlled fashion. But I've always challenged your imagined God, unlike one ever described.

If your God exists and only has one purpose – humans and their food – then he has tunnel vision. I challenge YOUR tunnel-visioned view of God, because according to you he also designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change
DAVID: the food supply controls the speed of evolution to some degree, just as it is assumed oxygen does, but neither substance, causes the speed. but allows it. This is why dhw's complaint about 'humans and their food' is so silly.

dhw: I agree that food supply and oxygen were vital conditions for the emergence of new species. ALL new species, including ALL those that had no connection with humans. How does that explain why your God would have specially designed ALL those that had no connection with humans if his one and only goal was to design humans and their food, and if bush before was for ‘before’ and bush now is for ‘now’? Please stop trying to divert attention away from the illogicality of your two combined basic premises.

DAVID: When you accept God your illogicality dissolves. My basic premise is God designed evolution and once that is accepted all my theories fall into place.

Please stop kidding yourself. When asked why your God would have specially designed every extinct form that had no connection with humans plus food, although his only purpose was humans plus food, your answer is either to dodge the question or to agree that you have no idea and I should ask God. But if you now think you can explain it, please do so.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 15:42 (821 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: Their theory is God designed all of evolution. That is my theory!!

dhw: But it is also your theory that his purpose for designing all forms, including all those that had no connection with humans, was to design humans and their food. THAT is what they do not discuss, and THAT is the part of your theory which doesn’t make sense, and you know it […]

I'm sure they are with Adler. All logical to me, so I do not know what you know about my logic.

dhw: You try to erase 3.8 billion years of your God individually designing countless forms of life that had no connection with humans plus food although you insist that designing humans plus food was his only purpose or “goal”!

Time not erased if I contend God designed life and its evolution. Your rejection confuses you.


DAVID: And therefore deny the need for a designing mind.

I don’t deny anything! I accept the logic of both arguments, but since both arguments create an insoluble mystery, I find it impossible to make a decision.

Importance of ecosystems

DAVID: But you have had my answer for God's purpose: the bush must exist as a huge food supply for all.

dhw: Which bush? You agree that past bushes were necessary for past life forms and present for present life forms. Most past life forms had no connection with humans and their food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were “part of the goal of evolving humansand our food bush!

Evolutionary steps are all connected in time. You slice and dice it illogically.


dhw: If your God exists and only has one purpose – humans and their food – then he has tunnel vision. I challenge YOUR tunnel-visioned view of God, because according to you he also designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

I reject Deism fully. Where does that possibility appear here?


Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change

DAVID: When you accept God your illogicality dissolves. My basic premise is God designed evolution and once that is accepted all my theories fall into place.

dhw: Please stop kidding yourself. When asked why your God would have specially designed every extinct form that had no connection with humans plus food, although his only purpose was humans plus food, your answer is either to dodge the question or to agree that you have no idea and I should ask God. But if you now think you can explain it, please do so.

Fully explained as you ignore it. All steps in evolution required a bush of food. Evolution is one complex step followed by a more complex step in a continuum from bacteria to humans, all designed by a mind we call God. All clear to believers

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 12:09 (820 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: [ID-ers'] theory is God designed all of evolution. That is my theory!!

dhw: But it is also your theory that his purpose for designing all forms, including all those that had no connection with humans, was to design humans and their food. THAT is what they do not discuss, and THAT is the part of your theory which doesn’t make sense, and you know it […]

DAVID: I'm sure they are with Adler. All logical to me, so I do not know what you know about my logic.

You keep claiming that ID-ers and Adler support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food and yet he also designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Then in the same breath you tell us that they do not discuss your theory! How can they all be “with” you if they don’t ever mention your theory?

dhw: You try to erase 3.8 billion years of your God individually designing countless forms of life that had no connection with humans plus food although you insist that designing humans plus food was his only purpose or “goal”!

DAVID: Time not erased if I contend God designed life and its evolution. Your rejection confuses you.

You jump from the beginning – bacteria – to humans, as if every single life form in between was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food, although the vast majority of them throughout 3.X billion years had no connection with humans!

Importance of ecosystems
DAVID: But you have had my answer for God's purpose: the bush must exist as a huge food supply for all.

dhw: Which bush? You agree that past bushes were necessary for past life forms and present for present life forms. Most past life forms had no connection with humans and their food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our food bush!

DAVID: Evolutionary steps are all connected in time. You slice and dice it illogically.

What does “connected in time” mean? Over 3.8 billion years, evolutionary steps resulted in countless life forms that had no connection with humans and their food! It is therefore absurd to claim that every single one of those unconnected life forms was part of the goal of evolving humans and their food!

dhw: […] The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

DAVID: I reject Deism fully. Where does that possibility appear here?

You claimed that the imagined God I present was “unlike one ever described”. This imagined God (all versions are imagined, since no one can “know” if he actually exists) is one who created life and then allowed life to pursue its own course (= a free-for-all). That view of God is called Deism. It has “appeared” here ever since I first proposed that instead of your God designing every virus, preprogramming or dabbling every lifestyle and every solution to every problem, giving courses in camouflage, nest-building, bridge-building, performing operations on groups of animals and humans to prepare them for conditions that don’t yet exist, he gave them the means (intelligence) to do their own designing. The fact that you reject the theory of a God who designs a free-for-all does not mean that it is “unlike one ever described”.

Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change
DAVID: When you accept God your illogicality dissolves. My basic premise is God designed evolution and once that is accepted all my theories fall into place.

dhw: Please stop kidding yourself. When asked why your God would have specially designed every extinct form that had no connection with humans plus food, although his only purpose was humans plus food, your answer is either to dodge the question or to agree that you have no idea and I should ask God. But if you now think you can explain it, please do so.

DAVID: Fully explained as you ignore it. All steps in evolution required a bush of food.

Yes, ALL steps. Exactly as I have explained it. But you ignore the fact that ALL steps in evolution do not lead to humans and their food.

DAVID: Evolution is one complex step followed by a more complex step in a continuum from bacteria to humans, all designed by a mind we call God. All clear to believers.

There is not just one continuum from bacteria to humans. As usual, you ignore 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food! How many “believers” believe that all the countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food prove that God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food? You have said yourself that not even your ID-ers or your beloved Adler even discuss such a theory!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 15:06 (820 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: You keep claiming that ID-ers and Adler support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food and yet he also designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Then in the same breath you tell us that they do not discuss your theory! How can they all be “with” you if they don’t ever mention your theory?

My theory comes from their beliefs!!!


dhw: You jump from the beginning – bacteria – to humans, as if every single life form in between was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food, although the vast majority of them throughout 3.X billion years had no connection with humans!

So in your view we cannot trace how humans developed from bacteria and evolution is discontinuous?


Importance of ecosystems

dhw: […] The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

DAVID: I reject Deism fully. Where does that possibility appear here?

dhw: You claimed that the imagined God I present was “unlike one ever described”. This imagined God (all versions are imagined, since no one can “know” if he actually exists) is one who created life and then allowed life to pursue its own course (= a free-for-all). That view of God is called Deism.

So you sort of believe in Deism?


Food as well as oxygen allows a speedy change

dhw: Yes, ALL steps. Exactly as I have explained it. But you ignore the fact that ALL steps in evolution do not lead to humans and their food.

The branches certainly lead to required food!!!


DAVID: Evolution is one complex step followed by a more complex step in a continuum from bacteria to humans, all designed by a mind we call God. All clear to believers.

dhw: There is not just one continuum from bacteria to humans. As usual, you ignore 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms that had no connection with humans and their food! How many “believers” believe that all the countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food prove that God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food? You have said yourself that not even your ID-ers or your beloved Adler even discuss such a theory!

ID'ers theories and Adler lead directly to my theory. By the way you started this site to explore agnosticism as one purpose. Where are the agnostic comments from other agnostics to support you? All you've got is me.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 13:27 (819 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You keep claiming that ID-ers and Adler support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food and yet he also designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Then in the same breath you tell us that they do not discuss your theory! How can they all be “with” you if they don’t ever mention your theory?

DAVID: My theory comes from their beliefs!!!

Your theory is an extension of their belief that God designed all life forms (ID-ers) and sapiens proves God's existence (Adler), and it is the extension (God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food) that makes no sense, because it raises the unanswerable question: if his only purpose was sapiens plus food, why did he design all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens plus food?

Later in your post:
dhw: How many “believers” believe that all the countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food prove that God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food? You have said yourself that not even your ID-ers or your beloved Adler even discuss such a theory!

DAVID: ID'ers theories and Adler lead directly to my theory.

And what an illogical mess it is. No wonder neither ID-ers nor Adler ever discuss it.

dhw: You jump from the beginning – bacteria – to humans, as if every single life form in between was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food, although the vast majority of them throughout 3.X billion years had no connection with humans!

DAVID: So in your view we cannot trace how humans developed from bacteria and evolution is discontinuous?

That is not my view at all! I don’t know how often you want me to say this: evolution branched out into countless life forms and econiches, the majority of which had no connection with humans plus food! You keep insisting that ALL branches were part of the goal of evolving humans plus food. Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

Importance of ecosystems

dhw: […] The concept of a God who created life and then allowed it to pursue its own course is known as Deism. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it.

DAVID: I reject Deism fully. Where does that possibility appear here?

dhw: You claimed that the imagined God I present was “unlike one ever described”. This imagined God (all versions are imagined, since no one can “know” if he actually exists) is one who created life and then allowed life to pursue its own course (= a free-for-all). That view of God is called Deism.

DAVID: So you sort of believe in Deism?

I do not have a belief. I am an agnostic. But this does not stop me from speculating on what a possible God might have intended if he created life. You wrote that one of my proposals (the free-for-all) was “unlike one ever described”. You had forgotten about Deism.

DAVID: By the way you started this site to explore agnosticism as one purpose. Where are the agnostic comments from other agnostics to support you? All you've got is me.

Agnosticism is not a purpose! The purpose of the website was to have an open forum on all the mysteries for which nobody has a proven solution! Initially, we had lots of contributors who included atheists and reverends and other agnostics. But perhaps inevitably, all our discussions ended in a kind of stalemate, although I for one have learned an enormous amount in the course of the last 14 years. Especially, I must add, from you. Why are we now the only contributors? Probably because those who hoped to convert us to their views gave up trying, others may have felt that we were going round in circles (true) and getting nowhere (true). Nevertheless, there are still hundreds of people logging on to various posts – especially your natural wonders series – and even some of our own repetitive discussions are clearly of interest to a few readers! I’d be reluctant to close the site down so long as you are prepared to go on providing us with so much educational material, for which I myself am always extremely grateful.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 15:20 (819 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You keep claiming that ID-ers and Adler support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food and yet he also designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Then in the same breath you tell us that they do not discuss your theory! How can they all be “with” you if they don’t ever mention your theory?

DAVID: My theory comes from their beliefs!!!

dhw: Your theory is an extension of their belief that God designed all life forms (ID-ers) and sapiens proves God's existence (Adler), and it is the extension (God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food) that makes no sense, because it raises the unanswerable question: if his only purpose was sapiens plus food, why did he design all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens plus food?

From part one: DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.


dhw: You jump from the beginning – bacteria – to humans, as if every single life form in between was “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food, although the vast majority of them throughout 3.X billion years had no connection with humans!

DAVID: So in your view we cannot trace how humans developed from bacteria and evolution is discontinuous?

dhw: That is not my view at all! I don’t know how often you want me to say this: evolution branched out into countless life forms and econiches, the majority of which had no connection with humans plus food! You keep insisting that ALL branches were part of the goal of evolving humans plus food. Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

I have bolded the last sentence which is my view also. Humans have their own branch, but all branches are required as food to support life as below:


Importance of ecosystems

DAVID: So you sort of believe in Deism?

dhw: I do not have a belief. I am an agnostic. But this does not stop me from speculating on what a possible God might have intended if he created life. You wrote that one of my proposals (the free-for-all) was “unlike one ever described”. You had forgotten about Deism.

OK


DAVID: By the way you started this site to explore agnosticism as one purpose. Where are the agnostic comments from other agnostics to support you? All you've got is me.

dhw: Agnosticism is not a purpose! The purpose of the website was to have an open forum on all the mysteries for which nobody has a proven solution! Initially, we had lots of contributors who included atheists and reverends and other agnostics. But perhaps inevitably, all our discussions ended in a kind of stalemate, although I for one have learned an enormous amount in the course of the last 14 years. Especially, I must add, from you. Why are we now the only contributors? Probably because those who hoped to convert us to their views gave up trying, others may have felt that we were going round in circles (true) and getting nowhere (true). Nevertheless, there are still hundreds of people logging on to various posts – especially your natural wonders series – and even some of our own repetitive discussions are clearly of interest to a few readers! I’d be reluctant to close the site down so long as you are prepared to go on providing us with so much educational material, for which I myself am always extremely grateful.

I appreciate you response and kind words. If you look at some of the purely science articles, we have had thousands of viewers, and our discussions perhaps rub off on them and stimulate them, but not to the point of jumping in as before. I have the time and interest to continue contributing.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Friday, December 31, 2021, 14:04 (818 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: My theory comes from their beliefs!!!

dhw: Your theory is an extension of their belief that God designed all life forms (ID-ers) and sapiens proves God's existence (Adler), and it is the extension (God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food) that makes no sense, because it raises the unanswerable question: if his only purpose was sapiens plus food, why did he design all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with sapiens plus food?

DAVID: From part one: DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.

Time is irrelevant! It is the disconnection between your interpretation of God’s actions (designing every single life form, including all those that have no connection with humans) and of his purpose (in order to design humans plus their food) that is the problem you continue to dodge.

dhw: Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

DAVID: I have bolded the last sentence which is my view also. Humans have their own branch, but all branches are required as food to support life […]

Yes, humans have their own branch. All branches require food. How does that come to mean that all branches were part of the goal to evolve humans plus their food???

dhw: […] I’d be reluctant to close the site down so long as you are prepared to go on providing us with so much educational material, for which I myself am always extremely grateful.

DAVID: I appreciate your response and kind words. If you look at some of the purely science articles, we have had thousands of viewers, and our discussions perhaps rub off on them and stimulate them, but not to the point of jumping in as before. I have the time and interest to continue contributing.

And for me, this alone justifies keeping the site going. Perhaps I should add, just in case some readers might get the wrong impression, that over the years and despite the fierceness of some of our discussions, David and I have become good friends away from the forum! Eight years ago, when my wife died, he and his wife came over from the States to England to attend her funeral. It was an unforgettable meeting, and we have remained in close contact ever since.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, December 31, 2021, 20:34 (818 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: From part one: DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.

dhw: Time is irrelevant! It is the disconnection between your interpretation of God’s actions (designing every single life form, including all those that have no connection with humans) and of his purpose (in order to design humans plus their food) that is the problem you continue to dodge.

You think I dodge because you won't think though my logic using my belief in a God you do not accept, but invent your very weak, humanizing form of God, in myh opinion.


dhw: Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

DAVID: I have bolded the last sentence which is my view also. Humans have their own branch, but all branches are required as food to support life […]

dhw: Yes, humans have their own branch. All branches require food. How does that come to mean that all branches were part of the goal to evolve humans plus their food???

Same illogical distortion. God chose His method of cresting us.


dhw: […] I’d be reluctant to close the site down so long as you are prepared to go on providing us with so much educational material, for which I myself am always extremely grateful.

DAVID: I appreciate your response and kind words. If you look at some of the purely science articles, we have had thousands of viewers, and our discussions perhaps rub off on them and stimulate them, but not to the point of jumping in as before. I have the time and interest to continue contributing.

dhw: And for me, this alone justifies keeping the site going. Perhaps I should add, just in case some readers might get the wrong impression, that over the years and despite the fierceness of some of our discussions, David and I have become good friends away from the forum! Eight years ago, when my wife died, he and his wife came over from the States to England to attend her funeral. It was an unforgettable meeting, and we have remained in close contact ever since.

Absolutely, but with the holidays I'll necessarily be more quiet. I treasure our friendship very much.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 11:57 (817 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: From part one: DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.


dhw: Time is irrelevant! It is the disconnection between your interpretation of God’s actions (designing every single life form, including all those that have no connection with humans) and of his purpose (in order to design humans plus their food) that is the problem you continue to dodge.

DAVID: You think I dodge because you won't think though my logic using my belief in a God you do not accept, but invent your very weak, humanizing form of God, in my opinion.

Forget my strong form of God (see “cellular intelligence”) and focus on your “logic”: please give us one logical reason why an all-powerful God with one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would specially design countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food.

dhw: Evolution is not discontinuous if we believe in common descent. Only you advocate discontinuity when you tell us your God created species without predecessors. But the continuity lies in the descent of ALL life forms from bacteria, including all those unconnected with humans.

DAVID: I have bolded the last sentence which is my view also. Humans have their own branch, but all branches are required as food to support life […]

dhw: Yes, humans have their own branch. All branches require food. How does that come to mean that all branches were part of the goal to evolve humans plus their food???

DAVID: Same illogical distortion. God chose His method of cresting us.

What “illogical distortion”? God, if he exists, chose his method of creating ALL life! Once again: Why would he have chosen to create ALL the forms of life that had no connection with sapiens plus food if he only wanted to create sapiens plus food?

dhw; […] Perhaps I should add, just in case some readers might get the wrong impression, that over the years and despite the fierceness of some of our discussions, David and I have become good friends away from the forum! Eight years ago, when my wife died, he and his wife came over from the States to England to attend her funeral. It was an unforgettable meeting, and we have remained in close contact ever since.

DAVID: Absolutely, but with the holidays I'll necessarily be more quiet. I treasure our friendship very much.

I must confess, the “break” is welcome! Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you and Susan, and the same to whoever else might be following these discussions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 16:03 (817 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: You think I dodge because you won't think though my logic using my belief in a God you do not accept, but invent your very weak, humanizing form of God, in my opinion.

dhw: Forget my strong form of God (see “cellular intelligence”) and focus on your “logic”: please give us one logical reason why an all-powerful God with one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would specially design countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food.

As in other threads, an all-powerful God has the right to chose His method of creation to fit His purposes. As you question God's existence, you question His right to choose. In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.


dhw: Yes, humans have their own branch. All branches require food. How does that come to mean that all branches were part of the goal to evolve humans plus their food???

DAVID: Same illogical distortion. God chose His method of cresting us.

dhw: What “illogical distortion”? God, if he exists, chose his method of creating ALL life! Once again: Why would he have chosen to create ALL the forms of life that had no connection with sapiens plus food if he only wanted to create sapiens plus food?

God has the right to evolve us which He did. By His chosen method, a stepwise evolution.


dhw; […] Perhaps I should add, just in case some readers might get the wrong impression, that over the years and despite the fierceness of some of our discussions, David and I have become good friends away from the forum! Eight years ago, when my wife died, he and his wife came over from the States to England to attend her funeral. It was an unforgettable meeting, and we have remained in close contact ever since.

DAVID: Absolutely, but with the holidays I'll necessarily be more quiet. I treasure our friendship very much.

dhw: I must confess, the “break” is welcome! Meanwhile, Happy New Year to you and Susan, and the same to whoever else might be following these discussions.

And Susan and I offer our best New Year's to your lovely family, whom we have personally known for now many years. The twins are enormous!!! And we pray for Chris.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 11:25 (816 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

DAVID: You think I dodge because you won't think though my logic using my belief in a God you do not accept, but invent your very weak, humanizing form of God, in my opinion.

dhw: Forget my strong form of God (see “Cellular intelligence”) and focus on your “logic”: please give us one logical reason why an all-powerful God with one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would specially design countless extinct life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food.

DAVID: As in other threads, an all-powerful God has the right to chose His method of creation to fit His purposes. As you question God's existence, you question His right to choose.

I do not. I question your right to restrict him to your own subjective view of his purpose and your own subjective view of how he set about achieving that purpose. I note, however, that once more you have used the plural. I look forward to your response to my request under “Cellular intelligence” for more details about these “purposes”.

DAVID: In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.

I do not regard any of my proposed versions of God as being “weak”. And I suggest to you that quite apart from Deism, which you conveniently forgot about, there are religious “circles” which believe in multiple gods with all kinds of characteristics, and in any case, I had no idea that you were such a fan of religion. I have always kept in mind the wonderful dedication you wrote at the beginning of your first book, and it is well worth quoting here:

Organized religion and patterns of belief are too often developed from the conceits of humans, who presume to know very exactly God’s intentions and very exactly the meanings of all the teachings in the Bible, and press others to accept their interpretations. True religion comes from within the individual, added (should this have been “aided”) by study from without.

This was published before Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and for any followers of this website, I am going to balance my attacks on the rigid beliefs you express in this forum by saying that I not only had the privilege of editing your second book (The Atheist Delusion) but would wholeheartedly recommend it. In both your books, you steer clear of identifying with particular religions and of most of the contentious subjects we are discussing here, and wisely focus on the scientific evidence for design. Even though I remain firmly seated on my agnostic fence, these books are an education in themselves.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 16:15 (816 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.

dhw: I do not regard any of my proposed versions of God as being “weak”. And I suggest to you that quite apart from Deism, which you conveniently forgot about, there are religious “circles” which believe in multiple gods with all kinds of characteristics, and in any case, I had no idea that you were such a fan of religion. I have always kept in mind the wonderful dedication you wrote at the beginning of your first book, and it is well worth quoting here:

Organized religion and patterns of belief are too often developed from the conceits of humans, who presume to know very exactly God’s intentions and very exactly the meanings of all the teachings in the Bible, and press others to accept their interpretations. True religion comes from within the individual, added (should this have been “aided”) by study from without.

dhw: This was published before Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and for any followers of this website, I am going to balance my attacks on the rigid beliefs you express in this forum by saying that I not only had the privilege of editing your second book (The Atheist Delusion) but would wholeheartedly recommend it. In both your books, you steer clear of identifying with particular religions and of most of the contentious subjects we are discussing here, and wisely focus on the scientific evidence for design. Even though I remain firmly seated on my agnostic fence, these books are an education in themselves.

Your concepts of God and mine are colored by childhood instruction. My words you quoted still apply. But my point as I just noted in PART ONE is we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Monday, January 03, 2022, 14:14 (815 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In religious circles your weak God would not be recognized, using Adler as a example.

dhw: I do not regard any of my proposed versions of God as being “weak”. And I suggest to you that quite apart from Deism, which you conveniently forgot about, there are religious “circles” which believe in multiple gods with all kinds of characteristics, and in any case, I had no idea that you were such a fan of religion. I have always kept in mind the wonderful dedication you wrote at the beginning of your first book, and it is well worth quoting here:

Organized religion and patterns of belief are too often developed from the conceits of humans, who presume to know very exactly God’s intentions and very exactly the meanings of all the teachings in the Bible, and press others to accept their interpretations. True religion comes from within the individual, added (should this have been “aided”) by study from without.” […]

DAVID: Your concepts of God and mine are colored by childhood instruction. My words you quoted still apply. But my point as I just noted in PART ONE is we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

A not very neat way of changing the subject from your irrelevant objection that my proposals would not be recognized by “religious circles”. In PART ONE, you refuse to tell us what direction your very purposeful God is headed in, whereas I offer you three distinct alternatives, each one of which has a very precise purpose and – unlike your truncated version of a purpose (to produce humans, but you won’t tell us why) – each one covers all life forms and natural wonders, including those that had no connection with humans. Giving up control serves the purpose of providing a far more interesting spectacle for him to watch (you agree that he watches with interest). Changing his mind could apply equally to your version of him “dabbling”, especially in view of the fact that the majority of his actions according to you had no connection with the direction he wished to head in (humans and their food). Experimentation can be targeted or could be a purpose in itself (to learn something new), and interest and enjoyment would be greatly enhanced by having no endpoint in mind. Please tell us what endpoint you think your God had in mind when he designed H. sapiens.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, January 03, 2022, 21:10 (815 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your concepts of God and mine are colored by childhood instruction. My words you quoted still apply. But my point as I just noted in PART ONE is we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

dhw: A not very neat way of changing the subject from your irrelevant objection that my proposals would not be recognized by “religious circles”. In PART ONE, you refuse to tell us what direction your very purposeful God is headed in, whereas I offer you three distinct alternatives, each one of which has a very precise purpose and – unlike your truncated version of a purpose (to produce humans, but you won’t tell us why) – each one covers all life forms and natural wonders, including those that had no connection with humans. Giving up control serves the purpose of providing a far more interesting spectacle for him to watch (you agree that he watches with interest). Changing his mind could apply equally to your version of him “dabbling”, especially in view of the fact that the majority of his actions according to you had no connection with the direction he wished to head in (humans and their food). Experimentation can be targeted or could be a purpose in itself (to learn something new), and interest and enjoyment would be greatly enhanced by having no endpoint in mind. Please tell us what endpoint you think your God had in mind when he designed H. sapiens.

The humans are the endpoint. Again you want His reasons which I cannot know. I can make the same guesses again so you can distort them again. His reasons are your problem. You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes. Adler and I accept that any relationship with God is a 50/50 probability and that He loves us is 50/50. So we can each psychoanalyze Him till the cows come home. I have my approach, and you yours, with wildly different results. So we can never agree on What God is like. Yours wants entertainment like a five-year-old to pass time or a free-for-all type of evolution with an unknown mysterious outcome like a murder mystery on TV. Human desires!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 12:53 (813 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

This began with your complaint that my various alternative explanations of evolution and a possible God’s purposes and actions would not he recognized by “religious circles”. You swiftly changed the subject back to the subject dealt with under “Cellular intelligence”:

DAVID: […] we start with the same all-powerful God concept, but diverge from my very purposeful God who knows the exact direction in which He is headed, and compared to yours who gives up control, changes His mind, experiments, and obviously had no endpoint in mind when He started to create.

dhw: Once again I pointed out that each of my alternative explanations of the great bush was based on a very precise purpose: 1) the free-for-all, following on from your own certainty that he enjoys creation and watches his creations with interest; 2) experimenting in order to fulfil the goal you set him – to create a being with consciousness resembling his own (you agree that we probably have thought patterns in common, but you don’t agree if this lends support to any of my proposals); 3) experimenting to see what new and interesting things might emerge – i.e.an ongoing learning process (not dissimilar to process theology). Just because you don’t like such alternative purposes, you claim that they are not purposes. Only your theory gives him a purpose or goal, which you now prefer to call an endpoint: to design humans and their food

DAVID: The humans are the endpoint.

They are the latest species. But I keep asking why you think they were his only purpose.

DAVID: Again you want His reasons which I cannot know.

You cannot “know” any of the answers to any of the questions concerning your theory, but you continue to promulgate it as if you DID know.

DAVID: His reasons are your problem.

No, your theory is my problem. Quite simply: I don’t understand why an all-powerful, purposeful God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Nor do you.

DAVID: You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes.

Every extinction is an endpoint. Please tell me the various plural purposes for the various historical endpoints.

DAVID: Adler and I accept that any relationship with God is a 50/50 probability and that He loves us is 50/50.

So do you reckon that there is also a 50/50 probability that his purpose in creating humans might have been to create a life form that would want a relationship with him and would love him? Aren’t relationships and love supposed to be two-way? I’m asking you, because I’m discussing this with you, not with Adler. I rather like these odds. I’d offer the same myself for all three of my alternative, logical theistic theories of evolution, whereas I must confess it would be something like 9-1 against your own illogical theory. And of course it’s 50/50 for me when it comes to God’s existence.

Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 20:10 (813 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: The humans are the endpoint.

dhw: They are the latest species. But I keep asking why you think they were his only purpose.

And I can't answer since I do not know His reasons, but can guess. See all past entries on the subject


DAVID: Again you want His reasons which I cannot know.

dhw: You cannot “know” any of the answers to any of the questions concerning your theory, but you continue to promulgate it as if you DID know.

DAVID: His reasons are your problem.

dhw: No, your theory is my problem. Quite simply: I don’t understand why an all-powerful, purposeful God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Nor do you.

All I can tell you accepting history as we are here, by God's will


DAVID: You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes.

dhw: Every extinction is an endpoint. Please tell me the various plural purposes for the various historical endpoints.

Silly question. Every extinction leads from past to future forms. The Earth doesn't have room toc keep everything around


DAVID: Adler and I accept that any relationship with God is a 50/50 probability and that He loves us is 50/50.

dhw: So do you reckon that there is also a 50/50 probability that his purpose in creating humans might have been to create a life form that would want a relationship with him and would love him? Aren’t relationships and love supposed to be two-way? I’m asking you, because I’m discussing this with you, not with Adler. I rather like these odds. I’d offer the same myself for all three of my alternative, logical theistic theories of evolution, whereas I must confess it would be something like 9-1 against your own illogical theory. And of course it’s 50/50 for me when it comes to God’s existence.

My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life. You are so illogical you recognize the importance of complex living design, but then refuse to recognize a powerful planning mind is necessary to produce those designs and must exist. Something doesn't come from nothing, but that is what your illogical approach requires. This is why ID simply says there must be a designer, and stops at that point.


Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 11:57 (812 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: No, your theory is my problem. Quite simply: I don’t understand why an all-powerful, purposeful God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Nor do you.

DAVID: All I can tell you accepting history as we are here, by God's will.

And according to you, every other species, including those not connected with humans, is/was here by God’s will.

DAVID: You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes.

dhw: Every extinction is an endpoint. Please tell me the various plural purposes for the various historical endpoints.

DAVID: Silly question. Every extinction leads from past to future forms. The Earth doesn't have room to keep everything around

How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

DAVID: Adler and I accept that any relationship with God is a 50/50 probability and that He loves us is 50/50.

dhw: So do you reckon that there is also a 50/50 probability that his purpose in creating humans might have been to create a life form that would want a relationship with him and would love him? Aren’t relationships and love supposed to be two-way? I’m asking you, because I’m discussing this with you, not with Adler. I rather like these odds. I’d offer the same myself for all three of my alternative, logical theistic theories of evolution, whereas I must confess it would be something like 9-1 against your own illogical theory. And of course it’s 50/50 for me when it comes to God’s existence.

DAVID: My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.

That is your theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:

DAVID: You are so illogical you recognize the importance of complex living design, but then refuse to recognize a powerful planning mind is necessary to produce those designs and must exist. Something doesn't come from nothing, but that is what your illogical approach requires. This is why ID simply says there must be a designer, and stops at that point.

The theory of design is perfectly logical, and I do not oppose it. But it does not justify your illogical theory of evolution, which has your God, whose only goal is to design sapiens plus food, designing countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens plus food. Your diversionary tactics are unworthy.

Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

DAVID: Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 15:45 (812 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: You don't like the fact that I simply accept them as I accept the historical endpoints as His obvious purposes.

dhw: Every extinction is an endpoint. Please tell me the various plural purposes for the various historical endpoints.

DAVID: Silly question. Every extinction leads from past to future forms. The Earth doesn't have room to keep everything around

dhw: How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.

DAVID: My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.

That is your theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:

DAVID: You are so illogical you recognize the importance of complex living design, but then refuse to recognize a powerful planning mind is necessary to produce those designs and must exist. Something doesn't come from nothing, but that is what your illogical approach requires. This is why ID simply says there must be a designer, and stops at that point.

dhw: The theory of design is perfectly logical, and I do not oppose it. But it does not justify your illogical theory of evolution, which has your God, whose only goal is to design sapiens plus food, designing countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens plus food. Your diversionary tactics are unworthy.

Don't attack my beliefs as unworthy. I believe in God and you don 't. You always call Him 'my god'.


Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

DAVID: Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

dhw: Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.

So you have needs also. You must have proof to develop beliefs

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Friday, January 07, 2022, 07:52 (812 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

DAVID: Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.

The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!

DAVID: My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.

That is your logical theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:

DAVID: You are so illogical you recognize the importance of complex living design, but then refuse to recognize a powerful planning mind is necessary to produce those designs and must exist. Something doesn't come from nothing, but that is what your illogical approach requires. This is why ID simply says there must be a designer, and stops at that point.

dhw: The theory of design is perfectly logical, and I do not oppose it. But it does not justify your illogical theory of evolution, which has your God, whose only goal is to design sapiens plus food, designing countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens plus food. Your diversionary tactics are unworthy.

DAVID: Don't attack my beliefs as unworthy. I believe in God and you don 't. You always call Him 'my god'.

I’m not attacking your belief in God as unworthy. That is yet another dodge. I’m attacking your anthropocentric theory of evolution, but you have switched the subject to God’s existence – and changing the subject is an unworthy way of conducting a discussion.

Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

DAVID: Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

dhw: Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.

DAVID: So you have needs also. You must have proof to develop beliefs.

Unlike yourself, I do not embrace a solution because I “need” one. I am content to wait without one. I see no possibility of “proof”. I try to weigh up the evidence for both sides of the argument, but I find them equally balanced, and so I remain undecided. I don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, January 07, 2022, 15:55 (811 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

DAVID: Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.

dhw: The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!

It has everything to do with stages. Evolution is defined as a process of development from simple to complex. Humans evolved from bacteria. The connection is God designing each stage.


DAVID: My theory is perfectly logical when one accepts God as the designer of all life.

dhw: That is your logical theory that God exists. What follows is yet another dodge:

DAVID: Don't attack my beliefs as unworthy. I believe in God and you don't. You always call Him 'my god'.

dhw: I’m not attacking your belief in God as unworthy. That is yet another dodge. I’m attacking your anthropocentric theory of evolution, but you have switched the subject to God’s existence – and changing the subject is an unworthy way of conducting a discussion.

How can you call a discussion of God's existence a change. We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.


Can’t Explain the Big Bang
DAVID: lots of discussion going nowhere. We either really have something from nothing or we are back to Einstein looking for something eternal, but that is not an answer. What is first cause?

dhw: Nobody knows. 50/50 for whatever explanation folk come up with. No wonder some of us remain agnostic.

DAVID: Agnosticism is not a solution, which means you do not need one. But I need a solution and you complain about it.

dhw: Your personal “needs” do not make a solution “logical”. However, I accept the logic of the design argument, while I reject the illogicality of your theory of evolution. However, I also accept the logic of the argument that a first-cause, sourceless mind is as hard to believe in as minds created by a first-cause lucky combination in an eternal history of combinations. Of course it’s not a solution. You’re right, I do not feel any pressure of “need”. I accept that I’m going to die anyway, and if there’s no afterlife, I shall never know the answers. If there is an afterlife, I may find out more. I’m not in a hurry! But I am simply fascinated by the subject, which is why I opened this website.

DAVID: So you have needs also. You must have proof to develop beliefs.

dhw: Unlike yourself, I do not embrace a solution because I “need” one. I am content to wait without one. I see no possibility of “proof”. I try to weigh up the evidence for both sides of the argument, but I find them equally balanced, and so I remain undecided. I don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.

It's quite clear. You are content not to reach conclusions. I reached one on this subject.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 13:05 (810 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO

dhw: How can all extinct species, including those that had no connection with humans and our food, have led to us humans and our food?

DAVID: Ah, no God again in your view. God designed what we call evolution in designed stages from bacteria, at the designed start of life.

dhw: The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!

DAVID: It has everything to do with stages. Evolution is defined as a process of development from simple to complex. Humans evolved from bacteria. The connection is God designing each stage.

Now your dodge is to jump from God’s existence to the fact that evolution goes from stage to stage, from simple to complex. Each stage of what? Are you now telling me that all other life forms that had no connection with humans plus food were part of God’s one and only goal to produce humans plus food because they were all designed by him in stages (except, of course, for those that he designed without any predecessors)?

dhw: I’m not attacking your belief in God as unworthy. That is yet another dodge. I’m attacking your anthropocentric theory of evolution, but you have switched the subject to God’s existence – and changing the subject is an unworthy way of conducting a discussion.

DAVID: How can you call a discussion of God's existence a change.

Because we are discussing your God’s purpose and method, not his existence.

DAVID: We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.

If he exists, and if – as you claim – he designed every other life form, then equally obviously he wanted to design all the other life forms which were here but had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your claim that his only goal was to design us and our food!

Can’t Explain the Big Bang

dhw: Unlike yourself, I do not embrace a solution because I “need” one. I am content to wait without one. I see no possibility of “proof”. I try to weigh up the evidence for both sides of the argument, but I find them equally balanced, and so I remain undecided. I don’t know why you find that so difficult to understand.

DAVID: It's quite clear. You are content not to reach conclusions. I reached one on this subject.

Correct. End of a non-discussion!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 15:22 (810 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: The question has nothing to do with God’s existence or evolution’s stages! You claim that all extinct life forms were part of your God’s goal of evolving humans plus food. I ask how they could all possibly have been part of that goal, since the majority had no connection with humans!

DAVID: It has everything to do with stages. Evolution is defined as a process of development from simple to complex. Humans evolved from bacteria. The connection is God designing each stage.

dhw: Now your dodge is to jump from God’s existence to the fact that evolution goes from stage to stage, from simple to complex. Each stage of what? Are you now telling me that all other life forms that had no connection with humans plus food were part of God’s one and only goal to produce humans plus food because they were all designed by him in stages (except, of course, for those that he designed without any predecessors)?

I don't jump. God's design of evolution is one complete package, with simple stages leading to more complex ones. When He can, i.e., enough oxygen present to allow complex organisms, created by God's invention of photosynthesis, He uses the biochemical processes previously created to form the new phenotypes of the Cambrian. Your dodge is to forget God and try to separate the necessary parts.


DAVID: We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.

dhw: If he exists, and if – as you claim – he designed every other life form, then equally obviously he wanted to design all the other life forms which were here but had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your claim that his only goal was to design us and our food!

Of course He wanted and understood the need for other life forms to supply our food. You can't have one without the other. You admit the food supply is needed and then somehow it proves humans are unconnected from the process of God's designed evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 14, 2021, 15:27 (835 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: […] My main concern is the illogicality of the above bolded theory, which you constantly avoid discussing. “Latitude” or freedom is only one of my alternatives (see below), and designs are responses to changing conditions in the present, not “futuristic”.

DAVID: The gaps are leaps into the future, aren't they(?), which you continue to dodge by a hopeless prayer for more fossils which are not found. The Cambrian gap is 200 years old, isn't it?

dhw: I don’t know what your 200 years refers to. The Cambrian lasted for over 55 million years. The gaps relate to new life forms which do not appear to have had any predecessors, i.e. any links to past forms. How does that invalidate the theory that new species come into being in RESPONSE to changing conditions, as opposed to in ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

The 200 years are my fault, but referred to knowledge of the gap. The Cambrian is not explained by your theory or by original Darwin, who wanted intermediate fossils to fill in.


Transferred from “cellular intelligence”

DAVID: We are discussing God, aren't we? How did evolution work, but by introducing new forms into their new future which I pose as designed by God.

dhw: “Introducing new forms into their new future” is a neat obfuscation! Of course once a new form has arisen through its RESPONSE to new conditions it will then have a future under those conditions. And it will go on reproducing itself automatically for thousands of years until new conditions arise. Then it will RESPOND, change accordingly, and again have a new future under the new conditions. We are discussing the ORIGIN of species. So why do you think it is more logical for organisms to be changed BEFORE new conditions demand or allow for the changes? Do you really imagine your pre-whales sitting on the seashore with their new flippers, waiting for the moment when there is water for them to dive into?

Lucy out of the trees had a tiny brain. 315,000 year-old early sapiens had an unused giant forebrain, a great example of arriving before the future use appeared. That is fact, not wishful theory of a 'response to new conditions'. Base theory on known fact, please.


Dhw (transferred from “insect migration”): Obvious possible theistic alternatives: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

dhw: You have left out 1), 2) and 3), and you stick to a God who has one goal but inexplicably designs millions of life forms and natural wonders that have no relation to his goal. Some theory!

All those you dismiss were steps in God's form of evolution. Why can't you accept god's choice of creation by evolution of processes band forms.?


DAVID: I follow just as highly trained folks as your experts, but they believe in God and see evolution as I do. […]

dhw: How many of your scientists believe every life form, natural wonder etc., including all those unconnected with humans, was specially designed by your god “as part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Apparently not even Adler does so.

DAVID: Not part of his book, which you probably never knew about, copyright 1967.

dhw: Right. And who are all the other scientists who see evolution as you do, with every life form and natural wonder specially designed as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food, including all those that had no connection with humans and their food?

All of ID feels God designed evolution and humans through 3.8 billion years of evolution, after He designed life itself. You avoid reading ID as well as Adler, while defending your position. How well-rounded is your background of research studying thoughts of all great minds? I even follow Larry Moran!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 17:22 (834 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
dhw: […] My main concern is the illogicality of the above bolded theory, which you constantly avoid discussing. “Latitude” or freedom is only one of my alternatives (see below), and designs are responses to changing conditions in the present, not “futuristic”.

DAVID: The gaps are leaps into the future, aren't they(?), which you continue to dodge by a hopeless prayer for more fossils which are not found.

dhw: […] The gaps relate to new life forms which do not appear to have had any predecessors, i.e. any links to past forms. How does that invalidate the theory that new species come into being in RESPONSE to changing conditions, as opposed to in ANTICIPATION of changing conditions?

DAVID: […] The Cambrian is not explained by your theory or by original Darwin, who wanted intermediate fossils to fill in.

I still don’t get your point. Once again: The gaps relate to new life forms without any apparent predecessors. How does that come to mean that your God must have created them in anticipation of new conditions that did not yet exist?

DAVID: We are discussing God, aren't we? How did evolution work, but by introducing new forms into their new future which I pose as designed by God.

dhw: “Introducing new forms into their new future” is a neat obfuscation! Of course once a new form has arisen through its RESPONSE to new conditions it will then have a future under those conditions. And it will go on reproducing itself automatically for thousands of years until new conditions arise. Then it will RESPOND, change accordingly, and again have a new future under the new conditions. We are discussing the ORIGIN of species. So why do you think it is more logical for organisms to be changed BEFORE new conditions demand or allow for the changes? Do you really imagine your pre-whales sitting on the seashore with their new flippers, waiting for the moment when there is water for them to dive into?

DAVID: Lucy out of the trees had a tiny brain. 315,000 year-old early sapiens had an unused giant forebrain, a great example of arriving before the future use appeared. That is fact, not wishful theory of a 'response to new conditions'. Base theory on known fact, please.

Nobody knows the “fact” of why brains expanded! We have discussed this over and over again, and now you are pretending that your theory (your God performed sporadic operations on hominin and homo brains to expand them for future requirements) is a known fact! Here is the counter theory that we have discussed umpteen times over: each expansion had a specific cause (new ideas - e.g. for artefacts - or discoveries, new environment, new way of living) and the existing brain did not have the capacity to deal with it. We know for a fact that brains change when they perform new tasks (illiterate women and taxi drivers were our modern examples). We don’t know the individual causes of each past expansion, but once expanded, the brain then used its existing capacity (no doubt complexifying to a degree) until new demands again required additional cells. 315,000 years ago (or whenever it was), an unknown cause resulted in expansion to current size, and since further expansion would have required major changes to the rest of the anatomy, expansion gave way (except in one or two individual sections of the brain) to complexification. And complexification proved so efficient that the brain has actually shrunk, since some cells became redundant. The only instances we know of changes to the brain are those which take place in RESPONSE to new demands. It is therefore perfectly logical to theorize that the same process may have taken place in the past. The theory is based on known facts!

dhw: Obvious possible theistic alternatives [to your anthropocentric theory of evolution]: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

dhw: You have left out 1), 2) and 3), and you stick to a God who has one goal but inexplicably designs millions of life forms and natural wonders that have no relation to his goal. Some theory!

DAVID: All those you dismiss were steps in God's form of evolution. Why can't you accept god's choice of creation by evolution of processes band forms.?

What are “processes band forms”? I accept that evolution of all species proceeds in stages, and if God exists, I accept that this was his choice of creation. I do not accept that he chose to individually design every single life form, natural wonder etc., and since most of them had no connection with humans and their food, I do not accept that his sole purpose in designing them was to achieve what you believe to have been his one and only goal of designing homo sapiens and his food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 15, 2021, 18:39 (834 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: […] The Cambrian is not explained by your theory or by original Darwin, who wanted intermediate fossils to fill in.

dhw: I still don’t get your point. Once again: The gaps relate to new life forms without any apparent predecessors. How does that come to mean that your God must have created them in anticipation of new conditions that did not yet exist?

See under cellular intelligence the point you avoided.


DAVID: Lucy out of the trees had a tiny brain. 315,000 year-old early sapiens had an unused giant forebrain, a great example of arriving before the future use appeared. That is fact, not wishful theory of a 'response to new conditions'. Base theory on known fact, please.

dhw: Nobody knows the “fact” of why brains expanded! We have discussed this over and over again, and now you are pretending that your theory (your God performed sporadic operations on hominin and homo brains to expand them for future requirements) is a known fact! Here is the counter theory that we have discussed umpteen times over: each expansion had a specific cause (new ideas - e.g. for artefacts - or discoveries, new environment, new way of living) and the existing brain did not have the capacity to deal with it. We know for a fact that brains change when they perform new tasks (illiterate women and taxi drivers were our modern examples). We don’t know the individual causes of each past expansion, but once expanded, the brain then used its existing capacity (no doubt complexifying to a degree) until new demands again required additional cells. 315,000 years ago (or whenever it was), an unknown cause resulted in expansion to current size, and since further expansion would have required major changes to the rest of the anatomy, expansion gave way (except in one or two individual sections of the brain) to complexification. And complexification proved so efficient that the brain has actually shrunk, since some cells became redundant. The only instances we know of changes to the brain are those which take place in RESPONSE to new demands. It is therefore perfectly logical to theorize that the same process may have taken place in the past. The theory is based on known facts!

Based only very weakly on the fact that existing large brains can slightly enlarged heavily used areas. We can only use our brain for facts. Tiny past brains had some plasticity limited by their size and lesser complexity. Doesn't tell us why they enlarged.


dhw: Obvious possible theistic alternatives [to your anthropocentric theory of evolution]: 1) humans plus food were NOT his only goal; 2) he did NOT design each and every life form and natural wonder; 3) he allowed a free-for-all; 4) he was experimenting; 5) he kept getting new ideas.

DAVID: So we go back to a fantastically humanized God who is not sure of what He is doing. Some God!

dhw: You have left out 1), 2) and 3), and you stick to a God who has one goal but inexplicably designs millions of life forms and natural wonders that have no relation to his goal. Some theory!

DAVID: All those you dismiss were steps in God's form of evolution. Why can't you accept god's choice of creation by evolution of processes and forms.?

dhw: What are “processes band forms”?

Sorry , misprint: processes and forms.

dhw: I accept that evolution of all species proceeds in stages, and if God exists, I accept that this was his choice of creation. I do not accept that he chose to individually design every single life form, natural wonder etc., and since most of them had no connection with humans and their food, I do not accept that his sole purpose in designing them was to achieve what you believe to have been his one and only goal of designing homo sapiens and his food.

I know. None of your thoughts tell us how humans with consciousness appeared, well beyond natural necessity for simple survival. Only Adler's answer fits.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 11:14 (833 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Lucy out of the trees had a tiny brain. 315,000 year-old early sapiens had an unused giant forebrain, a great example of arriving before the future use appeared. That is fact, not wishful theory of a 'response to new conditions'. Base theory on known fact, please.

dhw: Nobody knows the “fact” of why brains expanded! We have discussed this over and over again, and now you are pretending that your theory (your God performed sporadic operations on hominin and homo brains to expand them for future requirements) is a known fact! Here is the counter theory that we have discussed umpteen times over: each expansion had a specific cause (new ideas - e.g. for artefacts - or discoveries, new environment, new way of living) and the existing brain did not have the capacity to deal with it. We know for a fact that brains change when they perform new tasks (illiterate women and taxi drivers were our modern examples). We don’t know the individual causes of each past expansion, but once expanded, the brain then used its existing capacity (no doubt complexifying to a degree) until new demands again required additional cells. 315,000 years ago (or whenever it was), an unknown cause resulted in expansion to current size, and since further expansion would have required major changes to the rest of the anatomy, expansion gave way (except in one or two individual sections of the brain) to complexification. And complexification proved so efficient that the brain has actually shrunk, since some cells became redundant. The only instances we know of changes to the brain are those which take place in RESPONSE to new demands. It is therefore perfectly logical to theorize that the same process may have taken place in the past. The theory is based on known facts!

DAVID: Based only very weakly on the fact that existing large brains can slightly enlarged heavily used areas. We can only use our brain for facts. Tiny past brains had some plasticity limited by their size and lesser complexity. Doesn't tell us why they enlarged.

Again, we’ve been over this. it is not based only on slight enlargements but on the fact that the brain is known to change its structure when implementing new tasks. Previously the changes would have been minor complexifications until more cells were needed. With sapiens, I propose that further expansion would have been dangerous, and so complexification became the main process for implementing new tasks. But nobody actually knows why they enlarged, which is why we have different theories. What "known facts" support your theory of divinely preprogrammed or dabbled enlargements?

dhw: I accept that evolution of all species proceeds in stages, and if God exists, I accept that this was his choice of creation. I do not accept that he chose to individually design every single life form, natural wonder etc., and since most of them had no connection with humans and their food, I do not accept that his sole purpose in designing them was to achieve what you believe to have been his one and only goal of designing homo sapiens and his food.

DAVID: I know. None of your thoughts tell us how humans with consciousness appeared, well beyond natural necessity for simple survival. Only Adler's answer fits.

Nobody knows how consciousness itself appeared. Nobody even knows how life appeared. Adler, you have told us, uses humans to “prove” that God exists. You can expand that argument to all life forms, as you do in your books, because even micro-organisms are a complex design. However, my disagreement with you in all these discussions is NOT over God’s existence but over your illogical anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history, your God’s purpose, and his method of achieving that purpose.

DAVID: All of ID feels God designed evolution and humans through 3.8 billion years of evolution, after He designed life itself.
#dhw: Yes I know. How many of them believe that BBBhe individually designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., including all those that had no connection with humans, as “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans and their food”?

DAVID: I think they all do.

dhw: […] name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

DAVID: Behe, Meyer, Demski.
I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.

I looked up Dembski, and this was the first thing I came upon:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN - Bill Dembski
https://billdembski.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm

QUOTE: “Because a sign is not the thing signified, intelligent design does not presume to identify the purposes of a designer. Intelligent design focuses not on the designer’s purposes (the thing signified) but on the artifacts resulting from a designer’s purposes (the sign). What a designer intends or purposes is, to be sure, an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about a designer’s purposes from the designed objects that a designer produces. Nevertheless, the purposes of a designer lie outside the scope of intelligent design.”

I don’t know how Behe and Dembski can support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose (goal) was to design H. sapiens plus food if Behe doesn’t talk of God, and Dembski doesn’t talk of purpose. I didn’t bother to find out about Meyer.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 16, 2021, 15:51 (833 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Based only very weakly on the fact that existing large brains can slightly enlarged heavily used areas. We can only use our brain for facts. Tiny past brains had some plasticity limited by their size and lesser complexity. Doesn't tell us why they enlarged.

dhw: Again, we’ve been over this. it is not based only on slight enlargements but on the fact that the brain is known to change its structure when implementing new tasks. Previously the changes would have been minor complexifications until more cells were needed. With sapiens, I propose that further expansion would have been dangerous, and so complexification became the main process for implementing new tasks. But nobody actually knows why they enlarged, which is why we have different theories. What "known facts" support your theory of divinely preprogrammed or dabbled enlargements?

The obvious facts that ID'ers point to constantly. Only design can create the complexities we see in living organisms.


dhw: I accept that evolution of all species proceeds in stages, and if God exists, I accept that this was his choice of creation. I do not accept that he chose to individually design every single life form, natural wonder etc., and since most of them had no connection with humans and their food, I do not accept that his sole purpose in designing them was to achieve what you believe to have been his one and only goal of designing homo sapiens and his food.

DAVID: I know. None of your thoughts tell us how humans with consciousness appeared, well beyond natural necessity for simple survival. Only Adler's answer fits.

dhw: Nobody knows how consciousness itself appeared. Nobody even knows how life appeared. Adler, you have told us, uses humans to “prove” that God exists. You can expand that argument to all life forms, as you do in your books, because even micro-organisms are a complex design. However, my disagreement with you in all these discussions is NOT over God’s existence but over your illogical anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history, your God’s purpose, and his method of achieving that purpose.

You accept that God created history, and then deny that same history. Evolution occurred, produced humans, so God did it, as I see God in charge.


dhw: […] name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

DAVID: Behe, Meyer, Demski.
I always thought that Behe specifically avoided mentioning God, let alone God’s purpose.

I looked up Dembski, and this was the first thing I came upon:
INTELLIGENT DESIGN - Bill Dembski
https://billdembski.com/documents/2003.08.Encyc_of_Relig.htm

QUOTE: “Because a sign is not the thing signified, intelligent design does not presume to identify the purposes of a designer. Intelligent design focuses not on the designer’s purposes (the thing signified) but on the artifacts resulting from a designer’s purposes (the sign). What a designer intends or purposes is, to be sure, an interesting question, and one may be able to infer something about a designer’s purposes from the designed objects that a designer produces. Nevertheless, the purposes of a designer lie outside the scope of intelligent design.”

dhw: I don’t know how Behe and Dembski can support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose (goal) was to design H. sapiens plus food if Behe doesn’t talk of God, and Dembski doesn’t talk of purpose. I didn’t bother to find out about Meyer.

Since you have barely dipped your toe into ID you know nothing of ID's approach. For public consumption God is never mentioned. They simply use the force of complexity to demand the existence of an unnamed designer. I've talked with Behe personally. He believes. They all do, but the point is to keep religion out of it. Stephen C. Meyer finally didn't:

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-return-of-the-god-hypothesis-compelling-scientific-ev...

Read the address above to see my point. Meyer is an IDer.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Friday, December 17, 2021, 14:59 (832 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
DAVID: Based only very weakly on the fact that existing large brains can slightly enlarged heavily used areas. We can only use our brain for facts. Tiny past brains had some plasticity limited by their size and lesser complexity. Doesn't tell us why they enlarged.

dhw: Again, we’ve been over this. it is not based only on slight enlargements but on the fact that the brain is known to change its structure when implementing new tasks. Previously the changes would have been minor complexifications until more cells were needed. With sapiens, I propose that further expansion would have been dangerous, and so complexification became the main process for implementing new tasks. But nobody actually knows why they enlarged, which is why we have different theories. What "known facts" support your theory of divinely preprogrammed or dabbled enlargements?

DAVID: The obvious facts that ID'ers point to constantly. Only design can create the complexities we see in living organisms.

We are not arguing about design! Why do you think design can only mean your God preprogramming or dabbling in advance of any need? The complexities of a brain that RESPONDS to new requirements are just as great as those of a brain that is operated on in advance, and my proposal is no less a product of ID than your own. It is a known fact that brains do change (complexify/expand) in response to new requirements. What known facts support your claim that they change in advance of new requirements?

dhw: […] my disagreement with you in all these discussions is NOT over God’s existence but over your illogical anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history, your God’s purpose, and his method of achieving that purpose.

DAVID: You accept that God created history, and then deny that same history. Evolution occurred, produced humans, so God did it, as I see God in charge.

I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

dhw: […] name, say, three scientists who believe that your God individually designed every life form etc. as bolded above.

DAVID: Behe, Meyer, Demski.
[…]
dhw: I don’t know how Behe and Dembski can support your theory that your God’s one and only purpose (goal) was to design H. sapiens plus food if Behe doesn’t talk of God, and Dembski doesn’t talk of purpose. I didn’t bother to find out about Meyer.

DAVID: Since you have barely dipped your toe into ID you know nothing of ID's approach. For public consumption God is never mentioned. They simply use the force of complexity to demand the existence of an unnamed designer. I've talked with Behe personally. He believes. They all do….

For the thousandth time, I am not disputing the case for intelligent design, or its basis for believing in a designer! I am disputing your rigid belief that your God individually designed every single life form, natural wonder etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although most of the life forms and wonders etc. had no connection with humans. This is so illogical that I find it hard to believe any scientist would put his name to it. Clearly Behe and Dembski have not done so.

DAVID: …but the point is to keep religion out of it. Stephen C. Meyer finally didn't:
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-return-of-the-god-hypothesis-compelling-scientific-ev...

The link took me to an advertisement for “thriftbooks”. I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Friday, December 17, 2021, 15:40 (832 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: The obvious facts that ID'ers point to constantly. Only design can create the complexities we see in living organisms.

dhw: We are not arguing about design! Why do you think design can only mean your God preprogramming or dabbling in advance of any need? The complexities of a brain that RESPONDS to new requirements are just as great as those of a brain that is operated on in advance, and my proposal is no less a product of ID than your own. It is a known fact that brains do change (complexify/expand) in response to new requirements. What known facts support your claim that they change in advance of new requirements?

Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You an -t use aeras of design theories you like and skip over others.


dhw: […] my disagreement with you in all these discussions is NOT over God’s existence but over your illogical anthropocentric interpretation of life’s history, your God’s purpose, and his method of achieving that purpose.

DAVID: You accept that God created history, and then deny that same history. Evolution occurred, produced humans, so God did it, as I see God in charge.

dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!


DAVID: Since you have barely dipped your toe into ID you know nothing of ID's approach. For public consumption God is never mentioned. They simply use the force of complexity to demand the existence of an unnamed designer. I've talked with Behe personally. He believes. They all do….

dhw: For the thousandth time, I am not disputing the case for intelligent design, or its basis for believing in a designer! I am disputing your rigid belief that your God individually designed every single life form, natural wonder etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food, although most of the life forms and wonders etc. had no connection with humans. This is so illogical that I find it hard to believe any scientist would put his name to it. Clearly Behe and Dembski have not done so.

DAVID: …but the point is to keep religion out of it. Stephen C. Meyer finally didn't:
https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-return-of-the-god-hypothesis-compelling-scientific-ev...

dhw: The link took me to an advertisement for “thriftbooks”. I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food?

Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 07:49 (832 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: The obvious facts that ID'ers point to constantly. Only design can create the complexities we see in living organisms.

dhw: We are not arguing about design! Why do you think design can only mean your God preprogramming or dabbling in advance of any need? The complexities of a brain that RESPONDS to new requirements are just as great as those of a brain that is operated on in advance, and my proposal is no less a product of ID than your own. It is a known fact that brains do change (complexify/expand) in response to new requirements. What known facts support your claim that they change in advance of new requirements?

DAVID: Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You can't use areas of design theories you like and skip over others.

I was more specific earlier. Most parts of our modern brain complexify, but one or two sections expand. In both cases, the change is due to their RESPONSE to new requirements. “Extrapolating” from these known facts, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that in earlier times, the same process took place, with the brain RESPONDING to new requirements, whether by complexification or by expansion.

dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

DAVID: I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!

No, you don’t. The dodge is that you also insist that the only species he WANTED to design were humans and their food, in which case why did he design all the species and foods that had no connection with humans? It is the combination of premises that you always dodge because you know full well they do not fit together. That is why you tell me to go and ask God.

dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.

DAVID: Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

So he did not promote the bolded theory above. Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 18, 2021, 15:45 (831 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You can't use areas of design theories you like and skip over others.

dhw: I was more specific earlier. Most parts of our modern brain complexify, but one or two sections expand. In both cases, the change is due to their RESPONSE to new requirements. “Extrapolating” from these known facts, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that in earlier times, the same process took place, with the brain RESPONDING to new requirements, whether by complexification or by expansion.

In regard to the whole brain the percentage enlargement is minuscule. You are once again making a mountain out of a molehill. We only know our brain's capacities but can infer only that previous brains could also enlarge tiny areas with heavier use.


dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

DAVID: I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!

dhw: No, you don’t. The dodge is that you also insist that the only species he WANTED to design were humans and their food, in which case why did he design all the species and foods that had no connection with humans?

God chose to evolve us and obviously WANTED all of the other forms on the way to us. You constantly distort my theory, which is a poor way to debate honestly.


dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.

DAVID: Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

dhw: So he did not promote the bolded theory above. Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 12:52 (830 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Wrong brain example. Our brains thicken tiny areas, but don't get bigger. Extrapolating from the same design theory you accept, the designer designs in advance. You can't use areas of design theories you like and skip over others.

dhw: I was more specific earlier. Most parts of our modern brain complexify, but one or two sections expand. In both cases, the change is due to their RESPONSE to new requirements. “Extrapolating” from these known facts, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that in earlier times, the same process took place, with the brain RESPONDING to new requirements, whether by complexification or by expansion.

DAVID:In regard to the whole brain the percentage enlargement is minuscule. You are once again making a mountain out of a molehill. We only know our brain's capacities but can infer only that previous brains could also enlarge tiny areas with heavier use.

You persist in ignoring my suggestion that the human brain reached its maximum capacity, as further expansion would have required major anatomical changes, and therefore expansion generally gave way to complexification (which proved so efficient that the brain actually shrank). Since we KNOW that earlier brains expanded, and we KNOW that brains change in response to new requirements, I don’t understand why you have a problem acknowledging the logic of my proposal.

dhw: I do not deny that evolution occurred and produced humans! It also produced millions of life forms, lifestyles, econiches and natural wonders that had no connection with humans! If God exists, he did it, but that does not mean he designed every single life form etc, and did so for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food. This is the illogicality you keep dodging!

DAVID: I don't dodge if I believe God designed all!!

dhw: No, you don’t. The dodge is that you also insist that the only species he WANTED to design were humans and their food, in which case why did he design all the species and foods that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: God chose to evolve us and obviously WANTED all of the other forms on the way to us. You constantly distort my theory, which is a poor way to debate honestly.

There is no distortion. If he did indeed WANT all the other forms that had no connection with humans, it makes no sense to argue that the only species he WANTED were humans plus their food! And yet you insist that they were all part of the “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You constantly twist your own theory in order to escape from the discrepancy between what you think was his purpose and what you think were his actions.

dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.[/b]

DAVID: Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

dhw: So he did not promote the bolded theory above.

I had asked you to name scientists who support your bolded theory. None of the three nominees do so.

dhw: Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

What have I distorted?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 19, 2021, 16:11 (830 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID:In regard to the whole brain the percentage enlargement is minuscule. You are once again making a mountain out of a molehill. We only know our brain's capacities but can infer only that previous brains could also enlarge tiny areas with heavier use.

dhw: You persist in ignoring my suggestion that the human brain reached its maximum capacity, as further expansion would have required major anatomical changes, and therefore expansion generally gave way to complexification (which proved so efficient that the brain actually shrank).

Really silly expansion-stop theory. There is no evidence that 200cc more would have caused anatomic problems for our neck and shoulders.

dhw: Since we KNOW that earlier brains expanded, and we KNOW that brains change in response to new requirements, I don’t understand why you have a problem acknowledging the logic of my proposal.

You are skipping over major jumps in size from Lucy to now. And Neanderthal brains were bigger!!! Doesn't fit your theory.


DAVID: God chose to evolve us and obviously WANTED all of the other forms on the way to us. You constantly distort my theory, which is a poor way to debate honestly.

dhw: There is no distortion. If he did indeed WANT all the other forms that had no connection with humans, it makes no sense to argue that the only species he WANTED were humans plus their food!

You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.[/b]

All ID'ers think God designed evolution


DAVID: Meyer believes God is the designer of all, published it, and changed ID rules about mentioning God.

dhw: So he did not promote the bolded theory above.

dhw: I had asked you to name scientists who support your bolded theory. None of the three nominees do so.

They all believe God designed the forms in evolution.


dhw: Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

You have ignored Adler constantly. His thoughts and proofs of God are mine also. A leading philosopher of religion in the 20th century. I easily follow him and reject your approach. And both he and I accept the history of evolution as what God did. He created humans and their food by that method.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Monday, December 20, 2021, 07:04 (830 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID:In regard to the whole brain the percentage enlargement is minuscule. You are once again making a mountain out of a molehill. We only know our brain's capacities but can infer only that previous brains could also enlarge tiny areas with heavier use.

dhw: You persist in ignoring my suggestion that the human brain reached its maximum capacity, as further expansion would have required major anatomical changes, and therefore expansion generally gave way to complexification (which proved so efficient that the brain actually shrank).

DAVID: Really silly expansion-stop theory. There is no evidence that 200cc more would have caused anatomic problems for our neck and shoulders.

I have no idea what the tipping point would be. It is, however, a fact that the brain stopped expanding and complexity took over. What is your explanation?

dhw: Since we KNOW that earlier brains expanded, and we KNOW that brains change in response to new requirements, I don’t understand why you have a problem acknowledging the logic of my proposal.

DAVID: You are skipping over major jumps in size from Lucy to now. And Neanderthal brains were bigger!!! Doesn't fit your theory.

I am suggesting that every expansion (major jump) since Lucy was caused by new requirements which exceeded the capacity of the existing brain. Hence the expansion of the capacity. Neanderthals were a different build from sapiens, more thickset and with a more prominent brow and nose. Please explain why you think your God gave Neanderthals a bigger brain than ours.

DAVID: God chose to evolve us and obviously WANTED all of the other forms on the way to us. You constantly distort my theory, which is a poor way to debate honestly.

dhw: There is no distortion. If he did indeed WANT all the other forms that had no connection with humans, it makes no sense to argue that the only species he WANTED were humans plus their food!

DAVID: You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

I have asked why your all-powerful God needed to design all these different homos and hominins when according to you he is perfectly capable of designing species “de novo” (see Cambrian), but in any case your theory does not stop with homos and hominins. According to you EVERY extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc, was “part of the goal to evolve [= design] human” and their food. According to you, he only WANTED us plus food, yet you say he also WANTED all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

dhw: I have no doubt that Stephen C. Meyer believes in intelligent design, and in God the designer. Please save me some more time and just tell me whether he also believes that your God specially designed every life form and lifestyle and natural wonder, including all the extinct ones that had no connection with humans, for the sole purpose of designing humans and their food.

DAVID: All ID'ers think God designed evolution.

But apparently you can’t find even one who supports the theory I have bolded!

dhw: Frankly, I doubt if any scientist would propose a theory that is so manifestly illogical. Design, yes. Existence of God, yes. Humans vastly more intelligent than other species, yes. But a God who only wants one species plus food, but spends 3.x billion years specially designing countless species that have no connection with humans plus food? No. That doesn’t even make sense to you, which is why you either dodge it or you tell me go and ask God.

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

DAVID: You have ignored Adler constantly. His thoughts and proofs of God are mine also. A leading philosopher of religion in the 20th century. I easily follow him and reject your approach. And both he and I accept the history of evolution as what God did. He created humans and their food by that method.

I have agreed ad nauseam that Adler’s theory, as you have explained it, provides a logical reason for believing in the existence of God. But you have always maintained that he does not cover your theory of evolution. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Monday, December 20, 2021, 16:44 (829 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Really silly expansion-stop theory. There is no evidence that 200cc more would have caused anatomic problems for our neck and shoulders.

dhw: I have no idea what the tipping point would be. It is, however, a fact that the brain stopped expanding and complexity took over. What is your explanation?

300,000+ years ago the unused brain was big enough for future anticipated use in God's mind.


dhw: I am suggesting that every expansion (major jump) since Lucy was caused by new requirements which exceeded the capacity of the existing brain. Hence the expansion of the capacity. Neanderthals were a different build from sapiens, more thickset and with a more prominent brow and nose. Please explain why you think your God gave Neanderthals a bigger brain than ours.

We assume it wasn't a better brain, just different. What Neanderthals gave us is much more important than brain size, i.e., improved immunity, for one.


DAVID: You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

dhw: I have asked why your all-powerful God needed to design all these different homos and hominins when according to you he is perfectly capable of designing species “de novo” (see Cambrian), but in any case your theory does not stop with homos and hominins. According to you EVERY extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc, was “part of the goal to evolve [= design] human” and their food. According to you, he only WANTED us plus food, yet you say he also WANTED all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

The bold is your constant distortion of my thoughts about God's desires. God wanted all of the evolutionary tree with us arriving at the end, and evolved us by the process of evolution. You twist my God into a tunnel-visioned character to try to damage my theory. It won't/doesn't work to any rational person viewing.


DAVID: All ID'ers think God designed evolution.

dhw: But apparently you can’t find even one who supports the theory I have bolded!

All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack. You have favorite folks you bring up over and over who have an opinion cells are intelligent. Do they ever declare, as you do, that this is how speciation happens?

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

DAVID: You have ignored Adler constantly. His thoughts and proofs of God are mine also. A leading philosopher of religion in the 20th century. I easily follow him and reject your approach. And both he and I accept the history of evolution as what God did. He created humans and their food by that method.

dhw: I have agreed ad nauseam that Adler’s theory, as you have explained it, provides a logical reason for believing in the existence of God. But you have always maintained that he does not cover your theory of evolution. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

My whole view of God as discussed above in red.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Wednesday, December 22, 2021, 22:05 (827 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
DAVID: Really silly expansion-stop theory. There is no evidence that 200cc more would have caused anatomic problems for our neck and shoulders.

dhw: I have no idea what the tipping point would be. It is, however, a fact that the brain stopped expanding and complexity took over. What is your explanation?

DAVID: 300,000+ years ago the unused brain was big enough for future anticipated use in God's mind.

And I propose that all past brains would have remained the same size and would presumably have complexified, until unknown new requirements (lots of possibilities ranging from new artefacts to new ideas or discoveries to new conditions to new ways of living) necessitated additional cells (= expansion). Our “mainly unused giant brain” reached its current size 300,000 years ago to meet unknown new requirements, but instead of expanding (possibly because further expansion would have necessitated major changes to the rest of the anatomy), the human brain subsequently responded to new requirements by complexifying, and complexification has proved so efficient that the brain has shrunk. You have never come up with any reason for rejecting this theory.

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

So you stick to the idea that your God operated on pre-whale legs to change them into flippers before they entered the water, although the fossil record shows that there were transitional forms.

DAVID: [re "NEANDERTHALS"] You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

dhw: I have asked why your all-powerful God needed to design all these different homos and hominins when according to you he is perfectly capable of designing species “de novo” (see Cambrian), but in any case your theory does not stop with homos and hominins. According to you EVERY extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc, was “part of the goal to evolve [= design] humans” and their food. According to you, he only WANTED us plus food, yet you say he also WANTED all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

DAVID: The bold is your constant distortion of my thoughts about God's desires. God wanted all of the evolutionary tree with us arriving at the end, and evolved us by the process of evolution. You twist my God into a tunnel-visioned character to try to damage my theory. It won't/doesn't work to any rational person viewing.

What doesn’t work to any rational person viewing is your rigid belief that all life forms are/were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You even emphasize this in your comment on ecosystems. (“Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”) That is YOUR tunnel-vision. I cannot follow the logic of an all-powerful God, whose one and only goal is to produce humans plus food, deliberately designing all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: All ID'ers think God designed evolution.

dhw: But apparently you can’t find even one who supports the theory I have bolded!

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

DAVID: You have favorite folks you bring up over and over who have an opinion cells are intelligent. Do they ever declare, as you do, that this is how speciation happens?

Shapiro does. But it is you who constantly harp on about support – even to the extent of claiming that cellular intelligence has no supporters now. That is why I challenged you to name supporters of your own theory. The discussion on who supports what is pointless. We should simply focus on the arguments themselves.

DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

DAVID: You have ignored Adler constantly. His thoughts and proofs of God are mine also. A leading philosopher of religion in the 20th century. I easily follow him and reject your approach. And both he and I accept the history of evolution as what God did. He created humans and their food by that method.

dhw: I have agreed ad nauseam that Adler’s theory, as you have explained it, provides a logical reason for believing in the existence of God. But you have always maintained that he does not cover your theory of evolution. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

DAVID: My whole view of God as discussed above in red.

Your comment in red does not explain why he wanted ALL of the evolutionary tree, or do you now wish to disown your constantly repeated view that he designed ALL life forms etc. “as part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 00:31 (827 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: 300,000+ years ago the unused brain was big enough for future anticipated use in God's mind.

dhw: And I propose that all past brains would have remained the same size and would presumably have complexified, until unknown new requirements (lots of possibilities ranging from new artefacts to new ideas or discoveries to new conditions to new ways of living) necessitated additional cells (= expansion). Our “mainly unused giant brain” reached its current size 300,000 years ago to meet unknown new requirements, but instead of expanding (possibly because further expansion would have necessitated major changes to the rest of the anatomy), the human brain subsequently responded to new requirements by complexifying, and complexification has proved so efficient that the brain has shrunk. You have never come up with any reason for rejecting this theory.

I'll remind you, 200 cc of more brain is not anatomic problem. No new requirements appeared from erectus to sapiens of any larger amount. Lots of unused brain for no good reason, except it appeared in advance prepared for future use.


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: So you stick to the idea that your God operated on pre-whale legs to change them into flippers before they entered the water, although the fossil record shows that there were transitional forms.

We do not know in the fossil gaps when they formed. Swimming mammals could have been redesigned in the water.


DAVID: [re "NEANDERTHALS"] You forget/ignore all the material presented here as to how interbreeding gave us advantages.

DAVID: The bold is your constant distortion of my thoughts about God's desires. God wanted all of the evolutionary tree with us arriving at the end, and evolved us by the process of evolution. You twist my God into a tunnel-visioned character to try to damage my theory. It won't/doesn't work to any rational person viewing.

dhw: What doesn’t work to any rational person viewing is your rigid belief that all life forms are/were part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You even emphasize this in your comment on ecosystems. (“Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”) That is YOUR tunnel-vision. I cannot follow the logic of an all-powerful God, whose one and only goal is to produce humans plus food, deliberately designing all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food.

I think my logic fits God's intentions. God chose to evolve us. Deny that.


DAVID: All ID'ers think God designed evolution.

dhw: But apparently you can’t find even one who supports the theory I have bolded!

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

No pretend. They think God designed al forms in evolution


DAVID: You have favorite folks you bring up over and over who have an opinion cells are intelligent. Do they ever declare, as you do, that this is how speciation happens?

dhw: Shapiro does.

It is a theoretical proposal he barely supported at the Royal Society, remember?


DAVID: Same inadequate distortion. Makes perfect sense to me. Move on.

dhw: What have I distorted?

dhw: I have agreed ad nauseam that Adler’s theory, as you have explained it, provides a logical reason for believing in the existence of God. But you have always maintained that he does not cover your theory of evolution. Please make up your mind. And please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

DAVID: My whole view of God as discussed above in red.

dhw: Your comment in red does not explain why he wanted ALL of the evolutionary tree, or do you now wish to disown your constantly repeated view that he designed ALL life forms etc. “as part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food?

Never. God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 09:20 (827 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: 300,000+ years ago the unused brain was big enough for future anticipated use in God's mind.

dhw: And I propose that all past brains would have remained the same size and would presumably have complexified, until unknown new requirements (lots of possibilities ranging from new artefacts to new ideas or discoveries to new conditions to new ways of living) necessitated additional cells (= expansion). Our “mainly unused giant brain” reached its current size 300,000 years ago to meet unknown new requirements, but instead of expanding (possibly because further expansion would have necessitated major changes to the rest of the anatomy), the human brain subsequently responded to new requirements by complexifying, and complexification has proved so efficient that the brain has shrunk. You have never come up with any reason for rejecting this theory.

DAVID: I'll remind you, 200 cc of more brain is not anatomic problem.

I’m delighted that this is the only objection you can find to my theory. Please tell us your own theory as to why sapiens’ brain stopped expanding and gave precedence to complexification.

DAVID: No new requirements appeared from erectus to sapiens of any larger amount.

How large is a “larger” amount? And how do you know?

DAVID: Lots of unused brain for no good reason, except it appeared in advance prepared for future use.

How do you know it was not used? Do you think our ancestors were zombies? If they did encounter any new conditions or requirements, their brains would have complexified instead of expanding. That is the only process we know: the brain changes in RESPONSE to new requirements.

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: So you stick to the idea that your God operated on pre-whale legs to change them into flippers before they entered the water, although the fossil record shows that there were transitional forms.

DAVID: We do not know in the fossil gaps when they formed. Swimming mammals could have been redesigned in the water.

So your all-powerful, all-knowing God had to keep dabbling, making corrections as and when he realized that conditions required more changes. If they were already in the water, wouldn’t this have been IN RESPONSE to conditions?

DAVID: The bold is your constant distortion of my thoughts about God's desires. God wanted all of the evolutionary tree with us arriving at the end, and evolved us by the process of evolution. You twist my God into a tunnel-visioned character to try to damage my theory. It won't/doesn't work to any rational person viewing.

dhw: What doesn’t work to any rational person viewing is your rigid belief that all life forms are/were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food. You even emphasize this in your comment on ecosystems. (“Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”) That is YOUR tunnel-vision. I cannot follow the logic of an all-powerful God, whose one and only goal is to produce humans plus food, deliberately designing all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: I think my logic fits God's intentions. God chose to evolve us. Deny that.

The usual dodge. If God exists, he chose to evolve every life form that ever lived (or he gave them the freedom to evolve), including all those that had no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

DAVID: No pretend. They think God designed all forms in evolution

But do they believe that all forms served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID (in PART TWO): Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.

So stop pretending that he supports your theory!

DAVID: You have favorite folks you bring up over and over who have an opinion cells are intelligent. Do they ever declare, as you do, that this is how speciation happens?

dhw: Shapiro does.

DAVID: It is a theoretical proposal he barely supported at the Royal Society, remember?

What does “barely supported” mean? Has he expressly rejected his own theory? In any case, this is a silly discussion. The focus should be on the feasibility of the theory, not on who does or doesn’t support the theory.

dhw: ...please tell me what I have distorted in the paragraph you criticised.

DAVID: My whole view of God as discussed above in red.

dhw: Your comment in red does not explain why he wanted ALL of the evolutionary tree, or do you now wish to disown your constantly repeated view that he designed ALL life forms etc. “as part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food?

DAVID: Never. God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

So please tell us how Adler explains the discrepancy between God’s one and only purpose (to “form us”) and God’s individual design of all the extinct life forms that had no connection with us.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 23, 2021, 15:34 (826 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: I'll remind you, 200 cc of more brain is not anatomic problem.

dhw: I’m delighted that this is the only objection you can find to my theory. Please tell us your own theory as to why sapiens’ brain stopped expanding and gave precedence to complexification.

Complexification caused shrinkage, as you know, so the size of our given brain was more than adequate 315,000 years ago, and when finally fully used lost size. It is the quality and quantity of neurons, not size, if we compare ourselves theoretically to bigger Neanderthal brains.


dhw: How do you know it was not used? Do you think our ancestors were zombies? If they did encounter any new conditions or requirements, their brains would have complexified instead of expanding. That is the only process we know: the brain changes in RESPONSE to new requirements.

Compare living style requirements of Erectus to sapiens to see the use difference.


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

DAVID: No pretend. They think God designed all forms in evolution

dhw: But do they believe that all forms served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?


Not discussed by them.


DAVID (in PART TWO): Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.

dhw: So stop pretending that he supports your theory!

He supports design theory and believes in God all part of how I view evolution. ID doesn't go into the details I do.


DAVID: Never. God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

dhw: So please tell us how Adler explains the discrepancy between God’s one and only purpose (to “form us”) and God’s individual design of all the extinct life forms that had no connection with us.

Adler and I see no discrepancy as you imagine it. Adler simply accepts, as I do, God evolved use from the beginning of the life God invented. In his view the appearance of humans proved God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Monday, December 27, 2021, 08:53 (823 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: I'll remind you, 200 cc of more brain is not anatomic problem.

dhw: I’m delighted that this is the only objection you can find to my theory. Please tell us your own theory as to why sapiens’ brain stopped expanding and gave precedence to complexification.

DAVID: Complexification caused shrinkage, as you know, so the size of our given brain was more than adequate 315,000 years ago, and when finally fully used lost size. It is the quality and quantity of neurons, not size, if we compare ourselves theoretically to bigger Neanderthal brains.

You don’t seem to be able to make up your mind whether 200 cc was a big leap or a little leap. I suggest it was no different from all the earlier leaps, and happened – like the others – for one of several possible reasons, as listed earlier. You don’t know any more than I do why the brain expanded or why it stopped expanding, but I’m surprised you think it has been fully used. Do you honestly believe that in the next hundred/ thousand/ten thousand/hundred thousand years we shall have no more new ideas or requirements or needs? And do you honestly believe that the brain could simply have gone on expanding indefinitely? At some stage, complexification would have had to take over anyway.

DAVID: Compare living style requirements of Erectus to sapiens to see the use difference.

"Living style" didn't change much between any of our earlier ancestors. If, for example, the invention of the bow and arrow required brain expansion, it would not have changed "living style". I suggest that all stages in the past were followed by a period of “stasis” until the next new factor required expansion, but with sapiens - as we have agreed over and over again - expansion was replaced by complexification, which proved so efficient that the brain shrank. I keep asking why you find this theory so difficult to accept. Your only answer seems to be that, like all your own theories, it isn’t proven.

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: So please stop pretending that they support your illogical theory of evolution!

DAVID: No pretend. They think God designed all forms in evolution

dhw: But do they believe that all forms, served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: Not discussed by them.

Then please stop pretending that they support your theory!

DAVID (in PART TWO): Behe believes God designed all of evolution. We didn't discuss any further.

dhw: So stop pretending that he supports your theory!

DAVID: He supports design theory and believes in God all part of how I view evolution. ID doesn't go into the details I do.

Obviously all ID-ers believe in design, which is fine, but they don’t even mention your anthropocentric theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and therefore he designed countless life forms that had no connection with us. So please stop leaning on ID-ers for support since you have fallen down each time you’ve tried to lean on them.

DAVID: God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

dhw: So please tell us how Adler explains the discrepancy between God’s one and only purpose (to “form us”) and God’s individual design of all the extinct life forms that had no connection with us.

DAVID: Adler and I see no discrepancy as you imagine it. Adler simply accepts, as I do, God evolved use from the beginning of the life God invented. In his view the appearance of humans proved God.

Thank you for confirming for the umpteenth time that Adler does not cover your one-man campaign for a God who designed every life form, including all those that had no connection with humans, “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans" plus food. You can’t even lean on Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Monday, December 27, 2021, 15:14 (822 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Complexification caused shrinkage, as you know, so the size of our given brain was more than adequate 315,000 years ago, and when finally fully used lost size. It is the quality and quantity of neurons, not size, if we compare ourselves theoretically to bigger Neanderthal brains.

dhw: You don’t seem to be able to make up your mind whether 200 cc was a big leap or a little leap. I suggest it was no different from all the earlier leaps, and happened – like the others – for one of several possible reasons, as listed earlier. You don’t know any more than I do why the brain expanded or why it stopped expanding, but I’m surprised you think it has been fully used. Do you honestly believe that in the next hundred/ thousand/ten thousand/hundred thousand years we shall have no more new ideas or requirements or needs? And do you honestly believe that the brain could simply have gone on expanding indefinitely? At some stage, complexification would have had to take over anyway.

Remember I accept God did all the designing. I fully believe our brain is as fully used as it can be and advancing mentation needs will be handled with no problem


DAVID: Compare living style requirements of Erectus to sapiens to see the use difference.

dhw: "Living style" didn't change much between any of our earlier ancestors. If, for example, the invention of the bow and arrow required brain expansion, it would not have changed "living style". I suggest that all stages in the past were followed by a period of “stasis” until the next new factor required expansion, but with sapiens - as we have agreed over and over again - expansion was replaced by complexification, which proved so efficient that the brain shrank. I keep asking why you find this theory so difficult to accept. Your only answer seems to be that, like all your own theories, it isn’t proven.

My theory is God designs, which you don't accept. Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

The fossils are of transitional forms, in and out of water. So the changes are stepwise even if the gaps are large, no Darwinoid itty-bitty forms found.

DAVID: All ID folks do is prove a designer exists, my theory is not their point of attack.

dhw: But do they believe that all forms, served his one and only goal of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: Not discussed by them.

dhw: Then please stop pretending that they support your theory!

Their theory is God designed all of evolution. That is my theory!!


dhw: Obviously all ID-ers believe in design, which is fine, but they don’t even mention your anthropocentric theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and therefore he designed countless life forms that had no connection with us. So please stop leaning on ID-ers for support since you have fallen down each time you’ve tried to lean on them.

DAVID: God chose to design all steps of evolution to form us, per Adler.

dhw: So please tell us how Adler explains the discrepancy between God’s one and only purpose (to “form us”) and God’s individual design of all the extinct life forms that had no connection with us.

DAVID: Adler and I see no discrepancy as you imagine it. Adler simply accepts, as I do, God evolved use from the beginning of the life God invented. In his view the appearance of humans proved God.

dhw: Thank you for confirming for the umpteenth time that Adler does not cover your one-man campaign for a God who designed every life form, including all those that had no connection with humans, “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans" plus food. You can’t even lean on Adler.

Your complaint is a total distortion of my logic. Adler says human evolution proves God exists, and ID says God designed all of evolution from bacteria to humans. In that way I see humans as the desired endpoint for God. You can't erase 3.8 billion years of life getting from there to here.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 14:12 (821 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Complexification caused shrinkage, as you know, so the size of our given brain was more than adequate 315,000 years ago, and when finally fully used lost size. It is the quality and quantity of neurons, not size, if we compare ourselves theoretically to bigger Neanderthal brains.

dhw: You don’t seem to be able to make up your mind whether 200 cc was a big leap or a little leap. I suggest it was no different from all the earlier leaps, and happened – like the others – for one of several possible reasons, as listed earlier. You don’t know any more than I do why the brain expanded or why it stopped expanding, but I’m surprised you think it has been fully used. Do you honestly believe that in the next hundred/ thousand/ten thousand/hundred thousand years we shall have no more new ideas or requirements or needs? And do you honestly believe that the brain could simply have gone on expanding indefinitely? At some stage, complexification would have had to take over anyway.

DAVID: Remember I accept God did all the designing. I fully believe our brain is as fully used as it can be and advancing mentation needs will be handled with no problem.

I can hardly forget your belief (not acceptance) that your God did all the designing. And if he exists, I have no problem accepting the idea that he designed the brain so that initially it would expand and/or complexify in order to meet new requirements. I don’t see how it can now be “as fully used as it can be” and yet be capable of advancing mentation. But I agree that complexification will handle all further requirements. Now please tell us whether you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely with all our "advancing mentation".

DAVID: Compare living style requirements of Erectus to sapiens to see the use difference.

dhw: "Living style" didn't change much between any of our earlier ancestors. If, for example, the invention of the bow and arrow required brain expansion, it would not have changed "living style". I suggest that all stages in the past were followed by a period of “stasis” until the next new factor required expansion, but with sapiens - as we have agreed over and over again - expansion was replaced by complexification, which proved so efficient that the brain shrank. I keep asking why you find this theory so difficult to accept. Your only answer seems to be that, like all your own theories, it isn’t proven.

DAVID: My theory is God designs, which you don't accept.

My theory, as explained above, allows for your God designing the brain.

DAVID: Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.

History and archaeology do not tell us what caused the brain to expand in the first place. We took a simple example, though, to illustrate how it might work. Pre-expansion homo is a hunter and thinks of a safer way than close-up grappling, i.e. by designing a weapon that can be thrown from a distance. The new idea requires new skills in the making and using of the new weapon and so, just like illiterate women learning to read, the brain responds, but in this case it does so by adding new cells. The appearance of the new weapon COINCIDES with the expansion of the brain, since its designing, making and usage of the new weapon is the cause of the expansion (just as illiterate women’s complexification COINCIDES with learning to read). From then on, the newly expanded brain complexifies until once more a new requirement results in additional cells.If God exists, he designed the flexibility of the brain. Do you think he pops in to complexify the modern brain every time someone gets a new idea? Which comes first, the new requirement or the complexification? If it’s the new requirement now, why should it have been any different in the past?

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: The fossils are of transitional forms, in and out of water. So the changes are stepwise even if the gaps are large, no Darwinoid itty-bitty forms found.

We are not discussing itty-bitty forms but the order in which the different steps are taken. Specifically, do you believe your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 28, 2021, 15:26 (821 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Remember I accept God did all the designing. I fully believe our brain is as fully used as it can be and advancing mentation needs will be handled with no problem.

dhw: I can hardly forget your belief (not acceptance) that your God did all the designing. And if he exists, I have no problem accepting the idea that he designed the brain so that initially it would expand and/or complexify in order to meet new requirements. I don’t see how it can now be “as fully used as it can be” and yet be capable of advancing mentation. But I agree that complexification will handle all further requirements. Now please tell us whether you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely with all our "advancing mentation".

Your imagined evolution of a much larger human brain requiring an anatomic stop is answered by yourself as not necessary


DAVID: Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.

dhw: History and archaeology do not tell us what caused the brain to expand in the first place. We took a simple example, though, to illustrate how it might work. Pre-expansion homo is a hunter and thinks of a safer way than close-up grappling, i.e. by designing a weapon that can be thrown from a distance. The new idea requires new skills in the making and using of the new weapon and so, just like illiterate women learning to read, the brain responds, but in this case it does so by adding new cells. The appearance of the new weapon COINCIDES with the expansion of the brain, since its designing, making and usage of the new weapon is the cause of the expansion (just as illiterate women’s complexification COINCIDES with learning to read). From then on, the newly expanded brain complexifies until once more a new requirement results in additional cells.If God exists, he designed the flexibility of the brain. Do you think he pops in to complexify the modern brain every time someone gets a new idea? Which comes first, the new requirement or the complexification? If it’s the new requirement now, why should it have been any different in the past?

Your long paragraph about past brains ignore the facts we know about our current 315,000 year old brain, which arrived prepared for the uses of today, and shrunk 150 cc with current use. Obviously prepared for the future.


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: The fossils are of transitional forms, in and out of water. So the changes are stepwise even if the gaps are large, no Darwinoid itty-bitty forms found.

dhw: We are not discussing itty-bitty forms but the order in which the different steps are taken. Specifically, do you believe your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water?

Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-009-0135-2

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 12:01 (820 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Remember I accept God did all the designing. I fully believe our brain is as fully used as it can be and advancing mentation needs will be handled with no problem.

dhw: I can hardly forget your belief (not acceptance) that your God did all the designing. And if he exists, I have no problem accepting the idea that he designed the brain so that initially it would expand and/or complexify in order to meet new requirements. I don’t see how it can now be “as fully used as it can be” and yet be capable of advancing mentation. But I agree that complexification will handle all further requirements. Now please tell us whether you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely with all our "advancing mentation".

DAVID: Your imagined evolution of a much larger human brain requiring an anatomic stop is answered by yourself as not necessary.

I don’t understand your reasoning. Firstly, you have told us that sapiens brain only expanded by 200 cc, which does not make it “much” larger than that of our immediate predecessors, and secondly I have proposed that a “much” larger brain would require changes to the anatomy, and that is WHY the existing process of complexification took over. Unanswered question: do you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely?

DAVID: Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.

dhw: History and archaeology do not tell us what caused the brain to expand in the first place. We took a simple example, though, to illustrate how it might work. Pre-expansion homo is a hunter and thinks of a safer way than close-up grappling, i.e. by designing a weapon that can be thrown from a distance. The new idea requires new skills in the making and using of the new weapon and so, just like illiterate women learning to read, the brain responds, but in this case it does so by adding new cells. The appearance of the new weapon COINCIDES with the expansion of the brain, since its designing, making and usage of the new weapon is the cause of the expansion (just as illiterate women’s complexification COINCIDES with learning to read). From then on, the newly expanded brain complexifies until once more a new requirement results in additional cells.If God exists, he designed the flexibility of the brain. Do you think he pops in to complexify the modern brain every time someone gets a new idea? Which comes first, the new requirement or the complexification? If it’s the new requirement now, why should it have been any different in the past?

DAVID: Your long paragraph about past brains ignore the facts we know about our current 315,000 year old brain, which arrived prepared for the uses of today, and shrunk 150 cc with current use. Obviously prepared for the future.

Each successive brain expanded and was then efficient enough (no doubt through complexification) to cope with the uses of its “today” until new requirements made it necessary for more cells to be added. Sapiens brain could not go on expanding indefinitely, and so complexification became more efficient – so much so that the brain shrank. There are no known examples of the brain changing in ANTICIPATION of future requirements. Why do you find this theory unreasonable?

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: The fossils are of transitional forms, in and out of water. So the changes are stepwise even if the gaps are large, no Darwinoid itty-bitty forms found.

dhw: We are not discussing itty-bitty forms but the order in which the different steps are taken. Specifically, do you believe your God changed legs into flippers before pre-whales entered the water?

DAVID: Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

I use the whale example precisely because it makes nonsense of your claim that your God designs every evolutionary change in advance of requirements. So now you agree that your God did not give pre-whales flippers before they entered the water. On the contrary, legs passed through several transitional stages as the organism adapted to new conditions (life in the water). Or do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make "itty-bitty" adjustments to his less than perfect designs?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 29, 2021, 14:52 (820 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Your imagined evolution of a much larger human brain requiring an anatomic stop is answered by yourself as not necessary.

dhw: I don’t understand your reasoning. Firstly, you have told us that sapiens brain only expanded by 200 cc, which does not make it “much” larger than that of our immediate predecessors, and secondly I have proposed that a “much” larger brain would require changes to the anatomy, and that is WHY the existing process of complexification took over. Unanswered question: do you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely?

I assume previous brains had complexification and used it. The fact our brain shrunk 150 cc with heavy use shows your imagined need for huge brains was never an issue.


DAVID: Your approach is backwards. The brain expands first and then new lifestyles appear, as history and archelogy demonstrate.

DAVID: Your long paragraph about past brains ignore the facts we know about our current 315,000 year old brain, which arrived prepared for the uses of today, and shrunk 150 cc with current use. Obviously prepared for the future.

dhw: Each successive brain expanded and was then efficient enough (no doubt through complexification) to cope with the uses of its “today” until new requirements made it necessary for more cells to be added. Sapiens brain could not go on expanding indefinitely, and so complexification became more efficient – so much so that the brain shrank. There are no known examples of the brain changing in ANTICIPATION of future requirements. Why do you find this theory unreasonable?

How do you know complexification became more efficient? Our brain is a known example, much lager before much more use!!!


dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

dhw: I use the whale example precisely because it makes nonsense of your claim that your God designs every evolutionary change in advance of requirements. So now you agree that your God did not give pre-whales flippers before they entered the water. On the contrary, legs passed through several transitional stages as the organism adapted to new conditions (life in the water). Or do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make "itty-bitty" adjustments to his less than perfect designs?

The gaps in form are all huge requiring major phenotypic changes. Look at the species with open eyes. Why do you think the sites that believe in God tout the series?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 13:20 (819 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Your imagined evolution of a much larger human brain requiring an anatomic stop is answered by yourself as not necessary.

dhw: I don’t understand your reasoning. Firstly, you have told us that sapiens brain only expanded by 200 cc, which does not make it “much” larger than that of our immediate predecessors, and secondly I have proposed that a “much” larger brain would require changes to the anatomy, and that is WHY the existing process of complexification took over. Unanswered question: do you think the brain could have gone on expanding indefinitely?

DAVID: I assume previous brains had complexification and used it. The fact our brain shrunk 150 cc with heavy use shows your imagined need for huge brains was never an issue.

Since you refuse to answer my question, I’ll answer it for you. The brain continued to expand until it reached its present size. Obviously it could not go on expanding indefinitely, or we would have finished up with elephant-sized heads on human bodies. And so the already existing process of complexification – we agree that it would have been in use earlier – had to become increasingly efficient in order to meet all new requirements. And it became so efficient that the brain shrank. Please explain precisely what it is that you find so difficult to accept in this theory.

DAVID: How do you know complexification became more efficient? Our brain is a known example, much larger before much more use!!!

You keep harping on about “much larger", and then you tell us that unlike earlier brains with similar or even smaller changes in volume, it would not have required expansion! We know that complexification became more efficient because we know that our brain responds to new requirements by complexifying and not by expanding. Are you saying this is not true? Shrinkage is further evidence of its efficiency.

dhw: The question remains: do you believe your God designed the new species de novo BEFORE conditions changed or in response to the new conditions?

DAVID: Always in anticipation of future requirements for use.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

dhw: I use the whale example precisely because it makes nonsense of your claim that your God designs every evolutionary change in advance of requirements. So now you agree that your God did not give pre-whales flippers before they entered the water. On the contrary, legs passed through several transitional stages as the organism adapted to new conditions (life in the water). Or do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make "itty-bitty" adjustments to his less than perfect designs?

DAVID: The gaps in form are all huge requiring major phenotypic changes. Look at the species with open eyes. Why do you think the sites that believe in God tout the series?

You keep telling us that your God designs all “major phenotypic changes” in advance of their being needed. I keep proposing that the changes take place in response to their being needed. I’ll withdraw the expression “itty-bitty” from my question. Please tell us: do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it? (The same question applies to all the other changes the animal went through over thousands of years.) As with humans, if he knew what he wanted to design right from the start, why did he have to keep dabbling? I can’t answer your final question, since I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, whose only aim was apparently to design humans plus food, would have had to design whales and humans, plus countless extinct life forms, in “series”, especially since you are convinced that he was capable of designing species without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian). NB I am not questioning that these changes took place. I am questioning your theory as to why and how they took place.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 30, 2021, 15:03 (819 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: Since you refuse to answer my question, I’ll answer it for you. The brain continued to expand until it reached its present size. Obviously it could not go on expanding indefinitely, or we would have finished up with elephant-sized heads on human bodies. And so the already existing process of complexification – we agree that it would have been in use earlier – had to become increasingly efficient in order to meet all new requirements. And it became so efficient that the brain shrank. Please explain precisely what it is that you find so difficult to accept in this theory.

Because I believe God designed our brain to do exactly as it did. And God knew the brain He provided was sufficient for all uses.

dhw: And so pre-whales sat on the beach with their brand new flippers waiting for God to provide a reason for them to enter the water (or waiting for him to provide the water).

DAVID: Please study the whale series, rather than imagination. Transitional forms with swimming legs are part of it. Not legs to flippers in one step but with large gaps in form:

dhw: I use the whale example precisely because it makes nonsense of your claim that your God designs every evolutionary change in advance of requirements. So now you agree that your God did not give pre-whales flippers before they entered the water. On the contrary, legs passed through several transitional stages as the organism adapted to new conditions (life in the water). Or do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make "itty-bitty" adjustments to his less than perfect designs?

DAVID: The gaps in form are all huge requiring major phenotypic changes. Look at the species with open eyes. Why do you think the sites that believe in God tout the series?

dhw: You keep telling us that your God designs all “major phenotypic changes” in advance of their being needed. I keep proposing that the changes take place in response to their being needed. I’ll withdraw the expression “itty-bitty” from my question. Please tell us: do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it? (The same question applies to all the other changes the animal went through over thousands of years.) As with humans, if he knew what he wanted to design right from the start, why did he have to keep dabbling?

The species God designed was not every 'few thousand years'. Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.

dhw: I can’t answer your final question, since I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, whose only aim was apparently to design humans plus food, would have had to design whales and humans, plus countless extinct life forms, in “series”, especially since you are convinced that he was capable of designing species without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian). NB I am not questioning that these changes took place. I am questioning your theory as to why and how they took place.

Why do you question God's choice of action? In my view the Cambrian is no bigger than Lucy.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Friday, December 31, 2021, 14:00 (818 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: Since you refuse to answer my question, I’ll answer it for you. The brain continued to expand until it reached its present size. Obviously it could not go on expanding indefinitely, or we would have finished up with elephant-sized heads on human bodies. And so the already existing process of complexification – we agree that it would have been in use earlier – had to become increasingly efficient in order to meet all new requirements. And it became so efficient that the brain shrank. Please explain precisely what it is that you find so difficult to accept in this theory.

DAVID: Because I believe God designed our brain to do exactly as it did. And God knew the brain He provided was sufficient for all uses.

If God exists, I have no problem with the concept of his designing cells, including brain cells, to do exactly what they do: adapt and/or innovate in response to changing requirements. I do have problems with your rigid belief that he either preprogrammed or personally dabbled every phase of evolution etc., as listed at the end of my post on “Cellular intelligence”.

dhw: You keep telling us that your God designs all “major phenotypic changes” in advance of their being needed. I keep proposing that the changes take place in response to their being needed. I’ll withdraw the expression “itty-bitty” from my question. Please tell us: do you think your God kept popping in every few thousand years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it? (The same question applies to all the other changes the animal went through over thousands of years.) As with humans, if he knew what he wanted to design right from the start, why did he have to keep dabbling?

DAVID: The species God designed was not every 'few thousand years'.

I was talking specifically about legs turning into flippers. My apologies, though. I’ll rephrase the question: Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

DAVID: Life evolved over 3.8 billion years, and pre-human to human over 4.5 to five million years. It was obviously God's choice to take all that time. We humans have the time problem you raise, God doesn't being timelessly eternal.

I am not concerned with the length of time! I am challenging your fixed belief that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every evolutionary change BEFORE the change was necessary.

dhw: […] I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, whose only aim was apparently to design humans plus food, would have had to design whales and humans, plus countless extinct life forms, in “series”, especially since you are convinced that he was capable of designing species without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian). NB I am not questioning that these changes took place. I am questioning your theory as to why and how they took place.

DAVID: Why do you question God's choice of action? In my view the Cambrian is no bigger than Lucy.

I am not questioning God’s choice of action (if he exists). In this instance, I am challenging your theory that your all-powerful God deliberately designed every step in every series that led to every species, although the only species he wanted to create was sapiens plus food, and although he has the power – as you believe he does – to create species without predecessors. You seem to be unable to recognize that what you believe to have been God’s actions (specially designing absolutely everything) do not fit in with what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (to design sapiens plus food).

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Friday, December 31, 2021, 20:27 (818 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: If God exists, I have no problem with the concept of his designing cells, including brain cells, to do exactly what they do: adapt and/or innovate in response to changing requirements. I do have problems with your rigid belief that he either preprogrammed or personally dabbled every phase of evolution etc., as listed at the end of my post on “Cellular intelligence”.

I feel the designing God innovates new species.


DAVID: The species God designed was not every 'few thousand years'.

dhw: I was talking specifically about legs turning into flippers. My apologies, though. I’ll rephrase the question: Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

God designs new versions of species when required, time varaible.


dhw: […] I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, whose only aim was apparently to design humans plus food, would have had to design whales and humans, plus countless extinct life forms, in “series”, especially since you are convinced that he was capable of designing species without predecessors (e.g. during the Cambrian). NB I am not questioning that these changes took place. I am questioning your theory as to why and how they took place.

DAVID: Why do you question God's choice of action? In my view the Cambrian is no bigger than Lucy.

dhw: I am not questioning God’s choice of action (if he exists). In this instance, I am challenging your theory that your all-powerful God deliberately designed every step in every series that led to every species, although the only species he wanted to create was sapiens plus food, and although he has the power – as you believe he does – to create species without predecessors. You seem to be unable to recognize that what you believe to have been God’s actions (specially designing absolutely everything) do not fit in with what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (to design sapiens plus food).

Same contortion. God chose to create humans by stepwise design that is a form of evolution as we view the history of our arrival.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 11:49 (817 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: If God exists, I have no problem with the concept of his designing cells, including brain cells, to do exactly what they do: adapt and/or innovate in response to changing requirements. I do have problems with your rigid belief that he either preprogrammed or personally dabbled every phase of evolution etc., as listed at the end of my post on “Cellular intelligence”.

DAVID: I feel the designing God innovates new species.

Yes, I know. You also feel that he specially designed every single one for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus his food, but since the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with sapiens and his food, your feelings clash violently with your reason, which is why you constantly dodge the issue. Later in your post, you answer this criticism:

DAVID: Same contortion. God chose to create humans by stepwise design that is a form of evolution as we view the history of our arrival.

There is no contortion. I am not denying that humans evolved in steps! I am asking why an all-powerful God with only one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would design countless other life forms that had no connection with humans, and why – since you believe him to be capable of designing species without predecessors – he would have chosen NOT to design us in the same way. Hence the different alternatives that I have proposed (a free-for-all, experimentation as he pursues his goal, or experimentation that brings new ideas as it proceeds). You try to dismiss all these on the feeble grounds that they “humanize” God, although you have admitted repeatedly that he we probably have attributes in common with him, and we mimic him in certain ways.

dhw: […] Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

DAVID: God designs new versions of species when required, time varaible.

Thank you. At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 15:51 (817 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, January 01, 2022, 16:12

PART ONE

DAVID: I feel the designing God innovates new species.

dhw: Yes, I know. You also feel that he specially designed every single one for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus his food, but since the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with sapiens and his food, your feelings clash violently with your reason, which is why you constantly dodge the issue. Later in your post, you answer this criticism:

DAVID: Same contortion. God chose to create humans by stepwise design that is a form of evolution as we view the history of our arrival.

dhw: There is no contortion. I am not denying that humans evolved in steps! I am asking why an all-powerful God with only one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would design countless other life forms that had no connection with humans, and why – since you believe him to be capable of designing species without predecessors – he would have chosen NOT to design us in the same way.

Why do you disallow an all-powerful God the right to chose His preferred method of creation? Why can't you recognize God has the right to choose? Imagine seven plus billions of us and no bush of evolved life?

dhw: Hence the different alternatives that I have proposed (a free-for-all, experimentation as he pursues his goal, or experimentation that brings new ideas as it proceeds). You try to dismiss all these on the feeble grounds that they “humanize” God, although you have admitted repeatedly that he we probably have attributes in common with him, and we mimic him in certain ways.

My thoughts about our similarities with God's personality do not mean your weak God you imagined is acceptable to me.


dhw: […] Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

DAVID: God designs new versions of species when required, time variable.

Thank you. At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement. ;-)

As I said its God's doing His next required step on the way to humans, just following His plan. Humans won't appear unless desired by God (Adler).

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 11:17 (816 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: I feel the designing God innovates new species.

dhw: Yes, I know. You also feel that he specially designed every single one for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus his food, but since the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with sapiens and his food, your feelings clash violently with your reason, which is why you constantly dodge the issue. Later in your post, you answer this criticism:

DAVID: Same contortion. God chose to create humans by stepwise design that is a form of evolution as we view the history of our arrival.

dhw: There is no contortion. I am not denying that humans evolved in steps! I am asking why an all-powerful God with only one purpose (to design sapiens plus food) would design countless other life forms that had no connection with humans, and why – since you believe him to be capable of designing species without predecessors – he would have chosen NOT to design us in the same way.

DAVID: Why do you disallow an all-powerful God the right to chose His preferred method of creation? Why can't you recognize God has the right to choose? Imagine seven plus billions of us and no bush of evolved life?

Of course if he exists, he has the right to choose. And what he chose was to evolve the huge bush of life, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans! Why can’t you recognize that he had the right to choose a free-for-all, or to experiment with a particular goal in mind, or to experiment just to see where his ideas would lead him? What you do not seem to be able to recognize is that your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution fails to explain the vast majority of your God’s actions!

dhw: Hence the different alternatives that I have proposed (a free-for-all, experimentation as he pursues his goal, or experimentation that brings new ideas as it proceeds). You try to dismiss all these on the feeble grounds that they “humanize” God, although you have admitted repeatedly that he we probably have attributes in common with him, and we mimic him in certain ways.

DAVID: My thoughts about our similarities with God's personality do not mean your weak God you imagined is acceptable to me.

You still haven’t explained why a God who designs precisely what he wants is “weak” compared to a God who “has to” design a system that results in errors he does not want and can’t control. (See “Cellular intelligence”.)

dhw: […] Do you think your God kept popping in every few million years to make major adjustments to the less than perfect leggy-flippers he started off with because in future, life and movement in the water was going to become different from when pre-whales first entered it?

DAVID: God designs new versions of species when required, time variable.

dhw: Thank you. At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement. ;-)

DAVID: As I said its God's doing His next required step on the way to humans, just following His plan. Humans won't appear unless desired by God (Adler).

According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 02, 2022, 16:04 (816 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Why do you disallow an all-powerful God the right to chose His preferred method of creation? Why can't you recognize God has the right to choose? Imagine seven plus billions of us and no bush of evolved life?

dhw: Of course if he exists, he has the right to choose. And what he chose was to evolve the huge bush of life, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans! Why can’t you recognize that he had the right to choose a free-for-all, or to experiment with a particular goal in mind, or to experiment just to see where his ideas would lead him? What you do not seem to be able to recognize is that your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution fails to explain the vast majority of your God’s actions!

There is the major difference between us. I accept God's actions as dayenu, enough. I don't question why He did what He did, but interpret it as His desired goal/goals. Your God with amorphous thinking is not the God I envision.


dhw: You still haven’t explained why a God who designs precisely what he wants is “weak” compared to a God who “has to” design a system that results in errors he does not want and can’t control. (See “Cellular intelligence”.)

My explanation is there today.

dhw: Thank you. At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement. ;-)

DAVID: As I said its God's doing His next required step on the way to humans, just following His plan. Humans won't appear unless desired by God (Adler).

dhw: According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

I don't see the difference you infer. God designs species to handle living requirements at the time of their existence. They arrive prepared for their future.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Monday, January 03, 2022, 14:11 (815 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Why do you disallow an all-powerful God the right to chose His preferred method of creation? Why can't you recognize God has the right to choose? Imagine seven plus billions of us and no bush of evolved life?

dhw: Of course if he exists, he has the right to choose. And what he chose was to evolve the huge bush of life, including countless life forms that had no connection with humans! Why can’t you recognize that he had the right to choose a free-for-all, or to experiment with a particular goal in mind, or to experiment just to see where his ideas would lead him? What you do not seem to be able to recognize is that your anthropocentric interpretation of evolution fails to explain the vast majority of your God’s actions!

DAVID: There is the major difference between us. I accept God's actions as dayenu, enough. I don't question why He did what He did, but interpret it as His desired goal/goals. Your God with amorphous thinking is not the God I envision.

It is absurd to keep emphasizing how purposeful your God is if you are not prepared to discuss his purpose. You do not “accept” God’s actions – you merely cling rigidly to your belief that he individually designed every life form and natural wonder, and that he did so for the sole purpose of producing sapiens plus food! You could hardly impose a more “amorphous” shape on his thinking than having him create countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal. In all three of the alternatives I have presented above, he has a very precise purpose (see also under “Cellular intelligence”) and his pursuit of it explains the vast variety of extinct and extant life forms that constitute the whole history of evolution.

dhw: At long last you have agreed that innovations come into existence when required (I would add “allowed”) and not beforehand in anticipation of not yet existing conditions. No doubt you will withdraw this agreement.

DAVID: As I said its God's doing His next required step on the way to humans, just following His plan. Humans won't appear unless desired by God (Adler).

dhw: According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

DAVID: I don't see the difference you infer. God designs species to handle living requirements at the time of their existence. They arrive prepared for their future.

But you believe in common descent. So even in your own God-does-it-all scenario, he does not change existing organisms in anticipation of new conditions – as you have always maintained in the past – but in response to the conditions that exist. And then of course they are prepared for a future under those conditions, until things change again, and then he does another dabble – or his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every change throughout life’s history switches itself on at the appropriate moment, i.e. when conditions change (and not before they change). And when you have him designing creatures "de novo", they must be able to handle requirements at the time of their birth - i.e. he'll produce them at the time when conditions have already changed, not before they change.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Monday, January 03, 2022, 20:46 (815 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, January 03, 2022, 20:55

PART ONE

DAVID: There is the major difference between us. I accept God's actions as dayenu, enough. I don't question why He did what He did, but interpret it as His desired goal/goals. Your God with amorphous thinking is not the God I envision.

dhw: It is absurd to keep emphasizing how purposeful your God is if you are not prepared to discuss his purpose. You do not “accept” God’s actions – you merely cling rigidly to your belief that he individually designed every life form and natural wonder, and that he did so for the sole purpose of producing sapiens plus food! You could hardly impose a more “amorphous” shape on his thinking than having him create countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal. In all three of the alternatives I have presented above, he has a very precise purpose (see also under “Cellular intelligence”) and his pursuit of it explains the vast variety of extinct and extant life forms that constitute the whole history of evolution.

Once again you demand I know God's thoughts. You and I don't. The God you describe is vastly different from mine. I have guessed as to why He wanted us to appear in the past but you know all of that information. I've not changed my mind or conclusions about a very purposeful God, sand hour God has no obvious specified point to His process of evolution if He sets up a free-for-all. My God knows His specific endpoints, this basis of Adler's philosophic approach.


dhw: According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

DAVID: I don't see the difference you infer. God designs species to handle living requirements at the time of their existence. They arrive prepared for their future.

dhw: But you believe in common descent. So even in your own God-does-it-all scenario, he does not change existing organisms in anticipation of new conditions – as you have always maintained in the past – but in response to the conditions that exist. And then of course they are prepared for a future under those conditions, until things change again, and then he does another dabble – or his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every change throughout life’s history switches itself on at the appropriate moment, i.e. when conditions change (and not before they change). And when you have him designing creatures "de novo", they must be able to handle requirements at the time of their birth - i.e. he'll produce them at the time when conditions have already changed, not before they change.

My approach is simpler than your distortion above. God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future use.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 12:45 (813 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

I’ve cut the first section of this post, as it has been amply covered under “Cellular intelligence”, although this thread would have been more appropriate.

dhw: According to you, nothing would appear unless desired by God, since he designed everything. So he kept popping in every few million years to turn leggy flippers into proper flippers on the way to designing humans. Anyway, I’m pleased to see that you have not withdrawn your statement that he “designs new species when required”, i.e. not BEFORE they are required (or “allowed”).

DAVID: I don't see the difference you infer. God designs species to handle living requirements at the time of their existence. They arrive prepared for their future.

dhw: But you believe in common descent. So even in your own God-does-it-all scenario, he does not change existing organisms in anticipation of new conditions – as you have always maintained in the past – but in response to the conditions that exist. And then of course they are prepared for a future under those conditions, until things change again, and then he does another dabble – or his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every change throughout life’s history switches itself on at the appropriate moment, i.e. when conditions change (and not before they change). And when you have him designing creatures "de novo", they must be able to handle requirements at the time of their birth - i.e. he'll produce them at the time when conditions have already changed, not before they change.

DAVID: My approach is simpler than your distortion above. God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future .

Yes, evolution proceeds in steps, and common descent means new forms arise out of past forms. Yes, the single cell is the basis of all multicellular organisms, and works biochemically as new systems (combinations of different forms of cell) are added to transform the comparatively simple into the ultimately vastly complex. How on earth does this come to mean that your God changed the structure of every predecessor BEFORE conditions changed instead of in RESPONSE to the new conditions in which the new species was to live?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 05, 2022, 19:55 (813 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: But you believe in common descent. So even in your own God-does-it-all scenario, he does not change existing organisms in anticipation of new conditions – as you have always maintained in the past – but in response to the conditions that exist. And then of course they are prepared for a future under those conditions, until things change again, and then he does another dabble – or his 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for every change throughout life’s history switches itself on at the appropriate moment, i.e. when conditions change (and not before they change). And when you have him designing creatures "de novo", they must be able to handle requirements at the time of their birth - i.e. he'll produce them at the time when conditions have already changed, not before they change.

DAVID: My approach is simpler than your distortion above. God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future .

dhw: Yes, evolution proceeds in steps, and common descent means new forms arise out of past forms. Yes, the single cell is the basis of all multicellular organisms, and works biochemically as new systems (combinations of different forms of cell) are added to transform the comparatively simple into the ultimately vastly complex. How on earth does this come to mean that your God changed the structure of every predecessor BEFORE conditions changed instead of in RESPONSE to the new conditions in which the new species was to live?

Proof is clearly in our large brain as a precise example: 315,000 years ago the first sapiens with a 1,500 cc barely used brain for requirements of daily living at the time that became 1,350 cc as civilization appeared with many new requirements of understanding by the brain. Volume bigger allowed the future use and complexification by neurons caused the brain to become smaller from so many new uses the early brain was prepared for in advance.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 11:52 (812 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
(I am gradually trying to telescope threads.)

Geckos
DAVID: same old. All ecosystems are complex and required by all living organisms for food energy. This clearly explains the huge branched bush of life that evolution created, a point dhw disputes when he laughs at the theory that God wanted to create humans and their food. We are here. Of course He did.

There is absolutely no connection between your two points. All life forms need food. That does not mean all life forms and foods, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. I do not laugh at your theory. The more you dodge this blatant illogicality, the more I squirm on your behalf. I wish you wouldn’t keep doing it.

DAVID: God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future .

dhw: Yes, evolution proceeds in steps, and common descent means new forms arise out of past forms. Yes, the single cell is the basis of all multicellular organisms, and works biochemically as new systems (combinations of different forms of cell) are added to transform the comparatively simple into the ultimately vastly complex. How on earth does this come to mean that your God changed the structure of every predecessor BEFORE conditions changed instead of in RESPONSE to the new conditions in which the new species was to live?

DAVID: Proof is clearly in our large brain as a precise example: 315,000 years ago the first sapiens with a 1,500 cc barely used brain for requirements of daily living at the time that became 1,350 cc as civilization appeared with many new requirements of understanding by the brain. Volume bigger allowed the future use and complexification by neurons caused the brain to become smaller from so many new uses the early brain was prepared for in advance.

This now seems to be the only example you can think of, and we have dealt with it over and over again. It is NOT an example of a structural change to anticipate future conditions if you accept the known fact that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yet again, the theory: earlier expansions occurred when new ideas, conditions, inventions, lifestyles required additional capacity. Complexification then took over until the next lot of new ideas etc. demanded the next expansion. The pre-sapiens brain would also have expanded to meet new requirements, but from then on there was no further expansion, complexification took over, and it was so efficient that the brain shrank. You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 06, 2022, 15:37 (812 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE
(I am gradually trying to telescope threads.)

Geckos
DAVID: same old. All ecosystems are complex and required by all living organisms for food energy. This clearly explains the huge branched bush of life that evolution created, a point dhw disputes when he laughs at the theory that God wanted to create humans and their food. We are here. Of course He did.

dhw: There is absolutely no connection between your two points. All life forms need food. That does not mean all life forms and foods, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. I do not laugh at your theory. The more you dodge this blatant illogicality, the more I squirm on your behalf. I wish you wouldn’t keep doing it.

God provided the huge bush as a food supply all along while designing more advanced forms in stages we call new species. A whole connected process of stages as below:


DAVID: God evolves in steps, basing each new designed forms on the past. Bacteria start with many basic biochemical processes to be used by all future forms, so form can change but the biochemistry is already in place for much of the requirements for living, with new systems added as necessary to fit with the new phenotypical changes. All prepared for future .

dhw: Yes, evolution proceeds in steps, and common descent means new forms arise out of past forms. Yes, the single cell is the basis of all multicellular organisms, and works biochemically as new systems (combinations of different forms of cell) are added to transform the comparatively simple into the ultimately vastly complex. How on earth does this come to mean that your God changed the structure of every predecessor BEFORE conditions changed instead of in RESPONSE to the new conditions in which the new species was to live?

DAVID: Proof is clearly in our large brain as a precise example: 315,000 years ago the first sapiens with a 1,500 cc barely used brain for requirements of daily living at the time that became 1,350 cc as civilization appeared with many new requirements of understanding by the brain. Volume bigger allowed the future use and complexification by neurons caused the brain to become smaller from so many new uses the early brain was prepared for in advance.

dhw: This now seems to be the only example you can think of, and we have dealt with it over and over again. It is NOT an example of a structural change to anticipate future conditions if you accept the known fact that the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements. Yet again, the theory: earlier expansions occurred when new ideas, conditions, inventions, lifestyles required additional capacity. Complexification then took over until the next lot of new ideas etc. demanded the next expansion. The pre-sapiens brain would also have expanded to meet new requirements, but from then on there was no further expansion, complexification took over, and it was so efficient that the brain shrank. You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet.

Same old dodge. Your bold is totally illogical in face of sapiens' brain history. So big and so complex with little to do. A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Friday, January 07, 2022, 07:48 (812 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: same old. All ecosystems are complex and required by all living organisms for food energy. This clearly explains the huge branched bush of life that evolution created, a point dhw disputes when he laughs at the theory that God wanted to create humans and their food. We are here. Of course He did.

dhw: There is absolutely no connection between your two points. All life forms need food. That does not mean all life forms and foods, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. I do not laugh at your theory. The more you dodge this blatant illogicality, the more I squirm on your behalf. I wish you wouldn’t keep doing it.

DAVID: God provided the huge bush as a food supply all along while designing more advanced forms in stages we call new species. A whole connected process of stages as below:

Yes, if he exists, he provided food for all the extinct species that had no connection with humans. So how does that come to mean that all foods and all stages of all species were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food? You constantly dodge the point at issue. please stop it.
The discussion now moves to your theory that your God designs all new species in advance of the conditions that they are required to cope with or exploit. And once again, you turn the discussion to the human brain. There is no point in my repeating my whole theory, as summarized yesterday.

dhw: You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new dequirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet.

DAVID: Same old dodge. Your bold is totally illogical in face of sapiens' brain history. So big and so complex with little to do.

You seem to think that sapiens’ brain is the only complex one! It’s all a matter of degree, and it is manifestly absurd to say that there was “little to do”! The history of all the homos is full of new inventions and increasingly complex modes of living. Sapiens was not the first hunter-gatherer, maker of tools and weapons and clothes, user of fire etc. Do you think surviving indigenous people in the rainforest have “little to do” and have no brain complexity? Our brain would have reached its current size through some new requirement, and subsequent new requirements have resulted in further complexification – with such efficiency that it has shrunk. Do you really believe that the illiterate women's brains complexified BEFORE they learned to read?

DAVID: A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

Yes, it’s complex compared to the chimp. Yes, we came from apes. How does that prove that our brains change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements and not in RESPONSE to them???

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Friday, January 07, 2022, 14:37 (811 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: The discussion now moves to your theory that your God designs all new species in advance of the conditions that they are required to cope with or exploit. And once again, you turn the discussion to the human brain. There is no point in my repeating my whole theory, as summarized yesterday.

dhw: You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new dequirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet.

DAVID: Same old dodge. Your bold is totally illogical in face of sapiens' brain history. So big and so complex with little to do.

dhw: You seem to think that sapiens’ brain is the only complex one! It’s all a matter of degree, and it is manifestly absurd to say that there was “little to do”! The history of all the homos is full of new inventions and increasingly complex modes of living. Sapiens was not the first hunter-gatherer, maker of tools and weapons and clothes, user of fire etc. Do you think surviving indigenous people in the rainforest have “little to do” and have no brain complexity? Our brain would have reached its current size through some new requirement, and subsequent new requirements have resulted in further complexification – with such efficiency that it has shrunk. Do you really believe that the illiterate women's brains complexified BEFORE they learned to read?

You are seemingly blind to the concept of activities of daily living. How complex was the early sapiens life compared to ours? How vast was the knowledge to be used? The change is obviously enormous and requires full use of our brains, which came prepared for this degree of use.


DAVID: A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

dhw: Yes, it’s complex compared to the chimp. Yes, we came from apes. How does that prove that our brains change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements and not in RESPONSE to them???

How can you say, in the face of the evidence, it came in anticipation of the future. Erectus and sapiens lived in much the same simple way.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 12:59 (810 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: The discussion now moves to your theory that your God designs all new species in advance of the conditions that they are required to cope with or exploit. And once again, you turn the discussion to the human brain. There is no point in my repeating my whole theory, as summarized yesterday.

dhw: You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet. […]

DAVID: [….] You are seemingly blind to the concept of activities of daily living. How complex was the early sapiens life compared to ours? How vast was the knowledge to be used? The change is obviously enormous and requires full use of our brains, which came prepared for this degree of use.

Of course I’m not blind to the difference! I am merely pointing out to you that since the final expansion, our brains have coped with all the new requirements by complexifying instead of expanding. The complexifications take place in response to the demands made on them, not in anticipation of them. This suggests that changes to the brain, just like all other evolutionary changes, take place IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not BEFORE those requirements exist.

DAVID: A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

dhw: Yes, it’s complex compared to the chimp. Yes, we came from apes. How does that prove that our brains change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements and not in RESPONSE to them???

DAVID: How can you say, in the face of the evidence, it came in anticipation of the future. Erectus and sapiens lived in much the same simple way.

It is you who keep telling us that brain changes and all other evolutionary changes take place in anticipation of the future!!!! All of us animals used to live in the same simple way – finding different ways to survive. But early humans certainly advanced way beyond their fellow animals with their invention of tools, weapons, use of fire etc, which were giant steps at the time, and required additional brain capacity (= expansion). We don’t know the exact cause of each expansion, or the final one, which was that of sapiens. But all brains, including ours, then went through a period of stasis, as life went on in the same relatively “simple way”. But then, for some unknown reason, sapiens came up with a veritable explosion of new ideas, and in order for these to be implemented, the brain did not expand with more cells, but vastly increased its ability to complexify - so much so that it actually shrank. A modern example is the way illiterate women’s brains complexified when they learned to read. Do you believe their brains complexified IN ANTICIPATION of their learning to read?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 08, 2022, 15:07 (810 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: You have never found any logical flaw in this theory, which is supported by the fact that we KNOW the brain changes IN RESPONSE to new requirements, and no one has ever recorded a brain changing IN ADVANCE of the requirement that the brain has to meet. […]

DAVID: [….] You are seemingly blind to the concept of activities of daily living. How complex was the early sapiens life compared to ours? How vast was the knowledge to be used? The change is obviously enormous and requires full use of our brains, which came prepared for this degree of use.

dhw: Of course I’m not blind to the difference! I am merely pointing out to you that since the final expansion, our brains have coped with all the new requirements by complexifying instead of expanding.

Yes! Because our brains were prepared in advance for all the future uses

dhw: The complexifications take place in response to the demands made on them, not in anticipation of them. This suggests that changes to the brain, just like all other evolutionary changes, take place IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not BEFORE those requirements exist.

Totally confused. The complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses.


DAVID: A cerebral cortex arrangement highly complex with five layers of neurons, not like the chimp's simple arrangement. We came from apes and God designed the many differences. The proof you want comes from logical analysis of known facts.

dhw: Yes, it’s complex compared to the chimp. Yes, we came from apes. How does that prove that our brains change IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements and not in RESPONSE to them???

DAVID: How can you say, in the face of the evidence, it came in anticipation of the future. Erectus and sapiens lived in much the same simple way.

dhw: It is you who keep telling us that brain changes and all other evolutionary changes take place in anticipation of the future!!!! All of us animals used to live in the same simple way – finding different ways to survive. But early humans certainly advanced way beyond their fellow animals with their invention of tools, weapons, use of fire etc, which were giant steps at the time, and required additional brain capacity (= expansion). We don’t know the exact cause of each expansion, or the final one, which was that of sapiens. But all brains, including ours, then went through a period of stasis, as life went on in the same relatively “simple way”. But then, for some unknown reason, sapiens came up with a veritable explosion of new ideas, and in order for these to be implemented, the brain did not expand with more cells, but vastly increased its ability to complexify - so much so that it actually shrank. A modern example is the way illiterate women’s brains complexified when they learned to read. Do you believe their brains complexified IN ANTICIPATION of their learning to read?

Early sapiens ideation was small and you want to explode it. Compare your current lifestyle using a computer, translating languages in fully using your brain, which 315,000 years ago came fully prepared for that present use. And complexification sitting there, ready to help and helping those Italian ladies become literate.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 13:51 (809 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: I am merely pointing out to you that since the final expansion, our brains have coped with all the new requirements by complexifying instead of expanding.

DAVID: Yes! Because our brains were prepared in advance for all the future uses.

dhw: The complexifications take place in response to the demands made on them, not in anticipation of them. This suggests that changes to the brain, just like all other evolutionary changes, take place IN RESPONSE to new requirements and not BEFORE those requirements exist.

DAVID: Totally confused. The complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses.

Three cheers. We need not take this discussion any further. The brain was your chosen example to illustrate how your God created new forms, organs, organisms in advance of any need for them. My favourite example was that of him changing pre-whale legs to flippers before the animals entered the water, but you chose the brain. At last, however, we now have your God providing the MECHANISM for change in advance of the changes. Precisely. With the brain, it's the MECHANISM initially for expansion and for complexification, but then almost entirely for complexification, and in both cases, the mechanism responds to the new requirements. This applies to the whole of evolution. My theistic proposal is that your God provided the MECHANISM for all evolutionary change, and this mechanism (the flexible and intelligent cell) brings about all the changes IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not in ANTICIPATION of them. Your God did not need to look into his crystal ball and preprogramme every solution to every problem, every response to new conditions, every innovation leading from bacteria to ants and eagles and humans and the duckbilled platypus, not to mention the weaverbird’s nest. He supplied the initial MECHANISM which would accommodate all uses. Agreement at last!

PART TWO (Let’s combine them.)
dhw: Now your dodge is to jump from God’s existence to the fact that evolution goes from stage to stage, from simple to complex. Each stage of what? Are you now telling me that all other life forms that had no connection with humans plus food were part of God’s one and only goal to produce humans plus food because they were all designed by him in stages (except, of course, for those that he designed without any predecessors)?

DAVID: I don't jump. God's design of evolution is one complete package, with simple stages leading to more complex ones.

But the more complex ones include countless “packages” that had no connection with humans and their food, and that is the problem you dodge and dodge and dodge.

DAVID: When He can, i.e., enough oxygen present to allow complex organisms, created by God's invention of photosynthesis, He uses the biochemical processes previously created to form the new phenotypes of the Cambrian. Your dodge is to forget God and try to separate the necessary parts.

I do not forget God – I propose that if he exists, he designed the mechanism which enables organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions. What do you mean by the “necessary parts”. Necessary for what? According to you, the only goal was humans plus food. Why were all the brontosaurus’s “parts” necessary for your God’s design of humans plus their food?

DAVID: We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.

dhw: If he exists, and if – as you claim – he designed every other life form, then equally obviously he wanted to design all the other life forms which were here but had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your claim that his only goal was to design us and our food!

DAVID: Of course He wanted and understood the need for other life forms to supply our food. You can't have one without the other. You admit the food supply is needed and then somehow it proves humans are unconnected from the process of God's designed evolution.

Of course we need food and our food consists of other life forms! But that does not mean that every single extinct life form and food was part of the goal of designing humans and our food! Please stop dodging!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 15:53 (809 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, January 09, 2022, 15:59

PART ONE

DAVID: Totally confused. The complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses.

dhw: Three cheers. We need not take this discussion any further. The brain was your chosen example to illustrate how your God created new forms, organs, organisms in advance of any need for them. My favourite example was that of him changing pre-whale legs to flippers before the animals entered the water, but you chose the brain. At last, however, we now have your God providing the MECHANISM for change in advance of the changes. Precisely. With the brain, it's the MECHANISM initially for expansion and for complexification, but then almost entirely for complexification, and in both cases, the mechanism responds to the new requirements. This applies to the whole of evolution. My theistic proposal is that your God provided the MECHANISM for all evolutionary change, and this mechanism (the flexible and intelligent cell) brings about all the changes IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not in ANTICIPATION of them....He supplied the initial MECHANISM which would accommodate all uses. Agreement at last!

No cheers at all. Complexification is a preparation to handle future use, supplied in the newly enlarged brain by God, long before all the current brain uses were needed or required. The bold fits no known facts. Our use of complexification shrunk the brain 150 cc. Intelligent cells are hyperbolic opinions of some folks, not all. Ask ID. We each follow our own champions, according to our individual preferences, but all of whom have equal education but differing opinions. In other words your guys are no better than my guys.


PART TWO (Let’s combine them.)
dhw: Now your dodge is to jump from God’s existence to the fact that evolution goes from stage to stage, from simple to complex. Each stage of what? Are you now telling me that all other life forms that had no connection with humans plus food were part of God’s one and only goal to produce humans plus food because they were all designed by him in stages (except, of course, for those that he designed without any predecessors)?

DAVID: I don't jump. God's design of evolution is one complete package, with simple stages leading to more complex ones.

dhw: But the more complex ones include countless “packages” that had no connection with humans and their food, and that is the problem you dodge and dodge and dodge.

Again, for you the importance of diversity in creating ecosystem for food doesn't exist. Ecosystems require initial diversity to form.


DAVID: When He can, i.e., enough oxygen present to allow complex organisms, created by God's invention of photosynthesis, He uses the biochemical processes previously created to form the new phenotypes of the Cambrian. Your dodge is to forget God and try to separate the necessary parts.

dhw: I do not forget God – I propose that if he exists, he designed the mechanism which enables organisms to adapt to or exploit new conditions. What do you mean by the “necessary parts”. Necessary for what? According to you, the only goal was humans plus food. Why were all the brontosaurus’s “parts” necessary for your God’s design of humans plus their food?

The 'parts' are all the sequential stages of evolution which you slice into separate parts!. Your God gives up control of evolution. What was His desired endpoint, if any?


DAVID: We are debating God's role in producing humans, whom He obviously wanted to produce, since we are here at the current endpoint of evolution. It is God's anthrocentricity in my view.

dhw: If he exists, and if – as you claim – he designed every other life form, then equally obviously he wanted to design all the other life forms which were here but had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your claim that his only goal was to design us and our food!

DAVID: Of course He wanted and understood the need for other life forms to supply our food. You can't have one without the other. You admit the food supply is needed and then somehow it proves humans are unconnected from the process of God's designed evolution.

dhw: Of course we need food and our food consists of other life forms! But that does not mean that every single extinct life form and food was part of the goal of designing humans and our food! Please stop dodging!

Your constant dodge is not recognizing that necessary diversity of the bush allows organisms to form into structured ecosystems with top predators. This occurred as life began and diversified. Stop slicing up evolution into unrelated parts. Why are you so unhappy God wanted us?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, January 10, 2022, 15:27 (808 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Totally confused. The complexification mechanism supplied in advance accommodates all the new uses.

dhw: Three cheers. We need not take this discussion any further. The brain was your chosen example to illustrate how your God created new forms, organs, organisms in advance of any need for them. My favourite example was that of him changing pre-whale legs to flippers before the animals entered the water, but you chose the brain. At last, however, we now have your God providing the MECHANISM for change in advance of the changes. Precisely. With the brain, it's the MECHANISM initially for expansion and for complexification, but then almost entirely for complexification, and in both cases, the mechanism responds to the new requirements. This applies to the whole of evolution. My theistic proposal is that your God provided the MECHANISM for all evolutionary change, and this mechanism (the flexible and intelligent cell) brings about all the changes IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not in ANTICIPATION of them....He supplied the initial MECHANISM which would accommodate all uses. Agreement at last!

DAVID: No cheers at all. Complexification is a preparation to handle future use, supplied in the newly enlarged brain by God, long before all the current brain uses were needed or required.

What do you mean by “complexificaton is a preparation”? Complexification is the process, and each complexification is a new product of the process, which takes place in RESPONSE to new requirements.. We have agreed that the ABILITY to complexify must have been present in earlier brains as well, and of course the ability – or what you earlier called the mechanism – was present before it was called upon to meet new requirements.

DAVID: The bold fits no known facts. Our use of complexification shrunk the brain 150 cc. Intelligent cells are hyperbolic opinions of some folks, not all. Ask ID. We each follow our own champions, according to our individual preferences, but all of whom have equal education but differing opinions. In other words your guys are no better than my guys.

Why are you disagreeing with yourself? You explicitly said it was the MECHANISM for complexification that was supplied in advance, and I agreed. Now you are flapping around trying to do what? Prove that it wasn’t the mechanism?

You tried to use the brain as an example of how your God designed new organs and organisms in anticipation of the conditions that required or allowed them. The article on “Oxygen” that we discussed under “More miscellany” is another instance in which you appear to agree that the change in conditions comes first, but then you try to wriggle out of it.

Oxygen
dhw; […] environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. […]

DAVID: You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn’t present.

We agree. But today you write:

DAVID: New conditions allow new changes to happen. God dsigns in advance for them.

You say cannot design an organism dependent on new conditions (oxygen) if the new conditions oxygen) aren’t already present, so what is it that God designs in advance? Did oxygen-breathing animals appear before there was oxygen? Once more, what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

PART TWO simply repeats points already dealt with under “Cellular Intelligence” concerning ecosystems, and “slicing and dicing”, as attempts to dodge the question of why your God would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food.

There is only one new question:

DAVID: Why are you so unhappy God wanted us?

I am not in the least unhappy at the idea. My experimentation theories both allow for him “wanting us”, and even the free-for-all allows him to dabble if he feels like it. I am only unhappy with two of your theories: your all-powerful God creating a system with errors he did not want and could not correct, and your all-powerful God specially designing countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although his one and only goal was to design humans plus food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, January 10, 2022, 18:36 (808 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: . Complexification is a preparation to handle future use, supplied in the newly enlarged brain by God, long before all the current brain uses were needed or required.

dhw: What do you mean by “complexificaton is a preparation”? Complexification is the process, and each complexification is a new product of the process, which takes place in RESPONSE to new requirements.. We have agreed that the ABILITY to complexify must have been present in earlier brains as well, and of course the ability – or what you earlier called the mechanism – was present before it was called upon to meet new requirements.

Exactly: the bold is correct. The complexification is there in advance to handle new uses


DAVID: The bold fits no known facts. Our use of complexification shrunk the brain 150 cc. Intelligent cells are hyperbolic opinions of some folks, not all. Ask ID. We each follow our own champions, according to our individual preferences, but all of whom have equal education but differing opinions. In other words your guys are no better than my guys.

dhw: Why are you disagreeing with yourself? You explicitly said it was the MECHANISM for complexification that was supplied in advance, and I agreed. Now you are flapping around trying to do what? Prove that it wasn’t the mechanism?

dhw: You tried to use the brain as an example of how your God designed new organs and organisms in anticipation of the conditions that required or allowed them. The article on “Oxygen” that we discussed under “More miscellany” is another instance in which you appear to agree that the change in conditions comes first, but then you try to wriggle out of it.

No wiggle. Environmental/changed conditions allow new advances. More oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians. Not worth doing until His complex quantum-process-using photosynthesis developed enough oxygen.


Oxygen
dhw; […] environmental changes either require or allow changes in life forms. […]

DAVID: You cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn’t present.

We agree. But today you write:

DAVID: New conditions allow new changes to happen. God designs in advance for them.

dhw: You say cannot design an organism dependent on new conditions (oxygen) if the new conditions oxygen) aren’t already present, so what is it that God designs in advance? Did oxygen-breathing animals appear before there was oxygen? Once more, what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!


PART TWO simply repeats points already dealt with under “Cellular Intelligence” concerning ecosystems, and “slicing and dicing”, as attempts to dodge the question of why your God would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food.

You recognize the need for a huge bush of food and then deny it to tally illogically.


There is only one new question:

DAVID: Why are you so unhappy God wanted us?

dhw: I am not in the least unhappy at the idea. My experimentation theories both allow for him “wanting us”, and even the free-for-all allows him to dabble if he feels like it. I am only unhappy with two of your theories: your all-powerful God creating a system with errors he did not want and could not correct, and your all-powerful God specially designing countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although his one and only goal was to design humans plus food.

Still illogical theories. So God is still not allowed to create us from bacteria in a stepwise fashion creating a huge bush of ecosystems for food?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 08:03 (808 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Complexification is a preparation to handle future use, supplied in the newly enlarged brain by God, long before all the current brain uses were needed or required.

dhw: What do you mean by “complexificaton is a preparation”? Complexification is the process, and each complexification is a new product of the process, which takes place in RESPONSE to new requirements. We have agreed that the ABILITY to complexify must have been present in earlier brains as well, and of course the ability – or what you earlier called the mechanism – was present before it was called upon to meet new requirements.

DAVID: Exactly: the bold is correct. The complexification is there in advance to handle new uses.

The bold says that each complexification takes place IN RESPONSE, not in advance. It is the ABILITY to complexify, or the MECHANISM for complexification which is there in advance. Why are you trying to wriggle out of your agreement with what, after all, seems blindingly obvious?

dhw: You tried to use the brain as an example of how your God designed new organs and organisms in anticipation of the conditions that required or allowed them. The article on “Oxygen” that we discussed under “More miscellany” is another instance in which you appear to agree that the change in conditions comes first, but then you try to wriggle out of it.

DAVID: No wiggle. Environmental/changed conditions allow new advances. More oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians.

So even in your own theistic scenario, the oxygen comes first and “now” God designs the new species. He does not design them in anticipation of the oxygen arriving.

DAVID: Not worth doing until His complex quantum-process-using photosynthesis developed enough oxygen.

Absolutely crazy to design an animal that needs oxygen if the oxygen isn’t there. I have no objection to your logic if you say that God first created the new conditions and then designed the new species. Whether one believes that he deliberately designed every single environmental change, local and global, that required or allowed every single evolutionary change is another matter. It is your idea of speciation in anticipation of new conditions that I have been objecting to. And yet once again, you try to wriggle out of your agreement:

DAVID: New conditions allow new changes to happen. God designs in advance for them. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: You say you cannot design an organism dependent on new conditions (oxygen) if the new conditions oxygen) aren’t already present, so what is it that God designs in advance? Did oxygen-breathing animals appear before there was oxygen? Once more, what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

If you want to call your God a mechanism, that’s up to you. It’s true that one of the two methods you allow him is a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme which switches itself on at every pre-planned moment to carry out the requisite changes to the cells, but even then, it would only be switched on IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before they existed. And the same applies to his dabbling: not much point in dabbling with the cells to create a new species BEFORE the right conditions exist, is there? My proposal has him giving the cells the intelligence to RESPOND to new conditions by changing themselves. In all our theories, speciation takes place in RESPONSE to new conditions, and not beforehand.

dhw: PART TWO simply repeats points already dealt with under “Cellular Intelligence” concerning ecosystems, and “slicing and dicing”, as attempts to dodge the question of why your God would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: You recognize the need for a huge bush of food and then deny it totally illogically.

You simply refuse to put the pieces together. All organisms need food. What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: So God is still not allowed to create us from bacteria in a stepwise fashion creating a huge bush of ecosystems for food?

If God exists, he created us (or allowed his invention to create us) plus every other life form and food, extant and extinct, in a stepwise fashion from bacteria! The huge bush of ecosystems provided food for every life form, extant and extinct. That does not mean that every life form extant and extinct and every branch of every bush that existed and perished for 3.X billion years was “PART OF THE GOAL OF EVOLVING [DESIGNING] HUMANS” AND THEIR FOOD! Please stop editing out the illogical bits of your theory and then pretending it’s logical! :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 16:05 (807 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Exactly: the bold is correct. The complexification is there in advance to handle new uses.

dhw: The bold says that each complexification takes place IN RESPONSE, not in advance.

If the mechanism is not already there, it couldn't respond to new uses.

DAVID: No wiggle. Environmental/changed conditions allow new advances. More oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians.

dhw: So even in your own theistic scenario, the oxygen comes first and “now” God designs the new species. He does not design them in anticipation of the oxygen arriving.

In evolution everything in its time. He designs as new conditions He provides arrive. Each step is a function of many factors. New organisms need oxygen, food, and need new parts to breathe and eat.


DAVID: Not worth doing until His complex quantum-process-using photosynthesis developed enough oxygen.

dhw: Absolutely crazy to design an animal that needs oxygen if the oxygen isn’t there. I have no objection to your logic if you say that God first created the new conditions and then designed the new species.

dhw: You say you cannot design an organism dependent on new conditions (oxygen) if the new conditions oxygen) aren’t already present, so what is it that God designs in advance? Did oxygen-breathing animals appear before there was oxygen? Once more, what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

dhw: If you want to call your God a mechanism, that’s up to you. It’s true that one of the two methods you allow him is a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme which switches itself on at every pre-planned moment to carry out the requisite changes to the cells, but even then, it would only be switched on IN RESPONSE to new conditions and not before they existed. And the same applies to his dabbling: not much point in dabbling with the cells to create a new species BEFORE the right conditions exist, is there? My proposal has him giving the cells the intelligence to RESPOND to new conditions by changing themselves. In all our theories, speciation takes place in RESPONSE to new conditions, and not beforehand.

You have never explained our huge brains mainly unused for 300,000 years, or how Cambrians appeared prepared for their conditions with no precursors. And don't fall back on negativity. Darwin knew it 160 years ago, and no change with lots of new shale fields uncovered.


dhw: PART TWO simply repeats points already dealt with under “Cellular Intelligence” concerning ecosystems, and “slicing and dicing”, as attempts to dodge the question of why your God would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food.

DAVID: You recognize the need for a huge bush of food and then deny it totally illogically.

dhw: You simply refuse to put the pieces together. All organisms need food. What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it.


DAVID: So God is still not allowed to create us from bacteria in a stepwise fashion creating a huge bush of ecosystems for food?

dhw: If God exists, he created us (or allowed his invention to create us) plus every other life form and food, extant and extinct, in a stepwise fashion from bacteria! The huge bush of ecosystems provided food for every life form, extant and extinct. That does not mean that every life form extant and extinct and every branch of every bush that existed and perished for 3.X billion years was “PART OF THE GOAL OF EVOLVING [DESIGNING] HUMANS” AND THEIR FOOD! Please stop editing out the illogical bits of your theory and then pretending it’s logical! :-(

Same old, same old: same reply, "Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it." History is God's history of action. Adler's philosophy/theology depends upon it, as I do. ;-)

As usual the logical interpretation of your illogical complaint is why not God directly creating us as Genesis ancient interpretations imply, but really doesn't mean in modern translations? We know God evolved us, don't we? :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 09:28 (807 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Exactly: the bold is correct. The complexification is there in advance to handle new uses.

dhw: The bold says that each complexification takes place IN RESPONSE, not in advance.

DAVID: If the mechanism is not already there, it couldn't respond to new uses.

Precisely. It is the mechanism which is in place, and it responds to new uses. Species do not arrive in advance of changing conditions but in response to them.

DAVID: No wiggle. Environmental/changed conditions allow new advances. More oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians.

dhw: So even in your own theistic scenario, the oxygen comes first and “now” God designs the new species. He does not design them in anticipation of the oxygen arriving.

DAVID: In evolution everything in its time. He designs as new conditions He provides arrive. Each step is a function of many factors. New organisms need oxygen, food, and need new parts to breathe and eat.

So in your imagined scenario, your God does not go round operating on existing organisms, or creating organisms with no predecessors, until he has ALREADY designed the conditions in which they are to live. Just as it is in my scenario, the cells do not have to plan for the future: the changes are made once the new conditions are in place.


dhw: …what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

I’d like to follow up on this astonishing idea. I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species. Previously you have proposed that your God either provided the very first cells with a computer programme for every single change to be passed on through billions of years to each organism on each branch of the ever expanding bush, or he personally popped in to perform operations on each individual he wanted to change (or to design new species without any predecessors). Are you now offering us a ubiquitous God who is actually inside the cells of each individual? If so, what an interesting idea that is. After all, you could hardly have anything more intelligent than your God.

dhw: In all our theories, speciation takes place in RESPONSE to new conditions, and not beforehand.

DAVID: You have never explained our huge brains mainly unused for 300,000 years, or how Cambrians appeared prepared for their conditions with no precursors. And don't fall back on negativity. Darwin knew it 160 years ago, and no change with lots of new shale fields uncovered.

We have covered both these questions over and over again, including on this same thread! All expansions were followed by long periods of comparative stasis until the next major new requirement(s). In our case, the next major requirements were dealt with by complexification and not expansion. “No precursor” Cambrians may be due to the inevitable lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major changes when new conditions require or allow them. Even your God apparently had to provide the oxygen before he designed new species – they could not have appeared BEFORE the new conditions existed. And it is your theory that new species were designed IN ANTICIPATION of new conditions that is under fire here. But you keep trying to dodge it, as you do with your other pet theory:

dhw: What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it.

And still you edit out the illogicalities! Please stop ignoring the bold. The rest of your post does the same.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 15:55 (806 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If the mechanism is not already there, it couldn't respond to new uses.

dhw: Precisely. It is the mechanism which is in place, and it responds to new uses. Species do not arrive in advance of changing conditions but in response to them.

All species we know modify to fit changes. Speciation itself is our debate. I choose God designing.


DAVID: In evolution everything in its time. He designs as new conditions He provides arrive. Each step is a function of many factors. New organisms need oxygen, food, and need new parts to breathe and eat.

dhw: So in your imagined scenario, your God does not go round operating on existing organisms, or creating organisms with no predecessors, until he has ALREADY designed the conditions in which they are to live. Just as it is in my scenario, the cells do not have to plan for the future: the changes are made once the new conditions are in place.

Designing complexity requires deep mentation, which your cells cannot possibly do. They can create tiny modifications, no more.>


dhw: …what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

dhw: I’d like to follow up on this astonishing idea. I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species.

Some cells are changed, some new parts with news cells are created, but most use biochemical processes developed long ago in advance.

dhw: Are you now offering us a ubiquitous God who is actually inside the cells of each individual? If so, what an interesting idea that is. After all, you could hardly have anything more intelligent than your God.

God works with the genome of germ stem cells to design the new. He doesn't live there.


dhw: In all our theories, speciation takes place in RESPONSE to new conditions, and not beforehand.

DAVID: You have never explained our huge brains mainly unused for 300,000 years, or how Cambrians appeared prepared for their conditions with no precursors. And don't fall back on negativity. Darwin knew it 160 years ago, and no change with lots of new shale fields uncovered.

dhw: We have covered both these questions over and over again, including on this same thread! All expansions were followed by long periods of comparative stasis until the next major new requirement(s). In our case, the next major requirements were dealt with by complexification and not expansion. “No precursor” Cambrians may be due to the inevitable lack of fossils and/or the ability of intelligent cells to make major changes when new conditions require or allow them. Even your God apparently had to provide the oxygen before he designed new species – they could not have appeared BEFORE the new conditions existed. And it is your theory that new species were designed IN ANTICIPATION of new conditions that is under fire here.

Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use. No new brain required as we civilized and developed libraries of knowledge to stuff into it by complexifing with a pre-prepared mechanism to help..


dhw: What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: Nothing is illogical about God choosing to evolve us. You accept the idea and then ignore it.

dhw: And still you edit out the illogicalities! Please stop ignoring the bold. The rest of your post does the same.

Your bolds are constantly illogical.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 09:56 (806 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If the mechanism is not already there, it couldn't respond to new uses.

dhw: Precisely. It is the mechanism which is in place, and it responds to new uses. Species do not arrive in advance of changing conditions but in response to them.

DAVID: All species we know modify to fit changes.

No they don’t. Most of them died out. But if they survive, they have done so by RESPONDING to changing conditions.

DAVID: Speciation itself is our debate. I choose God designing.

Even if your God does the designing, you have agreed that he does not design new species in advance of changing conditions. The oxygen must already be present for him to produce the new species which requires the oxygen.

dhw: Just as it is in my scenario, the cells do not have to plan for the future: the changes are made once the new conditions are in place.

DAVID: Designing complexity requires deep mentation, which your cells cannot possibly do. They can create tiny modifications, no more.

Back to your prejudice as a way of dodging the issue we are debating, which is your theory that your God creates new species IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions, although you have now agreed that the changes in conditions must precede the new species.

dhw: …what exists in advance can only be the MECHANISM which makes new changes when conditions require or allow them – not in advance of the change in conditions.

DAVID: The MECHANISM is God working is stepwise evolutionary fashion!

dhw: I’d like to follow up on this astonishing idea. I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species.

DAVID: Some cells are changed, some new parts with news cells are created, but most use biochemical processes developed long ago in advance.

Agreed. If cells are intelligent, they would have been using the same methods right from the start: working out what to do with themselves under changing conditions. Thank you also for confirming that speciation depends on new parts and cells and changing use of old cells – finally knocking on the head your claim that evolutionary advances are “simply” a matter of losing genes. (See “More miscellany”.)

dhw: Are you now offering us a ubiquitous God who is actually inside the cells of each individual? If so, what an interesting idea that is. After all, you could hardly have anything more intelligent than your God.

DAVID: God works with the genome of germ stem cells to design the new. He doesn't live there.

Ah well, bang goes your theory that God is a mechanism. He’s an outsider who pops in to conduct countless operations in order to make the changes he didn’t preprogramme 3.8 billion years ago.

You continue to try and prove that your God changes organisms in advance of new requirements by flogging your example of the brain:

DAVID: Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use.

We didn’t “learn to use it”. We used it, just as our ancestors did. And when they came up with new ideas, their brains expanded. When we came up with new ideas, our brains complexified, as they continue to do even today.

DAVID: No new brain required as we civilized and developed libraries of knowledge to stuff into it by complexifing with a pre-prepared mechanism to help.

Agreed. The “pre-prepared” mechanism was that of complexification, which – we agree – was also present in the brains of our ancestors, as was the mechanism enabling expansion. Since you clearly do not believe that your God keeps popping in to create every new complexification, may I suggest that you believe he created the mechanism for expansion and complexification way back at the very beginning, since the very first cells must have contained the mechanism which eventually led to the expansion and complexification of life forms as evolution developed. I need hardly tell you that the mechanism might be the flexibility and intelligence of the cell.

dhw: What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: Your bolds are constantly illogical.

Of course they are. It is totally illogical for an all-powerful God with one purpose (humans plus food) to deliberately create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one purpose. That is why you constantly dodge the issue.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 13, 2022, 16:00 (805 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Speciation itself is our debate. I choose God designing.

dhw: Even if your God does the designing, you have agreed that he does not design new species in advance of changing conditions. The oxygen must already be present for him to produce the new species which requires the oxygen.

God changes the conditions. He is in control of all steps in evolution.

DAVID: Designing complexity requires deep mentation, which your cells cannot possibly do. They can create tiny modifications, no more.

dhw: Back to your prejudice as a way of dodging the issue we are debating, which is your theory that your God creates new species IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions, although you have now agreed that the changes in conditions must precede the new species.

forgetting God manages everything, climate and speciation


dhw: I’d like to follow up on this astonishing idea. I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species.

DAVID: Some cells are changed, some new parts with news cells are created, but most use biochemical processes developed long ago in advance.

dhw: Agreed. If cells are intelligent, they would have been using the same methods right from the start: working out what to do with themselves under changing conditions.

Now it is "if cells are intelligent". Big IF.

You continue to try and prove that your God changes organisms in advance of new requirements by flogging your example of the brain:

DAVID: Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use.

dhw: We didn’t “learn to use it”. We used it, just as our ancestors did. And when they came up with new ideas, their brains expanded. When we came up with new ideas, our brains complexified, as they continue to do even today.

'Learning to use it" involves developing new concepts like maths, language, etc., none of which existed 315,000 years ago with the first sapiens.


DAVID: No new brain required as we civilized and developed libraries of knowledge to stuff into it by complexifing with a pre-prepared mechanism to help.

Agreed. The “pre-prepared” mechanism was that of complexification, which – we agree – was also present in the brains of our ancestors, as was the mechanism enabling expansion. Since you clearly do not believe that your God keeps popping in to create every new complexification, may I suggest that you believe he created the mechanism for expansion and complexification way back at the very beginning, since the very first cells must have contained the mechanism which eventually led to the expansion and complexification of life forms as evolution developed. I need hardly tell you that the mechanism might be the flexibility and intelligence of the cell.

You are back to proposing God made cells so intelligent, He could sit back and let them do the work of future designs to handle future conditions.


dhw: What I deny is your theory that your God only wanted to design humans plus our food, and therefore designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and foods, the majority of which had no connection with humans. THAT is what is illogical, you admit it, can’t explain it, and so you continue to edit out all the parts of your theory that make it illogical!

DAVID: Your bolds are constantly illogical.

dhw: Of course they are. It is totally illogical for an all-powerful God with one purpose (humans plus food) to deliberately create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one purpose. That is why you constantly dodge the issue.

My dodge is I do not accept any of your illogical premise that my God is tunnel-visioned. God recognized all the many necessary steps in evolution to reach humans, and did them. Adler would be as puzzled as I am.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, January 14, 2022, 09:23 (805 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Even if your God does the designing, you have agreed that he does not design new species in advance of changing conditions. The oxygen must already be present for him to produce the new species which requires the oxygen.

DAVID: God changes the conditions. He is in control of all steps in evolution.

For a long time you dithered over whether God changed all the conditions, so it’s good to hear that you’ve now made up your mind. This does not alter the fact that you yourself agree that he changes the conditions before he designs the new species, and our dispute is over your previous claim that he designed new species in anticipation of changing conditions.

DAVID: Designing complexity requires deep mentation, which your cells cannot possibly do. They can create tiny modifications, no more.

dhw: Back to your prejudice as a way of dodging the issue we are debating, which is your theory that your God creates new species IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions, although you have now agreed that the changes in conditions must precede the new species.

DAVID: forgetting God manages everything, climate and speciation.

This is your new fixed belief, but it still leaves you with your God changing the conditions before he “manages” the species that will cope with or exploit the new conditions. Oxygen first, oxygen-breathing animals second. Remember?

dhw: I have proposed that the mechanism that makes new changes when new conditions require or allow them is the flexible, intelligent cell. I don’t think you will disagree that every change requires changes to the cells of every individual organism that makes up the new species.

DAVID: Some cells are changed, some new parts with news cells are created, but most use biochemical processes developed long ago in advance.

dhw: Agreed. If cells are intelligent, they would have been using the same methods right from the start: working out what to do with themselves under changing conditions.

DAVID: Now it is "if cells are intelligent". Big IF.

It has always been “if”. It’s a theory, not a proven fact. The same applies to your God. No one has any proven answers to any of our big questions, and that is the reason why we theorize!

dhw: You continue to try and prove that your God changes organisms in advance of new requirements by flogging your example of the brain:

DAVID: Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use.

dhw: We didn’t “learn to use it”. We used it, just as our ancestors did. And I suggest that when they came up with new ideas, their brains eventually expanded. When we came up with new ideas, our brains complexified, as they continue to do even today.

DAVID: 'Learning to use it" involves developing new concepts like maths, language, etc., none of which existed 315,000 years ago with the first sapiens.

Of course they didn’t. Developing new concepts is the CAUSE of complexification, and I propose that the same applied in the past, when new concepts would have CAUSED expansion when the capacity for complexification had been exhausted. You have agreed that what preceded all these new concepts was the MECHANISM for complexification. I don’t know why you keep going back over the same discussion, unless it’s to distract attention from the fact that you now acknowledge that species are not designed in anticipation of new conditions but in response to them.

dhw: It is totally illogical for an all-powerful God with one purpose (humans plus food) to deliberately create countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his one purpose. That is why you constantly dodge the issue.

DAVID: My dodge is I do not accept any of your illogical premise that my God is tunnel-visioned.

If he only has one goal (you say that all his designs are “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans” and their food), then of course he’s tunnel-visioned. But your theory that he designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans is the exact opposite of tunnel-visioned, which is why your theory is illogical.

DAVID: God recognized all the many necessary steps in evolution to reach humans, and did them. Adler would be as puzzled as I am.

If your Adler is as logical a thinker as you say, I expect he would be just as puzzled as I am by a theory that has an all-powerful God pursuing his one solitary purpose of designing humans plus food by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. However, you have told us that he does not even discuss your theory. Good for him.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, January 14, 2022, 15:33 (804 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God changes the conditions. He is in control of all steps in evolution.

dhw: For a long time you dithered over whether God changed all the conditions, so it’s good to hear that you’ve now made up your mind. This does not alter the fact that you yourself agree that he changes the conditions before he designs the new species, and our dispute is over your previous claim that he designed new species in anticipation of changing conditions.

Both designs are coordinated, and again using my human brain point, it was set up hundreds of thousands of years prior to its full use, resultant complexification and shrinkage.


DAVID: Now it is "if cells are intelligent". Big IF.

dhw: It has always been “if”. It’s a theory, not a proven fact. The same applies to your God. No one has any proven answers to any of our big questions, and that is the reason why we theorize!

dhw: You continue to try and prove that your God changes organisms in advance of new requirements by flogging your example of the brain:

DAVID: Yes, our giant brain didn't change much (stasis) until we learned to use it. It obviously appeared in anticipation of future use.

dhw: We didn’t “learn to use it”. We used it, just as our ancestors did. And I suggest that when they came up with new ideas, their brains eventually expanded. When we came up with new ideas, our brains complexified, as they continue to do even today.

DAVID: 'Learning to use it" involves developing new concepts like maths, language, etc., none of which existed 315,000 years ago with the first sapiens.

dhw: Of course they didn’t. Developing new concepts is the CAUSE of complexification, and I propose that the same applied in the past, when new concepts would have CAUSED expansion when the capacity for complexification had been exhausted. You have agreed that what preceded all these new concepts was the MECHANISM for complexification. I don’t know why you keep going back over the same discussion, unless it’s to distract attention from the fact that you now acknowledge that species are not designed in anticipation of new conditions but in response to them.

What you left out is God coordinates His advances. He evolved the Earth He formed so it could accept the life He started, each step in its time.


dhw: If he only has one goal (you say that all his designs are “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans” and their food), then of course he’s tunnel-visioned. But your theory that he designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans is the exact opposite of tunnel-visioned, which is why your theory is illogical.

Same tortured illogical complaint. The bush of life with many branches, the ends of which have no physical comparison to humans, are the food for all of life, a point you logically accept, and then illogically distort.


DAVID: God recognized all the many necessary steps in evolution to reach humans, and did them. Adler would be as puzzled as I am.

dhw: If your Adler is as logical a thinker as you say, I expect he would be just as puzzled as I am by a theory that has an all-powerful God pursuing his one solitary purpose of designing humans plus food by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. However, you have told us that he does not even discuss your theory. Good for him.

What IS Adler's point is the end result of humans proves God!!! Adler fully accepts God evolved us and accepts the process as fact. Since in all of your study regarding God you have ignored folks like Adler, you obviously have a blind side that I am trying to pry open. I've even gotten you to take a squint at ID! Why not try all sides of the question? I started on the fence and with lots of reading climbed down, so it is possible.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, January 15, 2022, 08:42 (804 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God changes the conditions. He is in control of all steps in evolution.

dhw: For a long time you dithered over whether God changed all the conditions, so it’s good to hear that you’ve now made up your mind. This does not alter the fact that you yourself agree that he changes the conditions before he designs the new species, and our dispute is over your previous claim that he designed new species in anticipation of changing conditions.

I realize now, however, that your new decision changes the argument. If God preprogrammed every single environmental change, global and local, and every single species 3.8 billion years ago, then of course you could argue that he designed all species in advance. We should simply forget your agreement that "you cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present", and "more oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians". The "now" certainly doesn't fit if you're going to tell us that it was all designed 3.8 billion years ago.

DAVID: Both designs are coordinated, and again using my human brain point, it was set up hundreds of thousands of years prior to its full use, resultant complexification and shrinkage.

What was set up? Regarding the brain, I agree with you that the MECHANISM for change (i.e. for expansion and complexification) must have been present, and yes of course it was/is used with every new expansion and every new complexification as the brain responded/responds to every new requirement. Are you now saying that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every new idea or condition that required expansion or complexification, and continues to do so? Or has he left us to work out the ideas, and the mechanism to respond without him?

dhw: You have agreed that what preceded all these new concepts was the MECHANISM for complexification. I don’t know why you keep going back over the same discussion, unless it’s to distract attention from the fact that you now acknowledge that species are not designed in anticipation of new conditions but in response to them.

DAVID: What you left out is God coordinates His advances. He evolved the Earth He formed so it could accept the life He started, each step in its time.

If God exists, then I accept that he must have evolved the Earth so that it could be conducive to life. However, I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed every environmental change, every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. - especially when you say it was all for the sake of humans.

DAVID: I do not accept any of your illogical premise that my God is tunnel-visioned.

dhw: If he only has one goal (you say that all his designs are “part of the goal to evolve [=design] humans” and their food), then of course he’s tunnel-visioned. But your theory that he designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans is the exact opposite of tunnel-visioned, which is why your theory is illogical.

DAVID: Same tortured illogical complaint. The bush of life with many branches, the ends of which have no physical comparison to humans, are the food for all of life, a point you logically accept, and then illogically distort.

You are making the very point that renders your anthropocentric theory illogical. According to you, he designed ALL the life forms and branches and foods, most of which had no connection with humans, and yet the only life forms, branches and foods he wanted were those connected with humans! Stop dodging!

DAVID: God recognized all the many necessary steps in evolution to reach humans, and did them. Adler would be as puzzled as I am.

dhw: If your Adler is as logical a thinker as you say, I expect he would be just as puzzled as I am by a theory that has an all-powerful God pursuing his one solitary purpose of designing humans plus food by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. However, you have told us that he does not even discuss your theory. Good for him.

DAVID: What IS Adler's point is the end result of humans proves God!!!

And that is not what we are arguing about!

DAVID: Adler fully accepts God evolved us and accepts the process as fact. Since in all of your study regarding God you have ignored folks like Adler, you obviously have a blind side that I am trying to pry open. I've even gotten you to take a squint at ID! Why not try all sides of the question? I started on the fence and with lots of reading climbed down, so it is possible.

You simply refuse to accept that our disagreement in all these discussions is NOT over the logic of the design argument as evidence for the existence of God, but over your dislocated theory concerning what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (humans plus food) and what you believe to have been his method (to design countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans). PLEASE stop dodging. You are simply taking us round in the same circles. You admit that you cannot explain this theory (you tell me to go and ask God to explain it), and that should be the end of this discussion.:-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 15, 2022, 15:43 (803 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I realize now, however, that your new decision changes the argument. If God preprogrammed every single environmental change, global and local, and every single species 3.8 billion years ago, then of course you could argue that he designed all species in advance. We should simply forget your agreement that "you cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present", and "more oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians". The "now" certainly doesn't fit if you're going to tell us that it was all designed 3.8 billion years ago.

God designed photosynthesis to make the proper conditions for future complex Cambrians is a reasonable view. Throwing Chixculub is a questionable issue. As for timing of planned events both in initial and dabbles are reasonable.


DAVID: Both designs are coordinated, and again using my human brain point, it was set up hundreds of thousands of years prior to its full use, resultant complexification and shrinkage.

dhw: Regarding the brain, I agree with you that the MECHANISM for change (i.e. for expansion and complexification) must have been present, and yes of course it was/is used with every new expansion and every new complexification as the brain responded/responds to every new requirement.

dhw: Are you now saying that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every new idea or condition that required expansion or complexification, and continues to do so?

Answered above.


DAVID: What you left out is God coordinates His advances. He evolved the Earth He formed so it could accept the life He started, each step in its time.

dhw: If God exists, then I accept that he must have evolved the Earth so that it could be conducive to life. However, I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed every environmental change, every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. - especially when you say it was all for the sake of humans.

So I guess you think God didn't want humans in the beginning. When He did what in planning is not settled in my mind. At the start He knew exactly what the outcomes should be. Planning in advance or dabbles actions are both probable.


DAVID: Same tortured illogical complaint. The bush of life with many branches, the ends of which have no physical comparison to humans, are the food for all of life, a point you logically accept, and then illogically distort.

dhw: You are making the very point that renders your anthropocentric theory illogical. According to you, he designed ALL the life forms and branches and foods, most of which had no connection with humans, and yet the only life forms, branches and foods he wanted were those connected with humans! Stop dodging!

Same old confusion. There must be food for all. All of life is hungry.


DAVID: Adler fully accepts God evolved us and accepts the process as fact. Since in all of your study regarding God you have ignored folks like Adler, you obviously have a blind side that I am trying to pry open. I've even gotten you to take a squint at ID! Why not try all sides of the question? I started on the fence and with lots of reading climbed down, so it is possible.

dhw: You simply refuse to accept that our disagreement in all these discussions is NOT over the logic of the design argument as evidence for the existence of God, but over your dislocated theory concerning what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose (humans plus food) and what you believe to have been his method (to design countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans). PLEASE stop dodging. You are simply taking us round in the same circles. You admit that you cannot explain this theory (you tell me to go and ask God to explain it), and that should be the end of this discussion.:-(

Don't pout. I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us. Perhaps it is the only way He can do it. Don't you dare, as you often do, make a fact out of that supposition. The circles exist because because of your confusion producing your illogical constantly repeated pleat about God's relation to His desired goals in an evolutionary process He designs. I repeat Adler and I fully accept God evolved humans purposely from the beginning. The circles Are your problem.:-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, January 16, 2022, 13:29 (802 days ago) @ David Turell

Mutations random or not
DAVID: …do you recognize the problem with the [survival] theory?

dhw: […] I have no idea why you think that organisms which undergo changes that will help them to get food to eat, to protect themselves from harm, to adapt to new conditions etc. do not undergo these changes for the sake of survival […] No, I don’t recognize the problem. Please tell me.

DAVID: Darwin's theory is that survival adaptations make speciation. Not proven is my only point.

The theory is that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation is to improve chances of survival. “Not proven” is not a reason for rejecting an argument. If it were, then out goes God. Please tell us the “problem”.

Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: its eat or die out there. This is another example of the war over food supply. It has been and will be continuous in every ecosystem. [...]

dhw: Surprise, surprise. Yes, it’s eat or die. And yet you do not see survival as a key motive for evolutionary developments.

DAVID: Back to pure Darwin support.

You seem to think that by mentioning Darwin, you render any proposal invalid. Please explain why hosts and pathogens keep coming up with new strategies to fight one another but their motive is not survival.

DAVID: You agree food for all and then withdraw it. Your complaint is empty rhetoric.

And elsewhere:

DAVID: The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

Yes, every ecosystem provides/provided food for every life form in that system, and I’m glad you now agree that humans are just one branch of evolution. But I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution.

dhw (re environmental conditions): I realize now, however, that your new decision changes the argument. If God preprogrammed every single environmental change, global and local, and every single species 3.8 billion years ago, then of course you could argue that he designed all species in advance. We should simply forget your agreement that "you cannot design an organism dependent on oxygen if it isn't present", and "more oxygen allowed God to now design Cambrians". The "now" certainly doesn't fit if you're going to tell us that it was all designed 3.8 billion years ago.

DAVID: God designed photosynthesis to make the proper conditions for future complex Cambrians is a reasonable view. Throwing Chixculub is a questionable issue. As for timing of planned events both in initial and dabbles are reasonable.

I have no objection to God planning or dabbling. This discussion revolves around your insistence that speciation precedes the changes in conditions, whereas I find it only logical than the conditions will change before the new species appears. My proposal, yet again, is that it is the changing conditions that trigger the mechanism for the changes that lead to speciation. That mechanism may have been designed by your God.

dhw: If God exists, then I accept that he must have evolved the Earth so that it could be conducive to life. However, I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed every environmental change, every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. - especially when you say it was all for the sake of humans.

DAVID: So I guess you think God didn't want humans in the beginning.

You have never understood that I offer alternative theories to explain the vast bush of life extant and extinct. Experimentation would explain your theory: he wanted humans (i.e. organisms that might mimic him) , and experimented with different life forms before hitting on the right “formula”.

DAVID: When He did what in planning is not settled in my mind. [dhw: I’m not surprised, since all your imaginings lead to such confusion.] At the start He knew exactly what the outcomes should be. [dhw: What plural “outcomes”? According to you, the only “outcome” he wanted was humans plus food, so you can’t explain why he planned or dabbled all those life forms and foods that were not on the human branch.] Planning in advance or dabbles actions are both probable. [dhw: Agreed, if God exists. Not “proven”.]

dhw: [referring to David’s theory that his God designed every single life form etc., and did so for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food]: You admit that you cannot explain this theory (you tell me to go and ask God to explain it), and that should be the end of this discussion.

DAVID: Don't pout. I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us.

Thank you for yet again agreeing that you haven’t a clue why your God should choose your interpretation of his method to achieve your interpretation of his goal. There is no point in repeating your beliefs, or in referring to Adler’s evidence for the existence of God. Your theory is illogical, but you believe it. That should end the discussion.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 16, 2022, 16:24 (802 days ago) @ dhw

Mutations random or not

DAVID: Darwin's theory is that survival adaptations make speciation. Not proven is my only point.

dhw: The theory is that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation is to improve chances of survival. “Not proven” is not a reason for rejecting an argument. If it were, then out goes God. Please tell us the “problem”.

We are back to a supposition with no proof after 160 years, disputed by a large group of trained scientists that carries some force of important consideration.


Pathogens fight hosts

DAVID: Back to pure Darwin support.

dhw: You seem to think that by mentioning Darwin, you render any proposal invalid. Please explain why hosts and pathogens keep coming up with new strategies to fight one another but their motive is not survival.

Still pure Darwin. Survival does not speciate.

DAVID: The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

dhw: Yes, every ecosystem provides/provided food for every life form in that system, and I’m glad you now agree that humans are just one branch of evolution. But I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution.

There you go again slicing away the past evolution from the present forms, as if never connected.


dhw: If God exists, then I accept that he must have evolved the Earth so that it could be conducive to life. However, I find it difficult to believe that 3.8 billion years ago he preprogrammed every environmental change, every innovation, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. - especially when you say it was all for the sake of humans.

DAVID: So I guess you think God didn't want humans in the beginning.

dhw: You have never understood that I offer alternative theories to explain the vast bush of life extant and extinct. Experimentation would explain your theory: he wanted humans (i.e. organisms that might mimic him) , and experimented with different life forms before hitting on the right “formula”.

You always want an uncertain God in your imagination, and complain when I tell you He is humanized. Your God has no relation to mine. We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.


dhw: [referring to David’s theory that his God designed every single life form etc., and did so for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food]: You admit that you cannot explain this theory (you tell me to go and ask God to explain it), and that should be the end of this discussion.

DAVID: Don't pout. I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us.

dhw: Thank you for yet again agreeing that you haven’t a clue why your God should choose your interpretation of his method to achieve your interpretation of his goal. There is no point in repeating your beliefs, or in referring to Adler’s evidence for the existence of God. Your theory is illogical, but you believe it. That should end the discussion.

My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem. Lot's of folks I've quoted are with me. The end from my viewpoint. Don't bring it up again as you constantly have done.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, January 17, 2022, 13:16 (801 days ago) @ David Turell

Mutations random or not

DAVID: Darwin's theory is that survival adaptations make speciation. Not proven is my only point.

dhw: The theory is that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation is to improve chances of survival. “Not proven” is not a reason for rejecting an argument. If it were, then out goes God. Please tell us the “problem”.

DAVID: We are back to a supposition with no proof after 160 years, disputed by a large group of trained scientists that carries some force of important consideration.

I must confess I'm surprised that there are lots of scientists who believe that the adaptations and innovations which result in speciation do NOT improve organisms’ chances of survival. So why did you say "not proven” was your “only point”? I stand by my response above. Goodbye, God, if “not proven” is enough for you to dismiss a theory.

Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: Back to pure Darwin support.

dhw: You seem to think that by mentioning Darwin, you render any proposal invalid. Please explain why hosts and pathogens keep coming up with new strategies to fight one another but their motive is not survival.

DAVID: Still pure Darwin. Survival does not speciate.

Of course survival doesn’t speciate. Improving chances of survival is the MOTIVE for the adaptations and innovations that result in speciation. The motive leads to the activation of the biochemical mechanisms which create the necessary changes. And if your God exists, he must have invented those mechanisms.

DAVID: The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

dhw: Every ecosystem provides/provided food for every life form in that system, and I’m glad you now agree that humans are just ONE branch of evolution. But I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution, which you constantly try to edit out of your posts.

DAVID: There you go again slicing away the past evolution from the present forms, as if never connected.

You have agreed that only ONE of the vast number of branches led to humans. As for food, you have agreed that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. So how could ALL branches and food bushes have been “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food? Please stop backtracking.

DAVID: So I guess you think God didn't want humans in the beginning.

dhw: You have never understood that I offer alternative theories to explain the vast bush of life extant and extinct. Experimentation would explain your theory: he wanted humans (i.e. organisms that might mimic him) , and experimented with different life forms before hitting on the right “formula”.

DAVID: You always want an uncertain God in your imagination…..

I don’t “always” want anything. I offer what you agree are LOGICAL alternative theories to explain the diversity of life. If your God’s purpose was humans plus food, you cannot explain why he deliberately created all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. Experimenting would give us an explanation.

DAVID…and complain when I tell you He is humanized. Your God has no relation to mine. We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.

Why plural “endpoints” when you insist that he only had one? If he did design every single life form and econiche, then he must have wanted to design every single life form and econiche, but if from the beginning he only wanted to create humans and their econiches, why did he create those that had no connection with humans and their econiches? You admit you can’t explain it (“I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us”), but still you reject the logical explanation of experimentation, or alternative purposes, such as an unpredictable free-for-all, or an on-going learning process. I shan’t bother to comment on your silly “humanization” argument, since you have agreed unequivocally that your God may have thought patterns etc. similar to ours.

DAVID: My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem.

If you can’t explain it, how can you claim that it is logical?

DAVID: Lot's of folks I've quoted are with me. The end from my viewpoint. Don't bring it up again as you constantly have done.

You have not yet told me of anyone who explicitly believes that every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed by your God as part of his one and only goal to create humans and their food. Unfortunately, I cannot avoid bringing it up every time you tell us a particular life form etc. must have been designed by your God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, January 17, 2022, 16:22 (801 days ago) @ dhw

Mutations random or not

DAVID: We are back to a supposition with no proof after 160 years, disputed by a large group of trained scientists that carries some force of important consideration.

dhw: I must confess I'm surprised that there are lots of scientists who believe that the adaptations and innovations which result in speciation do NOT improve organisms’ chances of survival.

The only point under discussion is does striving for survival cause speciation? Don't twist the point out of shape.


Pathogens fight hosts

DAVID: The vast variety of life is food for all. You agree and then ignore as you know it negates your illogical objection. Humans are in the endpoint branch of development.

dhw: Every ecosystem provides/provided food for every life form in that system, and I’m glad you now agree that humans are just ONE branch of evolution. But I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution, which you constantly try to edit out of your posts.

DAVID: There you go again slicing away the past evolution from the present forms, as if never connected.

dhw: You have agreed that only ONE of the vast number of branches led to humans. As for food, you have agreed that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. So how could ALL branches and food bushes have been “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food? Please stop backtracking.

No backtrack, since i had to follow yours above. Evolution is one continuous process or it isn't. Your choice is not mine as you slice it up into unrelated parts.


DAVID: You always want an uncertain God in your imagination…..

dhw: I don’t “always” want anything. I offer what you agree are LOGICAL alternative theories to explain the diversity of life. If your God’s purpose was humans plus food, you cannot explain why he deliberately created all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. Experimenting would give us an explanation.

The bush of life has distinct stages of complexification in each branch. Most branches supply food for all. All purposeful, no need to experiment, bu t we are back, as usual, to your weak humanized God.


DAVID…and complain when I tell you He is humanized. Your God has no relation to mine. We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.

dhw: Why plural “endpoints” when you insist that he only had one?

More than one: all the branches of the bush are food for all, without which no life could exist.

dhw: If he did design every single life form and econiche, then he must have wanted to design every single life form and econiche, but if from the beginning he only wanted to create humans and their econiches, why did he create those that had no connection with humans and their econiches? You admit you can’t explain it (“I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is His choice for His reasons, unknown to us”), but still you reject the logical explanation of experimentation, or alternative purposes, such as an unpredictable free-for-all, or an on-going learning process. I shan’t bother to comment on your silly “humanization” argument, since you have agreed unequivocally that your God may have thought patterns etc. similar to ours.

Again God's comparative thought patterns like ours do not make Him in any way human. I'm describing a purposeful God who knows exactly what He is doing, vastly different from the one you describe as you imagine possibilities for some sort of God.


DAVID: My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem.

dhw: If you can’t explain it, how can you claim that it is logical?

Explain what I haven't already explained?


DAVID: Lot's of folks I've quoted are with me. The end from my viewpoint. Don't bring it up again as you constantly have done.

dhw: You have not yet told me of anyone who explicitly believes that every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed by your God as part of his one and only goal to create humans and their food. Unfortunately, I cannot avoid bringing it up every time you tell us a particular life form etc. must have been designed by your God.

My cohort of IDer are with me. I have an army of folks.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 08:47 (801 days ago) @ David Turell

SURVIVAL
DAVID: We are back to a supposition with no proof after 160 years, disputed by a large group of trained scientists that carries some force of important consideration.

dhw: I must confess I'm surprised that there are lots of scientists who believe that the adaptations and innovations which result in speciation do NOT improve organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: The only point under discussion is does striving for survival cause speciation? Don't twist the point out of shape.

That is precisely what I mean when I say that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is the quest to improve chances of survival. I’m surprised that large groups of scientists disagree. Do they argue that the adaptations and innovations do NOT improve chances of survival? If that is the case, what do they say is the purpose of, say, flippers replacing legs?

Pathogens fight hosts
dhw: I do not agree that every ecosystem and every branch of life forms and foods that ever existed was specially designed by God as “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. THAT is the illogical basis of your theory of evolution, which you constantly try to edit out of your posts.

DAVID: There you go again slicing away the past evolution from the present forms, as if never connected.

dhw: You have agreed that only ONE of the vast number of branches led to humans. As for food, you have agreed that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. So how could ALL branches and food bushes have been “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food? Please stop backtracking.

DAVID: No backtrack, since i had to follow yours above. Evolution is one continuous process or it isn't. Your choice is not mine as you slice it up into unrelated parts.

Evolution is not one continuous process from bacteria to humans plus their econiches! It branches out into countless unrelated branches and econiches. That is why it is absurd to argue that the goal of every past branch and every past econiche was to produce humans and their econiches.

DAVID: The bush of life has distinct stages of complexification in each branch. Most branches supply food for all.

But each branch does not lead to humans! Each branch supplies food for itself until it stops doing so and the branch dies. And yet you say that each branch over 3+ billion years was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food!

DAVID… We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.

dhw: Why plural “endpoints” when you insist that he only had one?

DAVID: More than one: all the branches of the bush are food for all, without which no life could exist.

Food for all what? You keep using the word endpoint instead of goal and purpose. If all you mean is that every extinct life form was an endpoint because it ended, then there is nothing to discuss. I complain about your theory that every extinct life form was part of your God’s goal to produce humans and their food. (I'm hoping these repetitions will help you to remember what it is I complain about!;-))

dhw: I shan’t bother to comment on your silly “humanization” argument, since you have agreed unequivocally that your God may have thought patterns etc. similar to ours.

See “A possible God’s possible nature and purpose”.

DAVID: My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem.

dhw: If you can’t explain it, how can you claim that it is logical?

DAVID: Explain what I haven't already explained?

A couple of days ago you wrote: “I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” Can you or can’t you explain why God evolves [= specially designs] ALL his creations, even though the ONLY creations he wants to evolve are us and our food?

DAVID: My cohort of IDer are with me. I have an army of folks.

Then do please tell me why they think your God evolved (= individually designed) ALL the life forms etc which had no connection with humans and their food, although his only purpose was to evolve humans and their food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 18, 2022, 16:16 (800 days ago) @ dhw

SURVIVAL

DAVID: The only point under discussion is does striving for survival cause speciation? Don't twist the point out of shape.

dhw: That is precisely what I mean when I say that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is the quest to improve chances of survival. I’m surprised that large groups of scientists disagree. Do they argue that the adaptations and innovations do NOT improve chances of survival? If that is the case, what do they say is the purpose of, say, flippers replacing legs?

Survival is required for ecosystems to work and feed all, nothing more.


Pathogens fight hosts

DAVID: Evolution is one continuous process or it isn't. Your choice is not mine as you slice it up into unrelated parts.

dhw: Evolution is not one continuous process from bacteria to humans plus their econiches! It branches out into countless unrelated branches and econiches. That is why it is absurd to argue that the goal of every past branch and every past econiche was to produce humans and their econiches.

Yes, the humans are in one branch, which goes back to bacteria as all branches do


DAVID… We see what He wanted from the beginning of His creations, and think He always was certain of His endpoints.

dhw: Why plural “endpoints” when you insist that he only had one?

DAVID: More than one: all the branches of the bush are food for all, without which no life could exist.

Food for all what?....I complain about your theory that every extinct life form was part of your God’s goal to produce humans and their food. (I'm hoping these repetitions will help you to remember what it is I complain about!;-))

I remember the illogic of humans without food.

DAVID: My theory is illogical only to you, so I view it as your problem.

dhw: If you can’t explain it, how can you claim that it is logical?

DAVID: Explain what I haven't already explained?

dhw: A couple of days ago you wrote: “I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” Can you or can’t you explain why God evolves [= specially designs] ALL his creations, even though the ONLY creations he wants to evolve are us and our food?

That I cannot know God's reasons for using evolution is explanation enough. The others are our food. Back to illogical humans without food.


DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks.

dhw: Then do please tell me why they think your God evolved (= individually designed) ALL the life forms etc which had no connection with humans and their food, although his only purpose was to evolve humans and their food.

Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 11:23 (799 days ago) @ David Turell

SURVIVAL
DAVID: The only point under discussion is does striving for survival cause speciation? Don't twist the point out of shape.

dhw: That is precisely what I mean when I say that the motive for the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is the quest to improve chances of survival. I’m surprised that large groups of scientists disagree. Do they argue that the adaptations and innovations do NOT improve chances of survival? If that is the case, what do they say is the purpose of, say, flippers replacing legs?

DAVID: Survival is required for ecosystems to work and feed all, nothing more.

Well yes, if organisms don’t survive, the ecosystem won’t survive, but on the other hand if the food isn’t there, the organisms won’t survive! The organisms eat and are eaten, and that is why ecosystems must be balanced for all the organisms to survive. Now please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

Pathogens fight hosts
DAVID: Evolution is one continuous process or it isn't. Your choice is not mine as you slice it up into unrelated parts.

dhw: Evolution is not one continuous process from bacteria to humans plus their econiches! It branches out into countless unrelated branches and econiches. That is why it is absurd to argue that the goal of every past branch and every past econiche was to produce humans and their econiches.

DAVID:Yes, the humans are in one branch, which goes back to bacteria as all branches do.

You’ve got it. And yet you still believe, illogically, that even though most of the other extinct branches had no connection with humans and their food, they were part of your God’s goal to produce humans and their food.

DAVID: I remember the illogic of humans without food.

Who said anything about humans without food??? Here we go again: bbb you tell us your God's sole purpose was to design humans plus their food, and yet he specially designed countless forms of life and foods that had no connection with humans.bbb You agree that you can’t explain it. You wrote:
DAVID “I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.”

dhw: Can you or can’t you explain why God evolves [= specially designs] ALL his creations, even though the ONLY creations he wants to evolve are us and our food?

DAVID: That I cannot know God's reasons for using evolution is explanation enough. The others are our food. Back to illogical humans without food.

Most of the “others” were not OUR food. How many more times? You wrote: that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stick to your confession that you can’t explain your theory and leave it at that. There is no point in repeatedly trying to dodge the issue with the same old contradictions.

DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks.

dhw: Then do please tell me why they all think your God evolved (= individually designed) ALL the life forms etc which had no connection with humans and their food, although his only purpose was to evolve humans and their food[/b].

DAVID: Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

You mean your illogical theory never enters their minds, just as you say it never entered Adler’s.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 19, 2022, 15:33 (799 days ago) @ dhw

SURVIVAL

DAVID: Survival is required for ecosystems to work and feed all, nothing more.

dhw: Well yes, if organisms don’t survive, the ecosystem won’t survive, but on the other hand if the food isn’t there, the organisms won’t survive! The organisms eat and are eaten, and that is why ecosystems must be balanced for all the organisms to survive. Now please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

Same confusion. Survival does not drive speciation is the issue. What group of scientists say what?


Pathogens fight hosts

DAVID:Yes, the humans are in one branch, which goes back to bacteria as all branches do.

dhw: You’ve got it. And yet you still believe, illogically, that even though most of the other extinct branches had no connection with humans and their food, they were part of your God’s goal to produce humans and their food.

That is simply a description of the world of life as it exists today. Everyone eats everyone to have energy to live.


DAVID: I remember the illogic of humans without food.

dhw: Can you or can’t you explain why God evolves [= specially designs] ALL his creations, even though the ONLY creations he wants to evolve are us and our food?

DAVID: That I cannot know God's reasons for using evolution is explanation enough. The others are our food. Back to illogical humans without food.

dhw: Most of the “others” were not OUR food. How many more times? You wrote: that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “Extinct life has no role in current time”. Please stick to your confession that you can’t explain your theory and leave it at that. There is no point in repeatedly trying to dodge the issue with the same old contradictions.

They are illogical only in your strange way of analyzing life's living processes today. All ecosystems involve those at the bottom being eating by those above. Humans are at the very top of the system, and with our numbers, the only way we could be here and expanding our numbers


DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks.

dhw: Then do please tell me why they all think your God evolved (= individually designed) ALL the life forms etc which had no connection with humans and their food, although his only purpose was to evolve humans and their food[/b].

DAVID: Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

dhw: You mean your illogical theory never enters their minds, just as you say it never entered Adler’s.

They follow the same theory as I do and Adler assumes. God designed all life as He wished to do

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, January 20, 2022, 11:36 (798 days ago) @ David Turell

Taken from “More miscellany”, as this covers most of the entries on this thread.

dhw: […] when will you (leave Adler out, since you say he doesn’t deal with your theory) finally explain to us why a God whose one and only goal was to design humans plus food took all the trouble to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans?

DAVID: Simple answer you refuse to accept: God chose to evolve us from bacteria. And all life needs food which the vast variety of life provides. A full answer to your empty illogical complaint.

But according to you, he also chose to individually design countless other life forms that had no connection with us, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Yes, all life needs and always needed food, but that does not mean that all extinct life forms and all extinct foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food. If an all-powerful God has ONE purpose, why would he devote himself to designing things that have no connection with his purpose? One of your answers:
I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” By “evolve” you mean design, and we can emphasize the word “all”. Why don’t you leave it at that and stop pretending that you have given me a “full” answer?

DAVID: My cohort of IDer's are with me. I have an army of folks. […] Your illogical complaint never enters their minds. They think just like Adler.

dhw: You mean your illogical theory never enters their minds, just as you say it never entered Adler’s.

DAVID: They follow the same theory as I do and Adler assumes. God designed all life as He wished to do.

If God exists, then of course he would have designed what he wished to design! How do you manage to jump from that to your illogical theory that he only wished to design us, and therefore wished to design countless life forms that had no connection with us? Stop dodging!

SURVIVAL
dhw: […] please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: Same confusion. Survival does not drive speciation is the issue. What group of scientists say what?

Why do you keep using the same formula, which of course makes no sense? You’re just playing with language. Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival. You wrote that this theory is disputed by a large group of trained scientists. And I expressed my surprise, since this seems to me to be so obvious. Whether your God designed autonomous mechanisms, or a computer programme, or popped in to perform operations, the changes would still be for the same purpose: to improve the organism’s chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 20, 2022, 16:09 (798 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Simple answer you refuse to accept: God chose to evolve us from bacteria. And all life needs food which the vast variety of life provides. A full answer to your empty illogical complaint.

dhw: But according to you, he also chose to individually design countless other life forms that had no connection with us, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Yes, all life needs and always needed food, but that does not mean that all extinct life forms and all extinct foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food. If an all-powerful God has ONE purpose, why would he devote himself to designing things that have no connection with his purpose? One of your answers:
I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” By “evolve” you mean design, and we can emphasize the word “all”. Why don’t you leave it at that and stop pretending that you have given me a “full” answer?

Humans are God's endpoint of His creation. Everything must be connected if designed in stages. Your bold is purely illogical if we see God uses evolutionary methods for each aspect of creating reality.


SURVIVAL
dhw: […] please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: Same confusion. Survival does not drive speciation is the issue. What group of scientists say what?

dhw: Why do you keep using the same formula, which of course makes no sense? You’re just playing with language. Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival. You wrote that this theory is disputed by a large group of trained scientists. And I expressed my surprise, since this seems to me to be so obvious. Whether your God designed autonomous mechanisms, or a computer programme, or popped in to perform operations, the changes would still be for the same purpose: to improve the organism’s chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, January 21, 2022, 08:10 (798 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Simple answer you refuse to accept: God chose to evolve us from bacteria. And all life needs food which the vast variety of life provides. A full answer to your empty illogical complaint.

dhw: But according to you, he also chose to individually design countless other life forms that had no connection with us, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Yes, all life needs and always needed food, but that does not mean that all extinct life forms and all extinct foods were part of your God’s one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food. If an all-powerful God has ONE purpose, why would he devote himself to designing things that have no connection with his purpose? One of your answers:
I have never tried to explain why God evolves all His creations. It is his choice for His reasons, unknown to us.” By “evolve” you mean design, and we can emphasize the word “all”. Why don’t you leave it at that and stop pretending that you have given me a “full” answer?

DAVID: Humans are God's endpoint of His creation. Everything must be connected if designed in stages. Your bold is purely illogical if we see God uses evolutionary methods for each aspect of creating reality.

Humans are the last species so far. How does that come to mean that all the different stages of the whale were connected to the different stages of hominins and homos, not to mention all the different stages of all the different organisms that preceded all the different organisms that preceded all the different organisms etc. that had no connection with humans? Please accept your own admission that you can’t explain it.

SURVIVAL
dhw: […] please tell us why large groups of scientists believe that adaptations and innovations do not serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival.

DAVID: Same confusion. Survival does not drive speciation is the issue. What group of scientists say what?

dhw: Why do you keep using the same formula, which of course makes no sense? You’re just playing with language. Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival. You wrote that this theory is disputed by a large group of trained scientists. And I expressed my surprise, since this seems to me to be so obvious. Whether your God designed autonomous mechanisms, or a computer programme, or popped in to perform operations, the changes would still be for the same purpose: to improve the organism’s chances of survival by adapting to or exploiting new conditions.

DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about? If you want to talk about the purpose of life itself, then we’re on different ground – but you don’t even want to talk about that, except to say that the purpose of every single organism that ever lived was to enable your God to design H. sapiens. Any other purpose, according to you, is “humanizing”, which is only acceptable if we choose human thought patterns and emotions you approve of. ;-)

The missing fossils argument
QUOTE: "A time window for the Cambrian explosion briefer than 410,000 years is far too brief for any conceivable naturalistic model for the history of life. It would be far too brief even for the appearance of just one new phylum, let alone 30+ phyla.

Bechley: The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found, because of the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: So I might add, without fossils, imagining lost fossils disappears.

Without concrete evidence, theories remain theories. Has anyone found your God's 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and natural wonders, or is there a video of him performing operations on whales and camels and small-brained humans? By “naturalistic” I presume the authors are referring to Darwin’s random mutations. If – as I presume – they are telling us that their all-powerful, all-knowing God did it, and there was no “evolution” but simply straight “de novo” design, I’m frankly surprised that it took him so long. There is, of course, an alternative: that he might have designed an intelligent mechanism which was able to exploit the new conditions. 410,000 years is one helluva long time in terms of thousands and thousands of generations of intelligent organisms working out ways of using new conditions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, January 21, 2022, 18:53 (797 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Humans are God's endpoint of His creation. Everything must be connected if designed in stages. Your bold is purely illogical if we see God uses evolutionary methods for each aspect of creating reality.

dhw: Humans are the last species so far. How does that come to mean that all the different stages of the whale were connected to the different stages of hominins and homos, not to mention all the different stages of all the different organisms that preceded all the different organisms that preceded all the different organisms etc. that had no connection with humans? Please accept your own admission that you can’t explain it.

I have explained it to my satisfaction. God evolved the Earth and its resources and food supply in anticipation of our success and huge eventual population


SURVIVAL

DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about? If you want to talk about the purpose of life itself, then we’re on different ground – but you don’t even want to talk about that, except to say that the purpose of every single organism that ever lived was to enable your God to design H. sapiens. Any other purpose, according to you, is “humanizing”, which is only acceptable if we choose human thought patterns and emotions you approve of. ;-)

We are not arguing if we agree, as we seem to, that survival does not drive evolution


The missing fossils argument
QUOTE: "A time window for the Cambrian explosion briefer than 410,000 years is far too brief for any conceivable naturalistic model for the history of life. It would be far too brief even for the appearance of just one new phylum, let alone 30+ phyla.

Bechley: The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found, because of the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: So I might add, without fossils, imagining lost fossils disappears.

dhw: Without concrete evidence, theories remain theories. Has anyone found your God's 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and natural wonders, or is there a video of him performing operations on whales and camels and small-brained humans? By “naturalistic” I presume the authors are referring to Darwin’s random mutations. If – as I presume – they are telling us that their all-powerful, all-knowing God did it, and there was no “evolution” but simply straight “de novo” design, I’m frankly surprised that it took him so long. There is, of course, an alternative: that he might have designed an intelligent mechanism which was able to exploit the new conditions. 410,000 years is one helluva long time in terms of thousands and thousands of generations of intelligent organisms working out ways of using new conditions.

You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, January 22, 2022, 13:12 (796 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (transferred from “Cellular intelligence”, to replace other comments on the same subject): His one and only goal followed a prelude of preparation for an Earth rich with resources for us: oil and gas, metal deposits, a a huge variety of food source. You just can't see it that way.

No, I can’t see why he would have specially designed countless life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food, if his "one and only goal" was to create humans and their food. Nor can you, as you keep confessing. I have no idea why you think human exploitation of natural resources explains why he designed all those other life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with "his one and only goal".

SURVIVAL
DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about? If you want to talk about the purpose of life itself, then we’re on different ground – but you don’t even want to talk about that, except to say that the purpose of every single organism that ever lived was to enable your God to design H. sapiens. Any other purpose, according to you, is “humanizing”, which is only acceptable if we choose human thought patterns and emotions you approve of.

DAVID: We are not arguing if we agree, as we seem to, that survival does not drive evolution.

We do not “seem to agree” on any such thing, because your wording is wrong! You don’t seem to read what I write: “Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival.” Once more, do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations which lead to speciation serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival? Please answer.

The missing fossils argument
QUOTES: "A time window for the Cambrian explosion briefer than 410,000 years is far too brief for any conceivable naturalistic model for the history of life. It would be far too brief even for the appearance of just one new phylum, let alone 30+ phyla.

Bechley: The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found, because of the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: So I might add, without fossils, imagining lost fossils disappears.

dhw: Without concrete evidence, theories remain theories. Has anyone found your God's 3.8-billion-year-old programme for all species and natural wonders, or is there a video of him performing operations on whales and camels and small-brained humans? By “naturalistic” I presume the authors are referring to Darwin’s random mutations. If – as I presume – they are telling us that their all-powerful, all-knowing God did it, and there was no “evolution” but simply straight “de novo” design, I’m frankly surprised that it took him so long. There is, of course, an alternative: that he might have designed an intelligent mechanism which was able to exploit the new conditions. 410,000 years is one helluva long time in terms of thousands and thousands of generations of intelligent organisms working out ways of using new conditions. [dhw's bold - see below.]

DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

What “off-hand dismissal”? I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then”??? Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.

Dictionary definition: Transposons cause mutations of various kinds and have important applications in genetic engineering.

DAVID: Perhaps transposons are God's dabble mechanism.

Rapid evolution measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” I have bolded the relevant sentence in my own comment. Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 22, 2022, 15:09 (796 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (transferred from “Cellular intelligence”, to replace other comments on the same subject): His one and only goal followed a prelude of preparation for an Earth rich with resources for us: oil and gas, metal deposits, a a huge variety of food source. You just can't see it that way.

dhw: No, I can’t see why he would have specially designed countless life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food, if his "one and only goal" was to create humans and their food.

You are simply questioning God's choice of creation method. We obviously arrived by being evolved. And you get your panties all in a twist about it. I start with the belief God made history. From that Adler proves the most unusual animal result proves God. Try thinking like Adler. I do.


SURVIVAL
DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about?

DAVID: We are not arguing if we agree, as we seem to, that survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: We do not “seem to agree” on any such thing, because your wording is wrong! You don’t seem to read what I write: “Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival.” Once more, do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations which lead to speciation serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival? Please answer.

You are arguing. I'm not. The quest for survival produces minor adaptation in existing species. Not the cause of speciation, about which we differ, as I believe God designs them.


The missing fossils argument

DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: What “off-hand dismissal”? I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then”???

All of Cambrians by your brilliant cells' designs. Fairy tale. As for God's method, His created history easily reveals the story of His methods.

dhw: Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.

Dictionary definition: Transposons cause mutations of various kinds and have important applications in genetic engineering.

DAVID: Perhaps transposons are God's dabble mechanism.

dhw: “Rapid evolution measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” I have bolded the relevant sentence in my own comment. Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

The author's appraisal of gap s mimics yours. Both have great imaginations. And, thank you for the praise for the article which can easily be seen as God's dabble mechanism.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, January 23, 2022, 12:26 (795 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: His one and only goal followed a prelude of preparation for an Earth rich with resources for us: oil and gas, metal deposits, a a huge variety of food source. You just can't see it that way.

dhw: No, I can’t see why he would have specially designed countless life forms and natural wonders that had no connection with humans and their food, if his "one and only goal" was to create humans and their food.

DAVID: You are simply questioning God's choice of creation method. We obviously arrived by being evolved. And you get your panties all in a twist about it.

And every other species also arrived by being evolved, including all those that had no connection with humans – his one and only goal – though you keep forgetting to mention them!

DAVID: I start with the belief God made history. From that Adler proves the most unusual animal result proves God. Try thinking like Adler. I do.

Of course if you believe in God, you believe he made history. And how many more times do you want me to repeat that I have no quarrel with design as evidence of God’s existence? The dispute – as if you didn’t know it – is over your belief that your God designed every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design humans plus our food, although most life forms had no connection with humans or our food. You admit that you don’t know why. This silly dodging game should end now.

SURVIVAL
DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean. Do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation are designed (by intelligent cells or by God) to improve chances of survival? If you do, and your large number of scientists do, then what are we arguing about?

DAVID: We are not arguing if we agree, as we seem to, that survival does not drive evolution.

dhw: We do not “seem to agree” on any such thing, because your wording is wrong! You don’t seem to read what I write: “Survival is the state of continuing to live. It is the RESULT of the changes, not the cause. The cause of the changes which lead to adaptation, innovation and speciation is the quest to improve the organism’s chances of survival.” Once more, do you or do you not agree that the adaptations and innovations which lead to speciation serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival? Please answer.

DAVID: You are arguing. I'm not. The quest for survival produces minor adaptation in existing species. Not the cause of speciation, about which we differ, as I believe God designs them.

Still not answering. Do you believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: What “off-hand dismissal”? I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then”???

DAVID: All of Cambrians by your brilliant cells' designs. Fairy tale. As for God's method, His created history easily reveals the story of His methods.

If I put on my theist’s hat, it’s all of Cambrians by God’s brilliant design of brilliant cells. The history is a vast, ever changing bush of life forms (including Cambrians) - most of which had no connection with humans – that have come and gone. Humans are the last known species – the brilliant culmination perhaps of God’s brilliant invention rather than a fairytale, 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or endless individual operations to create new species irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

dhw: Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia. […][dhw's bold]

dhw: […] Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

DAVID: The author's appraisal of gaps mimics yours. Both have great imaginations.

Yes, it’s good to have support from scientists who work in the field. I don’t know why you regard this as more “imaginative” than an unknown, all-powerful, sourceless being who took billions of years to create every life form and natural wonder you can think of, although he only wanted to programme/dabble one particular life form and its food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 23, 2022, 15:35 (795 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I start with the belief God made history. From that Adler proves the most unusual animal result proves God. Try thinking like Adler. I do.

dhw: Of course if you believe in God, you believe he made history. And how many more times do you want me to repeat that I have no quarrel with design as evidence of God’s existence? The dispute – as if you didn’t know it – is over your belief that your God designed every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design humans plus our food, although most life forms had no connection with humans or our food. You admit that you don’t know why. This silly dodging game should end now.

If Adler followed your odd view of evolution, he would not have written his book.


SURVIVAL
DAVID: So you agree, survival is for survivals sake, nothing more.

DAVID: You are arguing. I'm not. The quest for survival produces minor adaptation in existing species. Not the cause of speciation, about which we differ, as I believe God designs them.

dhw: Still not answering. Do you believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

Still arguing are you? Of course adaptations by species help their survival. The gaps in the fossil record does not help the argument that stepwise adaptations lead to new species.


The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: What “off-hand dismissal”? I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then”???

DAVID: All of Cambrians by your brilliant cells' designs. Fairy tale. As for God's method, His created history easily reveals the story of His methods.

dhw: If I put on my theist’s hat, it’s all of Cambrians by God’s brilliant design of brilliant cells. The history is a vast, ever changing bush of life forms (including Cambrians) - most of which had no connection with humans – that have come and gone. Humans are the last known species – the brilliant culmination perhaps of God’s brilliant invention rather than a fairytale, 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or endless individual operations to create new species irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

Your theist hat is interesting. God's cells are as brilliant as He is. Hopefully they know what God's wishes are.


dhw: Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia. […][dhw's bold]

dhw: […] Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

DAVID: The author's appraisal of gaps mimics yours. Both have great imaginations.

dhw: Yes, it’s good to have support from scientists who work in the field. I don’t know why you regard this as more “imaginative” than an unknown, all-powerful, sourceless being who took billions of years to create every life form and natural wonder you can think of, although he only wanted to programme/dabble one particular life form and its food.

Still fighting Adler's point.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, January 24, 2022, 12:49 (794 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I start with the belief God made history. From that Adler proves the most unusual animal result proves God. Try thinking like Adler. I do.

dhw: Of course if you believe in God, you believe he made history. And how many more times do you want me to repeat that I have no quarrel with design as evidence of God’s existence? The dispute – as if you didn’t know it – is over your belief that your God designed every single life form as part of his one and only goal to design humans plus our food, although most life forms had no connection with humans or our food. You admit that you don’t know why. This silly dodging game should end now.

DAVID: If Adler followed your odd view of evolution, he would not have written his book.
And
DAVID (under “universal consciousness”): You always miss Adler's point that the production of most unusual humans proves God. That fits my view of evolution designed toward a goal of humans, doesn't it?

I have not offered an odd view of evolution here. I have questioned your odd view, which according to you, your beloved Adler never covered, since his aim was to prove the existence of God, not God’s method of fulfilling his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he’d produced countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

SURVIVAL
dhw: Do you [or do you not] believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

DAVID: Still arguing are you? Of course adaptations by species help their survival. The gaps in the fossil record does not help the argument that stepwise adaptations lead to new species.

I deliberately left out the word “adaptations” last time, but that hasn’t stopped you from yet again dodging the question. It’s bolded, and concerns “innovations”. Please answer.

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then[/b]??? ]

Not answered.

DAVID: All of Cambrians by your brilliant cells' designs. Fairy tale. As for God's method, His created history easily reveals the story of His methods.

dhw: If I put on my theist’s hat, it’s all of Cambrians by God’s brilliant design of brilliant cells. The history is a vast, ever changing bush of life forms (including Cambrians) - most of which had no connection with humans – that have come and gone. Humans are the last known species – the brilliant culmination perhaps of God’s brilliant invention rather than a fairytale, 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme or endless individual operations to create new species irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Your theist hat is interesting. God's cells are as brilliant as He is. Hopefully they know what God's wishes are.

No they aren’t as brilliant as he is, if he exists, and I would not expect them even to dream of your God's existence. Let us assume that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. Have you noticed that all life forms try to survive, and yet all individuals die, and species also die, and there are terrible diseases that we and other species fail to cure? Intelligent though they may be, cells can never figure out how to be eternal and immortal, like your God. So I would suggest that since he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he actually wanted them to be the way they are. Intelligent enough to design different ways of surviving for a limited time (hence the astonishing variety of life forms, natural wonders etc.), but nowhere near as brilliant as he is. Even our own brilliant cells can't figure out the major mysteries of life. Only he can - if he exists.

dhw: Meanwhile, thank you for the next eye-opening article on genetic complexity:

QUOTE: Mirouze says TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia. […][dhw's bold]

dhw: […] Thank you as always for your integrity in reproducing articles that support my proposals.

DAVID: The author's appraisal of gaps mimics yours. Both have great imaginations.

dhw: Yes, it’s good to have support from scientists who work in the field. I don’t know why you regard this as more “imaginative” than an unknown, all-powerful, sourceless beingbwho took billions of years to create every life form and natural wonder you can think of, although he only wanted to programme/dabble one particular life form and its food.

DAVID: Still fighting Adler's point.

Adler doesn’t cover your illogical theory. See earlier in this post.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, January 24, 2022, 15:46 (794 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID (under “universal consciousness”): You always miss Adler's point that the production of most unusual humans proves God. That fits my view of evolution designed toward a goal of humans, doesn't it?

dhw: I have not offered an odd view of evolution here. I have questioned your odd view, which according to you, your beloved Adler never covered, since his aim was to prove the existence of God, not God’s method of fulfilling his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he’d produced countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God. Adler accepts that God invented life and designed all of evolution. Do I seem different in what I propose?


SURVIVAL
dhw: Do you [or do you not] believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

DAVID: Still arguing are you? Of course adaptations by species help their survival. The gaps in the fossil record does not help the argument that stepwise adaptations lead to new species.

dhw: I deliberately left out the word “adaptations” last time, but that hasn’t stopped you from yet again dodging the question. It’s bolded, and concerns “innovations”. Please answer.

Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.


The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then[/b]??? ]

dhw: Not answered.

The maths dispute your point!! And you want direct creation which didn't happen. So? I've concluded God must have wanted to evolve us because the history "God created shows exactly that.


DAVID: Your theist hat is interesting. God's cells are as brilliant as He is. Hopefully they know what God's wishes are.

dhw: No they aren’t as brilliant as he is, if he exists, and I would not expect them even to dream of your God's existence. Let us assume that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. Have you noticed that all life forms try to survive, and yet all individuals die, and species also die, and there are terrible diseases that we and other species fail to cure? Intelligent though they may be, cells can never figure out how to be eternal and immortal, like your God. So I would suggest that since he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he actually wanted them to be the way they are. Intelligent enough to design different ways of surviving for a limited time (hence the astonishing variety of life forms, natural wonders etc.), but nowhere near as brilliant as he is. Even our own brilliant cells can't figure out the major mysteries of life. Only he can - if he exists.

So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 08:20 (794 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have not offered an odd view of evolution here. I have questioned your odd view, which according to you, your beloved Adler never covered, since his aim was to prove the existence of God, not God’s method of fulfilling his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he’d produced countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

DAVID:I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God.

But proving God is not the point at issue!!!

DAVID: Adler accepts that God invented life and designed all of evolution. Do I seem different in what I propose?

You have told us yourself that Adler does NOT deal with your theory. Nor do your ID-ers. In any case, the point at issue is not what other people say or don't say, but the fact that you yourself can find no logical explanation for your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he had designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his one and only purpose! I think I've bolded this before, but still you go on dodging!

SURVIVAL
dhw: Do you [or do you not] believe that the innovations which lead to speciation were designed to serve the purpose of improving organisms’ chances of survival?

DAVID: Still arguing are you? Of course adaptations by species help their survival. The gaps in the fossil record does not help the argument that stepwise adaptations lead to new species.

dhw: I deliberately left out the word “adaptations” last time, but that hasn’t stopped you from yet again dodging the question. It’s bolded, and concerns “innovations”. Please answer.

DAVID: Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.

So if your God designed the innovations that lead to speciation in order to “help” survival, why is it wrong to say that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival?

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then??? ]

Not answered.

DAVID: The maths dispute your point!!

They obviously don’t “dispute” my point that 410,000 years is enough for thousands of generations of intelligent organisms to produce rapid evolution, as proposed by Mirouze: : “ TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” The fact that you disagree does not mean he is wrong and you are right.

DAVID: And you want direct creation which didn't happen. So? I've concluded God must have wanted to evolve us because the history God created shows exactly that.

I don’t “want” anything. The history shows that your God, if he exists, caused the evolution of countless life forms that had no connection with humans, and if we assume that he did what he wanted, then clearly he did not ONLY want humans and their food but also wanted the great higgledy-piggledy bush.

DAVID: Your theist hat is interesting. God's cells are as brilliant as He is. Hopefully they know what God's wishes are.

dhw: No they aren’t as brilliant as he is, if he exists, and I would not expect them even to dream of your God's existence. Let us assume that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. Have you noticed that all life forms try to survive, and yet all individuals die, and species also die, and there are terrible diseases that we and other species fail to cure? Intelligent though they may be, cells can never figure out how to be eternal and immortal, like your God. So I would suggest that since he is all-powerful and all-knowing, he actually wanted them to be the way they are. Intelligent enough to design different ways of surviving for a limited time (hence the astonishing variety of life forms, natural wonders etc.), but nowhere near as brilliant as he is. Even our own brilliant cells can't figure out the major mysteries of life. Only he can - if he exists.

DAVID: So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 18:48 (793 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God.

dhw: But proving God is not the point at issue!!!

I know that. My point is Adler accepts that God caused evolution in creating his proof.


dhw: You have told us yourself that Adler does NOT deal with your theory. Nor do your ID-ers. In any case, the point at issue is not what other people say or don't say, but the fact that you yourself can find no logical explanation for your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he had designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his one and only purpose! I think I've bolded this before, but still you go on dodging!

You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.


SURVIVAL

DAVID: Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.

dhw: So if your God designed the innovations that lead to speciation in order to “help” survival, why is it wrong to say that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival?

Word salad. I agree, but the point is still survival needs don't drive speciation. Your Darwin brain is all twisted as usual.


The missing fossils argument
DAVID: You are forgetting our discussion that Darwinists and IDers both use the same maths to calculate mutation rates and times. None of them would agree with your off hand dismissal of 410,000 years. Compared to 3.8 billions of years 410,000 is 0.0011 % of the time for more complexity to appear than ever seen before. Why didn't your bright cells do it before then.???

dhw: I’m not disputing the maths. I’m disputing the claim that 410,000 years is not long enough for intelligent cells to produce new species in response to new conditions. Your question raises the obvious question why, if your all-powerful God’s "one and only goal" was to design humans and their food, he didn’t “do it before then??? ]

dhw: Not answered.

My answer is always the same: from above "You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it."


DAVID: The maths dispute your point!!

dhw: They obviously don’t “dispute” my point that 410,000 years is enough for thousands of generations of intelligent organisms to produce rapid evolution, as proposed by Mirouze: : “ TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” The fact that you disagree does not mean he is wrong and you are right.

Nirouze's thought is pure Darwinian. The ID math folks agree with me.


DAVID: And you want direct creation which didn't happen. So? I've concluded God must have wanted to evolve us because the history God created shows exactly that.

dhw: I don’t “want” anything. The history shows that your God, if he exists, caused the evolution of countless life forms that had no connection with humans, and if we assume that he did what he wanted, then clearly he did not ONLY want humans and their food but also wanted the great higgledy-piggledy bush.

The bush is food for all or in your case it isn't.


DAVID: So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 12:24 (792 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I tell you what Adler covers and you say he doesn't. Read Adler to see I am correct in my interpretation. Again, accepting that God evolved humans the highly unusual human result is the way Adler proves God.

dhw: But proving God is not the point at issue!!!

DAVID: I know that. My point is Adler accepts that God caused evolution in creating his proof.

We both agree that evolution happened, and if God exists, he caused it to happen. So please stick to the issue.

dhw: You have told us yourself that Adler does NOT deal with your theory. Nor do your ID-ers. In any case, the point at issue is not what other people say or don't say, but the fact that you yourself can find no logical explanation for your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by not fulfilling his one and only purpose until he had designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with his one and only purpose!

DAVID: You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.

For the hundredth time: I do not “want” anything. It is you who make him tunnel-visioned because you say his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans. Why would he choose such a method to achieve such a purpose? You admit that you have no idea, and I must ask God.

SURVIVAL
DAVID: Of course designed innovations help survival. I've admitted that many times.

dhw: So if your God designed the innovations that lead to speciation in order to “help” survival, why is it wrong to say that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival?

DAVID: Word salad. I agree, but the point is still survival needs don't drive speciation. Your Darwin brain is all twisted as usual.

You agree that the purpose of the innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival, but their purpose is not the reason for speciation. So when you're hungry and cook a meal, you don't cook the meal because you're hungry. And my brain is twisted! Out of my deep respect and affection for a dear friend, I shall refrain from further comment! ;-)

Extreme extremophiles

DAVID: The ability to be alive anywhere is amazing.

Yes indeed. You might even call it the ability to survive which seems to be common to all species and, I suggest, is the purpose that leads to adaptations, and also to the innovations that cause specification.

A new source of water
DAVID: A clear-thinking God can evolve anything. Not dhw's muddled-headed form, who didn't do it the right humanized way.

I agree that God, if he exists, could evolve anything any way he wanted. That is why I am so sceptical of theories that have him, for instance, specially designing countless life forms that have no connection to his one and only purpose (humans plus food). Or despite his omnipotence and omniscience, having to design a system with errors which he cannot control or correct. I can’t imagine such a “muddle-headed” God, and can’t help wondering if the inventor of such illogical theories might not himself be m…..No, I don’t want to be rude.;-)

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: The maths dispute your point!!

dhw: They obviously don’t “dispute” my point that 410,000 years is enough for thousands of generations of intelligent organisms to produce rapid evolution, as proposed by Mirouze: : “TEs are likely major drivers of bbbrapid evolution—changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” The fact that you disagree does not mean he is wrong and you are right.[dhw's bold]

DAVID: Nirouze's thought is pure Darwinian. The ID math folks agree with me.

And so surprise, surprise, there are different opinions. However, your statement that the maths “dispute” my point is obviously wrong, since the maths can be used to confirm my point.

DAVID: Your theist hat is interesting. God’s cells are as brilliant as he is.

I wrote a detailed reply to show that this was nonsense.

DAVID: So you have concluded all living forms must die. Long ago I noted death is built in.

dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

DAVID: Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic. But none of this makes your comment about my cells being “as brilliant as” your God any less ridiculous, which is the point you made and are now trying to dodge.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 26, 2022, 16:13 (792 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.

dhw: For the hundredth time: I do not “want” anything. It is you who make him tunnel-visioned because you say his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans. Why would he choose such a method to achieve such a purpose? You admit that you have no idea, and I must ask God.

But we arrived through an evolutionary style creation. Belief in God simply says He did it that way. You are questioning history and suggest God didn't know what He was doing in choosing this way. It is your human interpretation from the standpoint of what you would have done as God.

The missing fossils argument

dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

DAVID: Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

dhw: We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic.

When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, January 27, 2022, 07:30 (792 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You want either direct creation or evolution from God. Which is it? You view of God is so skewed! God can bring us about in any way He wishes, and history tells us hw He did it. Why do you want Him comparable to a tunnel-versioned human? It is your problem of your own creation. I accept what God did. Try it.

dhw: For the hundredth time: I do not “want” anything. It is you who make him tunnel-visioned because you say his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans. Why would he choose such a method to achieve such a purpose? You admit that you have no idea, and I must ask God.

DAVID: But we arrived through an evolutionary style creation. Belief in God simply says He did it that way.

I have never disagreed that if God exists, he would have designed the evolutionary mechanisms through which ALL life forms arrived.

DAVID: You are questioning history and suggest God didn't know what He was doing in choosing this way. It is your human interpretation from the standpoint of what you would have done as God.

Why do you keep on and on dodging the bolded issue? History does not tell us that God even exists, or that humans were his one and only goal, or that he individually designed every life form, or that all the life forms that had no connection with humans were part of his one and only goal to design humans plus food. I too assume he would have known exactly what he was doing, and I do not believe he would have devoted himself to activities that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. And so I ask you why he would have done so, and you reply that you have no idea, and I should ask God. Why can’t you leave it at that?

The missing fossils argument
dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

DAVID: Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

dhw: We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic.

DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 27, 2022, 16:58 (791 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are questioning history and suggest God didn't know what He was doing in choosing this way. It is your human interpretation from the standpoint of what you would have done as God.

dhw: Why do you keep on and on dodging the bolded issue? History does not tell us that God even exists, or that humans were his one and only goal, or that he individually designed every life form, or that all the life forms that had no connection with humans were part of his one and only goal to design humans plus food. I too assume he would have known exactly what he was doing, and I do not believe he would have devoted himself to activities that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. And so I ask you why he would have done so, and you reply that you have no idea, and I should ask God. Why can’t you leave it at that?

Creating all of us through evolution is entirely relevant. We evolved from bacteria by Go d's choice is obvious. Your contorted complaint is not worth answering any more, since it comes from a humanized image of your God


The missing fossils argument
dhw: You claimed that my theory made cells as brilliant as your God. I have tried to demonstrate that if your God exists, he deliberately made them considerably less brilliant than himself, and my conclusion – to put it frankly – is that your point was ridiculous.

DAVID: Your cell brilliance theory is based on observation of how cells act so well as seen from the outside. No facts involved, and primarily from somewhat ancient scientists who have not seen the current molecule by molecule elucidation of intracellular reactions design.

dhw: We know that you disagree with the theory, ignore all the modern scientists who support it, and ignore the point that intelligence is shown when actions cease to be automatic.

DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

dhw: How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

I have the right to my 100% side, based on my analysis.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, January 28, 2022, 13:32 (790 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are questioning history and suggest God didn't know what He was doing in choosing this way. It is your human interpretation from the standpoint of what you would have done as God.

dhw: Why do you keep on and on dodging the bolded issue? History does not tell us that God even exists, or that humans were his one and only goal, or that he individually designed every life form, or that all the life forms that had no connection with humans were part of his one and only goal to design humans plus food. I too assume he would have known exactly what he was doing, and I do not believe he would have devoted himself to activities that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. And so I ask you why he would have done so, and you reply that you have no idea, and I should ask God. Why can’t you leave it at that?

DAVID: Creating all of us through evolution is entirely relevant. We evolved from bacteria by God's choice is obvious. Your contorted complaint is not worth answering any more, since it comes from a humanized image of your God.

By “us” and “we”, you obviously mean humans, and so once more you leave out the whole basis of your illogical theory, which is that he also specially designed countless life forms that were not connected with “us”, even though “we” were apparently his one and only goal. This has nothing to do with the alternative, so-called “humanized” alternatives I offer. Your own theory makes no sense even to you – as bolded above.

The missing fossils argument
DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

dhw: How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

DAVID: I have the right to my 100% side, based on my analysis.

Of course you do. And your opponents have the same right. That is why we hold our discussions. And I ask you the same question you asked me: How many studies show that your God has given instructions for every cellular reaction ever observed?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, January 28, 2022, 21:31 (790 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Creating all of us through evolution is entirely relevant. We evolved from bacteria by God's choice is obvious. Your contorted complaint is not worth answering any more, since it comes from a humanized image of your God.

dhw: By “us” and “we”, you obviously mean humans, and so once more you leave out the whole basis of your illogical theory, which is that he also specially designed countless life forms that were not connected with “us”, even though “we” were apparently his one and only goal. This has nothing to do with the alternative, so-called “humanized” alternatives I offer. Your own theory makes no sense even to you – as bolded above.

It makes perfect sense as God's choice of method. If it is illogical it makes Adler the fool, as He assumes God evolved us over time, making our unusual appearance a proof of God.


The missing fossils argument
DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

dhw: How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

DAVID: I have the right to my 100% side, based on my analysis.

dhw: Of course you do. And your opponents have the same right. That is why we hold our discussions. And I ask you the same question you asked me: How many studies show that your God has given instructions for every cellular reaction ever observed?

The studies I review of molecular reactions all assume automaticity. Agnosticism never proves anything except doubt. God is a reasonable theory. Belief by many.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 08:16 (790 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Creating all of us through evolution is entirely relevant. We evolved from bacteria by God's choice is obvious. Your contorted complaint is not worth answering any more, since it comes from a humanized image of your God.

dhw: By “us” and “we”, you obviously mean humans, and so once more you leave out the whole basis of your illogical theory, which is that he also specially designed countless life forms that were not connected with “us”, even though “we” were apparently his one and only goal. This has nothing to do with the alternative, so-called “humanized” alternatives I offer. Your own theory makes no sense even to you....

DAVID: It makes perfect sense as God's choice of method. If it is illogical it makes Adler the fool, as He assumes God evolved us over time, making our unusual appearance a proof of God.

How many more times are you going to hide behind Adler in order to dodge the issue? Yes, we and every other life form evolved over time, and yes Adler uses us as proof that God exists. And so once more you leave out...see the bold above. Please stop dodging!

The missing fossils argument

DAVID: When are cellular reactions shown to be other than automatic? Not in any study I read or report.

dhw: How many studies have you read in which all cellular actions have been shown to be manipulated by your God, or preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago, for the sole purpose of producing humans and their food? You keep telling us, quite rightly, that we can only observe cellular actions from the outside, and so it is purely a matter of interpretation whether they demonstrate autonomous intelligence or automatic obedience. You put the odds at 50/50, and then settle for 100/0.

DAVID: I have the right to my 100% side, based on my analysis.

dhw: Of course you do. And your opponents have the same right. That is why we hold our discussions. And I ask you the same question you asked me: How many studies show that your God has given instructions for every cellular reaction ever observed?

DAVID: The studies I review of molecular reactions all assume automaticity.

I don’t have time to compile another list of modern scientists who believe in cellular intelligence, but last time I did, you misinterpreted a quote and told us that you couldn’t be bothered to read the other references. Meanwhile, please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: Agnosticism never proves anything except doubt. God is a reasonable theory. Belief by many.

Nobody can prove anything, but yes, God is a reasonable theory believed by many. How does that prove that your God could not have invented the intelligent cell, or that he kept designing life forms that had no connection with the only life form (plus food) that he wanted to design?

Hibernation
DAVID: Hibernation requires symbiosis with specialized organisms. How does this adaptation work naturally? Not epigenetically since different organisms have to work together. Trial and error would kill if tried suddenly, so it has to be gradual over time and goal directed. How about design?

You may remember that it was Lynn Margulis who first drew the world’s attention to the importance of symbiosis in the process of evolution. Different organisms work together to cope with environmental conditions. I think this has now been generally accepted. Lynn Margulis was also a firm champion of the theory that cells are intelligent organisms. I presume you accept her theory of symbiosis, but you dismiss her theory of cellular intelligence because she died a few years ago and you can’t be bothered to read the work of modern scientists who agree with her.

Life’s required metals
DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

Not again, please! You have agreed explicitly that past bushes were for past life forms and extinct life has no role to play in the present. ALL life forms need food, but that does not mean that all life forms and foods were designed for the sole purpose of designing one life form (us) and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 29, 2022, 15:50 (789 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It makes perfect sense as God's choice of method. If it is illogical it makes Adler the fool, as He assumes God evolved us over time, making our unusual appearance a proof of God.

dhw: How many more times are you going to hide behind Adler in order to dodge the issue? Yes, we and every other life form evolved over time, and yes Adler uses us as proof that God exists. And so once more you leave out...see the bold above. Please stop dodging!

How long will it take you to realize Adler's thoughts and mine are one and the same. Your bold is totally irrational. That God chose to evolve us is a simple obvious concept.


Hibernation
DAVID: Hibernation requires symbiosis with specialized organisms. How does this adaptation work naturally? Not epigenetically since different organisms have to work together. Trial and error would kill if tried suddenly, so it has to be gradual over time and goal directed. How about design?

dhw: You may remember that it was Lynn Margulis who first drew the world’s attention to the importance of symbiosis in the process of evolution. Different organisms work together to cope with environmental conditions. I think this has now been generally accepted. Lynn Margulis was also a firm champion of the theory that cells are intelligent organisms. I presume you accept her theory of symbiosis, but you dismiss her theory of cellular intelligence because she died a few years ago and you can’t be bothered to read the work of modern scientists who agree with her.

I read those works and come back to the same point. From the outside we see cells acting intelligently. Now interpretation rakes over. Intelligent or intelligent design. My choice asv you know is the latter.


Life’s required metals
DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: Not again, please! You have agreed explicitly that past bushes were for past life forms and extinct life has no role to play in the present. ALL life forms need food, but that does not mean that all life forms and foods were designed for the sole purpose of designing one life form (us) and our food.

It means exactly that to me.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, January 30, 2022, 11:22 (788 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It makes perfect sense as God's choice of method. If it is illogical it makes Adler the fool, as He assumes God evolved us over time, making our unusual appearance a proof of God.

dhw: How many more times are you going to hide behind Adler in order to dodge the issue? Yes, we and every other life form evolved over time, and yes Adler uses us as proof that God exists. And so once more you leave out...see the bold above. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: How long will it take you to realize Adler's thoughts and mine are one and the same. Your bold is totally irrational. That God chose to evolve us is a simple obvious concept.

The bold which you left out as usual was:”…his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans.” You are right. The theory that an all-powerful God would reach his one and only goal by designing countless species that had no connection with his one and only goal is totally irrational, which is why you say you can’t explain it and I should go and ask God.

Hibernation
DAVID: Hibernation requires symbiosis with specialized organisms. How does this adaptation work naturally? Not epigenetically since different organisms have to work together. Trial and error would kill if tried suddenly, so it has to be gradual over time and goal directed. How about design?

dhw: You may remember that it was Lynn Margulis who first drew the world’s attention to the importance of symbiosis in the process of evolution. Different organisms work together to cope with environmental conditions. I think this has now been generally accepted. Lynn Margulis was also a firm champion of the theory that cells are intelligent organisms. I presume you accept her theory of symbiosis, but you dismiss her theory of cellular intelligence because she died a few years ago and you can’t be bothered to read the work of modern scientists who agree with her.

DAVID: I read those works and come back to the same point. From the outside we see cells acting intelligently. Now interpretation rakes over. Intelligent or intelligent design. My choice asv you know is the latter.

Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, but not “intelligent or intelligent design”! Both theories entail intelligent design. You have tried to dismiss intelligent design by intelligent cells on the grounds that no modern scientists agree that cells can be intelligent. Firstly, this is not true, and secondly you agree that it’s a 50/50 matter of interpretation, which is hardly grounds for rejecting the theory.

Life’s required metals
DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: Not again, please! You have agreed explicitly that past bushes were for past life forms and extinct life has no role to play in the present. ALL life forms need food, but that does not mean that all life forms and foods were designed for the sole purpose of designing one life form (us) and our food.

DAVID: It means exactly that to me.

I know. And it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 30, 2022, 16:17 (788 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How long will it take you to realize Adler's thoughts and mine are one and the same. Your bold is totally irrational. That God chose to evolve us is a simple obvious concept.

dhw: The bold which you left out as usual was:”…his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans.” You are right. The theory that an all-powerful God would reach his one and only goal by designing countless species that had no connection with his one and only goal is totally irrational, which is why you say you can’t explain it and I should go and ask God.

Your bold is totally irrational if you simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. We are His endpoint.


Hibernation

DAVID: I read those works and come back to the same point. From the outside we see cells acting intelligently. Now interpretation rakes over. Intelligent or intelligent design. My choice as you know is the latter.

dhw: Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, but not “intelligent or intelligent design”! Both theories entail intelligent design. You have tried to dismiss intelligent design by intelligent cells on the grounds that no modern scientists agree that cells can be intelligent. Firstly, this is not true, and secondly you agree that it’s a 50/50 matter of interpretation, which is hardly grounds for rejecting the theory.

Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.


Life’s required metals
DAVID: God goes as far as He has to in designing.

dhw: I like it. According to you, he has to design everything. I propose that he only has to design the mechanism that enables cell communities to do their own designing. Same God, but at least my proposal explains the higgledy-piggledy bush!

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: Not again, please! You have agreed explicitly that past bushes were for past life forms and extinct life has no role to play in the present. ALL life forms need food, but that does not mean that all life forms and foods were designed for the sole purpose of designing one life form (us) and our food.

DAVID: It means exactly that to me.

dhw: I know. And it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, January 31, 2022, 13:24 (787 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How long will it take you to realize Adler's thoughts and mine are one and the same. Your bold is totally irrational. That God chose to evolve us is a simple obvious concept.

dhw: The bold which you left out as usual was:BBB”…his one and only goal was to design humans plus food. You also say he individually designed countless species that had no connection with humans.” You are right. The theory that an all-powerful God would reach his one and only goal by designing countless species that had no connection with his one and only goal is totally irrational, which is why you say you can’t explain it and I should go and ask God.

DAVID: Your bold is totally irrational if you simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. We are His endpoint.

I don’t believe you are so blinkered that you cannot see the illogicality of a theory that has an all-powerful God with a single purpose (us) deliberately designing countless life forms that have no connection with us! If I told you that the one and only thing I wanted to make was a rowing boat, and so first I proceeded to make a kitchen cupboard, a bookshelf and a rabbit hutch, you’d send me off to have my brain tested.

Hibernation

DAVID: I read those works and come back to the same point. From the outside we see cells acting intelligently. Now interpretation rakes over. Intelligent or intelligent design. My choice as you know is the latter.

dhw: Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, but not “intelligent or intelligent design”! Both theories entail intelligent design. You have tried to dismiss intelligent design by intelligent cells on the grounds that no modern scientists agree that cells can be intelligent. Firstly, this is not true, and secondly you agree that it’s a 50/50 matter of interpretation, which is hardly grounds for rejecting the theory.

DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

Life’s required metals

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: […] it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

DAVID: All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

Yes, life has continued to evolve into all its separate branches, extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with sapiens. As usual, you resort to generalizations in order to avoid the total illogicality of your theory bolded above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, January 31, 2022, 18:50 (787 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your bold is totally irrational if you simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. We are His endpoint.

dhw: I don’t believe you are so blinkered that you cannot see the illogicality of a theory that has an all-powerful God with a single purpose (us) deliberately designing countless life forms that have no connection with us! If I told you that the one and only thing I wanted to make was a rowing boat, and so first I proceeded to make a kitchen cupboard, a bookshelf and a rabbit hutch, you’d send me off to have my brain tested.

Again you have returned to a purely human example of invention. Stop imagining a human God!!! God does what He wants any way He wants and He chose to evolve us from bacteria as His history shows.


Hibernation

DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

I reject your 50% based on the view that God dos not do secondhand design.


Life’s required metals

DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: […] it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

DAVID: All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

dhw: Yes, life has continued to evolve into all its separate branches, extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with sapiens. As usual, you resort to generalizations in order to avoid the total illogicality of your theory bolded above.

No generalization in the statement that true evolution is stepwise from a beginning to the current endpoint and therefore all related.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, February 01, 2022, 12:03 (786 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your bold is totally irrational if you simply accept that God chose to evolve us from bacteria. We are His endpoint.

dhw: I don’t believe you are so blinkered that you cannot see the illogicality of a theory that has an all-powerful God with a single purpose (us) deliberately designing countless life forms that have no connection with us! If I told you that the one and only thing I wanted to make was a rowing boat, and so first I proceeded to make a kitchen cupboard, a bookshelf and a rabbit hutch, you’d send me off to have my brain tested.

DAVID: Again you have returned to a purely human example of invention. Stop imagining a human God!!! God does what He wants any way He wants and He chose to evolve us from bacteria as His history shows.

It is an example of how purpose and action go together. Of course God does what he wants, and if all he wanted was to design humans plus food, why did he first design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? You admit that you can’t find any logical reason and tell me to ask God. But you won’t admit that your inability to find a reason might just possibly mean that your theory is wrong.

Hibernation
DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God dos not do secondhand design.

And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing – or are you now telling us that your God designed our buildings, machines and clothes, and writes our plays and paints our paintings? If he can give us freedom, why could he not possibly have given freedom to the micro-organisms whose evolution led to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life (though he would still have been able to dabble if he wished to do so)?

Life’s required metals
DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: […] it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

DAVID: All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

dhw: Yes, life has continued to evolve into all its separate branches, extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with sapiens. As usual, you resort to generalizations in order to avoid the total illogicality of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: No generalization in the statement that true evolution is stepwise from a beginning to the current endpoint and therefore all related.

Unfortunately, this generalization happens to leave out your claim that your God ONLY wanted evolution to lead to sapiens plus food, but he individually designed every step to every life form that ever existed, including all those which had no connection to his one and only desire to design sapiens plus food. Just one of your many dodges to leave out the one glaringly obvious illogical part of your theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 01, 2022, 16:13 (786 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again you have returned to a purely human example of invention. Stop imagining a human God!!! God does what He wants any way He wants and He chose to evolve us from bacteria as His history shows.

dhw: It is an example of how purpose and action go together. Of course God does what he wants, and if all he wanted was to design humans plus food, why did he first design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? You admit that you can’t find any logical reason and tell me to ask God. But you won’t admit that your inability to find a reason might just possibly mean that your theory is wrong.

The bold is your unreasonable distorted view of God's desires. Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.


Hibernation
DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God does not do secondhand design.

dhw: And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing – or are you now telling us that your God designed our buildings, machines and clothes, and writes our plays and paints our paintings? If he can give us freedom, why could he not possibly have given freedom to the micro-organisms whose evolution led to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life (though he would still have been able to dabble if he wished to do so)?

Micro-organisms cannot possibly see the future of complexity to the purpose of creating humans.


Life’s required metals
DAVID: Without the bush, not enough food for all. My God knows what He is required to create.

dhw: […] it makes no sense to claim that species and their food supplies which had no connection with humans were specially designed for the sole purpose of specially designing humans and their food supplies.

DAVID: All part of an evolutionary process with early steps leading to later steps in a continuum.

dhw: Yes, life has continued to evolve into all its separate branches, extant and extinct, most of which had no connection with sapiens. As usual, you resort to generalizations in order to avoid the total illogicality of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: No generalization in the statement that true evolution is stepwise from a beginning to the current endpoint and therefore all related.

dhw: Unfortunately, this generalization happens to leave out your claim that your God ONLY wanted evolution to lead to sapiens plus food, but he individually designed every step to every life form that ever existed, including all those which had no connection to his one and only desire to design sapiens plus food. Just one of your many dodges to leave out the one glaringly obvious illogical part of your theory.

We go round and round. You are totally illogical from a believer's standpoint. Our views of God are wildly disparate. I simply accept what God does/did.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 08:39 (786 days ago) @ David Turell

This post has turned into a game called Dodge the Issue. Every entry except for “Hibernation”exemplifies the technique, and although I doubt if anyone else is interested, I’ll go on giving the same response to each dodge in the hope that eventually my dear opponent will accept what he has always accepted and tried to dodge: namely, that it doesn’t make sense for an all-powerful God with only one purpose (humans plus food) to devote himself to designing countless life forms plus foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose (humans plus food).

dhw: I don’t believe you are so blinkered that you cannot see the illogicality of a theory that has an all-powerful God with a single purpose (us) deliberately designing countless life forms that have no connection with us! If I told you that the one and only thing I wanted to make was a rowing boat, and so first I proceeded to make a kitchen cupboard, a bookshelf and a rabbit hutch, you’d send me off to have my brain tested.

DAVID: Again you have returned to a purely human example of invention. Stop imagining a human God!!! God does what He wants any way He wants and He chose to evolve us from bacteria as His history shows.

dhw: It is an example of how purpose and action go together. Of course God does what he wants, and if all he wanted was to design humans plus food, why did he first design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans? You admit that you can’t find any logical reason and tell me to ask God. But you won’t admit that your inability to find a reason might just possibly mean that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: The bold is your unreasonable distorted view of God's desires.

What distortion? You have said over and over again that your God’s one and only goal was to design humans and their food. I’ll be delighted if you now tell us this is not your belief, and perhaps you will at last tell us what other goals he had that explain all the life forms he specifically designed which had no connection with humans and their food.

DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.

How does your "acceptance" that we are here provide a reason why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was apparently to design us and our food, specifically designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?


Life’s required metals

DAVID: No generalization in the statement that true evolution is stepwise from a beginning to the current endpoint and therefore all related.

dhw: Unfortunately, this generalization happens to leave out your claim that your God ONLY wanted evolution to lead to sapiens plus food, but he individually designed every step to every life form that ever existed, including all those which had no connection to his one and only desire to design sapiens plus food. Just one of your many dodges to leave out the one glaringly obvious illogical part of your theory.

DAVID: We go round and round. You are totally illogical from a believer's standpoint. Our views of God are wildly disparate. I simply accept what God does/did.

Another wild collection of non-responses to avoid the illogicality of your theory that your God fulfilled his one and only purpose by specially designing countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Of course we go round and round, because although you admit you can’t find a logical explanation, you simply continue to play the dodging game.

Hibernation

DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God does not do secondhand design.

dhw: And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing – or are you now telling us that your God designed our buildings, machines and clothes, and writes our plays and paints our paintings? If he can give us freedom, why could he not possibly have given freedom to the micro-organisms whose evolution led to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life (though he would still have been able to dabble if he wished to do so)?

DAVID: Micro-organisms cannot possibly see the future of complexity to the purpose of creating humans.

Whoever said they could??? You claimed that your God did not do what you call “secondhand design”. I pointed out that you believe he gave humans the autonomous power to do their own designing, so he does do “secondhand design”. And if he can do it for us, why can’t he do it for other life forms?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 02, 2022, 18:23 (785 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: that it doesn’t make sense for an all-powerful God with only one purpose (humans plus food) to devote himself to designing countless life forms plus foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose (humans plus food).

Again delivered from someone who has no idea how religious believers really view God and accept His history as showing His intentions and choices. Dhw second guesses God's actions.

dhw: You have said over and over again that your God’s one and only goal was to design humans and their food. I’ll be delighted if you now tell us this is not your belief, and perhaps you will at last tell us what other goals he had that explain all the life forms he specifically designed which had no connection with humans and their food.

Again, misunderstanding how to view God, you use Him as tunnel-visioned. You have no concept of how to view the belief of believers, as shown by your vision of a humanized God as correct.


DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.

dhw: How does your "acceptance" that we are here provide a reason why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was apparently to design us and our food, specifically designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?

Just the point. I don't need a reason, nor did Adler. You question God's methods from a purely human viewpoint. If you were God, how would you do it differently?>


Hibernation

DAVID: Each of us has the right to a choice based on logical evidence.

dhw: Of course. But (a) it is NOT a choice between “intelligent [cells] or intelligent design” – both theories entail intelligent design, and (b) you clearly do not accept your own odds of 50/50!

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God does not do secondhand design.

dhw: And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing – or are you now telling us that your God designed our buildings, machines and clothes, and writes our plays and paints our paintings? If he can give us freedom, why could he not possibly have given freedom to the micro-organisms whose evolution led to the great higgledy-piggledy bush of life (though he would still have been able to dabble if he wished to do so)?

DAVID: Micro-organisms cannot possibly see the future of complexity to the purpose of creating humans.

dhw: Whoever said they could??? You claimed that your God did not do what you call “secondhand design”. I pointed out that you believe he gave humans the autonomous power to do their own designing, so he does do “secondhand design”. And if he can do it for us, why can’t he do it for other life forms?

Other life forms were on a purposeful trajectory during evolution to reach the production of humans. Uncontrolled in their designs, we have idea where evolution might end up, nor would God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, February 03, 2022, 12:19 (784 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: … it doesn’t make sense for an all-powerful God with only one purpose (humans plus food) to devote himself to designing countless life forms plus foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose (humans plus food).

DAVID: Again delivered from someone who has no idea how religious believers really view God and accept His history as showing His intentions and choices. Dhw second guesses God's actions.

So the latest way to dodge the illogicality is to claim that all religious people believe in the illogical theory bolded above.

DAVID: Again, misunderstanding how to view God, you use Him as tunnel-visioned.

You allow him one purpose for the fulfilment of which he designs countless life forms that have no connection with that purpose, and you don’t think that is tunnel-visioned! I offer a variety of alternatives, and apparently that makes me tunnel-visioned!

DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.

dhw: How does your "acceptance" that we are here provide a reason why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was apparently to design us and our food, specifically designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?

DAVID: Just the point. I don't need a reason, nor did Adler. You question God's methods from a purely human viewpoint. If you were God, how would you do it differently?

I didn’t know that you and Adler were not human, or that when trying to defend an illogical theory it was enough to say you don’t need a reason. As for your question, if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

Hibernation

DAVID: I reject your 50% based on the view that God does not do secondhand design.

dhw: And yet your God gave sapiens the autonomous power to do his own designing […]

DAVID: Micro-organisms cannot possibly see the future of complexity to the purpose of creating humans.

dhw: Whoever said they could??? You claimed that your God did not do what you call “secondhand design”. I pointed out that you believe he gave humans the autonomous power to do their own designing, so he does do “secondhand design”. And if he can do it for us, why can’t he do it for other life forms?

DAVID: Other life forms were on a purposeful trajectory during evolution to reach the production of humans.

There we go again. Every extinct life form that had no connection with humans was apparently specially designed as part of the goal of designing humans. And you still haven’t answered my question.

DAVID: Uncontrolled in their designs, we have [no] idea where evolution might end up, nor would God.

True. That is one logical explanation of the higgledy-piggledy bush: God didn’t want life’s history to be a predictable puppet show with himself simply pulling the strings. (But of course, he always had the option of dabbling.)

Evidence of non-random mutation

QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

DAVID: It seems chance mutations can be protected from affecting plants. Was this designed or a natural event? I'll stick with design.

I’ve only quoted this to reinforce two points: 1) some genes must act automatically to preserve the species, while some genes must be flexible to allow for speciation; 2) the purpose of all these mechanisms – whether designed by God or not – is to improve chances of survival.

Hummingbird torpor

Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

Sea spiders

DAVID: fully adapted to their strange lifestyle in their ecosystem. They appeared post-Cambrian.

Amazing stuff. I just can’t quite understand why humans could not exist without your God having designed their strange lifestyle in their ecosystem.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 03, 2022, 20:24 (784 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again, misunderstanding how to view God, you use Him as tunnel-visioned.

dhw: You allow him one purpose for the fulfilment of which he designs countless life forms that have no connection with that purpose, and you don’t think that is tunnel-visioned! I offer a variety of alternatives, and apparently that makes me tunnel-visioned!

Your human mind entered into God's mind, with no alterations, and arrived at human complaints about God's indirection in achieving a desired endpoint to evolution.


DAVID: Evolution from bacteria to humans, as history shows, requires all those ancient steps. I have found my reason, which is simply accepting what God did. We are here, the surprise endpoint.

dhw: How does your "acceptance" that we are here provide a reason why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was apparently to design us and our food, specifically designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?

DAVID: Just the point. I don't need a reason, nor did Adler. You question God's methods from a purely human viewpoint. If you were God, how would you do it differently?

dhw: As for your question, if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

Analyzed like a true human, not like a true theistic view of the real God.


Hibernation

DAVID: Other life forms were on a purposeful trajectory during evolution to reach the production of humans.

dhw: There we go again. Every extinct life form that had no connection with humans was apparently specially designed as part of the goal of designing humans. And you still haven’t answered my question.

Again making God think like a human solving problems on Earth in a direct manor like He should, no waste of time.

Evidence of non-random mutation

QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.

DAVID: It seems chance mutations can be protected from affecting plants. Was this designed or a natural event? I'll stick with design.

dhw: I’ve only quoted this to reinforce two points: 1) some genes must act automatically to preserve the species, while some genes must be flexible to allow for speciation; 2) the purpose of all these mechanisms – whether designed by God or not – is to improve chances of survival.

Survival is required to advance evolution in stages. It does not drive new designs.


Hummingbird torpor

Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.


Sea spiders

DAVID: fully adapted to their strange lifestyle in their ecosystem. They appeared post-Cambrian.

dhw: Amazing stuff. I just can’t quite understand why humans could not exist without your God having designed their strange lifestyle in their ecosystem.

All ecosystems are necessary as they are needed for food supply.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, February 04, 2022, 07:58 (784 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Again, misunderstanding how to view God, you use Him as tunnel-visioned.

dhw: You allow him one purpose for the fulfilment of which he designs countless life forms that have no connection with that purpose, and you don’t think that is tunnel-visioned! I offer a variety of alternatives, and apparently that makes me tunnel-visioned!

DAVID: Your human mind entered into God's mind, with no alterations, and arrived at human complaints about God's indirection in achieving a desired endpoint to evolution.

I haven’t uttered a word of complaint about your God! Tunnel vision = seeing only part of something and not seeing the rest. Your human mind sees nothing but humans and our food and comes up with the conclusion that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us. You refuse to look at the rest of life’s history, which according to you includes his deliberate design of countless life forms that had no connection with humans and our food, i.e. with his one and only purpose. A classic example of tunnel vision, as a result of which you have come up with a theory of two parts that contradict each other.

DAVID: If you were God, how would you do it differently?

dhw: [...] if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

DAVID: Analyzed like a true human, not like a true theistic view of the real God.

Yes, I am human. I thought you were too. But no, apparently you know the true theistic view of the real God. But unfortunately, he has never explained to you why he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although all he wanted to do was design humans plus food.

Evidence of non-random mutation

QUOTE: "The findings add a surprising twist to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection because it reveals that the plant has evolved to protect its genes from mutation to ensure survival.”

DAVID: It seems chance mutations can be protected from affecting plants. Was this designed or a natural event? I'll stick with design.

dhw: I’ve only quoted this to reinforce two points: 1) some genes must act automatically to preserve the species, while some genes must be flexible to allow for speciation; 2) the purpose of all these mechanisms – whether designed by God or not – is to improve chances of survival.

DAVID: Survival is required to advance evolution in stages. It does not drive new designs.

I thought we’d finished with these silly quibbles. What you are saying now is that if life forms don’t survive, there can be no evolution, which is pretty obvious. What I am saying is that the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival. A land based animal does not have its legs turn into flippers so that evolution can advance in stages. The legs turn into flippers so that it can have a better chance of survival. Organs/organisms changing into something new = evolution. Therefore the purpose of the changes (or “new designs”) which constitute the evolution of species is survival.

Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.”

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe, and nor do you, that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, February 04, 2022, 16:11 (783 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If you were God, how would you do it differently?

dhw: [...] if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

DAVID: Analyzed like a true human, not like a true theistic view of the real God.

dhw: Yes, I am human. I thought you were too. But no, apparently you know the true theistic view of the real God. But unfortunately, he has never explained to you why he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although all he wanted to do was design humans plus food.

You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain. I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.


Evidence of non-random mutation

DAVID: Survival is required to advance evolution in stages. It does not drive new designs.

dhw: I thought we’d finished with these silly quibbles. What you are saying now is that if life forms don’t survive, there can be no evolution, which is pretty obvious. What I am saying is that the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival. A land based animal does not have its legs turn into flippers so that evolution can advance in stages. The legs turn into flippers so that it can have a better chance of survival. Organs/organisms changing into something new = evolution. Therefore the purpose of the changes (or “new designs”) which constitute the evolution of species is survival.

Fine. We have been agreeing all along.


Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.”

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

dhw: Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe, and nor do you, that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 08:33 (783 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If you were God, how would you do it differently?

dhw: [...] if I were an all-powerful God and my only purpose was to design humans and their food, I would design humans and their food. I would not design and kill off countless life forms that had nothing to do with my one and only purpose. And frankly, if I were God, I would object very strongly to a human being attributing such illogical behaviour to me, and I would suggest that he should rethink his theory to make it fit in logically with the history of life.

DAVID: Analyzed like a true human, not like a true theistic view of the real God.

dhw: Yes, I am human. I thought you were too. But no, apparently you know the true theistic view of the real God. But unfortunately, he has never explained to you why he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although all he wanted to do was design humans plus food.

DAVID: You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain.

Assuming God exists, the only thing we agree he did is invent life. We do not “have to” accept your theory that his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, that he designed every life form, or that every life form he designed was part of his one and only goal even though most of them had no connection with his one and only goal. If you propose a theory, it is for you to explain it, and you can’t, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve such a goal. The obvious implication is not that God works in mysterious ways, but that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.

It’s not MY problem. It’s yours if you think your God is less “efficient” than us humans!

Evidence of non-random mutation

DAVID: Survival is required to advance evolution in stages. It does not drive new designs.

dhw: I thought we’d finished with these silly quibbles. What you are saying now is that if life forms don’t survive, there can be no evolution, which is pretty obvious. What I am saying is that the purpose of all the adaptations and innovations that lead to speciation is to improve chances of survival. A land based animal does not have its legs turn into flippers so that evolution can advance in stages. The legs turn into flippers so that it can have a better chance of survival. Organs/organisms changing into something new = evolution. Therefore the purpose of the changes (or “new designs”) which constitute the evolution of species is survival.

DAVID: Fine. We have been agreeing all along.

At last. I’ll remind you of your agreement next time you raise the subject.

Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders
dhw: Thank you as always for the natural wonder articles. They are a delight to read. Shame about the comments, though. ;-)

QUOTE: "At night, hummingbirds lower their body temperature and metabolism drastically by dropping into an energy-saving state of inactivity called torpor.

DAVID: how did this evolve. It all obviously goes together purposefully, and like all irreducible complex systems it must be designed.

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all
he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

dhw: Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe, and nor do you, that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

DAVID: Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 05, 2022, 16:07 (782 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Yes, I am human. I thought you were too. But no, apparently you know the true theistic view of the real God. But unfortunately, he has never explained to you why he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although all he wanted to do was design humans plus food.

DAVID: You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain.

dhw: Assuming God exists, the only thing we agree he did is invent life. We do not “have to” accept your theory that his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, that he designed every life form, or that every life form he designed was part of his one and only goal even though most of them had no connection with his one and only goal. If you propose a theory, it is for you to explain it, and you can’t, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve such a goal. The obvious implication is not that God works in mysterious ways, but that your theory is wrong.

I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.


DAVID: I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.

dhw: It’s not MY problem. It’s yours if you think your God is less “efficient” than us humans!

Not me! It is your human complaint about His time-taking method.


Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all
he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

dhw: Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe, and nor do you, that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

DAVID: Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

dhw: What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!

My theory is not a theory in this fact: I fully accept the history of evolution as God's doings with us as the current endpoint. Adler does exactly the same to make his argument, which is the significance of the "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes".

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 07:08 (780 days ago) @ David Turell

Many apologies for this delayed response! It should have appeared on Sunday, but I was interrupted by a long phone call, and then mistakenly thought I had posted it and the "More Miscellany " response. A clear case of brain over-complexification!

DAVID: You have expressed your exact problem. We have to accept what God did and try to understand it from a developmental view of His creation which God does not explain.

dhw: Assuming God exists, the only thing we agree he did is invent life. We do not “have to” accept your theory that his one and only goal was to design humans plus food, that he designed every life form, or that every life form he designed was part of his one and only goal even though most of them had no connection with his one and only goal. If you propose a theory, it is for you to explain it, and you can’t, because you have no idea why your God would choose such a method to achieve such a goal. The obvious implication is not that God works in mysterious ways, but that your theory is wrong.

DAVID: I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.

I am not questioning your theism but your theory of evolution! History does not tell us the why of your God's creation of evolution. It is you who insist that the only “why” is to create humans plus food. And if you insist that his method of achieving his one and only goal was to perform countless acts of creation that had no connection with his one and only goal, it is patently absurd to claim that your theory is totally logical.

DAVID: I've given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a round-about way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away. Thus your humanized God appears to solve your problem.

dhw: It’s not MY problem. It’s yours if you think your God is less “efficient” than us humans!

DAVID: Not me! It is your human complaint about His time-taking method.

Time is not the point. The point is the special design of life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal, and this now leads you to the weird notion that humans are more efficient than your all-powerful God! Try that one out on all the religious people you think support your theory!

Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: Why would God specially design an energy-saving mechanism just for hummingbirds when all he apparently ever wanted to do was design humans and their food? Would we really not be here, or would we starve, if it weren’t for the hummingbird’s torpor?

DAVID: Each organism fits an ecosystem providing food for all.

dhw: Yes indeed. But each ecosystem provides only for the organisms that are part of it. I do not believe [...] that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their ecosystems.

DAVID: Yes, no other way to explain God's actions. I accept them, not complain about His methods.

dhw: What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!

DAVID: My theory is not a theory in this fact: I fully accept the history of evolution as God's doings with us as the current endpoint. Adler does exactly the same to make his argument, which is the significance of the "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes".

It is a fact that you fully believe and keep repeating your illogical theory that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, but that in order to achieve his one and only goal, he specially designed every life form that had no connection with his goal. According to you, it is also a fact that Adler uses humans as proof of God’s existence, and does not even touch upon the above theory. And it is a fact that when asked to explain the logic of your theory, you have no idea, and have told me to go and ask God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 08, 2022, 14:50 (779 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.

dhw: I am not questioning your theism but your theory of evolution! History does not tell us the why of your God's creation of evolution. It is you who insist that the only “why” is to create humans plus food. And if you insist that his method of achieving his one and only goal was to perform countless acts of creation that had no connection with his one and only goal, it is patently absurd to claim that your theory is totally logical.

You completely ignore God creates history or doesn't He? We are left to interpret the facts. Adler and I believe we are the result against all natural odds. Adler uses the theory to obtain His proof of God. You are questioning one of the great philosophers of the 20th century.


Hummingbird torpor and sea spiders

dhw: What do you “accept”? You are proposing a theory about your God’s actions, and it doesn’t make sense. And I am complaining about your theory, not about your God’s actions!

DAVID: My theory is not a theory in this fact: I fully accept the history of evolution as God's doings with us as the current endpoint. Adler does exactly the same to make his argument, which is the significance of the "Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes".

dhw: It is a fact that you fully believe and keep repeating your illogical theory that humans plus food were your God’s one and only goal, but that in order to achieve his one and only goal, he specially designed every life form that had no connection with his goal. According to you, it is also a fact that Adler uses humans as proof of God’s existence, and does not even touch upon the above theory. And it is a fact that when asked to explain the logic of your theory, you have no idea, and have told me to go and ask God.

Same tired complaints. Adler described above does not fit your distorted view of him here. Adler based his argument on God especially evolving humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, February 09, 2022, 08:54 (779 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.

dhw: I am not questioning your theism but your theory of evolution! History does not tell us the why of your God's creation of evolution. It is you who insist that the only “why” is to create humans plus food. And if you insist that his method of achieving his one and only goal was to perform countless acts of creation that had no connection with his one and only goal, it is patently absurd to claim that your theory is totally logical.

DAVID: You completely ignore God creates history or doesn't He? We are left to interpret the facts. Adler and I believe we are the result against all natural odds. Adler uses the theory to obtain His proof of God. You are questioning one of the great philosophers of the 20th century.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. For the thousandth time, this dispute is not over the existence of God, but over your illogical belief that although your God’s one and only intention was to design humans plus food, he deliberately and individually designed countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans plus food.
There is no point in your constantly calling on Adler’s “proof of God” to defend this theory, which you yourself admit you cannot explain. The nearest you have come is to point out that efficient humans, if they have just one purpose, will try to achieve it directly, which suggests that they are more efficient than your "roundabout" God!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 09, 2022, 15:27 (778 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I follow simple logic. God created evolution and history tells us how He did it, not the why of His choice of method. Total logic to me. It is ridiculous to claim my theism is wrong just because I don't question God's choice of method.

dhw: I am not questioning your theism but your theory of evolution! History does not tell us the why of your God's creation of evolution. It is you who insist that the only “why” is to create humans plus food. And if you insist that his method of achieving his one and only goal was to perform countless acts of creation that had no connection with his one and only goal, it is patently absurd to claim that your theory is totally logical.

DAVID: You completely ignore God creates history or doesn't He? We are left to interpret the facts. Adler and I believe we are the result against all natural odds. Adler uses the theory to obtain His proof of God. You are questioning one of the great philosophers of the 20th century.

dhw: There are none so blind as those who will not see. For the thousandth time, this dispute is not over the existence of God, but over your illogical belief that although your God’s one and only intention was to design humans plus food, he deliberately and individually designed countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans plus food.
There is no point in your constantly calling on Adler’s “proof of God” to defend this theory, which you yourself admit you cannot explain. The nearest you have come is to point out that efficient humans, if they have just one purpose, will try to achieve it directly, which suggests that they are more efficient than your "roundabout" God!

There is nothing roundabout a God who does nothing but what He wishes to do. That is your blindness.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, February 10, 2022, 13:10 (777 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There are none so blind as those who will not see. For the thousandth time, this dispute is not over the existence of God, but over your illogical belief that bbbalthough your God’s one and only intention was to design humans plus food, he deliberately and individually designed countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans plus food.bbb
There is no point in your constantly calling on Adler’s “proof of God” to defend this theory, which you yourself admit you cannot explain. The nearest you have come is to point out that efficient humans, if they have just one purpose, will try to achieve it directly, which suggests that they are more efficient than your "roundabout" God!

DAVID: There is nothing roundabout a God who does nothing but what He wishes to do. That is your blindness.

I totally agree - apart from your idea of blindness! God would do what he wishes to do. And if he had only one purpose, then he would naturally focus on that one purpose, not devote himself to designing life forms which had no connection with that purpose. Hence YOUR description of his actions as “roundabout”, with the astonishing implication that we are more efficient than he is. You wrote:
I’ve given you my explanation which you refuse to accept, since God did it in a roundabout way over lots of time, in comparison to an efficient human approach who would have gotten it done straight away.”

You have said over and over again that you have no idea why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food, he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Why can’t you leave it at that?

Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true. Here’s another one:

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

A new Chinese find, early gills from 520 million years ago:

QUOTES: “'When it came to arthropods, however, we just weren’t sure where these gills came from.”
“Thanks to this new fossil, Erratus sperare, we now have a much clearer idea,” he added.
“'These gills also probably went on to evolve into the wings of insects and the lungs of terrestrial arthropods like spiders so were a very important innovation.'”

DAVID: These animals had to utilize oxygen somehow. This is probably the beginning.

You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response. What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps . You expect to find one fossil per link in the chain. It’s almost a miracle that we can find any fossils at all from 520 million years ago!

Cambrian explosion: A new study of a late branch
DAVID: Helps explain the steps in its evolution:
and
DAVID: please note lots of fossil samples are lying around waiting for further study to place them in the right order.

Yes, even those we have can yield more information about the steps, i.e. fill in the gaps.

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: These complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first.

dhw: For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

DAVID: Good summary.

dhw: So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

DAVID: It stays my full theory.

As with your theory that your God pursues his only purpose by not pursuing his only purpose, and you don’t know why but you won’t budge, here you agree that conditions must change before these new species can appear, but you stick to your theory that species appear before conditions change.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 10, 2022, 15:35 (777 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have said over and over again that you have no idea why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food, he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Why can’t you leave it at that?

Your blindness to God's choice of His method is my issue. We both picture the other as wrong. I'll leave it at that if you will also.


dhw: Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true. Here’s another one:

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

A new Chinese find, early gills from 520 million years ago:

QUOTES: “'When it came to arthropods, however, we just weren’t sure where these gills came from.”
“Thanks to this new fossil, Erratus sperare, we now have a much clearer idea,” he added.
“'These gills also probably went on to evolve into the wings of insects and the lungs of terrestrial arthropods like spiders so were a very important innovation.'”

DAVID: These animals had to utilize oxygen somehow. This is probably the beginning.

dhw: You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response.

The free oxygen had to come first. So God provided photosynthesis as a first evolutionary step. God anticipates His needs.

dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps. You expect to find one fossil per link in the chain. It’s almost a miracle that we can find any fossils at all from 520 million years ago!

Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45


Cambrian explosion: A new study of a late branch
DAVID: Helps explain the steps in its evolution:
and
DAVID: please note lots of fossil samples are lying around waiting for further study to place them in the right order.

dhw: Yes, even those we have can yield more information about the steps, i.e. fill in the gaps.

Only tiny steps in a fossil line. You simply wish along with Darwin. Not happened.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: These complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first.

dhw: For I don’t know how long, you have been touting the theory that your God designs species in advance of changing conditions. It would be gracious if you would now agree that speciation takes place IN RESPONSE to new conditions, and not in ANTICIPATION of them. I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the “cause”. You have agreed that the purpose of the changes which result in new species is to improve their chances of survival. But perhaps you simply mean the process by which the changes take place: Darwinists say random mutations, Shapiro says intelligent cells, and you say direct design by your God. Of the three, I favour Shapiro’s theory, bearing in mind that it allows for a possible God as the designer.

DAVID: Good summary.

dhw: So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

DAVID: It stays my full theory.

dhw: As with your theory that your God pursues his only purpose by not pursuing his only purpose, and you don’t know why but you won’t budge, here you agree that conditions must change before these new species can appear, but you stick to your theory that species appear before conditions change.

Your usual error. Not responding to new conditions, but preparing for new conditions or as in our brain handling new, never seen before uses.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, February 11, 2022, 13:14 (776 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have said over and over again that you have no idea why, if your God’s only purpose was to design humans plus food, he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. Why can’t you leave it at that?

DAVID: Your blindness to God's choice of His method is my issue. We both picture the other as wrong. I'll leave it at that if you will also.

It’s impossible to do so when in post after post you continue to refer directly or indirectly to your rigid belief that your God chose your “roundabout” method of achieving what you rigidly believe to have been his goal. Why am I “blind” if you can’t understand the illogical combination of purpose and method you impose on your God?

dhw: Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true. Here’s another one:

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

A new Chinese find, early gills from 520 million years ago:

DAVID: These animals had to utilize oxygen somehow. This is probably the beginning.

dhw: You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response.

DAVID: The free oxygen had to come first. So God provided photosynthesis as a first evolutionary step. God anticipates His needs.

You yourself are not sure to what extent your God manipulates the environmental changes – local and universal – but no matter what he “provides”, even in your theory, speciation only takes place AFTER conditions have changed. Or do you still believe that he changed legs to flippers BEFORE pre-whales entered the water?

dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps.

DAVID: Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45

What is the thread name, please? Or just give us a quote. Meanwhile, I can only repeat that it’s a miracle ANY fossils survive from hundreds of millions of years ago. And the more rapid the process of speciation (e.g. in times of major environmental changes), the fewer fossils there will be.

Cambrian explosion: A new study of a late branch

DAVID: Helps explain the steps in its evolution:
and
DAVID: please note lots of fossil samples are lying around waiting for further study to place them in the right order.

dhw: Yes, even those we have can yield more information about the steps.

DAVID: Only tiny steps in a fossil line. You simply wish along with Darwin. Not happened.

I don’t “wish”. I’m testing theories for their feasibility. Of course the absence of fossils is a problem for Darwin’s theory. The absence of your God is a problem for your own theory. If you can claim that design is evidence of your absent God, others can say that the known links between different species are evidence of absent life forms in the chain of common descent.

Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

DAVID: These complex animals could not exist without lots of oxygen prepared first.

[...]

dhw: So let’s hear no more of this theory of yours that speciation anticipates changing conditions, as opposed to responding to them.

DAVID: It stays my full theory.

dhw: As with your theory that your God pursues his only purpose by not pursuing his only purpose, and you don’t know why but you won’t budge, here you agree that conditions must change before these new species can appear, but you stick to your theory that species appear before conditions change.

DAVID: Your usual error. Not responding to new conditions, but preparing for new conditions or as in our brain handling new, never seen before uses.

What do you mean by “preparing” for new conditions? Once again, are you still saying that your God operated on prewhales to give them flippers to flap until it was time for them to enter the water? Or he gave a bunch of humans 200 cc worth of extra brain cells to lie around in their bigger skulls for a couple of hundred thousand years doing nothing?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, February 11, 2022, 15:22 (776 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your blindness to God's choice of His method is my issue. We both picture the other as wrong. I'll leave it at that if you will also.

dhw: It’s impossible to do so when in post after post you continue to refer directly or indirectly to your rigid belief that your God chose your “roundabout” method of achieving what you rigidly believe to have been his goal. Why am I “blind” if you can’t understand the illogical combination of purpose and method you impose on your God?

I'm sorry you are so illogical, while I will pursue my points. Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.


dhw: Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true.

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

dhw: You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response.

DAVID: The free oxygen had to come first. So God provided photosynthesis as a first evolutionary step. God anticipates His needs.

dhw: You yourself are not sure to what extent your God manipulates the environmental changes – local and universal – but no matter what he “provides”, even in your theory, speciation only takes place AFTER conditions have changed. Or do you still believe that he changed legs to flippers BEFORE pre-whales entered the water?

I would reason flippers appeared while mammals were paddling around in water.


dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps.

DAVID: Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45

dhw: What is the thread name, please? Or just give us a quote. Meanwhile, I can only repeat that it’s a miracle ANY fossils survive from hundreds of millions of years ago. And the more rapid the process of speciation (e.g. in times of major environmental changes), the fewer fossils there will be.

Pure wishful thinking. Bechly points out the real facts you are ignoring to protect your pet rigid approaches: Early in exploration many fossils are found, filling gaps, but at a later point less and less are found to fill continuity until paleontologists recognize a gap exists. Think Gould's point.


Mass extinctions relate to volcanos

dhw: As with your theory that your God pursues his only purpose by not pursuing his only purpose, and you don’t know why but you won’t budge, here you agree that conditions must change before these new species can appear, but you stick to your theory that species appear before conditions change.

DAVID: Your usual error. Not responding to new conditions, but preparing for new conditions or as in our brain handling new, never seen before uses.

dhw:What do you mean by “preparing” for new conditions? Once again, are you still saying that your God operated on prewhales to give them flippers to flap until it was time for them to enter the water? Or he gave a bunch of humans 200 cc worth of extra brain cells to lie around in their bigger skulls for a couple of hundred thousand years doing nothing?

Those extra neurons ae doing a lot more now than 315,000 years ago.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, February 12, 2022, 07:47 (776 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your blindness to God's choice of His method is my issue. We both picture the other as wrong. I'll leave it at that if you will also.

dhw: It’s impossible to do so when in post after post [see today's "More Miscellany"] you continue to refer directly or indirectly to your rigid belief that your God chose your “roundabout” method of achieving what you rigidly believe to have been his goal. Why am I “blind” if you can’t understand the illogical combination of purpose and method you impose on your God?

DAVID: I'm sorry you are so illogical, while I will pursue my points. Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. This has even led you to the conclusion that we humans are more efficient than your God when it comes to the fulfilment of a single purpose. I wonder how many supporters you will find in the scientific and the religious communities.

dhw: Another illogical part of your theory is the claim that speciation takes place IN ANTICIPATION of changing conditions. You have, however, proceeded to give us plenty of examples that show the converse is true.

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

dhw: You’ve got it. Oxygen first, innovations in response.

DAVID: The free oxygen had to come first. So God provided photosynthesis as a first evolutionary step. God anticipates His needs.

dhw: You yourself are not sure to what extent your God manipulates the environmental changes – local and universal – but no matter what he “provides”, even in your theory, speciation only takes place AFTER conditions have changed. Or do you still believe that he changed legs to flippers BEFORE pre-whales entered the water?

DAVID: I would reason flippers appeared while mammals were paddling around in water.

At least your God didn’t leave them stranded on the shore waiting for the water to arrive. But to be frank, I would have thought the legs would have turned into flippers when pre-whales actually swam in the water. Paddling only requires legs, not flippers, and it is clear from all the examples you have given that bodies change IN RESPONSE to new conditions, not in anticipation of them.

dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps.

DAVID: Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45

dhw: What is the thread name, please? Or just give us a quote. Meanwhile, I can only repeat that it’s a miracle ANY fossils survive from hundreds of millions of years ago. And the more rapid the process of speciation (e.g. in times of major environmental changes), the fewer fossils there will be.

DAVID: Pure wishful thinking. Bechly points out the real facts you are ignoring to protect your pet rigid approaches: Early in exploration many fossils are found, filling gaps, but at a later point less and less are found to fill continuity until paleontologists recognize a gap exists. Think Gould's point.

I find this perfectly reasonable. The last thing I would expect is continuity from hundreds of millions of years ago. That really would be wishful thinking. But the explicable gaps in the fossil record can hardly be called evidence that your equally absent God popped in to perform countless operations on countless organisms, or equipped the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every species plus natural wonder etc. in the whole history of life. Absence of evidence proves nothing (see Bertrand Russell’s teapot orbiting the sun), and so we can only speculate on what seems reasonable or logical, given the facts we do have at our disposal. And I don’t think it’s unnatural for us humans to base beliefs on what seems logical to us (e.g. the design argument for your God's existence) rather than to assume that God – if he exists – must think illogically by our standards.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 12, 2022, 16:27 (775 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm sorry you are so illogical, while I will pursue my points. Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

dhw: And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. This has even led you to the conclusion that we humans are more efficient than your God when it comes to the fulfilment of a single purpose. I wonder how many supporters you will find in the scientific and the religious communities.

I am describing how you view God as a human. That doesn't mean I view Him that way. Your full misinterpretation of my point shows your hardened bias. I've bolded above to show you what you slid by. I am not you.

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

DAVID: I would reason flippers appeared while mammals were paddling around in water.

dhw: At least your God didn’t leave them stranded on the shore waiting for the water to arrive. But to be frank, I would have thought the legs would have turned into flippers when pre-whales actually swam in the water. Paddling only requires legs, not flippers, and it is clear from all the examples you have given that bodies change IN RESPONSE to new conditions, not in anticipation of them.

The anatomic changes from paddling legs to flippers require enormous redesign. You skip over how bodies are changed.


dhw: What’s more, new finds are being made all the time, and some of them fill in gaps.

DAVID: Findings now fill only minor skips in specific individual lines. See Bechly entry on fossil finding reaching endpoints. (Wednesday, January 01, 2020, 18:23 & 2020-07-08, 22:45

dhw: What is the thread name, please? Or just give us a quote. Meanwhile, I can only repeat that it’s a miracle ANY fossils survive from hundreds of millions of years ago. And the more rapid the process of speciation (e.g. in times of major environmental changes), the fewer fossils there will be.

DAVID: Pure wishful thinking. Bechly points out the real facts you are ignoring to protect your pet rigid approaches: Early in exploration many fossils are found, filling gaps, but at a later point less and less are found to fill continuity until paleontologists recognize a gap exists. Think Gould's point.

dhw: I find this perfectly reasonable. The last thing I would expect is continuity from hundreds of millions of years ago. That really would be wishful thinking. But the explicable gaps in the fossil record can hardly be called evidence that your equally absent God popped in to perform countless operations on countless organisms, or equipped the first cells with a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for every species plus natural wonder etc. in the whole history of life. Absence of evidence proves nothing (see Bertrand Russell’s teapot orbiting the sun), and so we can only speculate on what seems reasonable or logical, given the facts we do have at our disposal. And I don’t think it’s unnatural for us humans to base beliefs on what seems logical to us (e.g. the design argument for your God's existence) rather than to assume that God – if he exists – must think illogically by our standards.

It's your God's standards that are eschew, not mine. See above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, February 13, 2022, 12:10 (774 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

dhw: And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. […]

DAVID: I am describing how you view God as a human. That doesn't mean I view Him that way. Your full misinterpretation of my point shows your hardened bias. I've bolded above to show you what you slid by. I am not you.

I’m sorry, but since you can find no logical reason why your God would pursue his only goal in such a “roundabout” way (your word) but he is “not required to be humanly logical”, I assume you agree that your theory has him acting in a way you as a human being regard as illogical. Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe a theory that I as a human being find logical than one which goes against all my human reason.

dhw (re absence of fossils): Absence of evidence proves nothing (see Bertrand Russell’s teapot orbiting the sun), and so we can only speculate on what seems reasonable or logical, given the facts [..]. And I don’t think it’s unnatural for us humans to base beliefs on what seems logical to us (e.g. the design argument for your God's existence) rather than to assume that God – if he exists – must think illogically by our standards.

DAVID: It's your God's standards that are eschew, not mine.

It is you who do not require human logic when defending a theory that makes your God behave illogically by your standards and mine.

Oxygen and the Cambrian: gills appeared

DAVID: I would reason flippers appeared while mammals were paddling around in water.

dhw: [...] I would have thought the legs would have turned into flippers when pre-whales actually swam in the water. Paddling only requires legs, not flippers, and it is clear from all the examples you have given that bodies change IN RESPONSE to new conditions, not in anticipation of them.

DAVID: The anatomic changes from paddling legs to flippers require enormous redesign. You skip over how bodies are changed.

Nobody knows how bodies are changed. That’s why we have different theories: e.g. your God performing operations on groups of individuals in anticipation of changing conditions, or cell communities using their intelligence (perhaps designed by your God) to work out how best to respond to changing conditions. But I would suggest that bodies changing in response to new conditions is infinitely more likely than bodies changing in anticipation of new conditions.

Anticipation of use
A paywalled article offers support for this view in its abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01656-0

QUOTE: [..] However, persistent life-habit evolution throughout the early Palaeozoic, combined with iterative functional convergence within adaptive strategies, results in major expansion of ecospace and functional diversity. The interactions between tempo, divergence and convergence demonstrate not only that anatomical novelty precedes ecological success, but also that ecological innovation is constrained, even during a phylum’s origin. (David's bold)

DAVID: This clearly states that new organisms arise and then adapt to their environments. It clearly states morphology first, adaptive functions later. Assuming a designer at work, he is obviously assuming anticipation of future use.

You can’t have adaptation before you have a body to adapt! You agree that the Cambrian innovations appeared AFTER the increase in oxygen. Once life forms exist, they “expand their ecospace” and adapt to different environments. If your God exists, he will have designed the mechanisms enabling life forms to adapt to different environments or to exploit them through innovation. Back to our favourite example: The pre-whale – I suggest to you – was not given flippers before it entered the water, but legs changed into flippers and there were various other changes IN RESPONSE to the pre-whale’s new way of life in a different environment. The same process would apply to ALL species: first the changing conditions, then the new species (constrained by those conditions), and then expansion of “eco-space”, adaptations and functional diversity. Always in response, never in anticipation.

DAVID (under “More Miscellany”): Don't you believe evolution is stepwise?

Yes.

DAVID: Doesn't a new stage appear built on the past?

Yes.

DAVID: Humans are a result of all those past stages, aren't they?

dhw: No. Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 13, 2022, 15:20 (774 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

dhw: And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. […]

DAVID: I am describing how you view God as a human. That doesn't mean I view Him that way. Your full misinterpretation of my point shows your hardened bias. I've bolded above to show you what you slid by. I am not you.

dhw: Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe a theory that I as a human being find logical than one which goes against all my human reason.

Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God".


dhw And I don’t think it’s unnatural for us humans to base beliefs on what seems logical to us (e.g. the design argument for your God's existence) rather than to assume that God – if he exists – must think illogically by our standards.[/i]

DAVID: It's your God's standards that are eschew, not mine.

dhw: It is you who do not require human logic when defending a theory that makes your God behave illogically by your standards and mine.

Not mine!!


Anticipation of use
A paywalled article offers support for this view in its abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01656-0

QUOTE: [..] However, persistent life-habit evolution throughout the early Palaeozoic, combined with iterative functional convergence within adaptive strategies, results in major expansion of ecospace and functional diversity. The interactions between tempo, divergence and convergence demonstrate not only that anatomical novelty precedes ecological success, but also that ecological innovation is constrained, even during a phylum’s origin. (David's bold)

DAVID: This clearly states that new organisms arise and then adapt to their environments. It clearly states morphology first, adaptive functions later. Assuming a designer at work, he is obviously assuming anticipation of future use.

dhw: You can’t have adaptation before you have a body to adapt! You agree that the Cambrian innovations appeared AFTER the increase in oxygen. Once life forms exist, they “expand their ecospace” and adapt to different environments. If your God exists, he will have designed the mechanisms enabling life forms to adapt to different environments or to exploit them through innovation. Back to our favourite example: The pre-whale – I suggest to you – was not given flippers before it entered the water, but legs changed into flippers and there were various other changes IN RESPONSE to the pre-whale’s new way of life in a different environment. The same process would apply to ALL species: first the changing conditions, then the new species (constrained by those conditions), and then expansion of “eco-space”, adaptations and functional diversity. Always in response, never in anticipation.

The adaptations in the whole whale series requires intense design. How can a whale deep dive without having the phenotypic changes to do that from the whale's beginning? Flippers are minor engineering/design in comparison. The whole whale series defies your theories.


dhw: No. Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, February 14, 2022, 08:53 (774 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your reasoning about God's actions is purely from a 'what a thinking human would logically do'. God is not required to be humanly logical.

dhw: And so your ultimate defence of your illogical theory is that you are firmly convinced that your God would act in a way which you as a human being would regard as illogical. […]

DAVID: I am describing how you view God as a human. That doesn't mean I view Him that way. Your full misinterpretation of my point shows your hardened bias. I've bolded above to show you what you slid by. I am not you.

dhw: Personally, I’d be more inclined to believe a theory that I as a human being find logical than one which goes against all my human reason.

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God".

Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”. I can only repeat that I’m more inclined to believe a theory that makes sense to me than one that requires the theorist himself to abandon the human logic which leads him to believe in God (design theory - one up for human logic) but also leads him to give up trying to understand his own theory (one down for human logic).

Anticipation of use
A paywalled article offers support for this view in its abstract:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-021-01656-0

QUOTE: [..] However, persistent life-habit evolution throughout the early Palaeozoic, combined with iterative functional convergence within adaptive strategies, results in major expansion of ecospace and functional diversity. The interactions between tempo, divergence and convergence demonstrate not only that anatomical novelty precedes ecological success, but also that ecological innovation is constrained, even during a phylum’s origin. (David's bold)

DAVID: This clearly states that new organisms arise and then adapt to their environments. It clearly states morphology first, adaptive functions later. Assuming a designer at work, he is obviously assuming anticipation of future use.

dhw: You can’t have adaptation before you have a body to adapt! You agree that the Cambrian innovations appeared AFTER the increase in oxygen. Once life forms exist, they “expand their ecospace” and adapt to different environments. If your God exists, he will have designed the mechanisms enabling life forms to adapt to different environments or to exploit them through innovation. Back to our favourite example: The pre-whale – I suggest to you – was not given flippers before it entered the water, but legs changed into flippers and there were various other changes IN RESPONSE to the pre-whale’s new way of life in a different environment. The same process would apply to ALL species: first the changing conditions, then the new species (constrained by those conditions), and then expansion of “eco-space”, adaptations and functional diversity. Always in response, never in anticipation.

DAVID: The adaptations in the whole whale series requires intense design. How can a whale deep dive without having the phenotypic changes to do that from the whale's beginning?

It can’t deep dive from the very beginning! Only when it begins to attempt deep diving will the cells adapt to the new requirements. Just as legs won’t turn into flippers until the pre-whale lives in the water. What is your theory? Did God pop in one night and operate on a few whales to engineer the “phenotypic changes”, and they woke up next morning realizing that now, yippee, they could go deep diving?

dhw: Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

DAVID: Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

Yes, humans evolved in their own line. Thank you for echoing my response to the absurd notion that ALL lines and ALL food bushes were designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, although most of them had no connection with humans and their food!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, February 14, 2022, 16:26 (773 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God".

dhw: I can only repeat that I’m more inclined to believe a theory that makes sense to me than one that requires the theorist himself to abandon the human logic which leads him to believe in God (design theory - one up for human logic) but also leads him to give up trying to understand his own theory (one down for human logic).

I understand my theory perfectly. You simply refuse to accept it as rational, but that means you don't understand a person can rationally accept faith in God and what He does is correct.


Anticipation of use

DAVID: The adaptations in the whole whale series requires intense design. How can a whale deep dive without having the phenotypic changes to do that from the whale's beginning?

dhw: It can’t deep dive from the very beginning! Only when it begins to attempt deep diving will the cells adapt to the new requirements. Just as legs won’t turn into flippers until the pre-whale lives in the water. What is your theory? Did God pop in one night and operate on a few whales to engineer the “phenotypic changes”, and they woke up next morning realizing that now, yippee, they could go deep diving?

My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent


dhw: Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

DAVID: Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

dhw: Yes, humans evolved in their own line. Thank you for echoing my response to the absurd notion that ALL lines and ALL food bushes were designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, although most of them had no connection with humans and their food!

All I accept is God ran evolution properly to fill all requirements, one of which is enough food for all.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 08:09 (773 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God"

dhw: Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”. .

Unfortunately, you seem to have missed this reply to the above.

dhw: I can only repeat that I’m more inclined to believe a theory that makes sense to me than one that requires the theorist himself to abandon the human logic which leads him to believe in God (design theory - one up for human logic) but also leads him to give up trying to understand his own theory (one down for human logic).

DAVID: I understand my theory perfectly. You simply refuse to accept it as rational, but that means you don't understand a person can rationally accept faith in God and what He does is correct.

You have no idea why your God, whose one and only purpose apparently was to design humans plus their food, proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans and their food, you renounce human logic, tell me to ask God, and elsewhere tell us you “can simply accept it as necessary, and more research will tell us why”. You don’t know why, and yet you say you “understand your theory perfectly”!

Anticipation of use

DAVID: The adaptations in the whole whale series requires intense design. How can a whale deep dive without having the phenotypic changes to do that from the whale's beginning?

dhw: It can’t deep dive from the very beginning! Only when it begins to attempt deep diving will the cells adapt to the new requirements. Just as legs won’t turn into flippers until the pre-whale lives in the water. What is your theory? Did God pop in one night and operate on a few whales to engineer the “phenotypic changes”, and they woke up next morning realizing that now, yippee, they could go deep diving?

DAVID: My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent.

I have a strong suspicion that since childhood you may have occasionally come out from under the water. I’m afraid sneering at alternative theories (cellular intelligence is only one of them) does not make your own theory any the more credible. Is my above version of your theory correct? Or do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for deep diving phenotypic changes, along with the rest of the “whale series”, along with every other species and natural wonder for the rest of time? Please give a straight answer.

dhw: Humans are the result of one line or branch of past stages, not “all”. Thousands of other branches led to thousands of other life forms, most of which never had any connection with humans or with our food. Hence the illogicality of your theory […]

DAVID: The connection is the huge requirement for a food supply. You admit it must exist and then try to diminish its importance. All the ecosystems layer one upon the next to support the need for consuming energy.

dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

DAVID: Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

dhw: Yes, humans evolved in their own line. Thank you for echoing my response to the absurd notion that ALL lines and ALL food bushes were designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, although most of them had no connection with humans and their food!

DAVID: All I accept is God ran evolution properly to fill all requirements, one of which is enough food for all.

What you “accept” is your own theory, which is illogical by human standards, but which apparently you “understand perfectly”, although you have no idea why he would have done what you think he did in order to achieve what you think was his purpose, but more research will tell us why.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 15, 2022, 15:40 (772 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God"

dhw: Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”. .

dhw: Unfortunately, you seem to have missed this reply to the above.

Not to insult you, these oft repeated quotes you find are, as usual, out of context since they are guesses you asked for. God is logical in His own way. We can try to compare ourselves to God, but Adler's characterization applies..


dhw: I can only repeat that I’m more inclined to believe a theory that makes sense to me than one that requires the theorist himself to abandon the human logic which leads him to believe in God (design theory - one up for human logic) but also leads him to give up trying to understand his own theory (one down for human logic).

DAVID: I understand my theory perfectly. You simply refuse to accept it as rational, but that means you don't understand a person can rationally accept faith in God and what He does is correct.

You have no idea why your God, whose one and only purpose apparently was to design humans plus their food, proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans and their food, you renounce human logic, tell me to ask God, and elsewhere tell us you “can simply accept it as necessary, and more research will tell us why”. You don’t know why, and yet you say you “understand your theory perfectly”!

You miss the fact I accept God does what He wanted to do. Logical. He obviously wanted us.


Anticipation of use

DAVID: My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent.

dhw: I have a strong suspicion that since childhood you may have occasionally come out from under the water. I’m afraid sneering at alternative theories (cellular intelligence is only one of them) does not make your own theory any the more credible. Is my above version of your theory correct? Or do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for deep diving phenotypic changes...Please give a straight answer.

You know I believe God speciates. I had to come up for air, so how did the early aquatic pre-whales change? In your view, the animals kept trying until their brainless cells designed a system.


dhw: The fact that ALL life forms need food does not prove that humans are the result of ALL past stages of ALL life forms and econiches in the history of life, including ALL those that had no connection with humans!!!!!

DAVID: Humans need food not connections to all the bush. Humans evolved in their line didn't they?

dhw: Yes, humans evolved in their own line. Thank you for echoing my response to the absurd notion that ALL lines and ALL food bushes were designed as “part of the goal of evolving humans” and their food, although most of them had no connection with humans and their food!

DAVID: All I accept is God ran evolution properly to fill all requirements, one of which is enough food for all.

dhw: What you “accept” is your own theory, which is illogical by human standards, but which apparently you “understand perfectly”, although you have no idea why he would have done what you think he did in order to achieve what you think was his purpose, but more research will tell us why.

My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 11:16 (771 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you wish God to be humanly logical. How is that logical? To quote Adler, God is a personage like no other person from "How to Think about God"

dhw: Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”.

DAVID: Not to insult you, these oft repeated quotes you find are, as usual, out of context since they are guesses you asked for. God is logical in His own way. We can try to compare ourselves to God, but Adler's characterization applies.

Not to insult you, but there is no possible context in which you can change the meaning of those words! Nobody can force you to say that you think something is “probable” and you are “sure of something”!

dhw: You have no idea why your God, whose one and only purpose apparently was to design humans plus their food, proceeded to design countless forms of life and food that had no connection with humans and their food, you renounce human logic, tell me to ask God, and elsewhere tell us you “can simply accept it as necessary, and more research will tell us why”. You don’t know why, and yet you say you “understand your theory perfectly”!

DAVID: You miss the fact I accept God does what He wanted to do. Logical. He obviously wanted us.

Anyone who believes in God is bound to believe that he does what he wants to do. If he wanted a free-for-all, he got a free-for-all. If he wanted to design us, then he designed us. But unfortunately, according to your theory, he also designed every other life form, food, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, which means he wanted them ALL, and that contradicts your theory that his one and only aim was to design us and our food. You can’t explain it, and that is why your only recourse now is to turn your back on logic.

DAVID (later in this post:) My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

Do ID-ers tell us that humans plus food were God’s one and only purpose, and so he individually designed lots of life forms that had no connection with humans plus food? If so, how do THEY explain the “logic”?

Anticipation of use

DAVID: My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent.

dhw: I have a strong suspicion that since childhood you may have occasionally come out from under the water. I’m afraid sneering at alternative theories (cellular intelligence is only one of them) does not make your own theory any the more credible. Is my above version of your theory correct? Or do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for deep diving phenotypic changes?...Please give a straight answer.

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates. I had to come up for air, so how did the early aquatic pre-whales change? In your view, the animals kept trying until their brainless cells designed a system.

Yes, I propose that the cell communities adapted to their new living conditions by making the necessary changes. And yes, you believe God speciates. I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 16, 2022, 15:14 (771 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not to insult you, these oft repeated quotes you find are, as usual, out of context since they are guesses you asked for. God is logical in His own way. We can try to compare ourselves to God, but Adler's characterization applies.

dhw: Not to insult you, but there is no possible context in which you can change the meaning of those words! Nobody can force you to say that you think something is “probable” and you are “sure of something”!

My guesses about God have generally been after you request them.

DAVID: You miss the fact I accept God does what He wanted to do. Logical. He obviously wanted us.

dhw: Anyone who believes in God is bound to believe that he does what he wants to do. If he wanted a free-for-all, he got a free-for-all. If he wanted to design us, then he designed us. But unfortunately, according to your theory, he also designed every other life form, food, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, which means he wanted them ALL, and that contradicts your theory that his one and only aim was to design us and our food. You can’t explain it, and that is why your only recourse now is to turn your back on logic.

You have created the 'one and only aim' distortion which I view as totally illogical. Humans as a desired endpoint of God's designed evolution is a reasonable observation. After all humans finally appeared at what looks like an endpoint


DAVID (later in this post:) My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

dhw: Do ID-ers tell us that humans plus food were God’s one and only purpose, and so he individually designed lots of life forms that had no connection with humans plus food? If so, how do THEY explain the “logic”?

They insist everything in reality is designed by a mind.


Anticipation of use

DAVID: My usual response: God makes species by design. I've been swimming under water since childhood, no gills have appeared. Your faith in cell capacity for speciation is sheer phantasy, based on extreme extrapolation of the real fact, cells act as if intelligent.

dhw: I have a strong suspicion that since childhood you may have occasionally come out from under the water. I’m afraid sneering at alternative theories (cellular intelligence is only one of them) does not make your own theory any the more credible. Is my above version of your theory correct? Or do you think that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided the first cells with a programme for deep diving phenotypic changes?...Please give a straight answer.

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates. I had to come up for air, so how did the early aquatic pre-whales change? In your view, the animals kept trying until their brainless cells designed a system.

dhw: Yes, I propose that the cell communities adapted to their new living conditions by making the necessary changes. And yes, you believe God speciates. I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

Your facetious question has no answer. I have proposed an early program and dabbling as probabilities but in reality, I have no idea. Design requires a designing mind.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, February 17, 2022, 11:32 (770 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Nobody could possibly imagine that a God who creates a universe and life is just like any “other person”! But calling him a “personage” (another word for person) is in perfect keeping with your own belief that “He and we probably have similar thought patterns and emotions beyond just simple logic”, and “All we can be sure of is logic on his part”, and the fact that you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”. [...]

DAVID: My guesses about God have generally been after you request them.

Even if I requested them, what would have stopped you from saying your God had no thought patterns, emotions or logic similar to ours, and you are sure that his logic is different from ours, and you are sure that we don’t mimic him in any ways at all? Is it not perfectly reasonable to believe that if God created us, he would not have created thought patterns, emotions and logic he knew nothing about?

DAVID: You miss the fact I accept God does what He wanted to do. Logical. He obviously wanted us.

dhw: Anyone who believes in God is bound to believe that he does what he wants to do. If he wanted a free-for-all, he got a free-for-all. If he wanted to design us, then he designed us. But unfortunately, according to your theory, he also designed every other life form, food, econiche, natural wonder etc. in the history of life, which means he wanted them ALL, and that contradicts your theory that his one and only aim was to design us and our food. You can’t explain it, and that is why your only recourse now is to turn your back on logic.

DAVID: You have created the 'one and only aim' distortion which I view as totally illogical. Humans as a desired endpoint of God's designed evolution is a reasonable observation. After all humans finally appeared at what looks like an endpoint.

This dispute has rumbled on for years precisely because you have insisted over and over again that we were his one and only purpose, and every life form etc. was “part of the goal of evolving humans”. You introduced “endpoint” a little while ago, though even here you say “a” instead of “the”. I am happy to accept the reasonableness of the theory that your God, if he exists, might have wanted to create a being who would admire his work and perhaps even form a relationship with him (two of your other proposals), though it’s difficult to see how that would be possible if we didn’t have thought patterns etc. similar to his. And since apparently humans were not his only purpose after all, I also find it reasonable to suppose, as you have done, that he would enjoy creation and be interested in what he creates, which would explain why he created the vast variety of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID (later in this post:) My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

dhw: Do ID-ers tell us that humans plus food were God’s one and only purpose, and so he individually designed lots of life forms that had no connection with humans plus food? If so, how do THEY explain the “logic”?

DAVID: They insist everything in reality is designed by a mind.

That does not answer my question. But now that you have withdrawn your theory that humans were his one and only purpose, we can move on to other theories anyway.

Anticipation of use

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates.

dhw: […] I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

DAVID: Your facetious question has no answer. I have proposed an early program and dabbling as probabilities but in reality, I have no idea. Design requires a designing mind.

It’s not facetious! Those are the only two “possibilities” you have offered: preprogramming or dabbling. The very fact that you regard the above as “facetious” shows just how unlikely your two methods appear even to you! Good. If those two theories are too absurd for you to regard as anything but facetious, maybe you should consider other possibilities. Are you now ready to do so?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 17, 2022, 15:33 (770 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My guesses about God have generally been after you request them.

dhw: Is it not perfectly reasonable to believe that if God created us, he would not have created thought patterns, emotions and logic he knew nothing about?

God knew we would have emotions, thoughts and logic, but we cannot be sure how similar they are to His.

DAVID: You have created the 'one and only aim' distortion which I view as totally illogical. Humans as a desired endpoint of God's designed evolution is a reasonable observation. After all humans finally appeared at what looks like an endpoint.

dhw: I am happy to accept the reasonableness of the theory that your God, if he exists, might have wanted to create a being who would admire his work and perhaps even form a relationship with him (two of your other proposals), though it’s difficult to see how that would be possible if we didn’t have thought patterns etc. similar to his. And since apparently humans were not his only purpose after all, I also find it reasonable to suppose, as you have done, that he would enjoy creation and be interested in what he creates, which would explain why he created the vast variety of life forms etc. that had no connection with humans. Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.


DAVID (later in this post:) My theory is illogical only by your individual standards. I'm with the group ID who are human also.

dhw: Do ID-ers tell us that humans plus food were God’s one and only purpose, and so he individually designed lots of life forms that had no connection with humans plus food? If so, how do THEY explain the “logic”?

DAVID: They insist everything in reality is designed by a mind.

That does not answer my question. But now that you have withdrawn your theory that humans were his one and only purpose, we can move on to other theories anyway.

Anticipation of use

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates.

dhw: […] I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

DAVID: Your facetious question has no answer. I have proposed an early program and dabbling as probabilities but in reality, I have no idea. Design requires a designing mind.

dhw: It’s not facetious! Those are the only two “possibilities” you have offered: preprogramming or dabbling. The very fact that you regard the above as “facetious” shows just how unlikely your two methods appear even to you! Good. If those two theories are too absurd for you to regard as anything but facetious, maybe you should consider other possibilities. Are you now ready to do so?

If you accept as I do that God engineered evolution, note I've entered articles about early preparation of the genome, one such this week. Thus pre-programming and dabbling are probable valid ways God acted.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, February 18, 2022, 11:33 (769 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Is it not perfectly reasonable to believe that if God created us, he would not have created thought patterns, emotions and logic he knew nothing about?

DAVID: God knew we would have emotions, thoughts and logic, but we cannot be sure how similar they are to His.

We cannot even be sure that he exists, but these discussions centre on his possible nature, purposes and methods if he does exist. I find it hard to conceive of a God who creates a being with emotions, thoughts and logic he himself never experienced. In particular, I’m interested in your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And now that at last we have rid ourselves of your theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, we can consider other possible purposes.

dhw: Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID: Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.

This is good news. At a stroke, we have settled a dispute that has gone on for years. Truly a red-letter day in the history of the Agnostic Web. Still assuming the existence of your God, we can now move on to discussing how he might have handled evolution.

Anticipation of use

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates.

dhw: […] I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please answer.

DAVID: Your facetious question has no answer. I have proposed an early program and dabbling as probabilities but in reality, I have no idea. Design requires a designing mind.

dhw: It’s not facetious! Those are the only two “possibilities” you have offered: preprogramming or dabbling. The very fact that you regard the above as “facetious” shows just how unlikely your two methods appear even to you! Good. If those two theories are too absurd for you to regard as anything but facetious, maybe you should consider other possibilities. Are you now ready to do so?

DAVID: If you accept as I do that God engineered evolution, note I've entered articles about early preparation of the genome, one such this week. Thus pre-programming and dabbling are probable valid ways God acted.

As above, I’m accepting God’s existence for the sake of our discussions on the possible nature, purposes, methods etc. of a possible God. I would certainly accept that he would have “engineered” evolution in the sense that he created the mechanisms which enabled evolution to take place. The question we are discussing here is HOW evolution took place. If by “preparation” of the genome you mean that he provided the first cells with the mechanisms required for all the developments we know have taken place throughout life’s history, I would regard that as an extremely reasonable theory. However, you insist that he individually designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. Hence the above questions concerning the 3.8-billion-year-old programme or the constant flow of individual operations on individual organisms – theories which are so far-fetched that you regard my questions as “facetious”! This suggests that these two theories don’t make sense even to you. (Further discussion on other threads.)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, February 18, 2022, 16:28 (769 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God knew we would have emotions, thoughts and logic, but we cannot be sure how similar they are to His.

dhw: We cannot even be sure that he exists, but these discussions centre on his possible nature, purposes and methods if he does exist. I find it hard to conceive of a God who creates a being with emotions, thoughts and logic he himself never experienced. In particular, I’m interested in your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And now that at last we have rid ourselves of your theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, we can consider other possible purposes.

God is not like us. You agree, so any speculations about His personality and how He may or may not experience emotions is just that. Of course He knows our emotions. Of course He is logical. He could not be otherwise.


dhw: Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID: Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.

dhw: This is good news. At a stroke, we have settled a dispute that has gone on for years. Truly a red-letter day in the history of the Agnostic Web. Still assuming the existence of your God, we can now move on to discussing how he might have handled evolution.

We have had many discussion about evolution. God designs as He wishes to advance hi purposes.


Anticipation of use

DAVID: You know I believe God speciates.


DAVID: If you accept as I do that God engineered evolution, note I've entered articles about early preparation of the genome, one such this week. Thus pre-programming and dabbling are probable valid ways God acted.

dhw: As above, I’m accepting God’s existence for the sake of our discussions on the possible nature, purposes, methods etc. of a possible God. I would certainly accept that he would have “engineered” evolution in the sense that he created the mechanisms which enabled evolution to take place. The question we are discussing here is HOW evolution took place. If by “preparation” of the genome you mean that he provided the first cells with the mechanisms required for all the developments we know have taken place throughout life’s history, I would regard that as an extremely reasonable theory. However, you insist that he individually designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. Hence the above questions concerning the 3.8-billion-year-old programme or the constant flow of individual operations on individual organisms – theories which are so far-fetched that you regard my questions as “facetious”! This suggests that these two theories don’t make sense even to you.

I would not invent nonsense theories after concluding initially God speciates. Pre-programming and dabbling are reasonable thoughts.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, February 19, 2022, 07:13 (769 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God knew we would have emotions, thoughts and logic, but we cannot be sure how similar they are to His.

dhw: We cannot even be sure that he exists, but these discussions centre on his possible nature, purposes and methods if he does exist. I find it hard to conceive of a God who creates a being with emotions, thoughts and logic he himself never experienced. In particular, I’m interested in your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And now that at last we have rid ourselves of your theory that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, we can consider other possible purposes.

DAVID: God is not like us. You agree, so any speculations about His personality and how He may or may not experience emotions is just that. Of course He knows our emotions. Of course He is logical. He could not be otherwise.

Even God’s existence is a speculation, let alone his nature and purposes. But since he is logical, and since you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, I have offered the following:
dhw: Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID: Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.

dhw: This is good news. At a stroke, we have settled a dispute that has gone on for years. Truly a red-letter day in the history of the Agnostic Web. Still assuming the existence of your God, we can now move on to discussing how he might have handled evolution.

DAVID: We have had many discussion about evolution. God designs as He wishes to advance his purposes.

Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution. I will come back another time to my own alternatives (already well known to you), but first I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...
dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”?

Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 19, 2022, 15:53 (768 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God is not like us. You agree, so any speculations about His personality and how He may or may not experience emotions is just that. Of course He knows our emotions. Of course He is logical. He could not be otherwise.

Even God’s existence is a speculation, let alone his nature and purposes. But since he is logical, and since you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, I have offered the following:
dhw: Indeed his purpose right from the start might have been to create an ever-changing world of life which he could watch with interest – the most interesting of all being human beings. Perhaps we are heading towards a theistic theory that makes sense?

DAVID: Now you make sense. You have repeated my guesses about God and His purposes with humans as an endpoint.

dhw: This is good news. At a stroke, we have settled a dispute that has gone on for years. Truly a red-letter day in the history of the Agnostic Web. Still assuming the existence of your God, we can now move on to discussing how he might have handled evolution.

DAVID: We have had many discussion about evolution. God designs as He wishes to advance His purposes.

dhw: Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution. I will come back another time to my own alternatives (already well known to you), but first I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...
dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”?

dhw: Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

Absolutely facetious. I've repeated told you I can see early pre-programming and later making changes (dabbling) as necessary probabilities. How God speciates through His programming of the genome is not known! The point remains simple: God as the designer programs however He does it!

Note the bolded sections in your description of our 'agreement'. God does not create to produce enjoyment for Himself as a primary purpose. It is a secondary effect.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, February 20, 2022, 07:59 (768 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God designs as He wishes to advance His purposes.

dhw: Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution.

DAVID: Note the bolded sections in your description of our 'agreement'. God does not create to produce enjoyment for Himself as a primary purpose. It is a secondary effect.

At least we are now making a little bit of headway – a purpose is a purpose - but I wish you wouldn’t make such authoritative statements on your God’s behalf. You have no more direct access to him (if he exists) than I have. Now please tell us what you think is his primary purpose for creating the whole bush of life, including humans.

dhw: […] I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...
dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

DAVID: Absolutely facetious. I've repeated told you I can see early How God speciates through His programming of the genome is not known! The point remains simple: God as the designer programs however He does it!pre-programming and later making changes (dabbling) as necessary probabilities.

The necessary “phenotypic changes” were made. You see early programming for whales’ deep-sea diving as one possibility, and individual dabbling as the other, but you dismiss as “facetious” the theories of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep sea diving or of your God performing some kind of operation on a group of whales. (Newly inserted ad hoc programmes would of course also be a form of dabbling operation requiring interference with the existing genome.) How else can you programme without programming, or dabble without dabbling?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 20, 2022, 15:47 (767 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God designs as He wishes to advance His purposes.

dhw: Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution.

DAVID: Note the bolded sections in your description of our 'agreement'. God does not create to produce enjoyment for Himself as a primary purpose. It is a secondary effect.

dhw: At least we are now making a little bit of headway – a purpose is a purpose - but I wish you wouldn’t make such authoritative statements on your God’s behalf. You have no more direct access to him (if he exists) than I have. Now please tell us what you think is his primary purpose for creating the whole bush of life, including humans.

God didn't tell me. My point above is God selflessly creates, with no regard to affecting His emotions as He goes about His business of fulfilling His planned events. You agree neither of us has direct access. Respect that fact as we hypothesize.


dhw: […] I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...
dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

DAVID: Absolutely facetious. I've repeated told you I can see early How God speciates through His programming of the genome is not known! The point remains simple: God as the designer programs however He does it pre-programming and later making changes (dabbling) as necessary probabilities.

dhw: The necessary “phenotypic changes” were made. You see early programming for whales’ deep-sea diving as one possibility, and individual dabbling as the other, but you dismiss as “facetious” the theories of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep sea diving or of your God performing some kind of operation on a group of whales. (Newly inserted ad hoc programmes would of course also be a form of dabbling operation requiring interference with the existing genome.) How else can you programme without programming, or dabble without dabbling?

Exactly! See today's article on seemingly directed mutation in the 'Nature Journal' study. I still see a designer at work.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, February 21, 2022, 11:23 (766 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God designs as He wishes to advance His purposes.

dhw: Agreed. And now that we have plural purposes instead of just one, and it makes sense to you that he might have created life because he enjoyed creating something he could be interested in, and it also makes sense to you that your God is logical and may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, we can examine different theistic theories to explain the course of evolution.

DAVID: Note the bolded sections in your description of our 'agreement'. God does not create to produce enjoyment for Himself as a primary purpose. It is a secondary effect.

dhw: At least we are now making a little bit of headway – a purpose is a purpose - but I wish you wouldn’t make such authoritative statements on your God’s behalf. You have no more direct access to him (if he exists) than I have. Now please tell us what you think is his primary purpose for creating the whole bush of life, including humans.

DAVID: God didn't tell me. My point above is God selflessly creates, with no regard to affecting His emotions as He goes about His business of fulfilling His planned events. You agree neither of us has direct access. Respect that fact as we hypothesize.

Your God hasn’t told anyone anything, so how do you know that he creates selflessly, and his enjoyment and interest are only secondary, though you can’t even guess at a primary purpose? If he exists, you are sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. So until you can come up with a “primary” purpose, we can settle for that as a possible purpose for all his actions.

dhw: […] I’d like to go back to your two theories of preprogramming and dabbling. I’m not dismissing them, but, taking one of our favourite examples...

dhw: I asked you how you think he did it. Specifically: did he provide the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with a programme for whales’ deep sea diving, or did he pop in one night and perform an operation on a few whales to engineer the necessary “phenotypic changes”? Please explain why you consider this question to be “facetious”.

DAVID: Absolutely facetious. I've repeated told you I can see early How God speciates through His programming of the genome is not known! The point remains simple: God as the designer programs however He does it pre-programming and later making changes (dabbling) as necessary probabilities.

dhw: The necessary “phenotypic changes” were made. You see early programming for whales’ deep-sea diving as one possibility, and individual dabbling as the other, but you dismiss as “facetious” the theories of a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep sea diving or of your God performing some kind of operation on a group of whales. (Newly inserted ad hoc programmes would of course also be a form of dabbling operation requiring interference with the existing genome.) How else can you programme without programming, or dabble without dabbling?

DAVID:Exactly! See today's article on seemingly directed mutation in the 'Nature Journal' study. I still see a designer at work.

So the answer to my question whether you believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep-sea diving, or individual operations of some kind on a group of whales, is no longer that the question is facetious, but yes, that is what you believe in, far-fetched though it may seem. Today’s article on random mutations merely reiterates the point that you and I agreed on 14 years ago when this website first opened – namely, that we do not accept random mutations as a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. An alternative which you simply refuse to consider is that if your God exists, he might have endowed cells with the ability to do their own designing. Sorry if that slipped your memory.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, February 21, 2022, 14:34 (766 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: At least we are now making a little bit of headway – a purpose is a purpose - but I wish you wouldn’t make such authoritative statements on your God’s behalf. You have no more direct access to him (if he exists) than I have. Now please tell us what you think is his primary purpose for creating the whole bush of life, including humans.

DAVID: God didn't tell me. My point above is God selflessly creates, with no regard to affecting His emotions as He goes about His business of fulfilling His planned events. You agree neither of us has direct access. Respect that fact as we hypothesize.

dhw: Your God hasn’t told anyone anything, so how do you know that he creates selflessly, and his enjoyment and interest are only secondary, though you can’t even guess at a primary purpose? If he exists, you are sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. So until you can come up with a “primary” purpose, we can settle for that as a possible purpose for all his actions.

Your comment raises the obvious point that if you don't accept selflessly, why do you then accept enjoys and interested? We view God totally differently. As for primary purpose, He created this reality and evolved life to an endpoint of humans. I think that shows purpose enough.


DAVID: See today's article on seemingly directed mutation in the 'Nature Journal' study. I still see a designer at work.

dhw: So the answer to my question whether you believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep-sea diving, or individual operations of some kind on a group of whales, is no longer that the question is facetious, but yes, that is what you believe in, far-fetched though it may seem. Today’s article on random mutations merely reiterates the point that you and I agreed on 14 years ago when this website first opened – namely, that we do not accept random mutations as a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. An alternative which you simply refuse to consider is that if your God exists, he might have endowed cells with the ability to do their own designing. Sorry if that slipped your memory.

I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, February 22, 2022, 08:45 (766 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your God hasn’t told anyone anything, so how do you know that he creates selflessly, and his enjoyment and interest are only secondary, though you can’t even guess at a primary purpose? If he exists, you are sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. So until you can come up with a “primary” purpose, we can settle for that as a possible purpose for all his actions.

DAVID: Your comment raises the obvious point that if you don't accept selflessly, why do you then accept enjoys and interested? We view God totally differently.

I have simply followed up your own certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have no idea how one can enjoy and be interested “selflessly”, and three days ago, when I proposed that this might have been his purpose (with humans as the most interesting of his creations), you wrote “now you make sense”, but the following day you reduced his enjoyment and interest to a “secondary effect” and not a primary purpose, although you didn’t know what the primary purpose might be. Today, once again you have changed your tune:

DAVID: As for primary purpose, He created this reality and evolved life to an endpoint of humans. I think that shows purpose enough.

An endpoint does not have to be a purpose, let alone a purpose from the very beginning, and the fact that ours is the last species so far does not explain why he specially designed all the life forms, natural wonders etc. that preceded us and had no connection with us. You seem to be backtracking to the bad old days when you maintained that humans and their food were his one and only purpose and all other life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food, though you accused me of distorting your theory. (See also “More miscellany”, where you say it was all “in preparation for humans”.) Crunch question: Do you or do you not accept that if he specially designed all other life forms, natural wonders etc., then humans and their food could not have been his one and only purpose in creating life?

DAVID: See today's article on seemingly directed mutation in the 'Nature Journal' study. I still see a designer at work.

dhw: So the answer to my question whether you believe in a 3.8-billion-year-old programme for deep-sea diving, or individual operations of some kind on a group of whales, is no longer that the question is facetious, but yes, that is what you believe in, far-fetched though it may seem. Today’s article on random mutations merely reiterates the point that you and I agreed on 14 years ago when this website first opened – namely, that we do not accept random mutations as a reasonable explanation for the evolution of species. An alternative which you simply refuse to consider is that if your God exists, he might have endowed cells with the ability to do their own designing. Sorry if that slipped your memory.

DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

I propose it as one of several possibilities. Your analogy is way off target, and still provides no defence of a theory which is so far-fetched that when I asked if that was what you believed, you dismissed my question as facetious. I don’t know whether you or anyone else will be interested in a writer’s creative process, but in brief: some writers do plan their works in advance, but others, like me, begin with an idea, and do not know how it will develop. I am frequently astonished at developments that take place as the characters take over the story, and although of course I can dabble, that is usually an unwise thing to do. So far, do you see the possible parallels with your God’s possible creative process? I can also make revisions retrospectively, which God can’t do, but – and this has happened to me a few times – I can also bin the work (the equivalent, I suppose of your God deciding to stage an extinction). For me, this sometimes (rarely) happens if I can actually see what’s coming, and then I lose interest. It’s the constant thrill of discovery that keeps me writing. I am the God in your analogy, and the characters are the cells. I write because I love writing (if things go well), and I am fascinated by the surprising developments I have set in motion. Of course I hope that my work will please others, but in the first instance, I write to please myself.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 22, 2022, 16:00 (765 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your comment raises the obvious point that if you don't accept selflessly, why do you then accept enjoys and interested? We view God totally differently.

dhw: I have simply followed up your own certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have no idea how one can enjoy and be interested “selflessly”, and three days ago, when I proposed that this might have been his purpose (with humans as the most interesting of his creations), you wrote “now you make sense”,

My problem with some of your statements is they are couched in slightly different meanings to distort a point I've made. So I step back to correct it.

dhw: but the following day you reduced his enjoyment and interest to a “secondary effect” and not a primary purpose, although you didn’t know what the primary purpose might be. Today, once again you have changed your tune:

DAVID: As for primary purpose, He created this reality and evolved life to an endpoint of humans. I think that shows purpose enough.

dhw: An endpoint does not have to be a purpose, let alone a purpose from the very beginning, and the fact that ours is the last species so far does not explain why he specially designed all the life forms, natural wonders etc. that preceded us and had no connection with us. You seem to be backtracking to the bad old days when you maintained that humans and their food were his one and only purpose and all other life forms were “part of the goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food, though you accused me of distorting your theory. (See also “More miscellany”, where you say it was all “in preparation for humans”.) Crunch question: Do you or do you not accept that if he specially designed all other life forms, natural wonders etc., then humans and their food could not have been his one and only purpose in creating life?

Crunch question again a twisted distortion. A start: endpoint can be a purpose, obviously as a real interpretation. And God's simple choice of a mechanism resembling what we call evolution to create humans is shown by accepting history as God's doing. Try it on. I continue to view humans as a desired endpoint, the argument Adler used. Other life forms were necessary secondary creations, as steps to humans and food supply for all, since life requires continuous energy supply .


DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

dhw: I propose it as one of several possibilities. Your analogy is way off target, and still provides no defence of a theory which is so far-fetched that when I asked if that was what you believed, you dismissed my question as facetious. I don’t know whether you or anyone else will be interested in a writer’s creative process, but in brief: some writers do plan their works in advance, but others, like me, begin with an idea, and do not know how it will develop. I am frequently astonished at developments that take place as the characters take over the story, and although of course I can dabble, that is usually an unwise thing to do. So far, do you see the possible parallels with your God’s possible creative process? I can also make revisions retrospectively, which God can’t do, but – and this has happened to me a few times – I can also bin the work (the equivalent, I suppose of your God deciding to stage an extinction). For me, this sometimes (rarely) happens if I can actually see what’s coming, and then I lose interest. It’s the constant thrill of discovery that keeps me writing. I am the God in your analogy, and the characters are the cells. I write because I love writing (if things go well), and I am fascinated by the surprising developments I have set in motion. Of course I hope that my work will please others, but in the first instance, I write to please myself.

The short answer is dhw is a sole designer, nothing secondhand. My point is proven .

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 11:46 (764 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your comment raises the obvious point that if you don't accept selflessly, why do you then accept enjoys and interested? We view God totally differently.

dhw: I have simply followed up your own certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have no idea how one can enjoy and be interested “selflessly”, and three days ago, when I proposed that this might have been his purpose (with humans as the most interesting of his creations), you wrote “now you make sense”.

DAVID: My problem with some of your statements is they are couched in slightly different meanings to distort a point I've made. So I step back to correct it.

There is nothing to correct in statements to the effect that you are sure your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; you have not explained how enjoyment and interest can be “selfless”; you agree that humans would be the most interesting to watch; and the only “correction” you made was when you decided that your God's enjoyment and interest were a “secondary effect” and not a “primary purpose”. You didn’t know what the primary purpose was, but later decided that “evolving life to an endpoint of humans” was “purpose enough”, which takes us straight back to square one and the illogicality of your theory of evolution, in which your God individually designs countless life forms etc. that have no connection with humans in order to design humans.

dhw: Crunch question: Do you or do you not accept that if he specially designed all other life forms, natural wonders etc., then humans and their food could not have been his one and only purpose in creating life?

NB You now proceed to avoid answering a perfectly straightforward question!

DAVID: Crunch question again a twisted distortion. A start: endpoint can be a purpose, obviously as a real interpretation.

What do you mean by a “real interpretation”? What is unreal about the statement that we are currently the last known species? Why do you regard the illogical interpretation bolded above as being “real”?

DAVID: And God's simple choice of a mechanism resembling what we call evolution to create humans is shown by accepting history as God's doing.

The mechanisms of evolution have produced a vast variety of life forms which include humans and their food plus countless life forms that had no connection with humans and their food. That is the history, whether there is or isn’t a God, and whether God did or didn’t design every life form.

DAVID: I continue to view humans as a desired endpoint, the argument Adler used. Other life forms were necessary secondary creations, as steps to humans and food supply for all, since life requires continuous energy supply.

How can you possibly argue that every single extinct life form was a “step to humans”. “Food supply for all” simply means that all life forms have to eat – it does not mean that every life form was “part of the evolution of humans” and their food. A few days ago you claimed that “one and only purpose” was a distortion of your views, but now you are back to equating “current endpoint” with purpose, and all other life forms as “steps to humans”!

Should I now take it, then, that you find it logical that your God specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design humans and their food?


DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

I explained my creative process, which entails starting with an idea, not knowing where this will lead, but embarking on a voyage of discovery as the characters and story develop of their own accord – in exactly the same way as your God might have started with an idea, and then allowed history to take its own course.

DAVID: The short answer is dhw is a sole designer, nothing secondhand. My point is proven.

“Secondhand” is meaningless. The question is how the process works. I am the sole designer of the initial idea which sparks a series of new ideas which I do not anticipate or control, although I can always dabble if I want to (but usually don’t). This can be seen as an analogy to your God designing the initial idea, and then allowing history to develop its own paths, though he can always dabble if he wants to. Thank you for providing such a vivid analogy in support of my theory.;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 23, 2022, 15:39 (764 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My problem with some of your statements is they are couched in slightly different meanings to distort a point I've made. So I step back to correct it.

dhw: There is nothing to correct in statements to the effect that you are sure your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; you have not explained how enjoyment and interest can be “selfless”; you agree that humans would be the most interesting to watch; and the only “correction” you made was when you decided that your God's enjoyment and interest were a “secondary effect” and not a “primary purpose”. You didn’t know what the primary purpose was, but later decided that “evolving life to an endpoint of humans” was “purpose enough”, which takes us straight back to square one and the illogicality of your theory of evolution, in which your God individually designs countless life forms etc. that have no connection with humans in order to design humans.

I have always thought your prime objection to God's method of creating humans by evolving them was totally illogical. I accept that God, as the Creator produced the history we know. Obviously you don't. Adler could not have made his case for God accepting your objections.


DAVID: I continue to view humans as a desired endpoint, the argument Adler used. Other life forms were necessary secondary creations, as steps to humans and food supply for all, since life requires continuous energy supply.

dhw: How can you possibly argue that every single extinct life form was a “step to humans”. “Food supply for all” simply means that all life forms have to eat – it does not mean that every life form was “part of the evolution of humans” and their food. A few days ago you claimed that “one and only purpose” was a distortion of your views, but now you are back to equating “current endpoint” with purpose, and all other life forms as “steps to humans”!

dhw: Should I now take it, then, that you find it logical that your God specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design humans and their food?

I've never changed that view. We tried a softening compromise of verbiage but I guess it failed. The connection is to view evolution as a continuous process from Archaea to us. For you it is obviously illogically discontinuous.


DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

dhw: I explained my creative process, which entails starting with an idea, not knowing where this will lead, but embarking on a voyage of discovery as the characters and story develop of their own accord – in exactly the same way as your God might have started with an idea, and then allowed history to take its own course.

DAVID: The short answer is dhw is a sole designer, nothing secondhand. My point is proven.

dhw: “Secondhand” is meaningless. The question is how the process works. I am the sole designer of the initial idea which sparks a series of new ideas which I do not anticipate or control, although I can always dabble if I want to (but usually don’t). This can be seen as an analogy to your God designing the initial idea, and then allowing history to develop its own paths, though he can always dabble if he wants to. Thank you for providing such a vivid analogy in support of my theory.;-)

You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 11:42 (763 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have always thought your prime objection to God's method of creating humans by evolving them was totally illogical. I accept that God, as the Creator produced the history we know. Obviously you don't. Adler could not have made his case for God accepting your objections.

When defending your theory, you have always left out one or other of the two parts that make it illogical. I have no objection whatsoever to the belief that humans, like every other life form, are the product of evolution. And if God exists, I have no objection to the claim that he produced the history we know. The objection – as if you didn’t know it - is to your rigid belief that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, and so he individually designed every extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, solution to problems, and natural wonder “in preparation” for us, although the vast majority of extinct life forms etc. had no connection with us. When asked to explain this obvious illogicality, you can’t, and you advise me to ask God.

dhw: Should I now take it, then, that you find it logical that your God specially designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design humans and their food?

DAVID: I've never changed that view. We tried a softening compromise of verbiage but I guess it failed. The connection is to view evolution as a continuous process from Archaea to us. For you it is obviously illogically discontinuous.

Another silly dodge. Evolution is a continuous process from Archaea to every branch of life, including us and including countless extinct life forms that had no connection with us, thereby rendering absurd the argument that every life form was “part of the goal of evolving humans.”

DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

You have tried to draw an analogy between your God’s creative process and mine. I have accepted the analogy, which fits in perfectly with the concept of a God who begins with an idea and allows it to develop itself of its own accord. So what do you do next? You reject your own analogy!

DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 24, 2022, 15:21 (763 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have always thought your prime objection to God's method of creating humans by evolving them was totally illogical. I accept that God, as the Creator produced the history we know. Obviously you don't. Adler could not have made his case for God accepting your objections.

dhw: When defending your theory, you have always left out one or other of the two parts that make it illogical. I have no objection whatsoever to the belief that humans, like every other life form, are the product of evolution. And if God exists, I have no objection to the claim that he produced the history we know. The objection – as if you didn’t know it - is to your rigid belief that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, and so he individually designed every extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, solution to problems, and natural wonder “in preparation” for us, although the vast majority of extinct life forms etc. had no connection with us. When asked to explain this obvious illogicality, you can’t, and you advise me to ask God.

Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there. Just accept God chose to evolve humans from Archaea and your weird complaint goes away. You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe ion.


DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

dhw: You have tried to draw an analogy between your God’s creative process and mine. I have accepted the analogy, which fits in perfectly with the concept of a God who begins with an idea and allows it to develop itself of its own accord. So what do you do next? You reject your own analogy!

Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.


DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

dhw: What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, February 25, 2022, 11:02 (762 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have always thought your prime objection to God's method of creating humans by evolving them was totally illogical. I accept that God, as the Creator produced the history we know. Obviously you don't. […]

dhw: When defending your theory, you have always left out one or other of the two parts that make it illogical. I have no objection whatsoever to the belief that humans, like every other life form, are the product of evolution. And if God exists, I have no objection to the claim that he produced the history we know. The objection – as if you didn’t know it - is to your rigid belief that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, and so he individually designed every extinct life form, econiche, lifestyle, solution to problems, and natural wonder “in preparation” for us, although the vast majority of extinct life forms etc. had no connection with us. When asked to explain this obvious illogicality, you can’t, and you advise me to ask God.

DAVID: Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there.

This is getting ridiculous. That is YOUR view! It is you who claim that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, and so he separately designed all those organisms that had no connection with us!

DAVID: Just accept God chose to evolve humans from Archaea and your weird complaint goes away.

You mean that I should forget about all the other life forms which you claim were “part of the goal of evolving humans” even though they obviously weren’t!

DAVID: You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe in.

How many goals? You keep confirming your view that all your God’s creations were “in preparation for humans”. The alternative theistic versions that I have offered all show a purposeful God working towards his goal(s).

DAVID: I never forget that you accept a weird theory that true designers hand off their work to secondhand sources. How many substitutes wrote your novels or plays?

dhw: You have tried to draw an analogy between your God’s creative process and mine. I have accepted the analogy, which fits in perfectly with the concept of a God who begins with an idea and allows it to develop itself of its own accord. So what do you do next? You reject your own analogy!

DAVID: Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.

And you have totally missed the point, which is that I create a situation in which ideas produce new ideas which constantly surprise me because – although I may dabble if I wish – I do NOT control the behaviour of the characters once the story gets underway. I “watch them with interest” (but record what they do and say).

DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

dhw: What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, February 25, 2022, 15:27 (762 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there.

dhw: This is getting ridiculous. That is YOUR view! It is you who claim that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, and so he separately designed all those organisms that had no connection with us!

'One and only purpose' is your overemphasized version of my views. Adler relies on humans as an endpoint. Nothing wrong with it. All the other organisms are steps in evolution and food supply for all.

DAVID: You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe in.

dhw: How many goals? You keep confirming your view that all your God’s creations were “in preparation for humans”. The alternative theistic versions that I have offered all show a purposeful God working towards his goal(s).

Name your god's goals.


DAVID: Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.

dhw: And you have totally missed the point, which is that I create a situation in which ideas produce new ideas which constantly surprise me because – although I may dabble if I wish – I do NOT control the behaviour of the characters once the story gets underway. I “watch them with interest” (but record what they do and say).

Substituting your self-God version of writing control does not answer my objection to your views of your God-imagination process. My God view is well known. He works toward His established goals.


DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

dhw: What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

dhw: You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists. The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, February 26, 2022, 07:30 (762 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Back to your tunnel-visioned God who could only see future humans, but stopped along the way to produce everything else instead before finally getting there.

dhw: This is getting ridiculous. That is YOUR view! It is you who claim that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, and so he separately designed all those organisms that had no connection with us!

DAVID: 'One and only purpose' is your overemphasized version of my views. Adler relies on humans as an endpoint. Nothing wrong with it. All the other organisms are steps in evolution and food supply for all.

All the other organisms that were not connected with humans were obviously steps in evolution if you believe in evolution, and obviously all organisms require and provide food. If, for the second time, you now definitively agree that NOT all past life forms, foods, econiches, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc. were “in preparation for humans” and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” or, in other words, were your God’s one and only purpose, then we can end this discussion.

DAVID: You just don't see a purposeful God who works toward His goals. Oh, I forgot, your humanized God isn't the God I believe in.

dhw: How many goals? As above, do you now definitively withdraw your theory that all your God’s creations were “in preparation for humans”? The alternative theistic versions that I have offered all show a purposeful God working towards his goal(s).

DAVID: Name your god's goals

I have named them umpteen times! They are ALTERNATIVE THEORIES, though some are interrelated, and you have acknowledged that they all fit in logically with life’s history, but you reject them all because they suggest thought patterns and logic that your God might have passed on to us, although you agree that your God might have passed thought patterns and logic on to us:
1) To enjoy creation and to provide interesting things to watch.
2) To set in motion an unpredictable process which he does not control and which will be more interesting to watch than one he controls (free-for-all).
3) Your constantly repeated one and only goal, which you have now twice renounced: experimenting in order to create a being that might resemble himself and form a relationship with him. (You have inadvertently accepted experimentation under “biggest bacterium”.)
4) In the course of 1), constantly coming up with new ideas, and eventually hitting on 3) which becomes a new goal, as opposed to being the one and only goal from the beginning.

DAVID: Your way of creation of plays and books remains you in total control. That is my only point.

dhw: And you have totally missed the point, which is that I create a situation in which ideas produce new ideas which constantly surprise me because – although I may dabble if I wish – I do NOT control the behaviour of the characters once the story gets underway. I “watch them with interest” (but record what they do and say).

DAVID: Substituting your self-God version of writing control does not answer my objection to your views of your God-imagination process. My God view is well known. He works toward His established goals.

It was you who tried to draw an analogy between my writing process and your God’s creative process. If he exists, then of course he works towards his established goals, but nobody knows what they are. The analogy, however, fits perfectly if his “established goals” are to enjoy what he is creating – as I do- and if he gets enjoyment from setting the creative process in motion and then allowing it to follow its own course instead of trying to push it in a predetermined direction.

DAVID: You do not resemble God's purposeful activities. Your fault is seeing God in your inventive mind as acting as you do. I see god as using my design methods, fulfilling a recognized needed solution/purpose.

dhw: It was you who tried to draw the analogy! It’s not my fault if you got it wrong! What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

dhw: You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

Evolution is split into unrelated branches, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans. Hence the absurdity of claiming that they were all “in preparation for humans “ and were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, unless of course you now opt for theory (3) above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 26, 2022, 15:48 (761 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 'One and only purpose' is your overemphasized version of my views. Adler relies on humans as an endpoint. Nothing wrong with it. All the other organisms are steps in evolution and food supply for all.

dhw: All the other organisms that were not connected with humans were obviously steps in evolution if you believe in evolution, and obviously all organisms require and provide food. If, for the second time, you now definitively agree that NOT all past life forms, foods, econiches, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc. were “in preparation for humans” and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” or, in other words, were your God’s one and only purpose, then we can end this discussion.

Of course we arrived from a specific line of a single branch, but all the branches that surround us provide the food. I am using the giant bush process of evolution as a whole.


DAVID: Name your god's goals

dhw: I have named them umpteen times! ...
1) To enjoy creation and to provide interesting things to watch.
2) To set in motion an unpredictable process which he does not control and which will be more interesting to watch than one he controls (free-for-all).
3) Your constantly repeated one and only goal, which you have now twice renounced: experimenting in order to create a being that might resemble himself and form a relationship with him. (You have inadvertently accepted experimentation under “biggest bacterium”.)
4) In the course of 1), constantly coming up with new ideas, and eventually hitting on 3) which becomes a new goal, as opposed to being the one and only goal from the beginning.

Counter: 1)& 2) God does not need interesting things to watch. Humans need that.
3) God does not need experimentation to reach His endpoint purposes. (I did allow the minor point that the biggest bacterium was a possible side attempt to try)
4) God has all the desires to create He needs from the beginning. He doesn't come up with new ideas. Only humans do that.

Conclusion: You have made God totally human, as usual.


DAVID: Substituting your self-God version of writing control does not answer my objection to your views of your God-imagination process. My God view is well known. He works toward His established goals.

dhw: It was you who tried to draw an analogy between my writing process and your God’s creative process. If he exists, then of course he works towards his established goals, but nobody knows what they are. The analogy, however, fits perfectly if his “established goals” are to enjoy what he is creating – as I do- and if he gets enjoyment from setting the creative process in motion and then allowing it to follow its own course instead of trying to push it in a predetermined direction.

I was discussing only design method! You've added your human needs and again applied them to God, again making my humanizing point..


dhw: It was you who tried to draw the analogy! It’s not my fault if you got it wrong! What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

dhw: You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

Please do remember, Adler accepted evolution as God's method to reach humans. He never discussed how God did it, as beside the point. I am the one who separately is trying to explain the nitty-gritty of how God did it. Explained in the past


DAVID: The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

dhw: Evolution is split into unrelated branches, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans. Hence the absurdity of claiming that they were all “in preparation for humans “ and were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, unless of course you now opt for theory (3) above.

I have accepted paragraph two above as stated, and continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process..

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, February 27, 2022, 08:35 (761 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 'One and only purpose' is your overemphasized version of my views. Adler relies on humans as an endpoint. Nothing wrong with it. All the other organisms are steps in evolution and food supply for all.

dhw: All the other organisms that were not connected with humans were obviously steps in evolution if you believe in evolution, and obviously all organisms require and provide food. If, for the second time, you now definitively agree that NOT all past life forms, foods, econiches, lifestyles, solutions, natural wonders etc. were “in preparation for humans” and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” or, in other words, were your God’s one and only purpose, then we can end this discussion.

DAVID: Of course we arrived from a specific line of a single branch, but all the branches that surround us provide the food. I am using the giant bush process of evolution as a whole.

No you are not .You have told us that all the giant bushes that preceded ours were meant as “preparation” for us and our bush and were part of “the goal” of evolving humans and our food. If you now wish to change that theory, then please stop “beating about the bush” and say so.

DAVID: Name your god's goals

dhw: I have named them umpteen times! ...
1) To enjoy creation and to provide interesting things to watch.
2) To set in motion an unpredictable process which he does not control and which will be more interesting to watch than one he controls (free-for-all).
3) Your constantly repeated one and only goal, which you have now twice renounced: experimenting in order to create a being that might resemble himself and form a relationship with him. (You have inadvertently accepted experimentation under “biggest bacterium”.)
4) In the course of 1), constantly coming up with new ideas, and eventually hitting on 3) which becomes a new goal, as opposed to being the one and only goal from the beginning.

DAVID: Counter: 1)& 2) God does not need interesting things to watch. Humans need that.
3) God does not need experimentation to reach His endpoint purposes. (I did allow the minor point that the biggest bacterium was a possible side attempt to try)
4) God has all the desires to create He needs from the beginning. He doesn't come up with new ideas. Only humans do that.
Conclusion: You have made God totally human, as usual.

Conclusion: Although you agree that your God probably endowed us with thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his (a perfectly understandable thing to do, since a creator would hardly create thought patterns and emotions he knew nothing about), you have closed your mind to any alternative theistic theory that might explain the history of life as we know it. You are convinced that you know how your God’s mind works, although you have no idea why he would adopt the method you impose on him in order to fulfil the purpose you impose on him.

dhw: What in your eyes is the solution/purpose of all the extinct life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and who has the authority to recognize it?

DAVID: Adler.

dhw: You have left out the purpose. According to you, Adler is concerned with proving your God’s existence and does NOT cover your illogical theory of evolution. Besides, when did Adler acquire the authority to tell the rest of us what we must “recognize”?

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: Please do remember, Adler accepted evolution as God's method to reach humans. He never discussed how God did it, as beside the point. I am the one who separately is trying to explain the nitty-gritty of how God did it. Explained in the past.

Explained in the past by telling me to ask God why he used the illogical method you have imposed on him in order to fulfil the one and only purpose you have imposed on him.

DAVID: The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

dhw: Evolution is split into unrelated branches, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans. Hence the absurdity of claiming that they were all “in preparation for humans “ and were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, unless of course you now opt for theory (3) above.

DAVID: I have accepted paragraph two above as stated, and continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 27, 2022, 15:32 (760 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course we arrived from a specific line of a single branch, but all the branches that surround us provide the food. I am using the giant bush process of evolution as a whole.

dhw: No you are not .You have told us that all the giant bushes that preceded ours were meant as “preparation” for us and our bush and were part of “the goal” of evolving humans and our food. If you now wish to change that theory, then please stop “beating about the bush” and say so.

The bold is exactly what I believe, and it expresses evolution as a progressive whole from its beginning.


DAVID: Name your god's goals

DAVID: Counter: 1)& 2) God does not need interesting things to watch. Humans need that.
3) God does not need experimentation to reach His endpoint purposes. (I did allow the minor point that the biggest bacterium was a possible side attempt to try)
4) God has all the desires to create He needs from the beginning. He doesn't come up with new ideas. Only humans do that.
Conclusion: You have made God totally human, as usual.

dhw: Conclusion: Although you agree that your God probably endowed us with thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his (a perfectly understandable thing to do, since a creator would hardly create thought patterns and emotions he knew nothing about), you have closed your mind to any alternative theistic theory that might explain the history of life as we know it. You are convinced that you know how your God’s mind works, although you have no idea why he would adopt the method you impose on him in order to fulfil the purpose you impose on him.

You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.


DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: Please do remember, Adler accepted evolution as God's method to reach humans. He never discussed how God did it, as beside the point. I am the one who separately is trying to explain the nitty-gritty of how God did it. Explained in the past.

dhw: Explained in the past by telling me to ask God why he used the illogical method you have imposed on him in order to fulfil the one and only purpose you have imposed on him.

My comments explained Adler to undo your confusion about him. Your answer is confused or a deliberate sidestep.


DAVID: The history of evolution is the same for all of us, except for you who splits it into unrelated segments.

dhw: Evolution is split into unrelated branches, and the vast majority of these had no connection with humans. Hence the absurdity of claiming that they were all “in preparation for humans “ and were all “part of the goal of evolving humans”, unless of course you now opt for theory (3) above.

DAVID: I have accepted paragraph two above as stated, and continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, February 28, 2022, 11:03 (759 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course we arrived from a specific line of a single branch, but all the branches that surround us provide the food. I am using the giant bush process of evolution as a whole.

dhw: No you are not .You have told us that all the giant bushes that preceded ours were meant as “preparation” for us and our bush and were part of “the goal” of evolving humans and our food. If you now wish to change that theory, then please stop “beating about the bush” and say so.

DAVID: The bold is exactly what I believe, and it expresses evolution as a progressive whole from its beginning.

On 16 Feb you criticized me: “You have created the ‘one and only aim’ distortion which I view as totally illogical”. Last week you wrote: “’One and only purpose’ is your overemphasized version of my views.” Week after week, you admit that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed countless life forms and foods “in preparation” for humans plus food, as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although the vast majority had no connection with humans plus food. What have I distorted or overemphasized if this is exactly what you believe? And since you cannot explain the logic behind this combination of theories, why do you continue to close your mind to alternatives which you agree are logical?

You asked me to list the alternatives, and I offered you four different theories.

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about, and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a creator would project part of himself into what he creates. Shared thought patterns do not, however, mean that a God who can create a universe and life must be human, which is the “distortion” and “overemphasis” that you imply in your efforts to undermine alternative theories which you regard as logical.

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: Please do remember, Adler accepted evolution as God's method to reach humans. He never discussed how God did it, as beside the point. I am the one who separately is trying to explain the nitty-gritty of how God did it. Explained in the past.

dhw: Explained in the past by telling me to ask God why he used the illogical method you have imposed on him in order to fulfil the one and only purpose you have imposed on him.

DAVID: My comments explained Adler to undo your confusion about him. Your answer is confused or a deliberate sidestep.

You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, February 28, 2022, 16:16 (759 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

dhw: You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about,

Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

dhw: and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a creator would project part of himself into what he creates. Shared thought patterns do not, however, mean that a God who can create a universe and life must be human, which is the “distortion” and “overemphasis” that you imply in your efforts to undermine alternative theories which you regard as logical.

Distorting again. Putting Himself into this universe is logical. The way you describe how He decides to do what He does is based on giving him human thoughts on your part.


DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

Please read the above again! My theory is not involved but Adler's philosophic point is quite clear. God produced humans


DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

dhw: Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

What is the evolution of humans but exactly what you decry? Still slicing evolution into disconnected parts.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 06:50 (759 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

dhw: You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about... [DAVID's bold}

DAVID: Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

You have taken this out of its context, which is thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

dhw: ...and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a creator would project part of himself into what he creates. Shared thought patterns do not, however, mean that a God who can create a universe and life must be human, which is the “distortion” and “overemphasis” that you imply in your efforts to undermine alternative theories which you regard as logical.

DAVID: Distorting again. Putting Himself into this universe is logical. The way you describe how He decides to do what He does is based on giving him human thoughts on your part.

Yes, all my alternatives entail giving him thoughts in common with those of humans. But that does not make him into a human being! You keep agreeing that he probably shares thought patterns with us, but the moment I introduce a thought pattern he may share with us, you moan that I am “humanizing” him. At the same time you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you tell us he is too kind to wish us harm when he designs nasty bacteria and viruses, and when pressed, you even speculate that he might want us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. These are all patterns of thought and emotions which he could easily have in common with us, but they don’t mean he is human!

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

DAVID: Please read the above again! My theory is not involved but Adler's philosophic point is quite clear. God produced humans

The whole point is that your theory is not involved, so why do you constantly bring Adler in on a discussion which exposes the illogicality of your theory?

DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

dhw: Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: What is the evolution of humans but exactly what you decry? Still slicing evolution into disconnected parts.

How can the evolution of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans have been a “preparation” for humans, and “part of the goal” of evolving humans? Evolution developed into disconnected branches, of which you agree humans are just one. You admit that you can’t answer the question, you tell me to ask God, so how long are you going to go on pretending that your theory makes sense?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 01, 2022, 15:01 (758 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

dhw: You have taken this out of its context, which is thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

Of course not


DAVID: Putting Himself into this universe is logical. The way you describe how He decides to do what He does is based on giving him human thoughts on your part.

dhw: Yes, all my alternatives entail giving him thoughts in common with those of humans. But that does not make him into a human being! You keep agreeing that he probably shares thought patterns with us, but the moment I introduce a thought pattern he may share with us, you moan that I am “humanizing” him. At the same time you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, you tell us he is too kind to wish us harm when he designs nasty bacteria and viruses, and when pressed, you even speculate that he might want us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. These are all patterns of thought and emotions which he could easily have in common with us, but they don’t mean he is human!

Your humanizing God thoughts: free-for-all to enjoy; let cells do their own designing, which means loss of purpose control; having to experiment, which means doesn't know what He is doing or how to do it. I am not arguing about 'thought patterns' but God's attitudes and attributes you present as if God is human as he creates.


DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

DAVID: Please read the above again! My theory is not involved but Adler's philosophic point is quite clear. God produced humans

dhw: The whole point is that your theory is not involved, so why do you constantly bring Adler in on a discussion which exposes the illogicality of your theory?

My theory directly concerns the production of humans, my point and Adler's point. You obviously haven't understood anything about Adler.


DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

dhw: Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: What is the evolution of humans but exactly what you decry? Still slicing evolution into disconnected parts.

dhw: How can the evolution of life forms and foods that had no connection with humans have been a “preparation” for humans, and “part of the goal” of evolving humans? Evolution developed into disconnected branches, of which you agree humans are just one. You admit that you can’t answer the question, you tell me to ask God, so how long are you going to go on pretending that your theory makes sense?

Same lame objection. I accept God's works without questioning. We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 11:29 (757 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

dhw: You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about.

DAVID: Off the deep end! The bold says God does not see the future and know how to design it?

dhw: You have taken this out of its context, which is thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

DAVID: Of course not.

The same reasoning applies to all the human thought patterns and emotions that both you and I incorporate into our theories. So please stop using “humanization” as a reason for rejecting logical alternatives to your own illogical and fixed belief that your God designed countless life forms which had no connection with humans as “preparation” for humans and “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Your humanizing God thoughts: 1) free-for-all to enjoy; 2) let cells do their own designing, which means loss of purpose control; 3) having to experiment, which means doesn't know what He is doing or how to do it. I am not arguing about 'thought patterns' but God's attitudes and attributes you present as if God is human as he creates. (Numerals inserted by dhw for brevity’s sake)

1) You have said you are sure that your God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. What’s wrong with such “human” attributes?
2) How can it mean loss of purpose if his purpose, for instance, is to create things which he enjoys creating and which he will find interesting to watch? Which is more interesting: a story/game of which you know in advance every detail including the outcome, or a story/game which constantly surprises you?
3) Why such a negative view of experimentation? As you yourself point out under “biggest bacterium”, trying new approaches is a possibility, and I see no reason to assume that your God would not enjoy the challenge of creating something new, and learning as he goes along. How insufferably boring it would be to know everything in advance! But perhaps you should remind us of your own “humanized” reasons for your God’s decision to create humans, plus all the different forms of life and food unconnected with humans.

dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory?

DAVID: My theory directly concerns the production of humans, my point and Adler's point. You obviously haven't understood anything about Adler.

You have told us repeatedly that Adler uses humans as evidence for the existence of God. He does not deal with your theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. as preparation for humans and part of the goal of evolving humans, although most of them had no connection with humans. And you admit that you can’t find any explanation for such a theory, but you go on pretending that it makes sense. Nothing to do with Adler.

DAVID: Same lame objection. I accept God's works without questioning. We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.

Evolution is not an oak tree! If the tree is indeed your God’s work, you totally fail to grasp the fact that it has not just produced one fruit but countless different fruits, and the majority of these have no connection with the only fruit you think your God wanted to design (plus those that would feed your “acorn”).

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 02, 2022, 18:31 (757 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The same reasoning applies to all the human thought patterns and emotions that both you and I incorporate into our theories. So please stop using “humanization” as a reason for rejecting logical alternatives to your own illogical and fixed belief that your God designed countless life forms which had no connection with humans as “preparation” for humans and “part of the goal of evolving humans”.

DAVID: Your humanizing God thoughts: 1) free-for-all to enjoy; 2) let cells do their own designing, which means loss of purpose control; 3) having to experiment, which means doesn't know what He is doing or how to do it. I am not arguing about 'thought patterns' but God's attitudes and attributes you present as if God is human as he creates. (Numerals inserted by dhw for brevity’s sake)

dhw: 1) You have said you are sure that your God enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. What’s wrong with such “human” attributes?
2) How can it mean loss of purpose if his purpose, for instance, is to create things which he enjoys creating and which he will find interesting to watch? Which is more interesting: a story/game of which you know in advance every detail including the outcome, or a story/game which constantly surprises you?
3) Why such a negative view of experimentation? As you yourself point out under “biggest bacterium”, trying new approaches is a possibility, and I see no reason to assume that your God would not enjoy the challenge of creating something new, and learning as he goes along. How insufferably boring it would be to know everything in advance! But perhaps you should remind us of your own “humanized” reasons for your God’s decision to create humans, plus all the different forms of life and food unconnected with humans.

Our endless debate is strictly about who God is, based on what He has done. Each of us has entirely different versions, whose attributes are obvious. I won't needlessly repeat them. We will never agree. So perhaps this aspect of our discussions should end as having no fruitful decisions apparent.


dhw: You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory?

DAVID: My theory directly concerns the production of humans, my point and Adler's point. You obviously haven't understood anything about Adler.

dhw: You have told us repeatedly that Adler uses humans as evidence for the existence of God. He does not deal with your theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. as preparation for humans and part of the goal of evolving humans, although most of them had no connection with humans. And you admit that you can’t find any explanation for such a theory, but you go on pretending that it makes sense. Nothing to do with Adler.

The bold is your usual distortion. Both Adler and I view God as creating the evolution of all forms of life, finally ending with humans purposely. If you don't believe me, read Adler.


DAVID: Same lame objection. I accept God's works without questioning. We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.

dhw Evolution is not an oak tree! If the tree is indeed your God’s work, you totally fail to grasp the fact that it has not just produced one fruit but countless different fruits, and the majority of these have no connection with the only fruit you think your God wanted to design (plus those that would feed your “acorn”).

I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, March 03, 2022, 13:41 (756 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How, for instance, would your God design a being that felt love if he himself had no understanding of “love”?

DAVID: Of course not.

dhw: The same reasoning applies to all the human thought patterns and emotions that both you and I incorporate into our theories. So please stop using “humanization” as a reason for rejecting logical alternatives to your own illogical and fixed belief that your God designed countless life forms which had no connection with humans as “preparation” for humans plus our food and “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus our food.

DAVID: Our endless debate is strictly about who God is, based on what He has done. Each of us has entirely different versions, whose attributes are obvious. I won't needlessly repeat them. We will never agree. So perhaps this aspect of our discussions should end as having no fruitful decisions apparent.

But you do keep repeating them, which forces me to respond: (1) to the illogicality of your theory, and 2): to your rejection of my theories on grounds of “humanization”, while agreeing that your God may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours (see “love”) and imposing your own definitions of his “needs” and his “goals”, as if you have personal knowledge of them (See below).

Biggest bacterium ever discovered

dhw: If your God was prepared to try different approaches early on, why could he not have done so later on as well? Why do you use the word “struggle”? You constantly use these negative terms, as if it belittles your God that he should try new things, enjoy the whole process of learning by doing so, taking pleasure in the fascinating results of his work as he advances it from the simple to the complex. And that would explain all the different life forms which make nonsense of your own theory of evolution.

DAVID: God does not need to entertain Himself, as in your humanizing now bolded statement. He knows His goals exactly and creates with complete purpose.

The word “need” is yours, not mine, but I accept your own view that (if he exists) he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. I have no doubt that he would know exactly what he wants, but I do not accept that his “complete purpose” means nothing but the existence of humans and their food. “Complete purpose” would have to encompass his purpose for creating humans plus food as well as all the life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. It is these weighty but empty pronouncements of yours that make it impossible for us to end the discussion.

dhw: You have told us repeatedly that Adler uses humans as evidence for the existence of God. He does not deal with your theory that your God individually designed every life form, natural wonder etc. as preparation for humans and part of the goal of evolving humans, although most of them had no connection with humans. [dhw’s bold] And you admit that you can’t find any explanation for such a theory, [David’s bold] but you go on pretending that it makes sense. Nothing to do with Adler.

DAVID: The bold is your usual distortion. Both Adler and I view God as creating the evolution of all forms of life, finally ending with humans purposely. If you don't believe me, read Adler.

There is no distortion (second bold). You keep telling me to ask God! Over and over again you have told us that Adler doesn’t cover your theory (first bold). Even if he does, so what? If you and he can’t explain it, we’re still back to where we started. It doesn’t make sense, Adler or no Adler.

DAVID: We are the endpoint of Darwin's tree sketch. An Oak tree from roots to acorns is totally connected! You make no sense.

dhw: Evolution is not an oak tree! If the tree is indeed your God’s work, you totally fail to grasp the fact that it has not just produced one fruit but countless different fruits, and the majority of these have no connection with the only fruit you think your God wanted to design (plus those that would feed your “acorn”).

DAVID: I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.

I accept the "tree" or "bush", but not the absurdly limiting "oak". Thank you for agreeing that we are only one endpoint. But where do you get the idea that we are fed by “the others”? Once again you are trying to sneak in the idea that every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food. And you know that this is nonsense. You have told us in no uncertain terms that the past was for the past and not the present, and extinct life has no part to play in current life. Our discussion should have ended long ago when you made these statements and admitted your own inability to understand the logic of your bolded theory, but still you go on dodging!:-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 03, 2022, 15:22 (756 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Our endless debate is strictly about who God is, based on what He has done. Each of us has entirely different versions, whose attributes are obvious. I won't needlessly repeat them. We will never agree. So perhaps this aspect of our discussions should end as having no fruitful decisions apparent.

dhw: But you do keep repeating them, which forces me to respond: (1) to the illogicality of your theory, and 2): to your rejection of my theories on grounds of “humanization”, while agreeing that your God may have thought patterns and emotions similar to ours (see “love”) and imposing your own definitions of his “needs” and his “goals”, as if you have personal knowledge of them (See below).

Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.


Biggest bacterium ever discovered

DAVID: God does not need to entertain Himself, as in your humanizing now bolded statement. He knows His goals exactly and creates with complete purpose.

dhw: The word “need” is yours, not mine, but I accept your own view that (if he exists) he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. I have no doubt that he would know exactly what he wants, but I do not accept that his “complete purpose” means nothing but the existence of humans and their food. “Complete purpose” would have to encompass his purpose for creating humans plus food as well as all the life forms that had no connection with humans plus food. It is these weighty but empty pronouncements of yours that make it impossible for us to end the discussion.

Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.


DAVID: Both Adler and I view God as creating the evolution of all forms of life, finally ending with humans purposely. If you don't believe me, read Adler.

dhw: There is no distortion (second bold). You keep telling me to ask God! Over and over again you have told us that Adler doesn’t cover your theory (first bold). Even if he does, so what? If you and he can’t explain it, we’re still back to where we started. It doesn’t make sense, Adler or no Adler.

You use 'authorities', so I can. Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

DAVID: I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.

dhw: I accept the "tree" or "bush", but not the absurdly limiting "oak". Thank you for agreeing that we are only one endpoint. But where do you get the idea that we are fed by “the others”? Once again you are trying to sneak in the idea that every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food. And you know that this is nonsense. You have told us in no uncertain terms that the past was for the past and not the present, and extinct life has no part to play in current life. Our discussion should have ended long ago when you made these statements and admitted your own inability to understand the logic of your bolded theory, but still you go on dodging!:-(

In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, March 04, 2022, 09:17 (756 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.

I have no “idea of a human God”. If he exists, I assume – just as you do – that we would have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his, since he would hardly have created a being with attributes he knows nothing about. (You agreed when I mentioned love.) That does not make him a human God! Therefore, if I offer a theory concerning his purposes and methods, it is absurd to dismiss it on the grounds that it involves thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his.

DAVID: You use 'authorities', so I can. Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

And my point is that this thread is not about God’s existence but about your illogical theory of evolution (that your God individually designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although humans plus food were his one and only goal), which you have repeatedly told us is NOT discussed by Adler. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I'm using your hero Darwin's sketch! All of evolution is a giant bush with connecting branches continuing to branch until endpoints are reached. We are one endpoint, fed by the others as well as some on twigs of our branch.

dhw: I accept the "tree" or "bush", but not the absurdly limiting "oak". Thank you for agreeing that we are only one endpoint. But where do you get the idea that we are fed by “the others”? Once again you are trying to sneak in the idea that every single life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. was “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and their food. And you know that this is nonsense. You have told us in no uncertain terms that the past was for the past and not the present, and extinct life has no part to play in current life. Our discussion should have ended long ago when you made these statements and admitted your own inability to understand the logic of your bolded theory, but still you go on dodging! :-(

DAVID: In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

When have I ever said we have no past??? I firmly believe in evolution, which means that all life forms are descended from the first cells, but as you yourself have rightly observed, humans are only one branch of life, and countless branches – all descended from Archaea – plus foods have disappeared. I dispute the logic of your theory that every branch, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed by your God in preparation for humans, as part of his “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. You do not help your case by pretending that I don’t believe in evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, March 04, 2022, 15:28 (755 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.

dhw: I have no “idea of a human God”. If he exists, I assume – just as you do – that we would have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his, since he would hardly have created a being with attributes he knows nothing about. (You agreed when I mentioned love.) That does not make him a human God! Therefore, if I offer a theory concerning his purposes and methods, it is absurd to dismiss it on the grounds that it involves thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his.

When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.


DAVID: You use 'authorities', so I can. Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

dhw: And my point is that this thread is not about God’s existence but about your illogical theory of evolution (that your God individually designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although humans plus food were his one and only goal), which you have repeatedly told us is NOT discussed by Adler. Please stop dodging.

Total avoidance of the point Adler makes: God used evolution to make humans, which because of how unusual we are, proves God must exist. That allows me to present humans as God's endpoint purpose. I agree my discussion of the nitty-gritty of how God does it is a separate issue Adler doesn't enter. That you can't accept this difference is absurd.


DAVID: In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

dhw: When have I ever said we have no past??? I firmly believe in evolution, which means that all life forms are descended from the first cells, but as you yourself have rightly observed, humans are only one branch of life, and countless branches – all descended from Archaea – plus foods have disappeared. I dispute the logic of your theory that every branch, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed by your God in preparation for humans, as part of his “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. You do not help your case by pretending that I don’t believe in evolution.

The bold makes no sense to me. If God created evolution, which is the point in this discussion, He created every aspect and branch of the bush. old and new. How would your God run evolution, assuming He did?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, March 05, 2022, 08:18 (755 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your idea of a human God on the basis that we resemble Him is not my point. Our 'Gods' have no resemblance to each other.

dhw: I have no “idea of a human God”. If he exists, I assume – just as you do – that we would have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his, since he would hardly have created a being with attributes he knows nothing about. (You agreed when I mentioned love.) That does not make him a human God! Therefore, if I offer a theory concerning his purposes and methods, it is absurd to dismiss it on the grounds that it involves thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to his.

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

At various times you have your God enjoying creating, being interested in his creations, wanting us to admire them, wanting to have a relationship with us, being too kind to deliberately design things that would harm us, and knowing what love is. If his only purpose was to design humans, I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control. However, the latter image leaves you incapable of explaining why he would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food. You have complained that the latter proposal – all life was in preparation for humans etc. – is a distortion of your beliefs, but you keep repeating it, as under “New life evolves Earth’s climate”:

DAVID: all by designed plan: living matter influences geological processes, all working together to provide a livable Earth for humans[dhw's bold]

As if the processes had not provided a livable Earth for countless other life forms, extinct and extant, and unconnected with humans.

DAVID: Adler's simple point is God evolved humans, so unusual, God must exist. That is my point also.

dhw: And my point is that this thread is not about God’s existence but about your illogical theory of evolution (that your God individually designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, although humans plus food were his one and only goal), which you have repeatedly told us is NOT discussed by Adler. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Total avoidance of the point Adler makes: God used evolution to make humans, which because of how unusual we are, proves God must exist. That allows me to present humans as God's endpoint purpose. I agree my discussion of the nitty-gritty of how God does it is a separate issue Adler doesn't enter.

You and your fellow ID-ers use ALL the complexities of life to “prove God must exist”. “Endpoint” we may be, but that does not mean he individually designed etc., as bolded above. That is the “nitty-gritty” subject we are discussing.

DAVID: In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

dhw: When have I ever said we have no past??? I firmly believe in evolution, which means that all life forms are descended from the first cells, but as you yourself have rightly observed, humans are only one branch of life, and countless branches – all descended from Archaea – plus foods have disappeared. I dispute the logic of the theory bolded above, and you do not help your case by pretending that I don’t believe in evolution.

DAVID: The bold makes no sense to me. If God created evolution, which is the point in this discussion, He created every aspect and branch of the bush. old and new.

If God exists, yes, he created evolution, but 1) that does NOT mean he individually designed every aspect and branch old and new (he could have designed a free-for-all) and 2) if he did create every aspect and branch, why, oh why, did he do so if his one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, although the vast majority of aspects and branches had no connection with humans plus food? And why, oh why, do you keep dodging this question?

DAVID: How would your God run evolution, assuming He did?

I offered you three alternative theories last week: free-for-all, experimentation, learning and coming up with new ideas as the process develops. Your objections to these do not in any way answer the above question, so please stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 05, 2022, 15:30 (754 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

dhw: I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control.

And that is a God you refuse to recognize as if impossible. Wny?

dhw: However, the latter image leaves you incapable of explaining why he would design countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus food if his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food. You have complained that the latter proposal – all life was in preparation for humans etc. – is a distortion of your beliefs,

Explained fully as choosing to use evolution to create humans from bacteria. What distortion, except as you twist?

DAVID: Total avoidance of the point Adler makes: God used evolution to make humans, which because of how unusual we are, proves God must exist. That allows me to present humans as God's endpoint purpose. I agree my discussion of the nitty-gritty of how God does it is a separate issue Adler doesn't enter.

dhw: You and your fellow ID-ers use ALL the complexities of life to “prove God must exist”. “Endpoint” we may be, but that does not mean he individually designed etc., as bolded above. That is the “nitty-gritty” subject we are discussing.

Yes it does! I feel very comfortable with my ID crowd


DAVID: In your myopic view we are not related to Archaea! So we have no past! Evolution is one long involved process, all parts related.

dhw: When have I ever said we have no past??? I firmly believe in evolution, which means that all life forms are descended from the first cells, but as you yourself have rightly observed, humans are only one branch of life, and countless branches – all descended from Archaea – plus foods have disappeared. I dispute the logic of the theory bolded above, and you do not help your case by pretending that I don’t believe in evolution.

DAVID: The bold makes no sense to me. If God created evolution, which is the point in this discussion, He created every aspect and branch of the bush. old and new.

dhw: If God exists, yes, he created evolution, but 1) that does NOT mean he individually designed every aspect and branch old and new (he could have designed a free-for-all) and 2) if he did create every aspect and branch, why, oh why, did he do so if his one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, although the vast majority of aspects and branches had no connection with humans plus food? And why, oh why, do you keep dodging this question?

Yes, that does mean God designed every aspect of evolution reaching at long last humans. If God did not design every step how did that amazing result happen as Adler proposes?


DAVID: How would your God run evolution, assuming He did?

dhw: I offered you three alternative theories last week: free-for-all, experimentation, learning and coming up with new ideas as the process develops. Your objections to these do not in any way answer the above question, so please stop dodging.

Not in control, with fully human attributes. How did God create the universe and life if he 'had to learn and come up with new ideas'? Your God stumbles along. A characterature of a God!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, March 06, 2022, 11:41 (753 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

dhw: I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control.

DAVID: And that is a God you refuse to recognize as if impossible. Why?

Once again, you raise a point, I answer it, and so you change the subject! Two of my theories do NOT express human desires or needs, as you claimed above. Your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control, doesn’t fit in with your own theory that he had only one purpose (humans and their food) but proceeded to design countless life forms and foods and natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans. This problem is resolved if we adopt the experimentation or learning theory. Alternatively, the problem is solved if his aim was not exclusively to produce humans and their food, but was to create a free-for-all, which would be more interesting for him to watch than a puppet show. An all-powerful God who decides to give his creations the freedom to do their own thing is exemplified by the concept of human free will. He can give up control if he wants to, and he can create surprises for himself if he wants to. If he invented football, he would spoil the concept if he already knew every result before the match was played.

dhw: You have complained that the latter proposal – all life was in preparation for humans etc. – is a distortion of your beliefs...

DAVID: Explained fully as choosing to use evolution to create humans from bacteria. What distortion, except as you twist?

If he exists, he used evolution to create ALL life forms from bacteria (whether through individual design or through a free-for-all)! You accused me of distortion when I repeated your theory that humans plus food were his one and only purpose, but you keep repeating this theory!

dhw: You and your fellow ID-ers use ALL the complexities of life to “prove God must exist”. “Endpoint” we may be, but that does not mean he individually designed etc., as bolded above. That is the “nitty-gritty” subject we are discussing.

DAVID: Yes it does! I feel very comfortable with my ID crowd.

You have as usual ignored the “etc.”, which I didn’t want to repeat in full. You have told us that your ID crowd does not cover your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food.

The rest of this post simply repeats points already dealt with ad nauseam.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 06, 2022, 15:12 (753 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

dhw: I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control.

DAVID: And that is a God you refuse to recognize as if impossible. Why?

dhw: Once again, you raise a point, I answer it, and so you change the subject! Two of my theories do NOT express human desires or needs, as you claimed above. Your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control, doesn’t fit in with your own theory that he had only one purpose (humans and their food) but proceeded to design countless life forms and foods and natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans. This problem is resolved if we adopt the experimentation or learning theory. Alternatively, the problem is solved if his aim was not exclusively to produce humans and their food, but was to create a free-for-all, which would be more interesting for him to watch than a puppet show.

I did not change the subject. You answered as I suspected would happen to again describe a god with all sorts of human desires, such s needing a 'puppet show'. A God who can invent a universe and then add life is no slouch who must experiment or learn by experience. As for God's use of an evolutionary method you are are splitter and I'm a lumper. That is a deep personal proclivity. Part 0f why you are an agnostic.


dhw: You have complained that the latter proposal – all life was in preparation for humans etc. – is a distortion of your beliefs...

DAVID: Explained fully as choosing to use evolution to create humans from bacteria. What distortion, except as you twist?

dhw: If he exists, he used evolution to create ALL life forms from bacteria (whether through individual design or through a free-for-all)! You accused me of distortion when I repeated your theory that humans plus food were his one and only purpose, but you keep repeating this theory!

It is an obvious outcome of the process we call evolution.


dhw: You and your fellow ID-ers use ALL the complexities of life to “prove God must exist”. “Endpoint” we may be, but that does not mean he individually designed etc., as bolded above. That is the “nitty-gritty” subject we are discussing.

DAVID: Yes it does! I feel very comfortable with my ID crowd.

dhw: You have as usual ignored the “etc.”, which I didn’t want to repeat in full. You have told us that your ID crowd does not cover your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food.

I have had personal discussions with Behe and others at an ID conference, listened to their presentations. They believe exactly as I do! Why must you invent a different ID group than the one I know. Where they differ is I try to explain how God might manipulate DNA at a level of encoding into the genome and they do not. Our basic assumptions of God's goals are the same.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, March 07, 2022, 14:34 (752 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: When I analyze what sort of person would plan as you have your God planning it has all the aspects of someone expressing human desires and needs, all previously pointed out.

dhw: I see no reason why experimentation or progressive learning and coming up with new ideas should be dismissed as a human “desire or need”, but it opposes your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control.

DAVID: And that is a God you refuse to recognize as if impossible. Why?

dhw: Once again, you raise a point, I answer it, and so you change the subject! Two of my theories do NOT express human desires or needs, as you claimed above. Your view of a God who is all-knowing and always in control, doesn’t fit in with your own theory that he had only one purpose (humans and their food) but proceeded to design countless life forms and foods and natural wonders etc. that had no connection with humans. This problem is resolved if we adopt the experimentation or learning theory. Alternatively, the problem is solved if his aim was not exclusively to produce humans and their food, but was to create a free-for-all, which would be more interesting for him to watch than a puppet show.

DAVID:I did not change the subject. You answered as I suspected would happen to again describe a god with all sorts of human desires, such s needing a 'puppet show'.

I pointed out that experimenting, learning and coming up with new ideas were not “human desires or needs”; they solve the problem set by your illogical theory, but oppose your idea of an all-knowing God always in control. Your response was to ask why I rejected the idea of such a God. I didn’t say I did! However, the puppet show is an image for your God’s human desire to have complete control, whereas a free-for-all allows for your God’s human desire to create something more interesting for himself to watch.

DAVID: A God who can invent a universe and then add life is no slouch who must experiment or learn by experience.

I didn’t say he “must”, but I object to your assumption that he is incapable of experimenting, learning, and creating things that will interest him, although you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: As for God's use of an evolutionary method you are are splitter and I'm a lumper. That is a deep personal proclivity. Part 0f why you are an agnostic.

A complete red herring. We can see evolution as a continuous process of different life forms coming and going, all of them descended from the first cells (lumping). At the same time, we can recognize that those life forms are divergent, and one branch of the bush is totally different from another branch and will eat different foods (splitting). What you try to do is lump all branches together as part of the one and only goal of producing humans and their food. You know it doesn’t make sense, you tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you go on dodging the issue with one vague generalization after another.

dhw: You have told us that your ID crowd does not cover your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: I have had personal discussions with Behe and others at an ID conference, listened to their presentations. They believe exactly as I do! Why must you invent a different ID group than the one I know. Where they differ is I try to explain how God might manipulate DNA at a level of encoding into the genome and they do not. Our basic assumptions of God's goals are the same.

A simple request: Please tell me if Behe and the rest believe that every single extinct life form and food (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder) was individually designed by God as “preparation” for humans and their food, and was part of God’s one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, March 07, 2022, 23:39 (752 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:I did not change the subject. You answered as I suspected would happen to again describe a god with all sorts of human desires, such s needing a 'puppet show'.

dhw: I pointed out that experimenting, learning and coming up with new ideas were not “human desires or needs”; they solve the problem set by your illogical theory, but oppose your idea of an all-knowing God always in control. Your response was to ask why I rejected the idea of such a God. I didn’t say I did! However, the puppet show is an image for your God’s human desire to have complete control, whereas a free-for-all allows for your God’s human desire to create something more interesting for himself to watch.

Once again you describe a humanized god who needs to entertain himself. Again you made my point.


DAVID: A God who can invent a universe and then add life is no slouch who must experiment or learn by experience.

dhw: I didn’t say he “must”, but I object to your assumption that he is incapable of experimenting, learning, and creating things that will interest him, although you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

I never used the words 'I am certain' in regard to my God. I have always said my thouhts are guesses at what He might be thin king.


DAVID: As for God's use of an evolutionary method you are are splitter and I'm a lumper. That is a deep personal proclivity. Part 0f why you are an agnostic.

dhw: A complete red herring. We can see evolution as a continuous process of different life forms coming and going, all of them descended from the first cells (lumping). At the same time, we can recognize that those life forms are divergent, and one branch of the bush is totally different from another branch and will eat different foods (splitting). What you try to do is lump all branches together as part of the one and only goal of producing humans and their food. You know it doesn’t make sense, you tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you go on dodging the issue with one vague generalization after another.

My statements are quite specific. You just have proven my point as in the bold, again splitting. My psychoanalysis is on the mark which is why you are uncomfortable with it.. It is your lone discomfort that makes no sense only to you..


dhw: You have told us that your ID crowd does not cover your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food.

DAVID: I have had personal discussions with Behe and others at an ID conference, listened to their presentations. They believe exactly as I do! Why must you invent a different ID group than the one I know. Where they differ is I try to explain how God might manipulate DNA at a level of encoding into the genome and they do not. Our basic assumptions of God's goals are the same.

dhw: A simple request: Please tell me if Behe and the rest believe that every single extinct life form and food (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder) was individually designed by God as “preparation” for humans and their food, and was part of God’s one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

Without direct questioning, it is my impression they agree with me. God designed all of evolution to create/ produce humans. They would all agree with Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 09:14 (752 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: […] the puppet show is an image for your God’s human desire to have complete control, whereas a free-for-all allows for your God’s human desire to create something more interesting for himself to watch.

DAVID: Once again you describe a humanized god who needs to entertain himself. Again you made my point.

You keep using the words “need” and “entertain”, which make your God seem needy and superficial. I prefer to use the terms you yourself have used: he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And in one of my theories (akin to your own analogy of playwriting), I suggest that it is far more interesting to create something unpredictable and surprising than something that merely obeys instructions.

DAVID: A God who can invent a universe and then add life is no slouch who must experiment or learn by experience.

dhw: I didn’t say he “must”, but I object to your assumption that he is incapable of experimenting, learning, and creating things that will interest him, although you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: I never used the words 'I am certain' in regard to my God. I have always said my thoughts are guesses at what He might be thinking.

This discussion has been going on for years, and I base my arguments on what you write. I have learned to keep a record of certain key statements, because you frequently deny having made them or claim that I have misinterpreted them. I’m sorry if this seems sneaky, but it is frustrating when we reach common ground and then you run away from it. You do the same with your statements about your God’s possible thought patterns, emotions and logic, and the irrelevance of past species and foods to current life. The dates are when I first responded to the quote:

“Back to theodicy and David’s theories”: March 7 2021: “Thank you for your long review clarifying past discussions. I’m sure God enjoys his work at creating.” Followed on 9 March by: “God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it or I think he would stop.”
“Theodicy”: October 19 2020: “I’m sure he sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.”

Of course you are right – all our theories are “guesswork”, including that of God’s existence, but even if you only guess that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you are providing a logical “humanized” motive for his creating life.

DAVID: As for God's use of an evolutionary method you are are splitter and I'm a lumper. That is a deep personal proclivity. Part 0f why you are an agnostic.

dhw: A complete red herring. We can see evolution as a continuous process of different life forms coming and going, all of them descended from the first cells (lumping). At the same time, we can recognize that those life forms are divergent, and one branch of the bush is totally different from another branch and will eat different foods (splitting). What you try to do is lump all branches together as part of the one and only goal of producing humans and their food. You know it doesn’t make sense, you tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you go on dodging the issue with one vague generalization after another.

DAVID: My statements are quite specific. You just have proven my point as in the bold, again splitting. My psychoanalysis is on the mark which is why you are uncomfortable with it.. It is your lone discomfort that makes no sense only to you.

The bold shows that you try to use lumping as a diversion from the fact that you have agreed that extinct life has no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between most extinct life forms plus foods and ourselves. I am not merely “uncomfortable” with it – I am pointing out that you yourself have no idea why your God would have created all these diverse life forms that have no connection with humans, if his one and only goal was to design humans.

dhw: A simple request: Please tell me if Behe and the rest believe that every single extinct life form and food (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder) was individually designed by God as “preparation” for humans and their food, and was part of God’s one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

DAVID: Without direct questioning, it is my impression they agree with me. God designed all of evolution to create/ produce humans. They would all agree with Adler.

Adler, you keep admitting, does not cover the illogical elements of your theory. Over the years, I have consulted lots of ID websites, and I have never once come across anything like your theory – on the contrary, every effort is made to avoid mention of God and of specific divine purposes. But even if this vague “impression” of yours were to be correct, it really doesn’t matter two hoots, because if you can’t find a logical explanation why your purposeful, all-powerful God fulfilled his one and only purpose by initially not fulfilling his one and only purpose, I don’t suppose even ID-ers can.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 08, 2022, 21:52 (751 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You keep using the words “need” and “entertain”, which make your God seem needy and superficial. I prefer to use the terms you yourself have used: he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. And in one of my theories (akin to your own analogy of playwriting), I suggest that it is far more interesting to create something unpredictable and surprising than something that merely obeys instructions.

DAVID: I never used the words 'I am certain' in regard to my God. I have always said my thoughts are guesses at what He might be thinking.


dhw: This discussion has been going on for years, and I base my arguments on what you write. I have learned to keep a record of certain key statements, because you frequently deny having made them or claim that I have misinterpreted them. I’m sorry if this seems sneaky, but it is frustrating when we reach common ground and then you run away from it. You do the same with your statements about your God’s possible thought patterns, emotions and logic, and the irrelevance of past species and foods to current life. The dates are when I first responded to the quote:

“Back to theodicy and David’s theories”: March 7 2021: “Thank you for your long review clarifying past discussions. I’m sure God enjoys his work at creating.” Followed on 9 March by: “God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it or I think he would stop.”
“Theodicy”: October 19 2020: “I’m sure he sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.”

Of course you are right – all our theories are “guesswork”, including that of God’s existence, but even if you only guess that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you are providing a logical “humanized” motive for his creating life.

Please accept all of my conjectures about God's thoughts are guesses although presented with some of possible certainty. You agree about guesswork.


DAVID: My statements are quite specific. You just have proven my point as in the bold, again splitting. My psychoanalysis is on the mark which is why you are uncomfortable with it.. It is your lone discomfort that makes no sense only to you.

dhw: The bold shows that you try to use lumping as a diversion from the fact that you have agreed that extinct life has no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between most extinct life forms plus foods and ourselves.

Again. I see evolution as whole process and you split away the early past portions


dhw: A simple request: Please tell me if Behe and the rest believe that every single extinct life form and food (plus econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder) was individually designed by God as “preparation” for humans and their food, and was part of God’s one and only goal of evolving humans and their food.

DAVID: Without direct questioning, it is my impression they agree with me. God designed all of evolution to create/ produce humans. They would all agree with Adler.

dhw: Adler, you keep admitting, does not cover the illogical elements of your theory. Over the years, I have consulted lots of ID websites, and I have never once come across anything like your theory – on the contrary, every effort is made to avoid mention of God and of specific divine purposes. But even if this vague “impression” of yours were to be correct, it really doesn’t matter two hoots, because if you can’t find a logical explanation why your purposeful, all-powerful God fulfilled his one and only purpose by initially not fulfilling his one and only purpose, I don’t suppose even ID-ers can.

Same distortion. Adler and I operate on the evidence in evolution that God fully intended to produce humans, so unusual, they could not have just appeared naturally. How God did it is His personal choice of creation, a perfectly logical thought for anyone who does not deny God. It is your agnostic problem. ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 10:12 (751 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I never used the words 'I am certain' in regard to my God. I have always said my thoughts are guesses at what He might be thinking.

I reproduced quotes in which you had used the word “sure”.

Dhw: Of course you are right – all our theories are “guesswork”, including that of God’s existence, but even if you only guess that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you are providing a logical “humanized” motive for his creating life.

DAVID: Please accept all of my conjectures about God's thoughts are guesses although presented with some of possible certainty. You agree about guesswork.

Not only do I agree, but I have also pointed out repeatedly that ALL your authoritative statements about your God’s purposes, methods and nature are guesswork, including all those which you use to dismiss alternatives to your guesses.

dhw: …you try to use lumping as a diversion from the fact that you have agreed that extinct life has no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between most extinct life forms plus foods and ourselves.

DAVID: Again. I see evolution as whole process and you split away the early past portions.

The whole process of lumping means all life is descended from bacteria. Splitting means that life evolved into different largely unconnected branches. You agree that humans are just one branch, and most extinct life forms and foods have no role to play in current life and had no connection with humans, which makes nonsense of your theory that all extinct life forms and foods were part of your God’s goal to evolve (= design) humans and their food.

dhw: […] you can’t find a logical explanation why your purposeful, all-powerful God fulfilled his one and only purpose by initially not fulfilling his one and only purpose, I don’t suppose even ID-ers can.
Your reply consists of one evasion after another:

DAVID: Adler and I operate on the evidence in evolution that God fully intended to produce humans, so unusual, they could not have just appeared naturally.

The same argument applies to the complexity of all life forms – hence the theory of ID. I am not disputing the logic of this argument.

DAVID: How God did it is His personal choice of creation, a perfectly logical thought for anyone who does not deny God. It is your agnostic problem.

It is absolutely not a problem, and has nothing to do with my agnosticism. The problem is your illogical theory about how and why God did it, and your refusal to consider any alternative theistic theory.

DAVID: ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

I know what ID says, and I challenge your assumption that they all believe your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms and foods in preparation for humans plus food and as part of the goal of evolving humans plus food, although they had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 09, 2022, 16:58 (750 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please accept all of my conjectures about God's thoughts are guesses although presented with some of possible certainty. You agree about guesswork.

dhw: Not only do I agree, but I have also pointed out repeatedly that ALL your authoritative statements about your God’s purposes, methods and nature are guesswork, including all those which you use to dismiss alternatives to your guesses.

dhw: …you try to use lumping as a diversion from the fact that you have agreed that extinct life has no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between most extinct life forms plus foods and ourselves.

DAVID: Again. I see evolution as whole process and you split away the early past portions.

dhw: The whole process of lumping means all life is descended from bacteria. Splitting means that life evolved into different largely unconnected branches. You agree that humans are just one branch, and most extinct life forms and foods have no role to play in current life and had no connection with humans, which makes nonsense of your theory that all extinct life forms and foods were part of your God’s goal to evolve (= design) humans and their food.

You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?


dhw: […] you can’t find a logical explanation why your purposeful, all-powerful God fulfilled his one and only purpose by initially not fulfilling his one and only purpose, I don’t suppose even ID-ers can.
Your reply consists of one evasion after another:

DAVID: Adler and I operate on the evidence in evolution that God fully intended to produce humans, so unusual, they could not have just appeared naturally.

dhw: The same argument applies to the complexity of all life forms – hence the theory of ID. I am not disputing the logic of this argument.

DAVID: How God did it is His personal choice of creation, a perfectly logical thought for anyone who does not deny God. It is your agnostic problem.

dhw: It is absolutely not a problem, and has nothing to do with my agnosticism. The problem is your illogical theory about how and why God did it, and your refusal to consider any alternative theistic theory.

What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.


DAVID: ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

dhw: I know what ID says, and I challenge your assumption that they all believe your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms and foods in preparation for humans plus food and as part of the goal of evolving humans plus food, although they had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

Your refusal to believe me about ID is fascinating. Am I honest or not? ID believes God designed every bit of life with humans as the desired endpoint.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, March 10, 2022, 13:18 (749 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

You have just ignored the answer I gave you, so I’ll repeat it! In the sense that all life is descended from bacteria, you can say it is a whole. In the sense that life evolved into countless separate branches, you can say that it is split. The idea that every single branch and every single econiche, lifestyle, problem solution and natural wonder throughout the history of life was preparation for just one branch (plus its food) and was part of the one and only goal of producing that branch (plus its food) frankly beggars belief. If you simply go through your own wonderful list of current natural wonders (not to mention all the natural wonders that must have come and gone) and add the comment: without this, humans would not exist or would not have enough food to exist, you will see how absurd it is. (See "More miscellany".)
.
DAVID: How God did it is His personal choice of creation, a perfectly logical thought for anyone who does not deny God. It is your agnostic problem.

dhw: It is absolutely not a problem, and has nothing to do with my agnosticism. The problem is your illogical theory about how and why God did it, and your refusal to consider any alternative theistic theory.

DAVID: What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.

My alternative theories are a separate issue from the illogicality of your own theory, but you keep trying to use them as a digression from the fact that you cannot find any logic in your own theory and so I should go and ask God to explain it. Please top dodging.

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I started with research in how to think about God, as Adler instructed in his book. Based on that discussion and others, what you imagine about God is totally unrecognizable to me.

dhw: Then maybe you should extend your research, since your thoughts have led you to a theory of evolution which you yourself find incomprehensible (hence your advice to me to ask God for an explanation), but it’s good to hear that your research has led you to humanizing guesses about your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions, logic, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. Unrecognizable?

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

Your humanized guesses above all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

dhw: I know what ID says, and I challenge your assumption that they all believe your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms and foods in preparation for humans plus food and as part of the goal of evolving humans plus food, although they had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your refusal to believe me about ID is fascinating. Am I honest or not? ID believes God designed every bit of life with humans as the desired endpoint.

Of course I’m not querying your honesty. I think you simply cotton on to those elements of your theory that you share with ID-ers, and you don’t realize the extent of your illogicality as you try to extend this common ground, which is strictly limited. To be precise, here is an extract from their own website:
What Is Intelligent Design? | Intelligent Design
intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. (dhw's bold)

According to this, ID-ers do not enter into discussion of a possible supernatural cause, so how could they enter into discussion of the desires of a supernatural cause? Have you interviewed every ID-er, and have they all told you that they believe your theory but publicly pretend they don’t? Are they dishonest?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 10, 2022, 16:22 (749 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

dhw: You have just ignored the answer I gave you, so I’ll repeat it! The idea that every single branch and every single econiche, lifestyle, problem solution and natural wonder throughout the history of life was preparation for just one branch (plus its food) and was part of the one and only goal of producing that branch (plus its food) frankly beggars belief.

I've fully explained how I view God's evolution. The huge branching leads to us. We can trace back to the roots in Archaea. The rest is ecosystems to feed us and everyone else. Your view beggars belief.


DAVID: What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.

dhw: My alternative theories are a separate issue from the illogicality of your own theory, but you keep trying to use them as a digression from the fact that you cannot find any logic in your own theory and so I should go and ask God to explain it. Please top dodging.

No dodge. Simply accept God chose to evolve us.


Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses above all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.


DAVID: ID says evolution was designed, designer unknown, but knowing ID'ers and having attended their conferences, I know exactly how their minds work.

dhw: I know what ID says, and I challenge your assumption that they all believe your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms and foods in preparation for humans plus food and as part of the goal of evolving humans plus food, although they had no connection with humans plus food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Your refusal to believe me about ID is fascinating. Am I honest or not? ID believes God designed every bit of life with humans as the desired endpoint.

dhw: Of course I’m not querying your honesty.... To be precise, here is an extract from their own website:
What Is Intelligent Design? | Intelligent Design
intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. (dhw's bold)

According to this, ID-ers do not enter into discussion of a possible supernatural cause, so how could they enter into discussion of the desires of a supernatural cause? Have you interviewed every ID-er, and have they all told you that they believe your theory but publicly pretend they don’t? Are they dishonest?

Thank you for making this effort. What you are seeing is the outside posture of ID. God is not to be ever mentioned and they avoid any smell of biblical creationism, But I follow Uncommon Descent daily and in comments from readers Biblical quotes are very common. That is OK because it is follower's beliefs. What you read is the cover propaganda, not the religious
underlying beliefs. You need to dig into ID or believe me. At least believe me. Do you know about Discovery Institute? That is home base. Their Fellows come from all religions. They demand an immaterial designing mind, but just don't call it God. And all the while they pick Darwinism apart. Read or skim this as an example:

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/nature-communications-retroactively-concedes-a-lack-o...

"Years ago I began to recognize a repeating phenomenon in the rhetoric of evolutionary literature: Scientists, echoed by science journalists, would only admit a problem with their models or a challenge to their ideas once they thought they had found a solution. I’ve called these “retroactive admissions of ignorance.” We now have another example of this, from a paper just published in Nature Communications purporting to demonstrate Darwinian gradualism: “General statistical model shows that macroevolutionary patterns and processes are consistent with Darwinian gradualism.” Retroactive admissions of ignorance, weakness, or other problems typically come in the first sentences of the abstract or introduction of a paper. The rest of the paper is then supposed to show why the admission no longer applies, as the weakness has been cleared up. This paper is no exception to the pattern."

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, March 11, 2022, 11:36 (748 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

dhw: You have just ignored the answer I gave you, so I’ll repeat it! The idea that every single branch and every single econiche, lifestyle, problem solution and natural wonder throughout the history of life was preparation for just one branch (plus its food) and was part of the one and only goal of producing that branch (plus its food) frankly beggars belief.

DAVID: I've fully explained how I view God's evolution. The huge branching leads to us. We can trace back to the roots in Archaea. The rest is ecosystems to feed us and everyone else. Your view beggars belief.

All life forms and not just ours have their roots in Archaea. Your belief that every single extinct branch throughout the history of life was “preparation” for humans beggars belief, and although of course every ecosystem has provided food for every organism that ever lived, it beggars belief that every ecosystem throughout the history of life was part of the goal of evolving humans and their food. You keep agreeing that PAST food was for the PAST, and extinct life has no role to play in current life, and then you try to wriggle out of your agreement with obfuscations. Just stick with your confession that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with his one and only goal (humans plus food), and stop prolonging the agony!

DAVID: What I object to is your presenting a humanized god that is unrecognizable to me. WE cannot debate what God did when the views we have of God's personality are so different.

dhw: My alternative theories are a separate issue from the illogicality of your own theory, but you keep trying to use them as a digression from the fact that you cannot find any logic in your own theory and so I should go and ask God to explain it. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: No dodge. Simply accept God chose to evolve us.

If God exists, I am happy to accept that he set up the process of evolution that produced us and every other life form and econiche that had no connection with us.

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses above all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

QUOTE from ID website: the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. (dhw's bold)

dhw: According to this, ID-ers do not enter into discussion of a possible supernatural cause, so how could they enter into discussion of the desires of a supernatural cause? Have you interviewed every ID-er, and have they all told you that they believe your theory but publicly pretend they don’t? Are they dishonest?

DAVID: […] What you are seeing is the outside posture of ID. God is not to be ever mentioned and they avoid any smell of biblical creationism, But I follow Uncommon Descent daily and in comments from readers Biblical quotes are very common. That is OK because it is follower's beliefs. What you read is the cover propaganda, not the religious underlying beliefs.
Do you know about Discovery Institute? That is home base. Their Fellows come from all religions. They demand an immaterial designing mind, but just don't call it God. And all the while they pick Darwinism apart.

You frequently quote from Uncommon Descent. It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work. You give the example of Darwin’s gradualism, which even an agnostic can find fault with, though the term is relative: how gradual is gradual on a geological time scale? But this has nothing whatsoever to do with our dispute, which only concerns your theory that from the very beginning your all-powerful, all-purposeful God individually designed every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder as preparation for his one and only goal of designing humans and their food. This is so illogical that you yourself tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you claim that ID-ers support it. I find that hard to believe. Hence my bolded question above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 01:27 (748 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You just ignore the history of evolution. Is it a whole or not?

dhw: You have just ignored the answer I gave you, so I’ll repeat it! The idea that every single branch and every single econiche, lifestyle, problem solution and natural wonder throughout the history of life was preparation for just one branch (plus its food) and was part of the one and only goal of producing that branch (plus its food) frankly beggars belief.

DAVID: I've fully explained how I view God's evolution. The huge branching leads to us. We can trace back to the roots in Archaea. The rest is ecosystems to feed us and everyone else. Your view beggars belief.

dhw: You keep agreeing that PAST food was for the PAST, and extinct life has no role to play in current life, and then you try to wriggle out of your agreement with obfuscations. Just stick with your confession that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with his one and only goal (humans plus food), and stop prolonging the agony!

It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but I have every right to interpret it as I do. I see evolution as a whole process and you split it into unrelated parts.


DAVID: No dodge. Simply accept God chose to evolve us.

dhw: If God exists, I am happy to accept that he set up the process of evolution that produced us and every other life form and econiche that had no connection with us.

Perhaps that ends this aspect.


Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses above all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

We are discussing both Gods and my statement refers to yours as different from mine.


QUOTE from ID website: the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: […] What you are seeing is the outside posture of ID. God is not to be ever mentioned and they avoid any smell of biblical creationism, But I follow Uncommon Descent daily and in comments from readers Biblical quotes are very common. That is OK because it is follower's beliefs. What you read is the cover propaganda, not the religious underlying beliefs.
Do you know about Discovery Institute? That is home base. Their Fellows come from all religions. They demand an immaterial designing mind, but just don't call it God. And all the while they pick Darwinism apart.

dhw: You frequently quote from Uncommon Descent. It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work. You give the example of Darwin’s gradualism, which even an agnostic can find fault with, though the term is relative: how gradual is gradual on a geological time scale? But this has nothing whatsoever to do with our dispute, which only concerns your theory that from the very beginning your all-powerful, all-purposeful God individually designed every single life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder as preparation for his one and only goal of designing humans and their food. This is so illogical that you yourself tell me to ask God to explain it, and yet you claim that ID-ers support it. I find that hard to believe. Hence my bolded question above.

Again, my beliefs about ID ae quite correct. The very religious folks ae allowed to sneak in their strong religious bias but only in commentaries, not articles or research. The ID godfathers set up the no-god rules at the beginning:

https://www.discovery.org/a/8931/

"In conclusion, the term “intelligent design” not only long pre-dates the Edwards ruling, but the basic arguments for design pre-date Christianity. Moreover, modern members of the ID movement started using the term “intelligent design” not to evade a court ruling, but because they sought terminology that would accurately communicate their project’s original intent to remain entirely within the empirical domain and avoid investigating religious questions about the supernatural."

ID is not as you have obviously imagined it to be.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 08:17 (748 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've fully explained how I view God's evolution. The huge branching leads to us. We can trace back to the roots in Archaea. The rest is ecosystems to feed us and everyone else. Your view beggars belief.

dhw: You keep agreeing that PAST food was for the PAST, and extinct life has no role to play in current life, and then you try to wriggle out of your agreement with obfuscations. Just stick with your confession that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with his one and only goal (humans plus food), and stop prolonging the agony!

DAVID: It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but I have every right to interpret it as I do. I see evolution as a whole process and you split it into unrelated parts.

I see both: all life forms are descended from the first cells = whole. Life forms split into branches that had no connection with each other = split. You have no idea why your God would have chosen the evolution method you impose on him. Please don’t confuse your theory with fact.

Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses [..] all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

DAVID: We are discussing both Gods and my statement refers to yours as different from mine.

Which of the above humanized guesses are different from yours?

dhw: It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work.

DAVID: Again, my beliefs about ID ae quite correct. The very religious folks ae allowed to sneak in their strong religious bias but only in commentaries, not articles or research. The ID godfathers set up the no-god rules at the beginning:

This is another way of saying what I have just said above, but it is totally irrelevant to our dispute, which is whether, as you have claimed, ID-ers support your belief that God designed every single extinct life form, lifestyle, econiche and natural wonder as preparation for humans and their food, i.e. as “part of the goal of evolving [= design] humans” and their food.

DAVID: ID is not as you have obviously imagined it to be.

It is exactly as I have imagined it to be, but that is not the issue anyway. See the bold above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 12, 2022, 17:53 (747 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but I have every right to interpret it as I do. I see evolution as a whole process and you split it into unrelated parts.

dhw: I see both: all life forms are descended from the first cells = whole. Life forms split into branches that had no connection with each other = split. You have no idea why your God would have chosen the evolution method you impose on him. Please don’t confuse your theory with fact.

The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.


Transferred from “Introducing the brain”:

DAVID: I find my view of my God as totally comprehensible. I find your god as totally unrecognizable. So our differences are huge.

dhw: Your humanized guesses [..] all seem comprehensible to me. Why do you think they denote differences?

DAVID: The implied personalities as shown by stated God thoughts/desires are obviously very far apart.

dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

DAVID: We are discussing both Gods and my statement refers to yours as different from mine.

dhw: Which of the above humanized guesses are different from yours?

All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself, His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization. I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.


dhw: It’s clear that religious folk have tried to take over ID, just as it’s clear that there are ID-ers who wish to avoid all such diversions from their scientific work.

DAVID: Again, my beliefs about ID ae quite correct. The very religious folks ae allowed to sneak in their strong religious bias but only in commentaries, not articles or research. The ID godfathers set up the no-god rules at the beginning:

dhw: This is another way of saying what I have just said above, but it is totally irrelevant to our dispute, which is whether, as you have claimed, ID-ers support your belief that God designed every single extinct life form, lifestyle, econiche and natural wonder as preparation for humans and their food, i.e. as “part of the goal of evolving [= design] humans” and their food.

DAVID: ID is not as you have obviously imagined it to be.

dhw: It is exactly as I have imagined it to be, but that is not the issue anyway. See the bold above.

ID is not your concept of it. See the ID entry today.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, March 13, 2022, 11:22 (746 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is true I have no idea why God chose His evolution method, but […] I see evolution as a whole process and you split it into unrelated parts.

dhw: I see both: all life forms are descended from the first cells = whole. Life forms split into branches that had no connection with each other = split. You have no idea why your God would have chosen the evolution method you impose on him. Please don’t confuse your theory with fact.

DAVID: The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.

The non-connected branches all descended from Archaea, but in what way could they have been “preparation” for humans if they ended up as non-humans and did not provide food for humans? You keep admitting you have no idea, and yet you keep obfuscating through your “food-for-all” evasion.

dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

DAVID: All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself…

But you guessed that his purpose for designing us was that we should admire his work and maybe have a relationship with him. You also guessed that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. How can these be “without regard to Himself”?

DAVID: …His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization.

Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

DAVID: I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.

I have never twisted your comments into facts: on the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your theories and your guesses are NOT facts although you constantly present them as if they were. The worst of all is your assumption that your illogical theory of evolution (God designed every unconnected life form and food as preparation for humans plus food, and as part of his one and only goal of designing humans plus food) is fact, and I mustn’t query it.

The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 13, 2022, 15:49 (746 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.

dhw: The non-connected branches all descended from Archaea, but in what way could they have been “preparation” for humans if they ended up as non-humans and did not provide food for humans? You keep admitting you have no idea, and yet you keep obfuscating through your “food-for-all” evasion.

You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.


dhw: The humanized guesses “as shown” were your own: your God’s enjoyment, interest, thought patterns, emotions and logic like ours, and even a desire for admiration from and relations with humans. I’m sorry to hear that you are very far apart from your own guesses.

DAVID: All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself…

dhw: But you guessed that his purpose for designing us was that we should admire his work and maybe have a relationship with him. You also guessed that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. How can these be “without regard to Himself”?

Exactly guesses as how secondary effects of His works MIGHT affect him!


DAVID: …His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization.

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

Somewhere in the past you discussed God changing course!


DAVID: I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.

dhw: I have never twisted your comments into facts: on the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your theories and your guesses are NOT facts although you constantly present them as if they were. The worst of all is your assumption that your illogical theory of evolution (God designed every unconnected life form and food as preparation for humans plus food, and as part of his one and only goal of designing humans plus food) is fact, and I mustn’t query it.

But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.


dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

See today's ID video entry. Right on point

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, March 14, 2022, 11:15 (745 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The fact is all twigs go back to Archaea. The bush of the differing nonconnected branches provides the necessary food for all. Holistically makes total sense. I don't question God's choices.

dhw: The non-connected branches all descended from Archaea, but in what way could they have been “preparation” for humans if they ended up as non-humans and did not provide food for humans? You keep admitting you have no idea, and yet you keep obfuscating through your “food-for-all” evasion.

DAVID: You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.

I don’t “evade” it. I merely point out that “food for all” does not mean that all past foods and all past eaters and past eaten were “preparation” for humans, and were part of your God’s “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: All of my God's actions are from purposefully creating without regard to Himself…

dhw: But you guessed that his purpose for designing us was that we should admire his work and maybe have a relationship with him. You also guessed that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. How can these be “without regard to Himself”?

DAVID: Exactly guesses as how secondary effects of His works MIGHT affect him!

How can enjoying creating and being interested in his creations, and wanting admiration and a relationship, be “secondary effects”? Do you think he didn’t know he enjoyed, was interested, wanted admiration and a relationship until after he’d done his creating?

DAVID: …His personal needs or his secondary personal reactions which follow creation. He never requires experimentation and never changes his mind about His direction as compared to your wishy-washy characterization.

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

DAVID: Somewhere in the past you discussed God changing course!

Perhaps this relates to one of my theories: that in the course of creating new life forms etc., he might have learned new things and come up with new ideas, including that of creating a life form with thought patterns, emotions and logic like his own. As you agreed, that would be a perfectly logical theistic explanation for that part of evolution’s history which you can’t explain.

DAVID: I accept theologians view of God. Your attempt to equate our Gods come from my guesswork about how He might personally feel. You make ludicrous comparisons by tortuously twisting my comments into facts.

dhw: I have never twisted your comments into facts: on the contrary, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that your theories and your guesses are NOT facts although you constantly present them as if they were. The worst of all is your assumption that your illogical theory of evolution (God designed every unconnected life form and food as preparation for humans plus food, and as part of his one and only goal of designing humans plus food) is fact, and I mustn’t query it.

DAVID: But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.

Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

DAVID: See today's ID video entry. Right on point,

It simply makes your own theory even more self-contradictory.


Let's study ID: no tree of life

An ID video of 15 minutes doesn't even accept a bush:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-tree-of-life-is-just-ground-cover/

DAVID: Homology and genetic comparisons don't work to make a tree. Really trying to deny Darwin's common descent. Mirrors dhw's complaint that the road to humans was too torturous as a reasonable approach for God to follow.

Too torturous if he started out with the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess! :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, March 14, 2022, 14:33 (745 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.

dhw: I don’t “evade” it. I merely point out that “food for all” does not mean that all past foods and all past eaters and past eaten were “preparation” for humans, and were part of your God’s “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

Not a dodge. I view all of evolution as a connected mechanism to produce humans.


dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food.

DAVID: Somewhere in the past you discussed God changing course!

dhw: Perhaps this relates to one of my theories: that in the course of creating new life forms etc., he might have learned new things and come up with new ideas, including that of creating a life form with thought patterns, emotions and logic like his own. As you agreed, that would be a perfectly logical theistic explanation for that part of evolution’s history which you can’t explain.

A logical explanation only for your style of a god. I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.


DAVID: But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.

dhw: Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

Same illogical complaint. Just accept history as showing God's choices.


dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

DAVID: See today's ID video entry. Right on point,

It simply makes your own theory even more self-contradictory.


Let's study ID: no tree of life

An ID video of 15 minutes doesn't even accept a bush:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwins-tree-of-life-is-just-ground-cover/

DAVID: Homology and genetic comparisons don't work to make a tree. Really trying to deny Darwin's common descent. Mirrors dhw's complaint that the road to humans was too torturous as a reasonable approach for God to follow.

dhw: Too torturous if he started out with the sole purpose of designing humans plus food. You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess! :-(

I'm just giving you a taste of what ID does in their propaganda. I am free, as you are, to develop my individual theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 07:03 (745 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You evade the truism that at each stage of evolution ecosystem provided food for all.

dhw: I don’t “evade” it. I merely point out that “food for all” does not mean that all past foods and all past eaters and past eaten were “preparation” for humans, and were part of your God’s “goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Not a dodge. I view all of evolution as a connected mechanism to produce humans.

I know you do. And yet you also agree that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and extinct life had no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between the brontosaurus and us, and you have no idea why your God – whose only purpose was us and our food – would have designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food. [...]

DAVID: [...] I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.

Experimentation provides a logical explanation for your God wanting to design humans but designing life forms etc. that turned out to have no connection with humans. On the other hand, the new ideas theory focuses on a “specific goal” of creating interesting things to watch, and learning as he goes along. A “free-for-all” suggests the same goal, with the added enjoyment provided by the unexpected. All of these theories are all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning. However, they depict a God who is not all-knowing but – perhaps along the lines of A.N.Whitehead’s “process theology” – is always “becoming”, i.e. learning and experiencing.

DAVID: But we discuss and question each other. That I won't accept your un-god-like view of God is fact.

dhw: Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

DAVID: Same illogical complaint. Just accept history as showing God's choices.

If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

Instead of doing so, you offered us a video pooh-poohing common descent, and helping to show up the contradictory elements of your own beliefs:

dhw: You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess!

DAVID: I'm just giving you a taste of what ID does in their propaganda. I am free, as you are, to develop my individual theories.

You keep telling me that ID supports your illogical theory, then you quote an ID-er whose “propaganda” negates half of what you believe, and you totally ignore the contradictions in your own beliefs that I have just listed. :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 15, 2022, 14:05 (744 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not a dodge. I view all of evolution as a connected mechanism to produce humans.

dhw: I know you do. And yet you also agree that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and extinct life had no role to play in current life, and there is no direct connection between the brontosaurus and us, and you have no idea why your God – whose only purpose was us and our food – would have designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.


dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food. [...]

DAVID: [...] I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.

dhw: Experimentation provides a logical explanation for your God wanting to design humans but designing life forms etc. that turned out to have no connection with humans. On the other hand, the new ideas theory focuses on a “specific goal” of creating interesting things to watch, and learning as he goes along. A “free-for-all” suggests the same goal, with the added enjoyment provided by the unexpected. All of these theories are all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning. However, they depict a God who is not all-knowing but – perhaps along the lines of A.N.Whitehead’s “process theology” – is always “becoming”, i.e. learning and experiencing.

Follow Whitehead if you wish. I view your God as highly humanized

dhw: Yes, it is a fact that you think you know what God must be like or can’t be like, and so you cling to an illogical theory which you can’t explain.

DAVID: Same illogical complaint. Just accept history as showing God's choices.

dhw: If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

Not Choice! The vast body of food is a necessary accompaniment. You quote Whitehead while I follow Adler who totally negates your illogical complaints.


dhw: The debate about what ID-ers believe is a digression from this issue. If, as you claim, they all believe in the above theory, please tell me how they explain the obvious discrepancy.

Instead of doing so, you offered us a video pooh-poohing common descent, and helping to show up the contradictory elements of your own beliefs:

dhw: You yourself have accepted the image of life as a bush, you believe that we and all other life forms are descended from bacteria, you accept that at least the fossil record confirms our descent from the apes, and you insist that evolution is a whole. But as we don’t have a fossil record of all species in all stages going back to bacteria, you also insist that evolution is not a whole, and your God kept popping in to design new species without precursors. And although most of these and their food had no connection with us and our food, they were all apparently preparation for us and our food. Your theory of evolution is a total mess!

DAVID: I'm just giving you a taste of what ID does in their propaganda. I am free, as you are, to develop my individual theories.

dhw: You keep telling me that ID supports your illogical theory, then you quote an ID-er whose “propaganda” negates half of what you believe, and you totally ignore the contradictions in your own beliefs that I have just listed. :-(

They are your illogical contradictions. If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears. ID supports a designer who creates as he wishes, God unmentioned.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 11:11 (743 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.

You do not wish to recognize the obvious truth of your own statement that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and so it is patently absurd to argue that every extinct past food was specially designed in preparation for human food. Ditto your fixed belief that every extinct organism was specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

dhw: Experimentation and having new ideas are not “changing his mind”. They are theories to explain why he might have individually designed every life form plus food that had no connection with humans – that part of your theory which otherwise makes no sense if his sole purpose was to design humans plus our food. [...]

DAVID: [...] I view God as all-knowing and all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning of His creating.

dhw: Experimentation provides a logical explanation for your God wanting to design humans but designing life forms etc. that turned out to have no connection with humans. On the other hand, the new ideas theory focuses on a “specific goal” of creating interesting things to watch, and learning as he goes along. A “free-for-all” suggests the same goal, with the added enjoyment provided by the unexpected. All of these theories are all-purposeful with specific goals from the beginning. However, they depict a God who is not all-knowing but – perhaps along the lines of A.N.Whitehead’s “process theology” – is always “becoming”, i.e. learning and experiencing.

DAVID: Follow Whitehead if you wish. I view your God as highly humanized.

See below.

DAVID: (from “More miscellany"): Our human personality does mirror Him, but that should not be used to imagine He has equivalent thoughts and desires.

dhw:. […] If our human personality does mirror him, how do you know you are wrong when you “guess” that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and when I “guess” that this might be his purpose for creating life?

DAVID: I'm not saying I'm wrong about my guesses, but guesses have little weight in being sure about the conclusions guesses bring. That is why I don't accept your guesses about God. I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. (See above.) And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: Just accept history as showing God's choices.

dhw: If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

DAVID: Not Choice! The vast body of food is a necessary accompaniment.

dhw: The vast body of past foods was necessary for past organisms. That does not mean that all past food and organisms were necessary for the production and survival of humans! […]

DAVID: […] If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears.

Of course it doesn’t disappear. The complexity of humans, just like the complexity of all life forms, is such that it is perfectly logical to argue that they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. You have told us repeatedly that Adler does NOT cover your own illogical theory, so please stop hiding behind him.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 15:44 (743 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.

dhw: You do not wish to recognize the obvious truth of your own statement that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and so it is patently absurd to argue that every extinct past food was specially designed in preparation for human food. Ditto your fixed belief that every extinct organism was specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.


DAVID: (from “More miscellany"): Our human personality does mirror Him, but that should not be used to imagine He has equivalent thoughts and desires.

dhw:. […] If our human personality does mirror him, how do you know you are wrong when you “guess” that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and when I “guess” that this might be his purpose for creating life?

DAVID: I'm not saying I'm wrong about my guesses, but guesses have little weight in being sure about the conclusions guesses bring. That is why I don't accept your guesses about God. I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

dhw: I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. (See above.) And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

Our guesses about the above attributes you list agree. The difference is in how God decides to create in the process of His designed evolution. He does not need to experiment, change his mind in midstream or create anything just for His enjoyment as in free-for-all..


DAVID: Just accept history as showing God's choices.

dhw: If God exists, then clearly the countless branches unconnected with humans and their food must have been his choice. That makes nonsense of the claim that humans and their food were his one and only choice.

DAVID: Not Choice! The vast body of food is a necessary accompaniment.

dhw: The vast body of past foods was necessary for past organisms. That does not mean that all past food and organisms were necessary for the production and survival of humans! […]

DAVID: […] If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t disappear. The complexity of humans, just like the complexity of all life forms, is such that it is perfectly logical to argue that they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. You have told us repeatedly that Adler does NOT cover your own illogical theory, so please stop hiding behind him.

I'm not hiding behind him any more than you hide behind Shapiro. Adler uses evolution as I do with humans as the purposeful endpoint. My only difference with Adler is I try to analyze how God did it. And as usual your illogical complaint about my view of evolution is still highly illogical to me. It always comes across as why not direct creation?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, March 17, 2022, 09:05 (743 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You will never understand the giant bush of life provides necessary food for all, past and present.

dhw: You do not wish to recognize the obvious truth of your own statement that past foods were for the past and not for the present, and so it is patently absurd to argue that every extinct past food was specially designed in preparation for human food. Ditto your fixed belief that every extinct organism was specially designed “as part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans.”

DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.

Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. But as usual, you are sidestepping the issue, this time ignoring the fact that evolution is a bush that split up into countless branches, the majority of which have died out and did NOT lead to humans or to their food. We are at the end of only one branch, and past foods were for the past and not for the present. Don’t you ever get tired of dodging?

DAVID: I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

dhw: I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. [...] And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: Our guesses about the above attributes you list agree.

Then please stop moaning about my “humanizing” God, since you do exactly the same.

DAVID: The difference is in how God decides to create in the process of His designed evolution. He does not need to experiment, change his mind in midstream or create anything just for His enjoyment as in free-for-all.

Experimentation is an explanation for that part of your own theory which you can’t explain: if your God’s purpose was to design humans plus our food, why did he design all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us? You can reject it, of course, but then that leaves you with no idea how to explain your illogical theory. None of my theories have him changing his mind in midstream. Looking for new ideas, learning and discovering, can be a purpose in itself. If you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, why is it illogical to theorize that his purpose might be to enjoy creating something that will interest him?


DAVID: […] If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t disappear. The complexity of humans, just like the complexity of all life forms, is such that it is perfectly logical to argue that they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. You have told us repeatedly that Adler does NOT cover your own illogical theory, so please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: I'm not hiding behind him any more than you hide behind Shapiro. Adler uses evolution as I do with humans as the purposeful endpoint. My only difference with Adler is I try to analyze how God did it.

Shapiro proposes cellular intelligence, and I find his argument convincing. Adler proposes design and hence a designer, and I find his proposal convincing. You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT propose that your God individually designed every single life form, food, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food.

DAVID: And as usual your illogical complaint about my view of evolution is still highly illogical to me. It always comes across as why not direct creation?

Of course it does. You can’t explain why an all-powerful God with only one purpose would not fulfil that purpose directly! In view of the fact that he did NOT fulfil your version of his purpose directly, it is perfectly logical to suggest that maybe he had a different purpose!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 17, 2022, 15:29 (742 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.

dhw: Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. But as usual, you are sidestepping the issue, this time ignoring the fact that evolution is a bush that split up into countless branches, the majority of which have died out and did NOT lead to humans or to their food. We are at the end of only one branch, and past foods were for the past and not for the present. Don’t you ever get tired of dodging?

The continuous view is we can trace us back to bacteria. Your non-god view confuses you about the Cambrian gap.


DAVID: I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

dhw: I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. [...] And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: Our guesses about the above attributes you list agree.

dhw: Then please stop moaning about my “humanizing” God, since you do exactly the same.

Our guesses may be the same but our Gods differ widely in personality. Don't deny it!


DAVID: The difference is in how God decides to create in the process of His designed evolution. He does not need to experiment, change his mind in midstream or create anything just for His enjoyment as in free-for-all.

dhw: Experimentation is an explanation for that part of your own theory which you can’t explain: if your God’s purpose was to design humans plus our food, why did he design all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us? You can reject it, of course, but then that leaves you with no idea how to explain your illogical theory. None of my theories have him changing his mind in midstream. Looking for new ideas, learning and discovering, can be a purpose in itself. If you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, why is it illogical to theorize that his purpose might be to enjoy creating something that will interest him?

There you go again in bold: my guesses about His reactions to what He creates has nothing to do with His purposes in creation. It's time you tried to understand that distinction.>


DAVID: […] If Adler accepted your views his argument for God disappears.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t disappear. The complexity of humans, just like the complexity of all life forms, is such that it is perfectly logical to argue that they must have been designed, and therefore there must be a designer. You have told us repeatedly that Adler does NOT cover your own illogical theory, so please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: I'm not hiding behind him any more than you hide behind Shapiro. Adler uses evolution as I do with humans as the purposeful endpoint. My only difference with Adler is I try to analyze how God did it.

Shapiro proposes cellular intelligence, and I find his argument convincing. Adler proposes design and hence a designer, and I find his proposal convincing. You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT propose that your God individually designed every single life form, food, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with humans plus food, for the sole purpose of designing humans plus food.

DAVID: And as usual your illogical complaint about my view of evolution is still highly illogical to me. It always comes across as why not direct creation?

dhw: Of course it does. You can’t explain why an all-powerful God with only one purpose would not fulfil that purpose directly! In view of the fact that he did NOT fulfil your version of his purpose directly, it is perfectly logical to suggest that maybe he had a different purpose!

It is simple for believers: God chose to evolve us, the only history we have to study, and you criticism God's choice while not believing in Him.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, March 18, 2022, 09:44 (742 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.

dhw: Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. But as usual, you are sidestepping the issue, this time ignoring the fact that evolution is a bush that split up into countless branches, the majority of which have died out and did NOT lead to humans or to their food. We are at the end of only one branch, and past foods were for the past and not for the present. Don’t you ever get tired of dodging?

DAVID: The continuous view is we can trace us back to bacteria. Your non-god view confuses you about the Cambrian gap.

According to you, we are descended from life forms which appeared without precursors during the Cambrian Gap. Please stop trying to use my agnosticism as an excuse for dodging the issue of your illogical theory.

DAVID: I have my purposeful goal-directed God and your guesses produce a humanized God.

dhw: I have already responded to your insinuation that my theories leave God without a purpose. They don’t. [...] And I have shown in detail that your own guesses about God (enjoyment, interest, shared thought patterns, emotions and logic, kindness, desire to be admired, to have a relationship with us) are just as humanized as mine, and I find it perfectly feasible that a creator might invest his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: Our guesses about the above attributes you list agree.

dhw: Then please stop moaning about my “humanizing” God, since you do exactly the same.

DAVID: Our guesses may be the same but our Gods differ widely in personality. Don't deny it!

My point is that you should stop dismissing my various proposals as “humanizing” God when you yourself also humanize him. In fact, I have used your own humanizations as the basis of some of my arguments, as below.

dhw: If you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, why is it illogical to theorize that his purpose might be to enjoy creating something that will interest him?

DAVID: There you go again in bold: my guesses about His reactions to what He creates has nothing to do with His purposes in creation. It's time you tried to understand that distinction.

Do you really believe that the results of actions can have nothing to do with the purpose of those actions? What sort of logic is that?

DAVID: [...] as usual your illogical complaint about my view of evolution is still highly illogical to me. It always comes across as why not direct creation?

dhw: Of course it does. You can’t explain why an all-powerful God with only one purpose would not fulfil that purpose directly! In view of the fact that he did NOT fulfil your version of his purpose directly, it is perfectly logical to suggest that maybe he had a different purpose![/b]

DAVID: It is simple for believers: God chose to evolve us, the only history we have to study, and you criticism God's choice while not believing in Him.
And from “More miscellany”:
DAVID:That is difference between you and God. God makes sense only to Himself! He has reasons we may not understand but simply accept as believers. As a result you have a problem, and I don't.

Yet again: if God exists, he chose to “evolve” (by which you mean individually design) all life forms, and not just us, though you claim that we plus our food were his one and only purpose. You admit that you can’t explain why, and so yet again you claim that your illogical theory is a fact which we must all accept. It’s not a fact, there are alternative theistic explanations of evolution which you agree are logical, and my agnosticism is totally irrelevant.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, March 18, 2022, 18:40 (741 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The continuous view is we can trace us back to bacteria. Your non-god view confuses you about the Cambrian gap.

dhw: According to you, we are descended from life forms which appeared without precursors during the Cambrian Gap. Please stop trying to use my agnosticism as an excuse for dodging the issue of your illogical theory.

Again, God as designer caused the gap. The gap is a strong support of a designer at work!!


dhw: Then please stop moaning about my “humanizing” God, since you do exactly the same.

DAVID: Our guesses may be the same but our Gods differ widely in personality. Don't deny it!

dhw: My point is that you should stop dismissing my various proposals as “humanizing” God when you yourself also humanize him. In fact, I have used your own humanizations as the basis of some of my arguments, as below.

Once again you have to ignore the obvious personality differences in our views of God


dhw: If you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, why is it illogical to theorize that his purpose might be to enjoy creating something that will interest him?

DAVID: There you go again in bold: my guesses about His reactions to what He creates has nothing to do with His purposes in creation. It's time you tried to understand that distinction.

dhw: Do you really believe that the results of actions can have nothing to do with the purpose of those actions? What sort of logic is that?

I'm claiming just the opposite! Our individual descriptions of God's purposes demonstrate two entirely different personalities.


DAVID: [...] as usual your illogical complaint about my view of evolution is still highly illogical to me. It always comes across as why not direct creation?

dhw: Of course it does. You can’t explain why an all-powerful God with only one purpose would not fulfil that purpose directly! In view of the fact that he did NOT fulfil your version of his purpose directly, it is perfectly logical to suggest that maybe he had a different purpose![/b]

DAVID: It is simple for believers: God chose to evolve us, the only history we have to study, and you criticism God's choice while not believing in Him.
And from “More miscellany”:
DAVID:That is difference between you and God. God makes sense only to Himself! He has reasons we may not understand but simply accept as believers. As a result you have a problem, and I don't.

dhw: Yet again: if God exists, he chose to “evolve” (by which you mean individually design) all life forms, and not just us, though you claim that we plus our food were his one and only purpose. You admit that you can’t explain why, and so yet again you claim that your illogical theory is a fact which we must all accept. It’s not a fact, there are alternative theistic explanations of evolution which you agree are logical, and my agnosticism is totally irrelevant.

Please not 'only purpose', as that is your defensive distortion of my thoughts. Humans are the purposeful endpoint of His creative evolution. Reference Adler here. The ancillary requirement of a huge bush for food is obvious. Your theistic explanations are perfectly logical if one accepts your humanized version of God. I don't. Our Concepts of God are vastly different which makes your agnostic view totally relevant. You do not approach concepts of God as I do. I know you think you are fair and neutral. But belief is different for those of us who believe, as it makes God a certain sort of personage, again per Adler's other book I quote, How to think about God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, March 19, 2022, 07:37 (741 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The continuous view is we can trace us back to bacteria. Your non-god view confuses you about the Cambrian gap.

dhw: According to you, we are descended from life forms which appeared without precursors during the Cambrian Gap. Please stop trying to use my agnosticism as an excuse for dodging the issue of your illogical theory.

DAVID: Again, God as designer caused the gap. The gap is a strong support of a designer at work!!

Why have you changed the subject? In one breath you tell us that there are gaps, and God designed our Cambrian ancestors with no precursors, and the next moment there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. I am the one who upholds the theory of continuity, which means that all the different branches of life’s bush – including all those that had no connection with humans plus food – are descended from bacteria.

dhw: […] please stop moaning about my “humanizing” God, since you do exactly the same..

DAVID: Once again you have to ignore the obvious personality differences in our views of God.

The fact that some of your humanizations may be different from some of mine does not justify your dismissal of mine on grounds of “humanization”.

dhw: If you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, why is it illogical to theorize that his purpose might be to enjoy creating something that will interest him?

DAVID: There you go again in bold: my guesses about His reactions to what He creates has nothing to do with His purposes in creation. It's time you tried to understand that distinction.

dhw: Do you really believe that the results of actions can have nothing to do with the purpose of those actions? What sort of logic is that?

DAVID: I'm claiming just the opposite! Our individual descriptions of God's purposes demonstrate two entirely different personalities.

Please explain why our common ground humanization theory that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations cannot possibly mean that his purpose for creating life might have been to create things that he would find interesting.

DAVID: It is simple for believers: God chose to evolve us, the only history we have to study, and you criticism God's choice while not believing in Him.
And from “More miscellany”:
DAVID:That is difference between you and God. God makes sense only to Himself! He has reasons we may not understand but simply accept as believers. As a result you have a problem, and I don't.

dhw: Yet again: if God exists, he chose to “evolve” (by which you mean individually design) all life forms, and not just us, though you claim that we plus our food were his one and only purpose. You admit that you can’t explain why, and so yet again you claim that your illogical theory is a fact which we must all accept. It’s not a fact, there are alternative theistic explanations of evolution which you agree are logical, and my agnosticism is totally irrelevant.

DAVID: Please not 'only purpose', as that is your defensive distortion of my thoughts. Humans are the purposeful endpoint of His creative evolution

“Goal” and “purpose” have now turned into “purposeful endpoint”! We may be the last and the most dominant species, but that does not mean every life form and food was “preparation for us” and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food. Two days ago, you wrote: “I don’t pretend with my firmly established beliefs. All of evolution, designed by God, prepared for us.” Whenever you've tried to squirm out of this "firmly established belief", I’ve asked you to tell us what other purpose your God might have had, and so far your only answer has been to provide food for all (see below), but if all the different branches and foods were "preparation" for humans (even though most of the different branches and foods had no connection with humans), we are back to humans plus food being your God’s one and only purpose. Please stop dodging.

Transferred from “Cellular intelligence”:

dhw: Please tell us why you think your God wanted a constant war of survival between his creations.

DAVID: You still haven't resolved the issue of everyone has to eat, and plants have to absorb nutrients. The life system we have requires constant homeostasis, which means a constant energy requirement to support it. What kind of non-war life do you imagine?

There is no issue: all organisms have to eat. That doesn't mean that all organisms have to eat each other, and it most certainly doesn’t mean that all organisms were specially designed in preparation for humans and our food. There is no reason at all to assume that your God could not have designed a Garden of Eden, with all life forms – including humans - as vegetarians, living and cooperating in peace with one another. Let us not forget that your God is all-knowing and all-powerful. So once more, why do you think he chose to create life as “a constant war to survive by eating"?

The rest of your post goes over old ground, and continues to divert attention away from the fundamental illogicality of your theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 19, 2022, 15:44 (740 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again, God as designer caused the gap. The gap is a strong support of a designer at work!!

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? In one breath you tell us that there are gaps, and God designed our Cambrian ancestors with no precursors, and the next moment there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. I am the one who upholds the theory of continuity, which means that all the different branches of life’s bush – including all those that had no connection with humans plus food – are descended from bacteria.

The gaps are in God's control.. Subject not changed. The gap is phenotypical not biochemical which is continuous!


dhw: Do you really believe that the results of actions can have nothing to do with the purpose of those actions? What sort of logic is that?

DAVID: I'm claiming just the opposite! Our individual descriptions of God's purposes demonstrate two entirely different personalities.

dhw: Please explain why our common ground humanization theory that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations cannot possibly mean that his purpose for creating life might have been to create things that he would find interesting.

A purely human purpose! He doesn't need to create for His enjoyment.


DAVID: Please not 'only purpose', as that is your defensive distortion of my thoughts. Humans are the purposeful endpoint of His creative evolution

“Goal” and “purpose” have now turned into “purposeful endpoint”! We may be the last and the most dominant species, but that does not mean every life form and food was “preparation for us” and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food. Two days ago, you wrote: “I don’t pretend with my firmly established beliefs. All of evolution, designed by God, prepared for us.” Whenever you've tried to squirm out of this "firmly established belief", I’ve asked you to tell us what other purpose your God might have had, and so far your only answer has been to provide food for all (see below), but if all the different branches and foods were "preparation" for humans (even though most of the different branches and foods had no connection with humans), we are back to humans plus food being your God’s one and only purpose. Please stop dodging.

The dodge is yours. Humans are God's endpoint/ending purpose through God's designed evolution. You've said He should have logically (your human logic) used direct creation. He didn't because He doesn't think like you or your supposed god does. At every level from BB on He evolves.


Transferred from “Cellular intelligence”:

dhw: Please tell us why you think your God wanted a constant war of survival between his creations.

DAVID: You still haven't resolved the issue of everyone has to eat, and plants have to absorb nutrients. The life system we have requires constant homeostasis, which means a constant energy requirement to support it. What kind of non-war life do you imagine?

dhw: There is no issue: all organisms have to eat. That doesn't mean that all organisms have to eat each other, and it most certainly doesn’t mean that all organisms were specially designed in preparation for humans and our food. There is no reason at all to assume that your God could not have designed a Garden of Eden, with all life forms – including humans - as vegetarians, living and cooperating in peace with one another. Let us not forget that your God is all-knowing and all-powerful. So once more, why do you think he chose to create life as “a constant war to survive by eating"?

In your Eden all eat plants. We know plants don't like it from current research. You ask why can't we have life without war. Your proposal is a war on plants!! Your whole complaint against God's invention is illogical and spurious.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, March 20, 2022, 11:52 (739 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] I am the one who upholds the theory of continuity, which means that all the different branches of life’s bush – including all those that had no connection with humans plus food – are descended from bacteria.

DAVID: The gaps are in God's control. […] The gap is phenotypical not biochemical which is continuous!

Of course all life is biochemical! But your focus is on the gaps between species! And so you tell us that there is a continuous line of species from bacteria to humans, and yet humans are descended from species that have no precursors. You can’t have it both ways.

dhw: Please explain why our common ground humanization theory that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations cannot possibly mean that his purpose for creating life might have been to create things that he would find interesting.

DAVID: A purely human purpose! He doesn't need to create for His enjoyment.

It doesn’t have to be “need”. You can enjoy something without being needy! We both agree that if God exists, he must have had a purpose in creating life. You say it was to create humans and their food. He must have had a purpose for creating humans. You guess that he might have wanted us to admire his works and to have a relationship with him. Perfectly logical, and human. You also guess (and once were sure) that he enjoys creation and is interested in his creations. Perfectly logical, and human (why would he create if he didn’t enjoy it and wasn’t interested in it?). You agree that we may mimic him and we may share some of his thought patterns and emotions and logic. You could hardly present a stronger case against your own complaint against “humanization” when it comes to the discussion of God’s possible purpose in creating life.

DAVID: Please not 'only purpose', as that is your defensive distortion of my thoughts. Humans are the purposeful endpoint of His creative evolution

dhw: “Goal” and “purpose” have now turned into “purposeful endpoint”! We may be the last and the most dominant species, but that does not mean every life form and food was “preparation for us” and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food. Two days ago, you wrote: “I don’t pretend with my firmly established beliefs. All of evolution, designed by God, prepared for us.” [...] Please stop dodging.[...]

DAVID: The dodge is yours. Humans are God's endpoint/ending purpose through God's designed evolution. You've said He should have logically (your human logic) used direct creation. He didn't because He doesn't think like you or your supposed god does. At every level from BB on He evolves.

I am not denying that at every level life has evolved! You are still saying humans were your God’s purpose (now called “ending purpose”), so do you withdraw the bolded comments above or not? Please answer. If you stand by them, it makes no sense to have him specially designing all the species and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. Therefore either he did NOT design every level, or his purpose was NOT confined to achieving just one level plus food. And I propose that God might well think logically like some of us, and not illogically like you! :-(

Transferred from “Cellular intelligence”:

dhw: Please tell us why you think your God wanted a constant war of survival between his creations.

DAVID: You still haven't resolved the issue of everyone has to eat, and plants have to absorb nutrients. The life system we have requires constant homeostasis, which means a constant energy requirement to support it. What kind of non-war life do you imagine?

dhw: There is no issue: all organisms have to eat. There is no reason at all to assume that your God could not have designed a Garden of Eden, with all life forms – including humans - as vegetarians, living and cooperating in peace with one another. Let us not forget that your God is all-knowing and all-powerful. So once more, why do you think he chose to create life as “a constant war to survive by eating"?

DAVID: In your Eden all eat plants. We know plants don't like it from current research. You ask why can't we have life without war. Your proposal is a war on plants!! Your whole complaint against God's invention is illogical and spurious.

You asked what kind of non-war life I imagined, and I have answered. Apart from the few carnivorous species, plants draw their nutrients from inanimate food. They may struggle to survive, but they do not hunt and kill, and I doubt if you would describe a herd of cows munching grass as part of a constant war to survive by eating. According to you, your God specially designed all species, and so he specially designed a constant war. Once more, please tell us why you think he chose to do so.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 20, 2022, 15:48 (739 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Please explain why our common ground humanization theory that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations cannot possibly mean that his purpose for creating life might have been to create things that he would find interesting.

DAVID: A purely human purpose! He doesn't need to create for His enjoyment.

dhw: It doesn’t have to be “need”. You can enjoy something without being needy! We both agree that if God exists, he must have had a purpose in creating life. You say it was to create humans and their food. He must have had a purpose for creating humans. You guess that he might have wanted us to admire his works and to have a relationship with him. Perfectly logical, and human. You also guess (and once were sure) that he enjoys creation and is interested in his creations. Perfectly logical, and human (why would he create if he didn’t enjoy it and wasn’t interested in it?). You agree that we may mimic him and we may share some of his thought patterns and emotions and logic. You could hardly present a stronger case against your own complaint against “humanization” when it comes to the discussion of God’s possible purpose in creating life.

The only view of God it is logical to have is humans were God's purpose. How God felt/thought about that purpose is hidden in His personal thoughts to which we are not privy. God didn't necessarily do it to please Himself. God creates, that is His role. We've agreed He must enjoy it. He gave us the mental capacity to recognize His existence. There is no way to know if He wished accolades or thanks. Religions do that hopefully: maybe He'll do more for us, make our lives easier, support us, etc. As for God inventing life, it was just a part of the necessary course for God to follow.

dhw: “Goal” and “purpose” have now turned into “purposeful endpoint”! We may be the last and the most dominant species, but that does not mean every life form and food was “preparation for us” and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food. Two days ago, you wrote: “I don’t pretend with my firmly established beliefs. All of evolution, designed by God, prepared for us.” [...] Please stop dodging.[...]


DAVID: Humans are God's endpoint/ending purpose through God's designed evolution. You've said He should have logically (your human logic) used direct creation. He didn't because He doesn't think like you or your supposed god does. At every level from BB on He evolves.

dhw: I am not denying that at every level life has evolved! You are still saying humans were your God’s purpose (now called “ending purpose”), so do you withdraw the bolded comments above or not? Please answer. If you stand by them, it makes no sense to have him specially designing all the species and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. Therefore either he did NOT design every level, or his purpose was NOT confined to achieving just one level plus food. And I propose that God might well think logically like some of us, and not illogically like you! :-(

Bold all you want. God knows what He is doing. He produced us with His purpose. It is obvious God's actions makes no sense to you, as Adler and I see them. I'm not hiding behind Adler as you pose. I read authorities on how to think about God.


Transferred from “Cellular intelligence”:

DAVID: In your Eden all eat plants. We know plants don't like it from current research. You ask why can't we have life without war. Your proposal is a war on plants!! Your whole complaint against God's invention is illogical and spurious.

dhw: You asked what kind of non-war life I imagined, and I have answered. Apart from the few carnivorous species, plants draw their nutrients from inanimate food. They may struggle to survive, but they do not hunt and kill, and I doubt if you would describe a herd of cows munching grass as part of a constant war to survive by eating. According to you, your God specially designed all species, and so he specially designed a constant war. Once more, please tell us why you think he chose to do so.

We are animals, evolved from previous animals. Plants appeared long after animals were present. The animals had to attack each other to eat and live. You want an evolution where plants came first, animals later just eating plants. But many animals cannot digest plants without an intestinal microbiome doing much of the work. That takes us back to requiring bacteria fighting/eating each other. Bacteria started life and are still here helping out in many ways. Conclusion: war is unavoidable and God chose the correct way to evolve us.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, March 21, 2022, 11:11 (738 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The only view of God it is logical to have is humans were God's purpose

And yet you cannot understand why he chose to design all those life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. You even go so far as to tell us “God makes sense only to himself. He has reasons we may not understand.” How wonderful to know that the only logical view is one which doesn’t make sense to us humans!

DAVID: How God felt/thought about that purpose is hidden in His personal thoughts to which we are not privy. God didn't necessarily do it to please Himself.

Of course we are not privy to his thoughts, if he exists.. But “didn’t necessarily” now leaves room for the possibility that he did do it to please Himself. Thank you.

DAVID: God creates, that is His role. We've agreed He must enjoy it.
And on the "brain" thread:
DAVID: The valid point we both have made is God would not create if He disliked it.

Thank you again. We are making great progress. He enjoys it, and it is possible (though not necessarily so) that he created life in order to please himself. I’ll settle for that.

DAVID (from the “brain” thread:) We are a purposeful creation, with God not doing it for His own emotional needs.

I keep repeating that I do not regard God as being “needy”. I am happy with your agreement that he enjoys creating, and therefore by extension it is possible that he creates because he wants to do something he enjoys.

DAVD: He gave us the mental capacity to recognize His existence. There is no way to know if He wished accolades or thanks. Religions do that hopefully: maybe He'll do more for us, make our lives easier, support us, etc. As for God inventing life, it was just a part of the necessary course for God to follow.

There is no way we can “know” anything about him, if he exists, and that is why you and I make our “humanizing” guesses, some of which even coincide. I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence. If God exists, then of course he invented life. What was “necessary” about it? He would have done whatever he wanted to do. And if, as you insist, his purpose was humans, why was it “necessary” to design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans?

dhw: Goal” and “purpose” have now turned into “purposeful endpoint”! We may be the last and the most dominant species, but that does not mean every life form and food was “preparation for us” and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus food. Two days ago, you wrote: “I don’t pretend with my firmly established beliefs. All of evolution, designed by God, prepared for us.” [...] Please stop dodging.[...]

DAVID:Bold all you want. God knows what He is doing. He produced us with His purpose.

Of course he knows what he is doing. And whatever may have been his purpose and his method, it has resulted in his having produced – whether directly or indirectly - humans, dinosaurs, dodos, the duckbilled platypus and every other life form and food that ever existed. How does that come to mean that every other life form and food was "preparation" for us, although most had no connection with us other than the fact that they were all "biochemical"?

DAVID: It is obvious God's actions makes no sense to you, as Adler and I see them. I'm not hiding behind Adler as you pose. I read authorities on how to think about God.

I’m amazed to hear that anyone has the “authority” on how to think about God, and I would be equally amazed to hear that these “authorities” claimed that God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and therefore he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food, and God makes sense only to himself and if we want a logical explanation for this theory, we shall have to ask God himself.

Transferred from “Cellular intelligence”:

dhw: You asked what kind of non-war life I imagined, and I have answered. Apart from the few carnivorous species, plants draw their nutrients from inanimate food. They may struggle to survive, but they do not hunt and kill, and I doubt if you would describe a herd of cows munching grass as part of a constant war to survive by eating. According to you, your God specially designed all species, and so he specially designed a constant war. Once more, please tell us why you think he chose to do so.

DAVID: We are animals, evolved from previous animals. Plants appeared long after animals were present. The animals had to attack each other to eat and live. […] Conclusion: war is unavoidable and God chose the correct way to evolve us.

You’re simply describing the system which resulted in the war. I’m not disputing that! I’m asking you why you think your God chose to design such a system. According to you, his only purpose was to design humans plus our food. Why, then, did he design all these different life forms in such a way that they all had to eat and kill one another, including those that eat and kill us or are eaten and killed by us? Why in your eyes is “war” correct, and do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing a peaceful “garden of Eden”?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, March 21, 2022, 14:37 (738 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The only view of God it is logical to have is humans were God's purpose

dhw" And yet you cannot understand why he chose to design all those life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. You even go so far as to tell us “God makes sense only to himself. He has reasons we may not understand.” How wonderful to know that the only logical view is one which doesn’t make sense to us humans!

Same distortion: I don't need to know why God chose to evolve us. Only you do.


DAVID (from the “brain” thread:) We are a purposeful creation, with God not doing it for His own emotional needs.

dhw: I keep repeating that I do not regard God as being “needy”. I am happy with your agreement that he enjoys creating, and therefore by extension it is possible that he creates because he wants to do something he enjoys.

Stop distorting! God does not need to create to produce enjoyment! Vastly different from your statement.


DAVID: He gave us the mental capacity to recognize His existence. There is no way to know if He wished accolades or thanks. Religions do that hopefully: maybe He'll do more for us, make our lives easier, support us, etc. As for God inventing life, it was just a part of the necessary course for God to follow.

dhw: There is no way we can “know” anything about him, if he exists, and that is why you and I make our “humanizing” guesses, some of which even coincide. I have no idea what you mean by your last sentence. If God exists, then of course he invented life. What was “necessary” about it? He would have done whatever he wanted to do.

Simple explanation explained many times: God evolves all steps from Big Bang to humans. His method of choice.

DAVID:Bold all you want. God knows what He is doing. He produced us with His purpose.

dhw: Of course he knows what he is doing. And whatever may have been his purpose and his method, it has resulted in his having produced – whether directly or indirectly - humans, dinosaurs, dodos, the duckbilled platypus and every other life form and food that ever existed. How does that come to mean that every other life form and food was "preparation" for us, although most had no connection with us other than the fact that they were all "biochemical"?

Yes, biochemical. Necessary simple biochemical processes were designed first, which underlies all phenotypical changes later.


DAVID: It is obvious God's actions makes no sense to you, as Adler and I see them. I'm not hiding behind Adler as you pose. I read authorities on how to think about God.

dhw: I’m amazed to hear that anyone has the “authority” on how to think about God, and I would be equally amazed to hear that these “authorities” claimed that God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and therefore he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food, and God makes sense only to himself and if we want a logical explanation for this theory, we shall have to ask God himself.

Did you ever study theistic views of God which show you how to view God for yourselF


Transferred from “Cellular intelligence”:

dhw: You asked what kind of non-war life I imagined, and I have answered. Apart from the few carnivorous species, plants draw their nutrients from inanimate food. They may struggle to survive, but they do not hunt and kill, and I doubt if you would describe a herd of cows munching grass as part of a constant war to survive by eating. According to you, your God specially designed all species, and so he specially designed a constant war. Once more, please tell us why you think he chose to do so.

DAVID: We are animals, evolved from previous animals. Plants appeared long after animals were present. The animals had to attack each other to eat and live. […] Conclusion: war is unavoidable and God chose the correct way to evolve us.

dhw: You’re simply describing the system which resulted in the war. I’m not disputing that! I’m asking you why you think your God chose to design such a system. According to you, his only purpose was to design humans plus our food. Why, then, did he design all these different life forms in such a way that they all had to eat and kill one another, including those that eat and kill us or are eaten and killed by us? Why in your eyes is “war” correct, and do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing a peaceful “garden of Eden”?

I haven't tried to conceive of a different peaceful form of life. Is it even possible? You raised the issue, so let's have your version.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, March 22, 2022, 18:22 (737 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The only view of God it is logical to have is humans were God's purpose

dhw: And yet you cannot understand why he chose to design all those life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. You even go so far as to tell us “God makes sense only to himself. He has reasons we may not understand.” How wonderful to know that the only logical view is one which doesn’t make sense to us humans!

DAVID: Same distortion: I don't need to know why God chose to evolve us. Only you do.

There is no distortion! You don’t know why, if we were your God’s only purpose, he didn’t choose to create us directly, and you don’t know why he chose to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. But you don’t need to know. You are happy to cling to beliefs that make no sense to you.

DAVID (from the “brain” thread:) We are a purposeful creation, with God not doing it for His own emotional needs.

dhw: I keep repeating that I do not regard God as being “needy”.. I am happy with your agreement that he enjoys creating, and therefore by extension it is possible that he creates because he wants to do something he enjoys.

DAVID: Stop distorting! God does not need to create to produce enjoyment! Vastly different from your statement.

The distortion is yours. I keep rejecting the word “need” (as bolded above), and my comment relates to your statements “We’ve agreed he must enjoy it” and “God didn’t necessarily do it to please himself”. The latter indicates that it is possible he did do it to please himself, and that is all I ask, since all my different proposals – just like yours - are unprovable theories
.
DAVID: God evolves all steps from Big Bang to humans. His method of choice.

I have never disputed that if God exists, he would have designed the system by which all life forms evolved, including humans and countless species unconnected with humans, other than through the fact that they were all “biochemical”.

DAVID: Yes, biochemical. Necessary simple biochemical processes were designed first, which underlies all phenotypical changes later.

But you have your God specially designing every individual species, although he only wanted to design one species plus its food, and you don’t know why, because God makes sense only to Himself.

DAVID: […] I read authorities on how to think about God.

dhw: I’m amazed to hear that anyone has the “authority” on how to think about God, and I would be equally amazed to hear that these “authorities” claimed…[no need for me to repeat your whole theory of evolution, which apparently only God can understand.]

DAVID: Did you ever study theistic views of God which show you how to view God for yourself?

This is a new dodge. Let’s ignore the arguments and focus on what dhw hasn’t read. He needs to read books which tell him how to think for himself!! Now please tell me if all the books you have read provide you with exactly the same opinions on how to view your God. Don’t any of them disagree with one another? Are all religions identical? Do all of them accept your theory of evolution which only God can understand?

David believes that God deliberately designed life as a “constant war to survive by eating
dhw: According to you, his only purpose was to design humans plus our food. Why, then, did he design all these different life forms in such a way that they all had to eat and kill one another, including those that eat and kill us or are eaten and killed by us? Why in your eyes is “war” correct, and do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing a peaceful “garden of Eden”?

DAVID: I haven't tried to conceive of a different peaceful form of life. Is it even possible? You raised the issue, so let's have your version.

I gave it to you in the previous post: a garden of Eden, in which all living forms cooperate peacefully with one another and get their food from sources that do not have to be hunted and killed. You have given us a fine example:

Bacteria help ground squirrels hibernate

QUOTE: "Sommer, who in 2016 reported the presence of seasonal bacteria potentially beneficial to hibernating brown bears, says that these new findings show that “there is an interplay” between the host and its intestinal microbiota “that allows specific adaptations” to hibernation." (David's bold)

DAVID: As noted previously, here is another example of the importance of bacteria, who are at the war on each other, that dhw needlessly worries about. Bacteria contribute to so many aspects of comfortable living, it would take a book to describe all of their contributions. Life started with bacteria and we can't live without them. Note the bolds.

Why did you insert “who are at war on each other”? You have just shown precisely how your all-powerful God could have created peaceful, cooperative life without war if he had wanted to. Please tell us why you think he chose not to.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 23, 2022, 00:31 (737 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same distortion: I don't need to know why God chose to evolve us. Only you do.

dhw: There is no distortion! You don’t know why, if we were your God’s only purpose, he didn’t choose to create us directly, and you don’t know why he chose to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. But you don’t need to know. You are happy to cling to beliefs that make no sense to you.

They make no sense to you, not me. Don't put your thoughts into my arena? Distortion of fact of a distortion of comprehension of a simple fact?

DAVID (from the “brain” thread:) We are a purposeful creation, with God not doing it for His own emotional needs.

The distortion is yours. I keep rejecting the word “need” (as bolded above), and my comment relates to your statements “We’ve agreed he must enjoy it” and “God didn’t necessarily do it to please himself”. The latter indicates that it is possible he did do it to please himself, and that is all I ask, since all my different proposals – just like yours - are unprovable theories.

Those possibilities are your attempt to humanize god.


DAVID: . Necessary simple biochemical processes were designed first, which underlies all phenotypical changes later.

dhw: But you have your God specially designing every individual species, although he only wanted to design one species plus its food, and you don’t know why, because God makes sense only to Himself

Not answering again. My point is evolution is evolving biochemistry and also phenotypical changes. Two separate parts of evolution. Can you recogbnize that?


DAVID: […] I read authorities on how to think about God.

dhw: I’m amazed to hear that anyone has the “authority” on how to think about God, and I would be equally amazed to hear that these “authorities” claimed…[no need for me to repeat your whole theory of evolution, which apparently only God can understand.]

DAVID: Did you ever study theistic views of God which show you how to view God for yourself?

dhw: This is a new dodge. Let’s ignore the arguments and focus on what dhw hasn’t read. He needs to read books which tell him how to think for himself!! Now please tell me if all the books you have read provide you with exactly the same opinions on how to view your God. Don’t any of them disagree with one another? Are all religions identical? Do all of them accept your theory of evolution which only God can understand?

Of course you are allowed to think for yourself, but aimlessly with no background in research in current thought on the subject?


DAVID: I haven't tried to conceive of a different peaceful form of life. Is it even possible? You raised the issue, so let's have your version.

dhw: I gave it to you in the previous post: a garden of Eden, in which all living forms cooperate peacefully with one another and get their food from sources that do not have to be hunted and killed. You have given us a fine example:

Bacteria help ground squirrels hibernate

QUOTE: "Sommer, who in 2016 reported the presence of seasonal bacteria potentially beneficial to hibernating brown bears, says that these new findings show that “there is an interplay” between the host and its intestinal microbiota “that allows specific adaptations” to hibernation." (David's bold)

DAVID: As noted previously, here is another example of the importance of bacteria, who are at the war on each other, that dhw needlessly worries about. Bacteria contribute to so many aspects of comfortable living, it would take a book to describe all of their contributions. Life started with bacteria and we can't live without them. Note the bolds.

dhw: Why did you insert “who are at war on each other”? You have just shown precisely how your all-powerful God could have created peaceful, cooperative life without war if he had wanted to. Please tell us why you think he chose not to.

Be realistic. All bacteria have fought with each other since they began. Do you live in a pipedream?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, March 23, 2022, 11:33 (736 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Same distortion: I don't need to know why God chose to evolve us. Only you do.

dhw: There is no distortion! You don’t know why, if we were your God’s only purpose, he didn’t choose to create us directly, and you don’t know why he chose to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. But you don’t need to know. You are happy to cling to beliefs that make no sense to you.

DAVID:They make no sense to you, not me. Don't put your thoughts into my arena? Distortion of fact of a distortion of comprehension of a simple fact?

You have admitted that you can’t explain the above, have told me to ask God for an explanation, and have informed us that “God makes sense only to Himself. He has reasons we may not understand.

DAVID: Necessary simple biochemical processes were designed first, which underlies all phenotypical changes later.

dhw: But you have your God specially designing every individual species, although he only wanted to design one species plus its food, and you don’t know why, because God makes sense only to Himself

DAVID: Not answering again. My point is evolution is evolving biochemistry and also phenotypical changes. Two separate parts of evolution. Can you recognize that?
And from the cell thread:
DAVID: Proper biochemistry existed in Edicarans. Cambrian was simply additional phenotypic change, as all evolved from each other biochemically

I can indeed recognize that, but I’m wondering why suddenly you’ve forgotten the word “species”. Can you recognize that brontosauruses and humans belong to different species, and that according to you, the species from which we have descended appeared without precursors during the Cambrian, which can only mean there was no direct line from bacteria to us? (Whereas I argue for continuity.) And how does our shared biochemistry come to mean that all other life forms extant and extinct have been specially designed in preparation for us, as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food?

DAVID (from the “brain” thread:) We are a purposeful creation, with God not doing it for His own emotional needs.

dhw: The distortion is yours. I keep rejecting the word “need” (...), and my comment relates to your statements “We’ve agreed he must enjoy it” and “God didn’t necessarily do it to please himself”. The latter indicates that it is possible he did do it to please himself, and that is all I ask…

DAVID: Those possibilities are your attempt to humanize god.

And you have agreed that they are possible. Thank you.

DAVID: Did you ever study theistic views of God which show you how to view God for yourself?

dhw: This is a new dodge. Let’s ignore the arguments and focus on what dhw hasn’t read. He needs to read books which tell him how to think for himself!! Now please tell me if all the books you have read provide you with exactly the same opinions on how to view your God. […] Do all of them accept your theory of evolution which only God can understand?

DAVID: Of course you are allowed to think for yourself, but aimlessly with no background in research in current thought on the subject?

Aimlessly? Why do you think I set up this website? Current thought on the subject of “how to think for yourself about God”? The subject itself is a contradiction. Please let’s get back to our themes rather than waste time discussing my reading list.

DAVID: I haven't tried to conceive of a different peaceful form of life. Is it even possible? You raised the issue, so let's have your version.

dhw: […] a garden of Eden, in which all living forms cooperate peacefully with one another and get their food from sources that do not have to be hunted and killed. You have given us a fine example:
Bacteria help ground squirrels hibernate
[…]
DAVID: Be realistic. All bacteria have fought with each other since they began. Do you live in a pipedream?

You asked me to “conceive of a different peaceful form of life”. I have done so, and all you can do is tell me there’s been war since bacteria began. I know. And so I asked you why your God would have chosen to create war rather than cooperative peace, as in the hibernation example. Please answer.

BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS (transferred from “cellular intelligence”)

dhw: You may not have noticed, but we are in the midst of a pandemic caused by a virus. Millions of people have died or been permanently damaged, and your God’s instructions have apparently not yet come into play.

DAVID: You fall hook life and sinker for the hype media uses to frighten you. In 1919 the US lost 600,000 with 110,000,000 population. At 330,000,000 now we have lost just over 600,000. So do the math. Don't you see the improvement the time around? Of course not, only the Garden of Eden satisfies you , were no blood is shed.

Praise the Lord! His invention has only killed 6+ million people, which as a proportion of the world’s population is probably an improvement over his previous pandemics. But as usual, you have missed the point, which is why your God chose to design war rather than peace.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 23, 2022, 19:01 (736 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:They make no sense to you, not me. Don't put your thoughts into my arena? Distortion of fact of a distortion of comprehension of a simple fact?

dhw: You have admitted that you can’t explain the above, have told me to ask God for an explanation, and have informed us that “God makes sense only to Himself. He has reasons we may not understand.

Exactly!!! We cannot know why God thought to do anything. We can assume and guess from His demonstrated works logically. But still the basis will depend upon how one views God's personality which brings us to His possible personal desires for himself. We differ widely.


DAVID: My point is evolution is evolving biochemistry and also phenotypical changes. Two separate parts of evolution. Can you recognize that?
And from the cell thread:
DAVID: Proper biochemistry existed in Edicarans. Cambrian was simply additional phenotypic change, as all evolved from each other biochemically

dhw: I can indeed recognize that, but I’m wondering why suddenly you’ve forgotten the word “species”. Can you recognize that brontosauruses and humans belong to different species, and that according to you, the species from which we have descended appeared without precursors during the Cambrian, which can only mean there was no direct line from bacteria to us?

'Species' is the phenotypical aspect of evolution, not the biochemical. Evolution is both.

DAVID: Did you ever study theistic views of God which show you how to view God for yourself?

DAVID: Of course you are allowed to think for yourself, but aimlessly with no background in research in current thought on the subject?

dhw: Aimlessly? Why do you think I set up this website? Current thought on the subject of “how to think for yourself about God”? The subject itself is a contradiction. Please let’s get back to our themes rather than waste time discussing my reading list.

OK, not aimless. Did you look at theistic discussion of how to theists think about God? I did so before entering into a study of my agnosticism as necessary preparation for a decision.

Bacteria help ground squirrels hibernate
[…]
DAVID: Be realistic. All bacteria have fought with each other since they began. Do you live in a pipedream?

dhw: You asked me to “conceive of a different peaceful form of life”. I have done so, and all you can do is tell me there’s been war since bacteria began. I know. And so I asked you why your God would have chosen to create war rather than cooperative peace, as in the hibernation example. Please answer.

I have answered. I have no idea if peaceful bacteria are possible. God chose what was needed. Your problem as usual.


BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS (transferred from “cellular intelligence”)

dhw: You may not have noticed, but we are in the midst of a pandemic caused by a virus. Millions of people have died or been permanently damaged, and your God’s instructions have apparently not yet come into play.

DAVID: You fall hook life and sinker for the hype media uses to frighten you. In 1919 the US lost 600,000 with 110,000,000 population. At 330,000,000 now we have lost just over 600,000. So do the math. Don't you see the improvement the time around? Of course not, only the Garden of Eden satisfies you , were no blood is shed.

dhw: Praise the Lord! His invention has only killed 6+ million people, which as a proportion of the world’s population is probably an improvement over his previous pandemics. But as usual, you have missed the point, which is why your God chose to design war rather than peace.

You answer it, I can't. We battled over theodicy before.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, March 24, 2022, 11:44 (735 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: They [David’s theories] make no sense to you, not me. Don't put your thoughts into my arena? Distortion of fact of a distortion of comprehension of a simple fact?

dhw: You have admitted that you can’t explain the above, have told me to ask God for an explanation, and have informed us that “God makes sense only to Himself. He has reasons we may not understand.

DAVID: Exactly!!! We cannot know why God thought to do anything. We can assume and guess from His demonstrated works logically. But still the basis will depend upon how one views God's personality which brings us to His possible personal desires for himself. We differ widely.

You claimed above that your theory of evolution made sense to you. And yet you cannot explain it, and it only makes sense to God. So how can it make sense to you?

DAVID: My point is evolution is evolving biochemistry and also phenotypical changes. Two separate parts of evolution. Can you recognize that?

dhw: I can indeed recognize that, but I’m wondering why suddenly you’ve forgotten the word “species”. Can you recognize that brontosauruses and humans belong to different species, and that according to you, the species from which we have descended appeared without precursors during the Cambrian, which can only mean there was no direct line from bacteria to us?

DAVID: 'Species' is the phenotypical aspect of evolution, not the biochemical. Evolution is both.

All life is biochemical, and all species develop from phenotypical changes. That does not mean all extinct phenotypical changes were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. If you claim that certain species appeared without any precursors, that means there was no direct line between them and any preceding species, so if humans were descended from them, it cannot be said that all pre-Cambrian species were preparation for, and part of the goal of evolving humans and their food. Your answer is that only God can explain these theories. I suggest that maybe your theories have one or more flaws in them.

DAVID: Did you look at theistic discussion of how to theists think about God? I did so before entering into a study of my agnosticism as necessary preparation for a decision.

I was brought up as a Jew, and learned how Jews think about God. I was brought up in a largely Christian society, and learned how Christians think about God. I looked into alternatives, such as Islam and Hinduism (and was surprised to find that Buddhism was not necessarily theistic). And I have a very good friend, a panentheist, who has studied book after book telling him how to think about God, and leaving him with theories which make no sense even to him. Now shall we get back to discussing the theological mess that has emerged from all these books that have told you how to think about God?

Bacteria help ground squirrels hibernate
[…]
DAVID: Be realistic. All bacteria have fought with each other since they began. Do you live in a pipedream?

dhw: You asked me to “conceive of a different peaceful form of life”. I have done so, and all you can do is tell me there’s been war since bacteria began. I know. And so I asked you why your God would have chosen to create war rather than cooperative peace, as in the hibernation example. Please answer.

DAVID: I have answered. I have no idea if peaceful bacteria are possible. God chose what was needed. Your problem as usual.

“Needed” for what? We both agree that your God must have had a purpose in creating life, so what do you think was his purpose in choosing war instead of peace?

BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS (transferred from “cellular intelligence”)

dhw: You may not have noticed, but we are in the midst of a pandemic caused by a virus. Millions of people have died or been permanently damaged, and your God’s instructions have apparently not yet come into play.

DAVID: You fall hook life and sinker for the hype media uses to frighten you. In 1919 the US lost 600,000 with 110,000,000 population. At 330,000,000 now we have lost just over 600,000. So do the math. Don't you see the improvement the time around? Of course not, only the Garden of Eden satisfies you , were no blood is shed.

dhw: Praise the Lord! His invention has only killed 6+ million people, which as a proportion of the world’s population is probably an improvement over his previous pandemics. But as usual, you have missed the point, which is why your God chose to design war rather than peace.

DAVID: You answer it, I can't. We battled over theodicy before.

You have pooh-poohed the worldwide tragedy of Covid-19 as media hype, defended your theory that God deliberately designed “bad” bacteria and viruses, want us to focus on all the goodies and, despite your vast knowledge of books that tell you how to think for yourself about God, you can’t answer a straight question. I have offered you a possible answer, but you’ve forgotten it or you simply want to shut it out because you don’t like it. No point in going through the details, as three words will bring it all back to you: “free-for-all”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 24, 2022, 18:16 (735 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Exactly!!! We cannot know why God thought to do anything. We can assume and guess from His demonstrated works logically. But still the basis will depend upon how one views God's personality which brings us to His possible personal desires for himself. We differ widely.

dhw: You claimed above that your theory of evolution made sense to you. And yet you cannot explain it, and it only makes sense to God. So how can it make sense to you?

It makes total sense to me. The explanation is God chose to evolve us. How evolution was conducted, as seen in history, makes perfect sense with my views of God's personality.


DAVID: 'Species' is the phenotypical aspect of evolution, not the biochemical. Evolution is both.

dhw: All life is biochemical, and all species develop from phenotypical changes. That does not mean all extinct phenotypical changes were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. If you claim that certain species appeared without any precursors, that means there was no direct line between them and any preceding species, so if humans were descended from them, it cannot be said that all pre-Cambrian species were preparation for, and part of the goal of evolving humans and their food. Your answer is that only God can explain these theories. I suggest that maybe your theories have one or more flaws in them.

The gaps support the need to recognize a designer. Only He can create gaps in phenotypical
forms on the way to creating humans.


DAVID: Did you look at theistic discussion of how to theists think about God? I did so before entering into a study of my agnosticism as necessary preparation for a decision.

dhw: I was brought up as a Jew, and learned how Jews think about God. I was brought up in a largely Christian society, and learned how Christians think about God. I looked into alternatives, such as Islam and Hinduism (and was surprised to find that Buddhism was not necessarily theistic). And I have a very good friend, a panentheist, who has studied book after book telling him how to think about God, and leaving him with theories which make no sense even to him.

Can't we please allow me to make perfect sense to me? That you can't see it is your very nearsighted problem.


Bacteria help ground squirrels hibernate
[…]
DAVID: Be realistic. All bacteria have fought with each other since they began. Do you live in a pipedream?

dhw: You asked me to “conceive of a different peaceful form of life”. I have done so, and all you can do is tell me there’s been war since bacteria began. I know. And so I asked you why your God would have chosen to create war rather than cooperative peace, as in the hibernation example. Please answer.

DAVID: I have answered. I have no idea if peaceful bacteria are possible. God chose what was needed. Your problem as usual.

dhw: “Needed” for what? We both agree that your God must have had a purpose in creating life, so what do you think was his purpose in choosing war instead of peace?

You've forgotten your adherence to natural selection, Darwin's favorite! Doesn't it require competition? Ruminants eat and damage foliage, and so do insects on leaves! And all animals from bacteria to use eat animals. All to get required energy. I cannot imagine a totally pacifistic form of life.


BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS (transferred from “cellular intelligence”)

dhw: Praise the Lord! His invention has only killed 6+ million people, which as a proportion of the world’s population is probably an improvement over his previous pandemics. But as usual, you have missed the point, which is why your God chose to design war rather than peace.

DAVID: You answer it, I can't. We battled over theodicy before.

dhw: You have pooh-poohed the worldwide tragedy of Covid-19 as media hype, defended your theory that God deliberately designed “bad” bacteria and viruses, want us to focus on all the goodies and, despite your vast knowledge of books that tell you how to think for yourself about God, you can’t answer a straight question. I have offered you a possible answer, but you’ve forgotten it or you simply want to shut it out because you don’t like it. No point in going through the details, as three words will bring it all back to you: “free-for-all”.

See above about pacifism possible when we are required to eat. We are also required to undergo epidemics and pandemics as part of the war. Haven't you noticed the media loves to frighten us so we pay more ate4ntion to their stories? Your Guardian is a prime example. I never shut out your weird view of God, as I work to show you how wrong you are.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, March 25, 2022, 08:02 (735 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You claimed…that your theory of evolution made sense to you. And yet you cannot explain it, and it only makes sense to God. So how can it make sense to you?

DAVID: Exactly!!! We cannot know why God thought to do anything. We can assume and guess from His demonstrated works logically. But still the basis will depend upon how one views God's personality which brings us to His possible personal desires for himself. We differ widely.

dhw: Yes, we can all have different views, but the fact remains that your theory/guess doesn’t make sense to you! Don’t you think a theory that makes sense to you might have a better chance of being true than a theory that doesn’t make sense to you?

DAVID: It makes total sense to me. The explanation is God chose to evolve us. How evolution was conducted, as seen in history, makes perfect sense with my views of God's personality.

That is not an explanation of your theory, which is that God’s only purpose was to design us and our foods, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You tell me that only God can explain it, so why do you keep leaving out the bits you can’t explain?


DAVID: 'Species' is the phenotypical aspect of evolution, not the biochemical. Evolution is both.

dhw: All life is biochemical, and all species develop from phenotypical changes. That does not mean all extinct phenotypical changes were “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food. If you claim that certain species appeared without any precursors, that means there was no direct line between them and any preceding species, so if humans were descended from them, it cannot be said that all pre-Cambrian species were preparation for, and part of the goal of evolving humans and their food. Your answer is that only God can explain these theories. I suggest that maybe your theories have one or more flaws in them.

DAVID: The gaps support the need to recognize a designer. Only He can create gaps in phenotypical forms on the way to creating humans.

For argument’s sake, I am accepting the case for a designer. I have focused on the illogical beliefs summarized above. Please stop dodging.

dhw: I have a very good friend, a panentheist, who has studied book after book telling him how to think about God, and leaving him with theories which make no sense even to him.

DAVID: Can't we please allow me to make perfect sense to me? That you can't see it is your very nearsighted problem.

How can I possibly accept that your theory makes perfect sense to you when you tell me that only God can make sense of it?

DAVID: An article on God's warring animals:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/deer-have-antlers-walruses-have-tusks-her...
DAVID: in evolution competition is built in. So there has to be evolutionary 'war'.

You keep telling me about what exists – evolutionary war. And I keep asking you why you think your God chose to create a system of warlike competition when we know that peaceful cooperation is perfectly possible, as exemplified by all forms of symbiosis. […]

DAVID: […] You've forgotten your adherence to natural selection, Darwin's favorite! Doesn't it require competition? Ruminants eat and damage foliage, and so do insects on leaves! And all animals from bacteria to use eat animals. All to get required energy. I cannot imagine a totally pacifistic form of life.

And still you tell me about the war your God designed, and refuse to tell me why you think he chose war over peace. Do you think God is incapable of providing leaves that don’t fight back and that have no feelings – you, who refuse to believe that cells are sentient beings and not automatons? The fact that you can’t imagine a system in which life forms cooperate in finding energy without killing one another to get it doesn’t say much for your imagination.

BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS (transferred from “cellular intelligence”)

dhw: You have pooh-poohed the worldwide tragedy of Covid-19 as media hype, defended your theory that God deliberately designed “bad” bacteria and viruses, want us to focus on all the goodies and, despite your vast knowledge of books that tell you how to think for yourself about God, you can’t answer a straight question. I have offered you a possible answer, but you’ve forgotten it or you simply want to shut it out because you don’t like it. No point in going through the details, as three words will bring it all back to you: “free-for-all”.

DAVID: See above about pacifism possible when we are required to eat. We are also required to undergo epidemics and pandemics as part of the war. Haven't you noticed the media loves to frighten us so we pay more ate4ntion to their stories? Your Guardian is a prime example. I never shut out your weird view of God, as I work to show you how wrong you are.

I know pandemics are part of the war, and I keep asking you why your God chose war over peace. Why does this question denote a weird view of God? If anything, I’d have thought a “kind” God (your word) who deliberately created a system of survival through bloodshed and disease was weird.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, March 25, 2022, 15:33 (734 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Yes, we can all have different views, but the fact remains that your theory/guess doesn’t make sense to you! Don’t you think a theory that makes sense to you might have a better chance of being true than a theory that doesn’t make sense to you?

DAVID: It makes total sense to me. The explanation is God chose to evolve us. How evolution was conducted, as seen in history, makes perfect sense with my views of God's personality.

dhw: That is not an explanation of your theory, which is that God’s only purpose was to design us and our foods, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You tell me that only God can explain it, so why do you keep leaving out the bits you can’t explain?

I have explained 'countless life forms and foods'. Ecosystems are piled upon ecosystems and relate to each other. It all comes down to life requires constant energy intake. You admit this and then constantly ignore it with your constant illogical complaint.>


dhw: I have a very good friend, a panentheist, who has studied book after book telling him how to think about God, and leaving him with theories which make no sense even to him.

DAVID: Can't we please allow me to make perfect sense to me? That you can't see it is your very nearsighted problem.

dhw: How can I possibly accept that your theory makes perfect sense to you when you tell me that only God can make sense of it?

Accepting the history of reality as God's work explains it all. Why are we here? How do you explain it?


DAVID: An article on God's warring animals:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/deer-have-antlers-walruses-have-tusks-her...
DAVID: in evolution competition is built in. So there has to be evolutionary 'war'.

dhw: You keep telling me about what exists – evolutionary war. And I keep asking you why you think your God chose to create a system of warlike competition when we know that peaceful cooperation is perfectly possible, as exemplified by all forms of symbiosis. […]

Symbiosis involves an intimate bonded relationship. How could that possibly work for all of life?


DAVID: […] You've forgotten your adherence to natural selection, Darwin's favorite! Doesn't it require competition? Ruminants eat and damage foliage, and so do insects on leaves! And all animals from bacteria to use eat animals. All to get required energy. I cannot imagine a totally pacifistic form of life.

dhw: And still you tell me about the war your God designed, and refuse to tell me why you think he chose war over peace. Do you think God is incapable of providing leaves that don’t fight back and that have no feelings – you, who refuse to believe that cells are sentient beings and not automatons? The fact that you can’t imagine a system in which life forms cooperate in finding energy without killing one another to get it doesn’t say much for your imagination.

No refusal. I frankly think it was the only choice available. Why do I have to explain to you every aspect of God's reasoning behind God's works? We take off into wooly guesses.


BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS (transferred from “cellular intelligence”)

dhw: You have pooh-poohed the worldwide tragedy of Covid-19 as media hype, defended your theory that God deliberately designed “bad” bacteria and viruses, want us to focus on all the goodies and, despite your vast knowledge of books that tell you how to think for yourself about God, you can’t answer a straight question. I have offered you a possible answer, but you’ve forgotten it or you simply want to shut it out because you don’t like it. No point in going through the details, as three words will bring it all back to you: “free-for-all”.

DAVID: See above about pacifism possible when we are required to eat. We are also required to undergo epidemics and pandemics as part of the war. Haven't you noticed the media loves to frighten us so we pay more ate4ntion to their stories? Your Guardian is a prime example. I never shut out your weird view of God, as I work to show you how wrong you are.

dhw: I know pandemics are part of the war, and I keep asking you why your God chose war over peace. Why does this question denote a weird view of God? If anything, I’d have thought a “kind” God (your word) who deliberately created a system of survival through bloodshed and disease was weird.

It's what we have.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, March 25, 2022, 19:08 (734 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: And still you tell me about the war your God designed, and refuse to tell me why you think he chose war over peace. Do you think God is incapable of providing leaves that don’t fight back and that have no feelings – you, who refuse to believe that cells are sentient beings and not automatons? The fact that you can’t imagine a system in which life forms cooperate in finding energy without killing one another to get it doesn’t say much for your imagination.

God's 'war' began at the beginning of life:

https://phys.org/news/2022-03-bacteria-self-vaccinate-viral-invaders.html

"Researchers at The Rockefeller University discovered that a surprising level of cooperation takes place between the CRISPR-Cas system and bacteria's other prominent defense strategy, known as restriction enzymes.

***

"The findings, published in Molecular Cell, show that while restriction enzymes act as the first line of defense, they also prepare the material that CRISPR-Cas will need to target the virus with precision. "The mechanism is reminiscent of our own multi-pronged immune response," Marraffini says. "It includes a temporary first line of defense before activating a second, more robust adaptive response."

"Restriction enzymes are capable of cleaving short DNA sequences, so the bacterium makes use of them just as soon as the virus invades the bacterial cell. CRISPR-Cas, a more sophisticated system, comes in later. While the restriction enzyme chops up viral DNA with the crudeness of a lawn mower, CRISPR-Cas is like a razor-sharp shear used by a painstaking gardener. It slits the viral intruder with immaculate precision by neatly aligning it to a molecular guide targeting a specific genetic sequence.

***

"Maguin and his colleagues found how the two systems work in concert—segments previously clipped by restriction enzymes help the CRISPR-Cas machinery generate the molecular guide needed to find the viruses and put an end to the infection.

"'It's a bit like vaccination," Marraffini says. "The restriction enzyme cuts little pieces of the virus that CRISPR will then use to mount an adaptive response.'"

Comment: I assume viruses and bacteria were both at the start of life, and God designed bacteria with the described defenses. The issue of dog eat dog is the only way our form of life can survive. I believe God gave us the best system He could devise and most likely the only workable system. God would know that. dhw's god probably would not.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, March 26, 2022, 12:17 (733 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Don’t you think a theory that makes sense to you might have a better chance of being true than a theory that doesn’t make sense to you?

DAVID: It makes total sense to me. The explanation is God chose to evolve us. How evolution was conducted, as seen in history, makes perfect sense with my views of God's personality.

dhw: That is not an explanation of your theory, which is that God’s only purpose was to design us and our foods, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You tell me that only God can explain it, so why do you keep leaving out the bits you can’t explain?

DAVID: I have explained 'countless life forms and foods'. Ecosystems are piled upon ecosystems and relate to each other. It all comes down to life requires constant energy intake. You admit this and then constantly ignore it with your constant illogical complaint.

There is no dispute over the obvious fact that all life forms require energy. You know perfectly well that the dispute is over the theory bolded above which makes no sense even to you: “God makes sense only to Himself. We may not understand His reasons.”

DAVID: Can't we please allow me to make perfect sense to me? […]

dhw: How can I possibly accept that your theory makes perfect sense to you when you tell me that only God can make sense of it?

DAVID: Accepting the history of reality as God's work explains it all. Why are we here? How do you explain it?

As an agnostic, I accept the possibility that there is a God who is responsible for the history of reality. It is your inexplicable version of the history of reality that I question, as above. As for the very different question of why are we here, you have suggested it’s because God wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him, and you have volunteered the fact that you think God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. All perfectly feasible and very human, but offering no logical explanation for the theory bolded above.

DAVID: An article on God's warring animals:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/deer-have-antlers-walruses-have-tusks-her...

DAVID: in evolution competition is built in. So there has to be evolutionary 'war'.

dhw: You keep telling me about what exists – evolutionary war. And I keep asking you why you think your God chose to create a system of warlike competition when we know that peaceful cooperation is perfectly possible, as exemplified by all forms of symbiosis. […]

DAVID: Symbiosis involves an intimate bonded relationship. How could that possibly work for all of life?

It is an example of peaceful cooperation. Why shouldn’t it work for all of life?

DAVID: […] I frankly think it was the only choice available. Why do I have to explain to you every aspect of God's reasoning behind God's works? We take off into wooly guesses.

You insist on imposing limits on your all-powerful God’s abilities. You have him deliberately designing a system of “dog eat dog” (see below), including every ingenious method of killing (e.g. your boa-constrictor – thank you for this example of your kind God’s ingenuity). I do not ask you to explain every aspect of God’s reasoning behind his works. I ask you to explain YOUR reasoning behind YOUR INTERPRETATION of God’s works, and you can’t.

BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER CONTROLS

DAVID: […]. I never shut out your weird view of God, as I work to show you how wrong you are.

dhw: I know pandemics are part of the war, and I keep asking you why your God chose war over peace. Why does this question denote a weird view of God?

DAVID: It's what we have.

I know. And I keep asking you why you think your kind God would DELIBERATELY have designed such a system. And I have suggested that instead of him deliberately designing deadly viruses and the boa-constrictor's rib cage and carnivorous plants, he created a free-for-all in which all life forms did their own designing, thereby creating their own wars. Why is this weird?

DAVID: God's 'war' began at the beginning of life:
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-bacteria-self-vaccinate-viral-invaders.html

DAVID: I assume viruses and bacteria were both at the start of life, and God designed bacteria with the described defenses. The issue of dog eat dog is the only way our form of life can survive. I believe God gave us the best system He could devise and most likely the only workable system. God would know that. dhw's god probably would not.

I am not disputing that the war began at the start of life. I don’t know why dog eat dog should be the only workable system your all-powerful God could devise. My view of an all-powerful God is that if he had wanted to create a Garden of Eden, he could have done, and as I agree completely with your view that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, I suggest that he wanted something a bit more interesting than a Garden of Eden, and this would have been provided by giving his creations (intelligent cells) the ability to do their own designing – with humans the most interesting of all the results.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 26, 2022, 16:22 (733 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have explained 'countless life forms and foods'. Ecosystems are piled upon ecosystems and relate to each other. It all comes down to life requires constant energy intake. You admit this and then constantly ignore it with your constant illogical complaint.

dhw: There is no dispute over the obvious fact that all life forms require energy. You know perfectly well that the dispute is over the theory bolded above which makes no sense even to you: “God makes sense only to Himself. We may not understand His reasons.”

That quote of mine is on point: I accept what God has done without questioning His reasons. But the endpoint of humans is unquestionable. Therefore He wanted humans and directed events for that purpose. Obvious logic based on my premise.


DAVID: Accepting the history of reality as God's work explains it all. Why are we here? How do you explain it?

dhw: As an agnostic, I accept the possibility that there is a God who is responsible for the history of reality. It is your inexplicable version of the history of reality that I question, as above. As for the very different question of why are we here, you have suggested it’s because God wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him, and you have volunteered the fact that you think God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. All perfectly feasible and very human, but offering no logical explanation for the theory bolded above.

Logic above! My guesses about God. which you love to quote. have no basis in fact! They are not related to my conclusion about God desiring humans


DAVID: An article on God's warring animals:

DAVID: Symbiosis involves an intimate bonded relationship. How could that possibly work for all of life?

dhw: It is an example of peaceful cooperation. Why shouldn’t it work for all of life?

Each symbiotic relationship is a specialized two-species mechanism. Humans should eat symbiotically is what you suggest? Explain.


DAVID: […] I frankly think it was the only choice available. Why do I have to explain to you every aspect of God's reasoning behind God's works? We take off into wooly guesses.

dhw: You insist on imposing limits on your all-powerful God’s abilities. You have him deliberately designing a system of “dog eat dog” (see below), including every ingenious method of killing (e.g. your boa-constrictor – thank you for this example of your kind God’s ingenuity). I do not ask you to explain every aspect of God’s reasoning behind his works. I ask you to explain YOUR reasoning behind YOUR INTERPRETATION of God’s works, and you can’t.

Again, fully answered above. I have no limits on God's abilities, but cannot answer your wild wishes for my God that you invent for Him as a straw man tactic.


DAVID: God's 'war' began at the beginning of life:
https://phys.org/news/2022-03-bacteria-self-vaccinate-viral-invaders.html

DAVID: I assume viruses and bacteria were both at the start of life, and God designed bacteria with the described defenses. The issue of dog eat dog is the only way our form of life can survive. I believe God gave us the best system He could devise and most likely the only workable system. God would know that. dhw's god probably would not.

dhw: I am not disputing that the war began at the start of life. I don’t know why dog eat dog should be the only workable system your all-powerful God could devise. My view of an all-powerful God is that if he had wanted to create a Garden of Eden, he could have done, and as I agree completely with your view that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates, I suggest that he wanted something a bit more interesting than a Garden of Eden, and this would have been provided by giving his creations (intelligent cells) the ability to do their own designing – with humans the most interesting of all the results.

Your humanized God appears once again. Yes, we agree in guesses about God's possible emotional reactions. And now cell committees thought to produce humans. How intelligent of them!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, March 27, 2022, 08:54 (733 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have explained 'countless life forms and foods'. Ecosystems are piled upon ecosystems and relate to each other. It all comes down to life requires constant energy intake. You admit this and then constantly ignore it with your constant illogical complaint.

dhw: There is no dispute over the obvious fact that all life forms require energy. You know perfectly well that the dispute is over [the rest of your theory], which makes no sense even to you: “God makes sense only to Himself. We may not understand His reasons.”

DAVID: That quote of mine is on point: I accept what God has done without questioning His reasons. But the endpoint of humans is unquestionable. Therefore He wanted humans and directed events for that purpose. Obvious logic based on my premise.

Correction: you accept your theory about what God has done (specially designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., including all those with no connection to humans) and why he has done it (as “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food), and you cannot explain its illogicality . Now you keep switching from purpose and goal to endpoint. We can agree that the evolution of species appears to have ended with us. But that does not remove the illogicality of the bolded theory, which you like to present as fact and which only makes sense to your God.

DAVID: Accepting the history of reality as God's work explains it all. Why are we here? How do you explain it?

dhw: As an agnostic, I accept the possibility that there is a God who is responsible for the history of reality. It is your inexplicable version of the history of reality that I question, as above. As for the very different question of why are we here, you have suggested it’s because God wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him, and you have volunteered the fact that you think God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. All perfectly feasible and very human, but offering no logical explanation for the theory bolded above.

DAVID: Logic above! My guesses about God. which you love to quote. have no basis in fact! They are not related to my conclusion about God desiring humans.

Everything I quote from you is a “guess”, including the above theory about God’s one and only purpose and method of achieving it. You asked me why we are here, and I repeated your own humanizing theory. But just to set the record straight, I don’t have a problem with God desiring humans (plus food). However if, as you believe, he specially designed all the other species not connected with humans and or food, he must have “desired” them too, so humans could not have been his only purpose. Alternatively, he may have been experimenting, or getting new ideas as he went along, which you agree offers a logical explanation, but that is too humanizing for your God, although you agree he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Symbiosis involves an intimate bonded relationship. How could that possibly work for all of life?

dhw: It is an example of peaceful cooperation. Why shouldn’t it work for all of life?

DAVID: Each symbiotic relationship is a specialized two-species mechanism. Humans should eat symbiotically is what you suggest? Explain.

Badly phrased by me. Symbiosis is an example of peaceful cooperation. Why shouldn’t peaceful cooperation work for all of life?

dhw: You insist on imposing limits on your all-powerful God’s abilities. [...]

DAVID: Again, fully answered above. I have no limits on God's abilities, but cannot answer your wild wishes for my God that you invent for Him as a straw man tactic.

Why do you insist that your all-powerful God could not possibly have created a Garden of Eden even if he’d wanted to? You should know from all the books which have told how to think for yourself about God that “theodicy” is a colossal problem for theologians. Why did God create evil? It’s the same problem: why did God create a system of life that depended on dog eating dog, even though it is perfectly possible even within the current system for life forms to live in peace and cooperation with one another, and to find foods that do not involve killing and eating other sentient life forms?

DAVID: […] And now cell committees thought to produce humans. How intelligent of them!

Evolution is the history of single cells combining and cooperating to form new and increasingly complex communities. According to you - who believe in common descent apart from when you don’t (the Cambrian) – your God either preprogrammed every combination 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept dabbling one by one with each individual cell community to create new combinations. A theistic alternative is that he gave them the intelligence to do their own designing (though he could always dabble if he wanted to), with the result that each new organ and organism presents us with a shining example of peaceful cooperation.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 27, 2022, 16:25 (732 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: That quote of mine is on point: I accept what God has done without questioning His reasons. But the endpoint of humans is unquestionable. Therefore He wanted humans and directed events for that purpose. Obvious logic based on my premise.

dhw:Correction: you accept your theory about what God has done (specially designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc., including all those with no connection to humans) and why he has done it (as “part of the goal of evolving humans” plus food), and you cannot explain its illogicality . Now you keep switching from purpose and goal to endpoint. We can agree that the evolution of species appears to have ended with us. But that does not remove the illogicality of the bolded theory, which you like to present as fact and which only makes sense to your God.

Note I am content with that. It is your perception of illogicality.


DAVID: Logic above! My guesses about God. which you love to quote. have no basis in fact! They are not related to my conclusion about God desiring humans.

dhw: Everything I quote from you is a “guess”, including the above theory about God’s one and only purpose and method of achieving it. You asked me why we are here, and I repeated your own humanizing theory. But just to set the record straight, I don’t have a problem with God desiring humans (plus food). However if, as you believe, he specially designed all the other species not connected with humans and or food, he must have “desired” them too, so humans could not have been his only purpose. Alternatively, he may have been experimenting, or getting new ideas as he went along, which you agree offers a logical explanation, but that is too humanizing for your God, although you agree he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

You either won't see or can't see our differences in how we each think about God. Once again you attempt to equilibrate or views as if mine is human as yours. Distinctly dissimilar.


God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Again, fully answered above. I have no limits on God's abilities, but cannot answer your wild wishes for my God that you invent for Him as a straw man tactic.

dhw: Why do you insist that your all-powerful God could not possibly have created a Garden of Eden even if he’d wanted to? You should know from all the books which have told how to think for yourself about God that “theodicy” is a colossal problem for theologians. Why did God create evil? It’s the same problem: why did God create a system of life that depended on dog eating dog, even though it is perfectly possible even within the current system for life forms to live in peace and cooperation with one another, and to find foods that do not involve killing and eating other sentient life forms?

It is not 'perfectly possible in this current system'. That is pure pipe dream. show me how in a Wilson living system.


DAVID: […] And now cell committees thought to produce humans. How intelligent of them!

dhw: Evolution is the history of single cells combining and cooperating to form new and increasingly complex communities. According to you - who believe in common descent apart from when you don’t (the Cambrian) – your God either preprogrammed every combination 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept dabbling one by one with each individual cell community to create new combinations. A theistic alternative is that he gave them the intelligence to do their own designing (though he could always dabble if he wanted to), with the result that each new organ and organism presents us with a shining example of peaceful cooperation.

Back to your invented theism where somehow intense design is not needed. Cells cannot make irreducibly complex designs on their own. They must be given equivalent instructions to follow.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, March 28, 2022, 10:35 (732 days ago) @ David Turell

You cannot explain why an all-powerful God with a single purpose (humans plus food) should decide first to design countless life forms and foods which have no connection with his single purpose. Please stop pretending that you can’t see the illogicality although you admit you can’t find an explanation.

DAVID: […] My guesses about God. which you love to quote. have no basis in fact! They are not related to my conclusion about God desiring humans.

dhw: Everything I quote from you is a “guess”, including the above theory about God’s one and only purpose and method of achieving it. You asked me why we are here, and I repeated your own humanizing theory. [He wants us to admire his work and to have a relationship with him.] But just to set the record straight, I don’t have a problem with God desiring humans (plus food). However if, as you believe, he specially designed all the other species not connected with humans and or food, he must have “desired” them too, so humans could not have been his only purpose. Alternatively, he may have been experimenting, or getting new ideas as he went along, which you agree offers a logical explanation, but that is too humanizing for your God, although you agree he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: You either won't see or can't see our differences in how we each think about God. Once again you attempt to equilibrate or views as if mine is human as yours. Distinctly dissimilar.

1)Do you or do you not agree that if your theory is correct, he must have wanted to design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans?

2)Your guesses – wanting our admiration, wanting a relationship - are just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting for himself, and in any case, you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

The theories concerning experimentation and new ideas are offered only as an explanation for the creation of all the unconnected species and foods. However, you prefer to believe that your God “makes sense only to Himself”, and we should simply accept the illogicality of your theory.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Again, fully answered above. I have no limits on God's abilities, but cannot answer your wild wishes for my God that you invent for Him as a straw man tactic.

dhw: Why do you insist that your all-powerful God could not possibly have created a Garden of Eden even if he’d wanted to? […] it is perfectly possible even within the current system for life forms to live in peace and cooperation with one another, and to find foods that do not involve killing and eating other sentient life forms?

DAVID: It is not 'perfectly possible in this current system'. That is pure pipe dream. show me how in a Wilson living system.

We have countless examples of peaceful cooperation in this current system, the most obvious one being the harmonious manner in which our own cell communities harmonize with one another most of the time. I gave symbiosis as another example. Do you know of any herbivore that deliberately kills other animals and eats them? I don’t see why you can’t imagine an earthly paradise, BUT as you once observed, it could be rather boring. At the time, you meant boring for humans, but the world existed long before we did. My suggestion is that it would be boring for God, if he exists.

DAVID: […] And now cell committees thought to produce humans. How intelligent of them!

dhw: Evolution is the history of single cells combining and cooperating to form new and increasingly complex communities. According to you - who believe in common descent apart from when you don’t (the Cambrian) – your God either preprogrammed every combination 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept dabbling one by one with each individual cell community to create new combinations. A theistic alternative is that he gave them the intelligence to do their own designing (though he could always dabble if he wanted to), with the result that each new organ and organism presents us with a shining example of peaceful cooperation.

DAVID: Back to your invented theism where somehow intense design is not needed. Cells cannot make irreducibly complex designs on their own. They must be given equivalent instructions to follow.

QUOTE: “Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as by cell-mergers. Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” (James A Shapiro)
I would add the possibility that there is a God who designed this ability. This theism is no more and no less “invented” than your own 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of life’s history, or your vision of God operating over and over again on existing cell communities to restructure them into new cell communities, quite apart from his giving endless lessons to every species that performs a natural wonder such as a complicated nest, clever camouflage, and migration to a warm spot 10,000 miles away.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, March 28, 2022, 16:11 (731 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You cannot explain why an all-powerful God with a single purpose (humans plus food) should decide first to design countless life forms and foods which have no connection with his single purpose. Please stop pretending that you can’t see the illogicality although you admit you can’t find an explanation.

I'm not pretending. It's simple. God decided to evolve us from bacteria.


DAVID: You either won't see or can't see our differences in how we each think about God. Once again you attempt to equilibrate or views as if mine is human as yours. Distinctly dissimilar.

dhw: 1)Do you or do you not agree that if your theory is correct, he must have wanted to design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans?

He wanted to design all the stages of life from bacteria to humans.


dhw: 2)Your guesses – wanting our admiration, wanting a relationship - are just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting for himself, and in any case, you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

Mine are only guesses from our human standpoint and do not describe or agree to your desires for a god who creates for his interest or entertainment.


dhw: The theories concerning experimentation and new ideas are offered only as an explanation for the creation of all the unconnected species and foods. However, you prefer to believe that your God “makes sense only to Himself”, and we should simply accept the illogicality of your theory.

If that is my exact quote, it means God understands what He does is innately logical to Him and may or may not be logical for us.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Again, fully answered above. I have no limits on God's abilities, but cannot answer your wild wishes for my God that you invent for Him as a straw man tactic.

dhw: Why do you insist that your all-powerful God could not possibly have created a Garden of Eden even if he’d wanted to? […] it is perfectly possible even within the current system for life forms to live in peace and cooperation with one another, and to find foods that do not involve killing and eating other sentient life forms?

DAVID: It is not 'perfectly possible in this current system'. That is pure pipe dream. show me how in a Wilson living system.

dhw: We have countless examples of peaceful cooperation in this current system, the most obvious one being the harmonious manner in which our own cell communities harmonize with one another most of the time. I gave symbiosis as another example. Do you know of any herbivore that deliberately kills other animals and eats them? I don’t see why you can’t imagine an earthly paradise, BUT as you once observed, it could be rather boring. At the time, you meant boring for humans, but the world existed long before we did. My suggestion is that it would be boring for God, if he exists.

As usual, a non-answer for your pipedream. No Wilson life system described. and final straw, your poor god hates being bored!


DAVID: Back to your invented theism where somehow intense design is not needed. Cells cannot make irreducibly complex designs on their own. They must be given equivalent instructions to follow.

dhw: QUOTE: “Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as by cell-mergers. Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” (James A Shapiro)

dhw: I would add the possibility that there is a God who designed this ability. This theism is no more and no less “invented” than your own 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of life’s history, or your vision of God operating over and over again on existing cell communities to restructure them into new cell communities, quite apart from his giving endless lessons to every species that performs a natural wonder such as a complicated nest, clever camouflage, and migration to a warm spot 10,000 miles away.

Once again you have inflated Shapiro. His proposed theory is taken from self-sufficient free- living bacteria who must have those abilities to adapt to survive. I introduced you to Shapiro, whose work I greatly admire and without your innate biases, I recognize the full limits of the importance of it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, March 29, 2022, 11:04 (731 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please stop pretending that you can’t see the illogicality although you admit you can’t find an explanation.

DAVID: I'm not pretending. It's simple. God decided to evolve us from bacteria.

But he also decided – according to you – to evolve (= design) every other life form from bacteria, including all those unconnected with us and our food), which makes non-sense of your claim that we and our food were his sole purpose from the beginning.

dhw: Your guesses – wanting our admiration, wanting a relationship - are just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting for himself, and in any case, you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: Mine are only guesses from our human standpoint and do not describe or agree to your desires for a god who creates for his interest or entertainment.

Wanting admiration and a relationship is just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting. I don’t “desire “ such a god, but if God exists, I seek a logical explanation for the history of life as we know it in the context of his possible purposes, methods and nature.

DAVID (transferred from “More miscellany”): ... it is very possible He just does it without any emotions or feelings about it. Any other approach is humanizing. […]

Yes, it is possible that the God you described as kind, and who tries to rectify the mistakes made by the system he designed, does so with no feelings. But I find it hard to imagine your first cause God creating thought patterns and emotions which he knows absolutely nothing about.

dhw:[…] However, you prefer to believe that your God “makes sense only to Himself”, and we should simply accept the illogicality of your theory.

DAVID: If that is my exact quote, it means God understands what He does is innately logical to Him and may or may not be logical for us.

It is an exact quote, and it fits in perfectly with your repeated admission that you can’t explain your theory and so I should go and ask God for his reasons.

God's choice of war over peace

dhw: Why do you insist that your all-powerful God could not possibly have created a Garden of Eden even if he’d wanted to? […] it is perfectly possible even within the current system for life forms to live in peace and cooperation with one another, and to find foods that do not involve killing and eating other sentient life forms?

DAVID: It is not 'perfectly possible in this current system'. That is pure pipe dream. show me how in a Wilson living system.

dhw: We have countless examples of peaceful cooperation in this current system, the most obvious one being the harmonious manner in which our own cell communities harmonize with one another most of the time. I gave symbiosis as another example. Do you know of any herbivore that deliberately kills other animals and eats them? I don’t see why you can’t imagine an earthly paradise[…] My suggestion is that it would be boring for God, if he exists.

DAVID: As usual, a non-answer for your pipedream. No Wilson life system described. and final straw, your poor god hates being bored!

I have described a system in which all life forms live at peace with one another, cooperating instead of fighting and killing. My view is that if an all-powerful God had wanted to design a Garden of Eden, he would have done so. And so I propose that he did not want such a paradise, but wanted the system we actually have. Your view seems to be that he was incapable of designing such a system, tried to rectify faults (e.g the ravages caused by the viruses he had designed), but sometimes couldn’t and so left it to humans to do what he couldn’t do. And yet he's all-powerful.

DAVID: Cells cannot make irreducibly complex designs on their own. They must be given equivalent instructions to follow.

dhw: QUOTE: “Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as by cell-mergers. Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification functions and cell fusions.” (James A Shapiro)

dhw: I would add the possibility that there is a God who designed this ability. This theism is no more and no less “invented” than your own 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of life’s history, or your vision of God operating over and over again on existing cell communities to restructure them into new cell communities, quite apart from his giving endless lessons to every species that performs a natural wonder such as a complicated nest, clever camouflage, and migration to a warm spot 10,000 miles away.

DAVID: Once again you have inflated Shapiro. His proposed theory is taken from self-sufficient free- living bacteria who must have those abilities to adapt to survive. […]

I don’t know why you continue to belittle him, as if he would have constructed his theory without taking into account the findings of other scientists’ research. But do please tell me why my theistic theory is more “invented” than your own, as summarized above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 29, 2022, 16:42 (730 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Your guesses – wanting our admiration, wanting a relationship - are just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting for himself, and in any case, you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: Mine are only guesses from our human standpoint and do not describe or agree to your desires for a god who creates for his interest or entertainment.

dhw: Wanting admiration and a relationship is just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting. I don’t “desire “ such a god, but if God exists, I seek a logical explanation for the history of life as we know it in the context of his possible purposes, methods and nature.

Your 'logical' explanation is based on your human view of God's works as if He were human, and He certainly is not. We differ widely


DAVID (transferred from “More miscellany”): ... it is very possible He just does it without any emotions or feelings about it. Any other approach is humanizing. […]

dhw: Yes, it is possible that the God you described as kind, and who tries to rectify the mistakes made by the system he designed, does so with no feelings. But I find it hard to imagine your first cause God creating thought patterns and emotions which he knows absolutely nothing about.

I never said He doesn't know about our emotions! We don't know if He needs to have feelings comparable to ours.


dhw:[…] However, you prefer to believe that your God “makes sense only to Himself”, and we should simply accept the illogicality of your theory.

DAVID: If that is my exact quote, it means God understands what He does is innately logical to Him and may or may not be logical for us.

dhw: It is an exact quote, and it fits in perfectly with your repeated admission that you can’t explain your theory and so I should go and ask God for his reasons.

When will you realize I have given you a full explanation of my theory?


God's choice of war over peace

dhw: We have countless examples of peaceful cooperation in this current system, the most obvious one being the harmonious manner in which our own cell communities harmonize with one another most of the time. I gave symbiosis as another example. Do you know of any herbivore that deliberately kills other animals and eats them? I don’t see why you can’t imagine an earthly paradise[…] My suggestion is that it would be boring for God, if he exists.

DAVID: As usual, a non-answer for your pipedream. No Wilson life system described. and final straw, your poor god hates being bored!

dhw: I have described a system in which all life forms live at peace with one another, cooperating instead of fighting and killing.

How do they live at peace? You have simply told us you wish for such a system. Tell us how it works practically. Full description please.

dhw: QUOTE: “Cells are built to evolve; they have the ability to alter their hereditary characteristics rapidly through well-described natural genetic engineering and epigenetic processes as well as by cell-mergers. Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a re

dhw: I would add the possibility that there is a God who designed this ability. This theism is no more and no less “invented” than your own 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of life’s history, or your vision of God operating over and over again on existing cell communities to restructure them into new cell communities, quite apart from his giving endless lessons to every species that performs a natural wonder such as a complicated nest, clever camouflage, and migration to a warm spot 10,000 miles away.

DAVID: Once again you have inflated Shapiro. His proposed theory is taken from self-sufficient free- living bacteria who must have those abilities to adapt to survive. […]

dhw: I don’t know why you continue to belittle him, as if he would have constructed his theory without taking into account the findings of other scientists’ research. But do please tell me why my theistic theory is more “invented” than your own, as summarized above.

I don't belittle him. I admire his work, first introduced him to you, and complain about how you misuse his theory. We differ widely on how we approach the issue of God's personality.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, March 30, 2022, 07:23 (730 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your guesses – wanting our admiration, wanting a relationship - are just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting for himself, and in any case, you agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: Mine are only guesses from our human standpoint and do not describe or agree to your desires for a god who creates for his interest or entertainment.

dhw: Wanting admiration and a relationship is just as “human” as wanting to create something interesting. I don’t “desire “ such a god, but if God exists, I seek a logical explanation for the history of life as we know it in the context of his possible purposes, methods and nature.

DAVID: Your 'logical' explanation is based on your human view of God's works as if He were human, and He certainly is not. We differ widely.

All of us humans, including you, have a human view of whatever we view. I do not view him “as if he were human”, but like yourself I assume he had a purpose for creating life. And like you, I assume he would have created what he wanted to create. But unlike you, I do not assume that his reasons for creating what he created “make sense only to Himself”.

dhw: It is an exact quote, and it fits in perfectly with your repeated admission that you can’t explain your theory and so I should go and ask God for his reasons.

DAVID: When will you realize I have given you a full explanation of my theory?

I’ll realize it when you give me one, so this is your chance: if your God’s only purpose was to design humans and our food, why did he design countless extinct life forms and foods that did not lead to humans and our food?

DAVID (transferred from “More miscellany”): ... it is very possible He just does it without any emotions or feelings about it. Any other approach is humanizing. […]

dhw: Yes, it is possible that the God you described as kind, and who tries to rectify the mistakes made by the system he designed, does so with no feelings. But I find it hard to imagine your first cause God creating thought patterns and emotions which he knows absolutely nothing about.

DAVID: I never said He doesn't know about our emotions! We don't know if He needs to have feelings comparable to ours.

I don’t know why you have dragged “need” into your reply. None of us know what he feels – or even if he exists – but you have repeatedly said you think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. So why can’t you agree that this makes for a possible purpose underlying his creativity?

God's choice of war over peace

dhw: We have countless examples of peaceful cooperation in this current system, the most obvious one being the harmonious manner in which our own cell communities harmonize with one another most of the time. I gave symbiosis as another example. Do you know of any herbivore that deliberately kills other animals and eats them? I don’t see why you can’t imagine an earthly paradise[…]

DAVID: How do they live at peace? You have simply told us you wish for such a system. Tell us how it works practically. Full description please.

I have not told you I wish for it! I have asked why you think your all-powerful God chose to design a system which demands warfare for the sake of survival, and I have suggested that your all-powerful God could have created a peaceful system if he had wanted to, in which all life forms cooperate and derive their food from sources that do not have to be killed. What “full description” do you expect?

I quoted Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells were responsible for evolutionary novelties.

DAVID: Once again you have inflated Shapiro. His proposed theory is taken from self-sufficient free- living bacteria who must have those abilities to adapt to survive. […]

dhw: I don’t know why you continue to belittle him, as if he would have constructed his theory without taking into account the findings of other scientists’ research. But do please tell me why my theistic theory is more “invented” than your own, as summarized above.

DAVID: I don't belittle him. I admire his work, first introduced him to you, and complain about how you misuse his theory.

How do I “misuse” his theory, when it is 100% explicit? He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 30, 2022, 16:19 (729 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your 'logical' explanation is based on your human view of God's works as if He were human, and He certainly is not. We differ widely.

dhw: All of us humans, including you, have a human view of whatever we view. I do not view him “as if he were human”, but like yourself I assume he had a purpose for creating life. And like you, I assume he would have created what he wanted to create. But unlike you, I do not assume that his reasons for creating what he created “make sense only to Himself”.

There is no way we can know God's thoughts. The 'why' behind His creations are our guesses so what He does "makes sense only to Him". His private thoughts!


dhw: It is an exact quote, and it fits in perfectly with your repeated admission that you can’t explain your theory and so I should go and ask God for his reasons.

DAVID: When will you realize I have given you a full explanation of my theory?

dhw: I’ll realize it when you give me one, so this is your chance: if your God’s only purpose was to design humans and our food, why did he design countless extinct life forms and foods that did not lead to humans and our food?

Same constant answer: He chose to evolve us from bacteria, the life He first started. The huge bush are delicately balanced ecosystems to provide food for all. Humans are at the top of the food chain.


DAVID: I never said He doesn't know about our emotions! We don't know if He needs to have feelings comparable to ours.

dhw: I don’t know why you have dragged “need” into your reply. None of us know what he feels – or even if he exists – but you have repeatedly said you think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. So why can’t you agree that this makes for a possible purpose underlying his creativity?

You are blind to the thought that God creating for His enjoyment and interest is simply imposing humans desires upon God as His secondary consideration for the effort. God may simply do it.


God's choice of war over peace

dhw: We have countless examples of peaceful cooperation in this current system, the most obvious one being the harmonious manner in which our own cell communities harmonize with one another most of the time. I gave symbiosis as another example. Do you know of any herbivore that deliberately kills other animals and eats them? I don’t see why you can’t imagine an earthly paradise[…]

DAVID: How do they live at peace? You have simply told us you wish for such a system. Tell us how it works practically. Full description please.

dhw: I have not told you I wish for it! I have asked why you think your all-powerful God chose to design a system which demands warfare for the sake of survival, and I have suggested that your all-powerful God could have created a peaceful system if he had wanted to, in which all life forms cooperate and derive their food from sources that do not have to be killed. What “full description” do you expect?

Still fudging! Tell us how your peaceful biology would work given the energy requirement.


dhw: I quoted Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells were responsible for evolutionary novelties.

DAVID: Once again you have inflated Shapiro. His proposed theory is taken from self-sufficient free- living bacteria who must have those abilities to adapt to survive. […]

dhw: I don’t know why you continue to belittle him, as if he would have constructed his theory without taking into account the findings of other scientists’ research. But do please tell me why my theistic theory is more “invented” than your own, as summarized above.

DAVID: I don't belittle him. I admire his work, first introduced him to you, and complain about how you misuse his theory.

How do I “misuse” his theory, when it is 100% explicit? He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty?

I fully agree at the simple adaptive level of free-living bacteria. He suggests that it might be a factor in larger steps for evolution. I agree, but I don't use it to claim cells are intelligent innately, as you do as one of your wishful desires about reality.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, March 31, 2022, 08:38 (729 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your 'logical' explanation is based on your human view of God's works as if He were human, and He certainly is not. We differ widely.

dhw: All of us humans, including you, have a human view of whatever we view. I do not view him “as if he were human”, but like yourself I assume he had a purpose for creating life. And like you, I assume he would have created what he wanted to create. But unlike you, I do not assume that his reasons for creating what he created “make sense only to Himself”.

DAVID: There is no way we can know God's thoughts. The 'why' behind His creations are our guesses so what He does "makes sense only to Him". His private thoughts!

There is no way we can even “know” if God exists, but for the sake of these discussions on the possible purpose, method and nature of a possible God, we are offering different guesses. For example, you make logical guesses concerning design and designer, and even concerning us unique humans as a possible “endpoint”. But when you come up with the illogical “guess” summarized in bold below, all of a sudden we must ignore logic and assume that God “makes sense only to Himself.” Why not assume that there could be something wrong with your guess?

dhw: It is an exact quote, and it fits in perfectly with your repeated admission that you can’t explain your theory and so I should go and ask God for his reasons.

DAVID: When will you realize I have given you a full explanation of my theory?

dhw: I’ll realize it when you give me one, so this is your chance: if your God’s only purpose was to design humans and our food, why did he design countless extinct life forms and foods that did not lead to humans and our food?

DAVID: Same constant answer: He chose to evolve us from bacteria, the life He first started.

As usual, you leave out the fact that evolve for you = design, and he also chose to design countless forms that did not lead to us.

DAVID: The huge bush are delicately balanced ecosystems to provide food for all. Humans are at the top of the food chain.

As usual, you ignore the countless ecosystems that provided food for the countless life forms that did not lead to humans. We are at the top of the food chain of our own ecosystems – not of all preceding ecosystems. In one breath you agree that you cannot explain it, and only God can do so, and then in the next you say you have given me “a full explanation”. You haven’t and you can’t, so do please stop dragging it out with your artful dodges.

dhw: None of us know what he feels – or even if he exists – but you have repeatedly said you think he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. So why can’t you agree that this makes for a possible purpose underlying his creativity?

DAVID: You are blind to the thought that God creating for His enjoyment and interest is simply imposing humans desires upon God as His secondary consideration for the effort. God may simply do it.

That is not an answer to my question. You insist that he is purposeful, so he doesn’t simply “do it” – he has a purpose! I don't know why you consider enjoyment and interest to be “secondary”, or how you can agree to him enjoying and being interested in his creations, and yet blind yourself to the possibility that this could be his purpose. “Human desire” is your usual cop-out, as if the creator could not share characteristics with his creations, although he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours!

God's choice of war over peace

dhw: I have asked why you think your all-powerful God chose to design a system which demands warfare for the sake of survival, and I have suggested that your all-powerful God could have created a peaceful system if he had wanted to, in which all life forms cooperate and derive their food from sources that do not have to be killed. What “full description” do you expect?

DAVID: Still fudging! Tell us how your peaceful biology would work given the energy requirement.

There are plenty of organisms, including ourselves, whose biological systems obtain their energy from sources that do not have to be killed or obtained by fighting other organisms.

dhw: I quoted Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells were responsible for evolutionary novelties.

DAVID: Once again you have inflated Shapiro.
And:
DAVID: [...] I admire his work, first introduced him to you, and complain about how you misuse his theory.

dhw:How do I “misuse” his theory, when it is 100% explicit? He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty.

DAVID: I fully agree at the simple adaptive level of free-living bacteria. He suggests that it might be a factor in larger steps for evolution. I agree, but I don't use it to claim cells are intelligent innately, as you do as one of your wishful desires about reality.

You accused me of “inflating” and “misusing” his theory. The fact that you disagree with it does not mean that I have inflated or misused it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 31, 2022, 16:43 (728 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There is no way we can know God's thoughts. The 'why' behind His creations are our guesses so what He does "makes sense only to Him". His private thoughts!

dhw: There is no way we can even “know” if God exists, but for the sake of these discussions on the possible purpose, method and nature of a possible God, we are offering different guesses. For example, you make logical guesses concerning design and designer, and even concerning us unique humans as a possible “endpoint”. But when you come up with the illogical “guess” summarized in bold below, all of a sudden we must ignore logic and assume that God “makes sense only to Himself.” Why not assume that there could be something wrong with your guess?

A 'guess' implies it might be wrong.

DAVID: Same constant answer: He chose to evolve us from bacteria, the life He first started.

dhw: As usual, you leave out the fact that evolve for you = design, and he also chose to design countless forms that did not lead to us.

Explained as necessary food. God evolving means God designed.


DAVID: The huge bush are delicately balanced ecosystems to provide food for all. Humans are at the top of the food chain.

dhw: As usual, you ignore the countless ecosystems that provided food for the countless life forms that did not lead to humans. We are at the top of the food chain of our own ecosystems – not of all preceding ecosystems. In one breath you agree that you cannot explain it, and only God can do so, and then in the next you say you have given me “a full explanation”. You haven’t and you can’t, so do please stop dragging it out with your artful dodges.

I see all ecosystems as interconnected so all are fed with us at the top. As usual you split things up.


DAVID: You are blind to the thought that God creating for His enjoyment and interest is simply imposing humans desires upon God as His secondary consideration for the effort. God may simply do it.

dhw: That is not an answer to my question. You insist that he is purposeful, so he doesn’t simply “do it” – he has a purpose! I don't know why you consider enjoyment and interest to be “secondary”, or how you can agree to him enjoying and being interested in his creations, and yet blind yourself to the possibility that this could be his purpose. “Human desire” is your usual cop-out, as if the creator could not share characteristics with his creations, although he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours!

Same old humanization. Of course He is pure purpose. my constant position.


God's choice of war over peace

dhw: I have asked why you think your all-powerful God chose to design a system which demands warfare for the sake of survival, and I have suggested that your all-powerful God could have created a peaceful system if he had wanted to, in which all life forms cooperate and derive their food from sources that do not have to be killed. What “full description” do you expect?

DAVID: Still fudging! Tell us how your peaceful biology would work given the energy requirement.

dhw: There are plenty of organisms, including ourselves, whose biological systems obtain their energy from sources that do not have to be killed or obtained by fighting other organisms.

Really? You never eat meat?


dhw: I quoted Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells were responsible for evolutionary novelties.

dhw:How do I “misuse” his theory, when it is 100% explicit? He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty.

DAVID: I fully agree at the simple adaptive level of free-living bacteria. He suggests that it might be a factor in larger steps for evolution. I agree, but I don't use it to claim cells are intelligent innately, as you do as one of your wishful desires about reality.

dhw: You accused me of “inflating” and “misusing” his theory. The fact that you disagree with it does not mean that I have inflated or misused it.

You just have used it: " He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty." He proposes a theory that, based on bacteria, might possibly help explain evolution. See the difference? Recognize his bacteria subjects are free-living organisms who need the ability to fully adapt to current constant challenges. They edit DNA and we have epigenetic methyl tags for minor changes. That is all we need. So I see you 'inflating' to satisfy your wish for intelligent cells.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, April 01, 2022, 11:23 (728 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: [...] you make logical guesses concerning design and designer, and even concerning us unique humans as a possible “endpoint”. But when you come up with the illogical “guess” summarized in bold below, all of a sudden we must ignore logic and assume that God “makes sense only to Himself.” Why not assume that there could be something wrong with your guess?

DAVID: A 'guess' implies it might be wrong.

Progress at last!

DAVID: Same constant answer: He chose to evolve us from bacteria, the life He first started.

dhw: As usual, you leave out the fact that evolve for you = design, and he also chose to design countless forms that did not lead to us.

DAVID: Explained as necessary food. God evolving means God designed.

Necessary for what? For 3.X billion years your God apparently designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, but according to your “guess”, they were all “necessary” preparation for humans and their food. Good news, though: you accept that your senseless guess might be wrong.

DAVID I see all ecosystems as interconnected so all are fed with us at the top. As usual you split things up.

How about the countless ecosystems that existed before we did? Were we at the top when your God designed them? I repeat: In one breath you agree that you cannot explain it, and only God can do so, and then in the next you say you have given me “a full explanation”. You haven’t and you can’t, so do please stop dragging it out with your artful dodges.

DAVID: You are blind to the thought that God creating for His enjoyment and interest is simply imposing humans desires upon God as His secondary consideration for the effort. God may simply do it.

dhw:. You insist that he is purposeful, so he doesn’t simply “do it” – he has a purpose! I don't know why you consider enjoyment and interest to be “secondary”, or how you can agree to him enjoying and being interested in his creations, and yet blind yourself to the possibility that this could be his purpose. “Human desire” is your usual cop-out, as if the creator could not share characteristics with his creations, although he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours!

DAVID: Same old humanization. Of course He is pure purpose. my constant position.

What is “pure” purpose? According to you, his only purpose was to design us and our food, but he designed countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us. Please explain what you mean by “pure”.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Tell us how your peaceful biology would work given the energy requirement.

dhw: There are plenty of organisms, including ourselves, whose biological systems obtain their energy from sources that do not have to be killed or obtained by fighting other organisms.

DAVID: Really? You never eat meat?

It is perfectly possible for organisms, including you and me, to survive without eating meat! However, according to you, your God deliberately designed life forms that can only survive by eating meat. So clearly he wanted war – otherwise he wouldn’t have designed them. And so I ask why he chose war over peace. Do you think your all-powerful God would have been incapable of designing a world in which there were no meat-eaters?

Transferred from “Introducing the brain
DAVID: dhw's wishful God must produce a pacifistic life form. That means theoretically starting with plants, not animals.

dhw: Do you consider it was beyond the powers of your all-powerful God to design plants before animals? In any case, the exact order of their respective evolutions doesn’t seem to be clear, judging by some of the websites I’ve consulted.

DAVID:Bacteria, animals, are first. But I agree algae and other early plant forms existed.

So maybe animals were not first.

DAVID: Plants peacefully absorb energy and animals attack each other.

Correct.

DAVID: Tell me how totally peaceful animals would be in your God's world. Would they all eat veggies? Including how would bacteria eat?

Your God would not have designed carnivores, and bacteria can eat anything.

dhw: You accused me of “inflating” and “misusing” his [Shapiro’s] theory. The fact that you disagree with it does not mean that I have inflated or misused it.

DAVID: You just have used it: " He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty." He proposes a theory that, based on bacteria, might possibly help explain evolution. See the difference?

Why do you say “based on bacteria”? His theory as quoted is not limited to bacteria, and his conclusion does not even mention them! You are the one who is now deflating and misusing his theory!

DAVID: Recognize his bacteria subjects are free-living organisms who need the ability to fully adapt to current constant challenges. They edit DNA and we have epigenetic methyl tags for minor changes. That is all we need. So I see you 'inflating' to satisfy your wish for intelligent cells.

It is not a wish, and I have neither inflated nor misused his theory. Read what you quoted (The Atheist Delusion, pp. 142-143). I also find it far more plausible than your 3.8-billion-year programme or your God dabbling every evolutionary novelty and natural wonder in life’s history, and doing so as “preparation” for humans plus our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, April 01, 2022, 16:09 (727 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same old humanization. Of course He is pure purpose. my constant position.

dhw: What is “pure” purpose? According to you, his only purpose was to design us and our food, but he designed countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us. Please explain what you mean by “pure”.

God creates. We can know nothing more about Him. I see Him as directly purposeful with no emotional overlays concerning Himself.


God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Tell us how your peaceful biology would work given the energy requirement.

dhw: There are plenty of organisms, including ourselves, whose biological systems obtain their energy from sources that do not have to be killed or obtained by fighting other organisms.

DAVID: Really? You never eat meat?

dhw: It is perfectly possible for organisms, including you and me, to survive without eating meat! However, according to you, your God deliberately designed life forms that can only survive by eating meat. So clearly he wanted war – otherwise he wouldn’t have designed them. And so I ask why he chose war over peace. Do you think your all-powerful God would have been incapable of designing a world in which there were no meat-eaters?

I don't know how. Do you? Remember, I accept God's choices. You may need to think about answering your own questions for God. I don't need to.


Transferred from “Introducing the brain

DAVID: Plants peacefully absorb energy and animals attack each other.

dhw: Correct.

DAVID: Tell me how totally peaceful animals would be in your God's world. Would they all eat veggies? Including how would bacteria eat?

dhw: Your God would not have designed carnivores, and bacteria can eat anything.

So your veggie eating bacteria would be passive? There goes Darwin's struggle for survival which included warring animals.


dhw: You accused me of “inflating” and “misusing” his [Shapiro’s] theory. The fact that you disagree with it does not mean that I have inflated or misused it.

DAVID: You just have used it: " He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty." He proposes a theory that, based on bacteria, might possibly help explain evolution. See the difference?

dhw: Why do you say “based on bacteria”? His theory as quoted is not limited to bacteria, and his conclusion does not even mention them! You are the one who is now deflating and misusing his theory!

What did Shapiro work with for his theory? Bacteria!!!


DAVID: Recognize his bacteria subjects are free-living organisms who need the ability to fully adapt to current constant challenges. They edit DNA and we have epigenetic methyl tags for minor changes. That is all we need. So I see you 'inflating' to satisfy your wish for intelligent cells.

dhw: It is not a wish, and I have neither inflated nor misused his theory. Read what you quoted (The Atheist Delusion, pp. 142-143). I also find it far more plausible than your 3.8-billion-year programme or your God dabbling every evolutionary novelty and natural wonder in life’s history, and doing so as “preparation” for humans plus our food.

Still plausibly conflating Shapiro, IMHO.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, April 02, 2022, 07:57 (727 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Same old humanization. Of course He is pure purpose. my constant position.

dhw: What is “pure” purpose? According to you, his only purpose was to design us and our food, but he designed countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us. Please explain what you mean by “pure”.

DAVID: God creates. We can know nothing more about Him. I see Him as directly purposeful with no emotional overlays concerning Himself.

We’re off again. We can’t even “know” if he exists. Your guess that his purpose has “no emotional overlays concerning Himself” has no more authority or evidence than the guess that his purpose does have such overlays. The fact of the matter is that you have guessed to the point of being certain that he enjoys creating (or he wouldn’t do it) and is interested in his creations. You therefore cannot claim that he definitely doesn’t feel enjoyment or interest, and so it would be perfectly logical for you to accept the possibility that satisfying these feelings may constitute his purpose.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Tell us how your peaceful biology would work given the energy requirement.

dhw: There are plenty of organisms, including ourselves, whose biological systems obtain their energy from sources that do not have to be killed or obtained by fighting other organisms.

DAVID: Really? You never eat meat?

dhw: It is perfectly possible for organisms, including you and me, to survive without eating meat! However, according to your theory, your God deliberately designed life forms that can only survive by eating meat. So clearly he wanted war – otherwise he wouldn’t have designed them. And so I ask why your version of an all-powerful God chose war over peace. Do you think he would have been incapable of designing a world in which there were no meat-eaters?

DAVID: I don't know how. Do you? Remember, I accept God's choices. […]

If your all-powerful God exists, then it was his choice to create a world in which survival depends on war. It’s not a matter of accepting or rejecting it. I’m asking why he would have made that choice! You keep telling us that despite his omnipotence he had to do it that way, because you can’t imagine him creating a Garden of Eden. I can, and I’d like to know why he didn’t, as this might give us some insight into his nature and purpose.

DAVID: Tell me how totally peaceful animals would be in your God's world. Would they all eat veggies? Including how would bacteria eat?

dhw: Your God would not have designed carnivores, and bacteria can eat anything.

DAVID: So your veggie eating bacteria would be passive? There goes Darwin's struggle for survival which included warring animals.

Of course there would be no struggle for survival if your God chose peace! You seem to have forgotten that according to you, he designs every single species individually. So all he would have had to do is design happy vegetarians and bacteria that didn’t have to wage war in order to survive. Why didn’t he? Do you really believe he couldn’t?

Crazy ants

DAVID: We are aware that a fungus can attack leaf-eating ants and change their behaviour. This is sort of similar. The Crazy Ants are not a bad bug. as we have discussed about bacteria, just an ant in the wrong environment.

Like “bad” bacteria and viruses, they are in the right environment for them, just as the fungus is in its own right environment. Yet another example of the war you think your God chose to design.

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: The reason I presented this article is dhw's attitude about the need for food energy when he does not see to recognize how vital each system is for life to exist.

EVERY ORGANISM NEEDS FOOD! Each ecosystem is vital for the particular life forms that depend on it. That does not mean that every extinct ecosystem was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! Please stop dodging the illogicality of your theory of evolution by pretending I don’t know that life needs energy.

dhw: You accused me of “inflating” and “misusing” his [Shapiro’s] theory. The fact that you disagree with it does not mean that I have inflated or misused it.

DAVID: You just have used it: " He says cells are intelligent beings which create evolutionary novelty." He proposes a theory that, based on bacteria, might possibly help explain evolution. See the difference?

dhw: Why do you say “based on bacteria”? His theory as quoted is not limited to bacteria, and his conclusion does not even mention them! You are the one who is now deflating and misusing his theory!

DAVID: What did Shapiro work with for his theory? Bacteria!!!

Do you really think he hasn’t considered the research of other scientists in coming to his conclusion? His theory concerns all cells, not just bacteria, and I have not inflated or misused it. Your attempt to belittle it by sniping at his own particular field of expertise does not alter the theory itself, which is precisely what I presented, as quoted word for word in your book!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 02, 2022, 15:22 (726 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God creates. We can know nothing more about Him. I see Him as directly purposeful with no emotional overlays concerning Himself.

dhw: We’re off again. We can’t even “know” if he exists. Your guess that his purpose has “no emotional overlays concerning Himself” has no more authority or evidence than the guess that his purpose does have such overlays. The fact of the matter is that you have guessed to the point of being certain that he enjoys creating (or he wouldn’t do it) and is interested in his creations. You therefore cannot claim that he definitely doesn’t feel enjoyment or interest, and so it would be perfectly logical for you to accept the possibility that satisfying these feelings may constitute his purpose.

Of course I can accept that and have in the past, when I have told you: if I accept your human form of God. Anything about God is possible, when possible personalities are considered.


God's choice of war over peace

dhw: If your all-powerful God exists, then it was his choice to create a world in which survival depends on war. It’s not a matter of accepting or rejecting it. I’m asking why he would have made that choice! You keep telling us that despite his omnipotence he had to do it that way, because you can’t imagine him creating a Garden of Eden. I can, and I’d like to know why he didn’t, as this might give us some insight into his nature and purpose....Your God would not have designed carnivores, and bacteria can eat anything.

You are attacking God's choice of method as usual. Free moving and free will organisms can do as they wish, and you wish God programmed them to be passive. Is that your personal preference? That is obviously what God did not do. We are back to your unanswerable questions.


DAVID: So your veggie eating bacteria would be passive? There goes Darwin's struggle for survival which included warring animals.

dhw: Of course there would be no struggle for survival if your God chose peace! You seem to have forgotten that according to you, he designs every single species individually. So all he would have had to do is design happy vegetarians and bacteria that didn’t have to wage war in order to survive. Why didn’t he? Do you really believe he couldn’t?

We have live with His choice. He obviously had one.

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: The reason I presented this article is dhw's attitude about the need for food energy when he does not see to recognize how vital each system is for life to exist.

dhw: EVERY ORGANISM NEEDS FOOD! Each ecosystem is vital for the particular life forms that depend on it. That does not mean that every extinct ecosystem was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! Please stop dodging the illogicality of your theory of evolution by pretending I don’t know that life needs energy.

What you never accept is the delicacy of the design of those vital systems, or their interrelation, as related to the current massive human population needs for food. The same needs were present in the past and the now and explains in large part the need for evolutionary bushiness all along. All anticipated in God's plans

DAVID: What did Shapiro work with for his theory? Bacteria!!!

dhw: Do you really think he hasn’t considered the research of other scientists in coming to his conclusion? His theory concerns all cells, not just bacteria, and I have not inflated or misused it. Your attempt to belittle it by sniping at his own particular field of expertise does not alter the theory itself, which is precisely what I presented, as quoted word for word in your book!

And I believe it fully, but I recognize its limits. You jump in hook line and sinker to try and salvage your hope that cells think for themselves, when all they are doing is following intelligent onboard instructions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, April 03, 2022, 11:39 (726 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God creates. We can know nothing more about Him. I see Him as directly purposeful with no emotional overlays concerning Himself.

dhw: We’re off again. We can’t even “know” if he exists. Your guess that his purpose has “no emotional overlays concerning Himself” has no more authority or evidence than the guess that his purpose does have such overlays. The fact of the matter is that you have guessed to the point of being certain that he enjoys creating (or he wouldn’t do it) and is interested in his creations. You therefore cannot claim that he definitely doesn’t feel enjoyment or interest, and so it would be perfectly logical for you to accept the possibility that satisfying these feelings may constitute his purpose.

DAVID: Of course I can accept that and have in the past, when I have told you: if I accept your human form of God. Anything about God is possible, when possible personalities are considered.

This is a major breakthrough. You have previously rejected it BECAUSE you claim that it “humanizes” God, though this contradicts your belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. I do not ask you to believe any of my alternative theories. There are two things I ask you to accept: 1) that your own theory is illogical – you have repeatedly agreed that you can’t explain it, and then in the next breath have claimed that it is logical; 2) that my logical alternatives (enjoyment and interest, free-for-all, experimentation, ongoing learning) are all possible. This you have now done. Thank you.

God's choice of war over peace

dhw: If your all-powerful God exists, then it was his choice to create a world in which survival depends on war. […] You keep telling us that despite his omnipotence he had to do it that way, because you can’t imagine him creating a Garden of Eden. I can, and I’d like to know why he didn’t. […]

DAVID: You are attacking God's choice of method as usual.

I am NOT attacking it! Assuming God exists, it is painfully clear that his choice was war over peace, and so I am asking why he might have made that choice. Why do think it is an attack if I suggest that freedom is more interesting than automaticity, and interest is more enjoyable than boredom?

DAVID: Free moving and free will organisms can do as they wish, and you wish God programmed them to be passive. Is that your personal preference? That is obviously what God did not do. We are back to your unanswerable questions.

You have completely missed the point. I don’t have a wish or a personal preference, and it is obvious that your God did NOT choose peace. If, as I suppose, you are interested in discussing the nature, purpose and method of your God – assuming he exists – then we can hardly avoid discussing his choices and reasons, even if we can never know the objective truth (unless he tells us).

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: The reason I presented this article is dhw's attitude about the need for food energy when he does not see to recognize how vital each system is for life to exist.

dhw: EVERY ORGANISM NEEDS FOOD! Each ecosystem is vital for the particular life forms that depend on it. That does not mean that every extinct ecosystem was “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food! Please stop dodging the illogicality of your theory of evolution by pretending I don’t know that life needs energy.

DAVID: What you never accept is the delicacy of the design of those vital systems, or their interrelation, as related to the current massive human population needs for food. The same needs were present in the past and the now and explains in large part the need for evolutionary bushiness all along. All anticipated in God's plans

I am not questioning the delicacy of those vital systems both past and present! But the current massive human population has only been around for about a minute in geological terms. And so what I question is your assumption that every past ecosystem for every past form of life was designed in “preparation”, as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food, although the vast majority of those past life forms and econiches did NOT lead to humans and our food.

DAVID: What did Shapiro work with for his theory? Bacteria!!!

dhw: […] His theory concerns all cells, not just bacteria, and I have not inflated or misused it. Your attempt to belittle it by sniping at his own particular field of expertise does not alter the theory itself, which is precisely what I presented [...]

DAVID: And I believe it fully, but I recognize its limits. You jump in hook line and sinker to try and salvage your hope that cells think for themselves, when all they are doing is following intelligent onboard instructions.

It is not a “hope”, and I recognize that it is a theory not a fact. You do not “recognize” its limits (Shapiro claims that intelligent cells design evolutionary novelties) – you simply disagree, because you believe cells are not intelligent and only follow your God’s instructions. Finally, will you please not tell me that I have inflated and misused his theory when I have reproduced it word for word.:-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 03, 2022, 15:24 (725 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course I can accept that and have in the past, when I have told you: if I accept your human form of God. Anything about God is possible, when possible personalities are considered.

dhw: This is a major breakthrough. You have previously rejected it BECAUSE you claim that it “humanizes” God, though this contradicts your belief that God probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. I do not ask you to believe any of my alternative theories. There are two things I ask you to accept: 1) that your own theory is illogical – you have repeatedly agreed that you can’t explain it, and then in the next breath have claimed that it is logical; 2) that my logical alternatives (enjoyment and interest, free-for-all, experimentation, ongoing learning) are all possible. This you have now done. Thank you.

I have specifically said your God is human, bolded above. As for your complaint I can't explain God's reasons, it is off point as to how I think about God. I fully accept God's reality as His intent. Then I try to analyze why He might have done it, recognizing what you don't. I am convinced God is not doing it out of self-interest. That is all part of my belief system. My theory is Adler's. God produced humans purposely and our extremely unusual result is a proof of God. Your twisted views of God force you to conclude Adler and I are illogical.


God's choice of war over peace

dhw: If your all-powerful God exists, then it was his choice to create a world in which survival depends on war. […] You keep telling us that despite his omnipotence he had to do it that way, because you can’t imagine him creating a Garden of Eden. I can, and I’d like to know why he didn’t. […]

DAVID: You are attacking God's choice of method as usual.

dhw: I am NOT attacking it! Assuming God exists, it is painfully clear that his choice was war over peace, and so I am asking why he might have made that choice. Why do think it is an attack if I suggest that freedom is more interesting than automaticity, and interest is more enjoyable than boredom?

See above, humanizing as usual.


DAVID: Free moving and free will organisms can do as they wish, and you wish God programmed them to be passive. Is that your personal preference? That is obviously what God did not do. We are back to your unanswerable questions.

dhw: You have completely missed the point. I don’t have a wish or a personal preference, and it is obvious that your God did NOT choose peace. If, as I suppose, you are interested in discussing the nature, purpose and method of your God – assuming he exists – then we can hardly avoid discussing his choices and reasons, even if we can never know the objective truth (unless he tells us).

My answer stands: God's freely-acting organisms can be passive or aggressive. Horses eat grass and stallions fight. Same with deer, ram sheep, etc. Why does God need to tranquilize all? Many don't eat each other, many do.


Ecosystem importance

DAVID: What you never accept is the delicacy of the design of those vital systems, or their interrelation, as related to the current massive human population needs for food. The same needs were present in the past and the now and explains in large part the need for evolutionary bushiness all along. All anticipated in God's plans

dhw: I am not questioning the delicacy of those vital systems both past and present! But the current massive human population has only been around for about a minute in geological terms. And so what I question is your assumption that every past ecosystem for every past form of life was designed in “preparation”, as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food, although the vast majority of those past life forms and econiches did NOT lead to humans and our food.

You've lost the point as USUAL. A tiny bush in the past has become a giant bush of food now. The past creates the now. Slicing it up as you always do.


DAVID: What did Shapiro work with for his theory? Bacteria!!!

dhw: […] His theory concerns all cells, not just bacteria, and I have not inflated or misused it. Your attempt to belittle it by sniping at his own particular field of expertise does not alter the theory itself, which is precisely what I presented [...]

DAVID: And I believe it fully, but I recognize its limits. You jump in hook line and sinker to try and salvage your hope that cells think for themselves, when all they are doing is following intelligent onboard instructions.

dhw: It is not a “hope”, and I recognize that it is a theory not a fact. You do not “recognize” its limits (Shapiro claims that intelligent cells design evolutionary novelties) – you simply disagree, because you believe cells are not intelligent and only follow your God’s instructions. Finally, will you please not tell me that I have inflated and misused his theory when I have reproduced it word for word.:-(

Don't pout. Quoting Shapiro's words are simply quoting his suggestion as to how evolution might advance. All based on free-living bacteria who must have the abilities they have to survive. Still here with those abilities helping us live.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, April 04, 2022, 09:46 (725 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There are two things I ask you to accept: 1) that your own theory is illogical – you have repeatedly agreed that you can’t explain it, and then in the next breath have claimed that it is logical; 2) that my logical alternatives (enjoyment and interest, free-for-all, experimentation, ongoing learning) are all possible. This you have now done. Thank you.

DAVID: I have specifically said your God is human […].

The various theories I present all fit in with your own opinion that your God probably has some thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and we mimic him. But I do not for one second imagine that a human could create a universe and everything in it.

DAVID: As for your complaint I can't explain God's reasons, it is off point as to how I think about God.

If you offer us a theory that your God had only one purpose (humans plus food) and his method of achieving it was to design countless organisms that did not lead to humans plus food, it is hardly off point as to how you think about God!

DAVID: I fully accept God's reality as His intent.

The reality is a vast, ever changing bush of life forms and econiches extant and extinct. We all have to accept that.

DAVID: Then I try to analyze why He might have done it, recognizing what you don't.

What don’t I recognize? That his purpose was us and our food, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us?

DAVID: I am convinced God is not doing it out of self-interest. That is all part of my belief system.

And yet at one time you were sure he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. Being “convinced” is not, I’m afraid, much of an argument.

DAVID: My theory is Adler's. God produced humans purposely and our extremely unusual result is a proof of God. Your twisted views of God force you to conclude Adler and I are illogical.

This is a tiresome dodge. I keep repeating that I accept the logic of the design argument for God’s existence. It is your theistic theory of evolution bolded above that is illogical, which is why you tell me to go and ask God for an explanation, because “God makes sense only to Himself”.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: You are attacking God's choice of method as usual.

dhw: I am NOT attacking it! Assuming God exists, it is painfully clear that his choice was war over peace, and so I am asking why he might have made that choice. Why do think it is an attack if I suggest that freedom is more interesting than automaticity, and interest is more enjoyable than boredom?

DAVID: See above, humanizing as usual.

Irrelevant. Why do you consider this proposal to be an attack on your God?

DAVID: My answer stands: God's freely-acting organisms can be passive or aggressive. Horses eat grass and stallions fight. Same with deer, ram sheep, etc. Why does God need to tranquilize all? Many don't eat each other, many do.

You are slowly moving in the right direction. You have described reality as a “constant war to survive by eating”. Now you give examples of peace and war! So I’ll ask you why you think he chose to design war when obviously he was perfectly capable of designing peace.

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: You've lost the point as USUAL. A tiny bush in the past has become a giant bush of food now. The past creates the now. Slicing it up as you always do.

I’m afraid I haven’t been able to count the number of species and econiches that have gone extinct over the last 3.X billion years, but I wait in vain for you to explain how every one of them could have been “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and our food, although the majority did not lead to humans and our food. Dodging the issue, “as you always do”, except when you admit you can’t see the logic either, and “God makes sense only to Himself.”

Shapiro

dhw: […]Will you please not tell me that I have inflated and misused his theory when I have reproduced it word for word.:-(

DAVID: Don't pout. Quoting Shapiro's words are simply quoting his suggestion as to how evolution might advance.

Yes, I have quoted his theory in his own words.

DAVID: All based on free-living bacteria who must have the abilities they have to survive. Still here with those abilities helping us live.

He refers to cells in general, not just bacteria, and I quoted his own words, e.g. “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modificaton and cell fusions.” I have neither inflated nor abused his theory. By confining it to bacteria, you have deflated and abused it yourself. Ts ts! :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, April 04, 2022, 15:53 (724 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am convinced God is not doing it out of self-interest. That is all part of my belief system.

dhw: And yet at one time you were sure he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. Being “convinced” is not, I’m afraid, much of an argument.

You are again using my guesses as fact. Belief is convinced!!! You are outside looking in.


DAVID: My theory is Adler's. God produced humans purposely and our extremely unusual result is a proof of God. Your twisted views of God force you to conclude Adler and I are illogical.

dhw: This is a tiresome dodge. I keep repeating that I accept the logic of the design argument for God’s existence. It is your theistic theory of evolution bolded above that is illogical, which is why you tell me to go and ask God for an explanation, because “God makes sense only to Himself”.

Your view of my theistic belief system is illogical. I'll stick with Adler while you stick with Shapiro,


God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: My answer stands: God's freely-acting organisms can be passive or aggressive. Horses eat grass and stallions fight. Same with deer, ram sheep, etc. Why does God need to tranquilize all? Many don't eat each other, many do.

dhw: You are slowly moving in the right direction. You have described reality as a “constant war to survive by eating”. Now you give examples of peace and war! So I’ll ask you why you think he chose to design war when obviously he was perfectly capable of designing peace.

God designed a mixture. Free-living organisms have a choice with free will. God would have to pacific everyone in you scheme. It may be that God realized a freedom to chose energy sources might allow more adequate intake of energy. You ignore how vital that is.


Ecosystem importance

DAVID: You've lost the point as USUAL. A tiny bush in the past has become a giant bush of food now. The past creates the now. Slicing it up as you always do.

dhw: I’m afraid I haven’t been able to count the number of species and econiches that have gone extinct over the last 3.X billion years, but I wait in vain for you to explain how every one of them could have been “part of the goal of evolving [designing] humans” and our food, although the majority did not lead to humans and our food. Dodging the issue, “as you always do”, except when you admit you can’t see the logic either, and “God makes sense only to Himself.”

Your usual illogical splitting of evolution into unconnected eras. Evolution is progressive with each new stage following from the last.


Shapiro

dhw: […]Will you please not tell me that I have inflated and misused his theory when I have reproduced it word for word.:-(

DAVID: Don't pout. Quoting Shapiro's words are simply quoting his suggestion as to how evolution might advance.

dhw: Yes, I have quoted his theory in his own words.

DAVID: All based on free-living bacteria who must have the abilities they have to survive. Still here with those abilities helping us live.

dhw: He refers to cells in general, not just bacteria, and I quoted his own words, e.g. “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modificaton and cell fusions.” I have neither inflated nor abused his theory. By confining it to bacteria, you have deflated and abused it yourself. Ts ts! :-(

Wake up. His entire research career was on bacteria!! From that great work he theorized it can be applied to other entirely new cells (evolutionary novelty). If 'in general' applying it to a cause for speciation, it must mean germ cells can modify themselves. That is not seen, except methylation, so we are back to reviewing his work as limited to a theory as to how evolution might have advanced. He is not discussing how your 'cells' operate daily!!! Pleaser remember the title of his book: Evolution. Stop extrapolating illogically. :-) ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, April 05, 2022, 10:29 (724 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I am convinced God is not doing it out of self-interest. That is all part of my belief system.

dhw: And yet at one time you were sure he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. Being “convinced” is not, I’m afraid, much of an argument.

DAVID: You are again using my guesses as fact. Belief is convinced!!! You are outside looking in.

Of course none of our guesses are fact – including the existence of God. But since you have guessed that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, I don’t see how you can then guess that he can’t possibly do his creating because he enjoys creating something that interests him.

DAVID: Your view of my theistic belief system is illogical. I'll stick with Adler while you stick with Shapiro.

Adler doesn’t cover your illogical theory of evolution, and Shapiro does not even mention God. Stop dodging.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: God designed a mixture. Free-living organisms have a choice with free will. God would have to pacific everyone in you scheme. It may be that God realized a freedom to chose energy sources might allow more adequate intake of energy. You ignore how vital that is.

Yes, we have a mixture. I’m delighted that you now accept the possibility that he gave organisms the freedom to choose their energy sources – as opposed to his designing them all and finding that they made “errors” which he could not always control. Thank you. I would question whether the freedom you have so long denied was necessary for “a more adequate intake of energy”, especially since it often means one organism having all its energy taken away by another in your God's specially designed "constant war to survive by eating". Maybe he had another reason for the free-for-all.

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: Your usual illogical splitting of evolution into unconnected eras. Evolution is progressive with each new stage following from the last.

But every single new stage of every single new species and econiche did not lead only to humans and our food, though you say humans and our food were your God’s only purpose. Stop dodging!

Shapiro
dhw: He refers to cells in general, not just bacteria, and I quoted his own words, e.g. “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modificaton and cell fusions.” I have neither inflated nor abused his theory. By confining it to bacteria, you have deflated and abused it yourself. Ts ts! grim

DAVID: Wake up. His entire research career was on bacteria!! From that great work he theorized it can be applied to other entirely new cells (evolutionary novelty). If 'in general' applying it to a cause for speciation, it must mean germ cells can modify themselves. That is not seen, except methylation, so we are back to reviewing his work as limited to a theory as to how evolution might have advanced. He is not discussing how your 'cells' operate daily!!! Please remember the title of his book: Evolution. Stop extrapolating illogically.

Of course it’s his theory of evolution, since that was the subject of his book! Hence the quotation above. But that does not alter the fact that he believes in cellular intelligence! QUOTE: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” Do you really think he would wish to add a parenthesis: NB they are not intelligent when sensing, communicating, information-processing and decision-making in daily life?

Epigenetics

DAVID: It is obviously not a solution for the problem of understanding how speciation works. It appears to be related to very minor alterations.

Nobody knows how speciation works, but the snake example might help us. The environment makes legs a nuisance, but the sliding movement itself leads to further changes in the anatomy (as with whales swimming instead of walking). There can be no question about these changes eventually proving to be hereditary, and I would say this is how snakes became a new species. I think we would both agree that environment triggered what became very major alterations. You will say God dabbled. I would suggest that intelligent cells restructured themselves according to current needs.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 05, 2022, 16:32 (723 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Of course none of our guesses are fact – including the existence of God. But since you have guessed that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, I don’t see how you can then guess that he can’t possibly do his creating because he enjoys creating something that interests him.

I view God as creating without self interest. Enjoying and being interested are secondary events.


DAVID: Your view of my theistic belief system is illogical. I'll stick with Adler while you stick with Shapiro.

dhw: Adler doesn’t cover your illogical theory of evolution, and Shapiro does not even mention God. Stop dodging.

Adler uses the evolution of humans as a proof of God. Your complaint is totally off point.


God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: God designed a mixture. Free-living organisms have a choice with free will. God would have to pacific everyone in you scheme. It may be that God realized a freedom to chose energy sources might allow more adequate intake of energy. You ignore how vital that is.

dhw: Yes, we have a mixture. I’m delighted that you now accept the possibility that he gave organisms the freedom to choose their energy sources – as opposed to his designing them all and finding that they made “errors” which he could not always control.

I've always viewed animals as having freedom of external actions.

Shapiro
dhw: He refers to cells in general, not just bacteria, and I quoted his own words, e.g. “Evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modificaton and cell fusions.” I have neither inflated nor abused his theory. By confining it to bacteria, you have deflated and abused it yourself. Ts ts! grim

DAVID: Wake up. His entire research career was on bacteria!! From that great work he theorized it can be applied to other entirely new cells (evolutionary novelty). If 'in general' applying it to a cause for speciation, it must mean germ cells can modify themselves. That is not seen, except methylation, so we are back to reviewing his work as limited to a theory as to how evolution might have advanced. He is not discussing how your 'cells' operate daily!!! Please remember the title of his book: Evolution. Stop extrapolating illogically.

dhw: Of course it’s his theory of evolution, since that was the subject of his book! Hence the quotation above. But that does not alter the fact that he believes in cellular intelligence! QUOTE: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities.” Do you really think he would wish to add a parenthesis: NB they are not intelligent when sensing, communicating, information-processing and decision-making in daily life?

Still base4d entirely on bacterial research.


Epigenetics

DAVID: It is obviously not a solution for the problem of understanding how speciation works. It appears to be related to very minor alterations.

dhw: Nobody knows how speciation works, but the snake example might help us. The environment makes legs a nuisance, but the sliding movement itself leads to further changes in the anatomy (as with whales swimming instead of walking). There can be no question about these changes eventually proving to be hereditary, and I would say this is how snakes became a new species. I think we would both agree that environment triggered what became very major alterations. You will say God dabbled. I would suggest that intelligent cells restructured themselves according to current needs.

And I respond cells are programmed to respond to changes with minor modifications.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, April 06, 2022, 11:00 (723 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] since you have guessed that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, I don’t see how you can then guess that he can’t possibly do his creating because he enjoys creating something that interests him.

DAVID: I view God as creating without self interest. Enjoying and being interested are secondary events.

Enjoyment and interest are not “events” but possible motives for and results of events, and I don’t know what you mean by “secondary”. Do you think your God didn’t know he enjoyed creating and would be interested in his creations? You’ve also guessed that he wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him, and you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours and we mimic him. I’ve taken your guesses as possible purposes for his creation of life, including humans. Why do you wish to downplay the possible implications of your own guesses?

DAVID: Your view of my theistic belief system is illogical. I'll stick with Adler while you stick with Shapiro.

dhw: Adler doesn’t cover your illogical theory of evolution, and Shapiro does not even mention God. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Adler uses the evolution of humans as a proof of God. Your complaint is totally off point.

That IS my point. I have no complaint against his argument. My complaint, as you know, is against the illogical notion that your God designed every species, econiche and natural wonder as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food, although the majority did not lead to humans and our food. (See also the “web” article below.)

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: God designed a mixture. Free-living organisms have a choice with free will.[…]. It may be that God realized a freedom to chose energy sources might allow more adequate intake of energy. […]

dhw: […] I’m delighted that you now accept the possibility that he gave organisms the freedom to choose their energy sources – as opposed to his designing them all and finding that they made “errors” which he could not always control.

DAVID: I've always viewed animals as having freedom of external actions.

The question is why your God designed life as a “constant war of survival by eating”. You believe he deliberately designed the carnivores, so they had no freedom: they had to kill. But if he gave organisms free will to design the innovations that lead to speciation – based on finding efficient ways to “take in energy” – then we have a possible answer to the problem of theodicy: he didn’t design survival by killing, whether through “bad” viruses or meat-eating. Instead he designed “free-living organisms” that “have a choice with free will” (= a free-for-all). Nice and logical!

Shapiro

dhw: He refers to cells in general…

DAVID: Still based entirely on bacterial research.

I’m delighted that you now acknowledge the intelligence of bacteria, have no doubt Shapiro would have considered other people’s research, and repeat that I have quoted his theory in his own words, and have neither inflated nor misused it.

Epigenetics

DAVID: It is obviously not a solution for the problem of understanding how speciation works. It appears to be related to very minor alterations.

dhw: Nobody knows how speciation works, but the snake example might help us. The environment makes legs a nuisance, but the sliding movement itself leads to further changes in the anatomy […] . There can be no question about these changes eventually proving to be hereditary, and I would say this is how snakes became a new species. I think we would both agree that environment triggered what became very major alterations. You will say God dabbled. I would suggest that intelligent cells restructured themselves according to current needs.

DAVID: And I respond cells are programmed to respond to changes with minor modifications.

Do you think your God dabbled with the pre-snake as preparation for humans and our food?

Evolution as a web

The latest interrelationships show a web, not a bush:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-evolution-is-not-a-tree-of-life-but-a-fuzzy-network

QUOTE: "The hypothesis of reticulate evolution is that species are not as isolated from each other as Haeckel’s branching trees propose. Instead, species both diverge and merge together. The tree of life doesn’t look like a tree so much as the reticulated pattern of a python’s skin.

DAVID: a very new view. Hybridization and gene transfer are very active processes. Humans are an interconnected part of the web at its endpoint. Let's hope dhw doesn't try to slice it up.

If you believe all species evolved – as Darwin says – from a few forms or one, then of course there will be genes in common. I don’t know what the author means by species “merging”. By definition species (broad sense) are separate, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have genes in common. A web doesn’t have an endpoint. As you said earlier, every species is connected through its biochemical basis, but I find it absurd to conclude that we and our food supplies are directly descended from, say, brontosauruses, especially bearing in mind your theory that your God designed every species individually as “preparation” for us plus food. Would he have been unable to design us plus food without having designed the brontosaurus?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 06, 2022, 15:38 (722 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I view God as creating without self interest. Enjoying and being interested are secondary events.

dhw: Enjoyment and interest are not “events” but possible motives for and results of events, and I don’t know what you mean by “secondary”.

Secondary is obvious in my view of God. God purposefully creates as a primary event. His own responses to the results occur after creation.

dhw: I’ve taken your guesses as possible purposes for his creation of life, including humans. Why do you wish to downplay the possible implications of your own guesses?

They are your implications coming from your biased view of a humanized God. I carefully avoid granting those human responses to God's reasoning

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: I've always viewed animals as having freedom of external actions.

dhw: The question is why your God designed life as a “constant war of survival by eating”. You believe he deliberately designed the carnivores, so they had no freedom: they had to kill. But if he gave organisms free will to design the innovations that lead to speciation – based on finding efficient ways to “take in energy” – then we have a possible answer to the problem of theodicy: he didn’t design survival by killing, whether through “bad” viruses or meat-eating. Instead he designed “free-living organisms” that “have a choice with free will” (= a free-for-all). Nice and logical!

Just a big IF based on your strange desire to have God give up control over speciation. Taht desire weakens God? Is that what you want?


Shapiro

dhw: I’m delighted that you now acknowledge the intelligence of bacteria, have no doubt Shapiro would have considered other people’s research, and repeat that I have quoted his theory in his own words, and have neither inflated nor misused it.

You have conflated his theory for speciation into brilliant cells running the show in the everyday processes of life..


Evolution as a web

The latest interrelationships show a web, not a bush:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-evolution-is-not-a-tree-of-life-but-a-fuzzy-network

QUOTE: "The hypothesis of reticulate evolution is that species are not as isolated from each other as Haeckel’s branching trees propose. Instead, species both diverge and merge together. The tree of life doesn’t look like a tree so much as the reticulated pattern of a python’s skin.

DAVID: a very new view. Hybridization and gene transfer are very active processes. Humans are an interconnected part of the web at its endpoint. Let's hope dhw doesn't try to slice it up.

dhw: If you believe all species evolved – as Darwin says – from a few forms or one, then of course there will be genes in common. I don’t know what the author means by species “merging”. By definition species (broad sense) are separate, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have genes in common. A web doesn’t have an endpoint. As you said earlier, every species is connected through its biochemical basis, but I find it absurd to conclude that we and our food supplies are directly descended from, say, brontosauruses, especially bearing in mind your theory that your God designed every species individually as “preparation” for us plus food. Would he have been unable to design us plus food without having designed the brontosaurus?

You have never understood the delicate balances of well maintained ecosystems. Each animal contributes in its own special way. The article continues the pecking away at Darwin orthodoxy. This web is not your desired definition. This web of interactions had a definite directionality to an endpoint.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, April 07, 2022, 10:34 (722 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I view God as creating without self interest. Enjoying and being interested are secondary events.

dhw: Enjoyment and interest are not “events” but possible motives for and results of events, and I don’t know what you mean by “secondary”.

DAVID: Secondary is obvious in my view of God. God purposefully creates as a primary event. His own responses to the results occur after creation.

Of course responses to results come afterwards. But why do you insist that the results of an action have nothing to do with its purpose?

dhw: [...]Why do you wish to downplay the possible implications of your own guesses?

DAVID: They are your implications coming from your biased view of a humanized God. I carefully avoid granting those human responses to God's reasoning.

Since you’re sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and may even want us to admire his works, clearly your careful avoidance of the implications is due to your biased conviction that your God creates "without self interest".

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: I've always viewed animals as having freedom of external actions.

dhw: The question is why your God designed life as a “constant war of survival by eating”. You believe he deliberately designed the carnivores, so they had no freedom: they had to kill. But if he gave organisms free will to design the innovations that lead to speciation – based on finding efficient ways to “take in energy” – then we have a possible answer to the problem of theodicy: he didn’t design survival by killing, whether through “bad” viruses or meat-eating. Instead he designed “free-living organisms” that “have a choice with free will” (= a free-for-all)[...]

DAVID: Just a big IF based on your strange desire to have God give up control over speciation. Taht desire weakens God? Is that what you want?

It’s not a desire but a theory to solve the problem of theodicy. How does the decision to create a free-for-all denote weakness? Your version of God has him designing a system resulting in errors he can’t control, though he tries to correct them and sometimes fails. That’s what I would call weakness.

Shapiro

dhw: […] I have quoted his theory in his own words, and have neither inflated nor misused it.

DAVID: You have conflated his theory for speciation into brilliant cells running the show in the everyday processes of life.

You are conflating two different subjects. When cellular intelligence explains evolution, I follow his theory of evolution. When we discuss everyday processes, I follow not just Shapiro’s view but that of many other scientists that cells are intelligent. What would be the point of cellular intelligence if it was not involved in everyday processes? But please note the following:

Learning how proteins work
DAVID: A study in automaticity of molecules:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-abundant-secret-doors-human-proteins.html

DAVID: This is a study of how protein molecules automatically react in living processes. This automaticity is required to allow the fantastic speed of the processes , a speed that is required for life to exist.

You constant pick on examples of automatic behaviour, and I constantly reiterate that of course much of cellular activity has to be automatic, because otherwise the system will break down. There are two contexts in which intelligence comes into play: 1) the origin of every activity; 2) how cells respond when things go wrong. An analogy would be a factory. It takes intelligence to design the machinery, things then work automatically, and only when something goes wrong is intelligence required. You have the same theory, but attribute each stage to your God's direct intervention.

Evolution as a web

DAVID:The latest interrelationships show a web, not a bush:
https://aeon.co/essays/why-evolution-is-not-a-tree-of-life-but-a-fuzzy-network

Owing to lack of space, I’ll omit the exchanges which led to David ‘s comments:

DAVID: You have never understood the delicate balances of well maintained ecosystems. Each animal contributes in its own special way.

Of course it does and ecosystems are delicately balanced. But that does not mean every animal and ecosystem was specially designed as preparation for humans and their food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: The article continues the pecking away at Darwin orthodoxy. This web is not your desired definition. This web of interactions had a definite directionality to an endpoint.

I have now read the whole article. There's no mention or even implication of directionality or an endpoint. It's all about the mixing of genes and hybridisation: for example, there are 8oo “species” of corals that interbreed: “Veron argues that today’s corals are a product of Darwin’s classical natural selection when currents are slack, and of hybridisation when they are strong.” Ancient humans interbred with Denisovans. Now I understand what he means by “merging”: over time, the same genes will appear in a vast variety of “species”. As I said before, if you believe in common descent, then surely that is inevitable. His “pecking away” consists simply in presenting the history of evolution as a web and not a tree. If anything, I’d say a tree has more directionality than a web.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 07, 2022, 15:29 (721 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Secondary is obvious in my view of God. God purposefully creates as a primary event. His own responses to the results occur after creation.

dhw: Of course responses to results come afterwards. But why do you insist that the results of an action have nothing to do with its purpose?

Why can't you separate purpose from reaction?


dhw: [...]Why do you wish to downplay the possible implications of your own guesses?

DAVID: They are your implications coming from your biased view of a humanized God. I carefully avoid granting those human responses to God's reasoning.

dhw: Since you’re sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and may even want us to admire his works, clearly your careful avoidance of the implications is due to your biased conviction that your God creates "without self interest".

I'm not 'sure' creating and desiring interest have any role in God primarily creating. That is how you humanize Him.


God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Just a big IF based on your strange desire to have God give up control over speciation. That desire weakens God? Is that what you want?

dhw: It’s not a desire but a theory to solve the problem of theodicy. How does the decision to create a free-for-all denote weakness? Your version of God has him designing a system resulting in errors he can’t control, though he tries to correct them and sometimes fails. That’s what I would call weakness.

My view is the system works. A biochemical system of life requires massive numbers of reactions at nanosecond speed. Rare mistakes that get past editing add up to cloud your biased viewpoint.


Shapiro

DAVID: You have conflated his theory for speciation into brilliant cells running the show in the everyday processes of life.

dhw: You are conflating two different subjects. When cellular intelligence explains evolution, I follow his theory of evolution. When we discuss everyday processes, I follow not just Shapiro’s view but that of many other scientists that cells are intelligent. What would be the point of cellular intelligence if it was not involved in everyday processes?

We disagree on cell intelligence which obviously can be purely cell instructions.

Learning how proteins work
DAVID: A study in automaticity of molecules:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-abundant-secret-doors-human-proteins.html

DAVID: This is a study of how protein molecules automatically react in living processes. This automaticity is required to allow the fantastic speed of the processes , a speed that is required for life to exist.

dhw: You constant pick on examples of automatic behaviour, and I constantly reiterate that of course much of cellular activity has to be automatic, because otherwise the system will break down. There are two contexts in which intelligence comes into play: 1) the origin of every activity; 2) how cells respond when things go wrong. An analogy would be a factory. It takes intelligence to design the machinery, things then work automatically, and only when something goes wrong is intelligence required. You have the same theory, but attribute each stage to your God's direct intervention.

And your analogous intelligence arose how?


Evolution as a web

DAVID:The latest interrelationships show a web, not a bush:
https://aeon.co/essays/why-evolution-is-not-a-tree-of-life-but-a-fuzzy-network

DAVID: The article continues the pecking away at Darwin orthodoxy. This web is not your desired definition. This web of interactions had a definite directionality to an endpoint.

dhw: I have now read the whole article. There's no mention or even implication of directionality or an endpoint. It's all about the mixing of genes and hybridisation: for example, there are 8oo “species” of corals that interbreed: “Veron argues that today’s corals are a product of Darwin’s classical natural selection when currents are slack, and of hybridisation when they are strong.” Ancient humans interbred with Denisovans. Now I understand what he means by “merging”: over time, the same genes will appear in a vast variety of “species”. As I said before, if you believe in common descent, then surely that is inevitable. His “pecking away” consists simply in presenting the history of evolution as a web and not a tree. If anything, I’d say a tree has more directionality than a web.

Do we see a directionality to evolution or not? See today's entry on evolution and biochemical analysis not findings common ancestor

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 07, 2022, 16:06 (721 days ago) @ David Turell

Does common descent come from a single ancestor. No support from biochemistry:

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/sara-walker-and-her-crew-publish-the-most-interesting...

"For Dobzhansky, as for all neo-Darwinians (by definition), the apparent molecular universality of life on Earth confirmed Darwin’s prediction that all organisms “have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed” (1859, 494) — an entity now known as the Last Universal Common Ancestor, or LUCA. So strong is the pull of this apparent universality, rooted in LUCA, that any other historical geometry seems unimaginable.

"Theoretician Sara Walker and her team of collaborators, however, are looking for an account of what they call the “laws of life” that would apply “to all possible biochemistries” — including organisms found elsewhere in the universe, if any exist. To that end, they wanted to know if the molecular universality explained under neo-Darwinian theory as material descent from LUCA (a) really exists, and (b) if not, what patterns do exist, and how might those be explained without presupposing a single common ancestor.

"And a single common ancestor, LUCA? That’s what they didn’t find.

***

"A strikingly similar pattern obtains with the critical (essential) components of all organisms. Gagler et al. 2022 looked at the abundances of enzyme functions across the three major domains of life (Bacteria, Archaea, Eukarya), as well as in metagenomes (environmentally sampled DNA). What they found was remarkable.

***

"The lesson that Gagler et al. 2022 draw from this discovery? The pattern is NOT due to material descent from a single common ancestor, LUCA. Indeed, under the heading, “Universality in Scaling of Enzyme Function Is Not Explained by Universally Shared Components,” they explain that material descent from LUCA would entail shared “microscale features,” meaning “specific molecules and reactions used by all life,” or “shared component chemistry across systems.” If we use the CPU / laptop analogy, this microscale commonality would be equivalent to finding CPUs from the same manufacturer, with the same internal logic circuits, in every laptop we examine. (read article to understand analogy)

"But what Gagler et al. 2022 found was a macroscale pattern, “which does not directly correlate with a high degree of microscale universality,” and “cannot be explained directly by the universality of the underlying component functions.” In an accompanying news story, project co-author Chris Kempes, of the Santa Fe Institute, described their main finding in terms of functional synonyms: macroscale functions are required, but not the identical lower-level components:

“'Here we find that you get these scaling relationships without needing to conserve exact membership. You need a certain number of transferases, but not particular transferases,” says SFI Professor Chris Kempes, a co-author on the paper. “There are a lot [of] ‘synonyms,’ and those synonyms scale in systematic ways.”

"As Gagler et al. frame the point in the paper itself (emphasis added):

"A critical question is whether the universality classes identified herein are a product of the shared ancestry of life. A limitation of the traditional view of biochemical universality is that universality can only be explained in terms of evolutionary contingency and shared history, which challenges our ability to generalize beyond the singular ancestry of life as we know it. …Instead, we showed here that universality classes are not directly correlated with component universality, which is indicative that it emerges as a macroscopic regularity in the large-scale statistics of catalytic functional diversity. Furthermore, EC ( Enzyme Commission Classification), according to their designated EC numbers. universality cannot simply be explained due to phylogenetic relatedness since the range of total enzyme functions spans two orders of magnitude, evidencing a wide coverage of genomic diversity.

"It is interesting to note that this paper was edited (for the PNAS) by Eugene Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. For many years, Koonin has argued in his own work that the putative “universality due to ancestry” premise of neo-Darwinian theory no longer holds, due in large measure to what he and others have termed “non-orthologous gene displacement” (NOGD). NOGD is a pervasive pattern of the use of functional synonyms — enzyme functions being carried out by different molecular actors — in different species. In 2016, Koonin wrote:

"As the genome database grows, it is becoming clear that NOGD reaches across most of the functional systems and pathways such that there are very few functions that are truly “monomorphic”, i.e. represented by genes from the same orthologous lineage in all organisms that are endowed with these functions. Accordingly, the universal core of life has shrunk almost to the point of vanishing…there is no universal genetic core of life, owing to the (near) ubiquity of NOGD.

"Universal functional requirements, but without the identity of material components — sounds like design."

Comment: Simply, following genes and biochemistry there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other. A designer at work would explain all the jumps and discontinuities.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Friday, April 08, 2022, 08:26 (721 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution as a web

DAVID:The latest interrelationships show a web, not a bush:
https://aeon.co/essays/why-evolution-is-not-a-tree-of-life-but-a-fuzzy-network

DAVID: The article continues the pecking away at Darwin orthodoxy. This web is not your desired definition. This web of interactions had a definite directionality to an endpoint.

dhw: I have now read the whole article. There's no mention or even implication of directionality or an endpoint. It's all about the mixing of genes and hybridisation: for example, there are 8oo “species” of corals that interbreed: “Veron argues that today’s corals are a product of Darwin’s classical natural selection when currents are slack, and of hybridisation when they are strong.” Ancient humans interbred with Denisovans. Now I understand what he means by “merging”: over time, the same genes will appear in a vast variety of “species”. As I said before, if you believe in common descent, then surely that is inevitable. His “pecking away” consists simply in presenting the history of evolution as a web and not a tree. If anything, I’d say a tree has more directionality than a web.

DAVID: Do we see a directionality to evolution or not?
See today's entry on evolution and biochemical analysis not findings common ancestor

DAVID: Does common descent come from a single ancestor. No support from biochemistry:

You quoted the web article as if it supported your belief in directionality, but it doesn’t. I wish you would at least acknowledge what I have written, but instead you blithely change the subject to one that has nothing to do with directionality.

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/sara-walker-and-her-crew-publish-the-most-interesting...

QUOTE: "For Dobzhansky, as for all neo-Darwinians (by definition), the apparent molecular universality of life on Earth confirmed Darwin’s prediction that all organisms “have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed” (1859, 494) — an entity now known as the Last Universal Common Ancestor, or LUCA.

In later editions Darwin exercised his right to make changes. He wrote that life had “been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” So that’s one objection out of the way.

The authors conclude that there are too many gaps in the biochemistry for there to have been a LUCA. Your conclusion:

DAVID: Simply, following genes and biochemistry there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other. A designer at work would explain all the jumps and discontinuities.

This is how you tie yourself in knots. Now read the following:
March 16:
DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.(dhw’s bold)

dhw: Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. [David believes that we are descended from Cambrian animals which had no precursors.]

DAVID: The continuous view is we can trace us back to bacteria. Your non-god view confuses you about the Cambrian gap.

March 19:
DAVID: Again, God as designer caused the gap. […]

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? In one breath you tell us that there are gaps, and God designed our Cambrian ancestors with no precursors, and the next moment there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. I am the one who upholds the theory of continuity, which means that all the different branches of life’s bush – including all those that had no connection with humans plus food – are descended from bacteria.

DAVID: The gaps are in God's control. […] The gap is phenotypical not biochemical which is continuous!(dhw’s bold)

So three weeks ago, we had biochemical continuity and every step built on past steps, and now we have biochemical discontinuity and no steady pattern of step by step. But no matter which it is, apparently it all adds up to God designing it.

In the article itself, I see no disagreement with Darwin’s revised prediction as quoted above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 09, 2022, 05:27 (720 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution as a web

DAVID: Do we see a directionality to evolution or not?
See today's entry on evolution and biochemical analysis not findings common ancestor

DAVID: Does common descent come from a single ancestor. No support from biochemistry:

dhw: You quoted the web article as if it supported your belief in directionality, but it doesn’t. I wish you would at least acknowledge what I have written, but instead you blithely change the subject to one that has nothing to do with directionality.

I ass umed you understood my view of directionality in evolution, mentioned many times. I'll stop assuming.


https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/sara-walker-and-her-crew-publish-the-most-interesting...

QUOTE: "For Dobzhansky, as for all neo-Darwinians (by definition), the apparent molecular universality of life on Earth confirmed Darwin’s prediction that all organisms “have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed” (1859, 494) — an entity now known as the Last Universal Common Ancestor, or LUCA.

dhw:In later editions Darwin exercised his right to make changes. He wrote that life had “been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” So that’s one objection out of the way.

A late sop to cover the criticisms.


The authors conclude that there are too many gaps in the biochemistry for there to have been a LUCA. Your conclusion:

DAVID: Simply, following genes and biochemistry there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other. A designer at work would explain all the jumps and discontinuities.

This is how you tie yourself in knots. Now read the following:
March 16:
DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.(dhw’s bold)

dhw: Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. [David believes that we are descended from Cambrian animals which had no precursors.]

DAVID: The continuous view is we can trace us back to bacteria. Your non-God view confuses you about the Cambrian gap.

March 19:
DAVID: Again, God as designer caused the gap. […]

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? In one breath you tell us that there are gaps, and God designed our Cambrian ancestors with no precursors, and the next moment there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. I am the one who upholds the theory of continuity, which means that all the different branches of life’s bush – including all those that had no connection with humans plus food – are descended from bacteria.

DAVID: The gaps are in God's control. […] The gap is phenotypical not biochemical which is continuous!(dhw’s bold)

dhw: So three weeks ago, we had biochemical continuity and every step built on past steps, and now we have biochemical discontinuity and no steady pattern of step by step. But no matter which it is, apparently it all adds up to God designing it.

In the article itself, I see no disagreement with Darwin’s revised prediction as quoted above.

You can't have it both ways. There is continuity with gaps. The past always leads to the future. Darwinism obviously doesn't work. Only a designer can arrange gaps.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Saturday, April 09, 2022, 08:42 (720 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution as a web

DAVID: Do we see a directionality to evolution or not? See today's entry on evolution and biochemical analysis not findings common ancestor

And:

DAVID: Does common descent come from a single ancestor. No support from biochemistry:

dhw: You quoted the web article as if it supported your belief in directionality, but it doesn’t. I wish you would at least acknowledge what I have written, but instead you blithely change the subject to one that has nothing to do with directionality.

DAVID: I assumed you understood my view of directionality in evolution, mentioned many times. I'll stop assuming.

You quoted the article claiming that it supported directionality. It didn’t.

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/sara-walker-and-her-crew-publish-the-most-interesting...

QUOTE: "For Dobzhansky, as for all neo-Darwinians (by definition), the apparent molecular universality of life on Earth confirmed Darwin’s prediction that all organisms “have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed” (1859, 494) — an entity now known as the Last Universal Common Ancestor, or LUCA.

dhw:In later editions Darwin exercised his right to make changes. He wrote that life had “been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.” So that’s one objection out of the way. (dhw's bold)

DAVID: A late sop to cover the criticisms.

If Darwin corrected himself, why should later critics ignore his correction?

dhw: The authors conclude that there are too many gaps in the biochemistry for there to have been a LUCA. Your conclusion:

DAVID: Simply, following genes and biochemistry there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other. A designer at work would explain all the jumps and discontinuities.

dhw: This is how you tie yourself in knots. Now read the following:
March 16:
DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.[/b](dhw’s bold)

dhw: Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. [David believes that we are descended from Cambrian animals which had no precursors.]

DAVID: The continuous view is we can trace us back to bacteria. Your non-God view confuses you about the Cambrian gap.

March 19:
DAVID: Again, God as designer caused the gap. […]

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? In one breath you tell us that there are gaps, and God designed our Cambrian ancestors with no precursors, and the next moment there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. I am the one who upholds the theory of continuity, which means that all the different branches of life’s bush – including all those that had no connection with humans plus food – are descended from bacteria.

DAVID: The gaps are in God's control. […] The gap is phenotypical bbbnot biochemical which is continuous!(dhw’s bold)

dhw: So three weeks ago, we had biochemical continuity and every step built on past steps, and now we have biochemical discontinuity and no steady pattern of step by step. But no matter which it is, apparently it all adds up to God designing it. In the article itself, I see no disagreement with Darwin’s revised prediction as quoted above.

DAVID: You can't have it both ways. There is continuity with gaps. The past always leads to the future. Darwinism obviously doesn't work. Only a designer can arrange gaps.

It is you who try to have it both ways! Continuity is the direct opposite of “with gaps”!The article contradicts your previous belief that there is biochemical continuity, and yet you embrace it as if it supported you. The fact that the past always leads to the future does not explain any of the above blatant contradictions in your thinking, and you should be specific about what aspects of Darwinism don’t work. Neither of us accepts random mutations as the source of innovation, but we have both accepted the principle of common descent, except that you contradict yourself when you claim that the Cambrian animals from which we descended had no precursors.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 09, 2022, 16:11 (719 days ago) @ dhw

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/04/sara-walker-and-her-crew-publish-the-most-interesting...

dhw: The authors conclude that there are too many gaps in the biochemistry for there to have been a LUCA. Your conclusion:

DAVID: Simply, following genes and biochemistry there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other. A designer at work would explain all the jumps and discontinuities.

dhw: This is how you tie yourself in knots. Now read the following:
March 16:
DAVID: You split evolution into differing eras but the whole process is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.[/b](dhw’s bold)

dhw: Firstly, you are the one who insists that it is discontinuous, since you harp on and on about the gaps. [David believes that we are descended from Cambrian animals which had no precursors.]

DAVID: The continuous view is we can trace us back to bacteria. Your non-God view confuses you about the Cambrian gap.

March 19:
DAVID: Again, God as designer caused the gap. […]

dhw: Why have you changed the subject? In one breath you tell us that there are gaps, and God designed our Cambrian ancestors with no precursors, and the next moment there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. I am the one who upholds the theory of continuity, which means that all the different branches of life’s bush – including all those that had no connection with humans plus food – are descended from bacteria.

DAVID: The gaps are in God's control. […] The gap is phenotypical bbbnot biochemical which is continuous!(dhw’s bold)

dhw: So three weeks ago, we had biochemical continuity and every step built on past steps, and now we have biochemical discontinuity and no steady pattern of step by step. But no matter which it is, apparently it all adds up to God designing it. In the article itself, I see no disagreement with Darwin’s revised prediction as quoted above.

DAVID: You can't have it both ways. There is continuity with gaps. The past always leads to the future. Darwinism obviously doesn't work. Only a designer can arrange gaps.

dhw: It is you who try to have it both ways! Continuity is the direct opposite of “with gaps”!The article contradicts your previous belief that there is biochemical continuity, and yet you embrace it as if it supported you. The fact that the past always leads to the future does not explain any of the above blatant contradictions in your thinking, and you should be specific about what aspects of Darwinism don’t work. Neither of us accepts random mutations as the source of innovation, but we have both accepted the principle of common descent, except that you contradict yourself when you claim that the Cambrian animals from which we descended had no precursors.

Still struggling to understand a designer can design gaps if he wishes. The entire point is the Cambrian is a God-designed jump ahead. The gap is part of the design. I am not contradicted. You don't understand the view of designed evolution! The Cambrian gap confounded Darwin. Gaps require design! Your confusion continues. :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Sunday, April 10, 2022, 13:26 (718 days ago) @ David Turell

You have blithely skipped over your self-contradictions, so I will highlight them:

DAVID (now): […] simply, following genes and biochemistry, there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other[[/b].

DAVID (March 16): …the whole process is one continuous process with every future step built on the past.

DAVID (March 19): The gap is phenotypical not biochemical which is continuous[/b]!

dhw: So three weeks ago, we had biochemical continuity and every step built on past steps, and now we have biochemical discontinuity and no steady pattern of step by step. But no matter which it is, apparently it all adds up to God designing it. In the article itself, I see no disagreement with Darwin’s revised prediction as quoted above.

DAVID: You can't have it both ways. There is continuity with gaps. The past always leads to the future. Darwinism obviously doesn't work. Only a designer can arrange gaps.

dhw: It is you who try to have it both ways! Continuity is the direct opposite of “with gaps”![..] The fact that the past always leads to the future does not explain any of the above blatant contradictions in your thinking, and you should be specific about what aspects of Darwinism don’t work. Neither of us accepts random mutations as the source of innovation, but we have both accepted the principle of common descent, except that you contradict yourself when you claim that the Cambrian animals from which we descended had no precursors.

DAVID: Still struggling to understand a designer can design gaps if he wishes. The entire point is the Cambrian is a God-designed jump ahead. The gap is part of the design. […] The Cambrian gap confounded Darwin. Gaps require design! Your confusion continues.

The designer can design whatever he wants, but you cannot claim at one moment that there is a direct line from bacteria to us if, at the same time, you claim that we are descended from animals that had no precursor. Your previous argument was that there was biochemical continuity, but you have now said there was no such thing. If we are descended from animals with no precursors, your belief that every preceding life form and econiche was “preparation for humans” plus our food, clearly makes even less sense than it did before, when you insisted on continuity from bacteria to us but kept leaving out all the other life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our foods.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 10, 2022, 16:53 (718 days ago) @ dhw

You have blithely skipped over your self-contradictions, so I will highlight them:

DAVID (March 19): The gap is phenotypical not biochemical which is continuous[/b]!

The above is the key to my thinking


dhw: So three weeks ago, we had biochemical continuity and every step built on past steps, and now we have biochemical discontinuity and no steady pattern of step by step. But no matter which it is, apparently it all adds up to God designing it. In the article itself, I see no disagreement with Darwin’s revised prediction as quoted above.

There is no biochemical discontinuity. The phenotypical gaps are God's jumps as in the Cambrian.


DAVID: You can't have it both ways. There is continuity with gaps. The past always leads to the future. Darwinism obviously doesn't work. Only a designer can arrange gaps.

dhw: It is you who try to have it both ways! Continuity is the direct opposite of “with gaps”![..] The fact that the past always leads to the future does not explain any of the above blatant contradictions in your thinking, and you should be specific about what aspects of Darwinism don’t work. Neither of us accepts random mutations as the source of innovation, but we have both accepted the principle of common descent, except that you contradict yourself when you claim that the Cambrian animals from which we descended had no precursors.

DAVID: Still struggling to understand a designer can design gaps if he wishes. The entire point is the Cambrian is a God-designed jump ahead. The gap is part of the design. […] The Cambrian gap confounded Darwin. Gaps require design! Your confusion continues.

dhw: The designer can design whatever he wants, but you cannot claim at one moment that there is a direct line from bacteria to us if, at the same time, you claim that we are descended from animals that had no precursor. Your previous argument was that there was biochemical continuity, but you have now said there was no such thing. If we are descended from animals with no precursors, your belief that every preceding life form and econiche was “preparation for humans” plus our food, clearly makes even less sense than it did before, when you insisted on continuity from bacteria to us but kept leaving out all the other life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our foods.

Your blindness to God as designer makes you confused about what I am presenting. Basic biochemical processes stated in Archaea and carry through to the present in a much more complicated way. God designs the jumps in phenotypical form creating the gaps, Cambrian and the ones Gould described. Common descent in biochemistry of life but gaps in body designs. The direct line to us is underlying biochemistry of life, with phenotypical gaps in lines and branches that can be followed from Archaea to our branch.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Monday, April 11, 2022, 09:00 (718 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (March 19): The gap is phenotypical bbnot biochemical which is continuous!

DAVID: The above is the key to my thinking.

Fine, except that you wrote: “Simply, following genes and biochemistry, there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other. A designer at work would explain all the jumps and discontinuities.” Why did you specify gaps in biochemistry if you thought there were no gaps in biochemistry?

DAVID: There is no biochemical discontinuity. The phenotypical gaps are God's jumps as in the Cambrian.

So you got in a muddle when you made the above statement about “jumps and discontinuities” in biochemistry. In any case, biochemical continuity would encompass all species, which hardly amounts to proof that your God’s one and only goal was to produce the human species, so you are still stuck with the same Cambrian dilemma, which you now try to gloss over:

DAVID: Your blindness to God as designer makes you confused about what I am presenting. Basic biochemical processes stated in Archaea and carry through to the present in a much more complicated way.

Agreed. This applies to the evolution of all multicellular organisms.

DAVID: God designs the jumps in phenotypical form creating the gaps.

This is your theory that your God preprogrammed each “jump” 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively dabbled each one, but sometimes he dabbled them in already existing life forms (= common descent”) and sometimes he created them from scratch, with no precursors (Cambrian), and it is from these that we are descended.

DAVID: Cambrian and the ones Gould described. Common descent in biochemistry of life but gaps in body designs.

So if your God’s one and only purpose was to design the human body plus the bodies of those lucky species that we were going to eat in umpteen million years’ time, what do you think was his purpose in specially designing all the bodies which would die out before he designed ours and which we would not be eating?

DAVID: The direct line to us is underlying biochemistry of life, with phenotypical gaps in lines and branches that can be followed from Archaea to our branch.

The underlying chemistry is a direct line to every organism that ever lived, and the lines and branches led from Archaea to every organism that ever lived, including all those that had no connection whatsoever to our branch or to the branches we use for our breakfast.

DAVID (transferred from ID): Your usual blindness about the continuity of evolution. Of course the past is the past. Past bushes of food for past animals. Present bush for present animals and us.

Thank you for confirming the discontinuity between past and present food bushes, and thereby removing once and for all the argument that all life forms and food bushes were “preparation” as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food.

Transferred from “More miscellany”:

DAVID: What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can't you accept that explanation? You constantly distort it!!!

I cannot accept an explanation which consists in the statement “I cannot explain”. There is no distortion.


I have had to edit your next entry for reasons of space, but have kept in your main points.

DAVID: The rest is entirely clear reasoning. There is nothing illogical in Adler's argument for God showing that the evolution of most unusual humans requires God. That leads to concluding God having a purpose all along to create humans from His creation of the origin of life. […] The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes is brilliantly clear. The difference is ours from all previous animals. […] Adler is unaware of ID which post dates him. There he and I look at God somewhat differently. That is why I've responded to your questioning as to whether Adler follows my theory in the past as I have. Adler is not an IDer in any current way. But Adler believes in God the creator and so do I. Therefore he and I agree. We both use evolution with the same endpoint of God's work, God's purpose, unexpected humans based on the probable expectations from all past evolutionary animals. […]

You go on and on about Adler’s focus on human uniqueness as proof that God exists, and I keep telling you that I have no quarrel with the logic of the design argument, or with the statement that we humans are exceptional because of our mental powers. Your little diatribe is totally irrelevant to the theory which I find fault with: namely, that if your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, why did he design all the life forms and foods that did not lead to us? But yes, as at the start of this post, it also raises the question of why he did not design us directly. Yet again, thank you for admitting that you can’t explain it. I just wish you wouldn’t then claim that you have explained it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Monday, April 11, 2022, 16:09 (717 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Fine, except that you wrote: “Simply, following genes and biochemistry, there are too many changes to find a steady pattern of simple steps, one following the other. A designer at work would explain all the jumps and discontinuities.” Why did you specify gaps in biochemistry if you thought there were no gaps in biochemistry?

That is not what my statement says first above: the gaps are phenotypical, the underlying biochemistry is very continuous. My second statement I admit comes across as confusing. I sometimes need an editor I know.


DAVID: Your blindness to God as designer makes you confused about what I am presenting. Basic biochemical processes stated in Archaea and carry through to the present in a much more complicated way.

dhw: Agreed. This applies to the evolution of all multicellular organisms.

DAVID: God designs the jumps in phenotypical form creating the gaps.

dhw: So if your God’s one and only purpose was to design the human body plus the bodies of those lucky species that we were going to eat in umpteen million years’ time, what do you think was his purpose in specially designing all the bodies which would die out before he designed ours and which we would not be eating?

As usual it was God's design choice to evolve us from bacteria. Taken from pure historical fact and applied to God's purpose


DAVID: The direct line to us is underlying biochemistry of life, with phenotypical gaps in lines and branches that can be followed from Archaea to our branch.

dhw: The underlying chemistry is a direct line to every organism that ever lived, and the lines and branches led from Archaea to every organism that ever lived, including all those that had no connection whatsoever to our branch or to the branches we use for our breakfast.

All necessary interlocking ecosystems


DAVID (transferred from ID): Your usual blindness about the continuity of evolution. Of course the past is the past. Past bushes of food for past animals. Present bush for present animals and us.

dhw: Thank you for confirming the discontinuity between past and present food bushes, and thereby removing once and for all the argument that all life forms and food bushes were “preparation” as “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food.

I did do not such thing!!! From right above: "your usual blindness about the continuity of evolution."


Transferred from “More miscellany”:

DAVID: What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can't you accept that explanation? You constantly distort it!!!

dhw: I cannot accept an explanation which consists in the statement “I cannot explain”. There is no distortion.

What a distortion of intent. I cannot know why God chose any course of action to reach his objectives in creation. Evolve or direct is what we have agreed upon. I cannot explain why He chose evolving. No other explaining involved.


I have had to edit your next entry for reasons of space, but have kept in your main points.

DAVID: The rest is entirely clear reasoning. There is nothing illogical in Adler's argument for God showing that the evolution of most unusual humans requires God. That leads to concluding God having a purpose all along to create humans from His creation of the origin of life. […] The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes is brilliantly clear. The difference is ours from all previous animals. […] Adler is unaware of ID which post dates him. There he and I look at God somewhat differently. That is why I've responded to your questioning as to whether Adler follows my theory in the past as I have. Adler is not an IDer in any current way. But Adler believes in God the creator and so do I. Therefore he and I agree. We both use evolution with the same endpoint of God's work, God's purpose, unexpected humans based on the probable expectations from all past evolutionary animals. […]

dhw: You go on and on about Adler’s focus on human uniqueness as proof that God exists, and I keep telling you that I have no quarrel with the logic of the design argument, or with the statement that we humans are exceptional because of our mental powers. Your little diatribe is totally irrelevant to the theory which I find fault with: namely, that if your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, why did he design all the life forms and foods that did not lead to us? But yes, as at the start of this post, it also raises the question of why he did not design us directly. Yet again, thank you for admitting that you can’t explain it. I just wish you wouldn’t then claim that you have explained it.

Of course it is explained. Just accept God chose to evolve us. What is not not explained is why God made that choice of creation mechanisms. Your bold, as usual forgets all the required interlocking ecosystems as food for all. You should remember it, as you fuss about the terrible dog eat dog system God gave us.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, April 12, 2022, 12:11 (716 days ago) @ dhw

These discussions have become increasingly drawn out and repetitive. I’ll try to summarize them, together with the contradictions I see in your theories, David, and you can correct whatever you think is inaccurate.

1)David’s theory of evolution: God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design humans and their food. He proceeded to design countless life forms and foods which did not lead to humans and their food, and instead of designing humans directly, he evolved them step by step. Your explanation for all the life forms that did not lead to humans: God designed them so that they could eat one another: “food for all”. Past foods for the past, present for the present. This somehow means that all past life forms and foods were specially designed as preparation for humans and their foods. Your "explanation" for God choosing evolution of humans over direct creation is that you cannot explain it, and “why can’t you accept that explanation?

2)There is a continuous line from bacteria to us. God created new animals (Cambrian) which had no precursors and from which we are descended. The line from bacteria is continuous because although speciation is discontinuous, all living creatures share biochemistry. The fact that all species share biochemistry somehow confirms that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us.

3) Your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he cannot possibly have been motivated to create life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him.

4)Enjoyment and interest as a purpose must be rejected, along with any logical explanation of 1) that entails human traits such as experimentation, or getting new ideas, because “God makes sense only to Himself”, and although he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, he does not have thought patterns that are different from those that you approve of (such as kindness, a desire for his works to be admired, and for us to have a relationship with him).

5) Your God created a system which produced errors he did not want, and he tried – sometimes in vain - to remedy the errors. This makes him stronger than a God who deliberately creates a free-for-all.

6) He also created a system whereby organisms could only survive by killing one another.

7)5) and 6) were the only systems that would work, and so he had no choice, although he chose to design them that way.

Do please correct any errors and supply any points that I may have left out.

Two unanswered questions that are still of interest:
dhw: You wrote that Shapiro’s theory was based on “bacteria editing their DNA” and he “has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability”. I assumed you meant your God had given them the ability (i.e. the intelligence) to edit their own DNA. Now you say they run on his programmes, but that is what you say of every other cell and cell community. So did he give them the autonomous ability or not, and if he did, why couldn’t he have given the same ability to their descendants?

dhw: Don’t you think it is of vital significance for evolution that some cells (i.e. stem cells) are able to change their form and function?

DAVID: Any existing stem cells are the result of previous speciation. They help run embryology as one item.

dhw: But we know they can change their form and function. Would this not have been a vital factor in the process of speciation?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 12, 2022, 16:03 (716 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: These discussions have become increasingly drawn out and repetitive. I’ll try to summarize them, together with the contradictions I see in your theories, David, and you can correct whatever you think is inaccurate.

dhw: 1)David’s theory of evolution: God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design humans and their food. He proceeded to design countless life forms and foods which did not lead to humans and their food, and instead of designing humans directly, he evolved them step by step. Your explanation for all the life forms that did not lead to humans: God designed them so that they could eat one another: “food for all”. Past foods for the past, present for the present. This somehow means that all past life forms and foods were specially designed as preparation for humans and their foods.

Bold is my view but in your biased way: Evolution of humans was a design method God used to arrive at His goal. Just take evolution at face value. Simple to complex. Everything is connected from Archaea to now. Underlying basic biochemistry in Archaea to very complex biochemistry in specialized organs now. Only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history:

dhw: Your "explanation" for God choosing evolution of humans over direct creation is that you cannot explain it, and “why can’t you accept that explanation?

How can I explain God's choice between the two available? Perhaps He had no choice and only evolution was the way He had to go.

dhw: 2)There is a continuous line from bacteria to us. God created new animals (Cambrian) which had no precursors and from which we are descended. The line from bacteria is continuous because although speciation is discontinuous, all living creatures share biochemistry. The fact that all species share biochemistry somehow confirms that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us.

Agreed


dhw: 3) Your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he cannot possibly have been motivated to create life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him.

No!!! Your bias again. God is not human. He is a pure creator, who knows exactly what He wishes to create. His own emotional reactions, if any exist, are secondary and like ours.


dhw: 4)Enjoyment and interest as a purpose must be rejected, along with any logical explanation of 1) that entails human traits such as experimentation, or getting new ideas, because “God makes sense only to Himself”, and although he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, he does not have thought patterns that are different from those that you approve of (such as kindness, a desire for his works to be admired, and for us to have a relationship with him).

God never requires experimentation. He designs directly .


dhw: 5) Your God created a system which produced errors he did not want, and he tried – sometimes in vain - to remedy the errors. This makes him stronger than a God who deliberately creates a free-for-all.

This is your strangest alternative. Any animal in a free-for-all has the same biochemistry of life that will have errors!


dhw: 6) He also created a system whereby organisms could only survive by killing one another.

True


dhw: 7)5) and 6) were the only systems that would work, and so he had no choice, although he chose to design them that way.

dhw: Do please correct any errors and supply any points that I may have left out.

Done!


dhw: Two unanswered questions that are still of interest:
dhw: You wrote that Shapiro’s theory was based on “bacteria editing their DNA” and he “has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability”. I assumed you meant your God had given them the ability (i.e. the intelligence) to edit their own DNA. Now you say they run on his programmes, but that is what you say of every other cell and cell community. So did he give them the autonomous ability or not, and if he did, why couldn’t he have given the same ability to their descendants?

Not autonomous, all programmed. Bacteria must have this ability as one-cell free-living organisms. Note they do not speciate! Which makes Shapiro's evolution theory as dead in the water. But his bacterial work is brilliant.


dhw: Don’t you think it is of vital significance for evolution that some cells (i.e. stem cells) are able to change their form and function?

DAVID: Any existing stem cells are the result of previous speciation. They help run embryology as one item.

dhw: But we know they can change their form and function. Would this not have been a vital factor in the process of speciation?

Germ cells must be the source of speciation. Only they make the new embryonic forms which will contain stem cells to run fetal development

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, April 13, 2022, 11:25 (716 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 1)David’s theory of evolution: God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design humans and their food. He proceeded to design countless life forms and foods which did not lead to humans and their food, and instead of designing humans directly, he evolved them step by step. Your explanation for all the life forms that did not lead to humans: God designed them so that they could eat one another: “food for all”. Past foods for the past, present for the present. This somehow means that all past life forms and foods were specially designed as preparation for humans and their foods.

DAVID: Bold is my view but in your biased way: Evolution of humans was a design method God used to arrive at His goal.

If he exists, then evolution of ALL life forms including humans and all those life forms that did not lead to humans was his design method. According to you, his “goal” for the other life forms was for them to eat one another (“food for all”)! Nothing to do with “preparation” for us.

DAVID: Just take evolution at face value. Simple to complex. Everything is connected from Archaea to now. Underlying basic biochemistry in Archaea to very complex biochemistry in specialized organs now. Only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history.

Of course it’s not, and that is the big question: if your God’s only goal was us and our food, WHY did he not design us and our food directly?

dhw: Your "explanation" for God choosing evolution of humans over direct creation is that you cannot explain it, and “why can’t you accept that explanation?”

DAVID: How can I explain God's choice between the two available? Perhaps He had no
choice and only evolution was the way He had to go.

Having no choice limits his powers. An alternative is that perhaps your theory is wrong, and there are logical explanations for his choice.

dhw: 2)There is a continuous line from bacteria to us. God created new animals (Cambrian) which had no precursors and from which we are descended. The line from bacteria is continuous because although speciation is discontinuous, all living creatures share biochemistry. The fact that all species share biochemistry somehow confirms that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us.

DAVID: Agreed

Illogical: trilobites, brontosauruses and the duckbilled platypus are all biochemical, and therefore they were all specially designed as preparation for us and our food???

dhw: 3) Your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he cannot possibly have been motivated to create life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him.

DAVID: No!!! Your bias again. God is not human. He is a pure creator, who knows exactly what He wishes to create. His own emotional reactions, if any exist, are secondary and like ours.

I have never claimed that he is human, or that he did NOT create what he wished to create. You believe he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. How does that come to mean that he could not possibly have done his creating BECAUSE he wished to create things he could watch with interest?

dhw: 4)Enjoyment and interest as a purpose must be rejected, along with any logical explanation of 1) that entails human traits such as experimentation, or getting new ideas, because “God makes sense only to Himself”, and although he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, he does not have thought patterns that are different from those that you approve of (such as kindness, a desire for his works to be admired, and for us to have a relationship with him).

DAVID: God never requires experimentation. He designs directly.

You have just agreed that he did NOT design directly: the “only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history”. You can’t explain it. Experimentation can.

dhw: 5) Your God created a system which produced errors he did not want, and he tried – sometimes in vain - to remedy the errors. This makes him stronger than a God who deliberately creates a free-for-all.

DAVID: This is your strangest alternative. Any animal in a free-for-all has the same
biochemistry of life that will have errors!

And dhw: 6) He also created a system whereby organisms could only survive by killing one another.

DAVID: True.

You harp on about the existing system , and I ask why he chose it. You guess that he couldn’t avoid the “errors” (which makes him less than all-powerful), whereas I propose that he created what he wanted to create: a system in which the components were free to find their own ways of surviving. We call them “errors” because they are not good for us. And we may not like our pet pussy cat killing and eating our pet budgerigar, but eating meat was a method of survival freely designed and passed on by her ancestors (using their perhaps God-given intelligence). You say your kind God designed it.

dhw: 7)5) and 6) were the only systems that would work, and so he had no choice, although he chose to design them that way.

This was a reference to your self-contradictions concerning whether or not your God had a choice.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 13, 2022, 16:34 (715 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Bold is my view but in your biased way: Evolution of humans was a design method God used to arrive at His goal.

dhw: If he exists, then evolution of ALL life forms including humans and all those life forms that did not lead to humans was his design method. According to you, his “goal” for the other life forms was for them to eat one another (“food for all”)! Nothing to do with “preparation” for us.

The first part of your thought is correct. Without food evolutionary 'preparation' stops.


DAVID: Just take evolution at face value. Simple to complex. Everything is connected from Archaea to now. Underlying basic biochemistry in Archaea to very complex biochemistry in specialized organs now. Only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history.

dhw: Of course it’s not, and that is the big question: if your God’s only goal was us and our food, WHY did he not design us and our food directly?

Ask Him!!! He made a choice and did not announce why!


dhw: Having no choice limits his powers. An alternative is that perhaps your theory is wrong, and there are logical explanations for his choice.

Use your logic and inform us!

dhw: Illogical: trilobites, brontosauruses and the duckbilled platypus are all biochemical, and therefore they were all specially designed as preparation for us and our food???

Food for all on the evolutionary way to us.

DAVID: No!!! Your bias again. God is not human. He is a pure creator, who knows exactly what He wishes to create. His own emotional reactions, if any exist, are secondary and like ours.

dhw: I have never claimed that he is human, or that he did NOT create what he wished to create. You believe he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. How does that come to mean that he could not possibly have done his creating BECAUSE he wished to create things he could watch with interest?

Same comment as above.


DAVID: God never requires experimentation. He designs directly.

dhw: You have just agreed that he did NOT design directly: the “only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history”. You can’t explain it. Experimentation can.

Evolution by God was not experimentation but carefully planned evolution


dhw: You harp on about the existing system, and I ask why he chose it. You guess that he couldn’t avoid the “errors” (which makes him less than all-powerful), whereas I propose that he created what he wanted to create: a system in which the components were free to find their own ways of surviving.

I don't harp on it, I defend it. As for your distortion in bold, God chose the only system that would work and knew errors were probable because of the high-speed requirement. Very accurate editing systems He designed work wonderfully watching over trillions of reactions per nanosecond. It is a wonder and you despise it.


dhw: 7)5) and 6) were the only systems that would work, and so he had no choice, although he chose to design them that way.

This was a reference to your self-contradictions concerning whether or not your God had a choice.

God designed the only system that would work, NO choice involved

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, April 14, 2022, 11:09 (715 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution of humans was a design method God used to arrive at His goal.

dhw: If he exists, then evolution of ALL life forms including humans and all those life forms that did not lead to humans was his design method. According to you, his “goal” for the other life forms was for them to eat one another (“food for all”)! Nothing to do with “preparation” for us.

DAVID: The first part of your thought is correct. Without food evolutionary 'preparation' stops.

Without food, all life stops. That does not mean that all life forms and foods for 3.X thousand million years were specially designed as preparation for humans and our food! You know it’s nonsense.

dhw: […] if your God’s only goal was us and our food, WHY did he not design us and our food directly?

DAVID: Ask Him!!! He made a choice and did not announce why!

It’s YOU who say we plus our food were his only goal! If you can’t think of any reason why he would set out to achieve his goal by designing life forms etc. that did not lead to his goal, then please face up to the possibility that your theory might be wrong.

dhw: Having no choice limits his powers. An alternative is that perhaps your theory is wrong, and there are logical explanations for his choice.

DAVID: Use your logic and inform us!

I have offered you several alternatives, each of which you agreed was logical, but each of which you rejected on the grounds that although your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, he doesn’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

dhw: Illogical: trilobites, brontosauruses and the duckbilled platypus are all biochemical, and therefore they were all specially designed as preparation for us and our food???

DAVID: Food for all on the evolutionary way to us.

See above, item 1.

DAVID: No!!! Your bias again. God is not human. He is a pure creator, who knows exactly what He wishes to create. His own emotional reactions, if any exist, are secondary and like ours.

dhw: I have never claimed that he is human, or that he did NOT create what he wished to create. You believe he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. How does that come to mean that he could not possibly have done his creating BECAUSE he wished to create things he could watch with interest?

DAVID: Same comment as above.

It is not an answer.

DAVID: God never requires experimentation. He designs directly.

dhw: You have just agreed that he did NOT design directly: the “only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history”. You can’t explain it. Experimentation can.

DAVID: Evolution by God was not experimentation but carefully planned evolution.

You have just told us he designs directly after telling us he does not design directly. Experimentation would explain why – in your theory – he deliberately designed life forms which did not lead – in your theory – to his one and only goal. “Carefully planned evolution” can hardly match the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of countless life forms and foods that did not lead to his one and only goal.

dhw: You harp on about the existing system, and I ask why he chose it. You guess that he couldn’t avoid the “errors” (which makes him less than all-powerful),whereas I propose that he created what he wanted to create: a system in which the components were free to find their own ways of surviving.


DAVID:I don't harp on it, I defend it. As for your distortion in bold, God chose the only system that would work and knew errors were probable because of the high-speed requirement. Very accurate editing systems He designed work wonderfully watching over trillions of reactions per nanosecond. It is a wonder and you despise it.

The distortion is entirely yours. I do not despise it. I only question your claim that an all-powerful God had no choice, and that his system produced errors he could not control. Instead, I suggest that he designed precisely what he wanted to design.

dhw: 7)5) and 6) were the only systems that would work, and so he had no choice, although he chose to design them that way.

This was a reference to your self-contradictions concerning whether or not your God had a choice.

DAVID: God designed the only system that would work, NO choice involved.

Three days ago, you wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view.” These contradictions are inevitable when you try to defend theories which don’t make sense even to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 14, 2022, 16:26 (714 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, April 14, 2022, 16:42

dhw: Without food, all life stops. That does not mean that all life forms and foods for 3.X thousand million years were specially designed as preparation for humans and our food! You know it’s nonsense.

What is not nonsense is my view God designed every stage of evolution. Did you forget that?


dhw: I have offered you several alternatives, each of which you agreed was logical, but each of which you rejected on the grounds that although your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, he doesn’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

No! I have simply told you your humanized God and the theories related to Him are not acceptable to me


DAVID: God never requires experimentation. He designs directly.

dhw: You have just agreed that he did NOT design directly: the “only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history”. You can’t explain it. Experimentation can.

This comment makes no sense to me. Direct design of humans with no precursors is not the history we have


DAVID: Evolution by God was not experimentation but carefully planned evolution.

dhw: You have just told us he designs directly after telling us he does not design directly. Experimentation would explain why – in your theory – he deliberately designed life forms which did not lead – in your theory – to his one and only goal. “Carefully planned evolution” can hardly match the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of countless life forms and foods that did not lead to his one and only goal.

So now you know better than God how to evolve us. Who is at the top of the evolutionary bush?


dhw: You harp on about the existing system, and I ask why he chose it. You guess that he couldn’t avoid the “errors” (which makes him less than all-powerful),whereas I propose that he created what he wanted to create: a system in which the components were free to find their own ways of surviving.>

DAVID:I don't harp on it, I defend it. As for your distortion in bold, God chose the only system that would work and knew errors were probable because of the high-speed requirement. Very accurate editing systems He designed work wonderfully watching over trillions of reactions per nanosecond. It is a wonder and you despise it.

dhw: The distortion is entirely yours. I do not despise it. I only question your claim that an all-powerful God had no choice, and that his system produced errors he could not control. Instead, I suggest that he designed precisely what he wanted to design.

Exactly! He designed precisely what He wanted studying all problems in advance recognizing possible errors by free reacting molecules at very high speeds.


DAVID: God designed the only system that would work, NO choice involved.

dhw: Three days ago, you wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view. ” These contradictions are inevitable when you try to defend theories which don’t make sense even to you.

My theories make perfect sense to me. I don't play games

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, April 15, 2022, 12:00 (713 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Without food, all life stops. That does not mean that all life forms and foods for 3.X thousand million years were specially designed as preparation for humans and our food! You know it’s nonsense.

DAVID: What is not nonsense is my view God designed every stage of evolution. Did you forget that?

Of course I didn’t forget it. That theory lies at the heart of your illogicality: if his one and only aim was to design humans plus food, why would he have designed every single species, econiche and food that did not lead to humans and their food?

dhw: I have offered you several alternatives, each of which you agreed was logical, but each of which you rejected on the grounds that although your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, he doesn’t have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours.

DAVID: No! I have simply told you your humanized God and the theories related to Him are not acceptable to me.

You have agreed that they’re logical, but have rejected them repeatedly BECAUSE they “humanize” God. Do you want me to repeat a series of quotes?

DAVID: God never requires experimentation. He designs directly.

dhw: You have just agreed that he did NOT design directly: the “only other alternative is direct creation, which is not supported by history”. You can’t explain it. Experimentation can.

DAVID: This comment makes no sense to me. Direct design of humans with no precursors is not the history we have.

I know it isn’t, and that is why your theory makes no sense, because you can’t explain why a God with a single purpose would NOT fulfil that purpose directly. Experimentation would explain why.

DAVID: Evolution by God was not experimentation but carefully planned evolution.

dhw: You have just told us he designs directly after telling us he does not design directly. Experimentation would explain why – in your theory – he deliberately designed life forms which did not lead – in your theory – to his one and only goal. “Carefully planned evolution” can hardly match the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of countless life forms and foods that did not lead to his one and only goal.

DAVID: So now you know better than God how to evolve us. Who is at the top of the evolutionary bush?

I know you think he designs directly but does not design directly (see below for more contradictions), and while I agree that we are intellectually “at the top of the tree”, you still can’t explain why, if we were the one and only goal, he directly designed all the life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food. You reject my logical alternatives and prefer to stick to your belief that God, whose logic may be like ours, “makes sense only to Himself”.

dhw: I only question your claim that an all-powerful God had no choice, and that his system produced errors he could not control. Instead, I suggest that he designed precisely what he wanted to design.

DAVID: Exactly! He designed precisely what He wanted studying all problems in advance recognizing possible errors by free reacting molecules at very high speeds.

We are almost in agreement, although perhaps the word “errors” is misleading, since he gave the molecules the freedom to react and to deviate from the norm. I’m glad you’ve now left out your theory that he tried – sometimes in vain – to correct these so-called “errors”, as that suggests that his design was not “precisely what He wanted”.

DAVID: God designed the only system that would work, NO choice involved.

dhw: Three days ago, you wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view. ” These contradictions are inevitable when you try to defend theories which don’t make sense even to you.

DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me. I don't play games.

I’m not saying you play games, but in attempting to explain your theories and to attack my own, you frequently contradict yourself. The above statements tell us that your God had no choice, but he consciously made choices. It’s only when I propose that he had a choice that you insist he had no choice. Just as any proposal I make concerning his possible purpose is dismissed as “humanizing” although in the past you have acknowledged the probability that he has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, April 15, 2022, 16:30 (713 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: That theory lies at the heart of your illogicality: if his one and only aim was to design humans plus food, why would he have designed every single species, econiche and food that did not lead to humans and their food?

You forget the whole story starts with the BB. You never look at the whole of everything God created on the way to humans. It is God's pattern to evolve goals.


dhw: I only question your claim that an all-powerful God had no choice, and that his system produced errors he could not control. Instead, I suggest that he designed precisely what he wanted to design.

DAVID: Exactly! He designed precisely what He wanted studying all problems in advance recognizing possible errors by free reacting molecules at very high speeds.

dhw: We are almost in agreement, although perhaps the word “errors” is misleading, since he gave the molecules the freedom to react and to deviate from the norm. I’m glad you’ve now left out your theory that he tried – sometimes in vain – to correct these so-called “errors”, as that suggests that his design was not “precisely what He wanted”.

The editing systems show God anticipated molecular errors due to molecular freedom


DAVID: God designed the only system that would work, NO choice involved.

dhw: Three days ago, you wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view. ” These contradictions are inevitable when you try to defend theories which don’t make sense even to you.

What contradiction? Choices on the way to a final design of the only system that would work is a reasonable concept. You never make changes in a play before production? I doubt it.


DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me. I don't play games.

dhw: I’m not saying you play games, but in attempting to explain your theories and to attack my own, you frequently contradict yourself. The above statements tell us that your God had no choice, but he consciously made choices. It’s only when I propose that he had a choice that you insist he had no choice. Just as any proposal I make concerning his possible purpose is dismissed as “humanizing” although in the past you have acknowledged the probability that he has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?

Our similarities to God do not negate my description of your imagined God and his humanized characteristics as shown by how He experiments, wants entertainment, etc.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, April 16, 2022, 08:10 (713 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: That theory lies at the heart of your illogicality: if his one and only aim was to design humans plus food, why would he have designed every single species, econiche and food that did not lead to humans and their food?

DAVID: You forget the whole story starts with the BB. You never look at the whole of everything God created on the way to humans. It is God's pattern to evolve goals.

When I put on my theist’s hat in order to discuss your God’s purpose(s), methods and nature, I do not need to start with the BB. I accept for argument’s sake that God created the universe, the galaxies, the sun, the Earth etc., and I have never questioned what I regard as the fact of evolution. Our difference start at the point where you insist that all life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. were specially designed for the one and only purpose of creating humans plus our food, although the vast majority did not lead to humans and our food. You know this, and simply continue to dodge the question which begins this post.

dhw: I only question your claim that an all-powerful God had no choice, and that his system produced errors he could not control. Instead, I suggest that he designed precisely what he wanted to design.

DAVID: Exactly! He designed precisely what He wanted studying all problems in advance recognizing possible errors by free reacting molecules at very high speeds.

dhw: We are almost in agreement, although perhaps the word “errors” is misleading, since he gave the molecules the freedom to react and to deviate from the norm. I’m glad you’ve now left out your theory that he tried – sometimes in vain – to correct these so-called “errors”, as that suggests that his design was not “precisely what He wanted”.

DAVID: God designed the only system that would work, NO choice involved.
And under “theodicy”:
DAVID: God knew His system for life's biochemistry was the only one available, but high-speed molecular reactions using free molecules could have errors. God accepted the risks even with editing systems.

dhw: Three days ago, you wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view. ” These contradictions are inevitable when you try to defend theories which don’t make sense even to you.

DAVID: What contradiction? Choices on the way to a final design of the only system that would work is a reasonable concept. You never make changes in a play before production? I doubt it.

The “best” does not mean the “only”, or “the only one available”, and “choices on the way” does not mean “NO choice involved”. Choices on the way to a final design might be called experimentation, so thank you for accepting that as a possibility. His acceptance of the risks, and his sometimes vain efforts to counteract the dangers, suggest that despite his all-powerfulness a) he did NOT design “precisely what he wanted”, and (b) that he is not all-powerful. Alternatively, this part of your theory may be wrong.

DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me. I don't play games.

dhw: I’m not saying you play games, but in attempting to explain your theories and to attack my own, you frequently contradict yourself. The above statements tell us that your God had no choice, but he consciously made choices. It’s only when I propose that he had a choice that you insist he had no choice. Just as any proposal I make concerning his possible purpose is dismissed as “humanizing” although in the past you have acknowledged the probability that he has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?

DAVID: Our similarities to God do not negate my description of your imagined God and his humanized characteristics as shown by how He experiments, wants entertainment, etc.

I’m not quite sure what this sentence means. All these alternatives provide logical explanations for the history of evolution. Experimentation would explain why – according to you – he specially designed life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal of humans. You might call them “choices along the way”, since most of them went extinct. Enjoyment and interest are two human attributes that you yourself have accepted as possible (and originally as “sure”) and they could quite logically be his motive for designing all the different species or for letting them design themselves.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 16, 2022, 15:54 (712 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You forget the whole story starts with the BB. You never look at the whole of everything God created on the way to humans. It is God's pattern to evolve goals.

dhw: Our difference start at the point where you insist that all life forms, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. were specially designed for the one and only purpose of creating humans plus our food, although the vast majority did not lead to humans and our food. You know this, and simply continue to dodge the question which begins this post.

I cannot explain why God chose evolution over direct creation. I accept the history of life's bush and you question it, making it your problem, not mine. Humans are an obvious goal.


dhw: Three days ago, you wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view. ” These contradictions are inevitable when you try to defend theories which don’t make sense even to you.

DAVID: What contradiction? Choices on the way to a final design of the only system that would work is a reasonable concept. You never make changes in a play before production? I doubt it.

dhw: The “best” does not mean the “only”, or “the only one available”, and “choices on the way” does not mean “NO choice involved”. Choices on the way to a final design might be called experimentation, so thank you for accepting that as a possibility. His acceptance of the risks, and his sometimes vain efforts to counteract the dangers, suggest that despite his all-powerfulness a) he did NOT design “precisely what he wanted”, and (b) that he is not all-powerful. Alternatively, this part of your theory may be wrong.

By distorting meanings single words or phrases proves sophistry. All design involves choices in mental thoughts not experimentation in the usual sense. In recognizing the potential errors in free acting molecules, but recognizing it was the only system that could work, He accepted His own judgements, provided editing to the process and produced life. Your twisted complaint simply questions God's judgement.

DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me. I don't play games.

dhw: I’m not saying you play games, but in attempting to explain your theories and to attack my own, you frequently contradict yourself. The above statements tell us that your God had no choice, but he consciously made choices. It’s only when I propose that he had a choice that you insist he had no choice. Just as any proposal I make concerning his possible purpose is dismissed as “humanizing” although in the past you have acknowledged the probability that he has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours. How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?

DAVID: Our similarities to God do not negate my description of your imagined God and his humanized characteristics as shown by how He experiments, wants entertainment, etc.

dhw: I’m not quite sure what this sentence means. All these alternatives provide logical explanations for the history of evolution. Experimentation would explain why – according to you – he specially designed life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal of humans. You might call them “choices along the way”, since most of them went extinct. Enjoyment and interest are two human attributes that you yourself have accepted as possible (and originally as “sure”) and they could quite logically be his motive for designing all the different species or for letting them design themselves.

Once again you produce a humanized God from your imagination. God's reactions to his creations are secondary events to His purposeful creations, which I am sure He creates with no initial self-reflection about His emotional needs, if He has any. My opinion mirrors Adler: 50/50. So not 'sure' on reflection. Don't you reflect? ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, April 17, 2022, 10:45 (712 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I cannot explain why God chose evolution over direct creation. I accept the history of life's bush and you question it, making it your problem, not mine. Humans are an obvious goal.

I do not question the history of life’s bush! And I can even accept the possibility that humans are “a” goal. You simply keep refusing to put all the pieces of your theory together because you know that once you do, the theory makes no sense! You have your God individually designing not only species but also econiches, lifestyles, and natural wonders. That is direct creation. But you say that all of them have been preparation for humans and our food – not “an obvious goal”, but the one and only goal. So the question is why he individually designed all those other life forms and foods, most of which did not lead to humans and our food, if he only wanted one branch (us) plus a few others (food)? You can add the question of why, once he’d embarked on directly designing hominins and homos, he still produced different forms before settling on what you believe was the only one he wanted. There is no semblance of logic in this combination of theories, and you admit that you cannot answer the questions. But you are so fixed in your beliefs that you cannot accept the possibility that at least one of them may be wrong. I offer alternative explanations.

dhw: Experimentation would explain why – according to you – he specially designed life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal of humans. You might call them “choices along the way”, since most of them went extinct. Enjoyment and interest are two human attributes that you yourself have accepted as possible (and originally as “sure”) and they could quite logically be his motive for designing all the different species or for letting them design themselves.

DAVID: Once again you produce a humanized God from your imagination. God's reactions to his creations are secondary events to His purposeful creations, which I am sure He creates with no initial self-reflection about His emotional needs, if He has any. My opinion mirrors Adler: 50/50. So not 'sure' on reflection. Don't you reflect?

Please don’t make him sound needy. Enjoyment and interest are not a sign of pathetic inadequacy. Once you were “sure” he enjoyed and was interested. Now you are “sure” that he creates without any thought of enjoying or being interested in what he creates. Please reflect on the fact that you have no grounds for being “sure” of this. I am not “sure” of anything, so I’ll settle for your 50/50. I only ask for recognition that my alternatives are possible explanations of life’s history.

DAVID: Choices on the way to a final design of the only system that would work is a reasonable concept. You never make changes in a play before production?

A lovely example of your “humanizing” God. Thank you.

dhw: The “best” does not mean the “only”, or “the only one available”, and “choices on the way” does not mean “NO choice involved”. Choices on the way to a final design might be called experimentation, so thank you for accepting that as a possibility. His acceptance of the risks, and his sometimes vain efforts to counteract the dangers, suggest that despite his all-powerfulness a) he did NOT design “precisely what he wanted”, and (b) that he is not all-powerful. Alternatively, this part of your theory may be wrong.

DAVID: By distorting meanings single words or phrases proves sophistry. All design involves choices in mental thoughts not experimentation in the usual sense.

There is no distortion or sophistry on my part. You keep contradicting yourself because your theories are muddled. I mentioned experimentation only because “choices on the way to a final design” would offer you an explanation for the higgledy-piggledy bush which otherwise makes nonsense of your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

DAVID: In recognizing the potential errors in free acting molecules, but recognizing it was the only system that could work, He accepted His own judgements, provided editing to the process and produced life. Your twisted complaint simply questions God's judgement.

There is no “twisted complaint” and no questioning of your God’s judgement or, if he exists, of the obvious fact that he produced life. I am simply suggesting that if he is all-powerful, he could have produced a different system , and therefore I propose that the system he created is the system he wanted, as opposed to being the only one that could work. “Freedom” is the operative word, and your belief that he tried to correct “errors” but sometimes failed also casts doubt on his all-powerfulness.

DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me.[…]

dhw: […] How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 17, 2022, 15:01 (711 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I cannot explain why God chose evolution over direct creation. I accept the history of life's bush and you question it, making it your problem, not mine. Humans are an obvious goal.

dhw: I do not question the history of life’s bush! And I can even accept the possibility that humans are “a” goal. You simply keep refusing to put all the pieces of your theory together because you know that once you do, the theory makes no sense! You have your God individually designing not only species but also econiches, lifestyles, and natural wonders. That is direct creation. But you say that all of them have been preparation for humans and our food – not “an obvious goal”, but the one and only goal. So the question is why he individually designed all those other life forms and foods, most of which did not lead to humans and our food, if he only wanted one branch (us) plus a few others (food)? You can add the question of why, once he’d embarked on directly designing hominins and homos, he still produced different forms before settling on what you believe was the only one he wanted. There is no semblance of logic in this combination of theories, and you admit that you cannot answer the questions. But you are so fixed in your beliefs that you cannot accept the possibility that at least one of them may be wrong. I offer alternative explanations.

You take a totally disjointed view to make it seem unreasonable. Humans evolved from bacteria, so assuming a God in charge, He evolved humans by His designs. His choice of creation is obvious. The vast bush of life is a web of interlocking ecosystems to give food for all. Naturally most branches do not lead to humans. I accept God's works as they appear, while I do not know His reasoning. You want me to explain His reasons. I can't and I gave you my response: You ask Him


DAVID: Once again you produce a humanized God from your imagination. God's reactions to his creations are secondary events to His purposeful creations, which I am sure He creates with no initial self-reflection about His emotional needs, if He has any. My opinion mirrors Adler: 50/50. So not 'sure' on reflection. Don't you reflect?

dhw: Please don’t make him sound needy. Enjoyment and interest are not a sign of pathetic inadequacy. Once you were “sure” he enjoyed and was interested. Now you are “sure” that he creates without any thought of enjoying or being interested in what he creates. Please reflect on the fact that you have no grounds for being “sure” of this. I am not “sure” of anything, so I’ll settle for your 50/50. I only ask for recognition that my alternatives are possible explanations of life’s history.

It is your God you are describing with His needs. I didn't invent them. Your alternatives fit the personality of a humanized God.


DAVID: In recognizing the potential errors in free acting molecules, but recognizing it was the only system that could work, He accepted His own judgements, provided editing to the process and produced life. Your twisted complaint simply questions God's judgement.

dhw: There is no “twisted complaint” and no questioning of your God’s judgement or, if he exists, of the obvious fact that he produced life. I am simply suggesting that if he is all-powerful, he could have produced a different system , and therefore I propose that the system he created is the system he wanted, as opposed to being the only one that could work. “Freedom” is the operative word, and your belief that he tried to correct “errors” but sometimes failed also casts doubt on his all-powerfulness.

How do you know any other system is possible? My view is we have the only system that can work, provided by God's judgement of what can work. You say God had a choice. An unsupported theory. Have you ever found a scientist who guessed it is possible?


DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me.[…]

dhw: […] How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?

I don't have to explain the way God does things. I don't know His reasoning. I can't. Can you?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, April 18, 2022, 12:38 (710 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You take a totally disjointed view to make it seem unreasonable. […] I accept God's works as they appear, while I do not know His reasoning. You want me to explain His reasons. I can't and I gave you my response: You ask Him.

You do not just “accept God’s works as they appear”. That is the whole problem. You insist that homo sapiens plus food were his one and only goal (not a fact), that he individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc. (not a fact), and that he did so as “preparation” for humans plus food, and as a “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” although, as you admit, “most branches don’t lead to humans”. These are all theories of your own, and you can’t explain why your God did not fulfil YOUR one and only goal directly. I do not “make it seem unreasonable”. If you can’t find any reason, then your theories ARE unreasonable.

DAVID: I am sure He creates with no initial self-reflection about His emotional needs, if He has any.

dhw: Please don’t make him sound needy. Enjoyment and interest are not a sign of pathetic inadequacy.

DAVID: It is your God you are describing with His needs. I didn't invent them.

They are not “needs”, and you said you were sure that he enjoyed creation and was interested in his creations. I didn’t “invent” this possibility.

dhw: I’ll settle for your 50/50. I only ask for recognition that my alternatives are possible explanations of life’s history.

DAVID: Your alternatives fit the personality of a humanized God.

They are all logical, and are no more “humanized” than your own proposals, which include his enjoyment and interest, his making choices and changes on the way to a final design, just like a playwright before production, his kindness, his desire to have his work admired etc.

DAVID: In recognizing the potential errors in free acting molecules, but recognizing it was the only system that could work, He accepted His own judgements, provided editing to the process and produced life. Your twisted complaint simply questions God's judgement.

dhw: There is no “twisted complaint” and no questioning of your God’s judgement or, if he exists, of the obvious fact that he produced life. I am simply suggesting that if he is all-powerful, he could have produced a different system, and therefore I propose that the system he created is the system he wanted, as opposed to being the only one that could work. “Freedom” is the operative word, and your belief that he tried to correct “errors” but sometimes failed also casts doubt on his all-powerfulness.

DAVID: How do you know any other system is possible? My view is we have the only system that can work, provided by God's judgement of what can work. You say God had a choice. An unsupported theory.[…]

YOU have said he made choices along the way. How can you make choices if there is no alternative? If God exists, none of our theories about his motives and methods has any support. Your theory entails “errors” and vain attempts to correct them. My theory has him creating the system he wanted to create, not the system he “had to” create because there was no choice although he made choices. Which of these sounds more “godlike” to you?

DAVID: My theories make perfect sense to me.[…]

dhw: […] How can a theory make perfect sense to you if your explanation is that you can’t explain it?

DAVID (under “More miscellany”): Why must I explain God's reasoning to you? I accept what He did and reach obvious conclusions as to His goals. You've twisted poor Darwin's reasoning. He knew the Cambrian gap damaged his theory. Only a designer can create such a gap.

You have dodged the Cambrian issue. If your God could create species without precursors (and you say we are descended from them), why didn’t he create us directly if we were his only goal?

DAVID: Why can 't you accept God uses evolution at all stages of creation starting with direct creation, followed by an evolving universe, an evolving Milky Way, and an evolving Earth?

If God exists, I accept that he used evolution at all stages. Our disagreement starts with the evolution of life forms and your irrational theory concerning the how and the why, which you can’t explain.

DAVID: I don't have to explain the way God does things. I don't know His reasoning. I can't. Can you?

No, but I can explain MY reasoning for MY alternative theories. You can’t explain your reasoning for your theories, but you assume they are correct and so you blame me for pointing out all the reasons why they may be wrong.

DAVID (also from “More miscellany”): Since I believe in God, it all makes sense to me. Without belief, no wonder you are in a puzzle.

You don’t know his reasoning, which means you can’t find any logic in your theories, so how can it all make sense to you??? All my logical alternatives allow for God’s existence, so please stop pretending that my agnosticism is to blame for your inability to explain your theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, April 18, 2022, 18:53 (710 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You take a totally disjointed view to make it seem unreasonable. […] I accept God's works as they appear, while I do not know His reasoning. You want me to explain His reasons. I can't and I gave you my response: You ask Him.

dhw: You do not just “accept God’s works as they appear”. That is the whole problem. You insist that homo sapiens plus food were his one and only goal (not a fact), that he individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc. (not a fact), and that he did so as “preparation” for humans plus food, and as a “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” although, as you admit, “most branches don’t lead to humans”. These are all theories of your own, and you can’t explain why your God did not fulfil YOUR one and only goal directly. I do not “make it seem unreasonable”. If you can’t find any reason, then your theories ARE unreasonable.

Your reasoning about my theories is totally unreasonable. I have decided to accept that a designer exists based on the overwhelming evidence of design. God is the common name given. I accepted all that the mind has created as His direct doing. The endpoint of the procession from bacteria at the start to humans at the end tells me He wanted humans to appear. Furthermore, all those humans need a necessary huge food supply. The huge vast bush supplies it. No one can answer your complaint re' not using direct creation. That was obviously the designer's choice. No one, explaining the designer. can go further. And since I can't answer your unreasonable complaint, no fault is involved. The bold applies.


DAVID: In recognizing the potential errors in free acting molecules, but recognizing it was the only system that could work, He accepted His own judgements, provided editing to the process and produced life. Your twisted complaint simply questions God's judgement.

dhw: There is no “twisted complaint” and no questioning of your God’s judgement or, if he exists, of the obvious fact that he produced life. I am simply suggesting that if he is all-powerful, he could have produced a different system, and therefore I propose that the system he created is the system he wanted, as opposed to being the only one that could work. “Freedom” is the operative word, and your belief that he tried to correct “errors” but sometimes failed also casts doubt on his all-powerfulness.

DAVID: How do you know any other system is possible? My view is we have the only system that can work, provided by God's judgement of what can work. You say God had a choice. An unsupported theory.[…]

dhw: YOU have said he made choices along the way. How can you make choices if there is no alternative?

The alternatives are involved in designing a single working system, not picking among several systems when God knew only one would work

dhw: My theory has him creating the system he wanted to create, not the system he “had to” create because there was no choice although he made choices. Which of these sounds more “godlike” to you?

Exactly your theory, except only one could work.


dhw: You have dodged the Cambrian issue. If your God could create species without precursors (and you say we are descended from them), why didn’t he create us directly if we were his only goal?

Not dodged. His choice of methodology. Your imagined humanized God does not recognize the true God is not required to be consistent


DAVID: I don't have to explain the way God does things. I don't know His reasoning. I can't. Can you?

dhw: No, but I can explain MY reasoning for MY alternative theories. You can’t explain your reasoning for your theories, but you assume they are correct and so you blame me for pointing out all the reasons why they may be wrong.

Your complaints are complete distortions of my approach as noted above. The God you use is a humanized version, with human desires.


DAVID (also from “More miscellany”): Since I believe in God, it all makes sense to me. Without belief, no wonder you are in a puzzle.

dhw: You don’t know his reasoning, which means you can’t find any logic in your theories, so how can it all make sense to you??? All my logical alternatives allow for God’s existence, so please stop pretending that my agnosticism is to blame for your inability to explain your theories.

My basis in my theories is given above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, April 19, 2022, 06:58 (710 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your reasoning about my theories is totally unreasonable. I have decided to accept that a designer exists based on the overwhelming evidence of design. God is the common name given.

I have never questioned the logic of that decision, and have no problem with your calling him God, Allah, Jehovah or whatever name you like.

DAVID: I accepted all that the mind has created as His direct doing.

You are playing with words. The problem raised by your theory is why, if humans were his goal, he did not design them directly. Your bold, however, would apply equally to all my alternative theories, e.g. if he wanted a free-for-all, he directly created a free-for-all. If he wanted to experiment in order to find a particular formula, or in order to see what would happen if he did xyz, he did so directly.

DAVID: The endpoint of the procession from bacteria at the start to humans at the end tells me He wanted humans to appear.

That is perfectly possible, but since he also designed countless other life forms that did not lead to humans, he must have wanted them to appear as well, and so you are back to the mystery of why, if his ONLY aim was humans (as you keep repeating) he designed all the other forms. You can’t answer, so maybe something is wrong with your theory.

DAVID: Furthermore, all those humans need a necessary huge food supply. The huge vast bush supplies it.

But that refers to the present bush and does not explain the vast bush which preceded the present, which is now extinct and which did not lead to the food supply for humans. As usual, you edit your theory to leave out all the bits that don’t fit together.

DAVID: No one can answer your complaint re' not using direct creation.

Of course they can’t, if they accept all your premises, because the combination of those premises makes no sense. And so instead of brazenly assuming that your theory is right but “God makes sense only to Himself”, perhaps you should consider the possibility that God’s purpose and method are not what you say they are.

DAVID: That was obviously the designer's choice. No one, explaining the designer. can go further. And since I can't answer your unreasonable complaint, no fault is involved. The bold applies.

If God exists, the only obvious thing is that he would have invented the system which produced ALL forms of life, food, econiches, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. No one can “go further”, but you go miles further and come up with a theory that you can’t explain, and you tell us we should accept your inability to explain it as an explanation.

dhw: I am simply suggesting that if he is all-powerful, he could have produced a different system, and therefore I propose that the system he created is the system he wanted, as opposed to being the only one that could work. “Freedom” is the operative word, and your belief that he tried to correct “errors” but sometimes failed also casts doubt on his all-powerfulness.

DAVID: How do you know any other system is possible? My view is we have the only system that can work, provided by God's judgement of what can work. You say God had a choice. An unsupported theory.[…]

dhw: YOU have said he made choices along the way. How can you make choices if there is no alternative?

DAVID: The alternatives are involved in designing a single working system, not picking among several systems when God knew only one would work.

You wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view.” The best indicates a choice, but I don’t think it makes much difference whether he made choices between systems or between components of one system – choices still denote alternatives to what we ended up with.

dhw: My theory has him creating the system he wanted to create, not the system he “had to” create because there was no choice although he made choices. Which of these sounds more “godlike” to you?

DAVID: Exactly your theory, except only one could work.

He would have chosen the one that worked the way he wanted it to work. In your theory, despite all his choices, he had no choice because this was the only one that would work.

dhw: You have dodged the Cambrian issue. If your God could create species without precursors (and you say we are descended from them), why didn’t he create us directly if we were his only goal?

DAVID: Not dodged. His choice of methodology. Your imagined humanized God does not recognize the true God is not required to be consistent.

YOUR – not his – choice of methodology is for him to have specially designed a direct line from bacteria to humans, except that during the Cambrian he designed new life forms with no precursors, and we are descended from them. But all life forms are biochemical, and for some unknown reason this means that all life forms were designed in preparation for humans (plus our food). You also happen by great good fortune to know the true God, and you know that the true God only makes sense to himself.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 19, 2022, 19:31 (709 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I accepted all that the mind has created as His direct doing.

dhw: You are playing with words. The problem raised by your theory is why, if humans were his goal, he did not design them directly.

No word play. You want me to explain God's choice of method of creation. I can't so I won't


DAVID: The endpoint of the procession from bacteria at the start to humans at the end tells me He wanted humans to appear.

dhw: That is perfectly possible, but since he also designed countless other life forms that did not lead to humans, he must have wanted them to appear as well, and so you are back to the mystery of why, if his ONLY aim was humans (as you keep repeating) he designed all the other forms. You can’t answer, so maybe something is wrong with your theory.

I've answered an OBVIOUS point, food supply for our current enormous population..


DAVID: No one can answer your complaint re' not using direct creation.

dhw: Of course they can’t, if they accept all your premises, because the combination of those premises makes no sense. And so instead of brazenly assuming that your theory is right but “God makes sense only to Himself”, perhaps you should consider the possibility that God’s purpose and method are not what you say they are.

The obvious method is a stepwise creation!!! Humans as an endpoint are PURPOSE


dhw: You wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view.” The best indicates a choice, but I don’t think it makes much difference whether he made choices between systems or between components of one system – choices still denote alternatives to what we ended up with.

I accept it is the only possible system, because it is God's choice


dhw: My theory has him creating the system he wanted to create, not the system he “had to” create because there was no choice although he made choices. Which of these sounds more “godlike” to you?

DAVID: Exactly your theory, except only one could work.

dhw: He would have chosen the one that worked the way he wanted it to work. In your theory, despite all his choices, he had no choice because this was the only one that would work.

Yes!!!


dhw: You have dodged the Cambrian issue. If your God could create species without precursors (and you say we are descended from them), why didn’t he create us directly if we were his only goal?

DAVID: Not dodged. His choice of methodology. Your imagined humanized God does not recognize the true God is not required to be consistent.

dhw: YOUR – not his – choice of methodology is for him to have specially designed a direct line from bacteria to humans, except that during the Cambrian he designed new life forms with no precursors, and we are descended from them. But all life forms are biochemical, and for some unknown reason this means that all life forms were designed in preparation for humans (plus our food). You also happen by great good fortune to know the true God, and you know that the true God only makes sense to himself.

And you have no concept of how to think about God. What have you read on the subject? And from whom?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, April 20, 2022, 07:42 (709 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I accepted all that the mind has created as His direct doing.

dhw: You are playing with words. The problem raised by your theory is why, if humans were his goal, he did not design them directly.

DAVID: No word play. You want me to explain God's choice of method of creation. I can't so I won't.

Correction: I want you to explain the reasoning behind your theory concerning your God’s choice of method of creation. And you can’t, because you know your theory doesn’t make sense.

DAVID: The endpoint of the procession from bacteria at the start to humans at the end tells me He wanted humans to appear.

dhw: That is perfectly possible, but since he also designed countless other life forms that did not lead to humans, he must have wanted them to appear as well, and so you are back to the mystery of why, if his ONLY aim was humans (as you keep repeating) he designed all the other forms. You can’t answer, so maybe something is wrong with your theory.

DAVID: I've answered an OBVIOUS point, food supply for our current enormous population.

How many more times do you want me to repeat your own demolition of this argument? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID: No one can answer your complaint re not using direct creation.

dhw: Of course they can’t, if they accept all your premises, because the combination of those premises makes no sense. And so instead of brazenly assuming that your theory is right but “God makes sense only to Himself”, perhaps you should consider the possibility that God’s purpose and method are not what you say they are.

DAVID: The obvious method is a stepwise creation!!! Humans as an endpoint are PURPOSE.

Why is it obvious that your God should design millions of life forms that had no link to humans in order to design humans, and why is stepwise an obvious method when according to you he designed brand new species with no precursors (Cambrian). Humans as endpoint may well be “purpose”, but you tell us they were the one and only purpose, and you can’t explain why your God proceeded to design millions of life forms and foods that did not lead to humans and our foods. Why do you keep agreeing that you can’t explain your theory, and then pretending that you have explained it?

dhw: You wrote: “I think he devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view.” The best indicates a choice, but I don’t think it makes much difference whether he made choices between systems or between components of one system – choices still denote alternatives to what we ended up with.

DAVID: I accept it is the only possible system, because it is God's choice.

It is totally illogical to claim that there is only one possible system and in the same breath to say that God was “constantly making choices and came up with the best”.

DAVID: Your imagined humanized God does not recognize the true God is not required to be consistent.

dhw: YOUR – not his – choice of methodology is for him to have specially designed a direct line from bacteria to humans, except that during the Cambrian he designed new life forms with no precursors, and we are descended from them. But all life forms are biochemical, and for some unknown reason this means that all life forms were designed in preparation for humans (plus our food). You also happen by great good fortune to know the true God, and you know that the true God only makes sense to himself.

DAVID: And you have no concept of how to think about God. What have you read on the subject? And from whom?

The only mind qualified to tell us how to think about God is God’s, if he exists. This is your silliest dodge yet. If you can’t find a rational response to my arguments, then please don’t pretend that you’ve solved the problems by reading lots of books that I haven’t read.:-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 20, 2022, 14:12 (708 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No word play. You want me to explain God's choice of method of creation. I can't so I won't.

dhw: Correction: I want you to explain the reasoning behind your theory concerning your God’s choice of method of creation. And you can’t, because you know your theory doesn’t make sense.

Wrong! Only two 'possibles' for creation: direct or stepwise. Only the latter exists. Explain what? My theory exists beyond this level of discussion.


dhw: How many more times do you want me to repeat your own demolition of this argument? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms. ” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

Obvious point: What applies in old times of evolution applies in new times! Stop chopping up evolution into unrelated segments. The past leads to the present.


DAVID: The obvious method is a stepwise creation!!! Humans as an endpoint are PURPOSE.

dhw: Why is it obvious that your God should design millions of life forms that had no link to humans in order to design humans, and why is stepwise an obvious method when according to you he designed brand new species with no precursors (Cambrian). Humans as endpoint may well be “purpose”, but you tell us they were the one and only purpose, and you can’t explain why your God proceeded to design millions of life forms and foods that did not lead to humans and our foods. Why do you keep agreeing that you can’t explain your theory, and then pretending that you have explained it?

What is obvious is the history of creation which I follow exactly in arguments. Why don't you follow it? Instead a constant barrage of illogical complaints. God produced one method of creation by His unknown reasoning.


DAVID: I accept it is the only possible system, because it is God's choice.

dhw: It is totally illogical to claim that there is only one possible system and in the same breath to say that God was “constantly making choices and came up with the best”.

God saw one obvious choice of creating life. My quote. exactly. is that I think the current biochemical system may have involved choices and tweaks in construction as I did as a human in my designs. On the other hand. God may have outrightly done it in one step.


DAVID: Your imagined humanized God does not recognize the true God is not required to be consistent.

DAVID: And you have no concept of how to think about God. What have you read on the subject? And from whom?

The only mind qualified to tell us how to think about God is God’s, if he exists. This is your silliest dodge yet. If you can’t find a rational response to my arguments, then please don’t pretend that you’ve solved the problems by reading lots of books that I haven’t read.

:-(

At least with no knowledge of theological thinking, I looked into other human thought about God, their advice about how to view Him. I found it helpful. You find yourself above that and have launched into the area of thought totally independently. Fine. But that explains why you do not understand how I view your God as humanized. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, April 21, 2022, 07:32 (708 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You want me to explain God's choice of method of creation. I can't so I won't.

dhw: Correction: I want you to explain the reasoning behind your theory concerning your God’s choice of method of creation. And you can’t, because you know your theory doesn’t make sense.

DAVID: Wrong! Only two 'possibles' for creation: direct or stepwise. Only the latter exists. Explain what? My theory exists beyond this level of discussion.

You claim that during the Cambrian, species appeared that had no precursors, and the gaps meant that they could only have been designed directly by your God. So according to you, he speciates directly if he wants to. Yes indeed, your theory goes way beyond this with the claim that your God specially designed every species, but his only purpose was to design us plus food, and so he designed all the countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us. It makes no sense even to you, but still you defend it.

DAVID: I’ve answered an OBVIOUS point, food supply for our current enormous population.

dhw: How many more times do you want me to repeat your own demolition of this argument? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms. ” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID:Obvious point: What applies in old times of evolution applies in new times! Stop chopping up evolution into unrelated segments. The past leads to the present.

That is the exact opposite of your bolded remarks, and you know it. The bush of life contained countless branches that have gone extinct and have no role in current time.

DAVID: What is obvious is the history of creation which I follow exactly in arguments. Why don't you follow it? Instead a constant barrage of illogical complaints. God produced one method of creation by His unknown reasoning.

We both follow the history, since we agree that there have been countless extinct life forms which did not lead to humans or our food, and humans evolved in stages. The “barrage of illogical complaints” is met by your agreement that you cannot find any logic that will explain your theory as bolded above, which can only mean that you find it illogical, and “God makes sense only to himself”.

DAVID: I accept it is the only possible system, because it is God's choice.

dhw: It is totally illogical to claim that there is only one possible system and in the same breath to say that God was “constantly making choices and came up with the best”.

DAVID: God saw one obvious choice of creating life. My quote. exactly. is that I think the current biochemical system may have involved choices and tweaks in construction as I did as a human in my designs. On the other hand. God may have outrightly done it in one step.

Thank you for yet again “humanizing” your God by comparing his method to yours, and thank you also for agreeing that he may have made choices and tweaks, which can only mean that he knew there were alternatives. I have no problem with this anyway, since my theistic proposal is that he designed precisely the system he wanted to design, as opposed to your proposal that he knew his design would cause errors which he did NOT want and which he tried – sometimes in vain, despite his all-powerfulness – to correct.

DAVID: Your imagined humanized God does not recognize the true God is not required to be consistent.
And
DAVID: And you have no concept of how to think about God. What have you read on the subject? And from whom?

dhw: The only mind qualified to tell us how to think about God is God’s, if he exists. This is your silliest dodge yet. If you can’t find a rational response to my arguments, then please don’t pretend that you’ve solved the problems by reading lots of books that I haven’t read. :-(

DAVID: At least with no knowledge of theological thinking, I looked into other human thought about God, their advice about how to view Him. I found it helpful. You find yourself above that and have launched into the area of thought totally independently. Fine. But that explains why you do not understand how I view your God as humanized. ;-)

I was raised as a Jew, studied both parts of the Bible at school, and made a point of studying other religions as my original faith began to crumble. I am not totally ignorant of other people’s views of God, but am always put off when anybody pretends that he knows what God thinks and feels. Your antipathy towards any suggestion of God sharing thought patterns, emotions and logic with his creations (although you think he probably does) seems to me one of the weakest of all your arguments, particularly since you yourself continuously endow him with human characteristics. You try to wriggle out of that by saying they’re only guesses. Every pronouncement made by us humans about your God is a guess.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 21, 2022, 15:50 (707 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Wrong! Only two 'possibles' for creation: direct or stepwise. Only the latter exists. Explain what? My theory exists beyond this level of discussion.

dhw: You claim that during the Cambrian, species appeared that had no precursors, and the gaps meant that they could only have been designed directly by your God. So according to you, he speciates directly if he wants to. Yes indeed, your theory...makes no sense even to you, but still you defend it.

Strange, how do you know my theory 'makes no sense to me'? A strange desperate debating point don't you think? Why would anyone defend a senseless theory?


DAVID:Obvious point: What applies in old times of evolution applies in new times! Stop chopping up evolution into unrelated segments. The past leads to the present.

dhw: That is the exact opposite of your bolded remarks, and you know it. The bush of life contained countless branches that have gone extinct and have no role in current time.

I have agreed to your point over and over. Stop denying it. Old is old, new is new.


dhw: We both follow the history, since we agree that there have been countless extinct life forms which did not lead to humans or our food, and humans evolved in stages. The “barrage of illogical complaints” is met by your agreement that you cannot find any logic that will explain your theory as bolded above, which can only mean that you find it illogical, and “God makes sense only to himself”.

I do not find me illogical. I accept God's history of evolution as His choice of method.


DAVID: At least with no knowledge of theological thinking, I looked into other human thought about God, their advice about how to view Him. I found it helpful. You find yourself above that and have launched into the area of thought totally independently. Fine. But that explains why you do not understand how I view your God as humanized. ;-)

dhw: I was raised as a Jew, studied both parts of the Bible at school, and made a point of studying other religions as my original faith began to crumble. I am not totally ignorant of other people’s views of God, but am always put off when anybody pretends that he knows what God thinks and feels. Your antipathy towards any suggestion of God sharing thought patterns, emotions and logic with his creations (although you think he probably does) seems to me one of the weakest of all your arguments, particularly since you yourself continuously endow him with human characteristics. You try to wriggle out of that by saying they’re only guesses. Every pronouncement made by us humans about your God is a guess.

I also was raised Jewish. Drifted into a very soft agnosticism in medical school, but years later began to study evolution from a current science standpoint in various books and articles. So much of Darwin theory made no sense, I returned to accepting a designer is responsible. I know I make comparisons between Him and us at a humanizing level, but I know there is a vast difference in mental power and personal wishes.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, April 22, 2022, 12:26 (706 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Wrong! Only two 'possibles' for creation: direct or stepwise. Only the latter exists. Explain what? My theory exists beyond this level of discussion.

dhw: You claim that during the Cambrian, species appeared that had no precursors, and the gaps meant that they could only have been designed directly by your God. So according to you, he speciates directly if he wants to. Yes indeed, your theory...makes no sense even to you, but still you defend it.

DAVID: Strange, how do you know my theory 'makes no sense to me'? A strange desperate debating point don't you think? Why would anyone defend a senseless theory?

I note your non-response to your Cambrian self-contradiction. I know your theory makes no sense to you, because over and over again, you have said so. Bearing in mind your claim that your God designed ALL species and foods in preparation and as part of his one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans plus food, we can sum it up with just two quotes from your very recent admissions: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”. (I am assuming you are not God.) If you can’t explain it and it only make sense to God, how can it possibly make sense to you?

DAVID:Obvious point: What applies in old times of evolution applies in new times! Stop chopping up evolution into unrelated segments. The past leads to the present.

dhw: That is the exact opposite of your bolded remarks, and you know it. The bush of life contained countless branches that have gone extinct and have no role in current time.

DAVID: I have agreed to your point over and over. Stop denying it. Old is old, new is new.

So why do you tell us that “What applies in old times applies in new times”??? See “more miscellany” for more attempts to conflate all econiches past and present with “food supply for our current population”.

DAVID: At least with no knowledge of theological thinking, I looked into other human thought about God, their advice about how to view Him. I found it helpful. You find yourself above that and have launched into the area of thought totally independently. Fine. But that explains why you do not understand how I view your God as humanized.

dhw: I was raised as a Jew, studied both parts of the Bible at school, and made a point of studying other religions as my original faith began to crumble. I am not totally ignorant of other people’s views of God, but am always put off when anybody pretends that he knows what God thinks and feels. Your antipathy towards any suggestion of God sharing thought patterns, emotions and logic with his creations (although you think he probably does) seems to me one of the weakest of all your arguments, particularly since you yourself continuously endow him with human characteristics. You try to wriggle out of that by saying they’re only guesses. Every pronouncement made by us humans about your God is a guess.

DAVID: I also was raised Jewish. Drifted into a very soft agnosticism in medical school, but years later began to study evolution from a current science standpoint in various books and articles. So much of Darwin theory made no sense, I returned to accepting a designer is responsible. I know I make comparisons between Him and us at a humanizing level, but I know there is a vast difference in mental power and personal wishes.

If your God exists, I really don’t think any of us would imagine our mental power matches his! “Personal wishes” are all guesses, and your guesses may be different from mine, but they are just as “humanizing” as mine, so please stop using “humanization” as an excuse for rejecting arguments which you agree are logical.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, April 22, 2022, 16:04 (706 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Strange, how do you know my theory 'makes no sense to me'? A strange desperate debating point don't you think? Why would anyone defend a senseless theory?

dhw: I note your non-response to your Cambrian self-contradiction. I know your theory makes no sense to you, because over and over again, you have said so. Bearing in mind your claim that your God designed ALL species and foods in preparation and as part of his one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans plus food, we can sum it up with just two quotes from your very recent admissions: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”. (I am assuming you are not God.) If you can’t explain it and it only make sense to God, how can it possibly make sense to you?

The above is an illogical mess. It looks at bits and pieces of my thoughts. My simple logical basis which taken together makes perfect sense: God chose to create us in stages resembling Darwin-style evolution. Based on the acceptance of God as creator. The quotes you offer fit that scenario exactly. I can't explain God's thinking, which is what you seem to want. I can only see His actions, which are the only available facts open for interpretation


DAVID:Obvious point: What applies in old times of evolution applies in new times! Stop chopping up evolution into unrelated segments. The past leads to the present.

dhw: That is the exact opposite of your bolded remarks, and you know it. The bush of life contained countless branches that have gone extinct and have no role in current time.

DAVID: I have agreed to your point over and over. Stop denying it. Old is old, new is new.

dhw: So why do you tell us that “What applies in old times applies in new times”???

All I meant is food needs in the past ARE THE SAME AS FOOD NEEDS IN THE PRESENT. Obvious thought which gets distorted by you. Purposely? ;-)


dhw: If your God exists, I really don’t think any of us would imagine our mental power matches his! “Personal wishes” are all guesses, and your guesses may be different from mine, but they are just as “humanizing” as mine, so please stop using “humanization” as an excuse for rejecting arguments which you agree are logical.

I have agreed to your logic as reasonable only if the God you describe requires human needs, which is the style of God you always present. Presented over and over by me and always ignored by a constant incorrect restatement as if I never qualified the opinion by referring to your specific humanized God image.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, April 23, 2022, 08:04 (706 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Strange, how do you know my theory 'makes no sense to me'? A strange desperate debating point don't you think? Why would anyone defend a senseless theory?

dhw: I note your non-response to your Cambrian self-contradiction. I know your theory makes no sense to you, because over and over again, you have said so. Bearing in mind your claim that your God designed ALL species and foods in preparation and as part of his one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans plus food, we can sum it up with just two quotes from your very recent admissions: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”. (I am assuming you are not God.) If you can’t explain it and it only make sense to God, how can it possibly make sense to you?

DAVID: The above is an illogical mess. It looks at bits and pieces of my thoughts. My simple logical basis which taken together makes perfect sense: God chose to create us in stages resembling Darwin-style evolution. Based on the acceptance of God as creator. The quotes you offer fit that scenario exactly. I can't explain God's thinking, which is what you seem to want. I can only see His actions, which are the only available facts open for interpretation.

It is you who only look at bits and pieces of your theory, and this is a typical example. You have left out (a) your belief that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, (b) your belief that he specially designed every life form and econiche that ever existed (not to mention lifestyles and natural wonders), (c) your belief that every life form and econiche that ever existed was designed as preparation for and part of the one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food, although the vast majority did not lead to humans and our food. If you can explain the logic binding this combination of your beliefs, then please do so, but until now your reply has been that you can’t, just as you can’t explain why your God chose to evolve his one and only purpose (homo sapiens) in stages although, according to your Cambrian theory, he is perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors.

DAVID: Obvious point: What applies in old times of evolution applies in new times! Stop chopping up evolution into unrelated segments. The past leads to the present.

dhw: That is the exact opposite of your bolded remarks, and you know it. The bush of life contained countless branches that have gone extinct and have no role in current time.

DAVID: I have agreed to your point over and over. Stop denying it. Old is old, new is new.

dhw: So why do you tell us that “What applies in old times applies in new times”???

DAVID: All I meant is food needs in the past ARE THE SAME AS FOOD NEEDS IN THE PRESENT. Obvious thought which gets distorted by you. Purposely?

This is indeed obvious. So why do you keep repeating “all life needs constant food supply” whenever I ask you to explain why your God specially designed all the life forms and foods that had no connection with humans, although humans plus food were his only goal? This answer is totally irrelevant to my question, as illustrated twice in today’s “more miscellany” post.

dhw: If your God exists, I really don’t think any of us would imagine our mental power matches his! “Personal wishes” are all guesses, and your guesses may be different from mine, but they are just as “humanizing” as mine, so please stop using “humanization” as an excuse for rejecting arguments which you agree are logical.

DAVID: I have agreed to your logic as reasonable only if the God you describe requires human needs, which is the style of God you always present.

I keep asking you not to use the word “needs”, which makes your God sound needy. Enjoyment and interest, experimentation to achieve an aim, or curiosity to find out what will happen if one experiments, do not denote "needs". Nor, to quote another of your favourite dismissive terms, do they denote weakness.

DAVID: Presented over and over by me and always ignored by a constant incorrect restatement as if I never qualified the opinion by referring to your specific humanized God image.

You refer to each of my theories with the same dismissal: that I am humanizing God. Enjoyment and interest were your own suggestions, to which you have at different times added kindness, wanting his works to be admired, and wanting a relationship with us. If anything, I would suggest that the last two are more “needy” than experimentation and curiosity.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 23, 2022, 16:20 (705 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The above is an illogical mess. It looks at bits and pieces of my thoughts. My simple logical basis which taken together makes perfect sense: God chose to create us in stages resembling Darwin-style evolution. Based on the acceptance of God as creator. The quotes you offer fit that scenario exactly. I can't explain God's thinking, which is what you seem to want. I can only see His actions, which are the only available facts open for interpretation.

dhw: It is you who only look at bits and pieces of your theory, and this is a typical example. You have left out (a) your belief that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, (b) your belief that he specially designed every life form and econiche that ever existed (not to mention lifestyles and natural wonders), (c) your belief that every life form and econiche that ever existed was designed as preparation for and part of the one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food, although the vast majority did not lead to humans and our food.

You didn't understand my statement above: it is the basis of the next steps in my thoughts about which you now complain. Simply God designed evolution to create what He wished to create. The history of evolution is God's history creating His wish for humans and food supply.

dhw: If you can explain the logic binding this combination of your beliefs, then please do so, but until now your reply has been that you can’t, just as you can’t explain why your God chose to evolve his one and only purpose (homo sapiens) in stages although, according to your Cambrian theory, he is perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors.

The history does not satisfy your complaints. I accept it because it is real. I cannot explain God's reasoning. but I am sure it is rational and represents His desires.


dhw: You refer to each of my theories with the same dismissal: that I am humanizing God. Enjoyment and interest were your own suggestions, to which you have at different times added kindness, wanting his works to be admired, and wanting a relationship with us. If anything, I would suggest that the last two are more “needy” than experimentation and curiosity.

I have defined in the past that the opinions I have about what God might personally gain from His works as pure guesses about Him personally. You wish to turn them into fact. The only facts we have about God are His works, which we then can try to analyze. Your analysis and mine differ widely

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, April 24, 2022, 10:42 (705 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The above is an illogical mess. It looks at bits and pieces of my thoughts. My simple logical basis which taken together makes perfect sense: God chose to create us in stages resembling Darwin-style evolution. Based on the acceptance of God as creator. The quotes you offer fit that scenario exactly. I can't explain God's thinking, which is what you seem to want. I can only see His actions, which are the only available facts open for interpretation.

dhw: It is you who only look at bits and pieces of your theory, and this is a typical example. You have left out (a) your belief that humans were your God’s one and only purpose, (b) your belief that he specially designed every life form and econiche that ever existed (not to mention lifestyles and natural wonders), (c) your belief that every life form and econiche that ever existed was designed as preparation for and part of the one and only goal of evolving (= designing) humans and our food, although the vast majority did not lead to humans and our food.

DAVID: You didn't understand my statement above: it is the basis of the next steps in my thoughts about which you now complain. Simply God designed evolution to create what He wished to create. The history of evolution is God's history creating His wish for humans and food supply.

If God exists, I agree 100% that he would have designed evolution to create what he wished to create. It is from that point onwards that you have developed a theory of your own which defies all logic, and you simply go on evading the incongruity. There is no point in my repeating (a), (b) and (c), because you will simply continue to edit them out.

DAVID: The history does not satisfy your complaints. I accept it because it is real. I cannot explain God's reasoning. but I am sure it is rational and represents His desires.

The history is real, but you have proposed an interpretation of the history which is imagined and which you yourself cannot understand. You repeat this in comments under “seven states of matter” and “redwoods”. Under “early crust activity” you write: “Note how God uses evolutionary processes to achieve His goals.” Yes, we both accept evolution as a fact. What is not a fact is the theory that consists of (a), (b) and (c). But you are sure that although you can’t find any logic in it, it is “rational”!

“Humanization”

dhw: You refer to each of my theories with the same dismissal: that I am humanizing God. Enjoyment and interest were your own suggestions, to which you have at different times added kindness, wanting his works to be admired, and wanting a relationship with us. If anything, I would suggest that the last two are more “needy” than experimentation and curiosity.

DAVID: I have defined in the past that the opinions I have about what God might personally gain from His works as pure guesses about Him personally. You wish to turn them into fact. The only facts we have about God are His works, which we then can try to analyze. Your analysis and mine differ widely.

I called them “suggestions”, but “guesses” will do. I do not wish to turn them into facts. I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what is his nature. My point is that if you can guess what his human attributes might be, then so can I, and so it is absurd for you to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they invest him with human attributes which are different from those that you suggest/guess (although it was actually you who were “sure” that enjoyment and interest were two of them).

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 24, 2022, 15:31 (704 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You didn't understand my statement above: it is the basis of the next steps in my thoughts about which you now complain. Simply God designed evolution to create what He wished to create. The history of evolution is God's history creating His wish for humans and food supply.

dhw: If God exists, I agree 100% that he would have designed evolution to create what he wished to create. It is from that point onwards that you have developed a theory of your own which defies all logic, and you simply go on evading the incongruity. There is no point in my repeating (a), (b) and (c), because you will simply continue to edit them out.

Your illogical objections are seen before I reject them. Past discussions are there for all to analyze. I see evolution as a continuum and you split it into segments.


DAVID: The history does not satisfy your complaints. I accept it because it is real. I cannot explain God's reasoning. but I am sure it is rational and represents His desires.

dhw: The history is real, but you have proposed an interpretation of the history which is imagined and which you yourself cannot understand. You repeat this in comments under “seven states of matter” and “redwoods”. Under “early crust activity” you write: “Note how God uses evolutionary processes to achieve His goals.” Yes, we both accept evolution as a fact. What is not a fact is the theory that consists of (a), (b) and (c). But you are sure that although you can’t find any logic in it, it is “rational”!

Your fallacy in bold doesn't exist. The only thing I cannot explain is God's reasons for using an evolutionary method of creation.


“Humanization”

dhw: You refer to each of my theories with the same dismissal: that I am humanizing God. Enjoyment and interest were your own suggestions, to which you have at different times added kindness, wanting his works to be admired, and wanting a relationship with us. If anything, I would suggest that the last two are more “needy” than experimentation and curiosity.

DAVID: I have defined in the past that the opinions I have about what God might personally gain from His works as pure guesses about Him personally. You wish to turn them into fact. The only facts we have about God are His works, which we then can try to analyze. Your analysis and mine differ widely.

dhw: I called them “suggestions”, but “guesses” will do. I do not wish to turn them into facts. I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what is his nature. My point is that if you can guess what his human attributes might be, then so can I, and so it is absurd for you to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they invest him with human attributes which are different from those that you suggest/guess (although it was actually you who were “sure” that enjoyment and interest were two of them).

I am 'sure' God has reactions to His creations, which we discuss in our human terms. Yes, in His own way, I'm 'sure' He has reactions. Having given free will He cannot but be interested in how organisms act. But I see free will as purposefully given without a purpose of providing interest. God's emotional reactions are always secondary.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, April 25, 2022, 10:42 (704 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You didn't understand my statement above: it is the basis of the next steps in my thoughts about which you now complain. Simply God designed evolution to create what He wished to create. The history of evolution is God's history creating His wish for humans and food supply.

dhw: If God exists, I agree 100% that he would have designed evolution to create what he wished to create. It is from that point onwards that you have developed a theory of your own which defies all logic, and you simply go on evading the incongruity. There is no point in my repeating (a), (b) and (c), because you will simply continue to edit them out.

DAVID: Your illogical objections are seen before I reject them. Past discussions are there for all to analyze. I see evolution as a continuum and you split it into segments.

But you don’t reject my objections. You admit that you can’t explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, he designed countless life forms that did not lead to humans plus our food, or why he designed humans in stages although, according to you, he is perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors (the Cambrian). The continuum in terms of speciation is common descent (except when you say here is no continuum (the Cambrian), and the “segments” are the different branches, including all those of the past that did not lead to humans or our food.

“Humanization”

dhw: You refer to each of my theories with the same dismissal: that I am humanizing God. Enjoyment and interest were your own suggestions, to which you have at different times added kindness, wanting his works to be admired, and wanting a relationship with us. If anything, I would suggest that the last two are more “needy” than experimentation and curiosity.

DAVID: I have defined in the past that the opinions I have about what God might personally gain from His works as pure guesses about Him personally. You wish to turn them into fact. The only facts we have about God are His works, which we then can try to analyze. Your analysis and mine differ widely.

dhw: I called them “suggestions”, but “guesses” will do. I do not wish to turn them into facts. I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what is his nature. My point is that if you can guess what his human attributes might be, then so can I, and so it is absurd for you to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they invest him with human attributes which are different from those that you suggest/guess (although it was actually you who were “sure” that enjoyment and interest were two of them).

DAVID: I am 'sure' God has reactions to His creations, which we discuss in our human terms. Yes, in His own way, I'm 'sure' He has reactions.

And we are both sure that if he exists, his actions are the result of his wishes, which would constitute his purpose.

DAVID: Having given free will He cannot but be interested in how organisms act. But I see free will as purposefully given without a purpose of providing interest. God's emotional reactions are always secondary.

I'm not sure what you mean by "free will" in relation to all organisms, since you insist that speciation, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. are directly designed by your God, but whatever it is that you're referring to, please tell us what you think was your purposeful God’s purpose in giving organisms “free will”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, April 25, 2022, 15:43 (703 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your illogical objections are seen before I reject them. Past discussions are there for all to analyze. I see evolution as a continuum and you split it into segments.

dhw: But you don’t reject my objections. You admit that you can’t explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design humans plus our food, he designed countless life forms that did not lead to humans plus our food, or why he designed humans in stages although, according to you, he is perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors (the Cambrian). The continuum in terms of speciation is common descent (except when you say here is no continuum (the Cambrian), and the “segments” are the different branches, including all those of the past that did not lead to humans or our food.

Your reply is a perfect example of how you split evolution into separate parts. You think God is inconsistent, using the Cambrian. The complexity compared to the Ediacaran is large, but tiny when compared to us with our giant brains. The continuum I've shown you is at the biochemistry level, not the phenotypic level. I've remined you other gaps exist, a major one the plant bloom. Your problem is not recognizing God knows exactly what He is doing and needs to do, as in guaranteeing a proper food supply for all. You've left out part of my proposals in your discussion above. Why?


“Humanization”

dhw: You refer to each of my theories with the same dismissal: that I am humanizing God. Enjoyment and interest were your own suggestions, to which you have at different times added kindness, wanting his works to be admired, and wanting a relationship with us. If anything, I would suggest that the last two are more “needy” than experimentation and curiosity.

DAVID: I have defined in the past that the opinions I have about what God might personally gain from His works as pure guesses about Him personally. You wish to turn them into fact. The only facts we have about God are His works, which we then can try to analyze. Your analysis and mine differ widely.

dhw: I called them “suggestions”, but “guesses” will do. I do not wish to turn them into facts. I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what is his nature. My point is that if you can guess what his human attributes might be, then so can I, and so it is absurd for you to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they invest him with human attributes which are different from those that you suggest/guess (although it was actually you who were “sure” that enjoyment and interest were two of them).

DAVID: I am 'sure' God has reactions to His creations, which we discuss in our human terms. Yes, in His own way, I'm 'sure' He has reactions.

dhw: And we are both sure that if he exists, his actions are the result of his wishes, which would constitute his purpose.

Wow!! More agreement.


DAVID: Having given free will He cannot but be interested in how organisms act. But I see free will as purposefully given without a purpose of providing interest. God's emotional reactions are always secondary.

dhw: I'm not sure what you mean by "free will" in relation to all organisms, since you insist that speciation, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. are directly designed by your God, but whatever it is that you're referring to, please tell us what you think was your purposeful God’s purpose in giving organisms “free will”.

Organisms act freely and therefore can perform unexpected activities is all I pointed out. As for their free will, God obviously did not produce automatons. Simply, they need to act freely as in red in tooth and claw.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, April 26, 2022, 14:36 (702 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […]. I see evolution as a continuum and you split it into segments.

dhw: […] The continuum in terms of speciation is common descent (except when you say here is no continuum (the Cambrian), and the “segments” are the different branches, including all those of the past that did not lead to humans or our food.

DAVID: Your reply is a perfect example of how you split evolution into separate parts. You think God is inconsistent, using the Cambrian. The complexity compared to the Ediacaran is large, but tiny when compared to us with our giant brains. The continuum I've shown you is at the biochemistry level, not the phenotypic level.

You are constantly mistaking yourself for God. It is you who are inconsistent. You use the Cambrian gaps as evidence that God exists, but the gaps break the line from bacteria to us which is essential for your theory that we were the goal from the beginning.The fact that all species are biochemical does not mean that all species were designed to lead to humans plus food! And you even admit that you cannot understand why your God chose to design our species in stages rather than directly although he designed other species without precursors.

DAVID: I've remined you other gaps exist, a major one the plant bloom.

The more gaps there are, the more puzzling it becomes that he would have chosen to design in stages the only species he wanted to design. So maybe there is something wrong with at least one of your theories.

DAVID: Your problem is not recognizing God knows exactly what He is doing and needs to do, as in guaranteeing a proper food supply for all. You've left out part of my proposals in your discussion above. Why?

3.X billion years’ worth of food supplies would not be necessary if his only aim was to design humans plus food! “Your problem is” that you assume you know what God wanted, but can’t figure out how what he did fits in with what he wanted to do. Hence your announcement that you can’t explain “why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation? You constantly disort it!!!” As if one can distort the claim that an inability to explain something is an explanation. And furthermore, “God makes sense only to Himself!” That is to say, your theory makes no sense to you.

“Humanization”

dhw: […] My point is that if you can guess what his human attributes might be, then so can I, and so it is absurd for you to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they invest him with human attributes which are different from those that you suggest/guess (although it was actually you who were “sure” that enjoyment and interest were two of them).

DAVID: I am 'sure' God has reactions to His creations, which we discuss in our human terms. Yes, in His own way, I'm 'sure' He has reactions. […]

This would mean there is no enjoyment and interest until after the actions. Since you believe he was hard at work for 3.X billion years creating each species, natural wonder etc., I’m a bit surprised that he didn’t realize he was enjoying the job until after he’d performed each action, or that his creations would be interesting for him! However, since you reject even the possibility that his purpose might have been enjoyment and interest, I asked you what you thought “was your purposeful God’s purpose in giving organisms “free will”.

DAVID: Organisms act freely and therefore can perform unexpected activities is all I pointed out. As for their free will, God obviously did not produce automatons. Simply, they need to act freely as in red in tooth and claw.

You have carefully avoided answering the question, though I’m happy with your answer, which supports my proposal that your God would prefer the unexpected to the expected (far more interesting) and that he did NOT specifically design carnivorousness but left it to the organisms (cell communities) to design their own methods of survival. Perhaps the reason why you avoided answering the question is that you believe your God’s one and only purpose in all his designs was to produce homo sapiens plus food, and you have realized that this does not fit in with the history of life as we know it.

Biochemical controls

DAVID: God knows what He is doing even if dhw has doubts with his second-guessing. It seems agnostics know better than God how to do things.

Another of your silly distortions. Of course if an all-powerful God exists, he will know what he is doing. I have made no criticism of the system or of God. On the contrary, I have gone out of my way to emphasize that if God is all-powerful then the system we have must be the system he wanted! Not a system containing errors he did not want and could not control, but a system in which the different cells had the capability of taking their own decisions – i.e. were given the “free will” you have just unwittingly endowed them with.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 26, 2022, 15:59 (702 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your reply is a perfect example of how you split evolution into separate parts. You think God is inconsistent, using the Cambrian. The complexity compared to the Ediacaran is large, but tiny when compared to us with our giant brains. The continuum I've shown you is at the biochemistry level, not the phenotypic level.

dhw: You are constantly mistaking yourself for God. It is you who are inconsistent. You use the Cambrian gaps as evidence that God exists, but the gaps break the line from bacteria to us which is essential for your theory that we were the goal from the beginning.The fact that all species are biochemical does not mean that all species were designed to lead to humans plus food! And you even admit that you cannot understand why your God chose to design our species in stages rather than directly although he designed other species without precursors.

I am not God, and you do not understand how I view God especially when you ask me to explain your distorted views of God' actions. I accept what God has done. As an example, you puzzle over God's enormous universe, when He wanted to produce us. My view is God did what He had to do. We humans will puzzle over it and try to research as to why, and not imply it shouldn't be there.


DAVID: I've remined you other gaps exist, a major one the plant bloom.

dhw: The more gaps there are, the more puzzling it becomes that he would have chosen to design in stages the only species he wanted to design. So maybe there is something wrong with at least one of your theories.

What is wrong is your using your reasoning against God's. Ancient Hebrew 'deyanu' philosophy works better than your view of God.


DAVID: Your problem is not recognizing God knows exactly what He is doing and needs to do, as in guaranteeing a proper food supply for all. You've left out part of my proposals in your discussion above. Why?

dhw: 3.X billion years’ worth of food supplies would not be necessary if his only aim was to design humans plus food! “Your problem is” that you assume you know what God wanted but can’t figure out how what he did fits in with what he wanted to do. Hence your announcement that you can’t explain “why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation? You constantly distort it!!!” As if one can distort the claim that an inability to explain something is an explanation. And furthermore, “God makes sense only to Himself!” That is to say, your theory makes no sense to you.

See above your statement for full explanations. Your total misunderstanding of how I view God is revealed clearly in this last diatribe.


“Humanization”

DAVID: Organisms act freely and therefore can perform unexpected activities is all I pointed out. As for their free will, God obviously did not produce automatons. Simply, they need to act freely as in red in tooth and claw.

dhw: You have carefully avoided answering the question, though I’m happy with your answer, which supports my proposal that your God would prefer the unexpected to the expected (far more interesting) and that he did NOT specifically design carnivorousness but left it to the organisms (cell communities) to design their own methods of survival. Perhaps the reason why you avoided answering the question is that you believe your God’s one and only purpose in all his designs was to produce homo sapiens plus food, and you have realized that this does not fit in with the history of life as we know it.

Your usual twisted view of my views. The history of life fits exactly what God wanted to create. The endpoint of evolution is humans, which therefore is a God purpose.

Biochemical controls

DAVID: God knows what He is doing even if dhw has doubts with his second-guessing. It seems agnostics know better than God how to do things.

dhw: Another of your silly distortions. Of course., if an all-powerful God exists, he will know what he is doing. I have made no criticism of the system or of God. On the contrary, I have gone out of my way to emphasize that if God is all-powerful then the system we have must be the system he wanted! Not a system containing errors he did not want and could not control, but a system in which the different cells had the capability of taking their own decisions – i.e. were given the “free will” you have just unwittingly endowed them with.

Your usual pipe dreams that either God couldn't do what He wanted which is a perfect system without errors or He chose an uncontrolled free-for-all just to enjoy the unexpected battles. It is obvious God gave us the best system available always under his controls.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, April 27, 2022, 08:30 (702 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] You think God is inconsistent, using the Cambrian.

dhw: You are constantly mistaking yourself for God. It is you who are inconsistent. […] (There’s not enough space to repeat yesterday’s Cambrian example.)

DAVID: I am not God, and you do not understand how I view God especially when you ask me to explain your distorted views of God' actions. I accept what God has done. As an example, you puzzle over God's enormous universe, when He wanted to produce us. My view is God did what He had to do. We humans will puzzle over it and try to research as to why, and not imply it shouldn't be there.

I have not implied it shouldn’t be there! You assume that your God’s sole purpose right from the start was to produce us! I ask why you think your God would create countless solar systems and life forms if he only wanted one solar system and one life form plus food. You can’t answer. So maybe your God did NOT want just us and our food right from the start.

DAVID: What is wrong is your using your reasoning against God's. […]

Nobody knows God’s reasoning or purpose. You can find no logical reason why he should use your theoretical method to achieve your theoretical goal, and then you pretend that I’m questioning his reasoning instead of yours!

DAVID: Your problem is not recognizing God knows exactly what He is doing and needs to do, as in guaranteeing a proper food supply for all. You've left out part of my proposals in your discussion above. Why?

dhw: 3.X billion years’ worth of food supplies would not be necessary if his only aim was to design humans plus food! […] Hence your announcement that you can’t explain “why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” […] And furthermore, “God makes sense only to Himself!” That is to say, your theory makes no sense to you.

DAVID: See above your statement for full explanations. Your total misunderstanding of how I view God is revealed clearly in this last diatribe.

If you tell me you have explained God’s reasoning by saying you can’t explain it, and you tell me he makes sense only to Himself, what is there to misunderstand?

Humanization

dhw: I asked you what you thought was your purposeful God’s purpose in giving organisms “free will”.

DAVID: Organisms act freely and therefore can perform unexpected activities is all I pointed out. As for their free will, God obviously did not produce automatons. Simply, they need to act freely as in red in tooth and claw.

dhw: You have carefully avoided answering the question, though I’m happy with your answer, which supports my proposal that your God would prefer the unexpected to the expected (far more interesting) and that he did NOT specifically design carnivorousness but left it to the organisms (cell communities) to design their own methods of survival. Perhaps the reason why you avoided answering the question is that you believe your God’s one and only purpose in all his designs was to produce homo sapiens plus food, and you have realized that this does not fit in with the history of life as we know it.

DAVID: Your usual twisted view of my views. The history of life fits exactly what God wanted to create. The endpoint of evolution is humans, which therefore is a God purpose.

If God exists, I have no doubt that the history of life fits exactly what he wanted to create. And since the history reveals countless life forms and econiches that did not lead to humans plus food, it makes no sense to argue that every life form and econiche was preparation for and part of his one and only goal (not “a” but “the” purpose) of designing humans plus food.

Biochemical controls

DAVID: God knows what He is doing even if dhw has doubts with his second-guessing. It seems agnostics know better than God how to do things.

dhw: […] I have made no criticism of the system or of God. On the contrary, I have gone out of my way to emphasize that if God is all-powerful then the system we have must be the system he wanted! Not a system containing errors he did not want and could not control, but a system in which the different cells had the capability of taking their own decisions – i.e. were given the “free will” you have just unwittingly endowed them with.

DAVID: Your usual pipe dreams that either God couldn't do what He wanted which is a perfect system without errors……

It is you who tell us that he had no choice (despite the fact that he made choices) and “had to” produce this system, and tried to correct the “errors”, which can only mean he didn’t want the “errors”.

DAVID: …or He chose an uncontrolled free-for-all just to enjoy the unexpected battles. It is obvious God gave us the best system available always under his controls.

Once again, “best system available” suggests a choice, and “always under his controls” is clearly nonsense, since you say the “errors” were unavoidable, though he did his best to correct them. (See “Humanization” for more on God’s limitations and the free-for-all).

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 27, 2022, 18:10 (701 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You assume that your God’s sole purpose right from the start was to produce us! I ask why you think your God would create countless solar systems and life forms if he only wanted one solar system and one life form plus food. You can’t answer. So maybe your God did NOT want just us and our food right from the start.

Crazy contortion. God obviously modifies or evolves His creations over time. See past discussions I've presented. Why can't He have goals from the beginning? And work toward them?

dhw: 3.X billion years’ worth of food supplies would not be necessary if his only aim was to design humans plus food! […] Hence your announcement that you can’t explain “why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” […] And furthermore, “God makes sense only to Himself!” That is to say, your theory makes no sense to you.

Great example of how you are mistaken in how to view God. To repeat the obvious: "God obviously modifies or evolves His creations over time. See past discussions I've presented. Why can't He have goals [set] from the beginning? And work toward them?" It is easy for believers to accept that choice by God.


Humanization

dhw: I asked you what you thought was your purposeful God’s purpose in giving organisms “free will”.

DAVID: Organisms act freely and therefore can perform unexpected activities is all I pointed out. As for their free will, God obviously did not produce automatons. Simply, they need to act freely as in red in tooth and claw.

dhw: You have carefully avoided answering the question, though I’m happy with your answer, which supports my proposal that your God would prefer the unexpected to the expected (far more interesting) and that he did NOT specifically design carnivorousness but left it to the organisms (cell communities) to design their own methods of survival. Perhaps the reason why you avoided answering the question is that you believe your God’s one and only purpose in all his designs was to produce homo sapiens plus food, and you have realized that this does not fit in with the history of life as we know it.

DAVID: Your usual twisted view of my views. The history of life fits exactly what God wanted to create. The endpoint of evolution is humans, which therefore is a God purpose.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that the history of life fits exactly what he wanted to create. And since the history reveals countless life forms and econiches that did not lead to humans plus food, it makes no sense to argue that every life form and econiche was preparation for and part of his one and only goal (not “a” but “the” purpose) of designing humans plus food.

But please finally recognize, the huge bush not related to producing humans is their food. Without it the current human population would starve.


Biochemical controls

dhw: […] I have made no criticism of the system or of God. On the contrary, I have gone out of my way to emphasize that if God is all-powerful then the system we have must be the system he wanted! Not a system containing errors he did not want and could not control, but a system in which the different cells had the capability of taking their own decisions – i.e. were given the “free will” you have just unwittingly endowed them with.

DAVID: Your usual pipe dreams that either God couldn't do what He wanted which is a perfect system without errors……

dhw: It is you who tell us that he had no choice (despite the fact that he made choices) and “had to” produce this system, and tried to correct the “errors”, which can only mean he didn’t want the “errors”.

Of course, He didn't want errors, but this high-speed system is the only one that produces life. An all-knowing God would recognize the best system available and use it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, April 28, 2022, 12:05 (700 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You assume that your God’s sole purpose right from the start was to produce us! I ask why you think your God would create countless solar systems and life forms if he only wanted one solar system and one life form plus food. You can’t answer. So maybe your God did NOT want just us and our food right from the start.

DAVID:Crazy contortion. God obviously modifies or evolves His creations over time. See past discussions I've presented. Why can't He have goals from the beginning? And work toward them?

Of course he would have had goals from the beginning! But according to you, his one and only goal was Planet Earth to house sapiens plus food, and yet according to you he specially designed countless solar systems and countless life forms and foods which even you agree did not lead to sapiens plus food. And although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he specially designed stage after stage of hominins and homos before designing us. You have admitted you don’t know why, so why do you go on pretending that it makes sense to you? As for modifying his creations, you are at last beginning to creep inch by inch towards the possibility that he did NOT have everything planned right from the start. This ties in with our discussion on “intervention”, which you called “change of course” and which would support two of my alternatives: experimentation or getting new ideas as he goes along.

DAVID: (transferred from “our rare solar system”) Of course, God is constantly intervening to be sure everything goes according to plan. Remember it fits my contention God is always in tight control and knows exactly what He is doing and where He is headed.

I know your contention, and that is why I’m surprised that you think a God in tight control who knows exactly where he is headed should find it necessary to intervene in order to “change course”. For instance if, as you claim, his one and only goal was to design sapiens plus food, it would make sense that if he found that what he was designing did not lead to that goal, he would change course. Hence the theory of experimentation – e.g. dinosaurs didn’t produce the intelligent life that would admire his work and have a relationship with him, so he got rid of them and tried something else. Perfectly logical.

“Humanization”

DAVID:The history of life fits exactly what God wanted to create. The endpoint of evolution is humans, which therefore is a God purpose.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that the history of life fits exactly what he wanted to create. And since the history reveals countless life forms and econiches that did not lead to humans plus food, it makes no sense to argue that every life form and econiche was preparation for and part of his one and only goal (not “a” but “the” purpose) of designing humans plus food.

DAVID: But please finally recognize, the huge bush not related to producing humans is their food. Without it the current human population would starve.

Of course we current humans would starve without our current bush! But yet again you edit out your theory that every PAST organism and PAST food bush was preparation for us and our food bush, although you agree that the past was for the past, and extinct life has no role in current life.

Biochemical controls

dhw: […] I have made no criticism of the system or of God. On the contrary, I have gone out of my way to emphasize that if God is all-powerful then the system we have must be the system he wanted! Not a system containing errors he did not want and could not control, but a system in which the different cells had the capability of taking their own decisions – i.e. were given the “free will” you have just unwittingly endowed them with.

DAVID: Your usual pipe dreams that either God couldn't do what He wanted which is a perfect system without errors……

dhw: It is you who tell us that he had no choice (despite the fact that he made choices) and “had to” produce this system, and tried to correct the “errors”, which can only mean he didn’t want the “errors”.

DAVID: Of course, He didn't want errors, but this high-speed system is the only one that produces life. An all-knowing God would recognize the best system available and use it.

What do you mean by “available”? You seem to have forgotten your belief that nothing was “available” until your God created it. What is your objection to the proposal that instead of designing a system containing “errors” he did not want and, in some cases, was incapable of correcting, your all-powerful God designed precisely the system he wanted to design. After all, every life form dies, so he must have deliberately built means of death into the system – unless you think death was another of the “errors” he couldn’t avoid.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 28, 2022, 16:05 (700 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:Crazy contortion. God obviously modifies or evolves His creations over time. See past discussions I've presented. Why can't He have goals from the beginning? And work toward them?

dhw: Of course he would have had goals from the beginning! But according to you, his one and only goal was Planet Earth to house sapiens plus food, and yet according to you he specially designed countless solar systems and countless life forms and foods which even you agree did not lead to sapiens plus food. And although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he specially designed stage after stage of hominins and homos before designing us. You have admitted you don’t know why, so why do you go on pretending that it makes sense to you? As for modifying his creations, you are at last beginning to creep inch by inch towards the possibility that he did NOT have everything planned right from the start.

I'm not creeping anywhere from the concept God knows exactly what he wants He wants to create. I don't pretend. I accept exactly what history shows us God did. You simply cannot wrap your brain around such a concept.


DAVID: (transferred from “our rare solar system”) Of course, God is constantly intervening to be sure everything goes according to plan. Remember it fits my contention God is always in tight control and knows exactly what He is doing and where He is headed.

dhw: I know your contention, and that is why I’m surprised that you think a God in tight control who knows exactly where he is headed should find it necessary to intervene in order to “change course”. For instance if, as you claim, his one and only goal was to design sapiens plus food, it would make sense that if he found that what he was designing did not lead to that goal, he would change course. Hence the theory of experimentation – e.g. dinosaurs didn’t produce the intelligent life that would admire his work and have a relationship with him, so he got rid of them and tried something else. Perfectly logical.

We have agreed that God dabbling along the way is a reasonable concept.


“Humanization”

DAVID: But please finally recognize, the huge bush not related to producing humans is their food. Without it the current human population would starve.

dhw: Of course we current humans would starve without our current bush! But yet again you edit out your theory that every PAST organism and PAST food bush was preparation for us and our food bush, although you agree that the past was for the past, and extinct life has no role in current life.

Isn't the concept of evolution that the past leads to the future, the past the precursor? But you keep it sliced up in your mind.


Biochemical controls

dhw: […] I have made no criticism of the system or of God. On the contrary, I have gone out of my way to emphasize that if God is all-powerful then the system we have must be the system he wanted! Not a system containing errors he did not want and could not control, but a system in which the different cells had the capability of taking their own decisions – i.e. were given the “free will” you have just unwittingly endowed them with.

DAVID: Your usual pipe dreams that either God couldn't do what He wanted which is a perfect system without errors……

dhw: It is you who tell us that he had no choice (despite the fact that he made choices) and “had to” produce this system, and tried to correct the “errors”, which can only mean he didn’t want the “errors”.

DAVID: Of course, He didn't want errors, but this high-speed system is the only one that produces life. An all-knowing God would recognize the best system available and use it.

dhw: What do you mean by “available”? You seem to have forgotten your belief that nothing was “available” until your God created it. What is your objection to the proposal that instead of designing a system containing “errors” he did not want and, in some cases, was incapable of correcting, your all-powerful God designed precisely the system he wanted to design. After all, every life form dies, so he must have deliberately built means of death into the system – unless you think death was another of the “errors” he couldn’t avoid.

Of course He designed the system He wished to have. Thank you for recognizing all organisms are designed to die. I made exactly that point here years ago in response to some quote of yours that needed correction.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, April 29, 2022, 11:43 (699 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God obviously modifies or evolves His creations over time. See past discussions I've presented. Why can't He have goals from the beginning? And work toward them?

dhw: Of course he would have had goals from the beginning! But according to you, his one and only goal was Planet Earth to house sapiens plus food, and yet according to you he specially designed countless solar systems and countless life forms and foods which even you agree did not lead to sapiens plus food. And although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he specially designed stage after stage of hominins and homos before designing us. You have admitted you don’t know why, so why do you go on pretending that it makes sense to you? As for modifying his creations, you are at last beginning to creep inch by inch towards the possibility that he did NOT have everything planned right from the start.

DAVID: I'm not creeping anywhere from the concept God knows exactly what he wants He wants to create. I don't pretend. I accept exactly what history shows us God did. You simply cannot wrap your brain around such a concept.

I agree that God, if he exists, would know exactly what he wants. He could have wanted to create a free-for-all, or he could have wanted to create a being like himself and kept experimenting until he finally got what he wanted. Both theories would explain why he created the higgledy-piggledy history of life, as opposed to a theory which has him doing things you can’t explain. But “you simply cannot wrap your brain” round such logical explanations of what history shows us.

Rare solar system

DAVID: Of course, God is constantly intervening to be sure everything goes according to plan. Remember it fits my contention God is always in tight control and knows exactly what He is doing and where He is headed.

dhw: I know your contention, and that is why I’m surprised that you think a God in tight control who knows exactly where he is headed should find it necessary to intervene in order to “change course”. For instance if, as you claim, his one and only goal was to design sapiens plus food, it would make sense that if he found that what he was designing did not lead to that goal, he would change course. Hence the theory of experimentation. […]

DAVID: We have agreed that God dabbling along the way is a reasonable concept.

Yes indeed, extremely reasonable, as it explains the many changes of direction which indicate that he had not got everything planned from the start, or did not know exactly where he was heading.

Chixculub

DAVID: An amazing sudden environmental change that forced evolution into totally new directions. […]

dhw: […[]I would suggest that evolution being “forced into totally new directions” fully supports the point that your God did NOT specifically design every single extinct life form and econiche as preparation for and part of “the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” plus our food, or if he did, he got it wrong and kept experimenting until he got it right.

DAVID: Thank you for agreeing adequate food supply is an intimate part of evolution.

I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing. It’s the “totally new directions” that denote the illogicality of your theory.

Humanization

DAVID: But please finally recognize, the huge bush not related to producing humans is their food. Without it the current human population would starve.

dhw: Of course we current humans would starve without our current bush! But yet again you edit out your theory that every PAST organism and PAST food bush was preparation for us and our food bush, although you agree that the past was for the past, and extinct life has no role in current life.

DAVID: Isn't the concept of evolution that the past leads to the future, the past the precursor? But you keep it sliced up in your mind.

That is a concept of time. You keep agreeing that most past life forms and food bushes did not lead to us and our food, so please stop hiding behind vague generalizations.

Biochemical controls

DAVID: Of course, He didn't want errors, but this high-speed system is the only one that produces life. An all-knowing God would recognize the best system available and use it.

dhw: What do you mean by “available”? You seem to have forgotten your belief that nothing was “available” until your God created it. What is your objection to the proposal that instead of designing a system containing “errors” he did not want and, in some cases, was incapable of correcting, your all-powerful God designed precisely the system he wanted to design. After all, every life form dies, so he must have deliberately built means of death into the system – unless you think death was another of the “errors” he couldn’t avoid.

DAVID: Of course He designed the system He wished to have. Thank you for recognizing all organisms are designed to die. I made exactly that point here years ago in response to some quote of yours that needed correction.

So why do you keep harping on about “errors” and your all-powerful God’s efforts – often in vain – to correct them?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, April 29, 2022, 16:38 (699 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm not creeping anywhere from the concept God knows exactly what he wants He wants to create. I don't pretend. I accept exactly what history shows us God did. You simply cannot wrap your brain around such a concept.

dhw: I agree that God, if he exists, would know exactly what he wants. He could have wanted to create a free-for-all, or he could have wanted to create a being like himself and kept experimenting until he finally got what he wanted. Both theories would explain why he created the higgledy-piggledy history of life, as opposed to a theory which has him doing things you can’t explain.

I can explain everything God has created to my satisfaction. The higgledy-piggledy bush is the ecosystems of food supply. What you keep unreasonably harping on is I cannot give you God's reasons for his actions. We both have guessed at them.


Rare solar system

DAVID: We have agreed that God dabbling along the way is a reasonable concept.n

dhw: Yes indeed, extremely reasonable, as it explains the many changes of direction which indicate that he had not got everything planned from the start, or did not know exactly where he was heading.

Not at all. Simply adjustments as necessary to follow His purposes, set up well in advance.


Humanization

DAVID: Isn't the concept of evolution that the past leads to the future, the past the precursor? But you keep it sliced up in your mind.

dhw: That is a concept of time. You keep agreeing that most past life forms and food bushes did not lead to us and our food, so please stop hiding behind vague generalizations.

Your usual distortion. The past is the necessary precursor for the future. We can trace our appearance from bacteria.


Biochemical controls

DAVID: Of course He designed the system He wished to have. Thank you for recognizing all organisms are designed to die. I made exactly that point here years ago in response to some quote of yours that needed correction.

dhw: So why do you keep harping on about “errors” and your all-powerful God’s efforts – often in vain – to correct them?

You refuse to recognize the truth about our living biochemistry system. To repeat: trillions upon trillions of reactions occur every nanosecond. Therefore, errors are extremely rare. Your usual resisting bias is showing.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, April 30, 2022, 08:58 (699 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'm not creeping anywhere from the concept God knows exactly what he wants He wants to create. I don't pretend. I accept exactly what history shows us God did. You simply cannot wrap your brain around such a concept.

dhw: I agree that God, if he exists, would know exactly what he wants. He could have wanted to create a free-for-all, or he could have wanted to create a being like himself and kept experimenting until he finally got what he wanted. Both theories would explain why he created the higgledy-piggledy history of life, as opposed to a theory which has him doing things you can’t explain.

DAVID: I can explain everything God has created to my satisfaction. The higgledy-piggledy bush is the ecosystems of food supply.

But not food supply for humans, though you tell us that all past life forms, econiches etc. were preparation for us and our food supply.

DAVID: What you keep unreasonably harping on is I cannot give you God's reasons for his actions. We both have guessed at them.

You always pretend that my criticisms of your theories are criticisms of God. I offer alternative, logical theories (not beliefs) while you cling to one, the logic of which is unfindable!

DAVID: We have agreed that God dabbling along the way is a reasonable concept.

dhw: Yes indeed, it's extremely reasonable, as it explains the many changes of direction which indicate that he had not got everything planned from the start, or did not know exactly where he was heading.

DAVID: Not at all. Simply adjustments as necessary to follow His purposes, set up well in advance.

Yes, that is the theory of experimentation: he begins with a purpose, and makes adjustments (according to you, the dinosaur extinction meant “totally new directions”) when he finds that his work is not heading towards fulfilment of his purpose. Thank you for supporting this particular theory.

Humanization

DAVID: Isn't the concept of evolution that the past leads to the future, the past the precursor? But you keep it sliced up in your mind.

dhw: That is a concept of time. You keep agreeing that most past life forms and food bushes did not lead to us and our food, so please stop hiding behind vague generalizations.

DAVID: Your usual distortion. The past is the necessary precursor for the future. We can trace our appearance from bacteria.

Past and future are the sequence of time. That doesn’t mean that every past event is preparation for every future event! I’m delighted to hear that you can trace our appearance from bacteria, as that is the basic tenet of common descent – that the colossally diverse bush of life forms extant and extinct all go back to bacteria. The difference between us is that you think every single life form was designed to prepare for us humans, and yet the lack of fossils and your belief that we descend from animals with no precursors (which you use as evidence of separate, direct speciation and hence of God’s existence) suggest that we do not go back to bacteria.

Biochemical controls

DAVID: Of course He designed the system He wished to have. Thank you for recognizing all organisms are designed to die. I made exactly that point here years ago in response to some quote of yours that needed correction.

dhw: So why do you keep harping on about “errors” and your all-powerful God’s efforts – often in vain – to correct them?

DAVID: You refuse to recognize the truth about our living biochemistry system. To repeat: trillions upon trillions of reactions occur every nanosecond. Therefore, errors are extremely rare. Your usual resisting bias is showing.

I do not dispute your description of our living biochemistry system. The rarity of what you call “errors” results in countless diseases and deaths, but in any case is totally irrelevant to our discussion. You call them “errors”, and you say your all-powerful God didn’t want them and tried to correct them, but in some cases couldn’t. I suggest that an all-powerful God designed the system precisely as he wanted it, because without the freedom of cells to diversify both creatively and destructively, there would have been no evolution and – our latest agreement – no death, which I take to have been integral to his plans for a constantly changing history of life.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 30, 2022, 15:13 (698 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I can explain everything God has created to my satisfaction. The higgledy-piggledy bush is the ecosystems of food supply.

dhw: But not food supply for humans, though you tell us that all past life forms, econiches etc. were preparation for us and our food supply.

In any evolutionary process, by definition, teh pastv prepares for the future


DAVID: We have agreed that God dabbling along the way is a reasonable concept.

dhw: Yes indeed, it's extremely reasonable, as it explains the many changes of direction which indicate that he had not got everything planned from the start, or did not know exactly where he was heading.

DAVID: Not at all. Simply adjustments as necessary to follow His purposes, set up well in advance.

dhw: Yes, that is the theory of experimentation: he begins with a purpose, and makes adjustments (according to you, the dinosaur extinction meant “totally new directions”) when he finds that his work is not heading towards fulfilment of his purpose. Thank you for supporting this particular theory.

God's eyes are always on His final intent. I can accept dabbles/adjustments along the way.


Humanization

DAVID: Your usual distortion. The past is the necessary precursor for the future. We can trace our appearance from bacteria.

dhw: Past and future are the sequence of time. That doesn’t mean that every past event is preparation for every future event! I’m delighted to hear that you can trace our appearance from bacteria, as that is the basic tenet of common descent – that the colossally diverse bush of life forms extant and extinct all go back to bacteria. The difference between us is that you think every single life form was designed to prepare for us humans, and yet the lack of fossils and your belief that we descend from animals with no precursors (which you use as evidence of separate, direct speciation and hence of God’s existence) suggest that we do not go back to bacteria.

Now you try to deny first life was bacterial, and bacterial processes in biochemistry are not represented in our biochemistry?


Biochemical controls

dhw: So why do you keep harping on about “errors” and your all-powerful God’s efforts – often in vain – to correct them?

DAVID: You refuse to recognize the truth about our living biochemistry system. To repeat: trillions upon trillions of reactions occur every nanosecond. Therefore, errors are extremely rare. Your usual resisting bias is showing.

dhw: I do not dispute your description of our living biochemistry system. The rarity of what you call “errors” results in countless diseases and deaths, but in any case is totally irrelevant to our discussion. You call them “errors”, and you say your all-powerful God didn’t want them and tried to correct them, but in some cases couldn’t. I suggest that an all-powerful God designed the system precisely as he wanted it, because without the freedom of cells to diversify both creatively and destructively, there would have been no evolution and – our latest agreement – no death, which I take to have been integral to his plans for a constantly changing history of life.

The directionality of evolution from simple life forms to very complex life forms is obvious. My view of God would not have a free-for-all form of directionless evolution. You have the cells themselves producing a direction of evolution. All the evidence of cell activity we see is automatic, nothing more.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, May 01, 2022, 08:32 (698 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I can explain everything God has created to my satisfaction. The higgledy-piggledy bush is the ecosystems of food supply.

dhw: But not food supply for humans, though you tell us that all past life forms, econiches etc. were preparation for us and our food supply.

DAVID: In any evolutionary process, by definition, the past prepares for the future.

In common descent, one past species leads to (not the same as “prepares for”) a future species. Alternatively, it may continue as itself, or die out altogether and lead to nothing. How does that come to mean that every species and econiche that ever lived and died was specially designed as preparation for current humans and econiches although, in your own words, “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time”?

DAVID: We have agreed that God dabbling along the way is a reasonable concept.[…]

dhw: Yes, that is the theory of experimentation: he begins with a purpose, and makes adjustments (according to you, the dinosaur extinction meant “totally new directions”) when he finds that his work is not heading towards fulfilment of his purpose. Thank you for supporting this particular theory.

DAVID: God's eyes are always on His final intent. I can accept dabbles/adjustments along the way.

And you can accept him moving in “totally new directions”. If his eyes are always on his final attempt, and he keeps “adjusting”, that is experimentation. Thank you for repeating your support for this theory.

DAVID: […] We can trace our appearance from bacteria.

dhw: […] I’m delighted to hear that you can trace our appearance from bacteria, as that is the basic tenet of common descent – that the colossally diverse bush of life forms extant and extinct all go back to bacteria. […] and yet the lack of fossils and your belief that we descend from animals with no precursors (which you use as evidence of separate, direct speciation and hence of God’s existence) suggest that we do not go back to bacteria.

DAVID: Now you try to deny first life was bacterial, and bacterial processes in biochemistry are not represented in our biochemistry?

How can I be denying that first life was bacterial when I have specifically stated that “I do believe there’s a path from bacteria to humans” which is “the basic tenet of common descent”? And of course all life is biochemical. My point is that your claim that the gaps and species without precursors, from which you say we are descended, provide evidence for your God’s existence, simultaneously contradicts the theory of common descent, i.e. a direct line from bacteria to the species “homo sapiens”. You can’t have it both ways.

Biochemical controls

DAVID: You refuse to recognize the truth about our living biochemistry system. To repeat: trillions upon trillions of reactions occur every nanosecond. Therefore, errors are extremely rare. Your usual resisting bias is showing.

dhw: I do not dispute your description of our living biochemistry system. The rarity of what you call “errors” results in countless diseases and deaths, but in any case is totally irrelevant to our discussion. You call them “errors”, and you say your all-powerful God didn’t want them and tried to correct them, but in some cases couldn’t. I suggest that an all-powerful God designed the system precisely as he wanted it, because without the freedom of cells to diversify both creatively and destructively, there would have been no evolution and – our latest agreement – no death, which I take to have been integral to his plans for a constantly changing history of life.

DAVID:The directionality of evolution from simple life forms to very complex life forms is obvious.

Agreed.

DAVID: My view of God would not have a free-for-all form of directionless evolution.

In two of my alternative theories, I have accepted the idea of your God having humans in mind as THE purpose (experimentation) or as A later purpose (new ideas).

DAVID: You have the cells themselves producing a direction of evolution. All the evidence of cell activity we see is automatic, nothing more.

Yes, their direction would be survival. Many scientists would disagree with you that all cellular behaviour is automatic, but I accept that the concept of cells producing their own innovations remains a theory as unproven as your own.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 01, 2022, 16:25 (697 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In any evolutionary process, by definition, the past prepares for the future.

In common descent, one past species leads to (not the same as “prepares for”) a future species....in your own words, “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time”?

Perfectly fits my view from ID. I stand by my interpretations as quoted, not as dhw attempts strangely to twist the interpretations.


DAVID: God's eyes are always on His final intent. I can accept dabbles/adjustments along the way.

dhw: And you can accept him moving in “totally new directions”. If his eyes are always on his final attempt, and he keeps “adjusting”, that is experimentation. Thank you for repeating your support for this theory.

In goal-oriented processes adjustments in design are minor modifications, not experimentation.


DAVID: Now you try to deny first life was bacterial, and bacterial processes in biochemistry are not represented in our biochemistry?

dhw: How can I be denying that first life was bacterial when I have specifically stated that “I do believe there’s a path from bacteria to humans” which is “the basic tenet of common descent”? And of course all life is biochemical. My point is that your claim that the gaps and species without precursors, from which you say we are descended, provide evidence for your God’s existence, simultaneously contradicts the theory of common descent, i.e. a direct line from bacteria to the species “homo sapiens”. You can’t have it both ways.

Yes, I can. See the new ID entry.


Biochemical controls

DAVID:The directionality of evolution from simple life forms to very complex life forms is obvious.

dhw: Agreed.

DAVID: My view of God would not have a free-for-all form of directionless evolution.

dhw: In two of my alternative theories, I have accepted the idea of your God having humans in mind as THE purpose (experimentation) or as A later purpose (new ideas).

DAVID: You have the cells themselves producing a direction of evolution. All the evidence of cell activity we see is automatic, nothing more.

dhw: Yes, their direction would be survival. Many scientists would disagree with you that all cellular behaviour is automatic, but I accept that the concept of cells producing their own innovations remains a theory as unproven as your own.

Agreed, from your standpoint. I think the evidence for a designer is beyond rejection.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, May 02, 2022, 11:05 (697 days ago) @ David Turell

I have combined the two evolutionary threads.

DAVID: In any evolutionary process, by definition, the past prepares for the future.

dhw: In common descent, one past species leads to (not the same as “prepares for”) a future species....in your own words, “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time”?

DAVID: Perfectly fits my view from ID. I stand by my interpretations as quoted, not as dhw attempts strangely to twist the interpretations.

What twist? First you say that all past species and econiches were designed as preparation for us humans and our econiches, and then you agree that they were only designed for the past, not the present, and had no role to play in the present. Even your article on ID today emphasizes gaps, not continuity! (See below.)

DAVID: God's eyes are always on His final intent. I can accept dabbles/adjustments along the way.

dhw: And you can accept him moving in “totally new directions”. If his eyes are always on his final attempt, and he keeps “adjusting”, that is experimentation. Thank you for repeating your support for this theory.

DAVID: In goal-oriented processes adjustments in design are minor modifications, not experimentation.

Moving in “totally new directions” is not minor modification! Are you now withdrawing your comment about the dinosaur extinction?

dhw: […] My point is that your claim that the gaps and species without precursors, from which you say we are descended, provide evidence for your God’s existence, simultaneously contradicts the theory of common descent, i.e. a direct line from bacteria to the species “homo sapiens”. You can’t have it both ways.

DAVID: Yes, I can. See the new ID entry.

Dealt with below.

Biochemical controls

DAVID: My view of God would not have a free-for-all form of directionless evolution.

dhw: In two of my alternative theories, I have accepted the idea of your God having humans in mind as THE purpose (experimentation) or as A later purpose (new ideas).

DAVID: You have the cells themselves producing a direction of evolution. All the evidence of cell activity we see is automatic, nothing more.

dhw: Yes, their direction would be survival. Many scientists would disagree with you that all cellular behaviour is automatic, but I accept that the concept of cells producing their own innovations remains a theory as unproven as your own.

DAVID: Agreed, from your standpoint. I think the evidence for a designer is beyond rejection.

I have always agreed that cellular intelligence could have been designed by your God, and I have always emphasized that I totally accept the logic of intelligent design, which is a major factor in my rejection of atheism.

Importance of enzymes

DAVID: […] they are irreducibly complex and cannot have evolved naturally. Enzymes had to be present when life started. One conclusion fits this. Design is required. Note humans had to start with living bacteria to reach this designed enzyme.

Thank you for yet another highly educational article, putting the case for design. This is where you excel, as in your books. However, the case for design is applicable to the question of God’s existence, but not to your anthropocentric theory of evolution. All forms of life depend on enzymes. For the umpteenth time, that does not provide evidence that all forms of life were individually designed as preparation for and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food.

Gaps by design

DAVID: A few days ago, I mentioned the design gap with the appearance of the radio following the telegraph. dhw commented his usual illogical thinking about a designer in action. The whole point is above. God, as an intelligent agent can make any gap He wishes. dhw's dismay about the Cambrian gap is logic down a rabbit hole. God's design of evolution is a God design, never related to Darwin's thinking. Therefore. obviously, can be different forms of the meaning of common descent. God can wish to evolve humans in His own way over time.

Of course God could make any gap he wished. He could do whatever he wanted. And so you have two problems: 1) both you and this author emphasize the designer’s ability to produce novelty that has no precursor, and since you stress that our species is descended from species that had no precursors, it makes no sense to claim that there is a direct line from bacteria to humans. Secondly, if he only wanted us and our food and can create species directly with no precursors, why didn’t he do so? Hence your extraordinary defence of your theory: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” Coupled with: “God makes sense only to Himself”, which denotes that your theory does not make sense to you. If a theory does not make sense to you, then perhaps you should consider alternatives that do make sense to you. In our discussion above, you agree that your God makes adjustments as he goes along, even to the extent of going in “totally new directions”. This could hardly be a clearer endorsement of the theory that he was experimenting, or that he kept getting new ideas as he went along.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, May 02, 2022, 16:40 (696 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Perfectly fits my view from ID. I stand by my interpretations as quoted, not as dhw attempts strangely to twist the interpretations.

dhw: What twist? First you say that all past species and econiches were designed as preparation for us humans and our econiches, and then you agree that they were only designed for the past, not the present, and had no role to play in the present.

In the past not for the past!!!!


DAVID: In goal-oriented processes adjustments in design are minor modifications, not experimentation.

dhw: Moving in “totally new directions” is not minor modification! Are you now withdrawing your comment about the dinosaur extinction?

We do not know if Chixculub was directed or accidental.

Gaps by design

DAVID: A few days ago, I mentioned the design gap with the appearance of the radio following the telegraph. dhw commented his usual illogical thinking about a designer in action. The whole point is above. God, as an intelligent agent can make any gap He wishes. dhw's dismay about the Cambrian gap is logic down a rabbit hole. God's design of evolution is a God design, never related to Darwin's thinking. Therefore. obviously, can be different forms of the meaning of common descent. God can wish to evolve humans in His own way over time.

dhw: Of course God could make any gap he wished. He could do whatever he wanted. And so you have two problems: 1) both you and this author emphasize the designer’s ability to produce novelty that has no precursor, and since you stress that our species is descended from species that had no precursors, it makes no sense to claim that there is a direct line from bacteria to humans. Secondly, if he only wanted us and our food and can create species directly with no precursors, why didn’t he do so? Hence your extraordinary defence of your theory: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” Coupled with: “God makes sense only to Himself”, which denotes that your theory does not make sense to you.

My theory makes perfect sense to me, but not to you. God, in total control, can form an evolutionary process of His own design, not related to Darwinism which constantly infects your illogical thought. This type of 'common descent' is not Darwin's type. It has huge gaps when the precursor biochemical processes are ready for a gap. The gaps are jumps in body form (phenotypes). The gaps in the fossil record were weel-recognized years ago by Gould!!!

Dhw: If a theory does not make sense to you, then perhaps you should consider alternatives that do make sense to you. In our discussion above, you agree that your God makes adjustments as he goes along, even to the extent of going in “totally new directions”. This could hardly be a clearer endorsement of the theory that he was experimenting, or that he kept getting new ideas as he went along.

Back to your treasured human form of God who is wandering along. Any God wo can create our universe, knows exactly what He is doing.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, May 03, 2022, 09:18 (696 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Perfectly fits my view from ID. I stand by my interpretations as quoted, not as dhw attempts strangely to twist the interpretations.

dhw: What twist? First you say that all past species and econiches were designed as preparation for us humans and our econiches, and then you agree that they were only designed for the past,not the present, and had no role to play in the present.

DAVID: In the past not for the past!!!!

You wrote: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” Will you ever stop contradicting yourself?

DAVID: In goal-oriented processes adjustments in design are minor modifications, not experimentation.

dhw: Moving in “totally new directions” is not minor modification! Are you now withdrawing your comment about the dinosaur extinction?

DAVID: We do not know if Chixculub was directed or accidental.

If it was directed, then your God moved off in a “totally new direction”. If it was an accident, then your God was not in control. Why would he specially design the dinosaurs and then, through sheer chance, move off in a “totally new direction”? Either way, your God changed or was forced to change direction in pursuit of what you believe to have been his one and only goal.

Gaps by design

DAVID: My theory makes perfect sense to me, but not to you. God, in total control, can form an evolutionary process of His own design, not related to Darwinism which constantly infects your illogical thought. This type of 'common descent' is not Darwin's type. It has huge gaps when the precursor biochemical processes are ready for a gap. The gaps are jumps in body form (phenotypes). The gaps in the fossil record were well-recognized years ago by Gould!!!

I am not disputing that there are gaps in the fossil record! Stop dodging! Your explanation of the gaps is that your God directly designed new species which had no precursors and from which, in the case of the Cambrian, we humans are descended. This can only mean that according to you there is no direct line from bacteria to humans! And if God was perfectly capable of directly designing new species with no precursors, and if his one and only aim was to design us and our food, why would he not have designed us directly? Your answer, I repeat: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” Coupled with: “God makes sense only to Himself”, which denotes that your theory does not make sense to you.

dhw: If a theory does not make sense to you, then perhaps you should consider alternatives that do make sense to you. In our discussion above, you agree that your God makes adjustments as he goes along, even to the extent of going in “totally new directions”. This could hardly be a clearer endorsement of the theory that he was experimenting, or that he kept getting new ideas as he went along.

DAVID: Back to your treasured human form of God who is wandering along. Any God wo can create our universe, knows exactly what He is doing.

You have not explained his adjustments and his total change of direction. On the other hand, if he knows what he is doing, the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms and econiches unrelated to humans can be explained by his deliberately creating a free-for-all, along with the option to dabble if he felt like it. You have agreed that all my theories provide logical theistic explanations for the history of life as we know it. The only theory you cannot make sense of is your own.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 03, 2022, 18:44 (695 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Moving in “totally new directions” is not minor modification! Are you now withdrawing your comment about the dinosaur extinction?

DAVID: We do not know if Chixculub was directed or accidental.

dhw: If it was directed, then your God moved off in a “totally new direction”. If it was an accident, then your God was not in control. Why would he specially design the dinosaurs and then, through sheer chance, move off in a “totally new direction”? Either way, your God changed or was forced to change direction in pursuit of what you believe to have been his one and only goal.

Your problem is you want exact info about God's reasoning. NOT AVAILABLE! Dinosaurs were complex new forms when they arrived. The next step to mammals was waiting in the wings. They were the next giant step. I see progression, not your constant confusion about God. Why can't yo9u simply accept God does as what God wants to do, and often the explanation at our level of thought is not clear.


Gaps by design

DAVID: My theory makes perfect sense to me, but not to you. God, in total control, can form an evolutionary process of His own design, not related to Darwinism which constantly infects your illogical thought. This type of 'common descent' is not Darwin's type. It has huge gaps when the precursor biochemical processes are ready for a gap. The gaps are jumps in body form (phenotypes). The gaps in the fossil record were well-recognized years ago by Gould!!!

dhw: I am not disputing that there are gaps in the fossil record! Stop dodging! Your explanation of the gaps is that your God directly designed new species which had no precursors and from which, in the case of the Cambrian, we humans are descended. This can only mean that according to you there is no direct line from bacteria to humans! And if God was perfectly capable of directly designing new species with no precursors, and if his one and only aim was to design us and our food, why would he not have designed us directly? Your answer, I repeat: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” Coupled with: “God makes sense only to Himself”, which denotes that your theory does not make sense to you.

What human can know what another human thinks. Solipsism. You try to enter my brain and tell me I don't make sense to myself. Ridiculous thinking! If you could let yourself think about God and His personage as I do, you would understand. But your brain is frozen in doubt and confusion. Any ID'er thinks as I do. So did Adler.


dhw: If a theory does not make sense to you, then perhaps you should consider alternatives that do make sense to you. In our discussion above, you agree that your God makes adjustments as he goes along, even to the extent of going in “totally new directions”. This could hardly be a clearer endorsement of the theory that he was experimenting, or that he kept getting new ideas as he went along.

DAVID: Back to your treasured human form of God who is wandering along. Any God wo can create our universe, knows exactly what He is doing.

dhw: You have not explained his adjustments and his total change of direction.

I am not an authority on God's thinking/reasoning, much as you wish me to be

dhw: On the other hand, if he knows what he is doing, the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms and econiches unrelated to humans can be explained by his deliberately creating a free-for-all, along with the option to dabble if he felt like it. You have agreed that all my theories provide logical theistic explanations for the history of life as we know it. The only theory you cannot make sense of is your own.

See above. Your brain is a brick wall of confusion. Read 'How to Think About God'. I can mail you my copy, as they are out of print and mine is used one.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, May 04, 2022, 08:45 (695 days ago) @ David Turell

Chixculub

DAVID: Your problem is you want exact info about God's reasoning. NOT AVAILABLE! Dinosaurs were complex new forms when they arrived. The next step to mammals was waiting in the wings. They were the next giant step. I see progression, not your constant confusion about God. Why can't you simply accept God does as what God wants to do, and often the explanation at our level of thought is not clear.

The usual dodge. I do not want information about God’s reasoning, but about yours. I agree that dinosaurs were complex, that mammals took over, and our intellectual ability represents vast progress compared to dinosaurs. I have no idea why you consider progression to be an alternative to “confusion about God”, and I have no doubt that if he exists, God would have done what he wanted to do. And if all he wanted to do was design us and our food, and if he was perfectly capable of designing species directly, I don’t understand why he would not have done so. Your uncertainty over whether the extinction of dinosaurs was deliberate or an accident, and the fact that their extinction led to evolution going off in a “totally new direction” (hardly indicative of a God “in total control”, who knows from the start exactly what he wants and how to get it) both suggest that it is your theory which involves “confusion about God”. And your inability to make sense of it (“God makes sense only to Himself”) seems to me to confirm that the confusion is entirely yours.

DAVID (under “gaps by design”): What human can know what another human thinks. Solipsism. You try to enter my brain and tell me I don't make sense to myself. Ridiculous thinking! If you could let yourself think about God and His personage as I do, you would understand. But your brain is frozen in doubt and confusion. Any ID'er thinks as I do. So did Adler.

You have said over and over again that ID and Adler do not promulgate the theory that your God’s only purpose was to create humans plus food and therefore he designed countless species and econiches that did not lead to humans plus food. As for solipsism, when you make direct statements about your beliefs, I take them to be representative of your true thoughts. You wrote: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”. If you can’t explain a theory, and you think that only God can, I take it to mean that it doesn’t make sense to you.

dhw: […] you agree that your God makes adjustments as he goes along, even to the extent of going in “totally new directions”. This could hardly be a clearer endorsement of the theory that he was experimenting, or that he kept getting new ideas as he went along.
DAVID: Back to your treasured human form of God who is wandering along. Any God wo can create our universe, knows exactly what He is doing.

dhw: You have not explained his adjustments and his total change of direction.

DAVID: I am not an authority on God's thinking/reasoning, much as you wish me to be.

No, you are not. And that is why you should not kid yourself that your illogical, anthropocentric interpretation of God’s purpose and method is a fact, and any other interpretation is to be dismissed, no matter how logical it might be.

dhw: On the other hand, if he knows what he is doing, the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms and econiches unrelated to humans can be explained by his deliberately creating a free-for-all, along with the option to dabble if he felt like it. You have agreed that all my theories provide logical theistic explanations for the history of life as we know it. The only theory you cannot make sense of is your own.

DAVID: See above. Your brain is a brick wall of confusion. Read 'How to Think About God'. I can mail you my copy, as they are out of print and mine is used one.

Thank you for the generous offer, but with a working day that generally runs from 6am till 11pm (with plenty of gaps!) I have very limited time for reading books other than those I translate! And I’m afraid the very title of the book (who can possibly have such authority?) and its influence on your own illogical and often self-contradictory theories concerning your God’s possible purpose, methods and nature, would put it low on my list of priorities. But I accept what you have told me about Adler’s case for design and about the special nature of humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 04, 2022, 16:19 (694 days ago) @ dhw

Chixculub

DAVID: Your problem is you want exact info about God's reasoning. NOT AVAILABLE! Dinosaurs were complex new forms when they arrived. The next step to mammals was waiting in the wings. They were the next giant step. I see progression, not your constant confusion about God. Why can't you simply accept God does as what God wants to do, and often the explanation at our level of thought is not clear.

dhw: The usual dodge. I do not want information about God’s reasoning, but about yours. I agree that dinosaurs were complex, that mammals took over, and our intellectual ability represents vast progress compared to dinosaurs. I have no idea why you consider progression to be an alternative to “confusion about God”, and I have no doubt that if he exists, God would have done what he wanted to do. And if all he wanted to do was design us and our food, and if he was perfectly capable of designing species directly, I don’t understand why he would not have done so. Your uncertainty over whether the extinction of dinosaurs was deliberate or an accident, and the fact that their extinction led to evolution going off in a “totally new direction” (hardly indicative of a God “in total control”, who knows from the start exactly what he wants and how to get it) both suggest that it is your theory which involves “confusion about God”. And your inability to make sense of it (“God makes sense only to Himself”) seems to me to confirm that the confusion is entirely yours.

This is a pean asking me to explain God to you from my reasoning. I have given you my approach to God in all the quotes you despise. I simply accept God's works and try to understand them from the viewpoint God knows exactly what He wants to do at any moment on the way to his goals. Episodes like Chixculub are simply events along the way that make sense to God, and we are left with trying to reach a reasonable interpretation that may or may not satisfy all of us.


dhw: You have said over and over again that ID and Adler do not promulgate the theory that your God’s only purpose was to create humans plus food and therefore he designed countless species and econiches that did not lead to humans plus food. As for solipsism, when you make direct statements about your beliefs, I take them to be representative of your true thoughts. You wrote: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”. If you can’t explain a theory, and you think that only God can, I take it to mean that it doesn’t make sense to you.

It simply means I accept what God did for His reason, as above. And it makes perfects sense to me. It means you do not understand how believers think about God. As for Adler and ID, their views form my views. It does not involve your twisted version of my view of evolution. ID and Adler fully believe God created evolution.


dhw: On the other hand, if he knows what he is doing, the higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms and econiches unrelated to humans can be explained by his deliberately creating a free-for-all, along with the option to dabble if he felt like it. You have agreed that all my theories provide logical theistic explanations for the history of life as we know it. The only theory you cannot make sense of is your own.

DAVID: See above. Your brain is a brick wall of confusion. Read 'How to Think About God'. I can mail you my copy, as they are out of print and mine is used one.

dhw: Thank you for the generous offer, but with a working day that generally runs from 6am till 11pm (with plenty of gaps!) I have very limited time for reading books other than those I translate! And I’m afraid the very title of the book (who can possibly have such authority?) and its influence on your own illogical and often self-contradictory theories concerning your God’s possible purpose, methods and nature, would put it low on my list of priorities. But I accept what you have told me about Adler’s case for design and about the special nature of humans.

Thank you for accepting Adler's view of humans. He uses it as proof of God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, May 05, 2022, 08:37 (694 days ago) @ David Turell

Chixculub

DAVID: Your problem is you want exact info about God's reasoning. […]

dhw: I do not want information about God’s reasoning, but about yours. […]

DAVID: This is a pean asking me to explain God to you from my reasoning.

No, I am asking you to explain (a) the reasoning behind your theory that your God’s sole purpose was to design humans plus food and so he designed countless forms of life and food that did not lead to humans plus food, and (b) why, if humans were his only purpose, he would have chosen to design them in stages instead of directly, although you believe he was perfectly capable of designing species directly without any precursors.

DAVID: I have given you my approach to God in all the quotes you despise.

You have stated that your theory makes perfect sense to you, although “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”.

DAVID: I simply accept God's works and try to understand them from the viewpoint God knows exactly what He wants to do at any moment on the way to his goals.

And I keep agreeing that he would have known exactly what he wanted to do, and since what he did was create a system that produced the higgledy-piggledy bush of life, most of which did not lead to humans, your combined theories do not make sense. (Why have you yet again used the plural “goals”, when you insist that his only goal was humans plus our food?)

DAVID: Episodes like Chixculub are simply events along the way that make sense to God, and we are left with trying to reach a reasonable interpretation that may or may not satisfy all of us.

The whole history of evolution is of events along the way! Your point was that Chixculub took evolution in a totally new direction, which suggests that your God changed his mind, or was not in full control – both of which contradict your theory that his only goal right from the start was humans plus our food and he knew exactly what to do in order to produce them.

dhw: You have said over and over again that ID and Adler do not promulgate the theory that your God’s only purpose was to create humans plus food and therefore he designed countless species and econiches that did not lead to humans plus food. As for solipsism, when you make direct statements about your beliefs, I take them to be representative of your true thoughts. You wrote: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”. “If you can’t explain a theory, and you think that only God can, I take it to mean that it doesn’t make sense to you.

DAVID: It simply means I accept what God did for His reason, as above. And it makes perfect sense to me.

It also makes perfect sense to me that if God exists, he would have had a reason for doing what he did. And I have offered various theories which you agree fit in logically with the history of life as we know it. Your theory alone is such that it cannot be explained even by you.

DAVID: It means you do not understand how believers think about God. As for Adler and ID, their views form my views. It does not involve your twisted version of my view of evolution. ID and Adler fully believe God created evolution.

If God exists, I have no doubt that he created evolution. And I fully accept the logic behind ID, and behind Adler’s use of humans, as evidence for the existence of God. It is your theory of evolution as summarized above which is full of logical flaws, and since you can’t find an explanation, I’m sorry but I cannot accept that this is my fault because you think all believers would accept your illogical theory which apparently only makes sense to God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, May 06, 2022, 00:54 (693 days ago) @ dhw

Chixculub

DAVID: I have given you my approach to God in all the quotes you despise.

dhw: You have stated that your theory makes perfect sense to you, although “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation? ” And “God makes sense only to Himself”.

I can't understand why you don't realize after all these years of battle, that is just the exact way I think about God. It very similar to the way many folks (behind the scenes at the ID convention) think about God and His works. It means your thoughts about how to think about God are different than mine. Those quotes of mine are exact!!!


DAVID: I simply accept God's works and try to understand them from the viewpoint God knows exactly what He wants to do at any moment on the way to his goals.

dhw: And I keep agreeing that he would have known exactly what he wanted to do, and since what he did was create a system that produced the higgledy-piggledy bush of life, most of which did not lead to humans, your combined theories do not make sense. (Why have you yet again used the plural “goals”, when you insist that his only goal was humans plus our food?)

The bush has many goals along the way to finally humans.


DAVID: Episodes like Chixculub are simply events along the way that make sense to God, and we are left with trying to reach a reasonable interpretation that may or may not satisfy all of us.

dhw: The whole history of evolution is of events along the way! Your point was that Chixculub took evolution in a totally new direction, which suggests that your God changed his mind, or was not in full control – both of which contradict your theory that his only goal right from the start was humans plus our food and he knew exactly what to do in order to produce them.

Again, your twisted interpretation. Dinosaurs were around for a great length of time, so it must be obvious they played a major role. When God decide to move on He did. No change of mind I assume, just a planned shift to mammals. They had developed as small animals for some length of time during dinosaurs and were now ready to expand into their current very important role. Shroeder's guess about God's role if any, had no intent to snub God's reasoning. Shroeder's thinking is just like mine. You thought patterns are just not in our fraternity.

DAVID: It means you do not understand how believers think about God. As for Adler and ID, their views form my views. It does not involve your twisted version of my view of evolution. ID and Adler fully believe God created evolution.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that he created evolution. And I fully accept the logic behind ID, and behind Adler’s use of humans, as evidence for the existence of God. It is your theory of evolution as summarized above which is full of logical flaws, and since you can’t find an explanation, I’m sorry but I cannot accept that this is my fault because you think all believers would accept your illogical theory which apparently only makes sense to God.

You can't deny you do not think about God as believers do.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, May 06, 2022, 11:37 (693 days ago) @ David Turell

Chixculub

DAVID: I have given you my approach to God in all the quotes you despise.

dhw: You have stated that your theory of evolution makes perfect sense to you, although “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation? ” And “God makes sense only to Himself”.

DAVID: I can't understand why you don't realize after all these years of battle, that is just the exact way I think about God. It very similar to the way many folks (behind the scenes at the ID convention) think about God and His works. It means your thoughts about how to think about God are different than mine. Those quotes of mine are exact!!!

It is not a question of the way you think about God! Why do you keep hiding behind these vague generalisations? The issue is your theory of evolution, i.e. your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens and our food supply, and yet (a) he individually designed countless species and food bushes that did not lead to H. sapiens, and (b) in spite of his all-powerfulness and ability to design species directly without precursors, he chose to design H. sapiens – his sole purpose - in stages. Do you honestly think that all believers believe these theories of yours, in spite of the fact that you yourself cannot find any sense in them (“God makes sense only to Himself” – your comment when asked to explain your theories)?

DAVID: I simply accept God's works and try to understand them from the viewpoint God knows exactly what He wants to do at any moment on the way to his goals.

dhw: And I keep agreeing that he would have known exactly what he wanted to do, and since what he did was create a system that produced the higgledy-piggledy bush of life, most of which did not lead to humans, your combined theories do not make sense. (Why have you yet again used the plural “goals”, when you insist that his only goal was humans plus our food?)

DAVID: The bush has many goals along the way to finally humans.

This is encouraging news. Apart from the obvious fact that all life forms have to eat, please tell us some of these other goals. I wonder if they might possibly include the idea that because, as you have agreed, he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, one of his goals might have been to create things he would be interested in watching. I wait in suspense for more details.

DAVID: Episodes like Chixculub are simply events along the way that make sense to God, and we are left with trying to reach a reasonable interpretation that may or may not satisfy all of us.

dhw: The whole history of evolution is of events along the way! Your point was that Chixculub took evolution in a totally new direction, which suggests that your God changed his mind, or was not in full control – both of which contradict your theory that his only goal right from the start was humans plus our food and he knew exactly what to do in order to produce them.

DAVID: Again, your twisted interpretation. Dinosaurs were around for a great length of time, so it must be obvious they played a major role.

A major role in what? Until now, you have insisted that all life forms and foods were preparation for and part of “THE goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food. But you have agreed that there is no connection between brontosauruses and us plus our food, so why would he have designed them? You can’t explain it. So maybe they were not part of THE goal.

DAVID: When God decide to move on He did. No change of mind I assume, just a planned shift to mammals.

Why do you assume this, when you don’t even know if Chixculub was a deliberate action or an accident? Wouldn’t a “totally new direction” following an unplanned accident suggest a change of mind, and again, why bother designing the dinosaurs if all he wanted right from the start was H. sapiens?

DAVID: They [mammals] had developed as small animals for some length of time during dinosaurs and were now ready to expand into their current very important role.

Yes, they had developed during the era of the dinosaurs, and when the dinosaurs died out they became dominant. I don’t know how this proves that your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens and the dinosaurs were “part of THE goal etc.” But I’m looking forward to hearing what other goals your God may have had.

I have shifted your sudden introduction of Schroeder to the “miscellany" thread, as it no longer deals with your illogical theory of evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, May 06, 2022, 21:14 (692 days ago) @ dhw

Chixculub

DAVID: I can't understand why you don't realize after all these years of battle, that is just the exact way I think about God. It very similar to the way many folks (behind the scenes at the ID convention) think about God and His works. It means your thoughts about how to think about God are different than mine. Those quotes of mine are exact!!!

dhw: It is not a question of the way you think about God! Why do you keep hiding behind these vague generalisations? The issue is your theory of evolution, i.e. your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens and our food supply, and yet (a) he individually designed countless species and food bushes that did not lead to H. sapiens, and (b) in spite of his all-powerfulness and ability to design species directly without precursors, he chose to design H. sapiens – his sole purpose -in stages.

You refuse to accept what I accept. God knows what He wishes to do and how to do it. You simply object to accepting the evidence from history. Your viewing of God is not how I view God. You raised this weird view years ago, and you are just as nutty in my view. You put human logic against God's.


DAVID: The bush has many goals along the way to finally humans.

dhw: This is encouraging news. Apart from the obvious fact that all life forms have to eat, please tell us some of these other goals. I wonder if they might possibly include the idea that because, as you have agreed, he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, one of his goals might have been to create things he would be interested in watching. I wait in suspense for more details.

No suspense as you are back to humanizing God because He needs 'interests' to watch! Not my view of god!


DAVID: Again, your twisted interpretation. Dinosaurs were around for a great length of time, so it must be obvious they played a major role.

dhw: A major role in what? Establishing the basis for mammals to move forward

DAVID: When God decide to move on He did. No change of mind I assume, just a planned shift to mammals.

dhw: Why do you assume this, when you don’t even know if Chixculub was a deliberate action or an accident? Wouldn’t a “totally new direction” following an unplanned accident suggest a change of mind, and again, why bother designing the dinosaurs if all he wanted right from the start was H. sapiens?

I'll stick with planning for mammals.


DAVID: They [mammals] had developed as small animals for some length of time during dinosaurs and were now ready to expand into their current very important role.

dhw: Yes, they had developed during the era of the dinosaurs, and when the dinosaurs died out they became dominant. I don’t know how this proves that your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens and the dinosaurs were “part of THE goal etc.” But I’m looking forward to hearing what other goals your God may have had.

There were obvious stepwise goals all along the way to humans, the final goal.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, May 09, 2022, 11:23 (690 days ago) @ David Turell

Chixculub

dhw: The issue is your theory of evolution, i.e. your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens and our food supply, and yet (a) he individually designed countless species and food bushes that did not lead to H. sapiens, and (b) in spite of his all-powerfulness and ability to design species directly without precursors, he chose to design H. sapiens – his sole purpose -in stages.

DAVID: You refuse to accept what I accept. God knows what He wishes to do and how to do it. You simply object to accepting the evidence from history.

If God exists, then I accept that he would do what he wished to do. I do not accept your interpretation of what he wished to do and how he did it, because the evidence from history contradicts your interpretation which – as you agree yourself – does not make sense even to you! (“God makes sense only to Himself.”)

DAVID: […] You put human logic against God's.

No, I put my human logic against your human illogicality. There are other theories that would make your God’s actions perfectly logical.

DAVID: The bush has many goals along the way to finally humans.

dhw: […] Please tell us what other goals he had apart from designing humans and our food.

Please answer.

dhw: […] you don’t even know if Chixculub was a deliberate action or an accident? Wouldn’t a “totally new direction” following an unplanned accident suggest a change of mind, and again, why bother designing the dinosaurs if all he wanted right from the start was H. sapiens?

DAVID: I'll stick with planning for mammals.
And
DAVID: There were obvious stepwise goals all along the way to humans, the final goal.

Please tell us how your God’s designing of dinosaurs, and their subsequent deliberate or accidental extinction after about 150 million years, demonstrate that your God’s one and only plan was to design “stepwise” Homo sapiens and our food?

Schroeder (transferred from "More miscellany"):

DAVID: […] Shroeder's thinking is just like mine. Your thought patterns are just not in our fraternity.

dhw: Still learning, changes his presence and his mind, allows nature to rebel (general characteristics illustrated by biblical stories)…..Not quite the same as your all-powerful, always-in-control God who knows and does exactly what he wants right from the start, is it? The extract stops before evolution, so are you sure he believes God designed every species and food bush in preparation for us, and does Schroeder also tell us that only God knows why he didn’t design us directly?

DAVID: I've read all his books, spoken with him personally at a book presentation and I fully believe he would be my twin in these discussions.

The above shows major differences between his concept of God and yours. However, if he really does believe in your combined theories of evolution (as bolded above), which remains the issue in dispute between us, please tell us how he explains what you find impossible to explain.

DAVID: You can't deny you do not think about God as believers do.

dhw: […] In terms of God’s existence, of course I think differently. But that doesn’t mean every believer thinks the same way as you do about God or about evolution! The Schroeder article begins:

"In this groundbreaking exploration, a biblical scholar and M.I.T.-trained physicist combines decades of research to change the debate between religion and science, presenting a new paradigm of how to understand God."

dhw: A new paradigm. So obviously he doesn’t think about God the way a lot of other people do, and that’s even before we get onto your illogical theory of evolution. Anyone can think about God(s), and my agnosticism does not mean I can’t ponder over his purposes, methods and nature as rationally as you or Schroeder – especially when your own theories are so blatantly self-contradictory.

DAVID: See above. Schroeder tried to introduce some of his particle physics background into the discussion, adding science to his biblical beliefs, a new paradigm.
And:
DAVID: You will never understand Schroeder and I simply accept what God obviously did. Adler is the same. God logic is not your feeble human logic. This is why I tell you, you will never understand how we believers view God

See above. Schroeder’s view of God shows that he does not think about God as lots of other believers do – including yourself. You hide behind acceptance of what God did as a means of avoiding the specific details of your combined theories of evolution. Adler doesn’t cover them, and judging by your evasion, I presume Schroeder doesn’t either. If I’m wrong, and if Schroeder echoes you when you say: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”, then I will have to say that Schroeder is just as illogical in his thinking as you are. Somehow, I doubt it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, May 09, 2022, 16:13 (689 days ago) @ dhw

Chixculub

DAVID: The bush has many goals along the way to finally humans.

dhw: […] Please tell us what other goals he had apart from designing humans and our food.

Please answer.

There are many intermediate goals


dhw: […] you don’t even know if Chixculub was a deliberate action or an accident? Wouldn’t a “totally new direction” following an unplanned accident suggest a change of mind, and again, why bother designing the dinosaurs if all he wanted right from the start was H. sapiens?

DAVID: I'll stick with planning for mammals.
And
DAVID: There were obvious stepwise goals all along the way to humans, the final goal.

dhw: Please tell us how your God’s designing of dinosaurs, and their subsequent deliberate or accidental extinction after about 150 million years, demonstrate that your God’s one and only plan was to design “stepwise” Homo sapiens and our food?

Exactly stepwise, each stage setting up the next.


Schroeder (transferred from "More miscellany"):

DAVID: […] Shroeder's thinking is just like mine. Your thought patterns are just not in our fraternity.

dhw: Still learning, changes his presence and his mind, allows nature to rebel (general characteristics illustrated by biblical stories)…..Not quite the same as your all-powerful, always-in-control God who knows and does exactly what he wants right from the start, is it? The extract stops before evolution, so are you sure he believes God designed every species and food bush in preparation for us, and does Schroeder also tell us that only God knows why he didn’t design us directly?

DAVID: I've read all his books, spoken with him personally at a book presentation and I fully believe he would be my twin in these discussions.

dhw: The above shows major differences between his concept of God and yours. However, if he really does believe in your combined theories of evolution (as bolded above), which remains the issue in dispute between us, please tell us how he explains what you find impossible to explain.

He explains it in his terms to me. My theories are from a distillation of Schroeder.

dhw: […] In terms of God’s existence, of course I think differently. But that doesn’t mean every believer thinks the same way as you do about God or about evolution! The Schroeder article begins:

"In this groundbreaking exploration, a biblical scholar and M.I.T.-trained physicist combines decades of research to change the debate between religion and science, presenting a new paradigm of how to understand God."

dhw: A new paradigm. So obviously he doesn’t think about God the way a lot of other people do, and that’s even before we get onto your illogical theory of evolution. Anyone can think about God(s), and my agnosticism does not mean I can’t ponder over his purposes, methods and nature as rationally as you or Schroeder – especially when your own theories are so blatantly self-contradictory.

DAVID: See above. Schroeder tried to introduce some of his particle physics background into the discussion, adding science to his biblical beliefs, a new paradigm.
And:
DAVID: You will never understand Schroeder and I simply accept what God obviously did. Adler is the same. God logic is not your feeble human logic. This is why I tell you, you will never understand how we believers view God

dhw: See above. Schroeder’s view of God shows that he does not think about God as lots of other believers do – including yourself. You hide behind acceptance of what God did as a means of avoiding the specific details of your combined theories of evolution. Adler doesn’t cover them, and judging by your evasion, I presume Schroeder doesn’t either. If I’m wrong, and if Schroeder echoes you when you say: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself”, then I will have to say that Schroeder is just as illogical in his thinking as you are. Somehow, I doubt it.

Schroeder views God just as I do. Read his four books to see it. His guess about Chixculub shows it. Reading a 'blurb' about his books doesn't tell you anything evidentiary. Schroeder helped make me be what I believe.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, May 10, 2022, 09:36 (689 days ago) @ David Turell

Chixculub

DAVID: The bush has many goals along the way to finally humans.

dhw: […] Please tell us what other goals he had apart from designing humans and our food.

DAVID: There are many intermediate goals.

Such as?

dhw: […] you don’t even know if Chixculub was a deliberate action or an accident? Wouldn’t a “totally new direction” following an unplanned accident suggest a change of mind, and again, why bother designing the dinosaurs if all he wanted right from the start was H. sapiens?

DAVID: I'll stick with planning for mammals.
And
DAVID: There were obvious stepwise goals all along the way to humans, the final goal.

dhw: Please tell us how your God’s designing of dinosaurs, and their subsequent deliberate or accidental extinction after about 150 million years, demonstrate that your God’s one and only plan was to design “stepwise” Homo sapiens and our food?

DAVID: Exactly stepwise, each stage setting up the next.

So please tell us how you think your God's special design of the brontosaurus, and then either making or letting it go extinct (what you call going in a “totally new direction”), constituted a stage in his design of H. sapiens plus food.

Schroeder

DAVID: […] Shroeder's thinking is just like mine. Your thought patterns are just not in our fraternity.

dhw: Still learning, changes his presence and his mind, allows nature to rebel (general characteristics illustrated by biblical stories)…..Not quite the same as your all-powerful, always-in-control God who knows and does exactly what he wants right from the start, is it? The extract stops before evolution, so are you sure he believes God designed every species and food bush in preparation for us, and does Schroeder also tell us that only God knows why he didn’t design us directly?

DAVID: I've read all his books, spoken with him personally at a book presentation and I fully believe he would be my twin in these discussions.

dhw: The above shows major differences between his concept of God and yours. However, if he really does believe in your combined theories of evolution [...], which remains the issue in dispute between us, please tell us how he explains what you find impossible to explain.

DAVID: He explains it in his terms to me. My theories are from a distillation of Schroeder.

If Schroeder was able to explain why your God, whose one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, designed countless life forms that did not lead to H. sapiens plus food, and why your God chose to design H. sapiens in stages rather than directly, I’m sure you would remember his explanation. Or did he agree with you that it couldn’t be explained and it only made sense to God?

DAVID: Schroeder views God just as I do. Read his four books to see it. His guess about Chixculub shows it. Reading a 'blurb' about his books doesn't tell you anything evidentiary. Schroeder helped make me be what I believe.

And so did Adler, except that Adler didn’t touch on your illogical theory of evolution, which is the matter in dispute on this thread and which you constantly gloss over with your generalizations. I can only repeat that if Schroeder supports your theory of evolution and can’t explain it, then his thinking is as illogical as yours. As for the blurb, I’m surprised that the concept of a learning God should be included if in actual fact he views God as you do, namely an all-powerful being who knows exactly what he’s doing and has planned all the details in advance.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 10, 2022, 15:03 (688 days ago) @ dhw

Chixculub

DAVID: The bush has many goals along the way to finally humans.

dhw: […] Please tell us what other goals he had apart from designing humans and our food.

DAVID: There are many intermediate goals.

dhw: Such as?

All the branches of the bush to create all the necessary ecosystems.


dhw: Please tell us how your God’s designing of dinosaurs, and their subsequent deliberate or accidental extinction after about 150 million years, demonstrate that your God’s one and only plan was to design “stepwise” Homo sapiens and our food?

DAVID: Exactly stepwise, each stage setting up the next.

dhw: So please tell us how you think your God's special design of the brontosaurus, and then either making or letting it go extinct (what you call going in a “totally new direction”), constituted a stage in his design of H. sapiens plus food.

All part of necessary ecosystems in each stage of evolution.


Schroeder

DAVID: He explains it in his terms to me. My theories are from a distillation of Schroeder.

dhw: If Schroeder was able to explain why your God, whose one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, designed countless life forms that did not lead to H. sapiens plus food, and why your God chose to design H. sapiens in stages rather than directly, I’m sure you would remember his explanation. Or did he agree with you that it couldn’t be explained and it only made sense to God?

DAVID: Schroeder views God just as I do. Read his four books to see it. His guess about Chixculub shows it. Reading a 'blurb' about his books doesn't tell you anything evidentiary. Schroeder helped make me be what I believe.

dhw: And so did Adler, except that Adler didn’t touch on your illogical theory of evolution, which is the matter in dispute on this thread and which you constantly gloss over with your generalizations. I can only repeat that if Schroeder supports your theory of evolution and can’t explain it, then his thinking is as illogical as yours. As for the blurb, I’m surprised that the concept of a learning God should be included if in actual fact he views God as you do, namely an all-powerful being who knows exactly what he’s doing and has planned all the details in advance.

I'm sorry that I don't have time to go back and refresh my memory. What you have from me is a distillation of all I have read and my logical conclusions. In all of our discussions about God's possible personality, we are in wide disagreement. We do not think about God in the same way which keeps us far apart.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, May 11, 2022, 09:22 (688 days ago) @ David Turell

Chixculub

DAVID: The bush has many goals along the way to finally humans.

dhw: […] Please tell us what other goals he had apart from designing humans and our food.

DAVID: There are many intermediate goals.

dhw: Such as?

DAVID: All the branches of the bush to create all the necessary ecosystems.

Necessary for what? You give us your answer under “Role of fungi in ecosystems”:

DAVID: I think by now I 've established the overall importance of ecosystems created by the enormous diverse bush of life. Since living creatures must eat, and the human population has grown so big, the bush must be that enormous. That explains away dhw's compliant that God did not know what He was doing and creating all the bush instead of creating humans straightaway. Accepting humans as God's primary goal, it all makes perfect sense, with God preparing for the huge human population He knew would appear.(dhw’s bold)

Yes, all living creatures must eat, and all the creatures of the past also had to eat. Yes, we need an enormous bush now, but as you so rightly observed, though you may wish you hadn’t: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time”. This makes perfect sense, but makes nonsense of your claim that past bushes were preparation for the huge human population. “Knew would appear” is a strangely passive expression to use when you keep telling us that he actively designed each stage of human development and you have no idea why he didn’t design us directly. Meanwhile, you still haven’t identified any intermediate goals. And finally, my complaint is not that “God did not know what he was doing”. My complaint is that your theory is riddled with contradictions.

Schroeder

DAVID: He explains it in his terms to me. My theories are from a distillation of Schroeder.

dhw: If Schroeder was able to explain why your God, whose one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, designed countless life forms that did not lead to H. sapiens plus food, and why your God chose to design H. sapiens in stages rather than directly, I’m sure you would remember his explanation. Or did he agree with you that it couldn’t be explained and it only made sense to God?

DAVID: […] Reading a 'blurb' about his books doesn't tell you anything evidentiary. Schroeder helped make me be what I believe.

dhw: And so did Adler, except that Adler didn’t touch on your illogical theory of evolution, which is the matter in dispute on this thread and which you constantly gloss over with your generalizations. I can only repeat that if Schroeder supports your theory of evolution and can’t explain it, then his thinking is as illogical as yours. As for the blurb, I’m surprised that the concept of a learning God should be included if in actual fact he views God as you do, namely an all-powerful being who knows exactly what he’s doing and has planned all the details in advance.

DAVID: I'm sorry that I don't have time to go back and refresh my memory. What you have from me is a distillation of all I have read and my logical conclusions. In all of our discussions about God's possible personality, we are in wide disagreement. We do not think about God in the same way which keeps us far apart.

Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. (It won’t, because you continue to push your theory in other posts – e.g. today on fungi.)

Cell splitting DNA controls

QUOTE: "Expecting random mutations to somehow emerge then be “selected” by some blind, aimless, uncaring “agentless act” (as Neil Thomas has put it) to construct this complex system seems beyond rational consideration.

DAVID: Simple cell splitting in the previous entry. This shows how big the evolutionary gap is in the Cambrian explosion. Stem cells at work from sexual reproduction!!!! It is not just the new animals' forms that comprise the gap. Darwin had no idea. A nice taste if ID thinking. Note the bold.

From the very beginning of our discussions, we have agreed that random mutations cannot explain the vast complexities of life. This is called flogging a dead horse. I’m intrigued by your emphasis on the vital role of stem cells in evolution, as this was the subject of a previous discussion in which you played down their importance. But as before, I don’t know enough about the subject to pursue it any further.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 11, 2022, 20:25 (687 days ago) @ dhw

Chixculub

DAVID: I think by now I 've established the overall importance of ecosystems created by the enormous diverse bush of life. Since living creatures must eat, and the human population has grown so big, the bush must be that enormous. That explains away dhw's compliant that God did not know what He was doing and creating all the bush instead of creating humans straightaway. Accepting humans as God's primary goal, it all makes perfect sense, with God preparing for the huge human population He knew would appear.(dhw’s bold)

dhw: Meanwhile, you still haven’t identified any intermediate goals. And finally, my complaint is not that “God did not know what he was doing”. My complaint is that your theory is riddled with contradictions.

I have identified all the developed branches of the bush create the necessary ecosystems. Intermediate goals. You see contradictions you invent because you dop not understand how to view God as a purposeful being. Your constant humanizing is proof.


Schroeder

DAVID: He explains it in his terms to me. My theories are from a distillation of Schroeder.

DAVID: I'm sorry that I don't have time to go back and refresh my memory. What you have from me is a distillation of all I have read and my logical conclusions. In all of our discussions about God's possible personality, we are in wide disagreement. We do not think about God in the same way which keeps us far apart.

dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. (It won’t, because you continue to push your theory in other posts – e.g. today on fungi.)

Cell splitting DNA controls

QUOTE: "Expecting random mutations to somehow emerge then be “selected” by some blind, aimless, uncaring “agentless act” (as Neil Thomas has put it) to construct this complex system seems beyond rational consideration.

DAVID: Simple cell splitting in the previous entry. This shows how big the evolutionary gap is in the Cambrian explosion. Stem cells at work from sexual reproduction!!!! It is not just the new animals' forms that comprise the gap. Darwin had no idea. A nice taste if ID thinking. Note the bold.

dhw: From the very beginning of our discussions, we have agreed that random mutations cannot explain the vast complexities of life. This is called flogging a dead horse. I’m intrigued by your emphasis on the vital role of stem cells in evolution, as this was the subject of a previous discussion in which you played down their importance. But as before, I don’t know enough about the subject to pursue it any further.

You were off course with stem cells. Germ cells was the point. That is wher new code has to act for speciation.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, May 12, 2022, 11:31 (687 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I think by now I 've established the overall importance of ecosystems created by the enormous diverse bush of life. Since living creatures must eat, and the human population has grown so big, the bush must be that enormous. That explains away dhw's compliant that God did not know what He was doing and creating all the bush instead of creating humans straightaway. Accepting humans as God's primary goal, it all makes perfect sense, with God preparing for the huge human population He knew would appear.(dhw’s bold)

dhw: Meanwhile, you still haven’t identified any intermediate goals. And finally, my complaint is not that “God did not know what he was doing”. My complaint is that your theory is riddled with contradictions.

DAVID: I have identified all the developed branches of the bush create the necessary ecosystems. Intermediate goals.

You cut out the whole of my answer to the above! Yet again, necessary for what??? You have left out the crucial part of your theory, plus your own repudiation of it! As bolded above, you insist that 3.X billion years’ worth of ecosystems were all preparation for the huge human population, and yet (as quoted yesterday) “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” These statements make perfect sense, and make nonsense of the claim that past ecosystems were preparation for the current population of humans.

DAVID: You see contradictions you invent because you do not understand how to view God as a purposeful being. Your constant humanizing is proof.

This is not a contradiction invented by me. And if God exists, I have no doubt that he would be purposeful. My alternative theories explain different possible purposes and/or methods, which you dismiss as “humanizing”, yet again contradicting your own perfectly rational agreement that as our creator he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own – not to mention your certainty (related to just one of my alternative theories) that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

Schroeder

DAVID: He explains it in his terms to me. My theories are from a distillation of Schroeder.
And:
DAVID: I'm sorry that I don't have time to go back and refresh my memory. What you have from me is a distillation of all I have read and my logical conclusions. In all of our discussions about God's possible personality, we are in wide disagreement. We do not think about God in the same way which keeps us far apart.

dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. (It won’t, because you continue to push your theory in other posts – e.g. today on fungi.)

Thank you for repeating this, and I fully understand your reluctance to reply. Perhaps I should simply keep repeating it whenever you tell us that your combined theories make perfect sense and that your inability to explain them is an explanation of those theories, which only make sense to God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 12, 2022, 15:52 (686 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Meanwhile, you still haven’t identified any intermediate goals. And finally, my complaint is not that “God did not know what he was doing”. My complaint is that your theory is riddled with contradictions.

DAVID: I have identified all the developed branches of the bush create the necessary ecosystems. Intermediate goals.

dhw: You cut out the whole of my answer to the above! Yet again, necessary for what??? You have left out the crucial part of your theory, plus your own repudiation of it! As bolded above, you insist that 3.X billion years’ worth of ecosystems were all preparation for the huge human population, and yet (as quoted yesterday) “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” These statements make perfect sense, and make nonsense of the claim that past ecosystems were preparation for the current population of humans.

I do not repudiate my theory. It is your approach to evolution as if it were a discontinuous process. Each step in evolution sets up the next! All my quotes are true in that context. Evolution ended in us, very unexpected if the process was simply a chance event process. Itv reeked of purpose.


DAVID: You see contradictions you invent because you do not understand how to view God as a purposeful being. Your constant humanizing is proof.

dhw: This is not a contradiction invented by me. And if God exists, I have no doubt that he would be purposeful. My alternative theories explain different possible purposes and/or methods, which you dismiss as “humanizing”, yet again contradicting your own perfectly rational agreement that as our creator he probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own – not to mention your certainty (related to just one of my alternative theories) that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

Stop using my guesses as in the quotes above, as if they have any theoretical value about God. You know full well I have descried a very purposeful God who selflessly creates what He wishes.


Schroeder

DAVID: He explains it in his terms to me. My theories are from a distillation of Schroeder.
And:
DAVID: I'm sorry that I don't have time to go back and refresh my memory. What you have from me is a distillation of all I have read and my logical conclusions. In all of our discussions about God's possible personality, we are in wide disagreement. We do not think about God in the same way which keeps us far apart.

dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. (It won’t, because you continue to push your theory in other posts – e.g. today on fungi.)

dhw: Thank you for repeating this, and I fully understand your reluctance to reply. Perhaps I should simply keep repeating it whenever you tell us that your combined theories make perfect sense and that your inability to explain them is an explanation of those theories, which only make sense to God.

I don't know where the above comment fits. But I think it refers to yesterday. I engaged myself into a study of my soft agnosticism by reading the thoughtful works of others: Denton, Schroeder, Adler are major influences. The bold shows your distorted thinking about how to think about God. God does what He does without any explanation. We look at what God does/did and look for explanations, which remain at the theoretical level. I look at your amorphous approach to God as a human perversion of Him. What is most surprising is your very logical recognition of design, but you do not take the next obvious step. Design requires a deigning mind. I don't care what you wish to name it. Just recognize that mind must exist and ignore all the confusing religious teaching you had. Then accept the mind acted with its own set purposes. Forget that the mind might possibly have an emotional overlay and wishes for recognition and other consequences. Those are pure guesswork per Adler. The old Hebrews had Deyanu to handle the tough God of their religion. Find your own accommodation at the design level of recognition. I found it works.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, May 13, 2022, 09:26 (686 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: ...you insist that 3.X billion years’ worth of ecosystems were all preparation for the huge human population, and yet […] “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” These statements make perfect sense, and make nonsense of the claim that past ecosystems were preparation for the current population of humans.


DAVID: I do not repudiate my theory. It is your approach to evolution as if it were a discontinuous process. Each step in evolution sets up the next! […]

The process of common descent resulted in continuous steps from one species to the next, but that does not mean every past step from one species to the next was in preparation for H. sapiens plus our food! We are not descended from the brontosaurus, and we do not have brontosaurus on toast for breakfast!

DAVID: Evolution ended in us, very unexpected if the process was simply a chance event process. It reeked of purpose.

All life forms are “unexpected” in an apparently lifeless universe, but you have your God designing them anyway, so they all “reek of purpose”. How does that mean they were all “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus our food? And why design H. sapiens in stages when apparently your God is perfectly capable of direct design? Your answer: you can’t explain why, and “God makes sense only to Himself.”

dhw: […] My alternative theories explain different possible purposes and/or methods, which you dismiss as “humanizing”, yet again contradicting your own perfectly rational agreement that as our creator probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own – not to mention your certainty (related to just one of my alternative theories) that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

DAVID: Stop using my guesses as in the quotes above, as if they have any theoretical value about God. You know full well I have descried a very purposeful God who selflessly creates what He wishes.

My theories all describe a very purposeful God who creates what he wishes. Why “selflessly” when you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates? Why make such guesses if you want me to ignore them? All our theories are guesses, since they are unproven.

Schroeder

dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. […]

dhw: […] I fully understand your reluctance to reply. Perhaps I should simply keep repeating it whenever you tell us that your combined theories make perfect sense and that your inability to explain them is an explanation of those theories, which only make sense to God.

DAVID I don't know where the above comment fits. But I think it refers to yesterday.

It refers to your statements: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself.” […]

DAVID: I engaged myself into a study of my soft agnosticism by reading the thoughtful works of others: Denton, Schroeder, Adler are major influences.

Interesting, but doesn’t answer the questions raised by your inexplicable theories of evolution, which apparently aren’t covered by these thoughtful works.

DAVID: The bold shows your distorted thinking about how to think about God. God does what He does without any explanation. We look at what God does/did and look for explanations, which remain at the theoretical level.

No one can tell anyone else how to think about God! But yes, we look at what he does/did (assuming he exists) and we form theories. Some are more logical than others.

DAVID: I look at your amorphous approach to God as a human perversion of Him.

I offer alternative interpretations of his possible purpose and method. I have no idea why you consider your guess at enjoyment and interest, or my guesses at an experimenting or “learning” God (see Schroeder and Whitehead) to be a human "perversion".

DAVID: What is most surprising is your very logical recognition of design, but you do not take the next obvious step. Design requires a deigning mind. I don't care what you wish to name it. Just recognize that mind must exist and ignore all the confusing religious teaching you had.

All these discussions revolve around the purpose and nature of your God. You constantly try to dodge the issue of your illogical theories of evolution by focusing on the case for God’s existence.

DAVID: Then accept the mind acted with its own set purposes. Forget that the mind might possibly have an emotional overlay and wishes for recognition and other consequences. Those are pure guesswork per Adler. […]

If God exists, then of course he acted with his own set purposes, using his own set methods. Why should I forget your own guesses that there might be an “emotional overlay” and “wishes for recognition” if they are relevant to a possible explanation of his purpose and methods?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, May 13, 2022, 18:16 (685 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Stop using my guesses as in the quotes above, as if they have any theoretical value about God. You know full well I have described a very purposeful God who selflessly creates what He wishes.

dhw: My theories all describe a very purposeful God who creates what he wishes. Why “selflessly” when you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates? Why make such guesses if you want me to ignore them? All our theories are guesses, since they are unproven.

I've told you I am not certain God has to enjoy what He creates. That He MIGHT enjoy it, is as far as one should go.

This continuous ping-pong discussion about God only proves your vision and my vision of God's possible personality are wide apart.

Your totally misunderstanding of my meaning in these quotes is evidence to me:

"dhw: ...you insist that 3.X billion years’ worth of ecosystems were all preparation for the huge human population, and yet […] “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” These statements make perfect sense, and make nonsense of the claim that past ecosystems were preparation for the current population of humans."

I view evolution as a continuous process run by God, and from my viewpoint, the quotes are exactly reasonable in that context. I will stick to that viewpoint.


Schroeder

dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. […]

dhw: […] I fully understand your reluctance to reply. Perhaps I should simply keep repeating it whenever you tell us that your combined theories make perfect sense and that your inability to explain them is an explanation of those theories, which only make sense to God.

DAVID I don't know where the above comment fits. But I think it refers to yesterday.

dhw: It refers to your statements: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself.” […]

DAVID: I engaged myself into a study of my soft agnosticism by reading the thoughtful works of others: Denton, Schroeder, Adler are major influences.

dhw: Interesting, but doesn’t answer the questions raised by your inexplicable theories of evolution, which apparently aren’t covered by these thoughtful works.

If you read them, I am covered fully.


dhw: No one can tell anyone else how to think about God! But yes, we look at what he does/did (assuming he exists) and we form theories. Some are more logical than others.

DAVID: I look at your amorphous approach to God as a human perversion of Him.

dhw: I offer alternative interpretations of his possible purpose and method. I have no idea why you consider your guess at enjoyment and interest, or my guesses at an experimenting or “learning” God (see Schroeder and Whitehead) to be a human "perversion".

We totally differ and will never see eye to eye

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, May 14, 2022, 07:26 (685 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Stop using my guesses as in the quotes above, as if they have any theoretical value about God. You know full well I have described a very purposeful God who selflessly creates what He wishes.

dhw: My theories all describe a very purposeful God who creates what he wishes. Why “selflessly” when you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates? Why make such guesses if you want me to ignore them? All our theories are guesses, since they are unproven.

DAVID: I've told you I am not certain God has to enjoy what He creates. That He MIGHT enjoy it, is as far as one should go.

But you keep changing your tune whenever I quote you. Originally you wrote under “theodicy”: “God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it or I think He would stop.” And “I’m sure God enjoys His work at creating.” There was even this astonishing proposal: “He seems to me full of purposeful activity to create what He desires to create with no other motive than the creations themselves” – though you swiftly backed out of this when I pointed out that it contradicted your fixed belief that his one and only goal was to design humans. And I also noted: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” The modification to “MIGHT” came later, but in fact it makes no difference. You are still allowing for the possibility, and so you can hardly dismiss the theory while at the same time agreeing that it is possible.

DAVID: Your totally misunderstanding of my meaning in these quotes is evidence to me:

dhw: ...you insist that 3.X billion years’ worth of ecosystems were all preparation for the huge human population, and yet […] “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” These statements make perfect sense, and make nonsense of the claim that past ecosystems were preparation for the current population of humans.

DAVID: I view evolution as a continuous process run by God, and from my viewpoint, the quotes are exactly reasonable in that context. I will stick to that viewpoint.

Your usual vague generalisation, which is contradicted elsewhere. Here you harp on about continuity, and in the next breath you’ll harp on about the gaps, which for you provide evidence of your God’s existence. Gaps, in case you hadn’t noticed, are the opposite of continuity. But of course there is continuity, in so far as different life forms have continuously come and gone, every branch developing from earlier branches, but that does not mean that every past life form, branch and ecosystem was preparation for and led to humans and our food – your fixed belief which is contradicted by the above bolded quotes.

Schroeder

dhw: Once again you hide behind vague generalisations. The subject is your illogical, self-contradictory theories of evolution. I don’t understand why you find it necessary to keep dodging like this. You have agreed that you can’t explain your own reasoning, have said quite explicitly that your theory only makes sense to God, so that should end the discussion. […]

dhw: […] I fully understand your reluctance to reply. Perhaps I should simply keep repeating it whenever you tell us that your combined theories make perfect sense and that your inability to explain them is an explanation of those theories, which only make sense to God.

DAVID I don't know where the above comment fits. But I think it refers to yesterday.

dhw: It refers to your statements: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself.[/b]” […]

DAVID: I engaged myself into a study of my soft agnosticism by reading the thoughtful works of others: Denton, Schroeder, Adler are major influences.

dhw: Interesting, but doesn’t answer the questions raised by your inexplicable theories of evolution, which apparently aren’t covered by these thoughtful works.

DAVID: If you read them, I am covered fully.

Then please tell us how they explain your God’s purpose in designing the countless life forms and bushes that did not lead to his one and only goal of humans plus our bush, and why God chose to design his one and only goal (H. sapiens) in dribs and drabs though he was perfectly capable of designing species directly.

dhw: I offer alternative interpretations of his possible purpose and method. I have no idea why you consider your guess at enjoyment and interest, or my guesses at an experimenting or “learning” God (see Schroeder and Whitehead) to be a human "perversion".

DAVID: We totally differ and will never see eye to eye.

Obviously not if you close your eyes to the flaws in your theories and dismiss any logical alternatives for no reason other than the fact that they suggest human thought patterns, although you consider it possible (originally “probable”) that your God has similar thought patterns to ours.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 14, 2022, 15:34 (684 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've told you I am not certain God has to enjoy what He creates. That He MIGHT enjoy it, is as far as one should go.

dhw: But you keep changing your tune whenever I quote you....And I also noted: “I’m sure He sees what is going on with His own level of interest, unknown to us.” The modification to “MIGHT” came later, but in fact it makes no difference. You are still allowing for the possibility, and so you can hardly dismiss the theory while at the same time agreeing that it is possible.

You have rigid approaches in your thoughts about your humanized God. I have never seen you change, but I do. I also have certain rigid rules about viewing God, but as we bounce ideas off each other my reasoning changes as your quotes show. I started my studies in this area of thought forty years ago and I am still evolving, following what continues to appear in print.


DAVID: I view evolution as a continuous process run by God, and from my viewpoint, the quotes are exactly reasonable in that context. I will stick to that viewpoint.

dhw: Your usual vague generalisation, which is contradicted elsewhere. Here you harp on about continuity, and in the next breath you’ll harp on about the gaps, which for you provide evidence of your God’s existence. Gaps, in case you hadn’t noticed, are the opposite of continuity. But of course there is continuity, in so far as different life forms have continuously come and gone, every branch developing from earlier branches, but that does not mean that every past life form, branch and ecosystem was preparation for and led to humans and our food – your fixed belief which is contradicted by the above bolded quotes.

There is no contradiction. God as designer creates the gaps He wishes to create. The contradictions exist in a Godless approach.


Schroeder

DAVID: I engaged myself into a study of my soft agnosticism by reading the thoughtful works of others: Denton, Schroeder, Adler are major influences.

dhw: Interesting, but doesn’t answer the questions raised by your inexplicable theories of evolution, which apparently aren’t covered by these thoughtful works.

DAVID: If you read them, I am covered fully.

dhw: Then please tell us how they explain your God’s purpose in designing the countless life forms and bushes that did not lead to his one and only goal of humans plus our bush, and why God chose to design his one and only goal (H. sapiens) in dribs and drabs though he was perfectly capable of designing species directly.

Simple. All the folks I quote accept what God did as what He wished to do. Your human reasoning that God could/should have directly produce humans implies you know better than God how to create. We simply accept His acts. I repeat, you do not know how to think about God as we do.


dhw: I offer alternative interpretations of his possible purpose and method. I have no idea why you consider your guess at enjoyment and interest, or my guesses at an experimenting or “learning” God (see Schroeder and Whitehead) to be a human "perversion".

DAVID: We totally differ and will never see eye to eye.

dhw: Obviously not if you close your eyes to the flaws in your theories and dismiss any logical alternatives for no reason other than the fact that they suggest human thought patterns, although you consider it possible (originally “probable”) that your God has similar thought patterns to ours.

God is not human. Any real similarity exist only as possibilities. Your note of my change from 'probably' to 'possible' fits my position in our discussion perfectly. By the way, our entries differ in preparation. I simply respond to you in stream of consciousness off the top. In that way my reasoning grows. I am still on my search.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, May 15, 2022, 11:00 (684 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've told you I am not certain God has to enjoy what He creates. That He MIGHT enjoy it, is as far as one should go.

dhw: But you keep changing your tune whenever I quote you [....] The modification to “MIGHT” came later, but in fact it makes no difference. You are still allowing for the possibility, and so you can hardly dismiss the theory while at the same time agreeing that it is possible.

DAVID: You have rigid approaches in your thoughts about your humanized God. I have never seen you change, but I do. […]

I don’t even know if God exists, but in these discussions on the possible purpose, method and nature of your God, I offer a variety of theories of evolution which you agree are logical (and you also agree that your God “might” have human thought patterns). This varied approach is what you call rigid. You have never deviated from your fixed belief that your God created life with a single purpose: to design H. sapiens and his food bush, and all other life forms were designed in preparation for ours. I would call that “rigid”.

DAVID: I view evolution as a continuous process run by God, and from my viewpoint, the quotes are exactly reasonable in that context. I will stick to that viewpoint.

dhw: […] Here you harp on about continuity, and in the next breath you’ll harp on about the gaps, which for you provide evidence of your God’s existence. Gaps, in case you hadn’t noticed, are the opposite of continuity. But of course there is continuity, in so far as different life forms have continuously come and gone, every branch developing from earlier branches, but that does not mean that every past life form, branch and ecosystem was preparation for and led to humans and our food […]

DAVID: There is no contradiction. God as designer creates the gaps He wishes to create. The contradictions exist in a Godless approach.

It is perfectly feasible that if God exists, he would create the gaps he wishes to create. But if there are gaps, the process is not continuous! If you tell us that humans are descended from species which your God designed de novo (with no precursors), you can hardly go on to argue that there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. The fact that all life is biochemical does not explain the gaps. Your self-contradiction has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in God! (See above for my view of continuity.)

Schroeder

DAVID: I engaged myself into a study of my soft agnosticism by reading the thoughtful works of others: Denton, Schroeder, Adler are major influences.

dhw: Interesting, but doesn’t answer the questions raised by your inexplicable theories of evolution, which apparently aren’t covered by these thoughtful works.

DAVID: If you read them, I am covered fully.

dhw: Then please tell us how they explain your God’s purpose in designing the countless life forms and bushes that did not lead to his one and only goal of humans plus our bush, and why God chose to design his one and only goal (H. sapiens) in dribs and drabs though he was perfectly capable of designing species directly.

DAVID: Simple. All the folks I quote accept what God did as what He wished to do. Your human reasoning that God could/should have directly produce humans implies you know better than God how to create. We simply accept His acts. I repeat, you do not know how to think about God as we do.

If God exists, then of course he would have done what he wished to do! How does that mean that the folk you quote all accept your illogical theory of evolution and agree that it only makes sense to God? Here is the result of his wishes: a vast variety of life forms and econiches over 3.X billion years, most of which are extinct and had no direct link to the latest species (H. sapiens) and the latest food bush. H. sapiens himself evolved through many different stages. All agreed. The disagreement arises when you insist that you know God’s wishes, method and nature (your combined theories) which lead to numerous contradictions, and to your confession that you cannot find any logical explanation for your theories, which only make sense to God. I don’t “know better than God how to create”. I simply take as my starting point the possibility that God’s wishes. method etc. etc. might not be as senseless as you make them out to be. […]

DAVID: God is not human.

Of course a creator of universes and life itself cannot be human.

DAVID: Any real similarity exist only as possibilities.

Correct. So you accept that all my alternative, logical theories are possible.

DAVID: Your note of my change from 'probably' to 'possible' fits my position in our discussion perfectly. By the way, our entries differ in preparation. I simply respond to you in stream of consciousness off the top. In that way my reasoning grows. I am still on my search.

Excellent news. Perhaps eventually you will acknowledge that your own rigid theory of evolution is riddled with contradictions, and you will open your mind to alternatives which you have already agreed are logical and indeed possible. :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 15, 2022, 15:46 (683 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have rigid approaches in your thoughts about your humanized God. I have never seen you change, but I do. […]

dhw: I don’t even know if God exists, but in these discussions on the possible purpose, method and nature of your God, I offer a variety of theories of evolution which you agree are logical (and you also agree that your God “might” have human thought patterns). This varied approach is what you call rigid. You have never deviated from your fixed belief that your God created life with a single purpose: to design H. sapiens and his food bush, and all other life forms were designed in preparation for ours. I would call that “rigid”.

I wish you would stop a 'rigidity' of comments in bold on my quote about your type of God theories: I agreed they only fit a very humanized God's actions. I have reached a fixed set of beliefs by opening my mind up to new ideas about Darwin evolution and God, leaving behind an amorphous collections of vague acceptance of previous thought.


DAVID: God as designer creates the gaps He wishes to create. The contradictions exist in a Godless approach.

dhw: It is perfectly feasible that if God exists, he would create the gaps he wishes to create. But if there are gaps, the process is not continuous! If you tell us that humans are descended from species which your God designed de novo (with no precursors), you can hardly go on to argue that there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. The fact that all life is biochemical does not explain the gaps. Your self-contradiction has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in God! (See above for my view of continuity.)

You see it totally backwards. Believers in God see the gaps as proof of His doing. Why was Darwin so disturbed? God's form of evolutionary process is what you confuses you. Only a designer can create the gaps in phenotype, in a process He creates.


Schroeder

DAVID: . All the folks I quote accept what God did as what He wished to do. Your human reasoning that God could/should have directly produce humans implies you know better than God how to create. We simply accept His acts. I repeat, you do not know how to think about God as we do.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he would have done what he wished to do! How does that mean that the folk you quote all accept your illogical theory of evolution and agree that it only makes sense to God? Here is the result of his wishes: a vast variety of life forms and econiches over 3.X billion years, most of which are extinct and had no direct link to the latest species (H. sapiens) and the latest food bush. H. sapiens himself evolved through many different stages. All agreed. The disagreement arises when you insist that you know God’s wishes, method and nature (your combined theories) which lead to numerous contradictions, and to your confession that you cannot find any logical explanation for your theories, which only make sense to God. I don’t “know better than God how to create”. I simply take as my starting point the possibility that God’s wishes. method etc. etc. might not be as senseless as you make them out to be. […]

The problem is your refusal to accept that we believers are content with what God created and the way He decided to do it. We don't question His reasoning, to which we are not privy. We try to understand it. We try to help you in your muddle, but your brain can only see contradictions because of the confused way you think about a god you humanize by giving him human wishes.


dhw: DAVID: God is not human.

Of course a creator of universes and life itself cannot be human.

DAVID: Any real similarity exist only as possibilities.

dhw: Correct. So you accept that all my alternative, logical theories are possible.

Only with my proviso, they only can fit your form of humanized God


DAVID: Your note of my change from 'probably' to 'possible' fits my position in our discussion perfectly. By the way, our entries differ in preparation. I simply respond to you in stream of consciousness off the top. In that way my reasoning grows. I am still on my search.

dhw: Excellent news. Perhaps eventually you will acknowledge that your own rigid theory of evolution is riddled with contradictions, and you will open your mind to alternatives which you have already agreed are logical and indeed possible. :-)

Still at it!!! Your 'possible God type' is nothing I can recognize as possible. ;-) ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, May 16, 2022, 10:35 (683 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have rigid approaches in your thoughts about your humanized God. I have never seen you change, but I do. […]

dhw: I don’t even know if God exists, but in these discussions on the possible purpose, method and nature of your God, I offer a variety of theories of evolution which you agree are logical […] You have never deviated from your fixed belief that your God created life with a single purpose: to design H. sapiens and his food bush, and all other life forms were designed in preparation for ours. I would call that “rigid”.

DAVID: I wish you would stop a 'rigidity' of comments in bold on my quote about your type of God theories: I agreed they only fit a very humanized God's actions.

And you agree that your God might possibly have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own. Therefore you agree that my logical theories are possible.

DAVID: I have reached a fixed set of beliefs by opening my mind up to new ideas about Darwin evolution and God, leaving behind an amorphous collections of vague acceptance of previous thought.
And under “More miscellany”: “Why can't you realize I have no contradictions in my train of thought?”

Thank you for acknowledging that your set of beliefs is fixed – i.e. rigid. At one time, of course you were flexible enough to consider ideas different from those you held originally, but now you have closed your mind. The result is a fixed belief which is so illogical that you are forced to acknowledge you cannot explain it and it “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: God as designer creates the gaps He wishes to create. The contradictions exist in a Godless approach.

dhw: It is perfectly feasible that if God exists, he would create the gaps he wishes to create. But if there are gaps, the process is not continuous! If you tell us that humans are descended from species which your God designed de novo (with no precursors), you can hardly go on to argue that there is a continuous line from bacteria to us. The fact that all life is biochemical does not explain the gaps. Your self-contradiction has nothing whatsoever to do with belief in God!

DAVID: You see it totally backwards. Believers in God see the gaps as proof of His doing. Why was Darwin so disturbed? God's form of evolutionary process is what you confuses you. Only a designer can create the gaps in phenotype, in a process He creates.

I have just pointed out that this is a perfectly feasible view. However, it contradicts your insistence that evolution is a continuous process, as explained in the bold which you have ignored. And if it is not continuous, and we are descended from specially designed species with no precursors, how does that support the view that his one and only purpose from the outset was to design us? You can’t explain it. “It makes sense only to God.”

Schroeder

dhw: […] I simply take as my starting point the possibility that God’s wishes. method etc. etc. might not be as senseless as you make them out to be. […]

DAVID: The problem is your refusal to accept that we believers are content with what God created and the way He decided to do it. We don't question His reasoning, to which we are not privy. We try to understand it. We try to help you in your muddle, but your brain can only see contradictions because of the confused way you think about a god you humanize by giving him human wishes.

You talk as if every Jewish, Christian, Muslim, African, Indian, South American “believer” believes in your combined theories of evolution, which “make sense only to God”. You also try to divert attention from the contradictions in your own beliefs by dismissing my alternatives. These are two separate issues: 1) the flaws in your reasoning (not God’s), and 2) your attempts to dismiss the logic of my alternatives on grounds of endowing God with human attributes (though you agree that these are possible) – which in fact is precisely what most believers do, or have you never heard of believers who think God watches over them, loves them, judges them, wants them to worship him etc.? You have frequently expressed your negative view of the way religions “humanize” God, but perhaps you don’t count religious people as “believers” and only you know how to think about God.

DAVID: Your note of my change from 'probably' to 'possible' fits my position in our discussion perfectly. By the way, our entries differ in preparation. I simply respond to you in stream of consciousness off the top. In that way my reasoning grows. I am still on my search.

dhw: Excellent news. Perhaps eventually you will acknowledge that your own rigid theory of evolution is riddled with contradictions, and you will open your mind to alternatives which you have already agreed are logical and indeed possible. :-)

DAVID: Still at it!!! Your 'possible God type' is nothing I can recognize as possible. ;-) ;-)

What “God type”? If, for instance, you believe it is possible that God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, why is it impossible for you to “recognize” that God might want to enjoy creating and watching his creations with interest?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, May 16, 2022, 19:18 (682 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I wish you would stop a 'rigidity' of comments in bold on my quote about your type of God theories: I agreed they only fit a very humanized God's actions.

dhw: And you agree that your God might possibly have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own. Therefore, you agree that my logical theories are possible.

God is not human. He knows our emotions, but if He has any of them is unknown. To repeat: Your theories about God only fit a very humanized form of God.


dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that your set of beliefs is fixed – i.e. rigid. At one time, of course you were flexible enough to consider ideas different from those you held originally, but now you have closed your mind. The result is a fixed belief which is so illogical that you are forced to acknowledge you cannot explain it and it “makes sense only to God”.

I cannot explain God's works for you. I can only analyze them in view of the picture I have of a very purposeful God who knows His goals, and exactly how to reach them in vast contrast to your God-vision of a humanized bumbler. Of course, God makes sense to himself.


DAVID: God as designer creates the gaps He wishes to create. The contradictions exist in your mind.

dhw: I have just pointed out that this is a perfectly feasible view. However, it contradicts your insistence that evolution is a continuous process, as explained in the bold which you have ignored. And if it is not continuous, and we are descended from specially designed species with no precursors, how does that support the view that his one and only purpose from the outset was to design us? You can’t explain it. “It makes sense only to God.”

A designer who is evolving organisms over time from single cells to us is running a continuous process under his control. There can be gaps in phenotype, but never in biochemistry of life, under his controls. That is an obvious explanation, while you torture quotes into meaninglessness. God's evolution is not Darwinian.


Schroeder

dhw: […] I simply take as my starting point the possibility that God’s wishes. method etc. etc. might not be as senseless as you make them out to be. […]

DAVID: The problem is your refusal to accept that we believers are content with what God created and the way He decided to do it. We don't question His reasoning, to which we are not privy. We try to understand it. We try to help you in your muddle, but your brain can only see contradictions because of the confused way you think about a god you humanize by giving him human wishes.

dhw: You talk as if every Jewish, Christian, Muslim, African, Indian, South American “believer” believes in your combined theories of evolution, which “make sense only to God”.

God's evolution makes sense to me, as non-Darwinian. My theories are a distillation of believer's commentaries, especially ID.

dhw: or have you never heard of believers who think God watches over them, loves them, judges them, wants them to worship him etc.? You have frequently expressed your negative view of the way religions “humanize” God, but perhaps you don’t count religious people as “believers” and only you know how to think about God.

Thank you for recognizing those religious folks are the ones I ignore in my thinking!!!


dhw: Perhaps eventually you will acknowledge that your own rigid theory of evolution is riddled with contradictions, and you will open your mind to alternatives which you have already agreed are logical and indeed possible. :-)

DAVID: Still at it!!! Your 'possible God type' is nothing I can recognize as possible. ;-) ;-)

dhw: What “God type”? If, for instance, you believe it is possible that God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, why is it impossible for you to “recognize” that God might want to enjoy creating and watching his creations with interest?

Still looking at God with human emotions. The purpose of God's creatability is not to satisfy His own emotional desires in my view, vastly unlike yours

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, May 17, 2022, 08:04 (682 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I wish you would stop a 'rigidity' of comments in bold on my quote about your type of God theories: I agreed they only fit a very humanized God's actions.

dhw: And you agree that your God might possibly have thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to our own. Therefore, you agree that my logical theories are possible.

DAVID: God is not human. He knows our emotions, but if He has any of them is unknown. To repeat: Your theories about God only fit a very humanized form of God.

Everything about God is “unknown”, including his existence, and so we only have theories. To repeat: I have never said that, if he exists, the creator of the universe and of life itself is a human being, but you have agreed that it is possible he has thought patterns in common with ours - which is perfectly feasible since he would be the first cause of everything that exists - and so a theory endowing him with human thought patterns is possible, for instance following on from your guess (once a certainty) that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that your set of beliefs is fixed – i.e. rigid. At one time, of course you were flexible enough to consider ideas different from those you held originally, but now you have closed your mind. The result is a fixed belief which is so illogical that you are forced to acknowledge you cannot explain it and it “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: I cannot explain God's works for you. I can only analyze them in view of the picture I have of a very purposeful God who knows His goals, and exactly how to reach them in vast contrast to your God-vision of a humanized bumbler. Of course, God makes sense to himself.

Correction: you cannot explain your interpretation of God’s works, and the quote is that your interpretation “makes sense only to God”, which means it does not make sense to you. You persist in seeing purposeful experimentation as “bumbling”, and in ignoring other alternatives which have him knowing exactly how to achieve his purpose: e.g. following your own “guess”, that he wants to enjoy creating things that will be interesting for him to watch.

DAVID: God as designer creates the gaps He wishes to create. The contradictions exist in your mind.

dhw: I have just pointed out that this is a perfectly feasible view. However, it contradicts your insistence that evolution is a continuous process, as explained in the bold which you have ignored. And if it is not continuous, and we are descended from specially designed species with no precursors, how does that support the view that his one and only purpose from the outset was to design us? You can’t explain it. “It makes sense only to God.”

DAVID: A designer who is evolving organisms over time from single cells to us is running a continuous process under his control. There can be gaps in phenotype, but never in biochemistry of life, under his controls. That is an obvious explanation, while you torture quotes into meaninglessness. God's evolution is not Darwinian.

As I pointed out in bold in the same post, “the fact that all life is biochemical does not explain the gaps”. H.sapiens is a species, and while I am happy to follow Darwin’s argument that all species descend from earlier species (common descent), you emphasize the gaps which you believe denote speciation without precursors. This clearly breaks the continuity of speciation, and since you claim that we humans are descended from species that had no precursors, you contradict your own belief in continuity from bacteria to us, and hence your belief that we were your God’s one and only purpose from the very start.

Schroeder
DAVID: The problem is your refusal to accept that we believers are content with what God created and the way He decided to do it. […] (dhw's bold)

dhw: You talk as if every Jewish, Christian, Muslim, African, Indian, South American “believer” believes in your combined theories of evolution, which “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: God's evolution makes sense to me, as non-Darwinian. My theories are a distillation of believer's commentaries, especially ID.

Please stop conflating ID (which sets out to provide evidence that God exists) with your illogical theory of evolution, and please stop pretending that “we believers” accept this theory, which you admit you cannot explain and which “makes sense only to God”.

dhw (concerning “humanization”): ...have you never heard of believers who think God watches over them, loves them, judges them, wants them to worship him etc.? You have frequently expressed your negative view of the way religions “humanize” God, but perhaps you don’t count religious people as “believers” and only you know how to think about God.

DAVID: Thank you for recognizing those religious folks are the ones I ignore in my thinking!!!

So please stop pretending that “we believers” accept your illogical theory of evolution and your blinkered way of thinking about God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 17, 2022, 18:08 (681 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that your set of beliefs is fixed – i.e. rigid. At one time, of course you were flexible enough to consider ideas different from those you held originally, but now you have closed your mind. The result is a fixed belief which is so illogical that you are forced to acknowledge you cannot explain it and it “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: I cannot explain God's works for you. I can only analyze them in view of the picture I have of a very purposeful God who knows His goals, and exactly how to reach them in vast contrast to your God-vision of a humanized bumbler. Of course, God makes sense to himself.

dhw: Correction: you cannot explain your interpretation of God’s works, and the quote is that your interpretation “makes sense only to God”, which means it does not make sense to you.

Wow!! What a scrambled-up interpretation. Finally, I can understand your problem. It makes perfect sense to me. I accept what God did for His own reasons, while not needing to understand His reasoning, which is obviously impossible. I've written this before, and don't understand your obtuse interpretation, exc opeet to point out you do not think about God as I do.

DAVID: A designer who is evolving organisms over time from single cells to us is running a continuous process under his control. There can be gaps in phenotype, but never in biochemistry of life, under his controls. That is an obvious explanation, while you torture quotes into meaninglessness. God's evolution is not Darwinian.

dhw: As I pointed out in bold in the same post, “the fact that all life is biochemical does not explain the gaps”. H.sapiens is a species, and while I am happy to follow Darwin’s argument that all species descend from earlier species (common descent), you emphasize the gaps which you believe denote speciation without precursors. This clearly breaks the continuity of speciation, and since you claim that we humans are descended from species that had no precursors, you contradict your own belief in continuity from bacteria to us, and hence your belief that we were your God’s one and only purpose from the very start.

Obtuse thinking again. Why was Darwin so concerned about the Cambrian gap? Because it didn't fit his theory or continuing your acceptance of his theory. A designer creating the phenotypical gaps does! I accept a designer and you don't


Schroeder

dhw (concerning “humanization”): ...have you never heard of believers who think God watches over them, loves them, judges them, wants them to worship him etc.? You have frequently expressed your negative view of the way religions “humanize” God, but perhaps you don’t count religious people as “believers” and only you know how to think about God.

DAVID: Thank you for recognizing those religious folks are the ones I ignore in my thinking!!!

dhw: So please stop pretending that “we believers” accept your illogical theory of evolution and your blinkered way of thinking about God.

In conferences with ID folks, I know we think alike, much to your surprise. Accepting that design requires a thinking designer would solve all your confusion.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, May 18, 2022, 11:03 (681 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I cannot explain God's works for you. I can only analyze them in view of the picture I have of a very purposeful God who knows His goals, and exactly how to reach them in vast contrast to your God-vision of a humanized bumbler. Of course, God makes sense to himself.

dhw: Correction: you cannot explain your interpretation of God’s works, and the quote is that your interpretation “makes sense only to God”, which means it does not make sense to you.

DAVID: Wow!! What a scrambled-up interpretation. Finally, I can understand your problem. It makes perfect sense to me. I accept what God did for His own reasons, while not needing to understand His reasoning, which is obviously impossible. I've written this before, and don't understand your obtuse interpretation, exc opeet to point out you do not think about God as I do.

If God exists, we both accept that he would have produced life and evolution. You then go on to theorize that his one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, but first of all he produced countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food, and although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he designed us in stages. You cannot find any sense in this theory (it “makes sense only to God”), but you reject any logical alternatives. Please stop assuming that your illogical theory is an objective truth, and claiming that it makes sense to you because only your God can understand it!

DAVID: A designer who is evolving organisms over time from single cells to us is running a continuous process under his control. There can be gaps in phenotype, but never in biochemistry of life, under his controls. That is an obvious explanation, while you torture quotes into meaninglessness. God's evolution is not Darwinian.

dhw: As I pointed out in bold in the same post, “the fact that all life is biochemical does not explain the gaps”. H.sapiens is a species, and while I am happy to follow Darwin’s argument that all species descend from earlier species (common descent), you emphasize the gaps which you believe denote speciation without precursors. This clearly breaks the continuity of speciation, and since you claim that we humans are descended from species that had no precursors, you contradict your own belief in continuity from bacteria to us, and hence your belief that we were your God’s one and only purpose from the very start.

DAVID: Obtuse thinking again. Why was Darwin so concerned about the Cambrian gap? Because it didn't fit his theory or continuing your acceptance of his theory. A designer creating the phenotypical gaps does! I accept a designer and you don't.

Dodging again. Like Darwin, I am an agnostic. All theories must include the possibility of God as designer. The gaps are real. There are two possible THEISTIC explanations. 1) God created species with no precursors (from which we are descended), in which case you cannot claim that there is a continuous line from bacteria to humans, who you say were his one and only purpose from the beginning. 2) God created a continuous line from bacteria to humans, and so the gaps are the result of an incomplete fossil record, which is hardly surprising given the enormous stretches of time involved and the special circumstances required for dead bodies to survive the ravages of time. Of course neither explanation of the gaps explains your illogical theory that although we plus food were God’s only purpose from the beginning, he individually designed countless organisms and foods that had no connection with us or our food.

Schroeder

dhw (concerning “humanization”): ...have you never heard of believers who think God watches over them, loves them, judges them, wants them to worship him etc.? You have frequently expressed your negative view of the way religions “humanize” God, but perhaps you don’t count religious people as “believers” and only you know how to think about God.

DAVID: Thank you for recognizing those religious folks are the ones I ignore in my thinking!!!

dhw: So please stop pretending that “we believers” accept your illogical theory of evolution and your blinkered way of thinking about God.

DAVID: In conferences with ID folks, I know we think alike, much to your surprise. Accepting that design requires a thinking designer would solve all your confusion.

Of course you and ID folks and religious believers think alike when it comes to the existence of God! The confusion arises when you promote a theory of evolution that makes no sense even to you (it “makes sense only to God”), and when you claim that although it is possible that God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and although many religious believers firmly believe he does, you know he doesn’t and only you know how to think about God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 18, 2022, 14:50 (680 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Correction: you cannot explain your interpretation of God’s works, and the quote is that your interpretation “makes sense only to God”, which means it does not make sense to you.

DAVID: Wow!! What a scrambled-up interpretation. Finally, I can understand your problem. It makes perfect sense to me. I accept what God did for His own reasons, while not needing to understand His reasoning, which is obviously impossible. I've written this before, and don't understand your obtuse interpretation, excpet to point out you do not think about God as I do.

dhw: If God exists, we both accept that he would have produced life and evolution. You then go on to theorize that his one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, but first of all he produced countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food, and although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he designed us in stages. You cannot find any sense in this theory (it “makes sense only to God”), but you reject any logical alternatives. Please stop assuming that your illogical theory is an objective truth, and claiming that it makes sense to you because only your God can understand it! (my bold)

My view of God is 'not an objective proof', but your obtuse rejection of my simple acceptance of God's work from my belief in God shows the huge gap in your understanding of how we, who believe, actually think. I accept what God did and choses to do for His own reasons. You don't have to. I'm on the other side of the chasm. "Makes sense to God" makes perfect sense to me.


dhw: As I pointed out in bold in the same post, “the fact that all life is biochemical does not explain the gaps”. H.sapiens is a species, and while I am happy to follow Darwin’s argument that all species descend from earlier species (common descent), you emphasize the gaps which you believe denote speciation without precursors. This clearly breaks the continuity of speciation, and since you claim that we humans are descended from species that had no precursors, you contradict your own belief in continuity from bacteria to us, and hence your belief that we were your God’s one and only purpose from the very start.

DAVID: Obtuse thinking again. Why was Darwin so concerned about the Cambrian gap? Because it didn't fit his theory or continuing your acceptance of his theory. A designer creating the phenotypical gaps does! I accept a designer and you don't.

dhw: Dodging again. Like Darwin, I am an agnostic. All theories must include the possibility of God as designer. The gaps are real. There are two possible THEISTIC explanations. 1) God created species with no precursors (from which we are descended), in which case you cannot claim that there is a continuous line from bacteria to humans, who you say were his one and only purpose from the beginning.

The continuous line is the biochemical work of the designer God, who creates gaps in forms. Your supposed theism accepts design.

dhw: 2) God created a continuous line from bacteria to humans, and so the gaps are the result of an incomplete fossil record, which is hardly surprising given the enormous stretches of time involved and the special circumstances required for dead bodies to survive the ravages of time. Of course neither explanation of the gaps explains your illogical theory that although we plus food were God’s only purpose from the beginning, he individually designed countless organisms and foods that had no connection with us or our food.

The endpoint of evolution is inexplicable US. Adler demolishes your point. And the 'countless organisms' currently existing because of evolution are our food!


Schroeder

dhw: So please stop pretending that “we believers” accept your illogical theory of evolution and your blinkered way of thinking about God.

DAVID: In conferences with ID folks, I know we think alike, much to your surprise. Accepting that design requires a thinking designer would solve all your confusion.

dhw: Of course you and ID folks and religious believers think alike when it comes to the existence of God! The confusion arises when you promote a theory of evolution that makes no sense even to you (it “makes sense only to God”),

It makes perfect sense to me as constantly described. It makes no sense to your rigid views of how to think about God as believers do.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, May 19, 2022, 08:27 (680 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Correction: you cannot explain your interpretation of God’s works, and the quote is that your interpretation “makes sense only to God”, which means it does not make sense to you.

DAVID: Wow!! What a scrambled-up interpretation. Finally, I can understand your problem. It makes perfect sense to me. I accept what God did for His own reasons, while not needing to understand His reasoning, which is obviously impossible. I've written this before, and don't understand your obtuse interpretation, excpet to point out you do not think about God as I do.

dhw: If God exists, we both accept that he would have produced life and evolution. You then go on to theorize that his one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, but first of all he produced countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food, and although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he designed us in stages. You cannot find any sense in this theory (it “makes sense only to God”), but you reject any logical alternatives. Please stop assuming that your illogical theory is an objective truth, and claiming that it makes sense to you because only your God can understand it! (my bold)

DAVID: My view of God is 'not an objective proof', but your obtuse rejection of my simple acceptance of God's work from my belief in God shows the huge gap in your understanding of how we, who believe, actually think. I accept what God did and choses to do for His own reasons. You don't have to. I'm on the other side of the chasm. "Makes sense to God" makes perfect sense to me.

Why do you persist in misquoting yourself, and in removing the whole context of that quote? Do all believers support your illogical theory of evolution, which you cannot explain and which “makes sense only to God”? Do all believers reject the view that God might have thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours? They certainly don’t, and you pride yourself on ignoring such believers. The only thing you have in common with ALL those who believe in God is your belief in God.

Continuity
Mainly covered on the other thread.

DAVID: The endpoint of evolution is inexplicable US. Adler demolishes your point. And the 'countless organisms' currently existing because of evolution are our food!

All life forms are “inexplicable”, and you and your fellow IDers understandably use the inexplicable complexities as proof of design, and hence the existence of God. According to you, Adler does not deal with your theory that every life form and econiche, including all those that did not lead to humans plus food, was individually designed as “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” and our food. And you know perfectly well that the countless organisms I am referring to are those of the past which had no connection with us or our food. Please stop dodging.

Gene continuity

QUOTE: "'Hmx has been shown to be a central gene that has been conserved across evolution. It has retained its original function and structure and was probably found in this form in the common ancestor of vertebrates and tunicates," Pennati explains. Cranial sensory ganglia and bipolar tail neurons thus have the same evolutionary origin; Hmx was probably crucially involved in the formation of highly specialized head sensory organs in vertebrates."

DAVID: There is full evidence in evolutionary continuity, both in conserved genes and in comparable biochemistry. dhw's blinkered view of phenotypical gaps causing discontinuity is strangely lacking in understanding how evolution works continuously beneath organismal forms.

Evolutionary continuity lies at the very heart of Darwin’s theory of common descent, which I accept, i.e. every species is descended from preceding species. This article fits in perfectly with Darwin’s theory, illustrated by its emphasis on “the common ancestor”. It is you who keep harping on about the gaps, which deny continuity as you have your God designing new species with no predecessors (using the gaps as proof of your God’s existence). You use the same technique in all our discussions on evolution: you focus on ONE of your theories, and leave out the others which contradict it. And then you accuse me of being blinkered!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, May 20, 2022, 16:38 (678 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If God exists, we both accept that he would have produced life and evolution. You then go on to theorize that his one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, but first of all he produced countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food, and although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he designed us in stages.

Without the diversity of forms, necessary ecosystems cannot form. Without ecosystems no one eats!! When will dhw recognize it with its true implications? When will dhw accept what God did and stop complaining He should have done it in other so-called beter ways that appeal to your weak human reasoning compared to His? You know better than God???

dhw: You cannot find any sense in this theory (it “makes sense only to God”), but you reject any logical alternatives. Please stop assuming that your illogical theory is an objective truth, and claiming that it makes sense to you because only your God can understand it! [/i](my bold)

No one knows objective proofs!! What is wrong with accepting what God did are the facts we have. Our difference is that I accept God is the active agent producing the factual history. And all you do is insert you know methods He should have followed.


DAVID: My view of God is 'not an objective proof', but your obtuse rejection of my simple acceptance of God's work from my belief in God shows the huge gap in your understanding of how we, who believe, actually think. I accept what God did and choses to do for His own reasons. You don't have to. I'm on the other side of the chasm. "Makes sense to God" makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: Why do you persist in misquoting yourself, and in removing the whole context of that quote? Do all believers support your illogical theory of evolution, which you cannot explain and which “makes sense only to God”? Do all believers reject the view that God might have thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours? They certainly don’t, and you pride yourself on ignoring such believers. The only thing you have in common with ALL those who believe in God is your belief in God.

Instead of pontificating about belief, read what believers believe or talk to some. You'll be surprised. As an armchair agnostic you are isolated from some realities. When I decided to research, I read, I ended up at an ID convention listening to their various views and talks. I don't tell you about belief from an armchair.


Continuity
Mainly covered on the other thread.

DAVID: The endpoint of evolution is inexplicable US. Adler demolishes your point. And the 'countless organisms' currently existing because of evolution are our food!

dhw: All life forms are “inexplicable”, and you and your fellow IDers understandably use the inexplicable complexities as proof of design, and hence the existence of God. According to you, Adler does not deal with your theory that every life form and econiche, including all those that did not lead to humans plus food, was individually designed as “part of the goal of evolving (= designing) humans” and our food.

Adler's presentation differs from mine, but comes from the same belief that God produced an evolution that ended purposely in us. Don't distort the true reliationship my theory has with Adler.


Gene continuity

QUOTE: "'Hmx has been shown to be a central gene that has been conserved across evolution. It has retained its original function and structure and was probably found in this form in the common ancestor of vertebrates and tunicates," Pennati explains. Cranial sensory ganglia and bipolar tail neurons thus have the same evolutionary origin; Hmx was probably crucially involved in the formation of highly specialized head sensory organs in vertebrates."

DAVID: There is full evidence in evolutionary continuity, both in conserved genes and in comparable biochemistry. dhw's blinkered view of phenotypical gaps causing discontinuity is strangely lacking in understanding how evolution works continuously beneath organismal forms.

dhw: Evolutionary continuity lies at the very heart of Darwin’s theory of common descent, which I accept, i.e. every species is descended from preceding species. This article fits in perfectly with Darwin’s theory, illustrated by its emphasis on “the common ancestor”. It is you who keep harping on about the gaps, which deny continuity as you have your God designing new species with no predecessors (using the gaps as proof of your God’s existence). You use the same technique in all our discussions on evolution: you focus on ONE of your theories, and leave out the others which contradict it. And then you accuse me of being blinkered!

I will simply repeat, only a designed evolution by a designer can produce the gaps we see. Darwin knew nothing of today's knowledge and if He were alive today I wonder what his form of Darwinism would be. You and I have thrown out chance mutation. The discussion about the Cambrian gap has not changed and the gap is better defined. And you still defend Darwin's guesses. Illogical. My definition of common descent and yours are not the same. Mine fits the current knowledge of the biochemistry of the genome. I have no idea what yours really is or hiw it fits into current knowledge..

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, May 21, 2022, 07:38 (678 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If God exists, we both accept that he would have produced life and evolution. You then go on to theorize that his one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, but first of all he produced countless life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food, and although he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors, he designed us in stages.

DAVID: Without the diversity of forms, necessary ecosystems cannot form. Without ecosystems no one eats!! When will dhw recognize it with its true implications?

Usual question: necessary for what? How were 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct organisms and ecosystems “necessary” for current humans and our current food?

DAVID: When will dhw accept what God did and stop complaining He should have done it in other so-called beter ways that appeal to your weak human reasoning compared to His? You know better than God???

Over and over again, you claim that your theory of what God did and how and why he did it is some kind of objective truth. I do not complain about the vast diversity of forms or the fact that humans evolved in stages. I complain that these facts do not fit in with the theory that every individual form was preparation for humans plus food, or with the theory that your God was capable of designing species with no precursors, and yet he opted to design his one and only “goal” in stages. You can’t explain it, and it “makes sense only to God”, but you expect me to accept a theory that doesn’t even make sense to you.

dhw: Do all believers reject the view that God might have thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours? They certainly don’t, and you pride yourself on ignoring such believers. The only thing you have in common with ALL those who believe in God is your belief in God.

DAVID: Instead of pontificating about belief, read what believers believe or talk to some. You'll be surprised. As an armchair agnostic you are isolated from some realities. When I decided to research, I read, I ended up at an ID convention listening to their various views and talks. I don't tell you about belief from an armchair.

This is the silliest of all your dodges. Do you think I have spent my whole life in an armchair talking only to agnostics? Please stick to the arguments, and stop pretending that all believers agree with all your beliefs.

Gene continuity

DAVID: There is full evidence in evolutionary continuity, both in conserved genes and in comparable biochemistry. dhw's blinkered view of phenotypical gaps causing discontinuity is strangely lacking in understanding how evolution works continuously beneath organismal forms.

dhw: Evolutionary continuity lies at the very heart of Darwin’s theory of common descent, which I accept, i.e. every species is descended from preceding species. This article fits in perfectly with Darwin’s theory, illustrated by its emphasis on “the common ancestor”. It is you who keep harping on about the gaps, which deny continuity as you have your God designing new species with no predecessors (using the gaps as proof of your God’s existence). You use the same technique in all our discussions on evolution: you focus on ONE of your theories, and leave out the others which contradict it. And then you accuse me of being blinkered!

DAVID: I will simply repeat, only a designed evolution by a designer can produce the gaps we see.

Yes, you use the gaps to prove the existence of a designer. But gaps by definition are the very opposite of continuity, which you also claim to believe in. And you can’t see any contradiction.

DAVID: Darwin knew nothing of today's knowledge and if He were alive today I wonder what his form of Darwinism would be. You and I have thrown out chance mutation. The discussion about the Cambrian gap has not changed and the gap is better defined. And you still defend Darwin's guesses. Illogical.

I defend his “guess” concerning common descent, and so do you when you support continuity, but you attack it when you support gaps.

DAVID: My definition of common descent and yours are not the same. Mine fits the current knowledge of the biochemistry of the genome. I have no idea what yours really is or how it fits into current knowledge.

I have told you mine: that all species (except the very first cells) are descended from preceding species. The article appears to confirm this theory. Now please tell us your own definition.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 21, 2022, 16:25 (677 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Without the diversity of forms, necessary ecosystems cannot form. Without ecosystems no one eats!! When will dhw recognize it with its true implications?

dhw: Usual question: necessary for what? How were 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct organisms and ecosystems “necessary” for current humans and our current food?

I described a long winding course overtime in the other thread: necessary ecosystems for food for all.


DAVID: When will dhw accept what God did and stop complaining He should have done it in other so-called beter ways that appeal to your weak human reasoning compared to His? You know better than God???

dhw: I complain that these facts do not fit in with the theory that every individual form was preparation for humans plus food, or with the theory that your God was capable of designing species with no precursors, and yet he opted to design his one and only “goal” in stages. You can’t explain it, and it “makes sense only to God”, but you expect me to accept a theory that doesn’t even make sense to you.

What you do not seem to grasp is I simply accept what God did, and that makes perfect sense to me, knowing He did it from His own reasoning.


dhw: Do all believers reject the view that God might have thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours? They certainly don’t, and you pride yourself on ignoring such believers. The only thing you have in common with ALL those who believe in God is your belief in God.

DAVID: Instead of pontificating about belief, read what believers believe or talk to some. You'll be surprised. As an armchair agnostic you are isolated from some realities. When I decided to research, I read, I ended up at an ID convention listening to their various views and talks. I don't tell you about belief from an armchair.

dhw: This is the silliest of all your dodges. Do you think I have spent my whole life in an armchair talking only to agnostics? Please stick to the arguments, and stop pretending that all believers agree with all your beliefs.

Yes, beliefs come in a variety of forms. My form of belief was perfectly comfortable with IDer's I met. The way you propose to think about God has always been foreign to me, probing, doubting, and always conceiving of Him as partially human in thought.


Gene continuity

DAVID: I will simply repeat, only a designed evolution by a designer can produce the gaps we see.

dhw: Yes, you use the gaps to prove the existence of a designer. But gaps by definition are the very opposite of continuity, which you also claim to believe in. And you can’t see any contradiction.

Even Darwin saw both continuity and the Cambrian gap. In this case I agree with Darwin and you don't


DAVID: Darwin knew nothing of today's knowledge and if He were alive today I wonder what his form of Darwinism would be. You and I have thrown out chance mutation. The discussion about the Cambrian gap has not changed and the gap is better defined. And you still defend Darwin's guesses. Illogical.

dhw: I defend his “guess” concerning common descent, and so do you when you support continuity, but you attack it when you support gaps.

Think about how Darwin handled the gap.


DAVID: My definition of common descent and yours are not the same. Mine fits the current knowledge of the biochemistry of the genome. I have no idea what yours really is or how it fits into current knowledge.

dhw: I have told you mine: that all species (except the very first cells) are descended from preceding species. The article appears to confirm this theory. Now please tell us your own definition.

The same as always: biochemical continuity with phenotypical gaps, which fits the current science. As an example, we use mouse brains to explain ours. Both mammals from an ancestor who lived with dinosaurs. Fits your theory perfectly.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, May 22, 2022, 07:59 (677 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Without the diversity of forms, necessary ecosystems cannot form. Without ecosystems no one eats!! When will dhw recognize it with its true implications?

dhw: Usual question: necessary for what? How were 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct organisms and ecosystems “necessary” for current humans and our current food?

DAVID: I described a long winding course overtime in the other thread: necessary ecosystems for food for all.

Dealt with on the other thread. “Food for all” does not mean that 3.x billion years’ worth of food supplies for countless extinct organisms were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process to finally produce humans”, bearing in mind that according to you, the “evolutionary process” means God specially designing every species and econiche. Please stop repeating these vague generalisations.

DAVID: What you do not seem to grasp is I simply accept what God did, and that makes perfect sense to me, knowing He did it from His own reasoning.

Dealt with on the other thread. Please stop conflating your personal, illogical and inexplicable theory about God’s purpose and method with the objective facts of the history.

dhw: Do you think I have spent my whole life in an armchair talking only to agnostics? Please stick to the arguments, and stop pretending that all believers agree with all your beliefs.

DAVID: Yes, beliefs come in a variety of forms. My form of belief was perfectly comfortable with IDer's I met. The way you propose to think about God has always been foreign to me, probing, doubting, and always conceiving of Him as partially human in thought.

You and ID-ers and all religious folk would be comfortable with the theory that God exists. But your antipathy towards the possibility that God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours would be bitterly opposed by most of the religious folk I know, and you have never yet succeeded in finding one single name to back the combination of contradictions that make up your theory of evolution, as dissected ad nauseam on this and the other thread.

Gene continuity

DAVID: I will simply repeat, only a designed evolution by a designer can produce the gaps we see.

dhw: Yes, you use the gaps to prove the existence of a designer. But gaps by definition are the very opposite of continuity, which you also claim to believe in. And you can’t see any contradiction.

DAVID: Even Darwin saw both continuity and the Cambrian gap. In this case I agree with Darwin and you don't.

Please identify any passage in Darwin which states that the Cambrian gaps denote God’s intervention by designing new species without any precursors. The gaps remain a mystery, but Darwin expressly states: “I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally proposed.” (Difficulties of Theory) You disagree with Darwin, and once again you gloss over the contradiction between your belief in continuity and your belief in gaps.

DAVID: My definition of common descent and yours are not the same. Mine fits the current knowledge of the biochemistry of the genome. I have no idea what yours really is or how it fits into current knowledge.

dhw: I have told you mine: that all species (except the very first cells) are descended from preceding species. The article appears to confirm this theory. Now please tell us your own definition.

DAVID: The same as always: biochemical continuity with phenotypical gaps, which fits the current science. As an example, we use mouse brains to explain ours. Both mammals from an ancestor who lived with dinosaurs. Fits your theory perfectly.

Yes, we and mice are believed to have evolved from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago, which fits Darwin’s theory perfectly. What does that have to do with the appearance of brains and vertebrates about 500 million years ago – according to you, in species which had no precursors and from which we and mice are descended. You seem to think that by adding the tag “phenotypical” you can gloss over the fact that gaps break continuity. And if there is no continuity, you can hardly claim that humans were God’s one and only goal from the very beginning. (One might also ask why mice – like maple seed pods - were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [i.e. God] to finally produce humans”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 22, 2022, 16:35 (676 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Without the diversity of forms, necessary ecosystems cannot form. Without ecosystems no one eats!! When will dhw recognize it with its true implications?

dhw: Usual question: necessary for what? How were 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct organisms and ecosystems “necessary” for current humans and our current food?

DAVID: I described a long winding course overtime in the other thread: necessary ecosystems for food for all.

dhw: Dealt with on the other thread. “Food for all” does not mean that 3.x billion years’ worth of food supplies for countless extinct organisms were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process to finally produce humans”, bearing in mind that according to you, the “evolutionary process” means God specially designing every species and econiche. Please stop repeating these vague generalisations.

Note no generalizations in the parasite contribution to ecosystems of today!


dhw: Do you think I have spent my whole life in an armchair talking only to agnostics? Please stick to the arguments, and stop pretending that all believers agree with all your beliefs.

DAVID: Yes, beliefs come in a variety of forms. My form of belief was perfectly comfortable with IDer's I met. The way you propose to think about God has always been foreign to me, probing, doubting, and always conceiving of Him as partially human in thought.

dhw: You and ID-ers and all religious folk would be comfortable with the theory that God exists. But your antipathy towards the possibility that God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours would be bitterly opposed by most of the religious folk I know, and you have never yet succeeded in finding one single name to back the combination of contradictions that make up your theory of evolution, as dissected ad nauseam on this and the other thread.

I self-distill many expert thoughts to reach my own conclusions. All we who accept God can completely assume is that He created reality. Beyond His role as a planner and creator, any guesses about his personal thoughts are sheer conjecture. I try to avoid considering the human conjectures in the various religious books. Adler's suggests that God having any feelings is 50/50!

Gene continuity

DAVID: Even Darwin saw both continuity and the Cambrian gap. In this case I agree with Darwin and you don't.

dhw: Please identify any passage in Darwin which states that the Cambrian gaps denote God’s intervention by designing new species without any precursors. The gaps remain a mystery, but Darwin expressly states: “I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally proposed.” (Difficulties of Theory) You disagree with Darwin, and once again you gloss over the contradiction between your belief in continuity and your belief in gaps.

Of course there is biochemical continuity.


DAVID: My definition of common descent and yours are not the same. Mine fits the current knowledge of the biochemistry of the genome. I have no idea what yours really is or how it fits into current knowledge.

dhw: I have told you mine: that all species (except the very first cells) are descended from preceding species. The article appears to confirm this theory. Now please tell us your own definition.

DAVID: The same as always: biochemical continuity with phenotypical gaps, which fits the current science. As an example, we use mouse brains to explain ours. Both mammals from an ancestor who lived with dinosaurs. Fits your theory perfectly.

dhw: Yes, we and mice are believed to have evolved from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago, which fits Darwin’s theory perfectly. What does that have to do with the appearance of brains and vertebrates about 500 million years ago – according to you, in species which had no precursors and from which we and mice are descended. You seem to think that by adding the tag “phenotypical” you can gloss over the fact that gaps break continuity. And if there is no continuity, you can hardly claim that humans were God’s one and only goal from the very beginning. (One might also ask why mice – like maple seed pods - were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [i.e. God] to finally produce humans”.

The gaps are phenotypical, but jumps in form can only indicate the design of an active designer, no matter how you attempt to distort the point.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Monday, May 23, 2022, 08:46 (676 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

Symbiosis and reproduction

dhw: If God exists, I also accept that the history would have been his doing. And the history is a long winding road leading off in countless directions, many of which came to a dead end and had no connection with humans plus their food. You cannot explain why God would have specially designed all the dead-end side roads if his only purpose was to build one road to humans plus food.

DAVID: See todays' entry on parasite contribution to ecosystems for an answer your confusion about ecosystems.

Your repeated effort to escape from your own confusion is dealt with under "Parasite good influence" below.

dhw: So maybe he had a different purpose for designing them, or maybe he didn’t design them at all. Please will you finally stop assuming that he individually designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. and that every one of them served the purpose of preparing the way for humans plus food. That is your theory – it is not the history!

DAVID: But I view it as the history of God's works.

The history is countless life forms, the vast majority of which did not lead to humans and our food. Your theory of God’s purpose (solely to create humans plus our food) and method (to individually design every life form, econiche etc, including all those that did NOT lead to humans) is not history but your personal INTERPRETATION of history, which is so illogical that you cannot explain it yourself.

Parasite good influence

DAVID: : dhw diminishes the true understanding of why ecosystems had to evolve and stabilize by repeatedly stating his view of my theories as 'God only wanted humans and their food'.

That is precisely your theory, repeated over and over again. You claim that every past ecosystem was preparation for/part of “the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food, and “the creation of a diversity of life is an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process to finally produce humans.” And you have no idea why the creation of 3.x billion years’ worth of mainly extinct organisms and ecosystems were absolutely necessary for your all-powerful God to produce the only species (plus food) that he wanted to produce. Nor have you any idea why your God, who was perfectly capable of producing new species without precursors, should have decided to produce the only species he wanted in its-bitsy stages. Your theory “makes sense only to God.” You simply refuse to contemplate the possibility that the history might denote a different purpose and/or method.

DAVID: What a lack of understanding the point! The evolutionary process had to develop a giant interlocking bush of ecosystems, all related to each other.

You think the 3.x billion years’ worth of specially designed and extinct ecosystems, life forms, natural wonders etc. were interlocking and related to one another and to our current bush/life forms/natural wonders etc., while at the same time you agree emphatically that past bushes were for the past, and extinct life has no role in current time. You keep tying yourself in knots with your contradictions.

DAVID: My form of belief was perfectly comfortable with IDer's I met. The way you propose to think about God has always been foreign to me, probing, doubting, and always conceiving of Him as partially human in thought.

dhw: You and ID-ers and all religious folk would be comfortable with the theory that God exists. But your antipathy towards the possibility that God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours would be bitterly opposed by most of the religious folk I know, and you have never yet succeeded in finding one single name to back the combination of contradictions that make up your theory of evolution, as dissected over and over again.

DAVID: I self-distill many expert thoughts to reach my own conclusions. All we who accept God can completely assume is that He created reality.

Of course. That includes the history described above: past species and ecosystems that have no role in the present.

DAVID: Beyond His role as a planner and creator, any guesses about his personal thoughts are sheer conjecture. I try to avoid considering the human conjectures in the various religious books. Adler's suggests that God having any feelings is 50/50!

Your assumption that he individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc., and did so for the sole purpose of design human plus food, is pure conjecture; In your less blinkered moments, you even dare to offer your own "human" conjectures: e.g. God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, is too kind to deliberately create harmful things (and even tries to correct the “errors” arising from his system), wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. And if Adler suggests that God having “feelings” is 50/50, it is plainly absurd to discount the possibility that God has “feelings”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Monday, May 23, 2022, 09:02 (676 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: Even Darwin saw both continuity and the Cambrian gap. In this case I agree with Darwin and you don't.

dhw: Please identify any passage in Darwin which states that the Cambrian gaps denote God’s intervention by designing new species without any precursors. The gaps remain a mystery, but Darwin expressly states: “I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally proposed.” (Difficulties of Theory) You disagree with Darwin, and once again you gloss over the contradiction between your belief in continuity and your belief in gaps.

DAVID: Of course there is biochemical continuity.

Please tell us where Darwin states that the gaps are due to God’s intervention by designing species with no precursors.

DAVID: My definition of common descent and yours are not the same. Mine fits the current knowledge of the biochemistry of the genome. I have no idea what yours really is or how it fits into current knowledge.

dhw: I have told you mine: that all species (except the very first cells) are descended from preceding species. The article appears to confirm this theory. Now please tell us your own definition.

DAVID: The same as always: biochemical continuity with phenotypical gaps, which fits the current science. As an example, we use mouse brains to explain ours. Both mammals from an ancestor who lived with dinosaurs. Fits your theory perfectly.

dhw: Yes, we and mice are believed to have evolved from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago, which fits Darwin’s theory perfectly. What does that have to do with the appearance of brains and vertebrates about 500 million years ago – according to you, in species which had no precursors and from which we and mice are descended. You seem to think that by adding the tag “phenotypical” you can gloss over the fact that gaps break continuity. And if there is no continuity, you can hardly claim that humans were God’s one and only goal from the very beginning. (One might also ask why mice – like maple seed pods - were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [i.e. God] to finally produce humans”.)

DAVID: The gaps are phenotypical, but jumps in form can only indicate the design of an active designer, no matter how you attempt to distort the point.

I am not distorting the point! You use the gaps here to prove your God’s existence, but if there are gaps and humans are descended from species designed without precursors, then you cannot claim that there is an unbroken line between bacteria and humans, in which case it makes no sense to say that God’s purpose from the beginning was to create humans.

God and evolution of the universe

DAVID: Look at this opinion from dhw:

dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.

DAVID:The universe is even stranger:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520181234.htm

QUOTE: "Mysterious fast radio bursts release as much energy in one second as the Sun pours out in a year and are among the most puzzling phenomena in the universe.”

DAVID: just more confusion for dhw. We live in a very strange universe that I believe God gave us. I don't question it. We live in a very safe spot in our Milky Way. The other stuff that is so dangerous doesn't bother us. We are trying to understand it as we should, but why question why it must exist as dhw does? We have been provided for. We are living peacefully here when from a natural occurrence standpoint there is no reason we should be here. Just ask Adler.

I do not question why all these mysterious goings-on must exist! I question your theory that your God designed all of them, because all of them were an "absolute requirement" for him to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans. Yes, you try to understand it, but you can’t. So maybe, just maybe, God didn’t design it all, or God’s purpose was not confined to creating humans (after all, there is no reason why ANY life should be here). My comment at the start of this discussion still stands, and you have not given me a single reason why I should “buy” your theory, which you yourself find inexplicable, I am simply supposed to accept it. The only change in your “explanation” here is that I should ask Adler, whereas previously I was told to ask God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Monday, May 23, 2022, 15:37 (675 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: Please tell us where Darwin states that the gaps are due to God’s intervention by designing species with no precursors.

Relax. All I pointed out was Darwin's worry about the Cambrian gap, which his theory could not explain.


DAVID: My definition of common descent and yours are not the same. Mine fits the current knowledge of the biochemistry of the genome. I have no idea what yours really is or how it fits into current knowledge.

dhw: I have told you mine: that all species (except the very first cells) are descended from preceding species. The article appears to confirm this theory. Now please tell us your own definition.

DAVID: The same as always: biochemical continuity with phenotypical gaps, which fits the current science. As an example, we use mouse brains to explain ours. Both mammals from an ancestor who lived with dinosaurs. Fits your theory perfectly.

dhw: Yes, we and mice are believed to have evolved from a common ancestor about 75 million years ago, which fits Darwin’s theory perfectly. What does that have to do with the appearance of brains and vertebrates about 500 million years ago – according to you, in species which had no precursors and from which we and mice are descended. You seem to think that by adding the tag “phenotypical” you can gloss over the fact that gaps break continuity. And if there is no continuity, you can hardly claim that humans were God’s one and only goal from the very beginning. (One might also ask why mice – like maple seed pods - were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [i.e. God] to finally produce humans”.)

DAVID: The gaps are phenotypical, but jumps in form can only indicate the design of an active designer, no matter how you attempt to distort the point.

dhw: I am not distorting the point! You use the gaps here to prove your God’s existence, but if there are gaps and humans are descended from species designed without precursors, then you cannot claim that there is an unbroken line between bacteria and humans, in which case it makes no sense to say that God’s purpose from the beginning was to create humans.

God's designing role certainly explains the gaps in form from bacteria to humans. Makes perfect sense with an uncritical view of God.


God and evolution of the universe

DAVID: Look at this opinion from dhw:

dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.

DAVID:The universe is even stranger:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520181234.htm

QUOTE: "Mysterious fast radio bursts release as much energy in one second as the Sun pours out in a year and are among the most puzzling phenomena in the universe.”

DAVID: just more confusion for dhw. We live in a very strange universe that I believe God gave us. I don't question it. We live in a very safe spot in our Milky Way. The other stuff that is so dangerous doesn't bother us. We are trying to understand it as we should, but why question why it must exist as dhw does? We have been provided for. We are living peacefully here when from a natural occurrence standpoint there is no reason we should be here. Just ask Adler.

dhw: I do not question why all these mysterious goings-on must exist! I question your theory that your God designed all of them, because all of them were an "absolute requirement" for him to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans. Yes, you try to understand it, but you can’t. So maybe, just maybe, God didn’t design it all, or God’s purpose was not confined to creating humans (after all, there is no reason why ANY life should be here). My comment at the start of this discussion still stands, and you have not given me a single reason why I should “buy” your theory, which you yourself find inexplicable, I am simply supposed to accept it. The only change in your “explanation” here is that I should ask Adler, whereas previously I was told to ask God.

I'm not surprised at your steadfast agnosticism: as I understand your history, the God of the Old Testament so disturbed you, you dropped away from belief. But recognizing the complexities of design kept you from atheism. Despite all the material for design I have presented for your education, you are still stuck at the point at the time you opened this website. The point of that start was never meant to change your mind. Your choice.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 11:20 (675 days ago) @ David Turell

PART TWO
God and evolution of the universe

DAVID: Look at this opinion from dhw:
dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.

DAVID:The universe is even stranger:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520181234.htm

DAVID: […] why question why it must exist as dhw does? We have been provided for. We are living peacefully here when from a natural occurrence standpoint there is no reason we should be here. Just ask Adler.

dhw: I do not question why all these mysterious goings-on must exist! I question your theory that your God designed all of them, because all of them were an "absolute requirement" for him to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans. […] you have not given me a single reason why I should “buy” your theory, which you yourself find inexplicable, I am simply supposed to accept it. The only change in your “explanation” here is that I should ask Adler, whereas previously I was told to ask God.

DAVID: I'm not surprised at your steadfast agnosticism: as I understand your history, the God of the Old Testament so disturbed you, you dropped away from belief. But recognizing the complexities of design kept you from atheism. Despite all the material for design I have presented for your education, you are still stuck at the point at the time you opened this website. The point of that start was never meant to change your mind. Your choice.

Yet again you dodge the issues raised by your illogical theories. The history and reasons for my agnosticism are totally irrelevant.

Ecosystem importance: protecting diversity

DAVID: while not exactly on my point about the importance of diverse ecosystems and possible damage, the authors are developing a formula for future study and I've skipped that portion of the paper. What is clear is the degree of alarm. dhw's tunnel view of humans and their food simply tries to remove the problem from consideration. Life must have a diverse food supply at all times, all during the process of evolution. Viewed from the position of a progressive designer, he would understand the problem, provide a very diverse bush of complex ecosystems all through evolution from bacteria until the final arrival of an anticipated huge human population, huge because of the human extraordinary mental capacity. In dhw's view God dawdled along the way instead of getting right to it. What history presents is what I accept as God's doing. From that viewpoint, it makes perfect sense to a believer but apparently not to an outsider.

The article stresses the importance of balanced ecosystems, and I would endorse everything the authors say. It is also blindingly obvious that all life needs food. What is not even remotely obvious is why, if God’s one and only purpose was humans plus our food bush, he would individually design countless numbers of organisms and food bushes that did not lead to humans and our food bush. Indeed, you can’t find a single reason why he would have done so – it “makes sense only to God”. And so dhw’s view is not that your God dawdled along the way to pursuing his one and only goal, but that he would have had different goals and maybe different methods for creating the vast diversity of now extinct life forms and bushes. In other words, he knew what he wanted, and the vast numbers of life forms and bushes must have served a purpose in themselves, instead of being preparations for and part of your one and only goal of producing humans plus food. Each of my alternatives allows for God as the creator, so please stop telling us (a) that your combination of theories makes sense to you, although you admit that you can’t explain it, and (b) that your inability to find any sense in it is due to my agnosticism.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 17:40 (674 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO
God and evolution of the universe

DAVID: Look at this opinion from dhw:
dhw: So apparently your God designed all the billions of heavenly bodies extant and extinct because every one of them was and is necessary to create and support life on Planet Earth. I don’t buy it.

DAVID:The universe is even stranger:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/05/220520181234.htm

DAVID: […] why question why it must exist as dhw does? We have been provided for. We are living peacefully here when from a natural occurrence standpoint there is no reason we should be here. Just ask Adler.

dhw: I do not question why all these mysterious goings-on must exist! I question your theory that your God designed all of them, because all of them were an "absolute requirement" for him to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans. […] you have not given me a single reason why I should “buy” your theory, which you yourself find inexplicable, I am simply supposed to accept it. The only change in your “explanation” here is that I should ask Adler, whereas previously I was told to ask God.

DAVID: I'm not surprised at your steadfast agnosticism: as I understand your history, the God of the Old Testament so disturbed you, you dropped away from belief. But recognizing the complexities of design kept you from atheism. Despite all the material for design I have presented for your education, you are still stuck at the point at the time you opened this website. The point of that start was never meant to change your mind. Your choice.

dhw: Yet again you dodge the issues raised by your illogical theories. The history and reasons for my agnosticism are totally irrelevant.

Your mindset is relevant and rigid. You see the design that keeps you agnostic. The next logical step for a logical human mind is to recognize the design complexity must be created by a designing mind. Where or how that mind came from is irrelevant. All of the new information that exists in living matter has to come from somewhere. See today's entry.


Ecosystem importance: protecting diversity

DAVID: while not exactly on my point about the importance of diverse ecosystems and possible damage, the authors are developing a formula for future study and I've skipped that portion of the paper. What is clear is the degree of alarm. dhw's tunnel view of humans and their food simply tries to remove the problem from consideration. Life must have a diverse food supply at all times, all during the process of evolution. Viewed from the position of a progressive designer, he would understand the problem, provide a very diverse bush of complex ecosystems all through evolution from bacteria until the final arrival of an anticipated huge human population, huge because of the human extraordinary mental capacity. In dhw's view God dawdled along the way instead of getting right to it. What history presents is what I accept as God's doing. From that viewpoint, it makes perfect sense to a believer but apparently not to an outsider.

dhw: The article stresses the importance of balanced ecosystems, and I would endorse everything the authors say. It is also blindingly obvious that all life needs food. What is not even remotely obvious is why, if God’s one and only purpose was humans plus our food bush, he would individually design countless numbers of organisms and food bushes that did not lead to humans and our food bush. Indeed, you can’t find a single reason why he would have done so – it “makes sense only to God”. And so dhw’s view is not that your God dawdled along the way to pursuing his one and only goal, but that he would have had different goals and maybe different methods for creating the vast diversity of now extinct life forms and bushes. In other words, he knew what he wanted, and the vast numbers of life forms and bushes must have served a purpose in themselves, instead of being preparations for and part of your one and only goal of producing humans plus food. Each of my alternatives allows for God as the creator, so please stop telling us (a) that your combination of theories makes sense to you, although you admit that you can’t explain it, and (b) that your inability to find any sense in it is due to my agnosticism.

My sense of it all butts heads with your rigid agnosticism. I criticized your human form of God enough in the past not to repeat it again. Above and elsewhere I have described my concept of a designing mind. That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Wednesday, May 25, 2022, 10:59 (674 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Each of my alternatives allows for God as the creator, so please stop telling us (a) that your combination of theories makes sense to you, although you admit that you can’t explain it, and (b) that your inability to find any sense in it is due to my agnosticism.

DAVID: My sense of it all butts heads with your rigid agnosticism. I criticized your human form of God enough in the past not to repeat it again. Above and elsewhere I have described my concept of a designing mind. That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no!

Correct. And if there is a 50/50 chance of a yes, it is absurd to reject a theory solely on the grounds that you believe the answer is no.

Source of information
QUOTES: "Since the information content of the entire physical universe has always been lower than that found in even the simplest living organism, we can conclude that no scientific examination of the initial conditions of the universe or of planet Earth could yield a naturalistic prediction of life (with its fantastically high information content) at any later time in the history of the universe. In consequence, since life came into existence on Earth, a reasonable conclusion is that the source of this exponential jump in information content comes from beyond nature—from a super-natural source.
“If a skeptic demands a miracle as a reason to believe, consider that God has provided just such a confirmation of his reality in the abundance of life abounding on planet Earth.
"

DAVID: Note at times ID sneaks in God. It is on their not so 'private' website. What is important in this article is a clear discussion of the use of information theory as ID views it. dhw seems to think information is a dirty word, based on past discussions. Understanding the theory based on Shannon's initial work is a vital part of understanding how to view ID theory.

The whole article supports the argument that life is too complex to have arisen by chance. If you like to say that life requires too much “information” to have arisen by chance, I really couldn’t care less. Yet again: I accept the logic of this argument, so please stop dodging behind it whenever I challenge your illogical theory of evolution.

Second article:
DAVID: Highly technical article. I've plucked out the meat. T repeat the old point: life uses provided information to run its systems. That life had to have an original source of useful information when life started.

It’s amazing the extent to which some people can cloak the simplest of arguments in masses of jargon to make it sound more scientific and impressive. The “meat” remains the fact that the mechanisms which enable materials to live, reproduce and evolve are so complex that it requires blind faith to believe they could have come together by chance.

DAVID: Ed Feser again:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hollow-universe-of-modern-physics.html#more

Pure physics
QUOTES: it made it possible for physics to become an exact science. But physics did so precisely by deliberately confining its attention to those aspects of nature susceptible of an exact mathematical treatment.
"And it is no less fallacious to infer from the success of physics that there is nothing more to material reality, or at least nothing more worth knowing, than what physics has to say about it (even if a lot of people who like to think of themselves as pretty smart are guilty of this fallacy).

Here is another piece on the same subject:

The limitations of science

Science can only concern itself with the material world as we know it. Science cannot speculate on matters beyond the scope of what can be tried and tested, and so by definition any belief in a non-physical world must be unscientific. But unscientific does not mean unreal or non-existent. There are many things in our lives that transcend the material world as we know it – love, art, music, beauty, premonitions and so on – but more importantly, the tools with which we examine the material world are inadequate. […] We are clever enough to devise instruments that hugely enhance our capabilities of perception, but even then, they will only be able to show us that which the human brain is able to perceive. How, then, can we know that there are no other forms of life and being that exist on a totally different plane? A deaf man might argue that because he can hear nothing, sound doesn’t exist. This is not to denigrate science. It is simply a denial of the right of science to exclude the possibility of phenomena outside its range. By extension, it is a denial of the right of an atheist to claim that religious faith is unscientific and therefore wrong.

You may be surprised at the source of this little article, which is my "Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe”. You do not need to be a believer to understand arguments that support belief, just as you do not need to be an atheist to understand disbelief.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 25, 2022, 14:43 (673 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My sense of it all butts heads with your rigid agnosticism. I criticized your human form of God enough in the past not to repeat it again. Above and elsewhere I have described my concept of a designing mind. That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no!

dhw: Correct. And if there is a 50/50 chance of a yes, it is absurd to reject a theory solely on the grounds that you believe the answer is no.

I've chosen a logical side that tells me complex design without a designing mind is impossible.


Source of information
QUOTES: "In consequence, since life came into existence on Earth, a reasonable conclusion is that the source of this exponential jump in information content comes from beyond nature—from a super-natural source.
“If a skeptic demands a miracle as a reason to believe, consider that God has provided just such a confirmation of his reality in the abundance of life abounding on planet Earth.
"

DAVID: Note at times ID sneaks in God. It is on their not so 'private' website. What is important in this article is a clear discussion of the use of information theory as ID views it. dhw seems to think information is a dirty word, based on past discussions. Understanding the theory based on Shannon's initial work is a vital part of understanding how to view ID theory.

dhw: The whole article supports the argument that life is too complex to have arisen by chance. If you like to say that life requires too much “information” to have arisen by chance, I really couldn’t care less. Yet again: I accept the logic of this argument, so please stop dodging behind it whenever I challenge your illogical theory of evolution.

My theory of evolution fits exactly how a designer would have done it, as based on the actual history. I have explained an answer to each of your objections, but they don't satisfy your constant doubt.


Second article:
DAVID: Highly technical article. I've plucked out the meat. T repeat the old point: life uses provided information to run its systems. That life had to have an original source of useful information when life started.

dhw: It’s amazing the extent to which some people can cloak the simplest of arguments in masses of jargon to make it sound more scientific and impressive. The “meat” remains the fact that the mechanisms which enable materials to live, reproduce and evolve are so complex that it requires blind faith to believe they could have come together by chance.

Only a rigid blind faith in chance could believe in the current results of evolution as coming from chance.


DAVID: Ed Feser again:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hollow-universe-of-modern-physics.html#more

Pure physics
QUOTES: it made it possible for physics to become an exact science. But physics did so precisely by deliberately confining its attention to those aspects of nature susceptible of an exact mathematical treatment.
"And it is no less fallacious to infer from the success of physics that there is nothing more to material reality, or at least nothing more worth knowing, than what physics has to say about it (even if a lot of people who like to think of themselves as pretty smart are guilty of this fallacy).

dhw: Here is another piece on the same subject:

The limitations of science

Science can only concern itself with the material world as we know it. Science cannot speculate on matters beyond the scope of what can be tried and tested, and so by definition any belief in a non-physical world must be unscientific. But unscientific does not mean unreal or non-existent. There are many things in our lives that transcend the material world as we know it – love, art, music, beauty, premonitions and so on – but more importantly, the tools with which we examine the material world are inadequate. […] We are clever enough to devise instruments that hugely enhance our capabilities of perception, but even then, they will only be able to show us that which the human brain is able to perceive. How, then, can we know that there are no other forms of life and being that exist on a totally different plane? A deaf man might argue that because he can hear nothing, sound doesn’t exist. This is not to denigrate science. It is simply a denial of the right of science to exclude the possibility of phenomena outside its range. By extension, it is a denial of the right of an atheist to claim that religious faith is unscientific and therefore wrong.

dhw: You may be surprised at the source of this little article, which is my "Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe”. You do not need to be a believer to understand arguments that support belief, just as you do not need to be an atheist to understand disbelief.

By definition what is outside of science is the supernatural. The bold I just put in from Feser is what you point out above. we can never get to actually proving beyond what we can measure materially in science. For me I have logically accepted that such demonstrated complexity in living biochemistry requires a designing mind, source unknown. For me nothing else makes any sense.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Thursday, May 26, 2022, 11:01 (673 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My sense of it all butts heads with your rigid agnosticism. I criticized your human form of God enough in the past not to repeat it again. Above and elsewhere I have described my concept of a designing mind. That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no! (dhw's bold)

dhw: Correct. And if there is a 50/50 chance of a yes, it is absurd to reject a theory solely on the grounds that you believe the answer is no.

DAVID: I've chosen a logical side that tells me complex design without a designing mind is impossible.

That is not the 50/50 we are talking about, which is the possibility that your God has human thought patterns and emotions. (See bold above.) Please stop dodging.

Source of information

dhw: The whole article supports the argument that life is too complex to have arisen by chance. If you like to say that life requires too much “information” to have arisen by chance, I really couldn’t care less. Yet again: I accept the logic of this argument, so please stop dodging behind it whenever I challenge your illogical theory of evolution.

DAVID: My theory of evolution fits exactly how a designer would have done it, as based on the actual history. I have explained an answer to each of your objections, but they don't satisfy your constant doubt.

Your various theories of evolution have led you to make the following statements:
What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?

I’m sorry, but I do not regard your inability to explain your theory as an explanation.
On the question of why he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food: God makes sense only to himself.”

No, I am not satisfied with the explanation that your theory only makes sense to God, or with your telling me elsewhere that if I want answers to my questions concerning the illogicality of your theory, I should go and ask God.

Second article:
DAVID: Highly technical article. I've plucked out the meat. T repeat the old point: life uses provided information to run its systems. That life had to have an original source of useful information when life started.

dhw: It’s amazing the extent to which some people can cloak the simplest of arguments in masses of jargon to make it sound more scientific and impressive. The “meat” remains the fact that the mechanisms which enable materials to live, reproduce and evolve are so complex that it requires blind faith to believe they could have come together by chance.

DAVID: Only a rigid blind faith in chance could believe in the current results of evolution as coming from chance.

Agreed. And we don’t need masses of jargon to make that point. Nor should we ignore the fact that a rigid blind faith is also required for belief in the existence of an unknown, hidden, all-powerful, sourceless mind, capable of creating a universe and all the intricacies of living cells, and which has simply been there for ever and ever.

DAVID: Ed Feser again:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-hollow-universe-of-modern-physics.html#more

Pure physics
QUOTE […] "And it is no less fallacious to infer from the success of physics that there is nothing more to material reality, or at least nothing more worth knowing, than what physics has to say about it (even if a lot of people who like to think of themselves as pretty smart are guilty of this fallacy).

dhw: Here is another piece on the same subject:
The limitations of science

QUOTE: “Science can only concern itself with the material world as we know it. Science cannot speculate on matters beyond the scope of what can be tried and tested, and so by definition any belief in a non-physical world must be unscientific. But unscientific does not mean unreal or non-existent” etc. etc.

dhw: You may be surprised at the source of this little article, which is my "Agnostic’s Brief Guide to the Universe”. You do not need to be a believer to understand arguments that support belief, just as you do not need to be an atheist to understand disbelief.

DAVID: By definition what is outside of science is the supernatural. The bold I just put in from Feser is what you point out above. we can never get to actually proving beyond what we can measure materially in science. For me I have logically accepted that such demonstrated complexity in living biochemistry requires a designing mind, source unknown. For me nothing else makes any sense.

Understood. I was merely pointing out that I had made the same point as Feser some 15 years ago, and you do not need to be a believer to make it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 26, 2022, 16:03 (672 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, May 26, 2022, 16:20

Source of information

dhw: The whole article supports the argument that life is too complex to have arisen by chance. If you like to say that life requires too much “information” to have arisen by chance, I really couldn’t care less. Yet again: I accept the logic of this argument, so please stop dodging behind it whenever I challenge your illogical theory of evolution.

DAVID: My theory of evolution fits exactly how a designer would have done it, as based on the actual history. I have explained an answer to each of your objections, but they don't satisfy your constant doubt.

dhw: Your various theories of evolution have led you to make the following statements:
What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?

dhw: I’m sorry, but I do not regard your inability to explain your theory as an explanation.

I chose to accept what God did as His intent. There is no way I can know his underlying reasoning. I can't explain it for you is a reasonable retort.

dhw: On the question of why he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food: God makes sense only to himself.”

See the other thread for the logical answer. Food supply is required NOW for 7.8 billion folks with many malnourished. The bush could work better but must work. And God making sense to Himself is a truism, and contains an answer that tells you God must know what He is doing. It worked and we are here discussing Him. I cannot unfold His thinking to unfold all your doubts.

dhw: No, I am not satisfied with the explanation that your theory only makes sense to God, or with your telling me elsewhere that if I want answers to my questions concerning the illogicality of your theory, I should go and ask God.

You are so unaware of how to think about God as I do, in the form of a sourceless designer, we don't discuss Him clearly to each other. One must start with the assumption, the history we see reveals His planned results. I then look for logical reasons for the giant bush, etc. My analysis may not reflect the designer's reasons. but they are the best guesses I have. You simply object to the known record He created. I find your objections totally illogical.

You have objected to the roundabout way humans arrived since we started these discussions. You don't like the 'God's choice' answer, but it is one sensible point. It is a roundabout way but the way that happened. You simply object to God's choice of method, so you know better than God how to do it. I don't.


Second article:

DAVID: Only a rigid blind faith in chance could believe in the current results of evolution as coming from chance.

dhw: Agreed. And we don’t need masses of jargon to make that point. Nor should we ignore the fact that a rigid blind faith is also required for belief in the existence of an unknown, hidden, all-powerful, sourceless mind, capable of creating a universe and all the intricacies of living cells, and which has simply been there for ever and ever.

Again avoiding the point, complex biochemical life must have a designer mind creating its not blind faith, but logical reasoning to jump the chasm, that I finally took.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Friday, May 27, 2022, 08:31 (672 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: On the question of why he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans and our food: “God makes sense only to himself.”

DAVID: See the other thread for the logical answer. Food supply is required NOW for 7.8 billion folks with many malnourished. The bush could work better but must work.

Correct. Nothing to do with the previous 3.X thousand million years’ worth of food supplies.

DAVID: And God making sense to Himself is a truism, and contains an answer that tells you God must know what He is doing. It worked and we are here discussing Him. I cannot unfold His thinking to unfold all your doubts.

Of course God makes sense to himself, but you keep forgetting that according to you, your theory ONLY makes sense to him, i.e. not to you. My own theories make perfect sense to you (see Part One). My doubts concern YOUR thinking, not his (which we can only theorize about).

DAVID: My analysis may not reflect the designer's reasons. but they are the best guesses I have. You simply object to the known record He created. I find your objections totally illogical.

You continue to pretend that I object to the “known record”. I do not. The known record is the history of countless life forms and econiches that came and went – the latest of these being humans and our econiches. I challenge your belief that every single extinct life form and econiche was specially designed as an “absolute requirement” for us and our econiches, but you continue to pretend that your inexplicable belief is part of the history.

DAVID: You have objected to the roundabout way humans arrived since we started these discussions. You don't like the 'God's choice' answer, but it is one sensible point. It is a roundabout way but the way that happened. You simply object to God's choice of method, so you know better than God how to do it. I don't.

I have no objections whatsoever to the roundabout way in which H. sapiens arrived. I have no objections whatsoever to the history of life as we know it. I only object to your assumption that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and therefore he designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and he chose to design us in stages although he was perfectly capable of designing species de novo, with no precursors. I have offered logical explanations to explain all these anomalies, but you stick to a theory which “makes sense only to God” and so clearly does not make sense to you.

Second article:

DAVID: Only a rigid blind faith in chance could believe in the current results of evolution as coming from chance.

dhw: Agreed. And we don’t need masses of jargon to make that point. Nor should we ignore the fact that a rigid blind faith is also required for belief in the existence of an unknown, hidden, all-powerful, sourceless mind, capable of creating a universe and all the intricacies of living cells, and which has simply been there for ever and ever.

DAVID: Again avoiding the point, complex biochemical life must have a designer mind creating its not blind faith, but logical reasoning to jump the chasm, that I finally took.

Yes, the design argument is a logical reason for “jumping the chasm”, which entails blind faith in the existence of an “an unknown, hidden all-powerful, sourceless mind” etc., as bolded above.

Dragonflies

DAVID: How did this organism evolve with such intricate flight controls for a strange elongated body shape. Only design fits. And to prepare for the usual dhw complaint, dragonflies have many important functions in their ecosystem.

I agree that design fits. If God exists, it is possible that he endowed the cells of which all life forms are made with the intelligence to design their own means of survival. All life forms have important functions in their ecosystem. This does not mean that all life forms and econiches over the last 3.x billion years, including dragonflies, were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [by which you mean God’s individual design of every life form and econiche] to finally produce humans”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Friday, May 27, 2022, 17:28 (671 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have objected to the roundabout way humans arrived since we started these discussions. You don't like the 'God's choice' answer, but it is one sensible point. It is a roundabout way but the way that happened. You simply object to God's choice of method, so you know better than God how to do it. I don't.

dhw: I have no objections whatsoever to the roundabout way in which H. sapiens arrived. I have no objections whatsoever to the history of life as we know it. I only object to your assumption that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and therefore he designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us, and he chose to design us in stages although he was perfectly capable of designing species de novo, with no precursors. I have offered logical explanations to explain all these anomalies, but you stick to a theory which “makes sense only to God” and so clearly does not make sense to you.

Your declaration that my theories make no sense to me is the strangest psychiatric analysis I've ever seen. I make perfect sense to me, and if you wish to act as my psychiatrist you must listen to what I tell you about my thinking and accept it for analysis at the start of our counselling sessions. To counter your conclusions: I simply accept the history as what did rationally.


Second article:

DAVID: Again avoiding the point, complex biochemical life must have a designer mind creating its not blind faith, but logical reasoning to jump the chasm, that I finally took.

dhw: Yes, the design argument is a logical reason for “jumping the chasm”, which entails blind faith in the existence of an “an unknown, hidden all-powerful, sourceless mind” etc., as bolded above.

If design is as complex as we demonstrate, that mind must exist, source unknown.


Dragonflies

DAVID: How did this organism evolve with such intricate flight controls for a strange elongated body shape. Only design fits. And to prepare for the usual dhw complaint, dragonflies have many important functions in their ecosystem.

dhw: I agree that design fits. If God exists, it is possible that he endowed the cells of which all life forms are made with the intelligence to design their own means of survival. All life forms have important functions in their ecosystem. This does not mean that all life forms and econiches over the last 3.x billion years, including dragonflies, were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [by which you mean God’s individual design of every life form and econiche] to finally produce humans”.

If complex design exists, a designer mind exists, simple logic.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Saturday, May 28, 2022, 07:41 (671 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: None of us can know his reasoning, and so we have various theories. You cannot find any sense in your own, whereas you admit my various alternatives are logical, and you dismiss them solely on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought and emotion, although even your hero Adler acknowledges that there is a 50/50 chance that your God has such thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: The 50/50 differs from your statement: it is whether God cares about us at all.

I rely on you to tell us Adler’s thoughts. Maybe the 50/50 was your own assessment of the odds when you wrote: “That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no.” My apologies to Adler if it was you who gave odds of 50/50 concerning your God’s human thought patterns and emotions. All the more reason, though, why you should not reject my “humanizing” alternatives out of hand.

Second article:
DAVID: Again avoiding the point, complex biochemical life must have a designer mind creating its not blind faith, but logical reasoning to jump the chasm, that I finally took.

dhw: Yes, the design argument is a logical reason for “jumping the chasm”, which entails blind faith in the existence of an “an unknown, hidden all-powerful, sourceless mind” etc., as bolded above.

DAVID: If design is as complex as we demonstrate, that mind must exist, source unknown.

We are going round in circles. Please stop ignoring the counter argument.

Dragonflies
DAVID: How did this organism evolve with such intricate flight controls for a strange elongated body shape. Only design fits. And to prepare for the usual dhw complaint, dragonflies have many important functions in their ecosystem.

dhw: I agree that design fits. If God exists, it is possible that he endowed the cells of which all life forms are made with the intelligence to design their own means of survival. All life forms have important functions in their ecosystem. This does not mean that all life forms and econiches over the last 3.x billion years, including dragonflies, were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [by which you mean God’s individual design of every life form and econiche] to finally produce humans”.

DAVID: If complex design exists, a designer mind exists, simple logic.

I agreed with the comment about design (but offered an alternative to direct creation). As usual, you try to dodge my objection to your illogical theistic theory of evolution, as bolded, by focusing instead on your God’s existence.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 28, 2022, 18:28 (670 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: None of us can know his reasoning, and so we have various theories. You cannot find any sense in your own, whereas you admit my various alternatives are logical, and you dismiss them solely on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought and emotion, although even your hero Adler acknowledges that there is a 50/50 chance that your God has such thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: The 50/50 differs from your statement: it is whether God cares about us at all.

dhw: I rely on you to tell us Adler’s thoughts. Maybe the 50/50 was your own assessment of the odds when you wrote: “That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no.” My apologies to Adler if it was you who gave odds of 50/50 concerning your God’s human thought patterns and emotions. All the more reason, though, why you should not reject my “humanizing” alternatives out of hand.

Sorry. I was simply reminding what 50/50 means. Your humanizing assumes a form of God that I believe does not exist.


Dragonflies
DAVID: How did this organism evolve with such intricate flight controls for a strange elongated body shape. Only design fits. And to prepare for the usual dhw complaint, dragonflies have many important functions in their ecosystem.

dhw: I agree that design fits. If God exists, it is possible that he endowed the cells of which all life forms are made with the intelligence to design their own means of survival. All life forms have important functions in their ecosystem. This does not mean that all life forms and econiches over the last 3.x billion years, including dragonflies, were “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [by which you mean God’s individual design of every life form and econiche] to finally produce humans”.

DAVID: If complex design exists, a designer mind exists, simple logic.

dhw: I agreed with the comment about design (but offered an alternative to direct creation). As usual, you try to dodge my objection to your illogical theistic theory of evolution, as bolded, by focusing instead on your God’s existence.

I still view your strange objection to the designer's methodology as a criticism of the method. If you could find a way to view God as I do, the illogicality would disappear. :-) My God cannot think as you do. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Monday, May 23, 2022, 15:21 (675 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

Symbiosis and reproduction

dhw: So maybe he had a different purpose for designing them, or maybe he didn’t design them at all. Please will you finally stop assuming that he individually designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. and that every one of them served the purpose of preparing the way for humans plus food. That is your theory – it is not the history!

DAVID: But I view it as the history of God's works.

dhw: The history is countless life forms, the vast majority of which did not lead to humans and our food. Your theory of God’s purpose (solely to create humans plus our food) and method (to individually design every life form, econiche etc, including all those that did NOT lead to humans) is not history but your personal INTERPRETATION of history, which is so illogical that you cannot explain it yourself.

I interpret it as God's works, which is not illogical if one believes in a designer. Your psychiatric view of my mind's decisions is patently absurd. I don't explain God's actions. I attempt to interpret them, using a view of God, whose characteristics you won't accept.


Parasite good influence

DAVID: : dhw diminishes the true understanding of why ecosystems had to evolve and stabilize by repeatedly stating his view of my theories as 'God only wanted humans and their food'.

dhw: That is precisely your theory, repeated over and over again. You claim that every past ecosystem was preparation for/part of “the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food, and “the creation of a diversity of life is an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process to finally produce humans.” And you have no idea why the creation of 3.x billion years’ worth of mainly extinct organisms and ecosystems were absolutely necessary for your all-powerful God to produce the only species (plus food) that he wanted to produce.

Your offhand 'plus food' shows your lack of understanding. It is so simple: God chose to evolve humans over much time for his own reasons. Ecosystems provided necessary required food along the way. You simply criticize God's method.

dhw: Nor have you any idea why your God, who was perfectly capable of producing new species without precursors, should have decided to produce the only species he wanted in its-bitsy stages. Your theory “makes sense only to God.” You simply refuse to contemplate the possibility that the history might denote a different purpose and/or method.

Why can't you accept God's history? You simply criticise.


DAVID: My form of belief was perfectly comfortable with IDer's I met. The way you propose to think about God has always been foreign to me, probing, doubting, and always conceiving of Him as partially human in thought.

dhw: You and ID-ers and all religious folk would be comfortable with the theory that God exists. But your antipathy towards the possibility that God has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours would be bitterly opposed by most of the religious folk I know, and you have never yet succeeded in finding one single name to back the combination of contradictions that make up your theory of evolution, as dissected over and over again.

DAVID: I self-distill many expert thoughts to reach my own conclusions. All we who accept God can completely assume is that He created reality.

dhw: Of course. That includes the history described above: past species and ecosystems that have no role in the present.

How can the past also be part of the present? Evolution is a pure continuum


DAVID: Beyond His role as a planner and creator, any guesses about his personal thoughts are sheer conjecture. I try to avoid considering the human conjectures in the various religious books. Adler's suggests that God having any feelings is 50/50!

dhw: Your assumption that he individually designed every species, econiche, natural wonder etc., and did so for the sole purpose of design human plus food, is pure conjecture; In your less blinkered moments, you even dare to offer your own "human" conjectures: e.g. God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, is too kind to deliberately create harmful things (and even tries to correct the “errors” arising from his system), wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. And if Adler suggests that God having “feelings” is 50/50, it is plainly absurd to discount the possibility that God has “feelings”.

I said 50/50. Not a discount.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 11:15 (675 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: […] Please will you finally stop assuming that he individually designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. and that every one of them served the purpose of preparing the way for humans plus food. That is your theory – it is not the history!

DAVID: But I view it as the history of God's works.

dhw: The history is countless life forms, the vast majority of which did not lead to humans and our food. Your theory of God’s purpose (solely to create humans plus our food) and method (to individually design every life form, econiche etc, including all those that did NOT lead to humans) is not history but your personal INTERPRETATION of history, which is so illogical that you cannot explain it yourself.

DAVID: I interpret it as God's works, which is not illogical if one believes in a designer. Your psychiatric view of my mind's decisions is patently absurd. I don't explain God's actions. I attempt to interpret them, using a view of God, whose characteristics you won't accept.

We are not talking about characteristics here, but about the history and your interpretation of the history (see bold below), and it is your interpretation that you cannot explain, which is why you tell me to go and ask God!

Dhw: You claim that every past ecosystem was preparation for/part of “the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food, and “the creation of a diversity of life is an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process to finally produce humans.” And you have no idea why the creation of 3.x billion years’ worth of mainly extinct organisms and ecosystems was absolutely necessary for your all-powerful God to produce the only species (plus food) that he wanted to produce.

DAVID: Your offhand 'plus food' shows your lack of understanding. It is so simple: God chose to evolve humans over much time for his own reasons. Ecosystems provided necessary required food along the way. You simply criticize God's method.

I am not criticizing God’s method. I am criticizing your theory (a) that he individually designed every life form and food supply for every life form, and (b) he did so as preparation for humans and our food supply, though you agree that past food bushes were for the past, and extinct life has no role in current time. You also agree yet again that you yourself can’t find any reason for this combination of theories, and so I suggest that your God’s reasons for and/or method of creating the history of life may NOT be the reasons and method you impose on him.

DAVID: How can the past also be part of the present? Evolution is a pure continuum.

Evolution is a continuum that branched out into vast numbers of life forms and econiches, most of which are now extinct and were NOT a continuum from bacteria to humans and our current econiches. It is therefore illogical to claim that every single one must have been specially designed as preparation for us humans and our econiches.

Dhw: […] if Adler suggests that God having “feelings” is 50/50, it is plainly absurd to discount the possibility that God has “feelings”.

DAVID: I said 50/50. Not a discount.

You refuse to accept any alternative theory of evolution which entails your God having “feelings”. You cling to Adler, but he says there’s a 50/50 chance that your God does have feelings, in which case your one and only reason for rejecting my alternatives goes against Adler, who says there’s a 50/50 chance that your one and only objection is wrong.

dhw: Please tell us where Darwin states that the gaps are due to God’s intervention by designing species with no precursors.

DAVID: Relax. All I pointed out was Darwin's worry about the Cambrian gap, which his theory could not explain.

You said he agreed with you. He didn’t. He thought the most likely reason for the gaps was the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: The gaps are phenotypical, but jumps in form can only indicate the design of an active designer, no matter how you attempt to distort the point.

dhw: I am not distorting the point! You use the gaps here to prove your God’s existence, but if there are gaps and humans are descended from species designed without precursors, then you cannot claim that there is an unbroken line between bacteria and humans, in which case it makes no sense to say that God’s purpose from the beginning was to create humans.

DAVID: God's designing role certainly explains the gaps in form from bacteria to humans. Makes perfect sense with an uncritical view of God.

You want an uncritical view of your theories, which you yourself cannot explain. Your answer simply ignores the contradiction I have now bolded.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 24, 2022, 17:22 (674 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

Dhw: You claim that every past ecosystem was preparation for/part of “the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food, and “the creation of a diversity of life is an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process to finally produce humans.” And you have no idea why the creation of 3.x billion years’ worth of mainly extinct organisms and ecosystems was absolutely necessary for your all-powerful God to produce the only species (plus food) that he wanted to produce.

DAVID: Your offhand 'plus food' shows your lack of understanding. It is so simple: God chose to evolve humans over much time for his own reasons. Ecosystems provided necessary required food along the way. You simply criticize God's method.

dhw: I am not criticizing God’s method. I am criticizing your theory (a) that he individually designed every life form and food supply for every life form, and (b) he did so as preparation for humans and our food supply, though you agree that past food bushes were for the past, and extinct life has no role in current time. You also agree yet again that you yourself can’t find any reason for this combination of theories, and so I suggest that your God’s reasons for and/or method of creating the history of life may NOT be the reasons and method you impose on him.

What you do not understand is how I view the works of a designing mind. That mind makes decisions as to methods and times of evolving forms, based on that mind's decisions, unknown to me. I must look at results. Endpoints give me goals that were achieved. A designing mind can create gaps in a formation of forms at any time it wishes. That view fully explains the history of evolution from a design standpoint.


Dhw: […] if Adler suggests that God having “feelings” is 50/50, it is plainly absurd to discount the possibility that God has “feelings”.

dhw: Please tell us where Darwin states that the gaps are due to God’s intervention by designing species with no precursors.

DAVID: Relax. All I pointed out was Darwin's worry about the Cambrian gap, which his theory could not explain.

dhw: You said he agreed with you. He didn’t. He thought the most likely reason for the gaps was the incompleteness of the fossil record.

The agreement I referred to was Darwin and I recognize the significance of the gap, not the differing interpretations you bring up.


DAVID: The gaps are phenotypical, but jumps in form can only indicate the design of an active designer, no matter how you attempt to distort the point.

dhw: I am not distorting the point! You use the gaps here to prove your God’s existence, but if there are gaps and humans are descended from species designed without precursors, then you cannot claim that there is an unbroken line between bacteria and humans, in which case it makes no sense to say that God’s purpose from the beginning was to create humans.

DAVID: God's designing role certainly explains the gaps in form from bacteria to humans. Makes perfect sense with an uncritical view of God.

dhw: You want an uncritical view of your theories, which you yourself cannot explain. Your answer simply ignores the contradiction I have now bolded.

Your so-called contradictions come from a confused view of what a designing mind does, as I have explained.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Wednesday, May 25, 2022, 10:51 (674 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you do not understand is how I view the works of a designing mind. That mind makes decisions as to methods and times of evolving forms, based on that mind's decisions, unknown to me. I must look at results. Endpoints give me goals that were achieved. A designing mind can create gaps in a formation of forms at any time it wishes. That view fully explains the history of evolution from a design standpoint.

The results are available for all of us to see, and if God exists, they are based on his decisions, which as you say are unknown to you. His decisions will be based on his purpose, which is also unknown to you. Of course he could create gaps if he wanted to. But none of this alters the fact that your interpretation of his purpose (only to design us and our food) does NOT explain why – according to you – he deliberately designed countless life forms and foods that did NOT lead to his one and only purpose, or why he created us in stages although – according to you – he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors. Far from explaining the history from a design standpoint, your theory leaves you with no alternative to confessing that you cannot explain it and it makes sense only to God.

dhw: Please tell us where Darwin states that the gaps are due to God’s intervention by designing species with no precursors.

DAVID: Relax. All I pointed out was Darwin's worry about the Cambrian gap, which his theory could not explain.

dhw: You said he agreed with you. He didn’t. He thought the most likely reason for the gaps was the incompleteness of the fossil record.

DAVID: The agreement I referred to was Darwin and I recognize the significance of the gap, not the differing interpretations you bring up.

The gaps are a fact that we ALL recognize. It is only in our interpretations that we disagree, and Darwin’s was different from yours.

dhw: You use the gaps here to prove your God’s existence, but if there are gaps and humans are descended from species designed without precursors, then you cannot claim that there is an unbroken line between bacteria and humans, in which case it makes no sense to say that God’s purpose from the beginning was to create humans.

DAVID: God's designing role certainly explains the gaps in form from bacteria to humans. Makes perfect sense with an uncritical view of God.

dhw: You want an uncritical view of your theories, which you yourself cannot explain. Your answer simply ignores the contradiction I have now bolded.

DAVID: Your so-called contradictions come from a confused view of what a designing mind does, as I have explained.

You have explained nothing. You merely gloss over the contradictions by telling us that this is what a designer does.

God and evolution of the universe

dhw: I do not question why all these mysterious goings-on must exist! I question your theory that your God designed all of them, because all of them were an "absolute requirement" for him to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans. […] you have not given me a single reason why I should “buy” your theory, which you yourself find inexplicable […]

DAVID: I'm not surprised at your steadfast agnosticism: as I understand your history, the God of the Old Testament so disturbed you, you dropped away from belief. But recognizing the complexities of design kept you from atheism. Despite all the material for design I have presented for your education, you are still stuck at the point at the time you opened this website. The point of that start was never meant to change your mind. Your choice.

dhw: Yet again you dodge the issues raised by your illogical theories. The history and reasons for my agnosticism are totally irrelevant.

DAVID: Your mindset is relevant and rigid. You see the design that keeps you agnostic. The next logical step for a logical human mind is to recognize the design complexity must be created by a designing mind. Where or how that mind came from is irrelevant. All of the new information that exists in living matter has to come from somewhere. See today's entry.

I keep acknowledging the logic behind the design theory. But the same logic tells me that if our human minds require a source, then a mind infinitely more powerful than ours must also have a source. You acknowledge that belief in some sort of supernatural, eternal, sourceless, all-powerful form of consciousness requires faith, as does belief in the powers of chance to create life and consciousness. Both beliefs defy logic. You know all this, as we have gone over it again and again, and you have only switched the discussion in this direction as a means of dodging the issues raised by all the contradictions bolded above, that lead to theories which you can’t explain and which “make sense only to God”. Please stick to the subject.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 25, 2022, 14:15 (673 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The results are available for all of us to see, and if God exists, they are based on his decisions, which as you say are unknown to you. His decisions will be based on his purpose, which is also unknown to you. Of course he could create gaps if he wanted to. But none of this alters the fact that your interpretation of his purpose (only to design us and our food) does NOT explain why – according to you – he deliberately designed countless life forms and foods that did NOT lead to his one and only purpose, or why he created us in stages although – according to you – he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors. Far from explaining the history from a design standpoint, your theory leaves you with no alternative to confessing that you cannot explain it and it makes sense only to God.

Once again you denigrate the vital need for food energy to support life over 3.8 by of evolution. That is what all the branches that do not lead to human provide. We are worrried now about ecosystem damage that might reduce food supply.

God and evolution of the universe

dhw: I do not question why all these mysterious goings-on must exist! I question your theory that your God designed all of them, because all of them were an "absolute requirement" for him to fulfil his one and only goal of designing humans. […] you have not given me a single reason why I should “buy” your theory, which you yourself find inexplicable […]

DAVID: I'm not surprised at your steadfast agnosticism: as I understand your history, the God of the Old Testament so disturbed you, you dropped away from belief. But recognizing the complexities of design kept you from atheism. Despite all the material for design I have presented for your education, you are still stuck at the point at the time you opened this website. The point of that start was never meant to change your mind. Your choice.

dhw: Yet again you dodge the issues raised by your illogical theories. The history and reasons for my agnosticism are totally irrelevant.

DAVID: Your mindset is relevant and rigid. You see the design that keeps you agnostic. The next logical step for a logical human mind is to recognize the design complexity must be created by a designing mind. Where or how that mind came from is irrelevant. All of the new information that exists in living matter has to come from somewhere. See today's entry.

dhw: I keep acknowledging the logic behind the design theory. But the same logic tells me that if our human minds require a source, then a mind infinitely more powerful than ours must also have a source. You acknowledge that belief in some sort of supernatural, eternal, sourceless, all-powerful form of consciousness requires faith, as does belief in the powers of chance to create life and consciousness. Both beliefs defy logic. You know all this, as we have gone over it again and again, and you have only switched the discussion in this direction as a means of dodging the issues raised by all the contradictions bolded above, that lead to theories which you can’t explain and which “make sense only to God”. Please stick to the subject.

The subject is proof of a designer. The whole debate at its base is does God exist? And, yes, if God exists, He is sourceless. You don't like my interpretations of what i think are His actions and possible motives. but I like them, as they make perfect sense to me.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Thursday, May 26, 2022, 10:53 (673 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The results are available for all of us to see, and if God exists, they are based on his decisions, which as you say are unknown to you. His decisions will be based on his purpose, which is also unknown to you. Of course he could create gaps if he wanted to. But none of this alters the fact that your interpretation of his purpose (only to design us and our food) does NOT explain why – according to you – he deliberately designed countless life forms and foods that did NOT lead to his one and only purpose, or why he created us in stages although – according to you – he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors. Far from explaining the history from a design standpoint, your theory leaves you with no alternative to confessing that you cannot explain it and it makes sense only to God.

DAVID: Once again you denigrate the vital need for food energy to support life over 3.8 by of evolution. That is what all the branches that do not lead to human provide. We are worrried now about ecosystem damage that might reduce food supply.

Once again: all forms of life require food. That does not mean that all the branches and foods that did not lead to humans and our food were specially designed as “an absolute requirement” in preparation for humans and our food! And the fact that our current ecosystems are in danger is totally irrelevant to the question of why your God specially designed countless extinct life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us and our ecosystems if his one and only aim was to design us and our ecosystems!

DAVID: Your mindset is relevant and rigid. You see the design that keeps you agnostic. The next logical step for a logical human mind is to recognize the design complexity must be created by a designing mind. Where or how that mind came from is irrelevant. All of the new information that exists in living matter has to come from somewhere. See today's entry.

dhw: I keep acknowledging the logic behind the design theory. But the same logic tells me that if our human minds require a source, then a mind infinitely more powerful than ours must also have a source. You acknowledge that belief in some sort of supernatural, eternal, sourceless, all-powerful form of consciousness requires faith, as does belief in the powers of chance to create life and consciousness. Both beliefs defy logic. You know all this, as we have gone over it again and again, and you have only switched the discussion in this direction as a means of dodging the issues raised by all the contradictions bolded above, that lead to theories which you can’t explain and which “make sense only to God”. Please stick to the subject.

DAVID: The subject is proof of a designer. The whole debate at its base is does God exist? And, yes, if God exists, He is sourceless. You don't like my interpretations of what i think are His actions and possible motives. but I like them, as they make perfect sense to me.

Look at the heading. The subject is “David’s theory of evolution”, and our discussion presupposes the existence of God and concerns the many contradictions in your theistic theory, as well as providing various theistic alternatives to it. See Part Two for your idea of “sense”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 26, 2022, 15:44 (672 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you denigrate the vital need for food energy to support life over 3.8 by of evolution. That is what all the branches that do not lead to human provide. We are worried now about ecosystem damage that might reduce food supply.

dhw: Once again: all forms of life require food. That does not mean that all the branches and foods that did not lead to humans and our food were specially designed as “an absolute requirement” in preparation for humans and our food! And the fact that our current ecosystems are in danger is totally irrelevant to the question of why your God specially designed countless extinct life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us and our ecosystems if his one and only aim was to design us and our ecosystems!

But evolution did lead to us. You can't deny it. And you still denigrate the food supply need, as evidenced by the 'worry'. Without all those existing branches of the bush evolution created our food supply would not handle our burgeoning population. You can't have it both ways. The designer foresaw His creatged future.


DAVID: Your mindset is relevant and rigid. You see the design that keeps you agnostic. The next logical step for a logical human mind is to recognize the design complexity must be created by a designing mind. Where or how that mind came from is irrelevant. All of the new information that exists in living matter has to come from somewhere. See today's entry.

dhw: I keep acknowledging the logic behind the design theory. But the same logic tells me that if our human minds require a source, then a mind infinitely more powerful than ours must also have a source. You acknowledge that belief in some sort of supernatural, eternal, sourceless, all-powerful form of consciousness requires faith, as does belief in the powers of chance to create life and consciousness. Both beliefs defy logic. You know all this, as we have gone over it again and again, and you have only switched the discussion in this direction as a means of dodging the issues raised by all the contradictions bolded above, that lead to theories which you can’t explain and which “make sense only to God”. Please stick to the subject.

DAVID: The subject is proof of a designer. The whole debate at its base is does God exist? And, yes, if God exists, He is sourceless. You don't like my interpretations of what I think are His actions and possible motives. but I like them, as they make perfect sense to me.

dhw: Look at the heading. The subject is “David’s theory of evolution”, and our discussion presupposes the existence of God and concerns the many contradictions in your theistic theory, as well as providing various theistic alternatives to it. See Part Two for your idea of “sense”.

Your headlines must guide discussion!!! Wow!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Friday, May 27, 2022, 08:20 (672 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you denigrate the vital need for food energy to support life over 3.8 by of evolution. That is what all the branches that do not lead to human provide. We are worried now about ecosystem damage that might reduce food supply.

dhw: Once again: all forms of life require food. That does not mean that all the branches and foods that did not lead to humans and our food were specially designed as “an absolute requirement” in preparation for humans and our food! And the fact that our current ecosystems are in danger is totally irrelevant to the question of why your God specially designed countless extinct life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us and our ecosystems if his one and only aim was to design us and our ecosystems!

DAVID: But evolution did lead to us. You can't deny it.

Of course I don’t deny it. It also led to the duckbilled platypus. And according to you, your God specially designed countless numbers of extinct life forms and econiches that did not lead to us or our food. For the thousandth time, why would he specially design all of them if his one and only purpose was to design us (plus our food)?

DAVID: And you still denigrate the food supply need, as evidenced by the 'worry'. Without all those existing branches of the bush evolution created our food supply would not handle our burgeoning population. You can't have it both ways. The designer foresaw His created future.

All life needs food. The existing branches of our food supply, as you have so rightly observed, are for the PRESENT, and the vast majority of the food supplies you say your God specially designed over 3.X billion pre-human years were for the PAST, and “extinct life has no role to play in current time”. Please stop pretending that I denigrate the importance of food for us and every other species that ever lived. I denigrate a theory which claims that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our econiches, and therefore he designed countless life forms and econiches which did not lead to us and our econiches.

DAVID: The subject is proof of a designer. The whole debate at its base is does God exist? And, yes, if God exists, He is sourceless. You don't like my interpretations of what I think are His actions and possible motives. but I like them, as they make perfect sense to me.

dhw: Look at the heading. The subject is “David’s theory of evolution”, and our discussion presupposes the existence of God and concerns the many contradictions in your theistic theory, as well as providing various theistic alternatives to it.

DAVID: Your headlines must guide discussion!!! Wow!!!

Our discussion of your theory of evolution presupposes the existence of your God, and focuses on your interpretation of his purpose, method and nature. As you cannot explain your theory, which apparently “makes sense only to God”, I can understand why you are anxious to change the subject.

Source of information

DAVID: My theory of evolution fits exactly how a designer would have done it, as based on the actual history. I have explained an answer to each of your objections, but they don't satisfy your constant doubt.

dhw: Your various theories of evolution have led you to make the following statements:
“What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?”

dhw: I’m sorry, but I do not regard your inability to explain your theory as an explanation.

DAVID: I chose to accept what God did as His intent. There is no way I can know his underlying reasoning. I can't explain it for you is a reasonable retort.

All my alternative theories “choose to accept” what God did as his intent. If he exists, what he did is what constitutes life and its history of species and econiches that came and went, our own being the most recent. None of us can know his reasoning, and so we have various theories. You cannot find any sense in your own, whereas you admit my various alternatives are logical, and you dismiss them solely on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought and emotion, although even your hero Adler acknowledges that there is a 50/50 chance that your God has such thought patterns and emotions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Friday, May 27, 2022, 17:15 (671 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: But evolution did lead to us. You can't deny it.

dhw: Of course I don’t deny it. It also led to the duckbilled platypus. And according to you, your God specially designed countless numbers of extinct life forms and econiches that did not lead to us or our food. For the thousandth time, why would he specially design all of them if his one and only purpose was to design us (plus our food)?

His endpoint was/is us. For the millionth time I can't answer your question. That it was the method God chose is obvious. Your human level objection is that it is roundabout. And Adler's point that we are an amazing unexpected result is absolutely valid.


DAVID: And you still denigrate the food supply need, as evidenced by the 'worry'. Without all those existing branches of the bush evolution created our food supply would not handle our burgeoning population. You can't have it both ways. The designer foresaw His created future.

dhw: All life needs food. The existing branches of our food supply, as you have so rightly observed, are for the PRESENT, and the vast majority of the food supplies you say your God specially designed over 3.X billion pre-human years were for the PAST, and “extinct life has no role to play in current time”. Please stop pretending that I denigrate the importance of food for us and every other species that ever lived. I denigrate a theory which claims that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our econiches, and therefore he designed countless life forms and econiches which did not lead to us and our econiches.

Same irrational criticism of God's method.


dhw: Our discussion of your theory of evolution presupposes the existence of your God, and focuses on your interpretation of his purpose, method and nature. As you cannot explain your theory, which apparently “makes sense only to God”, I can understand why you are anxious to change the subject.

I'm happy to continue this discussion until you understand how irrational your objections are to me. We think about 'my God' totally differently. Your 'God' is unrecognizable to me.


Source of information

dhw: I’m sorry, but I do not regard your inability to explain your theory as an explanation.

DAVID: I chose to accept what God did as His intent. There is no way I can know his underlying reasoning. I can't explain it for you is a reasonable retort.

dhw: All my alternative theories “choose to accept” what God did as his intent. If he exists, what he did is what constitutes life and its history of species and econiches that came and went, our own being the most recent. None of us can know his reasoning, and so we have various theories. You cannot find any sense in your own, whereas you admit my various alternatives are logical, and you dismiss them solely on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought and emotion, although even your hero Adler acknowledges that there is a 50/50 chance that your God has such thought patterns and emotions.

The 50/50 differs from your statement: it is whether God cares about us at all.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Saturday, May 28, 2022, 07:36 (671 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: But evolution did lead to us. You can't deny it.

dhw: Of course I don’t deny it. It also led to the duckbilled platypus. And according to you, your God specially designed countless numbers of extinct life forms and econiches that did not lead to us or our food. For the thousandth time, why would he specially design all of them if his one and only purpose was to design us (plus our food)?

DAVID: His endpoint was/is us. For the millionth time I can't answer your question. That it was the method God chose is obvious. Your human level objection is that it is roundabout. And Adler's point that we are an amazing unexpected result is absolutely valid.

You keep changing your terminology. We are the latest species to evolve. The “endpoint” does not mean his one and only goal. I do not object to the roundabout way in which H. sapiens evolved. I object to your theory 1) that every other life form throughout 3.X billion years was an “absolute requirement”, specially designed as preparation for us and our food, and 2) I ask why a God who you claim designed species with no precursors (from which we are descended) would have designed us in stages. You can’t answer, and yet you claim that your theories make perfect sense to you. (See below.) All of life is amazing. I don’t know who Adler was referring to when he said it was unexpected (by whom?), but the same might be said of the duckbilled platypus. I accept that our intelligence is amazing, and that all of life’s complexities offer a good argument for the existence of a designer. That is not the theory I am challenging!

DAVID: And you still denigrate the food supply need, as evidenced by the 'worry'. Without all those existing branches of the bush evolution created our food supply would not handle our burgeoning population. You can't have it both ways. The designer foresaw His created future.

dhw: All life needs food. The existing branches of our food supply, as you have so rightly observed, are for the PRESENT, and the vast majority of the food supplies you say your God specially designed over 3.X billion pre-human years were for the PAST, and “extinct life has no role to play in current time”. Please stop pretending that I denigrate the importance of food for us and every other species that ever lived. I denigrate a theory which claims that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our econiches, and therefore he designed countless life forms and econiches which did not lead to us and our econiches.

DAVID: Same irrational criticism of God's method.

It is not a criticism of God’s method but of your theory concerning his purpose and his method of achieving it – a theory which you keep admitting you cannot explain!

And under “efficiency in cells”:
DAVID: The designer knew exactly what He was doing and why. dhw's superfical analysis of God's roundabout way of producing us is a good case in point. As we dig in, every time we find superb design. Humans are a prime endpoint example.

A silly snipe. I have never denied that we find superb design, and I have no doubt that your God – if he exists - knew what he was doing and why. I have not “analysed” the fact that humans evolved step by step. I have analysed your illogical theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us, and yet despite his all-powerfulness and ability (according to you) to design species with no precursors, the history shows us that humans evolved in stages. According to you, this theory “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: Your declaration that my theories make no sense to me is the strangest psychiatric analysis I've ever seen. I make perfect sense to me, and if you wish to act as my psychiatrist you must listen to what I tell you about my thinking and accept it for analysis at the start of our counselling sessions. To counter your conclusions: I simply accept the history as what did rationally.

We both accept the history, which is that life evolved from bacteria into a vast variety of life forms etc., some of which led to humans while others did not. I do not wish to act as your psychiatrist. When you say you can’t explain the two theories bolded above, and they “make sense only to God”, I can only assume this means they don’t make sense to you. How that comes to mean that your theories make perfect sense to you I really don’t know, but I do know that you frequently try to divert attention away from your illogical theories by attacking my alternatives, or my agnosticism, or my “way of thinking about God” – as if God had told you the right way to think about him! ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 28, 2022, 18:13 (670 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: His endpoint was/is us. For the millionth time I can't answer your question. That it was the method God chose is obvious. Your human level objection is that it is roundabout. And Adler's point that we are an amazing unexpected result is absolutely valid.

dhw: You keep changing your terminology. We are the latest species to evolve. The “endpoint” does not mean his one and only goal. I do not object to the roundabout way in which H. sapiens evolved. I object to your theory 1) that every other life form throughout 3.X billion years was an “absolute requirement”, specially designed as preparation for us and our food, and 2) I ask why a God who you claim designed species with no precursors (from which we are descended) would have designed us in stages. You can’t answer, and yet you claim that your theories make perfect sense to you.

If course it makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't propose the theories I present. The designer developed evolution in stages, building the future from the past organisms, creating ever more complexity using the basic biochemistry of life. I see what history tells us the designer did, but why He chose that method of creating us is from His reasoning, not revealed to us. So your objections to His methodology I view as criticisms about Him.

dhw: (See below.) All of life is amazing. I don’t know who Adler was referring to when he said it was unexpected (by whom?),

Unexpected by any thinking person. Adler used the theory that we are such an unusual result, there had to be a God creator to produce such an endpoint, it could not have appeared naturally.


DAVID: And you still denigrate the food supply need, as evidenced by the 'worry'. Without all those existing branches of the bush evolution created our food supply would not handle our burgeoning population. You can't have it both ways. The designer foresaw His created future.

dhw: All life needs food. The existing branches of our food supply, as you have so rightly observed, are for the PRESENT, and the vast majority of the food supplies you say your God specially designed over 3.X billion pre-human years were for the PAST, and “extinct life has no role to play in current time”. Please stop pretending that I denigrate the importance of food for us and every other species that ever lived. I denigrate a theory which claims that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our econiches, and therefore he designed countless life forms and econiches which did not lead to us and our econiches.

DAVID: Same irrational criticism of God's method.

dhw: It is not a criticism of God’s method but of your theory concerning his purpose and his method of achieving it – a theory which you keep admitting you cannot explain!

The only thing I cannot explain is the designer's reasoning.


DAVID: Your declaration that my theories make no sense to me is the strangest psychiatric analysis I've ever seen. I make perfect sense to me, and if you wish to act as my psychiatrist you must listen to what I tell you about my thinking and accept it for analysis at the start of our counselling sessions. To counter your conclusions: I simply accept the history as what God did rationally.

dhw: We both accept the history, which is that life evolved from bacteria into a vast variety of life forms etc., some of which led to humans while others did not. I do not wish to act as your psychiatrist. When you say you can’t explain the two theories bolded above, and they “make sense only to God”, I can only assume this means they don’t make sense to you.

Over the years I have not been able to disabuse you from your rigid view of my thinking. My view of God and His works makes perfect sense to me. It means, obviously, we do not think about God in any similar fashion.

dhw: How that comes to mean that your theories make perfect sense to you I really don’t know, but I do know that you frequently try to divert attention away from your illogical theories by attacking my alternatives, or my agnosticism, or my “way of thinking about God” – as if God had told you the right way to think about him! ;-)

My way of thinking about God is certainly not yours. I took some training from Adler, since I recognized I was a novice in the field. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, May 29, 2022, 09:28 (670 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You can’t answer, and yet you claim that your theories make perfect sense to you.

DAVID: If course it makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't propose the theories I present. The designer developed evolution in stages, building the future from the past organisms, creating ever more complexity using the basic biochemistry of life. I see what history tells us the designer did, but why He chose that method of creating us is from His reasoning, not revealed to us. So your objections to His methodology I view as criticisms about Him.

I have no objections to your general description of evolution, and my criticism is not of your God. My objections are to your theories about his purpose and method which, when combined, make no sense even to you: (a) that he designed every past organism individually, (b) that he did so for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food, (c) that every single one – including all those that did not lead to us and our food - was “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [by which you mean God’s individual design of every life form and econiche] to finally produce humans”; and (d) that although you say his one and only purpose was us and – according to you - he was capable of designing species directly, with no predecessors, he chose to design us in stages. None of these theories is “history”, and you cannot find any way of fitting them together in a logical explanation of the history. Put together, they “make sense only to God.” But maybe one or more of these theories are wrong, and that is why you can’t explain why your designer would think in such an illogical way.

dhw: All of life is amazing. I don’t know who Adler was referring to when he said it was unexpected (by whom?).

DAVID: Unexpected by any thinking person. Adler used the theory that we are such an unusual result, there had to be a God creator to produce such an endpoint, it could not have appeared naturally.

The same argument can and is used of all life’s complexities – hence your repeated comment at the end of every article about natural wonders, lifestyles, bodies etc., exemplified today under “T cells”: “The design of the cells and their maintenance mechanism had to be designed all at once from the beginning of their development. Not by chance.” And it is an argument which I do not oppose.

dhw: Maybe the 50/50 was your own assessment of the odds when you wrote: “That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no.” My apologies to Adler if it was you who gave odds of 50/50 concerning your God’s human thought patterns and emotions. All the more reason, though, why you should not reject my “humanizing” alternatives out of hand.

DAVID: Sorry. I was simply reminding what 50/50 means. Your humanizing assumes a form of God that I believe does not exist.

I know what 50/50 means. And since you tell us that there is a 50/50 chance that God may/may not have human thought patterns and emotions, it is clearly absurd to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they entail God possibly having human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence?

The rest of your post repeats points already dealt with.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 29, 2022, 16:16 (669 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You can’t answer, and yet you claim that your theories make perfect sense to you.

DAVID: If course it makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't propose the theories I present. The designer developed evolution in stages, building the future from the past organisms, creating ever more complexity using the basic biochemistry of life. I see what history tells us the designer did, but why He chose that method of creating us is from His reasoning, not revealed to us. So your objections to His methodology I view as criticisms about Him.

dhw:I have no objections to your general description of evolution, and my criticism is not of your God. My objections are to your theories about his purpose and method which, when combined, make no sense even to you: (a) that he designed every past organism individually, (b) that he did so for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food, (c) that every single one – including all those that did not lead to us and our food - was “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [by which you mean God’s individual design of every life form and econiche] to finally produce humans”; and (d) that although you say his one and only purpose was us and – according to you - he was capable of designing species directly, with no predecessors, he chose to design us in stages. None of these theories is “history”, and you cannot find any way of fitting them together in a logical explanation of the history. Put together, they “make sense only to God.” But maybe one or more of these theories are wrong, and that is why you can’t explain why your designer would think in such an illogical way.

What you think is illogical is perfectly reasonable. My paragraph above stands as my analysis. Your observation that God had demonstrated direct creation abilities (the Cambrian forms), but didn't use them to produce us directly is your invented problem. Just consider that any thinking mind makes choices, based on its own reasoning, and acts on that reasoning. As I've presented, God made a choice to evolv e us from bacteria, as history shows in the evidence we know of evolution.


dhw: All of life is amazing. I don’t know who Adler was referring to when he said it was unexpected (by whom?).

DAVID: Unexpected by any thinking person. Adler used the theory that we are such an unusual result, there had to be a God creator to produce such an endpoint, it could not have appeared naturally.

dhw: The same argument can and is used of all life’s complexities – hence your repeated comment at the end of every article about natural wonders, lifestyles, bodies etc., exemplified today under “T cells”: “The design of the cells and their maintenance mechanism had to be designed all at once from the beginning of their development. Not by chance.” And it is an argument which I do not oppose.

dhw: Maybe the 50/50 was your own assessment of the odds when you wrote: “That mind may know and understand human emotions and desires, since that mind created us, but may have no human emotions itself. 50/50 still means yes or no.” My apologies to Adler if it was you who gave odds of 50/50 concerning your God’s human thought patterns and emotions. All the more reason, though, why you should not reject my “humanizing” alternatives out of hand.

DAVID: Sorry. I was simply reminding what 50/50 means. Your humanizing assumes a form of God that I believe does not exist.

dhw: I know what 50/50 means. And since you tell us that there is a 50/50 chance that God may/may not have human thought patterns and emotions, it is clearly absurd to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they entail God possibly having human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence?

50/50 means either/or, which means the exact true remains unknown, and we are back to best guesses.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, May 30, 2022, 07:38 (669 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course it makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't propose the theories I present. The designer developed evolution in stages, building the future from the past organisms, creating ever more complexity using the basic biochemistry of life. I see what history tells us the designer did, but why He chose that method of creating us is from His reasoning, not revealed to us. So your objections to His methodology I view as criticisms about Him.

dhw: I have no objections to your general description of evolution, and my criticism is not of your God. My objections are to your theories about his purpose and method which, when combined, make no sense even to you: (a) that he designed every past organism individually, (b) that he did so for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food, (c) that every single one – including all those that did not lead to us and our food - was “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [by which you mean God’s individual design of every life form and econiche] to finally produce humans”; and (d) that although you say his one and only purpose was us and – according to you - he was capable of designing species directly, with no predecessors, he chose to design us in stages. None of these theories is “history”, and you cannot find any way of fitting them together in a logical explanation of the history. Put together, they “make sense only to God.” But maybe one or more of these theories are wrong, and that is why you can’t explain why your designer would think in such an illogical way.

DAVID: What you think is illogical is perfectly reasonable. My paragraph above stands as my analysis.

Your paragraph above is an accurate description of the process of evolution, in which new organisms evolve from earlier organisms in stages, and with increasing complexity. It completely ignores the theories I have listed in response.

DAVID: Your observation that God had demonstrated direct creation abilities (the Cambrian forms), but didn't use them to produce us directly is your invented problem.

It is not my observation that he demonstrated direct creation abilities (Cambrian). It is your theory, which combined with your other theories has led to the following statements from you: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself.” If you can’t explain your theory, which makes sense only to God, you are the one with a problem.

DAVID: Just consider that any thinking mind makes choices, based on its own reasoning, and acts on that reasoning. As I've presented, God made a choice to evolve us from bacteria, as history shows in the evidence we know of evolution.

Of course a thinking mind makes choices, but the choices you impose on your God entail a raft of contradictions which as usual you dodge by focusing on our one point of agreement: that we and every other organism evolved from bacteria.

dhw: […] since you tell us that there is a 50/50 chance that God may/may not have human thought patterns and emotions, it is clearly absurd to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they entail God possibly having human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence?

DAVID: 50/50 means either/or, which means the exact true remains unknown, and we are back to best guesses.

Correct. And since you tell us that the odds concerning your God having human thought patterns and emotions are 50/50, it is absurd to dismiss theories on the grounds that he might have human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence? I seem to have read all this before. Only I can’t find your answer. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, May 30, 2022, 15:59 (668 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course it makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't propose the theories I present. The designer developed evolution in stages, building the future from the past organisms, creating ever more complexity using the basic biochemistry of life. I see what history tells us the designer did, but why He chose that method of creating us is from His reasoning, not revealed to us. So your objections to His methodology I view as criticisms about Him.

dhw: I have no objections to your general description of evolution, and my criticism is not of your God. My objections are to your theories about his purpose and method which, when combined, make no sense even to you: (a) that he designed every past organism individually, (b) that he did so for the one and only purpose of designing us and our food, (c) that every single one – including all those that did not lead to us and our food - was “an absolute requirement for the evolutionary process [by which you mean God’s individual design of every life form and econiche] to finally produce humans”; and (d) that although you say his one and only purpose was us and – according to you - he was capable of designing species directly, with no predecessors, he chose to design us in stages. None of these theories is “history”, and you cannot find any way of fitting them together in a logical explanation of the history. Put together, they “make sense only to God.” But maybe one or more of these theories are wrong, and that is why you can’t explain why your designer would think in such an illogical way.

DAVID: What you think is illogical is perfectly reasonable. My paragraph above stands as my analysis.

Your paragraph above is an accurate description of the process of evolution, in which new organisms evolve from earlier organisms in stages, and with increasing complexity. It completely ignores the theories I have listed in response.

DAVID: Your observation that God had demonstrated direct creation abilities (the Cambrian forms), but didn't use them to produce us directly is your invented problem.

dhw: It is not my observation that he demonstrated direct creation abilities (Cambrian). It is your theory, which combined with your other theories has led to the following statements from you: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself.” If you can’t explain your theory, which makes sense only to God, you are the one with a problem.

On the contrary, I simply view it as God's choice, which is a fine explanation from the way I think about God, and you seem unable to appreciate. I remind you I took lessons from Adler.


dhw: […] since you tell us that there is a 50/50 chance that God may/may not have human thought patterns and emotions, it is clearly absurd to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they entail God possibly having human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence?

DAVID: 50/50 means either/or, which means the exact true remains unknown, and we are back to best guesses.

dhw: Correct. And since you tell us that the odds concerning your God having human thought patterns and emotions are 50/50, it is absurd to dismiss theories on the grounds that he might have human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence? I seem to have read all this before. Only I can’t find your answer. ;-)

No, your rump is tender from sitting on the picket fence. I prefer solid ground, but your agnostic point is well taken. :-) ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, May 31, 2022, 11:46 (667 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your observation that God had demonstrated direct creation abilities (the Cambrian forms), but didn't use them to produce us directly is your invented problem.

dhw: It is not my observation that he demonstrated direct creation abilities (Cambrian). It is your theory, which combined with your other theories has led to the following statements from you: “What I cannot explain is why God chose evolution over direct creation. Why can’t you accept that explanation?” And “God makes sense only to Himself.” If you can’t explain your theory, which makes sense only to God, you are the one with a problem.

DAVID: On the contrary, I simply view it as God's choice, which is a fine explanation from the way I think about God, and you seem unable to appreciate. I remind you I took lessons from Adler.

I don’t care who you took lessons from. We both accept that humans evolved in stages. You have theories that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus our food, that he designed all species and econiches, and that he was able to directly design new species without precursors. These three theories create two problems which you cannot solve: (1) if we were his only purpose, why would he first design countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans and our food? (2) Why did he not directly design the only species he wanted to design? But despite your inability to find any logical answers to these questions, you will never admit that this blatant illogicality might mean that one or all of your theories are wrong!

dhw: […] since you tell us that there is a 50/50 chance that God may/may not have human thought patterns and emotions, it is clearly absurd to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they entail God possibly having human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence?

DAVID: 50/50 means either/or, which means the exact true remains unknown, and we are back to best guesses.

dhw: Correct. And since you tell us that the odds concerning your God having human thought patterns and emotions are 50/50, it is absurd to dismiss theories on the grounds that he might have human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence? I seem to have read all this before. Only I can’t find your answer. ;-)

DAVID: No, your rump is tender from sitting on the picket fence. I prefer solid ground, but your agnostic point is well taken. :-) ;-) .

I’m delighted to hear that you have taken the point, and I trust that logical alternatives to your illogical theories will never again be dismissed on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to our own, since you regard such patterns as being 50% possible. :-P

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 31, 2022, 17:26 (667 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: On the contrary, I simply view it as God's choice, which is a fine explanation from the way I think about God, and you seem unable to appreciate. I remind you I took lessons from Adler.

dhw: I don’t care who you took lessons from. We both accept that humans evolved in stages. You have theories that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus our food, that he designed all species and econiches, and that he was able to directly design new species without precursors. These three theories create two problems which you cannot solve: (1) if we were his only purpose, why would he first design countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans and our food? (2) Why did he not directly design the only species he wanted to design? But despite your inability to find any logical answers to these questions, you will never admit that this blatant illogicality might mean that one or all of your theories are wrong!

Your complaints are unchanged and my solutions are reasonable.. (1) challenges God's right to choose His preferred methodology. God has all the time He wishes to take to reach a goal. This complaint is total human thinking foolishness. You want God to rush because you see that as expeditious. God doesn't have to. (2) is really a variation of (1). You want me to give you God's reasoning for his choices. I obviously can't, but that doesn't make my thought process about God illogical. Does God have the right to make His own choices of methodology? Your answer will tell the point.


dhw: […] since you tell us that there is a 50/50 chance that God may/may not have human thought patterns and emotions, it is clearly absurd to dismiss logical theories solely on the grounds that they entail God possibly having human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence?

DAVID: 50/50 means either/or, which means the exact true remains unknown, and we are back to best guesses.

dhw: Correct. And since you tell us that the odds concerning your God having human thought patterns and emotions are 50/50, it is absurd to dismiss theories on the grounds that he might have human thought patterns and emotions. If I say there is a 50/50 chance that God exists, does that mean I reject the possibility of God’s existence? I seem to have read all this before. Only I can’t find your answer. ;-)

DAVID: No, your rump is tender from sitting on the picket fence. I prefer solid ground, but your agnostic point is well taken. :-) ;-) .

dhw: I’m delighted to hear that you have taken the point, and I trust that logical alternatives to your illogical theories will never again be dismissed on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to our own, since you regard such patterns as being 50% possible. :-P

All we can do is guess. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, June 01, 2022, 11:58 (666 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don’t care who you took lessons from. We both accept that humans evolved in stages. You have theories that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus our food, that he designed all species and econiches, and that he was able to directly design new species without precursors. These three theories create two problems which you cannot solve: (1) if we were his only purpose, why would he first design countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans and our food? (2) Why did he not directly design the only species he wanted to design? But despite your inability to find any logical answers to these questions, you will never admit that this blatant illogicality might mean that one or all of your theories are wrong!

DAVID: Your complaints are unchanged and my solutions are reasonable.. (1) challenges God's right to choose His preferred methodology. God has all the time He wishes to take to reach a goal. This complaint is total human thinking foolishness. You want God to rush because you see that as expeditious. God doesn't have to.

I am not challenging his right, and of course he has all the time he wishes to reach a goal! I am challenging your personal theory that his one and only goal was to design us and our food! If that was his goal, why did he design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with his goal? You haven’t offered ANY solution. You can’t find a single reason. I’m supposed to go and ask God.

DAVID: (2) is really a variation of (1). You want me to give you God's reasoning for his choices. I obviously can't, but that doesn't make my thought process about God illogical. Does God have the right to make His own choices of methodology? Your answer will tell the point.

The answer is yes, and he has the right to choose his goal, and your personal theory about his goal and his methodology is so illogical that apparently “it makes sense only to God”, which means it doesn’t make sense to you. Please stop pretending that your theory about God’s goal and method of achieving that goal is an objective fact.

dhw: I trust that logical alternatives to your illogical theories will never again be dismissed on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to our own, since you regard such patterns as being 50% possible.

DAVID: All we can do is guess.

Or at least keep an open mind, as opposed to pretending that 50/50 yes or no = 100% no. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 01, 2022, 15:56 (666 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don’t care who you took lessons from. We both accept that humans evolved in stages. You have theories that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus our food, that he designed all species and econiches, and that he was able to directly design new species without precursors. These three theories create two problems which you cannot solve: (1) if we were his only purpose, why would he first design countless species and econiches that had no connection with humans and our food? (2) Why did he not directly design the only species he wanted to design? But despite your inability to find any logical answers to these questions, you will never admit that this blatant illogicality might mean that one or all of your theories are wrong!

DAVID: Your complaints are unchanged and my solutions are reasonable.. (1) challenges God's right to choose His preferred methodology. God has all the time He wishes to take to reach a goal. This complaint is total human thinking foolishness. You want God to rush because you see that as expeditious. God doesn't have to.

dhw: I am not challenging his right, and of course he has all the time he wishes to reach a goal! I am challenging your personal theory that his one and only goal was to design us and our food! If that was his goal, why did he design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with his goal? You haven’t offered ANY solution. You can’t find a single reason. I’m supposed to go and ask God.

Exactly!!! Only God knows why He did it His way. You must think of it as follows: the historical evidence of how evolution happened from Archaea to us is a God created history. Remember, Adler uses this as proof of God. Think about it, Adler did this without your reservations!! If alive, he would consider your irrationality as screwy as I do.


DAVID: (2) is really a variation of (1). You want me to give you God's reasoning for his choices. I obviously can't, but that doesn't make my thought process about God illogical. Does God have the right to make His own choices of methodology? Your answer will tell the point.

dhw: The answer is yes, and he has the right to choose his goal, and your personal theory about his goal and his methodology is so illogical that apparently “it makes sense only to God”, which means it doesn’t make sense to you. Please stop pretending that your theory about God’s goal and method of achieving that goal is an objective fact.

It is so simple!!! The bold is obvious. I accept God's choices of how to accomplish His desires for creation. That makes perfect sense to me!!!


dhw: I trust that logical alternatives to your illogical theories will never again be dismissed on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to our own, since you regard such patterns as being 50% possible.

DAVID: All we can do is guess.

dhw: Or at least keep an open mind, as opposed to pretending that 50/50 yes or no = 100% no. ;-)

Some of us have the mental power to make choices based on evidence. :-P

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, June 02, 2022, 09:24 (666 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your complaints are unchanged and my solutions are reasonable.. (1) challenges God's right to choose His preferred methodology. God has all the time He wishes to take to reach a goal. This complaint is total human thinking foolishness. You want God to rush because you see that as expeditious. God doesn't have to.

dhw: I am not challenging his right, and of course he has all the time he wishes to reach a goal! I am challenging your personal theory that his one and only goal was to design us and our food! If that was his goal, why did he design all the life forms and foods that had no connection with his goal? You haven’t offered ANY solution. You can’t find a single reason. I’m supposed to go and ask God.

DAVID: Exactly!!! Only God knows why He did it His way. You must think of it as follows: the historical evidence of how evolution happened from Archaea to us is a God created history. Remember, Adler uses this as proof of God. Think about it, Adler did this without your reservations!! If alive, he would consider your irrationality as screwy as I do.

As usual, you dodge the whole issue by hiding behind Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence. And I am not challenging the theory that we evolved from bacteria! I am challenging your illogical theory that your God’s only purpose was us and our food, and therefore he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

DAVID: (2) is really a variation of (1). You want me to give you God's reasoning for his choices. I obviously can't, but that doesn't make my thought process about God illogical. Does God have the right to make His own choices of methodology? Your answer will tell the point.

dhw: The answer is yes, and he has the right to choose his goal, and your personal theory about his goal and his methodology is so illogical that apparently “it makes sense only to God”, which means it doesn’t make sense to you. Please stop pretending that your theory about God’s goal and method of achieving that goal is an objective fact.

DAVID: It is so simple!!! The bold is obvious. I accept God's choices of how to accomplish His desires for creation. That makes perfect sense to me!!!

You accept your own theory that his sole “desire” was to design us and our food and therefore he designed all the species and foods that had no connection with us; and you accept your own theory that he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors and yet decided to design in stages the only species he wanted to create (plus its food). And it makes perfect sense to you that only your God can make sense of your illogical theories.

dhw: I trust that logical alternatives to your illogical theories will never again be dismissed on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to our own, since you regard such patterns as being 50% possible.

DAVID: All we can do is guess.

dhw: Or at least keep an open mind, as opposed to pretending that 50/50 yes or no = 100% no. ;-)

DAVID: Some of us have the mental power to make choices based on evidence. :-P

Some of you have the power to put on mental blinkers that will shut out the 50% of evidence against your rigid beliefs. :-D

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 02, 2022, 19:00 (665 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Exactly!!! Only God knows why He did it His way. You must think of it as follows: the historical evidence of how evolution happened from Archaea to us is a God created history. Remember, Adler uses this as proof of God. Think about it, Adler did this without your reservations!! If alive, he would consider your irrationality as screwy as I do.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the whole issue by hiding behind Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence. And I am not challenging the theory that we evolved from bacteria! I am challenging your illogical theory that your God’s only purpose was us and our food, and therefore he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

The obviuws connnection is the process of evoution, which God chose to use. He didn't tell any of us why. Remember, I view God in charge of all creation, including from bacteria to us. What you miss about Adler is that he made the same assumptions about evolution and God's role as I do!!


DAVID: (2) is really a variation of (1). You want me to give you God's reasoning for his choices. I obviously can't, but that doesn't make my thought process about God illogical. Does God have the right to make His own choices of methodology? Your answer will tell the point.

dhw: The answer is yes, and he has the right to choose his goal, and your personal theory about his goal and his methodology is so illogical that apparently “it makes sense only to God”, which means it doesn’t make sense to you. Please stop pretending that your theory about God’s goal and method of achieving that goal is an objective fact.

DAVID: It is so simple!!! The bold is obvious. I accept God's choices of how to accomplish His desires for creation. That makes perfect sense to me!!!

dhw: You accept your own theory that his sole “desire” was to design us and our food and therefore he designed all the species and foods that had no connection with us; and you accept your own theory that he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors and yet decided to design in stages the only species he wanted to create (plus its food). And it makes perfect sense to you that only your God can make sense of your illogical theories.

If you could only come to the realization my explantions make perfect sense to many folks who believe as in ID.


dhw: I trust that logical alternatives to your illogical theories will never again be dismissed on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to our own, since you regard such patterns as being 50% possible.

DAVID: All we can do is guess.

dhw: Or at least keep an open mind, as opposed to pretending that 50/50 yes or no = 100% no. ;-)

DAVID: Some of us have the mental power to make choices based on evidence. :-P

dhw: Some of you have the power to put on mental blinkers that will shut out the 50% of evidence against your rigid beliefs. :-D

There is no evidence that is absolute proof, but I'll take adler's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Friday, June 03, 2022, 09:03 (665 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I am not challenging the theory that we evolved from bacteria! I am challenging your illogical theory that your God’s only purpose was us and our food, and therefore he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us.

DAVID: The obviuws connnection is the process of evoution, which God chose to use. He didn't tell any of us why. Remember, I view God in charge of all creation, including from bacteria to us. [...]

If God exists, then of course he chose to “use” the process of evolution! How does that come to mean that his one and only purpose was to design us and our foods, and so he he deliberately designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us? He could have chosen to use the process of evolution because he enjoyed creating different life forms, or he enjoyed watching all the different products of his original invention (the living cell), or because he had an idea (to create a being able to worship him) and tried all kinds of experiments, or he kept getting new ideas….Who knows?

dhw: You accept your own theory that his sole “desire” was to design us and our food and therefore he designed all the species and foods that had no connection with us; and you accept your own theory that he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors and yet decided to design in stages the only species he wanted to create (plus its food). And it makes perfect sense to you that only your God can make sense of your illogical theories.

DAVID: If you could only come to the realization my explantions make perfect sense to many folks who believe as in ID.

But you keep admitting that you CAN’T explain your theories. Only God can!

dhw: I trust that logical alternatives to your illogical theories will never again be dismissed on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to our own, since you regard such patterns as being 50% possible.

DAVID: All we can do is guess.

dhw: Or at least keep an open mind, as opposed to pretending that 50/50 yes or no = 100% no. ;-)

DAVID: Some of us have the mental power to make choices based on evidence. :-P

dhw: Some of you have the power to put on mental blinkers that will shut out the 50% of evidence against your rigid beliefs. :-D

DAVID: There is no evidence that is absolute proof, but I'll take adler's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Adler’s “proof” concerned the existence of God, not the possibility that God had thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. Please stop dodging and please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Friday, June 03, 2022, 16:39 (664 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The obvious connnection is the process of evoution, which God chose to use. He didn't tell any of us why. Remember, I view God in charge of all creation, including from bacteria to us. [...]

dhw: If God exists, then of course he chose to “use” the process of evolution! How does that come to mean that his one and only purpose was to design us and our foods, and so he he deliberately designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us? He could have chosen to use the process of evolution because he enjoyed creating different life forms, or he enjoyed watching all the different products of his original invention (the living cell), or because he had an idea (to create a being able to worship him) and tried all kinds of experiments, or he kept getting new ideas….Who knows?

No one knows. We all have interpretations, but yours are highly humanizing


dhw: You accept your own theory that his sole “desire” was to design us and our food and therefore he designed all the species and foods that had no connection with us; and you accept your own theory that he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors and yet decided to design in stages the only species he wanted to create (plus its food). And it makes perfect sense to you that only your God can make sense of your illogical theories.

DAVID: If you could only come to the realization my explantions make perfect sense to many folks who believe as in ID.

dhw: But you keep admitting that you CAN’T explain your theories. Only God can!

It is easy to simply accept God's choices of methodology.


DAVID: There is no evidence that is absolute proof, but I'll take Adler's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

dhw: Adler’s “proof” concerned the existence of God, not the possibility that God had thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. Please stop dodging and please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

I'm not hiding behind Adler. I follow his insructions as to "How to think about God". Did you have any instructors to guide your thinking?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Saturday, June 04, 2022, 08:27 (664 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The obvious connnection is the process of evoution, which God chose to use. He didn't tell any of us why. Remember, I view God in charge of all creation, including from bacteria to us. [...]

dhw: If God exists, then of course he chose to “use” the process of evolution! How does that come to mean that his one and only purpose was to design us and our foods, and so he deliberately designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us? He could have chosen to use the process of evolution because he enjoyed creating different life forms, or he enjoyed watching all the different products of his original invention (the living cell), or because he had an idea (to create a being able to worship him) and tried all kinds of experiments, or he kept getting new ideas….Who knows?

DAVID: No one knows. We all have interpretations, but yours are highly humanizing.

Please stop flogging the dead horse. You have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance (originally you actually said “probably”, which is more than 50/50) that your God has patterns of thought and emotions similar to ours. But in any case, attacking my alternatives does not alter the fact that even you cannot find a logical explanation for your theories concerning purpose and methodology.

dhw: You accept your own theory that his sole “desire” was to design us and our food and therefore he designed all the species and foods that had no connection with us; and you accept your own theory that he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors and yet decided to design in stages the only species he wanted to create (plus its food). And it makes perfect sense to you that only your God can make sense of your illogical theories.

DAVID: If you could only come to the realization my explantions make perfect sense to many folks who believe as in ID.

ID makes perfect sense, but you keep admitting that even you can't explain your combination of evolutionary theories. Only God can!

DAVID: It is easy to simply accept God's choices of methodology.

Your theories are not GOD’s choice of purpose or methodology, but YOUR interpretation – and I have offered alternative interpretations. Please stop pretending that your interpretation is an objective truth.

DAVID: There is no evidence that is absolute proof, but I'll take Adler's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

dhw: Adler’s “proof” concerned the existence of God, not the possibility that God had thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. Please stop dodging and please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

DAVID: I'm not hiding behind Adler. I follow his insructions as to "How to think about God". Did you have any instructors to guide your thinking?

Once more, you totally ignore the fact that you have dodged the issue we were discussing, which was God’s thought patterns etc. and not the existence of God. I’ll take the bait, though. If you’re following Adler’s instructions, then you’re making out that all your illogical ideas are actually his. As for “instructions” on how to think about God, I cannot imagine anything more presumptuous than a human being pretending he knows the “right” way. The history of religions past and present should be enough to tell you how absurd and also how damaging such pretences can be. You have agreed that all my alternatives fit logically into the history of life. Your combined theories don't, and only God can explain them. Or maybe one or more of your theories could be wrong.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 04, 2022, 15:52 (663 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Please stop flogging the dead horse. You have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance (originally you actually said “probably”, which is more than 50/50) that your God has patterns of thought and emotions similar to ours. But in any case, attacking my alternatives does not alter the fact that even you cannot find a logical explanation for your theories concerning purpose and methodology.

The original 50/50 refers to "one or the other, nothing else probable". I don't know if God's thoughts and emotions are similar to ours, but I think it probable. The other 50/50 is from Adler who presents that as whether God really cares about us.


dhw: You accept your own theory that his sole “desire” was to design us and our food and therefore he designed all the species and foods that had no connection with us; and you accept your own theory that he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors and yet decided to design in stages the only species he wanted to create (plus its food). And it makes perfect sense to you that only your God can make sense of your illogical theories.

DAVID: If you could only come to the realization my explantions make perfect sense to many folks who believe as in ID.

dhw: ID makes perfect sense, but you keep admitting that even you can't explain your combination of evolutionary theories. Only God can!

Of course what God does is inscrutable. We all theorize.


DAVID: It is easy to simply accept God's choices of methodology.

dhw: Your theories are not GOD’s choice of purpose or methodology, but YOUR interpretation – and I have offered alternative interpretations. Please stop pretending that your interpretation is an objective truth.

Nothign about God is an objective truth.


DAVID: There is no evidence that is absolute proof, but I'll take Adler's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

dhw: Adler’s “proof” concerned the existence of God, not the possibility that God had thought patterns and emotions similar to ours. Please stop dodging and please stop trying to hide behind Adler.

DAVID: I'm not hiding behind Adler. I follow his insructions as to "How to think about God". Did you have any instructors to guide your thinking?

dhw: Once more, you totally ignore the fact that you have dodged the issue we were discussing, which was God’s thought patterns etc. and not the existence of God. I’ll take the bait, though. If you’re following Adler’s instructions, then you’re making out that all your illogical ideas are actually his. As for “instructions” on how to think about God, I cannot imagine anything more presumptuous than a human being pretending he knows the “right” way. The history of religions past and present should be enough to tell you how absurd and also how damaging such pretences can be. You have agreed that all my alternatives fit logically into the history of life.

The bold exists only from my previous comment about your God theories that they are logical only by assuming a very humanized form of God. A comment you constantly distort to make it seem I support your views.

dhw: Your combined theories don't, and only God can explain them. Or maybe one or more of your theories could be wrong.

Only God can fully explain what He has done in creation of our reality. You know that.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, June 05, 2022, 11:00 (663 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please stop flogging the dead horse. You have agreed that there is a 50/50 chance (originally you actually said “probably”, which is more than 50/50) that your God has patterns of thought and emotions similar to ours. But in any case, attacking my alternatives does not alter the fact that even you cannot find a logical explanation for your theories concerning purpose and methodology.

DAVID: The original 50/50 refers to "one or the other, nothing else probable". I don't know if God's thoughts and emotions are similar to ours, but I think it probable.

Thank you. If it is probable, then that is all the more reason why you should stop objecting to my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution solely on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: The other 50/50 is from Adler who presents that as whether God really cares about us.

Fair enough. We also have your agreement that there is a 50/50 chance that cells are intelligent beings as opposed to automatons obeying your God’s instructions.

dhw: You accept your own theory that his sole “desire” was to design us and our food and therefore he designed all the species and foods that had no connection with us; and you accept your own theory that he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors and yet decided to design in stages the only species he wanted to create (plus its food). And it makes perfect sense to you that only your God can make sense of your illogical theories.

DAVID: If you could only come to the realization my explantions make perfect sense to many folks who believe as in ID.

dhw: ID makes perfect sense, but you keep admitting that even you can't explain your combination of evolutionary theories. Only God can!

DAVID: Of course what God does is inscrutable. We all theorize.

You can’t see any logic in your own combination of theistic theories of evolution, and you acknowledge that my theistic theories are logical, but you refuse to acknowledge that one or other of yours might be wrong.

Dhw; You have agreed that all my alternatives fit logically into the history of life.

DAVID:The bold exists only from my previous comment about your God theories that they are logical only by assuming a very humanized form of God. A comment you constantly distort to make it seem I support your views.

Please stop trying to flog the dead horse of “humanization”, which you have yet again buried for ever in your first comment at the start of this post. There is no distortion, and I do not expect you to support any of the alternatives I offer. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that you can’t find any logic in the combination of your own theories. And so I merely ask you to admit that at least one of your theories might be wrong, and one or other of my own might be right.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 05, 2022, 15:50 (662 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The original 50/50 refers to "one or the other, nothing else probable". I don't know if God's thoughts and emotions are similar to ours, but I think it probable.

dhw: Thank you. If it is probable, then that is all the more reason why you should stop objecting to my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution solely on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

That is still over-humanizing God!


DAVID: The other 50/50 is from Adler who presents that as whether God really cares about us.

dhw: Fair enough. We also have your agreement that there is a 50/50 chance that cells are intelligent beings as opposed to automatons obeying your God’s instructions.

dhw: You accept your own theory that his sole “desire” was to design us and our food and therefore he designed all the species and foods that had no connection with us; and you accept your own theory that he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors and yet decided to design in stages the only species he wanted to create (plus its food). And it makes perfect sense to you that only your God can make sense of your illogical theories.

DAVID: If you could only come to the realization my explantions make perfect sense to many folks who believe as in ID.

dhw: ID makes perfect sense, but you keep admitting that even you can't explain your combination of evolutionary theories. Only God can!

DAVID: Of course what God does is inscrutable. We all theorize.

dhw: You can’t see any logic in your own combination of theistic theories of evolution, and you acknowledge that my theistic theories are logical, but you refuse to acknowledge that one or other of yours might be wrong.

I don't view my theories as illogical, so why should I agree with your illogical complaints?


Dhw; You have agreed that all my alternatives fit logically into the history of life.

DAVID:The bold exists only from my previous comment about your God theories that they are logical only by assuming a very humanized form of God. A comment you constantly distort to make it seem I support your views.

dhw: Please stop trying to flog the dead horse of “humanization”, which you have yet again buried for ever in your first comment at the start of this post. There is no distortion, and I do not expect you to support any of the alternatives I offer. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that you can’t find any logic in the combination of your own theories. And so I merely ask you to admit that at least one of your theories might be wrong, and one or other of my own might be right.

I have never agreed that my thoeries might be wrong, much as you try to imagine it. My thoughts are sufficient logical for me to be satisfied with them. You illogically criticise God because He didn't just create us forthwith! And all the while you agree God can do whatever He wishes to do. Can't have it both ways.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, June 06, 2022, 11:13 (662 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The original 50/50 refers to "one or the other, nothing else probable". I don't know if God's thoughts and emotions are similar to ours, but I think it probable.

dhw: Thank you. If it is probable, then that is all the more reason why you should stop objecting to my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution solely on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: That is still over-humanizing God!

Who are you to judge which similar thought patterns are possible and which are not? You yourself have “guessed” that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, wants us to admire his works, wants a relationship with us, is too kind to deliberately create bugs that would harm us. Why are your humanizing “guesses” OK, but it is “over-humanizing” to envisage a God who experiments, gets new ideas, enjoys a “free-for-all” rather than a puppet show?

dhw: […]I do not expect you to support any of the alternatives I offer. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that you can’t find any logic in the combination of your own theories. And so I merely ask you to admit that at least one of your theories might be wrong, and one or other of my own might be right.

DAVID: I have never agreed that my thoeries might be wrong, much as you try to imagine it. My thoughts are sufficient logical for me to be satisfied with them. You illogically criticise God because He didn't just create us forthwith! And all the while you agree God can do whatever He wishes to do. Can't have it both ways.

You are satisfied by telling us that you can’t explain your combination of theories, which “makes sense only to God”, and I should go and ask him for an explanation. I have never criticized your God! My criticism is of your illogical theories, e.g. that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us and our food. The only point that we can agree on here is that you have never agreed that your inexplicable theories might be wrong!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, June 06, 2022, 16:17 (661 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The original 50/50 refers to "one or the other, nothing else probable". I don't know if God's thoughts and emotions are similar to ours, but I think it probable.

dhw: Thank you. If it is probable, then that is all the more reason why you should stop objecting to my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution solely on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: That is still over-humanizing God!

dhw: Who are you to judge which similar thought patterns are possible and which are not? You yourself have “guessed” that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, wants us to admire his works, wants a relationship with us, is too kind to deliberately create bugs that would harm us. Why are your humanizing “guesses” OK, but it is “over-humanizing” to envisage a God who experiments, gets new ideas, enjoys a “free-for-all” rather than a puppet show?

Those attributes you are listing show a non-purposeful namby-pamby humanized God who needs entertainment. My God with the attributesd you listed has purpose and intent to reach goals.


dhw: […]I do not expect you to support any of the alternatives I offer. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that you can’t find any logic in the combination of your own theories. And so I merely ask you to admit that at least one of your theories might be wrong, and one or other of my own might be right.

DAVID: I have never agreed that my thoeries might be wrong, much as you try to imagine it. My thoughts are sufficient logical for me to be satisfied with them. You illogically criticise God because He didn't just create us forthwith! And all the while you agree God can do whatever He wishes to do. Can't have it both ways.

dhw: You are satisfied by telling us that you can’t explain your combination of theories, which “makes sense only to God”, and I should go and ask him for an explanation. I have never criticized your God! My criticism is of your illogical theories, e.g. that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us and our food. The only point that we can agree on here is that you have never agreed that your inexplicable theories might be wrong!

You still don't understand belief! History shows us what God did in this theism discussion. I simply accept the history as God's results following His reasons, not known to us. Our final appearance demonstrates His final goal. He did it His way, the way you complain about. That you can't understand my theories you call inexplicable, is your problem, not mine. Your analysis is totally wrong, so as long as you use it, we will ping pong forever!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, June 07, 2022, 09:06 (661 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The original 50/50 refers to "one or the other, nothing else probable".bbb I don't know if God's thoughts and emotions are similar to ours, but I think it probable.

dhw: Thank you. If it is probable, then that is all the more reason why you should stop objecting to my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution solely on the grounds that they entail thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: That is still over-humanizing God!

dhw: Who are you to judge which similar thought patterns are possible and which are not? You yourself have “guessed” that your God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, wants us to admire his works, wants a relationship with us, is too kind to deliberately create bugs that would harm us. Why are your humanizing “guesses” OK, but it is “over-humanizing” to envisage a God who experiments, gets new ideas, enjoys a “free-for-all” rather than a puppet show?

DAVID: Those attributes you are listing show a non-purposeful namby-pamby humanized God who needs entertainment. My God with the attributes you listed has purpose and intent to reach goals.

Experimenting for a particular purpose, and creating for enjoyment (encompassing the pleasure of new ideas or unexpected developments) are both purposeful, and you yourself were once certain that your God enjoyed creating. That does not make him “namby-pamby” or“needy”.

dhw: […]I do not expect you to support any of the alternatives I offer. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that you can’t find any logic in the combination of your own theories. And so I merely ask you to admit that at least one of your theories might be wrong, and one or other of my own might be right.

DAVID: I have never agreed that my thoeries might be wrong, much as you try to imagine it. My thoughts are sufficient logical for me to be satisfied with them. You illogically criticise God because He didn't just create us forthwith! And all the while you agree God can do whatever He wishes to do. Can't have it both ways.

dhw: You are satisfied by telling us that you can’t explain your combination of theories, which “makes sense only to God”, and I should go and ask him for an explanation. I have never criticized your God! My criticism is of your illogical theories, e.g. that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us and our food. The only point that we can agree on here is that you have never agreed that your inexplicable theories might be wrong!

DAVID: You still don't understand belief! History shows us what God did in this theism discussion. I simply accept the history as God's results following His reasons, not known to us.

You still don’t understand that whether God exists or not, the history consists of countless life forms, most of which are extinct and had no connection with humans. History does not show that God designed every one of them, or that every one of them was an “absolute requirement” for the design of humans plus food, or that humans plus food were his goal from the very beginning of life. Please stop imagining that these theories are history. They are beliefs which, when combined, are so illogical that you are forced to admit that you cannot explain why your God would have fulfilled your version of his purpose in your version of his actions.

DAVID: Our final appearance demonstrates His final goal. He did it His way, the way you complain about. That you can't understand my theories you call inexplicable, is your problem, not mine. Your analysis is totally wrong, so as long as you use it, we will ping pong forever!

So long as you continue to conflate your theories with the history, and continue to combine theories which are so illogical that you admit you cannot explain them and they “make sense only to God”, of course we will ping pong forever. If you can’t accept your own statements, what chance do I have of convincing you that your statements mean what they say?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 07, 2022, 18:25 (660 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […]I do not expect you to support any of the alternatives I offer. You agree that they are logical, and you agree that you can’t find any logic in the combination of your own theories. And so I merely ask you to admit that at least one of your theories might be wrong, and one or other of my own might be right.

DAVID: I have never agreed that my thoeries might be wrong, much as you try to imagine it. My thoughts are sufficient logical for me to be satisfied with them. You illogically criticise God because He didn't just create us forthwith! And all the while you agree God can do whatever He wishes to do. Can't have it both ways.

dhw: You are satisfied by telling us that you can’t explain your combination of theories, which “makes sense only to God”, and I should go and ask him for an explanation. I have never criticized your God! My criticism is of your illogical theories, e.g. that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and so he designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us and our food. The only point that we can agree on here is that you have never agreed that your inexplicable theories might be wrong!

DAVID: You still don't understand belief! History shows us what God did in this theism discussion. I simply accept the history as God's results following His reasons, not known to us.

dhw: You still don’t understand that whether God exists or not, the history consists of countless life forms, most of which are extinct and had no connection with humans. History does not show that God designed every one of them, or that every one of them was an “absolute requirement” for the design of humans plus food, or that humans plus food were his goal from the very beginning of life. Please stop imagining that these theories are history. They are beliefs which, when combined, are so illogical that you are forced to admit that you cannot explain why your God would have fulfilled your version of his purpose in your version of his actions.

I firmly believe God created the history we know. You cannot tell me not to do that! I accept it exactly as God's !!!


DAVID: Our final appearance demonstrates His final goal. He did it His way, the way you complain about. That you can't understand my theories you call inexplicable, is your problem, not mine. Your analysis is totally wrong, so as long as you use it, we will ping pong forever!

dhw: > So long as you continue to conflate your theories with the history, and continue to combine theories which are so illogical that you admit you cannot explain them and they “make sense only to God”, of course we will ping pong forever. If you can’t accept your own statements, what chance do I have of convincing you that your statements mean what they say?

My statements mean I accept the history as God's direct work. He is the author/creator of the history. The fact that you do not accept that is why my theories confuse you. We are discussing at two different levels. Remember I do not accept how you think about God in any way.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Wednesday, June 08, 2022, 11:53 (659 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I firmly believe God created the history we know. You cannot tell me not to do that! I accept it exactly as God's !!!

But the history we know is that countless life forms and econiches have come and gone, and humans are the latest species to have evolved, and we evolved in stages. Yet again: it is NOT history that your God designed every single one, that humans plus food were his one and only goal from the very start, that every single life form and econiche was designed in preparation and as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, or that your God designed new species de novo without any predecessors (Cambrian explosion).

dhw: So long as you continue to conflate your theories with the history, and continue to combine theories which are so illogical that you admit you cannot explain them and they “make sense only to God”, of course we will ping pong forever. If you can’t accept your own statements, what chance do I have of convincing you that your statements mean what they say?

DAVID: My statements mean I accept the history as God's direct work. He is the author/creator of the history. The fact that you do not accept that is why my theories confuse you. We are discussing at two different levels. Remember I do not accept how you think about God in any way.

For the history see above. As regards your theories, the statements I am referring to have nothing to do with your “acceptance” of history, but concern the logic behind the theories, which over and over again you say you can’t explain, you can’t know God’s reasons, I should go and ask God, and they “make sense only to God”. Do you really want me to compile a list with dates?

The rise of the mammals

QUOTE: "Within just a few hundred thousand years of the asteroid impact that wiped out all nonbird dinos some 66 million years ago, mammals moved in to fill the vacancy, rapidly getting a lot bigger, ballooning from, say, mouse-sized to beaver-sized. Pretty soon, they got a lot smarter too. In a geologic blink — a scant 10 million years — mammals’ brains caught up with their brawn, and then the Age of Mammals was off to the races."

DAVID: from the standpoint of design, the story fits perfectly. Their waiting in the wings sounds exactly liike pre-planning. What is the driving force that chance mutations could create? IT doen't exist. Only a desinging mind could direct mutations to produce a big-brained human.

We long ago dismissed the concept of random mutations as the “driving force”, and according to you, only a designing mind could produce every species that ever existed. And so from the standpoint of design, the story sounds exactly like lack of planning. If your all-powerful God’s intention right from the start was to design humans (plus food), what was the point of him specially designing dinosaurs and then wiping them all out?

Giraffe (shifted from “More miscellany")

dhw: […]it’s hard to see why the giraffe’s long neck was – according to your theory of evolution - an “absolute requirement” for the design of humans and our food.

DAVID: You gave the reason above. Giraffes contribute to their required ecosystem.

dhw: All life forms contribute to their ecosystem, but that doesn’t mean all past life forms and ecosystems were specially designed as “absolute requirements” for humans and our food!

DAVID: Your view of the need for our huge human population food supply is shortsighted as usual.

So if the giraffe didn’t have its long neck, we humans would starve? And 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and ecosystems, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and our food, were specially designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food! And you think I am shortsighted?

New extremophiles
QUOTE: “[Polycephalum] makes decisions with no apparent source of intelligence.”

dhw: I suppose you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, God gave these extremophiles instructions on how to survive, because they were all “absolute requirements” for him to design humans and our food.

DAVID: My view is if life started in the Hadean period of chaos on early Earth, it had to have very tough aspects of its resistence to adversity. That life is here is a miracle I would attribute to a designing God.

dhw: I agree with most of this, and I certainly can’t discount God as the designer of the original cells. But your theory that all these life forms were “absolute requirements” for humans? Nah, I can’t buy that.

DAVID: What will it take to open up the cement strangling your concepts of evoution?

I have offered several theistic concepts of evolution, each of which fits in logically with the history of life as we know it. You have offered one, which is so illogical that according to you it “makes sense only to God”. Please ask yourself the question you have asked me.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Cambrian)

by dhw, Wednesday, June 08, 2022, 12:10 (659 days ago) @ dhw

I have shifted this from “More miscellany”, because the Cambrian is so fundamental to your theory.

dhw:: Does every palaeontologist in the world believe the Cambrian gaps are caused by God creating species without precursors?

DAVID: Of course not! Only believers as is obvious.

We are both totally reliant on the findings of the experts. It is of course perfectly understandable that you will choose to quote experts who believe what you believe, and I’m in no position to start studying palaeontology in order to refute them, but I’d be most reluctant to assume that every non-believing palaeontologist is a fool or a liar. (NB In all our discussions concerning your theories, I have allowed for God as the creator, though I generally add the rider: “if he exists”.)

DAVID: […] Egnor's view is when new stuff dosen't change anything over time, lack of fossils as an arguement disappears.

dhw: I don’t understand. There have always been periods of stasis. How does that mean that when changes do take place (punctuated equilibrium), fossils of all transitions and species must always be preserved, even if conditions are unsuitable for the preservation of bodies over millions of years?

DAVID: Soft tissues (brains) have been found if you look far and wide enough: Cambrian in Nmibia, Canada, China, USA as starters. If we hunt enough and find nada, it isn't there. (Egnor)

Why have you focused on soft tissues? They are less likely to be preserved than hard tissues. I never said that none had been found. As regards your Egnor quote, a) new fossils are being found all the time, but (b) if fossils are not there, we can list a number of perfectly reasonable explanations for WHY they are not there. I referred you earlier to 4 different websites, and also gave you a list of reasons on Monday.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: Thank you for this. I don’t understand the figures given by the other researchers, which appear to allow for variations amounting to millions of years. In any case, the various new life forms did not occur all at once at the beginning of the Cambrian, which itself lasted for 13-25 million years (Wikipedia).

You have ignored this.

dhw: Meanwhile, in order to restore the balance, I have found a website that disputes your version of the Cambrian. Written in 2019:
Does the Cambrian Explosion pose a challenge to
https://biologos.org/common-questions/does-the-cambrian-expl…

DAVID: Very poor analysis on your part. The article you quote is dated "January 29, 2019". Your rigid reliance on old news to refute my up-to-date article shows how rigid you are. My open integrity will stay in full view as I follow the GAP as always.

I told you it was written in 2019, and the arguments are not “old news”. Your new news is that one team reckons the boundary between Ediacaran and Cambrian was only 410,000 years. That alters nothing except the time available for all the transitions, and for all we know, that will also be “old news” in 2023. You are really struggling if your only criterion for judging the reasonableness of arguments is the date when they were written. Some relevant quotes:

QUOTES: It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms, although likely near the base of major branches of the tree of life, did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time.

Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans.

(This ties in with the remarkable discovery you alerted us to under “neuropeptides”)

The sudden change of the Cambrian Era was, in relative terms, not too sudden for the process of evolution. The changes during the Cambrian Era did not occur over decades, centuries, or even thousands of years; they occurred over millions of years—plenty of time for evolutionary change.

(A hugely important observation, especially if you bear in mind Mirouze’s point that “TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution – changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” Add to this Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells (not random mutations) produce the innovations that lead to speciation, and there is indeed “plenty of time for evolutionary change”. Which of these arguments have been invalidated by the up-to-date estimate of 410,000 years?)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Cambrian)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 08, 2022, 16:59 (659 days ago) @ dhw

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: Thank you for this. I don’t understand the figures given by the other researchers, which appear to allow for variations amounting to millions of years. In any case, the various new life forms did not occur all at once at the beginning of the Cambrian, which itself lasted for 13-25 million years (Wikipedia).

You have ignored this.

This is very specific newresearch looking at the specific time interval between the layers. In the Grand Canyon, the layer junctions are narrower than my finger width.


dhw: I told you it was written in 2019, and the arguments are not “old news”. Your new news is that one team reckons the boundary between Ediacaran and Cambrian was only 410,000 years. That alters nothing except the time available for all the transitions, and for all we know, that will also be “old news” in 2023.

What new news in 2023??? If the interval is this short now and peer reviewed and accepted as valid, it is valid reaseach. The interval will not grow bigger again!!

dhw: Some relevant quotes:

QUOTES: It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms, although likely near the base of major branches of the tree of life, did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time.

Not valid as to layer separation in time.


Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans.

True, but within the same Cambrian period.


(This ties in with the remarkable discovery you alerted us to under “neuropeptides”)

dhw: The sudden change of the Cambrian Era was, in relative terms, not too sudden for the process of evolution. The changes during the Cambrian Era did not occur over decades, centuries, or even thousands of years; they occurred over millions of years—plenty of time for evolutionary change.

This is off the point of the true gap measurement in the new discovery paper


dhw: (A hugely important observation, especially if you bear in mind Mirouze’s point that “TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution – changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” Add to this Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells (not random mutations) produce the innovations that lead to speciation, and there is indeed “plenty of time for evolutionary change”. Which of these arguments have been invalidated by the up-to-date estimate of 410,000 years?)

You are straw clutching. Shapiro's theory is fine with this.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Cambrian)

by dhw, Thursday, June 09, 2022, 08:30 (659 days ago) @ David Turell

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: Thank you for this. I don’t understand the figures given by the other researchers, which appear to allow for variations amounting to millions of years. In any case, the various new life forms did not occur all at once at the beginning of the Cambrian, which itself lasted for 13-25 million years (Wikipedia).

You have ignored this.

DAVID: This is very specific new research looking at the specific time interval between the layers.

Shouldn’t we wait and see if these new figures are universally accepted? In any case, you have not answered the point that all the new species did not suddenly appear after 410,000 years!

DAVID: In the Grand Canyon, the layer junctions are narrower than my finger width.

I’m in no position to discuss the implications of this. But I doubt if every palaeontologist agrees that the Grand Canyon provides definitive proof that your God designed new species without any precursors.

dhw: I told you it was written in 2019, and the arguments are not “old news”. Your new news is that one team reckons the boundary between Ediacaran and Cambrian was only 410,000 years. That alters nothing except the time available for all the transitions, and for all we know, that will also be “old news” in 2023.

DAVID: What new news in 2023??? If the interval is this short now and peer reviewed and accepted as valid, it is valid reaseach. The interval will not grow bigger again!!

Who has accepted it as valid? I thought this theory was hot off the press. Do you really believe that all research into the subject is now over? In any case, this one discovery does not invalidate any of the points made in the articles I posted.

dhw: Some relevant quotes:

QUOTES: "It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms, although likely near the base of major branches of the tree of life, did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time."

DAVID: Not valid as to layer separation in time.

Sorry, but how does that come to mean that all the defining characteristics of modern animals suddenly appeared fully developed 410,000 years after the Ediacaran period?

"Some of the new fossil discoveries, in fact, appear to be more primitive precursors of the later Cambrian body plans."

(dhw: This ties in with the remarkable discovery you alerted us to under “neuropeptides”)

DAVID: True, but within the same Cambrian period.

The Cambrian period apparently lasted for about 20 million years, but the remarkable discovery was of precursors to the brain and nervous system long before the Cambrian.

"The sudden change of the Cambrian Era was, in relative terms, not too sudden for the process of evolution. The changes during the Cambrian Era did not occur over decades, centuries, or even thousands of years; they occurred over millions of years—plenty of time for evolutionary change."

DAVID: This is off the point of the true gap measurement in the new discovery paper.

I thought the gap referred to the transition between Ediacaran and Cambrian. Are the researchers disputing that the changes occurred over millions of years?

dhw: (A hugely important observation, especially if you bear in mind Mirouze’s point that “TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution – changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” Add to this Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells (not random mutations) produce the innovations that lead to speciation, and there is indeed “plenty of time for evolutionary change”. Which of these arguments have been invalidated by the up-to-date estimate of 410,000 years?)

DAVID: You are straw clutching. Shapiro's theory is fine with this.

Why is it straw clutching to point out that changes take place through generations rather than through the passing of time, and why do you regard the theory of cellular intelligence as straw clutching – especially if we propose that your God may have designed it?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Cambrian)

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 09, 2022, 17:19 (658 days ago) @ dhw

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: Thank you for this. I don’t understand the figures given by the other researchers, which appear to allow for variations amounting to millions of years. In any case, the various new life forms did not occur all at once at the beginning of the Cambrian, which itself lasted for 13-25 million years (Wikipedia).

dhw: You have ignored this.

Why do you throw old material in the face of new findings? Because it upsets your rigid theories you cling to. I'm trying to educate you.


DAVID: This is very specific new research looking at the specific time interval between the layers.

dhw: Shouldn’t we wait and see if these new figures are universally accepted? In any case, you have not answered the point that all the new species did not suddenly appear after 410,000 years!

the issue is the small transition period in time, not species.


DAVID: In the Grand Canyon, the layer junctions are narrower than my finger width.

dhw: I’m in no position to discuss the implications of this. But I doubt if every palaeontologist agrees that the Grand Canyon provides definitive proof that your God designed new species without any precursors.

OFF POINT. More of your rigid thinking in bold.


dhw: I told you it was written in 2019, and the arguments are not “old news”. Your new news is that one team reckons the boundary between Ediacaran and Cambrian was only 410,000 years. That alters nothing except the time available for all the transitions, and for all we know, that will also be “old news” in 2023.

DAVID: What new news in 2023??? If the interval is this short now and peer reviewed and accepted as valid, it is valid reaseach. The interval will not grow bigger again!!

dhw: Who has accepted it as valid? I thought this theory was hot off the press. Do you really believe that all research into the subject is now over? In any case, this one discovery does not invalidate any of the points made in the articles I posted.

Ancient articles do not answer current accepted peer-reviwed findings!!! Sorry if your rigid concepts are being damaged.


dhw: Some relevant quotes:

QUOTES: "It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms, although likely near the base of major branches of the tree of life, did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time."

DAVID: Not valid as to layer separation in time.

dhw: Sorry, but how does that come to mean that all the defining characteristics of modern animals suddenly appeared fully developed 410,000 years after the Ediacaran period?

Of course not. Form changes take time to develop new DNA instructional information. That is the required time lapse for speciation.


dhw: (A hugely important observation, especially if you bear in mind Mirouze’s point that “TEs are likely major drivers of rapid evolution – changes measured in terms of generations rather than millennia.” Add to this Shapiro’s theory that intelligent cells (not random mutations) produce the innovations that lead to speciation, and there is indeed “plenty of time for evolutionary change”. Which of these arguments have been invalidated by the up-to-date estimate of 410,000 years?)

DAVID: You are straw clutching. Shapiro's theory is fine with this.

dhw: Why is it straw clutching to point out that changes take place through generations rather than through the passing of time, and why do you regard the theory of cellular intelligence as straw clutching – especially if we propose that your God may have designed it?

Genertions pass though time. Both are involved.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Cambrian)

by dhw, Friday, June 10, 2022, 10:42 (658 days ago) @ David Turell

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: Thank you for this. I don’t understand the figures given by the other researchers, which appear to allow for variations amounting to millions of years. In any case, the various new life forms did not occur all at once at the beginning of the Cambrian, which itself lasted for 13-25 million years (Wikipedia).

dhw: You have ignored this.

DAVID: Why do you throw old material in the face of new findings? Because it upsets your rigid theories you cling to. I'm trying to educate you.

And later:

Ancient articles do not answer current accepted peer-reviwed findings!!! Sorry if your rigid concepts are being damaged.

And under “genetic mutations are harmful”:
I accept new peer-reviewed articles as accepted new knowledge as ID does. In the Ediacaran new time gap finding with Cambrain, dhw fights it with old quotes. Peer reeview means science has accepted the new finding. We have to use it!! dhw is hoping future research will overturn it to salvage his rigid theories about evolution.

I asked: "Who has accepted it as valid? I thought this theory was hot off the press. Do you really believe that all research into the subject is now over? In any case, this one discovery does not invalidate any of the points made in the articles I posted." You have not answered. The shortened gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian does not make the slightest difference to the discussion on why we don’t have fossils of every single transition from species to species. Its only possible relevance is to the time available for speciation, and your next answer appears to confirm that it is NOT relevant. (Let me add that I couldn’t care less whether the gap was 410,000 years or 4 million years – and I have offered multiple theories about evolution. It is you who cling rigidly to one, which apparently only God can understand).

dhw: […] you have not answered the point that all the new species did not suddenly appear after 410,000 years!

DAVID: the issue is the small transition period in time, not species.

If it has nothing to do with speciation, why is it so important?

dhw: I doubt if every palaeontologist agrees that the Grand Canyon provides definitive proof that your God designed new species without any precursors.

DAVID: OFF POINT. More of your rigid thinking in bold.

What “rigid thinking”? I am not a palaeontologist, and so for any information I rely just as you do on the specialists. I do not assume, as you seem to do, that every palaeontologist agrees that the Grand Canyon proves that God must have created new species that had no precursors. And I do not assume that any palaeontologst who disagrees is a liar or a fool.

dhw: Some relevant quotes:
QUOTES: "It is also important to realize that many of the Cambrian organisms, although likely near the base of major branches of the tree of life, did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time."

DAVID: Not valid as to layer separation in time.

dhw: Sorry, but how does that come to mean that all the defining characteristics of modern animals suddenly appeared fully developed 410,000 years after the Ediacaran period?

DAVID: Of course not. Form changes take time to develop new DNA instructional information. That is the required time lapse for speciation.

Since it took millions of years for Cambrian speciation to take place, please explain why the shortened boundary between Ediacaran and Cambrian of 410,000 years is so important.

DAVID: You are straw clutching. Shapiro's theory is fine with this.

dhw: Why is it straw clutching to point out that changes take place through generations rather than through the passing of time, and why do you regard the theory of cellular intelligence as straw clutching – especially if we propose that your God may have designed it?

DAVID: Genertions pass though time. Both are involved.

But changes to the genome take place by generations, not by the passage of time. Please tell us why this counts as “straw clutching”.

Punctuated trilobites

DAVID: our favorite Cambrians are yielding more secrets. It has alwasy bee presumed sex appeared in the Cambrian, but Edicraran 'frond-like animals could have had sex earlier.

Many thanks for this. As with the article on “neuropeptides”, we are slowly learning that fundamental features of “modern” species (brains, nervous systems, and now sex) did not suddenly appear in the Cambrian after all. New fossils keep emerging and confirming the theory that the evolution of species is a continuous process of common descent as life forms vary, adapt and innovate.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Cambrian)

by David Turell @, Friday, June 10, 2022, 17:14 (657 days ago) @ dhw

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: Why do you throw old material in the face of new findings? Because it upsets your rigid theories you cling to. I'm trying to educate you.

dhw: I asked: "Who has accepted it as valid? I thought this theory was hot off the press. Do you really believe that all research into the subject is now over? In any case, this one discovery does not invalidate any of the points made in the articles I posted." You have not answered. The shortened gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian does not make the slightest difference to the discussion on why we don’t have fossils of every single transition from species to species. Its only possible relevance is to the time available for speciation, and your next answer appears to confirm that it is NOT relevant.

Of course research continues. You are carefully throwing up lots of speciation theories to avoid the point that the complex animals of Cambrian appearing in a short time demands a designing mind produced them.


DAVID: You are straw clutching. Shapiro's theory is fine with this.

dhw: Why is it straw clutching to point out that changes take place through generations rather than through the passing of time, and why do you regard the theory of cellular intelligence as straw clutching – especially if we propose that your God may have designed it?

DAVID: Genertions pass though time. Both are involved.

dhw: But changes to the genome take place by generations, not by the passage of time. Please tell us why this counts as “straw clutching”.

True speciation is a major genome change. Most new species appear suddenly as if newly designed.


Punctuated trilobites

DAVID: our favorite Cambrians are yielding more secrets. It has always been presumed sex appeared in the Cambrian, but Edicraran 'frond-like animals could have had sex earlier.

dhw: Many thanks for this. As with the article on “neuropeptides”, we are slowly learning that fundamental features of “modern” species (brains, nervous systems, and now sex) did not suddenly appear in the Cambrian after all. New fossils keep emerging and confirming the theory that the evolution of species is a continuous process of common descent as life forms vary, adapt and innovate.

How does a sex organ discovery support your wild theory that dispenses with the Cambrian gap?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Cambrian)

by dhw, Saturday, June 11, 2022, 09:26 (657 days ago) @ David Turell

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: Why do you throw old material in the face of new findings? Because it upsets your rigid theories you cling to. I'm trying to educate you.

dhw: I asked: "Who has accepted it as valid? I thought this theory was hot off the press. Do you really believe that all research into the subject is now over? In any case, this one discovery does not invalidate any of the points made in the articles I posted." You have not answered. The shortened gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian does not make the slightest difference to the discussion on why we don’t have fossils of every single transition from species to species. Its only possible relevance is to the time available for speciation, and your next answer appears to confirm that it is NOT relevant.

DAVID: Of course research continues. You are carefully throwing up lots of speciation theories to avoid the point that the complex animals of Cambrian appearing in a short time demands a designing mind produced them.

I have asked if - as you have claimed - the 410,000 figure is now accepted by everybody (no answer from you), and I have pointed out that it is irrelevant to the problem of the gaps in the fossil record. There are no “lots of speciation theories” in my question and comments above, but elsewhere I have drawn your attention to the fact that a) what you call a short time is a mighty long time in terms of generations, especially if we consider the possibility that (perhaps God-given) cellular intelligence - not random mutations - is responsible for the necessary innovations, and b) there are feasible explanations for the gaps in the fossil record.

dhw: […] changes to the genome take place by generations, not by the passage of time. Please tell us why this counts as “straw clutching”.

DAVID: True speciation is a major genome change. Most new species appear suddenly as if newly designed.

Of course it’s a major genome change. And once more: these changes take place by generations and not by passage of time. How “sudden” is “suddenly”? Yesterday, in response to the point that new species did NOT suddenly appear fully developed, you wrote: “Form changes take time to develop new DNA instructional information. That is the required time lapse for speciation.” How many thousands (even millions) of years do you regard as being “sudden”?

Punctuated trilobites

DAVID: It has always been presumed sex appeared in the Cambrian, but Edicraran 'frond-like animals could have had sex earlier.

dhw: Many thanks for this. As with the article on “neuropeptides”, we are slowly learning that fundamental features of “modern” species (brains, nervous systems, and now sex) did not suddenly appear in the Cambrian after all. New fossils keep emerging and confirming the theory that the evolution of species is a continuous process of common descent as life forms vary, adapt and innovate.

DAVID: How does a sex organ discovery support your wild theory that dispenses with the Cambrian gap?

The gap is the absence of fossils. You have answered yourself above: organs that had previously been assumed to have appeared “suddenly” in the Cambrian are now shown to have originated in simpler forms before the Cambrian. This suggests continuity, not sudden appearance.

Human membrane pore

DAVID: Everything works together in a coordinated fashion. It must do that all at once. It cannot be constructed bit by bit by evolution, because it won't work properly until it is complete. This is the very definition of irreducible complexity which requires a designing mind. Ingress an egress must tightly controlled always. When a molecule wants to enter it emits an alerting signal to trigerv the pore, and teh same at exiting. The signals can e chemical, electrical or physical force. All have been described. This is why the cells look lintelligent: the molecules follow intellgently designed signals. This can be only fully understood when the molecular architecture is found and its actions described.

Once again, we are focusing on the cell, which is the basic unit of all life forms, and of course many of its functions have to be automatic, and as always, I acknowledge the logic of the design argument. However, the cell is also designed to respond to new conditions, and when cells combine they are even able to change their own structures. They are indeed so flexible in their ability to cope with different conditions and to change their structures, that they have combined to create all the multicellular species that have ever existed. It is not the automatic processes that have led to evolution but the ability to vary, and each new response to each change in conditions demands a departure from the previous norm. This is where (possibly God-given) intelligence comes into play. Your answer is a 3.8-billion-year-old instruction manual for every single change throughout the history of life, or your God popping in to dabble each one. Well, maybe what “looks” intelligent actually IS intelligent. Even you have said 50/50, so you should not be rejecting the possibility.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2 (Cambrian)

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 11, 2022, 16:50 (656 days ago) @ dhw

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: Of course research continues. You are carefully throwing up lots of speciation theories to avoid the point that the complex animals of Cambrian appearing in a short time demands a designing mind produced them.

dhw: I have asked if - as you have claimed - the 410,000 figure is now accepted by everybody (no answer from you), and I have pointed out that it is irrelevant to the problem of the gaps in the fossil record.

And I have answered: a peer-reviewed article in a major journal means it is accepted!!!

dhw: […] changes to the genome take place by generations, not by the passage of time. Please tell us why this counts as “straw clutching”.

DAVID: True speciation is a major genome change. Most new species appear suddenly as if newly designed.

dhw: Of course it’s a major genome change. And once more: these changes take place by generations and not by passage of time. How “sudden” is “suddenly”? Yesterday, in response to the point that new species did NOT suddenly appear fully developed, you wrote: “Form changes take time to develop new DNA instructional information. That is the required time lapse for speciation.” How many thousands (even millions) of years do you regard as being “sudden”?

Your plea above does not explain the gaps Gould recognized were a problem for Darwin theory. Species appear with gaps in form of the fossil series.


Punctuated trilobites

DAVID: It has always been presumed sex appeared in the Cambrian, but Edicraran 'frond-like animals could have had sex earlier.

dhw: Many thanks for this. As with the article on “neuropeptides”, we are slowly learning that fundamental features of “modern” species (brains, nervous systems, and now sex) did not suddenly appear in the Cambrian after all. New fossils keep emerging and confirming the theory that the evolution of species is a continuous process of common descent as life forms vary, adapt and innovate.

DAVID: How does a sex organ discovery support your wild theory that dispenses with the Cambrian gap?

dhw: The gap is the absence of fossils. You have answered yourself above: organs that had previously been assumed to have appeared “suddenly” in the Cambrian are now shown to have originated in simpler forms before the Cambrian. This suggests continuity, not sudden appearance.

The grasper organ found in trilobites is Cambrian, and presumes a penis. The bold is your pure invention. I did mention Edicarans are thought to be simple animals, so they possibly had sexual reproduction, but as sessile forms, sperm would have to float over to find an egg somehow. In Cambrian reproduction intromission is assumed. Your theoretical struggles show their rigidity


Human membrane pore

DAVID: Everything works together in a coordinated fashion. It must do that all at once. It cannot be constructed bit by bit by evolution, because it won't work properly until it is complete. This is the very definition of irreducible complexity which requires a designing mind. Ingress an egress must tightly controlled always. When a molecule wants to enter it emits an alerting signal to trigerv the pore, and teh same at exiting. The signals can e chemical, electrical or physical force. All have been described. This is why the cells look lintelligent: the molecules follow intellgently designed signals. This can be only fully understood when the molecular architecture is found and its actions described.

dhw: Once again, we are focusing on the cell, which is the basic unit of all life forms, and of course many of its functions have to be automatic, and as always, I acknowledge the logic of the design argument. However, the cell is also designed to respond to new conditions, and when cells combine they are even able to change their own structures. They are indeed so flexible in their ability to cope with different conditions and to change their structures, that they have combined to create all the multicellular species that have ever existed. It is not the automatic processes that have led to evolution but the ability to vary, and each new response to each change in conditions demands a departure from the previous norm. This is where (possibly God-given) intelligence comes into play. Your answer is a 3.8-billion-year-old instruction manual for every single change throughout the history of life, or your God popping in to dabble each one. Well, maybe what “looks” intelligent actually IS intelligent. Even you have said 50/50, so you should not be rejecting the possibility.

You may accept design theory, but totally ignore the import of irreducible complexity. All newly appearing cell forms most come complete with all functions intact and operating. Without that arangement, it won't work. All cells work on intelligent information. New species use cells just like the ones in the old species, butteh cells aerenow arranged to operate cooperatively in new body parts and body forms. How do cells take new body part forms? By design from the designer who undertand and plans for the future form and its new functions and uses. The thought that simple living cells can forsee the future and design for it to create the known gaps in the fossil record ( as the Cambrian) is preposterous.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Sunday, June 12, 2022, 10:46 (656 days ago) @ David Turell

Punctuated trilobites

DAVID: It has always been presumed sex appeared in the Cambrian, but Edicraran 'frond-like animals could have had sex earlier.

dhw: Many thanks for this. As with the article on “neuropeptides”, we are slowly learning that fundamental features of “modern” species (brains, nervous systems, and now sex) did not suddenly appear in the Cambrian after all. New fossils keep emerging and confirming the theory that the evolution of species is a continuous process of common descent as life forms vary, adapt and innovate.

DAVID: How does a sex organ discovery support your wild theory that dispenses with the Cambrian gap?

dhw: The gap is the absence of fossils. You have answered yourself above: organs that had previously been assumed to have appeared “suddenly” in the Cambrian are now shown to have originated in simpler forms before the Cambrian. This suggests continuity, not sudden appearance.

DAVID: The grasper organ found in trilobites is Cambrian, and presumes a penis. The bold is your pure invention. I did mention Edicarans are thought to be simple animals, so they possibly had sexual reproduction, but as sessile forms, sperm would have to float over to find an egg somehow. In Cambrian reproduction intromission is assumed. Your theoretical struggles show their rigidity.

You are right, my bold goes too far, as you said that Ediacaran animals “could have had” sex, not “did have”. However, the article on neuropeptides showed us that precursors to the fully developed Cambrian forms (brains and nervous systems) existed earlier, thus confirming the concept of continuity. And if the same “could have” applied to sexual reproduction, the theory of continuity can hardly be dismissed as wild.

Human membrane pore

DAVID: Everything works together in a coordinated fashion. It must do that all at once. It cannot be constructed bit by bit by evolution, because it won't work properly until it is complete. This is the very definition of irreducible complexity which requires a designing mind. Ingress an egress must tightly controlled always. When a molecule wants to enter it emits an alerting signal to trigerv the pore, and teh same at exiting. The signals can e chemical, electrical or physical force. All have been described. This is why the cells look lintelligent: the molecules follow intellgently designed signals. This can be only fully understood when the molecular architecture is found and its actions described.

dhw: Once again, we are focusing on the cell, which is the basic unit of all life forms, and of course many of its functions have to be automatic, and as always, I acknowledge the logic of the design argument. However, the cell is also designed to respond to new conditions, and when cells combine they are even able to change their own structures. They are indeed so flexible in their ability to cope with different conditions and to change their structures, that they have combined to create all the multicellular species that have ever existed. It is not the automatic processes that have led to evolution but the ability to vary, and each new response to each change in conditions demands a departure from the previous norm. This is where (possibly God-given) intelligence comes into play. […]

DAVID: You may accept design theory, but totally ignore the import of irreducible complexity. All newly appearing cell forms most come complete with all functions intact and operating. Without that arangement, it won't work.

I presume you are now talking about adaptation and innovation, in which cells take on new forms, and of course they must work. When conditions change, many life forms die. Survival depends on the flexibility of cells to change their structure.

DAVID: All cells work on intelligent information. New species use cells just like the ones in the old species, butteh cells aerenow arranged to operate cooperatively in new body parts and body forms.

I don’t know why you want to muddy the waters with “intelligent information”. It is the intelligence of cells that interprets and uses information, which is passive. And you’ve hit the nail on the head: the cells cooperate to create new forms.

DAVID: How do cells take new body part forms? By design from the designer who undertand and plans for the future form and its new functions and uses. The thought that simple living cells can forsee the future and design for it to create the known gaps in the fossil record ( as the Cambrian) is preposterous.

I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that in my theory cells do not foresee the future! They respond to conditions in their present: either they die, or they adapt (both proven) or they exploit the new conditions by designing new ways of using them (innovation, but not proven). The gaps in the fossil record are a different subject, which we have now discussed ad nauseam, with you refusing to consider the various explanations that have been offered. But of course you have every right to cling to your theory that 3.8 billion years ago your God produced an instruction manual for every single innovation, or alternatively he kept popping in to engineer each and every one, because each and every one was an “absolute requirement” for his design of us humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 12, 2022, 17:11 (655 days ago) @ dhw

Punctuated trilobites

DAVID: The grasper organ found in trilobites is Cambrian, and presumes a penis. The bold is your pure invention. I did mention Edicarans are thought to be simple animals, so they possibly had sexual reproduction, but as sessile forms, sperm would have to float over to find an egg somehow. In Cambrian reproduction intromission is assumed. Your theoretical struggles show their rigidity.

You are right, my bold goes too far, as you said that Ediacaran animals “could have had” sex, not “did have”. However, the article on neuropeptides showed us that precursors to the fully developed Cambrian forms (brains and nervous systems) existed earlier, thus confirming the concept of continuity. And if the same “could have” applied to sexual reproduction, the theory of continuity can hardly be dismissed as wild.

As you have just proven my theory, thank you! The true continuity of evolution is the ever- developing complexity of living biochemistry, as I have stated. Jumps in forms (gaps) are made possible by new biochemical proteins, as the neuropeptides example. Your education has advanced far beyond Darwin!


Human membrane pore

DAVID: You may accept design theory, but totally ignore the import of irreducible complexity. All newly appearing cell forms most come complete with all functions intact and operating. Without that arangement, it won't work.

dhw: I presume you are now talking about adaptation and innovation, in which cells take on new forms, and of course they must work. When conditions change, many life forms die. Survival depends on the flexibility of cells to change their structure.

From your amorphous wandering answer, I still don't know whether you undersand irreducable complexity and its full import as a concept, or you don't wish to accept it.


DAVID: All cells work on intelligent information. New species use cells just like the ones in the old species, but teh cells are now arranged to operate cooperatively in new body parts and body forms.

dhw: I don’t know why you want to muddy the waters with “intelligent information”. It is the intelligence of cells that interprets and uses information, which is passive. And you’ve hit the nail on the head: the cells cooperate to create new forms.

You have always been uncomfortable with the issue of information in living tissue.


DAVID: How do cells take new body part forms? By design from the designer who undertand and plans for the future form and its new functions and uses. The thought that simple living cells can forsee the future and design for it to create the known gaps in the fossil record ( as the Cambrian) is preposterous.

dhw: I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that in my theory cells do not foresee the future! They respond to conditions in their present: either they die, or they adapt (both proven) or they exploit the new conditions by designing new ways of using them (innovation, but not proven).

I fully know your strained theory about cell's abilities. For new forms able to handle new needs in their future, theories about the future must exist to create new design

dhw: The gaps in the fossil record are a different subject, which we have now discussed ad nauseam, with you refusing to consider the various explanations that have been offered.

The gaps are directly related to the issue of cells roles in speciation

dhw: But of course you have every right to cling to your theory that 3.8 billion years ago your God produced an instruction manual for every single innovation, or alternatively he kept popping in to engineer each and every one, because each and every one was an “absolute requirement” for his design of us humans.

Thank you

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Monday, June 13, 2022, 12:54 (654 days ago) @ David Turell

Human membrane pore

DAVID: You may accept design theory, but totally ignore the import of irreducible complexity. All newly appearing cell forms most come complete with all functions intact and operating. Without that arangement, it won't work.

dhw: I presume you are now talking about adaptation and innovation, in which cells take on new forms, and of course they must work. When conditions change, many life forms die. Survival depends on the flexibility of cells to change their structure.

DAVID: From your amorphous wandering answer, I still don't know whether you undersand irreducable complexity and its full import as a concept, or you don't wish to accept it.

I accept the concept of irreducible complexity in relation to the cell as a living, sentient, reproducing, flexible and intelligent entity – and that includes its ability to respond to different conditions by changing its forms. I don’t know why you think my comment constitutes an amorphous wandering answer. What is your objection to it?

DAVID: […] The thought that simple living cells can forsee the future and design for it to create the known gaps in the fossil record ( as the Cambrian) is preposterous.

dhw: I don’t know how many times I have to repeat that in my theory cells do not foresee the future! They respond to conditions in their present: either they die, or they adapt (both proven) or they exploit the new conditions by designing new ways of using them (innovation, but not proven). [I should have added that living cells are far from simple! But I thought you knew that.]

DAVID: I fully know your strained theory about cell's abilities. For new forms able to handle new needs in their future, theories about the future must exist to create new design.

They are NOT new needs in their future, but new needs (and new opportunities) in the present. Cells/cell comunities respond to new conditions – they do not anticipate them.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: I'm sick of this twisting of the gap importance by dhw finding old comments about it.

Next you’ll be telling us all palaeontologists believe that during the Cambrian, God created new, fully developed species that had no precursors. Yet again: the shortening of the gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian is irrelevant to the arguments that explain the gaps in the fossil record, which remain just as valid in 2022 as in 2019.

DAVID: The abstract of the article itself follows. The whole article is behind a paywall:
https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12368
QUOTE: […] The extremely short duration of the faunal transition from Ediacaran to Cambrian biota within less than 410 ka supports models of ecological cascades that followed the evolutionary breakthrough of increased mobility at the beginning of the Phanerozoic." (David’s bold)

DAVID: this measurement of the gap is very significant, not irrelevant!!

Answered above and in Part 1.

Entropy

QUOTE: "The idea of Earth being a self-regulating ecosystem was co-discovered by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s, and it became known as the Gaia hypothesis. The takeaway for us is that the flow of negative entropy exists not only for individual living things, but for the entire Earth. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold for an important view of the importance of ecosystems. Ecosystems ae balanced to maindtain lkife in general. Note dhw disparages them as food. One role is tooffer food for all.

You never cease to misrepresent my view of ecosystems. Every ecosystem serves to maintain life, and provides food for all the organisms within it. But that does not mean that every ecosystem and every organism in the whole history of life on Earth was specially designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us humans and our food. Please stop this silly attempt to distract attention from the illogicality of your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

I am very taken with the idea of Earth being a self-regulating ecosystem – a kind of macrocosm for all the microcosmic ecosystems that come and go. And it is very relevant indeed to our current concerns over climate change, as we humans are constantly interfering with the macrocosmic ecosystem. Incidentally, the far-sight Lynn Margulis was also a champion of the theory that cells are intelligent.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Monday, June 13, 2022, 17:36 (654 days ago) @ dhw

Human membrane pore

DAVID: From your amorphous wandering answer, I still don't know whether you undersand irreducable complexity and its full import as a concept, or you don't wish to accept it.

dhw: I accept the concept of irreducible complexity in relation to the cell as a living, sentient, reproducing, flexible and intelligent entity – and that includes its ability to respond to different conditions by changing its forms. I don’t know why you think my comment constitutes an amorphous wandering answer. What is your objection to it?

The concept says all parts must be formed simultaneously. Not your ambiguous amorphous commemnt.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: I'm sick of this twisting of the gap importance by dhw finding old comments about it.

dhw: Next you’ll be telling us all palaeontologists believe that during the Cambrian, God created new, fully developed species that had no precursors. Yet again: the shortening of the gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian is irrelevant to the arguments that explain the gaps in the fossil record, which remain just as valid in 2022 as in 2019.

The Cambrian gap it seems is shorter than all other gaps known!!! Accept it!!


DAVID: The abstract of the article itself follows. The whole article is behind a paywall:
https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12368
QUOTE: […] The extremely short duration of the faunal transition from Ediacaran to Cambrian biota within less than 410 ka supports models of ecological cascades that followed the evolutionary breakthrough of increased mobility at the beginning of the Phanerozoic." (David’s bold)

DAVID: this measurement of the gap is very significant, not irrelevant!!

dhw: Answered above and in Part 1.

no real answer given.


Entropy

QUOTE: "The idea of Earth being a self-regulating ecosystem was co-discovered by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis in the 1970s, and it became known as the Gaia hypothesis. The takeaway for us is that the flow of negative entropy exists not only for individual living things, but for the entire Earth. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold for an important view of the importance of ecosystems. Ecosystems ae balanced to maindtain lkife in general. Note dhw disparages them as food. One role is tooffer food for all.

You never cease to misrepresent my view of ecosystems. Every ecosystem serves to maintain life, and provides food for all the organisms within it. But that does not mean that every ecosystem and every organism in the whole history of life on Earth was specially designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us humans and our food. Please stop this silly attempt to distract attention from the illogicality of your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

dhw: nI am very taken with the idea of Earth being a self-regulating ecosystem – a kind of macrocosm for all the microcosmic ecosystems that come and go. And it is very relevant indeed to our current concerns over climate change, as we humans are constantly interfering with the macrocosmic ecosystem. Incidentally, the far-sight Lynn Margulis was also a champion of the theory that cells are intelligent.

Yes, they appear to be that way.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Tuesday, June 14, 2022, 11:05 (654 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The gaps as missing fossils is a theory not supported by the Camrian research now that soft tissue fossils are turning up and Cambrian fossils are being found all over the world as the gap remains.

dhw: So it is far from true to claim that there are no more fossils to be found – they are turning up all the time. And discoveries that indicate rudimentary brains and nervous systems and possibly sex existing long before the Cambrian would seem to indicate continuity rather than de novo speciation.

DAVID: Please, stop changing facts. Brains and nerves have been seen only in the Cambrian, not the Edicaran!!! As for all the 'new' fossils, all they have done is emphasize the gap.

Please stop trying to minimize the importance of the neuropeptide article. No one says brains and nerves already existed before the Cambrian, but: “The modern brain arose from hundreds of millions of years of incremental advances in complexity. Evolutionary biologists have traced that progress back through the branch of the animal family tree that includes all creatures with central nervous systems, the bilaterians, but it is clear that fundamental elements of the nervous system existed much earlier.”

dhw: […] Darwin would have been delighted at this vindication of his theory. If rudimentary brains and nervous systems and sexual reproduction already existed long before the Cambrian, what you call the “jumps” are nothing like as jumpy as you have made them out to be, even to the point of your claiming that the Cambrian produced species without any precursors (the exact opposite of continuity). [I am happy to change “rudimentary brains etc, to “fundamental elements”, as it makes no difference to the argument.]

DAVID: Your Darwin brain has assumed facts about the Ediacaran that have no proof. My only previous comment was about Edicaran animals possibly having some form of sex noted they were sessile and would have to float sperm over in the ocean to find eggs. Your rudimentary brains and nerves are figments of your wishful imagination as Darwin theory disappears.

If fundamental elements of brains and nerves appeared before actual brains and nerves (it was you who pointed out that sex may have been another example of early precursors), this can only be seen as vindication of the theory that these organs were the products of a continuous process rather than sudden jumps. You yourself support the concept of continuity when it confirms a direct line of descent from bacteria to humans, but you support the concept of sudden jumps when it suits your theory that only God could produce species without precursors.

Human membrane pore

DAVID: From your amorphous wandering answer, I still don't know whether you undersand irreducable complexity and its full import as a concept, or you don't wish to accept it.

dhw: I accept the concept of irreducible complexity in relation to the cell as a living, sentient, reproducing, flexible and intelligent entity – and that includes its ability to respond to different conditions by changing its forms. I don’t know why you think my comment constitutes an amorphous wandering answer. What is your objection to it?

DAVID: The concept says all parts must be formed simultaneously. Not your ambiguous amorphous comment.

All parts of what?

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: I'm sick of this twisting of the gap importance by dhw finding old comments about it.

dhw: Next you’ll be telling us all palaeontologists believe that during the Cambrian, God created new, fully developed species that had no precursors. Yet again: the shortening of the gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian is irrelevant to the arguments that explain the gaps in the fossil record, which remain just as valid in 2022 as in 2019.

DAVID: The Cambrian gap it seems is shorter than all other gaps known!!! Accept it!!

OK, I accept it. Now will you please accept that the arguments explaining gaps in the fossil record are just as valid now as they were in 2019.

Entropy

DAVID: Note my bold for an important view of the importance of ecosystems. Ecosystems ae balanced to maindtain lkife in general. Note dhw disparages them as food. One role is tooffer food for all.

dhw: You never cease to misrepresent my view of ecosystems. Every ecosystem serves to maintain life, and provides food for all the organisms within it. But that does not mean that every ecosystem and every organism in the whole history of life on Earth was specially designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us humans and our food. Please stop this silly attempt to distract attention from the illogicality of your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

As you have not replied, I trust we have heard the last of this particular dodge.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 14, 2022, 22:54 (653 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The gaps as missing fossils is a theory not supported by the Camrian research now that soft tissue fossils are turning up and Cambrian fossils are being found all over the world as the gap remains.
DAVID: Please, stop changing facts. Brains and nerves have been seen only in the Cambrian, not the Edicaran!!! As for all the 'new' fossils, all they have done is emphasize the gap.

dhw: Please stop trying to minimize the importance of the neuropeptide article. No one says brains and nerves already existed before the Cambrian, but: “The modern brain arose from hundreds of millions of years of incremental advances in complexity. Evolutionary biologists have traced that progress back through the branch of the animal family tree that includes all creatures with central nervous systems, the bilaterians, but it is clear that fundamental elements of the nervous system existed much earlier.”

I am not minimizing the neuropeptides. Of course they fit my theory that the basis of the continuity of evolution is in early and complete development of necessary new bochemicals which precede new processes by new organs.


dhw: […] Darwin would have been delighted at this vindication of his theory. If rudimentary brains and nervous systems and sexual reproduction already existed long before the Cambrian, what you call the “jumps” are nothing like as jumpy as you have made them out to be, even to the point of your claiming that the Cambrian produced species without any precursors (the exact opposite of continuity). [I am happy to change “rudimentary brains etc, to “fundamental elements”, as it makes no difference to the argument.]

DAVID: Your Darwin brain has assumed facts about the Ediacaran that have no proof. My only previous comment was about Edicaran animals possibly having some form of sex noted they were sessile and would have to float sperm over in the ocean to find eggs. Your rudimentary brains and nerves are figments of your wishful imagination as Darwin theory disappears.

dhw: If fundamental elements of brains and nerves appeared before actual brains and nerves (it was you who pointed out that sex may have been another example of early precursors), this can only be seen as vindication of the theory that these organs were the products of a continuous process rather than sudden jumps. You yourself support the concept of continuity when it confirms a direct line of descent from bacteria to humans, but you support the concept of sudden jumps when it suits your theory that only God could produce species without precursors.

Yes, a continuous of necessary biochemicals prior to new organs or phenotypes.


Human membrane pore

DAVID: From your amorphous wandering answer, I still don't know whether you undersand irreducable complexity and its full import as a concept, or you don't wish to accept it.

dhw: I accept the concept of irreducible complexity in relation to the cell as a living, sentient, reproducing, flexible and intelligent entity – and that includes its ability to respond to different conditions by changing its forms. I don’t know why you think my comment constitutes an amorphous wandering answer. What is your objection to it?

DAVID: The concept says all parts must be formed simultaneously. Not your ambiguous amorphous comment.

dhw: All parts of what?

Of the fully ooperating pore in this case


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: I'm sick of this twisting of the gap importance by dhw finding old comments about it.

dhw: Next you’ll be telling us all palaeontologists believe that during the Cambrian, God created new, fully developed species that had no precursors. Yet again: the shortening of the gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian is irrelevant to the arguments that explain the gaps in the fossil record, which remain just as valid in 2022 as in 2019.

DAVID: The Cambrian gap it seems is shorter than all other gaps known!!! Accept it!!

dhw: OK, I accept it. Now will you please accept that the arguments explaining gaps in the fossil record are just as valid now as they were in 2019.

We do not know how speciation occurs in the time period which is required. No interval is known. The gaps are gaps because they are gaps. The Edicaran/Cambrian gap is amazingly short compared to all others, consdiering the enormnous jump in complexity.


Entropy

DAVID: Note my bold for an important view of the importance of ecosystems. Ecosystems ae balanced to maindtain lkife in general. Note dhw disparages them as food. One role is tooffer food for all.

dhw: You never cease to misrepresent my view of ecosystems. Every ecosystem serves to maintain life, and provides food for all the organisms within it. But that does not mean that every ecosystem and every organism in the whole history of life on Earth was specially designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us humans and our food. Please stop this silly attempt to distract attention from the illogicality of your anthropocentric theory of evolution.

dhw: As you have not replied, I trust we have heard the last of this particular dodge.

I'm just avoiding another discussion of the same old thing. My view about now I view God are widely expressed here.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Wednesday, June 15, 2022, 09:51 (653 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Please, stop changing facts. Brains and nerves have been seen only in the Cambrian, not the Edicaran!!! As for all the 'new' fossils, all they have done is emphasize the gap.

dhw: Please stop trying to minimize the importance of the neuropeptide article. No one says brains and nerves already existed before the Cambrian, but: “The modern brain arose from hundreds of millions of years of incremental advances in complexity. Evolutionary biologists have traced that progress back through the branch of the animal family tree that includes all creatures with central nervous systems, the bilaterians, but it is clear that fundamental elements of the nervous system existed much earlier.

DAVID: I am not minimizing the neuropeptides. Of course they fit my theory that the basis of the continuity of evolution is in early and complete development of necessary new bochemicals which precede new processes by new organs.

Why do you keep harping on about biochemical processes? Of course every change entails biochemical processes. But the question we are trying to answer is whether new organs and new species evolve from preceding organs and species by means of these processes, or your God suddenly produced new organs and new species that had no precursors. You favour the former when you want to show that there is a continuous line from bacteria to humans, and you favour the latter when you want to prove your God’s existence.

Human membrane pore

DAVID: From your amorphous wandering answer, I still don't know whether you undersand irreducable complexity and its full import as a concept, or you don't wish to accept it.

dhw: I accept the concept of irreducible complexity in relation to the cell as a living, sentient, reproducing, flexible and intelligent entity – and that includes its ability to respond to different conditions by changing its forms. I don’t know why you think my comment constitutes an amorphous wandering answer. What is your objection to it?

DAVID: The concept says all parts must be formed simultaneously. Not your ambiguous amorphous comment.

dhw: All parts of what?

DAVID: Of the fully operating pore in this case.

I’m afraid you’ll have to remind me, as I can’t find the original article. Has this pore always been present in cells, or was it a new development? But in any case, I would not envisage intelligent cells cooperating to produce a necessary organ whose parts didn't work simultaneously. If it was necessary, they wouldn't survive.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: The Cambrian gap it seems is shorter than all other gaps known!!! Accept it!!

dhw: OK, I accept it. Now will you please accept that the arguments explaining gaps in the fossil record are just as valid now as they were in 2019.

DAVID: We do not know how speciation occurs in the time period which is required. No interval is known. The gaps are gaps because they are gaps. The Edicaran/Cambrian gap is amazingly short compared to all others, considering the enormous jump in complexity.

Why have you dodged my point? I accept the shortness of the gap. Now please tell me why you think the 2019 arguments explaining the gaps in the fossil record are no longer valid in 2022.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 15, 2022, 16:31 (652 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Please stop trying to minimize the importance of the neuropeptide article. No one says brains and nerves already existed before the Cambrian, but: “The modern brain arose from hundreds of millions of years of incremental advances in complexity. Evolutionary biologists have traced that progress back through the branch of the animal family tree that includes all creatures with central nervous systems, the bilaterians, but it is clear that fundamental elements of the nervous system existed much earlier.

DAVID: I am not minimizing the neuropeptides. Of course they fit my theory that the basis of the continuity of evolution is in early and complete development of necessary new bochemicals which precede new processes by new organs.

dhw: Why do you keep harping on about biochemical processes? Of course every change entails biochemical processes. But the question we are trying to answer is whether new organs and new species evolve from preceding organs and species by means of these processes, or your God suddenly produced new organs and new species that had no precursors. You favour the former when you want to show that there is a continuous line from bacteria to humans, and you favour the latter when you want to prove your God’s existence.

We know of no biological process or processes that produce new species. We do have epigenetic methylation for immediate adaptations within species. Since it is either a natural process or a designer, I pick a designer God.


Human membrane pore

DAVID: From your amorphous wandering answer, I still don't know whether you undersand irreducable complexity and its full import as a concept, or you don't wish to accept it.

dhw: I accept the concept of irreducible complexity in relation to the cell as a living, sentient, reproducing, flexible and intelligent entity – and that includes its ability to respond to different conditions by changing its forms. I don’t know why you think my comment constitutes an amorphous wandering answer. What is your objection to it?

DAVID: The concept says all parts must be formed simultaneously. Not your ambiguous amorphous comment.

dhw: All parts of what?

DAVID: Of the fully operating pore in this case.

dhw: I’m afraid you’ll have to remind me, as I can’t find the original article. Has this pore always been present in cells, or was it a new development? But in any case, I would not envisage intelligent cells cooperating to produce a necessary organ whose parts didn't work simultaneously. If it was necessary, they wouldn't survive.

The pore, as a vital part, has been around since cells existed. It is newly described as to its molecular parts. I have bolded the part of your response which is the irreducible complexity theory originated by Behe.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: The Cambrian gap it seems is shorter than all other gaps known!!! Accept it!!

dhw: OK, I accept it. Now will you please accept that the arguments explaining gaps in the fossil record are just as valid now as they were in 2019.

DAVID: We do not know how speciation occurs in the time period which is required. No interval is known. The gaps are gaps because they are gaps. The Edicaran/Cambrian gap is amazingly short compared to all others, considering the enormous jump in complexity.

dhw: Why have you dodged my point? I accept the shortness of the gap. Now please tell me why you think the 2019 arguments explaining the gaps in the fossil record are no longer valid in 2022.

I know all the arguments about gaps. All are theoretical guesses. Gould recognized the issue as so punctuated equilibrium was proposed, defended and opposed, nothing solved.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Thursday, June 16, 2022, 11:06 (652 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please stop trying to minimize the importance of the neuropeptide article. No one says brains and nerves already existed before the Cambrian, but: “The modern brain arose from hundreds of millions of years of incremental advances in complexity. Evolutionary biologists have traced that progress back through the branch of the animal family tree that includes all creatures with central nervous systems, the bilaterians, but it is clear that fundamental elements of the nervous system existed much earlier.”

DAVID: I am not minimizing the neuropeptides. Of course they fit my theory that the basis of the continuity of evolution is in early and complete development of necessary new biochemicals which precede new processes by new organs.

dhw: Why do you keep harping on about biochemical processes? Of course every change entails biochemical processes. But the question we are trying to answer is whether new organs and new species evolve from preceding organs and species by means of these processes, or your God suddenly produced new organs and new species that had no precursors. […]

DAVID: We know of no biological process or processes that produce new species.

So why do you keep harping on about them?

DAVID: We do have epigenetic methylation for immediate adaptations within species. Since it is either a natural process or a designer, I pick a designer God.

Nobody knows how speciation happens. The fact that cells can adapt to new conditions may offer us a clue – that the same known mechanism can also innovate when new conditions offer new opportunities. But you reject this possibility - which allows for your God as the designer - and opt for him either individually preprogramming or dabbling the same developments.

How did sex pop up?
DAVID: this study of hermaphrodites really adds little. They have both sexes to begin with. That does not explain how the two sexes appeared from organisms that simply used binary fission. This is one of the biggest developmental gaps in which sex's origin is not known.

We don’t know any of the “origins”, including that of life itself. However, you suggested that sex may have originated before the Cambrian. And we've been told that fundamental elements of the brain and nervous system existed much earlier than the Cambrian. This suggests the continuity of evolution (which you favour for the sake of a continuous line between bacteria and humans), as opposed to separate creation without precursors (which you favour as evidence for your God’s existence).

Immunity system: lung cells
DAVID: In design theory it is reasonably proposed lungs were first designed with these cells in place, or lunged species would not have survived.

Alternatively, fatalities would have resulted in the surviving cells gradually learning to improve their design. (You seem to think that every disease would obliterate the whole species!) A parallel would be most of our human inventions, which worked OK originally but were gradually improved on by subsequent generations.

Magic embryology

QUOTE: The migrating cell has to constantly be making decisions and figuring out if it is in the in the right place in the body.

Don’t you just love these signs of intelligence?

DAVID: This shows how cells can operate fully by chemical signals in all cellular operations incuding epigenetics. The Speciation mechanism is totally unknown.

And because it is unknown, perhaps we should consider the possibility that cells decide which chemical signals should be used when and to what effect?

Human membrane pore
DAVID: The concept [irreducible complexity] says all parts must be formed simultaneously. […]

dhw: All parts of what?

DAVID: Of the fully operating pore in this case.

dhw: […] Has this pore always been present in cells, or was it a new development? But in any case, I would not envisage intelligent cells cooperating to produce a necessary organ whose parts didn't work simultaneously. If it was necessary, they wouldn't survive.


DAVID: The pore, as a vital part, has been around since cells existed.

Thank you. As I commented before, I fully accept the irreducible complexity of the cell.

DAVID: It is newly described as to its molecular parts. I have bolded the part of your response which is the irreducible complexity theory originated by Behe.

So what is the problem? If one part doesn’t work, the mechanism won’t work. Fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells cooperating to create a mechanism that works. However, see above for mechanisms that do work but can be improved.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: […] please tell me why you think the 2019 arguments explaining the gaps in the fossil record are no longer valid in 2022.

DAVID: I know all the arguments about gaps. All are theoretical guesses. Gould recognized the issue as so punctuated equilibrium was proposed, defended and opposed, nothing solved.

Of course they are all theoretical guesses. Does it not occur to you that the existence of God and his 3.8-billion-year programme or individual dabbles for all evolutionary changes are also “theoretical guesses”? Now please tell me why the 410,000-year transition invalidates all the “theoretical guesses” that explain the absence of fossils.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 16, 2022, 18:11 (651 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, June 16, 2022, 18:20

DAVID: We know of no biological process or processes that produce new species.

dhw: So why do you keep harping on about them?

Because it is obvious evolution is based on new biochemistry being avaliable for new forms.


Immunity system: lung cells
DAVID: In design theory it is reasonably proposed lungs were first designed with these cells in place, or lunged species would not have survived.

dhw: Alternatively, fatalities would have resulted in the surviving cells gradually learning to improve their design. (You seem to think that every disease would obliterate the whole species!) A parallel would be most of our human inventions, which worked OK originally but were gradually improved on by subsequent generations.

After a time gap new species handle life very well. Means prepared in advance.


Magic embryology

QUOTE: The migrating cell has to constantly be making decisions and figuring out if it is in the in the right place in the body.

dhw: Don’t you just love these signs of intelligence?

The article shows tight signal controls, but I guess you ignored the descriptions, since they upset your rigid concept about how intelligent cells are, without being able to tell me how they got that way naturally. Try not scurrying back to a probable God to avoid the other side of the issue. If you are either or about God, give me the no God explanation.


DAVID: This shows how cells can operate fully by chemical signals in all cellular operations incuding epigenetics. The Speciation mechanism is totally unknown.

dhw: And because it is unknown, perhaps we should consider the possibility that cells decide which chemical signals should be used when and to what effect?

But just only in embryo formation they don't? Cells operate by physical and electrical and chemical signals/stimulations which trigger automatic responses.


Human membrane pore
DAVID: The concept [irreducible complexity] says all parts must be formed simultaneously. […]

dhw: All parts of what?

DAVID: Of the fully operating pore in this case.

dhw: […] Has this pore always been present in cells, or was it a new development? But in any case, I would not envisage intelligent cells cooperating to produce a necessary organ whose parts didn't work simultaneously. If it was necessary, they wouldn't survive.


DAVID: The pore, as a vital part, has been around since cells existed.

dhw: Thank you. As I commented before, I fully accept the irreducible complexity of the cell.

DAVID: It is newly described as to its molecular parts. I have bolded the part of your response which is the irreducible complexity theory originated by Behe.

dhw: So what is the problem? If one part doesn’t work, the mechanism won’t work. Fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells cooperating to create a mechanism that works. However, see above for mechanisms that do work but can be improved.

So simple cell committees understand design for future use?


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: […] please tell me why you think the 2019 arguments explaining the gaps in the fossil record are no longer valid in 2022.

DAVID: I know all the arguments about gaps. All are theoretical guesses. Gould recognized the issue as so punctuated equilibrium was proposed, defended and opposed, nothing solved.

dhw: Of course they are all theoretical guesses. Does it not occur to you that the existence of God and his 3.8-billion-year programme or individual dabbles for all evolutionary changes are also “theoretical guesses”? Now please tell me why the 410,000-year transition invalidates all the “theoretical guesses” that explain the absence of fossils.

See Egnor's previous comments which you well know. If after decades of searching for more, and do not appear, there are no more. 160 years since Darwin worried about the Cambrain gap and what we have found is the time is shortened, and gap stronger than ever.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2-3

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 16, 2022, 18:53 (651 days ago) @ David Turell

From a previous entry:

How did sex pop up?
DAVID: this study of hermaphrodites really adds little. They have both sexes to begin with. That does not explain how the two sexes appeared from organisms that simply used binary fission. This is one of the biggest developmental gaps in which sex's origin is not known.

dhw: We don’t know any of the “origins”, including that of life itself. However, you suggested that sex may have originated before the Cambrian. And we've been told that fundamental elements of the brain and nervous system existed much earlier than the Cambrian. This suggests the continuity of evolution (which you favour for the sake of a continuous line between bacteria and humans), as opposed to separate creation without precursors (which you favour as evidence for your God’s existence).

It required chromatin to appear so sex chromosomes could exist:

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/eukaryotic-chromatin-evolution-10894.html

"Like wool around a spool, the extreme space challenge requires DNA to wrap around structural proteins called histones.

"This coiled genetic architecture, known as chromatin, protects DNA from damage and has a key role in gene regulation.

"Histones are present in both eukaryotes, living organisms that have specialized cellular machinery such as nuclei and microtubules, and archaea, another branch of the tree of life consisting of single-celled microbes that are prokaryotic, meaning they lack a nucleus.

***

"They found that prokaryotes lack the machinery necessary to modify histones, suggesting archaeal chromatin at the time could have played a basic structural role but did not regulate the genome.

"In contrast, they found ample evidence of proteins that read, write and erase histone modifications in early diverging eukaryotic lineages such as the malawimonad Gefionella okellyi, the ancyromonad Fabomonas tropica, or the discoban Naegleria gruberi, microbes that had not been sampled until now.

“'Our results underscore that the structural and regulatory roles of chromatin are as old as eukaryotes themselves,” Dr. Grau-Bové said.

“'These functions are essential for eukaryotic life — since chromatin first appeared, it’s never been lost again in any life form.”

***

"Using the sequence data, the researchers reconstructed the repertoire of genes held by the last eukaryotic common ancestor, the cell that gave rise to all eukaryotes.

"This living organism had dozens of histone-modifying genes and lived between one and two billion years ago on Earth.

***

“'Viruses and transposable elements are genome parasites that regularly attack DNA of single-celled organisms,” said Dr. Arnau Sebe-Pedrós, a researcher in the Centre for Genomic Regulation at the Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology.

“'This could have led to an evolutionary arms-race to protect the genome, resulting in the development of chromatin as a defensive mechanism in the cell that gave rise to all known eukaryotic life on Earth.”

“'Later on, these mechanisms were co-opted into elaborate gene regulation, as we observe in modern eukaryotes, particularly multicellular organisms.'”

Comment: as Darwinist scientists they have their guesses as to how chromatin appeared. It could be a virus attack or a designing God. At any rate we came from Archaea. And to have sexual reproduction major modifications in DNA structure had to happen. Sex allowed for multiple possible complex new variations to appear, while simple binary fission couldn't do that. Design or chance, I chose design.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Friday, June 17, 2022, 13:16 (650 days ago) @ David Turell

Magic embryology

QUOTE: The migrating cell has to constantly be making decisions and figuring out if it is in the in the right place in the body.

dhw: Don’t you just love these signs of intelligence?

DAVID: The article shows tight signal controls, but I guess you ignored the descriptions, since they upset your rigid concept about how intelligent cells are, without being able to tell me how they got that way naturally. Try not scurrying back to a probable God to avoid the other side of the issue. If you are either or about God, give me the no God explanation.

Dealt with on the “Information” thread.

Human membrane pore

dhw: If one part doesn’t work, the mechanism won’t work. Fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells cooperating to create a mechanism that works. However, see above for mechanisms that do work but can be improved.

DAVID: So simple cell committees understand design for future use?

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense and making me repeat: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE! They respond to present requirements or opportunities. Once the response works, then of course it will be used in the future. The immune system provides a perfect example of the process!

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: […] please tell me why you think the 2019 arguments explaining the gaps in the fossil record are no longer valid in 2022.

DAVID: I know all the arguments about gaps. All are theoretical guesses. Gould recognized the issue as so punctuated equilibrium was proposed, defended and opposed, nothing solved.

dhw: Of course they are all theoretical guesses. Does it not occur to you that the existence of God and his 3.8-billion-year programme or individual dabbles for all evolutionary changes are also “theoretical guesses”? Now please tell me why the 410,000-year transition invalidates all the “theoretical guesses” that explain the absence of fossils.

DAVID: See Egnor's previous comments which you well know. If after decades of searching for more, and do not appear, there are no more.

Yet again: there are logical reasons why there may be no more fossils! But for some obscure reason, you think that a list of reasons published in 2019 is out of date!

dhw: We don’t know any of the “origins”, including that of life itself. However, you suggested that sex may have originated before the Cambrian. And we've been told that fundamental elements of the brain and nervous system existed much earlier than the Cambrian. This suggests the continuity of evolution (which you favour for the sake of a continuous line between bacteria and humans), as opposed to separate creation without precursors (which you favour as evidence for your God’s existence).

No direct response from you.

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: It required chromatin to appear so sex chromosomes could exist:

QUOTE: “'Our results underscore that the structural and regulatory roles of chromatin are as old as eukaryotes themselves,” Dr. Grau-Bové said.

DAVID: as Darwinist scientists they have their guesses as to how chromatin appeared. It could be a virus attack or a designing God. At any rate we came from Archaea. And to have sexual reproduction major modifications in DNA structure had to happen. Sex allowed for multiple possible complex new variations to appear, while simple binary fission couldn't do that. Design or chance, I chose design.

Since chromatin is so vital for sex, we have yet another example of fundamental elements being present long before the arrival of the fully developed system. More evidence in favour of the continuity of common descent as opposed to organs and species suddenly appearing without any predecessors.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Friday, June 17, 2022, 16:59 (650 days ago) @ dhw

Human membrane pore

dhw: If one part doesn’t work, the mechanism won’t work. Fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells cooperating to create a mechanism that works. However, see above for mechanisms that do work but can be improved.

DAVID: So simple cell committees understand design for future use?

dhw: Why do you keep repeating this nonsense and making me repeat: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE! They respond to present requirements or opportunities. Once the response works, then of course it will be used in the future. The immune system provides a perfect example of the process!

I repeat because you will not recognize the gaps in the fossil record. You always wish for missing fossils to fill your multiple generations theory.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: Of course they are all theoretical guesses. Does it not occur to you that the existence of God and his 3.8-billion-year programme or individual dabbles for all evolutionary changes are also “theoretical guesses”? Now please tell me why the 410,000-year transition invalidates all the “theoretical guesses” that explain the absence of fossils.

DAVID: See Egnor's previous comments which you well know. If after decades of searching for more, and do not appear, there are no more.

dhw: Yet again: there are logical reasons why there may be no more fossils! But for some obscure reason, you think that a list of reasons published in 2019 is out of date!

The list of reasons is not FACT, not proof, but reasonable guesses as to why they are absent. They can be all wrong also.


dhw: We don’t know any of the “origins”, including that of life itself. However, you suggested that sex may have originated before the Cambrian. And we've been told that fundamental elements of the brain and nervous system existed much earlier than the Cambrian. This suggests the continuity of evolution (which you favour for the sake of a continuous line between bacteria and humans), as opposed to separate creation without precursors (which you favour as evidence for your God’s existence).

No direct response from you.

No reason for me to respond since you summarized the issue. But since you insist: the underlying biochemistry must precede all form advances. And early new forms will prepare for later new form. Evolution!!!


How did sex pop up?

DAVID: It required chromatin to appear so sex chromosomes could exist:

QUOTE: “'Our results underscore that the structural and regulatory roles of chromatin are as old as eukaryotes themselves,” Dr. Grau-Bové said.

DAVID: as Darwinist scientists they have their guesses as to how chromatin appeared. It could be a virus attack or a designing God. At any rate we came from Archaea. And to have sexual reproduction major modifications in DNA structure had to happen. Sex allowed for multiple possible complex new variations to appear, while simple binary fission couldn't do that. Design or chance, I chose design.

dhw: Since chromatin is so vital for sex, we have yet another example of fundamental elements being present long before the arrival of the fully developed system. More evidence in favour of the continuity of common descent as opposed to organs and species suddenly appearing without any predecessors.

Thank you for clearly supporting my biochemcial theory of evolution. With that bazis, new forms can appear. Chromatin came as new biochemistry,

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Saturday, June 18, 2022, 14:17 (649 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We know of no biological process or processes that produce new species.

dhw: So why do you keep harping on about them?

DAVID: Because it is obvious evolution is based on new biochemistry being avaliable for new forms.

dhw: If we don’t know of any biological process that produces new species, how is it obvious that “new biochemistry” produces new species? What is obvious is that if you believe in common descent (as you claim to do), biochemical processes must lead to new uses of available materials.

DAVID: The new biochemistry must be available to allow new forms. I have God engineering and you have ???

Possibly intelligent cells, possibly designed by your God. Please clarify what you mean by “new biochemistry”. Do you mean new materials, or do you mean new ways of using existing materials? And do you or do you not believe in common descent? In another post, we had this exchange:

dhw: […] we've been told that fundamental elements of the brain and nervous system existed much earlier than the Cambrian. This suggests the continuity of evolution (which you favour for the sake of a continuous line between bacteria and humans), as opposed to separate creation without precursors (which you favour as evidence for your God’s existence).

DAVID: […] the underlying biochemistry must precede all form advances. And early new forms will prepare for later new forms. Evolution!!!

This does not explain your self-contradiction, but it suggests that the materials are already present, and new forms result from new uses (or processes). I suggest that the early forms are not “preparations” (no crystal ball involved), but through “biological processes”, organisms (cell communities) adapt or innovate IN RESPONSE to changing conditions.

How did sex pop up?
DAVID: It required chromatin to appear so sex chromosomes could exist:

QUOTE: “'Our results underscore that the structural and regulatory roles of chromatin are as old as eukaryotes themselves,” Dr. Grau-Bové said.

dhw: Since chromatin is so vital for sex, we have yet another example of fundamental elements being present long before the arrival of the fully developed system. More evidence in favour of the continuity of common descent as opposed to organs and species suddenly appearing without any predecessors.

DAVID: Thank you for clearly supporting my biochemcial theory of evolution. With that basis, new forms can appear. Chromatin came as new biochemistry.

Chromatin is “as old as eukaryotes themselves”. The point is that we have several examples of fundamental elements being present long before the fully developed organs appear. See the bold above.

Immunity system: lung cells

DAVID: In design theory it is reasonably proposed lungs were first designed with these cells in place, or lunged species would not have survived.

dhw: Alternatively, fatalities would have resulted in the surviving cells gradually learning to improve their design. (You seem to think that every disease would obliterate the whole species!) […]

DAVID: After a time gap new species handle life very well. Means prepared in advance.

dhw: The time gap suggests to me that cells learn to handle the different demands. The “advance preparation” would be the provision of intelligence and flexibility, whereby the former uses the latter to adjust to changing conditions and requirements.

DAVID: How cells automatically have intelligence cannot be simply stated as fact. How did those intelligent actions happen? What mechanism?

Just like the existence of God and your own illogical theories of evolution, cellular intelligence is a theory. All dealt with in Part One.

Human membrane pore

dhw: If one part doesn’t work, the mechanism won’t work. Fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells cooperating to create a mechanism that works. However, see above for mechanisms that do work but can be improved.

DAVID: So simple cell committees understand design for future use?

dhw: Why do you keep repeating this nonsense and making me repeat: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE! They respond to present requirements or opportunities. Once the response works, then of course it will be used in the future. The immune system provides a perfect example of the process!

DAVID: I repeat because you will not recognize the gaps in the fossil record. You always wish for missing fossils to fill your multiple generations theory.

You’ve forgotten the point: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE. They respond to the present. Nothing to do with gaps in the fossil record!

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: […] there are logical reasons why there may be no more fossils! But for some obscure reason, you think that a list of reasons published in 2019 is out of date!

DAVID: The list of reasons is not FACT, not proof, but reasonable guesses as to why they are absent. They can be all wrong also.

Agreed. The existence of God, and your theories of evolution are not FACTS, and the latter are so illogical that they are not even “reasonable” guesses. (They “make sense only to God.”) They can be wrong. Now please tell me why you regard the 2019 list of possible reasons for the absence of fossils as unreasonable.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 18, 2022, 16:03 (649 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The new biochemistry must be available to allow new forms. I have God engineering and you have ???

dhw: Possibly intelligent cells, possibly designed by your God. Please clarify what you mean by “new biochemistry”. Do you mean new materials, or do you mean new ways of using existing materials? And do you or do you not believe in common descent?

Are you confused? Life is biochemistry and we have discussed the neuropeoptides appearing in advance of brains as an example. First biochemistry, then new forms as below:


dhw: […] we've been told that fundamental elements of the brain and nervous system existed much earlier than the Cambrian. This suggests the continuity of evolution (which you favour for the sake of a continuous line between bacteria and humans), as opposed to separate creation without precursors (which you favour as evidence for your God’s existence).

DAVID: […] the underlying biochemistry must precede all form advances. And early new forms will prepare for later new forms. Evolution!!!

dhw: This does not explain your self-contradiction, but it suggests that the materials are already present, and new forms result from new uses (or processes). I suggest that the early forms are not “preparations” (no crystal ball involved), but through “biological processes”, organisms (cell communities) adapt or innovate IN RESPONSE to changing conditions.

I know your approach. Brilliant cell committees do it all on their own, b ut God might have helped them. Another waffle theory.


How did sex pop up?

DAVID: Thank you for clearly supporting my biochemcial theory of evolution. With that basis, new forms can appear. Chromatin came as new biochemistry.

dhw: Chromatin is “as old as eukaryotes themselves”. The point is that we have several examples of fundamental elements being present long before the fully developed organs appear. See the bold above.

Exactly my point: necessary biochemicals appear before new forms.


Human membrane pore

dhw: If one part doesn’t work, the mechanism won’t work. Fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells cooperating to create a mechanism that works. However, see above for mechanisms that do work but can be improved.

DAVID: So simple cell committees understand design for future use?

dhw: Why do you keep repeating this nonsense and making me repeat: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE! They respond to present requirements or opportunities. Once the response works, then of course it will be used in the future. The immune system provides a perfect example of the process!

DAVID: I repeat because you will not recognize the gaps in the fossil record. You always wish for missing fossils to fill your multiple generations theory.

dhw: You’ve forgotten the point: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE. They respond to the present. Nothing to do with gaps in the fossil record!

Of course cells can't design for the future, but new species appear fully formed to handle living.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: […] there are logical reasons why there may be no more fossils! But for some obscure reason, you think that a list of reasons published in 2019 is out of date!

DAVID: The list of reasons is not FACT, not proof, but reasonable guesses as to why they are absent. They can be all wrong also.

dhw: Agreed. The existence of God, and your theories of evolution are not FACTS, and the latter are so illogical that they are not even “reasonable” guesses. (They “make sense only to God.”) They can be wrong. Now please tell me why you regard the 2019 list of possible reasons for the absence of fossils as unreasonable.

EGNOR's opinion as an archeologist discussed in the other thread.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Sunday, June 19, 2022, 09:36 (649 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The new 410,000 year gap, when compared to other gaps, simply reinforces to magnitude of the phenotypical changes in an extremely short period. And finally your wishful generations theory has no evidence. All newspecies we know about appear afer gaps (punc-eq)

There are long periods of stasis, and then sudden bursts of activity (PE). If new species evolved during a comparatively short time (410,000 years) we can call that a comparatively sudden burst of activity, but it still doesn’t alter the fact that if you believe in common descent, every change will have taken place between generations, and I propose that twenty to forty thousand generations would allow for plenty of changes, especially if those changes were produced by intelligent entities changing their structures in order to cope with or exploit new conditions.

DAVID: The new biochemistry must be available to allow new forms. I have God engineering and you have ???

dhw: Possibly intelligent cells, possibly designed by your God. Please clarify what you mean by “new biochemistry”. Do you mean new materials, or do you mean new ways of using existing materials? And do you or do you not believe in common descent?

DAVID: Are you confused? Life is biochemistry and we have discussed the neuropeoptides appearing in advance of brains as an example. First biochemistry, then new forms as below:

I am not confused. Of course life is biochemistry, and I am proposing that new forms are the result of existing materials being used in new ways. Why don’t you answer my question about common descent?

dhw: […] we've been told that fundamental elements of the brain and nervous system existed much earlier than the Cambrian. This suggests the continuity of evolution (which you favour for the sake of a continuous line between bacteria and humans), as opposed to separate creation without precursors (which you favour as evidence for your God’s existence).

DAVID: […] the underlying biochemistry must precede all form advances. And early new forms will prepare for later new forms. Evolution!!!

dhw: This does not explain your self-contradiction, but it suggests that the materials are already present, and new forms result from new uses. I suggest that the early forms are not “preparations” (no crystal ball involved), but through “biological processes”, organisms (cell communities) adapt or innovate IN RESPONSE to changing conditions.

DAVID: I know your approach. Brilliant cell committees do it all on their own, b ut God might have helped them. Another waffle theory.

So what is your theory? That God looks into his crystal ball and designs all the innovations BEFORE they are needed. What’s more, he designed them all 3.8 billion years ago in the form of a book of instructions to be passed on to all cells, so they could pick the right ones at the right time. Or alternatively, he kept consulting his crystal ball, and every time he saw new conditions coming, he popped in to make the changes before the new conditions arrived. I’ll leave you to find the appropriate description of such a theory.

How did sex pop up?
DAVID: Thank you for clearly supporting my biochemcial theory of evolution. With that basis, new forms can appear. Chromatin came as new biochemistry.

dhw: Chromatin is “as old as eukaryotes themselves”. The point is that we have several examples of fundamental elements being present long before the fully developed organs appear.

DAVID: Exactly my point: necessary biochemicals appear before new forms.

So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry? The newness consisted in new use of existing materials, which supports the theory of common descent, and common descent contradicts the theory of speciation without precursors. We appear to be in agreement, except when you propagate the latter theory in order to prove the existence of your God.

Human membrane pore

dhw: If one part doesn’t work, the mechanism won’t work. Fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells cooperating to create a mechanism that works. However, see above for mechanisms that do work but can be improved.

DAVID: So simple cell committees understand design for future use?

dhw: Why do you keep repeating this nonsense and making me repeat: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE! They respond to present requirements or opportunities. Once the response works, then of course it will be used in the future. The immune system provides a perfect example of the process!

DAVID: […] Of course cells can't design for the future, but new species appear fully formed to handle living.

They could hardly appear if they never lived! What is your point? Mine is that the cells of existing species respond to new conditions, and change accordingly by adapting or innovating (or they die). They do not look into a crystal ball and change in advance.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 19, 2022, 16:36 (648 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The new 410,000 year gap, when compared to other gaps, simply reinforces to magnitude of the phenotypical changes in an extremely short period. And finally your wishful generations theory has no evidence. All newspecies we know about appear afer gaps (punc-eq)

dhw: There are long periods of stasis, and then sudden bursts of activity (PE). If new species evolved during a comparatively short time (410,000 years) we can call that a comparatively sudden burst of activity, but it still doesn’t alter the fact that if you believe in common descent, every change will have taken place between generations,

Commen descent, in a definition, does not have to be defined as tiny changes by generations. All Darwinists like Gould describe gaps, not itty bitty steps.

DAVID: Are you confused? Life is biochemistry and we have discussed the neuropeoptides appearing in advance of brains as an example. First biochemistry, then new forms as below:

dhw: I am not confused. Of course life is biochemistry, and I am proposing that new forms are the result of existing materials being used in new ways. Why don’t you answer my question about common descent?

See the answer in the other thread.


DAVID: I know your approach. Brilliant cell committees do it all on their own, b ut God might have helped them. Another waffle theory.

dhw: So what is your theory? That God looks into his crystal ball and designs all the innovations BEFORE they are needed. What’s more, he designed them all 3.8 billion years ago in the form of a book of instructions to be passed on to all cells, so they could pick the right ones at the right time. Or alternatively, he kept consulting his crystal ball, and every time he saw new conditions coming, he popped in to make the changes before the new conditions arrived. I’ll leave you to find the appropriate description of such a theory.

Your theory: making silly fun and games of a needed designer God


How did sex pop up?
DAVID: Thank you for clearly supporting my biochemcial theory of evolution. With that basis, new forms can appear. Chromatin came as new biochemistry.

dhw: Chromatin is “as old as eukaryotes themselves”. The point is that we have several examples of fundamental elements being present long before the fully developed organs appear.

DAVID: Exactly my point: necessary biochemicals appear before new forms.

dhw: So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry? The newness consisted in new use of existing materials, which supports the theory of common descent, and common descent contradicts the theory of speciation without precursors.

You are stating exactly my thoughts. Old biochemistry leads to new biochemistry, evolution in available molecules, which allows for new uses by new organs in new forms appearing


Human membrane pore

dhw: If one part doesn’t work, the mechanism won’t work. Fits in perfectly with the concept of intelligent cells cooperating to create a mechanism that works. However, see above for mechanisms that do work but can be improved.

DAVID: So simple cell committees understand design for future use?

dhw: Why do you keep repeating this nonsense and making me repeat: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE! They respond to present requirements or opportunities. Once the response works, then of course it will be used in the future. The immune system provides a perfect example of the process!

DAVID: […] Of course cells can't design for the future, but new species appear fully formed to handle living.

dhw: They could hardly appear if they never lived! What is your point? Mine is that the cells of existing species respond to new conditions, and change accordingly by adapting or innovating (or they die). They do not look into a crystal ball and change in advance.

Of course they can't. Only a designer God can.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Monday, June 20, 2022, 08:53 (648 days ago) @ David Turell

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: You continue to ignore all the arguments that explain why a complete fossil record is highly unlikely, and you have not explained why you think it is time and not generations that produce species.

DAVID: Those arguments are no more than logical wishful guesses. I've given you an opinion from an archeologist you refuse to accept, that indicates after 170 years of studying the Camrbian Gap nothing important will be found to remove the gap.

dhw: This may well be true, and if it is, I’ve offered you a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils, but you dismiss them all because the list was written in 2019!

DAVID: And three years later we find the Cambrain gap is 410,000 years in size based on existing fossil studies. What would the 2019 writers say now!

The 2019 writers offer a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils. Nothing to do with the length of the Cambrian gap. Stop dodging.

DAVID: I know your approach. Brilliant cell committees do it all on their own, but God might have helped them. Another waffle theory.

dhw: So what is your theory? That God looks into his crystal ball and designs all the innovations BEFORE they are needed. What’s more, he designed them all 3.8 billion years ago in the form of a book of instructions to be passed on to all cells, so they could pick the right ones at the right time. Or alternatively, he kept consulting his crystal ball, and every time he saw new conditions coming, he popped in to make the changes before the new conditions arrived. I’ll leave you to find the appropriate description of such a theory.

DAVID: Your theory: making silly fun and games of a needed designer God.

Once again: you have stated repeatedly that there are two ways in which your God might have designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest) as an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food: preprogramming the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with every single one of these, or direct dabbling for every single one. I don’t know why you think your God’s possible design of intelligent entities that respond to changing conditions - by adapting and inventing - sounds sillier than that.

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: Thank you for clearly supporting my biochemcial theory of evolution. With that basis, new forms can appear. Chromatin came as new biochemistry.

dhw: Chromatin is “as old as eukaryotes themselves”. The point is that we have several examples of fundamental elements being present long before the fully developed organs appear.

DAVID: Exactly my point: necessary biochemicals appear before new forms.

dhw: So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry?

Not answered.

dhw: The newness consisted in new use of existing materials, which supports the theory of common descent, and common descent contradicts the theory of speciation without precursors.

DAVID: You are stating exactly my thoughts. Old biochemistry leads to new biochemistry, evolution in available molecules, which allows for new uses by new organs in new forms appearing.

Then we are in agreement, and we can dismiss the idea that your God designed new species that had no precursors.

Human membrane pore

DAVID: So simple cell committees understand design for future use?

dhw: Why do you keep repeating this nonsense and making me repeat: CELLS DO NOT UNDERSTAND DESIGN FOR FUTURE USE! They respond to present requirements or opportunities. Once the response works, then of course it will be used in the future. The immune system provides a perfect example of the process!

DAVID: […] Of course cells can't design for the future, but new species appear fully formed to handle living.

dhw: They could hardly appear if they never lived! What is your point? Mine is that the cells of existing species respond to new conditions, and change accordingly by adapting or innovating (or they die). They do not look into a crystal ball and change in advance.

DAVID: Of course they can't. Only a designer God can.

And so back we go to your theory of your God’s 3.8 billion-year-old programme for the whole of evolution, or alternatively his dabbling with one generation of organisms (yes, he’d have dabbled with existing organisms, not with passing time!) to make the changes that would meet requirements which did not yet exist. I wonder what they did with themselves before they could use the changes. Imagine those poor prewhales sitting on their flippers waiting for water to swim in.

Mud

DAVID: what is key to understanding this evolved process on Earth, is that this is the way God works. Everything is evolved from a beginning: the universe from the Big Bang, the Earth from its beginining, and life from its beginning. dhw has never understood this pattern in God's works, and complains about how God evolved humans, instead of direct creation.

Your usual dodge. Dhw is a firm believer in evolution. Dhw does not complain about humans evolving in stages. Dhw complains about a collection of theories which when combined are so illogical that their inventor cannot explain them and tells us that they “make sense only to God”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Monday, June 20, 2022, 16:30 (647 days ago) @ dhw

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: This may well be true, and if it is, I’ve offered you a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils, but you dismiss them all because the list was written in 2019!

DAVID: And three years later we find the Cambrain gap is 410,000 years in size based on existing fossil studies. What would the 2019 writers say now!

dhw: The 2019 writers offer a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils. Nothing to do with the length of the Cambrian gap. Stop dodging.

Stop dodging. Has everything to do with the Cambrian gap.


DAVID: Your theory: making silly fun and games of a needed designer God.

dhw: Once again: you have stated repeatedly that there are two ways in which your God might have designed every species...: preprogramming the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with every single one of these, or direct dabbling for every single one. I don’t know why you think your God’s possible design of intelligent entities that respond to changing conditions - by adapting and inventing - sounds sillier than that.

God designs for future use, your cell committees work in the present. How do gaps appear? Oh, I forgot, no fossils.


How did sex pop up?

DAVID: Thank you for clearly supporting my biochemcial theory of evolution. With that basis, new forms can appear. Chromatin came as new biochemistry.

dhw: Chromatin is “as old as eukaryotes themselves”. The point is that we have several examples of fundamental elements being present long before the fully developed organs appear.

DAVID: Exactly my point: necessary biochemicals appear before new forms.

dhw: So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry?

Chromatin is made up from new biochemistry in a new physical form


dhw: Then we are in agreement, and we can dismiss the idea that your God designed new species that had no precursors.

Your dismissal. Gaps in form bother you just as they bothered hero Darwin as unexplained in light of Darwin's itty-bitty step theory.


Mud

DAVID: what is key to understanding this evolved process on Earth, is that this is the way God works. Everything is evolved from a beginning: the universe from the Big Bang, the Earth from its beginining, and life from its beginning. dhw has never understood this pattern in God's works, and complains about how God evolved humans, instead of direct creation.

dhw?: Your usual dodge. Dhw is a firm believer in evolution. Dhw does not complain about humans evolving in stages. Dhw complains about a collection of theories which when combined are so illogical that their inventor cannot explain them and tells us that they “make sense only to God”.

If you learned how to believe in God, it would make sense to you like the rest of us believers.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Tuesday, June 21, 2022, 10:58 (647 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your theory: making silly fun and games of a needed designer God.

You edited my reply, so I have restored it in order to include some of the “sillier” aspects of your theory.

dhw: Once again: you have stated repeatedly that there are two ways in which your God might have designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest) as an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food: preprogramming the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with every single one of these, or direct dabbling for every single one. I don’t know why you think your God’s possible design of intelligent entities that respond to changing conditions - by adapting and inventing - sounds sillier than that.

DAVID: God designs for future use, your cell committees work in the present. How do gaps appear? Oh, I forgot, no fossils.

Why do you think cells responding to present needs is sillier than a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or your God popping in to do a dabble before any change is required? What does this have to do with the fact that the fossil record is and will no doubt remain incomplete for the logical reasons given in Part One?

How did sex pop up?

DAVID: Thank you for clearly supporting my biochemcial theory of evolution. With that basis, new forms can appear. Chromatin came as new biochemistry.

dhw: Chromatin is “as old as eukaryotes themselves”. The point is that we have several examples of fundamental elements being present long before the fully developed organs appear.

DAVID: Exactly my point: necessary biochemicals appear before new forms.

dhw: So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry?

DAVID: Chromatin is made up from new biochemistry in a new physical form.

What do you mean by “made up from new biochemistry” if it already existed? It is an example of existing materials being used to create a new physical form – the very essence of common descent.

dhw: Then we are in agreement, and we can dismiss the idea that your God designed new species that had no precursors.

DAVID: Your dismissal. Gaps in form bother you just as they bothered hero Darwin as unexplained in light of Darwin's itty-bitty step theory.

So you continue to believe in common descent, except when you believe in speciation without precursors. Nobody can know for sure why there are gaps in the fossil record, though the explanations I’ve listed are perfectly reasonable. I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

Mud

DAVID: what is key to understanding this evolved process on Earth, is that this is the way God works. Everything is evolved from a beginning: the universe from the Big Bang, the Earth from its beginining, and life from its beginning. dhw has never understood this pattern in God's works, and complains about how God evolved humans, instead of direct creation.

dhw: Your usual dodge. Dhw is a firm believer in evolution. Dhw does not complain about humans evolving in stages. Dhw complains about a collection of theories which when combined are so illogical that their inventor cannot explain them and tells us that they “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: If you learned how to believe in God, it would make sense to you like the rest of us believers.

I do not accept your extraordinary claim that every believer is convinced that God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder – including all those that had no connection with us – as preparation and “absolute requirement” for us and our food. And I very much doubt if you would be prepared to go to a synagogue, church or mosque or even ID conference, and inform everyone that your combined theories are correct, you can’t explain them, but you know they are the only possible truth, and – while you’re at it - you know how everybody should think about God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 21, 2022, 16:51 (646 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Once again: you have stated repeatedly that there are two ways in which your God might have designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest) as an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food: preprogramming the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with every single one of these, or direct dabbling for every single one. I don’t know why you think your God’s possible design of intelligent entities that respond to changing conditions - by adapting and inventing - sounds sillier than that.

Responding to current conditions is species adaptation, not speciation! That is all species can do and that is not silly. Only a designing mind can create the known gaps.


How did sex pop up?

dhw: So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry?

DAVID: Chromatin is made up from new biochemistry in a new physical form.

dhw: What do you mean by “made up from new biochemistry” if it already existed? It is an example of existing materials being used to create a new physical form – the very essence of common descent.

As in the old neuropeptides now used in new brains.


dhw: Then we are in agreement, and we can dismiss the idea that your God designed new species that had no precursors.

DAVID: Your dismissal. Gaps in form bother you just as they bothered hero Darwin as unexplained in light of Darwin's itty-bitty step theory.

dhw: So you continue to believe in common descent, except when you believe in speciation without precursors. Nobody can know for sure why there are gaps in the fossil record, though the explanations I’ve listed are perfectly reasonable. I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps. Try to absorb the full import of the 410,000 year Cambrian gap with fossils on both sides, nothing missing.


Mud

DAVID: what is key to understanding this evolved process on Earth, is that this is the way God works. Everything is evolved from a beginning: the universe from the Big Bang, the Earth from its beginining, and life from its beginning. dhw has never understood this pattern in God's works, and complains about how God evolved humans, instead of direct creation.

dhw: Your usual dodge. Dhw is a firm believer in evolution. Dhw does not complain about humans evolving in stages. Dhw complains about a collection of theories which when combined are so illogical that their inventor cannot explain them and tells us that they “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: If you learned how to believe in God, it would make sense to you like the rest of us believers.

dhw: I do not accept your extraordinary claim that every believer is convinced that God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder – including all those that had no connection with us – as preparation and “absolute requirement” for us and our food. And I very much doubt if you would be prepared to go to a synagogue, church or mosque or even ID conference, and inform everyone that your combined theories are correct, you can’t explain them, but you know they are the only possible truth, and – while you’re at it - you know how everybody should think about God.

If you take a survey of believers, most will be with me.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Wednesday, June 22, 2022, 08:55 (646 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Once again: you have stated repeatedly that there are two ways in which your God might have designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest) as an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food: preprogramming the first cells 3.8 billion years ago with every single one of these, or direct dabbling for every single one. I don’t know why you think your God’s possible design of intelligent entities that respond to changing conditions - by adapting and inventing - sounds sillier than that.

DAVID: Responding to current conditions is species adaptation, not speciation! That is all species can do and that is not silly. Only a designing mind can create the known gaps.

Current conditions may offer opportunities that earlier conditions did not offer. One theory is that the innovations which led to new species in the Cambrian may have been triggered by an increase in oxygen. Why is that sillier than a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for all speciation, or your God constantly performing operation after operation on groups of organisms to change their structures before there is any need to do so?

How did sex pop up?

dhw: So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry?

DAVID: Chromatin is made up from new biochemistry in a new physical form.

dhw: What do you mean by “made up from new biochemistry” if it already existed? It is an example of existing materials being used to create a new physical form – the very essence of common descent.

DAVID: As in the old neuropeptides now used in new brains.

Precisely: evolution works by finding new uses for existing materials.

Mud

DAVID: what is key to understanding this evolved process on Earth, is that this is the way God works. Everything is evolved from a beginning: the universe from the Big Bang, the Earth from its beginining, and life from its beginning. dhw has never understood this pattern in God's works, and complains about how God evolved humans, instead of direct creation.

dhw: Your usual dodge. Dhw is a firm believer in evolution. Dhw does not complain about humans evolving in stages. Dhw complains about a collection of theories which when combined are so illogical that their inventor cannot explain them and tells us that they “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: If you learned how to believe in God, it would make sense to you like the rest of us believers.

dhw: I do not accept your extraordinary claim that every believer is convinced that God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder – including all those that had no connection with us – as preparation and “absolute requirement” for us and our food. And I very much doubt if you would be prepared to go to a synagogue, church or mosque or even ID conference, and inform everyone that your combined theories are correct, you can’t explain them, but you know they are the only possible truth, and – while you’re at it - you know how everybody should think about God.

DAVID: If you take a survey of believers, most will be with me.

I suspect that most haven’t even thought about the subject. But your prediction still doesn’t make your combined theories of evolution anything other than senseless for all of us humans, since according to you they "make sense only to God".

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 22, 2022, 16:37 (645 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Responding to current conditions is species adaptation, not speciation! That is all species can do and that is not silly. Only a designing mind can create the known gaps.

dhw: Current conditions may offer opportunities that earlier conditions did not offer. One theory is that the innovations which led to new species in the Cambrian may have been triggered by an increase in oxygen. Why is that sillier than a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for all speciation, or your God constantly performing operation after operation on groups of organisms to change their structures before there is any need to do so?

How does that explain the suddden appearance of much more complex Cambrians? More oxygen created all those complex organ systems, motility, and eyes? Really???


How did sex pop up?

dhw: So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry?

DAVID: Chromatin is made up from new biochemistry in a new physical form.

dhw: What do you mean by “made up from new biochemistry” if it already existed? It is an example of existing materials being used to create a new physical form – the very essence of common descent.

DAVID: As in the old neuropeptides now used in new brains.

dhw: Precisely: evolution works by finding new uses for existing materials.

So accept my theory of common descent. New forms come from newly existing biochemistry, allowing gaps in forms.


Mud

DAVID: If you learned how to believe in God, it would make sense to you like the rest of us believers.

dhw: I do not accept your extraordinary claim that every believer is convinced that God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder – including all those that had no connection with us – as preparation and “absolute requirement” for us and our food. And I very much doubt if you would be prepared to go to a synagogue, church or mosque or even ID conference, and inform everyone that your combined theories are correct, you can’t explain them, but you know they are the only possible truth, and – while you’re at it - you know how everybody should think about God.

DAVID: If you take a survey of believers, most will be with me.

dhw: I suspect that most haven’t even thought about the subject. But your prediction still doesn’t make your combined theories of evolution anything other than senseless for all of us humans, since according to you they "make sense only to God".

The bold is exactly how to believe in God. Accept what He does for His own reasons! No one can undestand everything about God's thoughts. No human can think at His level.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Thursday, June 23, 2022, 10:57 (645 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Responding to current conditions is species adaptation, not speciation! That is all species can do and that is not silly. Only a designing mind can create the known gaps.

dhw: Current conditions may offer opportunities that earlier conditions did not offer. One theory is that the innovations which led to new species in the Cambrian may have been triggered by an increase in oxygen. Why is that sillier than a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for all speciation, or your God constantly performing operation after operation on groups of organisms to change their structures before there is any need to do so?

DAVID: How does that explain the sudden appearance of much more complex Cambrians? More oxygen created all those complex organ systems, motility, and eyes? Really???

I sometimes wonder if you actually read what I write. Changing conditions may offer new opportunities. For example, an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life, and so the novelties may have been “triggered” by it. Your theory presumably would be that your God had increased the amount of oxygen as this was needed for him to design new life forms (which eventually led to us humans). Instead of God creating and using the new conditions, I am proposing that intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God) used them to invent the novelties you attribute to your God. Same process, so why is my version sillier than your 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or your God's endless operations in anticipation of events that have not yet happened??

How did sex pop up?

dhw: So why did you say chromatin came as new biochemistry?

DAVID: Chromatin is made up from new biochemistry in a new physical form.

dhw: What do you mean by “made up from new biochemistry” if it already existed? It is an example of existing materials being used to create a new physical form – the very essence of common descent.

DAVID: As in the old neuropeptides now used in new brains.

dhw: Precisely: evolution works by finding new uses for existing materials.

DAVID: So accept my theory of common descent. New forms come from newly existing biochemistry, allowing gaps in forms.

It’s still not clear (deliberately?) what you mean by “newly existing biochemistry”. The chromatin already existed and was put to new uses. If by “gaps in forms” you mean species without precursors, why don’t you say so? That is the very opposite of common descent. If you mean gaps in the fossil record, that has been covered elsewhere.

Mud

DAVID: If you learned how to believe in God, it would make sense to you like the rest of us believers.

dhw: I do not accept your extraordinary claim that every believer is convinced that God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder – including all those that had no connection with us – as preparation and “absolute requirement” for us and our food. And I very much doubt if you would be prepared to go to a synagogue, church or mosque or even ID conference, and inform everyone that your combined theories are correct, you can’t explain them, but you know they are the only possible truth, and – while you’re at it - you know how everybody should think about God.

DAVID: If you take a survey of believers, most will be with me.

dhw: I suspect that most haven’t even thought about the subject. But your prediction still doesn’t make your combined theories of evolution anything other than senseless for all of us humans, since according to you they "make sense only to God".

DAVID: The bold is exactly how to believe in God. Accept what He does for His own reasons! No one can understand everything about God's thoughts. No human can think at His level.

According to you, then, we must simply accept that life is here, and God created it. Theories as to why and how are taboo. So why on earth have you cobbled together theories which entail imposing one purpose on him (as if you know his reasons), and imposing a method on him which makes no sense to you? Your exclusive knowledge of “how to believe in God” makes a mockery of your own theories and of all our discussions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 23, 2022, 16:19 (644 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Responding to current conditions is species adaptation, not speciation! That is all species can do and that is not silly. Only a designing mind can create the known gaps.

dhw: Current conditions may offer opportunities that earlier conditions did not offer. One theory is that the innovations which led to new species in the Cambrian may have been triggered by an increase in oxygen. Why is that sillier than a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for all speciation, or your God constantly performing operation after operation on groups of organisms to change their structures before there is any need to do so?

DAVID: How does that explain the sudden appearance of much more complex Cambrians? More oxygen created all those complex organ systems, motility, and eyes? Really???

dhw: I sometimes wonder if you actually read what I write. Changing conditions may offer new opportunities. For example, an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life, and so the novelties may have been “triggered” by it. Your theory presumably would be that your God had increased the amount of oxygen as this was needed for him to design new life forms (which eventually led to us humans). Instead of God creating and using the new conditions, I am proposing that intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God) used them to invent the novelties you attribute to your God. Same process, so why is my version sillier than your 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or your God's endless operations in anticipation of events that have not yet happened??

I know all your strange theories. And my usual response is cells can't plan for changes such as the Cambrians. Oxygen allows for change but doesn't drive them. We are arguing the identity of the agency of change.


How did sex pop up?

DAVID: As in the old neuropeptides now used in new brains.

dhw: Precisely: evolution works by finding new uses for existing materials.

DAVID: So accept my theory of common descent. New forms come from newly existing biochemistry, allowing gaps in forms.

dhw: It’s still not clear (deliberately?) what you mean by “newly existing biochemistry”. The chromatin already existed and was put to new uses. If by “gaps in forms” you mean species without precursors, why don’t you say so? That is the very opposite of common descent. If you mean gaps in the fossil record, that has been covered elsewhere.

Newly developed biochemistery allows for gaps in forms is my theory of evolution.


Mud

DAVID: If you take a survey of believers, most will be with me.

dhw: I suspect that most haven’t even thought about the subject. But your prediction still doesn’t make your combined theories of evolution anything other than senseless for all of us humans, since according to you they "make sense only to God".

DAVID: The bold is exactly how to believe in God. Accept what He does for His own reasons! No one can understand everything about God's thoughts. No human can think at His level.

dhw: According to you, then, we must simply accept that life is here, and God created it. Theories as to why and how are taboo. So why on earth have you cobbled together theories which entail imposing one purpose on him (as if you know his reasons), and imposing a method on him which makes no sense to you? Your exclusive knowledge of “how to believe in God” makes a mockery of your own theories and of all our discussions.

Theories are not taboo, but your doubting approach at your human level of logic raises all sorts of possible interpretations based on your humanized form of God, which is your personal view of him. I don't recognize your form of God as compared to mine.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Friday, June 24, 2022, 09:23 (644 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Responding to current conditions is species adaptation, not speciation! That is all species can do and that is not silly. Only a designing mind can create the known gaps.

dhw: Current conditions may offer opportunities that earlier conditions did not offer. One theory is that the innovations which led to new species in the Cambrian may have been triggered by an increase in oxygen. Why is that sillier than a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for all speciation, or your God constantly performing operation after operation on groups of organisms to change their structures before there is any need to do so?

DAVID: How does that explain the sudden appearance of much more complex Cambrians? More oxygen created all those complex organ systems, motility, and eyes? Really???

dhw: I sometimes wonder if you actually read what I write. Changing conditions may offer new opportunities. For example, an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life, and so the novelties may have been “triggered” by it. Your theory presumably would be that your God had increased the amount of oxygen as this was needed for him to design new life forms (which eventually led to us humans). Instead of God creating and using the new conditions, I am proposing that intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God) used them to invent the novelties you attribute to your God. Same process, so why is my version sillier than your 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or your God's endless operations in anticipation of events that have not yet happened??

DAVID: I know all your strange theories. And my usual response is cells can't plan for changes such as the Cambrians. Oxygen allows for change but doesn't drive them. We are arguing the identity of the agency of change.

Why do you keep ignoring my usual response: CELLS DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO PRESENT CHANGES. And I have just stated (now bolded) that “an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life”, so why do you repeat it as if somehow you were correcting me. I did not say oxygen “drove” the changes. Triggering entails providing the conditions which set in motion the processes for adaptation and innovation. Changes in organisms are “driven” by organisms (or your God) responding to the changing conditions. As regards the “agency”, yes, that is what we are discussing, and I have asked the question now bolded at the end of my comment. Of course you haven’t answered.

Mud

DAVID: If you take a survey of believers, most will be with me.

dhw: I suspect that most haven’t even thought about the subject. But your prediction still doesn’t make your combined theories of evolution anything other than senseless for all of us humans, since according to you they "make sense only to God".

DAVID: The bold is exactly how to believe in God. Accept what He does for His own reasons! No one can understand everything about God's thoughts. No human can think at His level.

dhw: According to you, then, we must simply accept that life is here, and God created it. Theories as to why and how are taboo. So why on earth have you cobbled together theories which entail imposing one purpose on him (as if you know his reasons), and imposing a method on him which makes no sense to you? Your exclusive knowledge of “how to believe in God” makes a mockery of your own theories and of all our discussions.

DAVID: Theories are not taboo, but your doubting approach at your human level of logic raises all sorts of possible interpretations based on your humanized form of God, which is your personal view of him. I don't recognize your form of God as compared to mine.

My “doubting approach” on this thread refers to my doubts about the reasonableness of your evolutionary theories. Your “human level of logic” has produced theories which you find senseless. But apparently that is how we must believe in God: we must provide a theory that doesn’t make sense to us! My theories, you find, are logical, and your only objection to them is that they entail human patterns of thought which differ from the human patterns of thought you think your God probably has. It’s three cheers for human logic when you argue for design, and it’s boo to human logic when your evolutionary theories are shown to be senseless.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Friday, June 24, 2022, 16:47 (643 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I sometimes wonder if you actually read what I write. Changing conditions may offer new opportunities. For example, an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life, and so the novelties may have been “triggered” by it. Your theory presumably would be that your God had increased the amount of oxygen as this was needed for him to design new life forms (which eventually led to us humans). Instead of God creating and using the new conditions, I am proposing that intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God) used them to invent the novelties you attribute to your God. Same process, so why is my version sillier than your 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or your God's endless operations in anticipation of events that have not yet happened??

DAVID: I know all your strange theories. And my usual response is cells can't plan for changes such as the Cambrians. Oxygen allows for change but doesn't drive them. We are arguing the identity of the agency of change.

dhw: Why do you keep ignoring my usual response: CELLS DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO PRESENT CHANGES. And I have just stated (now bolded) that “an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life”, so why do you repeat it as if somehow you were correcting me. I did not say oxygen “drove” the changes. Triggering entails providing the conditions which set in motion the processes for adaptation and innovation. Changes in organisms are “driven” by organisms (or your God) responding to the changing conditions. As regards the “agency”, yes, that is what we are discussing, and I have asked the question now bolded at the end of my comment. Of course you haven’t answered.

None of your discussion can explain the Cambrian gap. The bold I've added is distorted reasoning. The new level of oxygen only allows the opportunity for change, and never is the agency. Oxygen alone cannot make anything happen. As for my non-answer, I've given it. As for your treasured cell intelligence for future change, all we know is cells make immediate responses to current stimuli, nothing more. Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.


Mud

DAVID: The bold is exactly how to believe in God. Accept what He does for His own reasons! No one can understand everything about God's thoughts. No human can think at His level.

dhw: According to you, then, we must simply accept that life is here, and God created it. Theories as to why and how are taboo. So why on earth have you cobbled together theories which entail imposing one purpose on him (as if you know his reasons), and imposing a method on him which makes no sense to you? Your exclusive knowledge of “how to believe in God” makes a mockery of your own theories and of all our discussions.

DAVID: Theories are not taboo, but your doubting approach at your human level of logic raises all sorts of possible interpretations based on your humanized form of God, which is your personal view of him. I don't recognize your form of God as compared to mine.

dhw: My “doubting approach” on this thread refers to my doubts about the reasonableness of your evolutionary theories. Your “human level of logic” has produced theories which you find senseless. But apparently that is how we must believe in God: we must provide a theory that doesn’t make sense to us! My theories, you find, are logical, and your only objection to them is that they entail human patterns of thought which differ from the human patterns of thought you think your God probably has. It’s three cheers for human logic when you argue for design, and it’s boo to human logic when your evolutionary theories are shown to be senseless.

Your interpretation of my theories as senseless is simply your senseless interpretation of my God. He is pure purpose, and does not require what your God wishes: experimenting, enjoying a free-for-all, and all the other humanized desires for Himself you have described. Yes I've agreed your humanized God is very consistent with His desires as you describe them. That doesn't mean I recognize your God as a valid concept.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 08:17 (643 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Changing conditions may offer new opportunities. For example, an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life, and so the novelties may have been “triggered” by it. […] Instead of God creating and using the new conditions, I am proposing that intelligent cell communities (perhaps designed by your God) used them to invent the novelties you attribute to your God. Same process, so why is my version sillier than your 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions, or your God's endless operations in anticipation of events that have not yet happened?

DAVID: I know all your strange theories. And my usual response is cells can't plan for changes such as the Cambrians. Oxygen allows for change but doesn't drive them. We are arguing the identity of the agency of change.

dhw: Why do you keep ignoring my usual response: CELLS DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO PRESENT CHANGES. And I have just stated (now bolded) that “an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life”, so why do you repeat it as if somehow you were correcting me. I did not say oxygen “drove” the changes. Triggering entails providing the conditions which set in motion the processes for adaptation and innovation. Changes in organisms are “driven” by organisms (or your God) responding to the changing conditions. As regards the “agency”, yes, that is what we are discussing, and I have asked the question now bolded at the end of my comment. Of course you haven’t answered.

DAVID: None of your discussion can explain the Cambrian gap. The bold I've added is distorted reasoning. The new level of oxygen only allows the opportunity for change, and never is the agency. Oxygen alone cannot make anything happen.

We have dealt with the Cambrian gap elsewhere. I have now pointed out twice in bold that the new level of oxygen may “allow” for new forms of life, and I have said that the changes are driven by organisms (or your God with his book of instructions or his dabbling) which respond to the new conditions. They are the “agents”. Now please tell us why it is “sillier” for organisms to respond to changing conditions than for God to preprogramme or dabble their evolutionary changes BEFORE conditions have changed. […]

DAVID: As for your treasured cell intelligence for future change…..

Stop there! I keep repeating that cells do not use their intelligence for future change, but in response to present change!

DAVID: …all we know is cells make immediate responses to current stimuli nothing more.

Correct. Why “nothing more”? I propose that legs do not turn into flippers in anticipation of the arrival of water, but as a response to being in the water.

DAVID: Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.

Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

Mud

DAVID: Your interpretation of my theories as senseless is simply your senseless interpretation of my God. He is pure purpose….

What on earth or in heaven is “pure purpose”? According to you, his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design humans plus our food. What is “pure” about that? According to you, he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food, and you don’t know why he did so if his one and only purpose was humans plus our food. And he created species without precursors, but he designed the only species he wanted to design (plus our food) in stages, and you don’t know why. Your theories “make sense only to God”, which can only mean that they do not make sense to you.

DAVID ….and does not require what your God wishes: experimenting, enjoying a free-for-all, and all the other humanized desires for Himself you have described. Yes I've agreed your humanized God is very consistent with His desires as you describe them. That doesn't mean I recognize your God as a valid concept.

How do you know what your God wishes or doesn’t wish? You have agreed that my theories are “very consistent” with the history of life as we know it, whereas your own are inexplicable. I don’t ask you to recognize any of my alternatives as “valid”. Nobody knows the truth, even of your God’s existence. But your non-recognition is totally irrelevant to the fact that your own theories do not make sense even to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 17:00 (642 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I know all your strange theories. And my usual response is cells can't plan for changes such as the Cambrians. Oxygen allows for change but doesn't drive them. We are arguing the identity of the agency of change.

dhw: Why do you keep ignoring my usual response: CELLS DO NOT PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. THEY RESPOND TO PRESENT CHANGES. And I have just stated (now bolded) that “an increase in oxygen may allow for new forms of life”, so why do you repeat it as if somehow you were correcting me. I did not say oxygen “drove” the changes. Triggering entails providing the conditions which set in motion the processes for adaptation and innovation. Changes in organisms are “driven” by organisms (or your God) responding to the changing conditions. As regards the “agency”, yes, that is what we are discussing, and I have asked the question now bolded at the end of my comment. Of course you haven’t answered.

DAVID: None of your discussion can explain the Cambrian gap. The bold I've added is distorted reasoning. The new level of oxygen only allows the opportunity for change, and never is the agency. Oxygen alone cannot make anything happen.

dhw: We have dealt with the Cambrian gap elsewhere. I have now pointed out twice in bold that the new level of oxygen may “allow” for new forms of life, and I have said that the changes are driven by organisms (or your God with his book of instructions or his dabbling) which respond to the new conditions. They are the “agents”. Now please tell us why it is “sillier” for organisms to respond to changing conditions than for God to preprogramme or dabble their evolutionary changes BEFORE conditions have changed. […]

From an evidentiary standpoint a designer God is not a silly concept. That species adapt to changes is obvious, but they stay the same species.


dhw: I keep repeating that cells do not use their intelligence for future change, but in response to present change!

That is not speciation and no explanation for speciation.

DAVID: Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.

dhw: Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.


Mud

DAVID: Your interpretation of my theories as senseless is simply your senseless interpretation of my God. He is pure purpose….

dhw: What on earth or in heaven is “pure purpose”? According to you, his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design humans plus our food. What is “pure” about that? According to you, he designed countless life forms that had no connection with humans plus our food, and you don’t know why he did so if his one and only purpose was humans plus our food. And he created species without precursors, but he designed the only species he wanted to design (plus our food) in stages, and you don’t know why. Your theories “make sense only to God”, which can only mean that they do not make sense to you.

Stop psychoanalyzing me. I don't have to know why God did what God did. But you do, so I've asked you to find explanations for yourself, as in tongue-in-cheek "ask God'. You know I can't


DAVID ….and does not require what your God wishes: experimenting, enjoying a free-for-all, and all the other humanized desires for Himself you have described. Yes I've agreed your humanized God is very consistent with His desires as you describe them. That doesn't mean I recognize your God as a valid concept.

dhw: How do you know what your God wishes or doesn’t wish? You have agreed that my theories are “very consistent” with the history of life as we know it, whereas your own are inexplicable. I don’t ask you to recognize any of my alternatives as “valid”. Nobody knows the truth, even of your God’s existence. But your non-recognition is totally irrelevant to the fact that your own theories do not make sense even to you.

Same silly psychoanalysis of me. My point is you have no concept of how God might think as you constantly give Him humanized desires.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Sunday, June 26, 2022, 11:15 (642 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Once again, if you do not accept my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, please give us your own definition.

DAVID: Defined: From biochemistry as the basis of evolution. With DNA relationships, we don't need fossils for relationships. We have a common code.

Not needing fossils for relationships etc. is not a definition of “common descent”! But three cheers if you no longer care about fossils. Please tell us where the DNA record of extinct life forms comes from, and does it show that in the new tree of life all life forms are NOT directly descended from earlier forms?

DAVID: Remember, what the gaps show us is not generational change, which by definition must be tiny steps of change. Generational change means an adaptation within the same species.

dhw: Nobody knows how speciation happens. I have no idea where you get your definition of “generational change” from. According to you, your God performs operations on existing organisms to give them flippers instead of legs, or bigger brains than they had before they went to sleep. If a generation can change its structure in order to adapt, how do you know it can’t do the same in order to innovate? The gaps don’t show us anything. That’s why they are gaps. Some would say there are gaps because fossilization is the exception, not the rule.

DAVID: You can't sweep the gaps away. They tell us there must be a designer, just as complex designs do.

If you insist on ignoring every other possible explanation for the “gaps”, then of course you are left with only one conclusion.

dhw: I have now pointed out twice in bold that the new level of oxygen may “allow” for new forms of life, and I have said that the changes are driven by organisms (or your God with his book of instructions or his dabbling) which respond to the new conditions. They are the “agents”. Now please tell us why it is “sillier” for organisms to respond to changing conditions than for God to preprogramme or dabble their evolutionary changes BEFORE conditions have changed. […]

DAVID: From an evidentiary standpoint a designer God is not a silly concept. That species adapt to changes is obvious, but they stay the same species.

Your dodging technique is becoming painfully obvious and out of order. Nowhere have I said that a designer God is a silly concept! I am an agnostic! I have asked why you consider my concept of intelligent organisms (perhaps designed by your God) RESPONDING to new conditions to be sillier than your concept of God preprogramming or dabbling changes BEFORE the new conditions have come into existence. And yes, we know that adaptation means preservation of the species, but since nobody knows how one species turns into another, it is not unreasonable to propose that maybe the same mechanism for adaptive structural changes also enables intelligent organisms to innovate.

DAVID: Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.

dhw: Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.

Yes. So how does that come to mean that you are right and other observers are wrong?

Mud

All dealt with earlier.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 26, 2022, 15:57 (641 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Once again, if you do not accept my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, please give us your own definition.

DAVID: Defined: From biochemistry as the basis of evolution. With DNA relationships, we don't need fossils for relationships. We have a common code.

dhw: Not needing fossils for relationships etc. is not a definition of “common descent”! But three cheers if you no longer care about fossils. Please tell us where the DNA record of extinct life forms comes from, and does it show that in the new tree of life all life forms are NOT directly descended from earlier forms?

The bold about DNA is a strange question. DNA was in the starting forms of life, which
I claim God started. All evolution is related through common DNA. All branches can be related in the tree/bush of life


dhw: I have now pointed out twice in bold that the new level of oxygen may “allow” for new forms of life, and I have said that the changes are driven by organisms (or your God with his book of instructions or his dabbling) which respond to the new conditions. They are the “agents”. Now please tell us why it is “sillier” for organisms to respond to changing conditions than for God to preprogramme or dabble their evolutionary changes BEFORE conditions have changed. […]

DAVID: From an evidentiary standpoint a designer God is not a silly concept. That species adapt to changes is obvious, but they stay the same species.

dhw: Your dodging technique is becoming painfully obvious and out of order. Nowhere have I said that a designer God is a silly concept! I am an agnostic! I have asked why you consider my concept of intelligent organisms (perhaps designed by your God) RESPONDING to new conditions to be sillier than your concept of God preprogramming or dabbling changes BEFORE the new conditions have come into existence. And yes, we know that adaptation means preservation of the species, but since nobody knows how one species turns into another, it is not unreasonable to propose that maybe the same mechanism for adaptive structural changes also enables intelligent organisms to innovate.

You still want brilliant cells to get together and design future forms to handle future conditions. All based on the observation cells act as if intelligent, when it is equally possible, they act on intelligent instructions they have been given by design.


DAVID: Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.

dhw: Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.

dhw: Yes. So how does that come to mean that you are right and other observers are wrong?

Because I believe there MUST BE a designer, based logically on the complex sign of irreducible complexity requiring design over natural evolution theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Monday, June 27, 2022, 09:31 (641 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Once again, if you do not accept my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, please give us your own definition.

DAVID: Defined: From biochemistry as the basis of evolution. With DNA relationships, we don't need fossils for relationships. We have a common code.

dhw: Not needing fossils for relationships etc. is not a definition of “common descent”! But three cheers if you no longer care about fossils. Please tell us where the DNA record of extinct life forms comes from, and does it show that in the new tree of life all life forms are NOT directly descended from earlier forms?

DAVID: The bold about DNA is a strange question. DNA was in the starting forms of life, which I claim God started. All evolution is related through common DNA. All branches can be related in the tree/bush of life.

I have always allowed for God as the designer of the first cells. All branches are related in so far as they all spring from the first cells (Darwin’s few forms or one). However, this theory precludes the concept of species coming into being without any precursors, and so I have listed possible reasons for the Cambrian “gap”, the foremost being Shapiro’s proposal that intelligent cells are responsible for evolutionary innovation. And the fact that all branches spring from the earliest cells does not mean that all branches lead to humans and our food, let alone that they were individually designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food. See Part One.

DAVID: From an evidentiary standpoint a designer God is not a silly concept. That species adapt to changes is obvious, but they stay the same species.

dhw: Your dodging technique is becoming painfully obvious and out of order. Nowhere have I said that a designer God is a silly concept! I am an agnostic! I have asked why you consider my concept of intelligent organisms (perhaps designed by your God) RESPONDING to new conditions to be sillier than your concept of God preprogramming or dabbling changes BEFORE the new conditions have come into existence. And yes, we know that adaptation means preservation of the species, but since nobody knows how one species turns into another, it is not unreasonable to propose that maybe the same mechanism for adaptive structural changes also enables intelligent organisms to innovate.

DAVID: You still want brilliant cells to get together and design future forms to handle future conditions.

How many more times? In my theory, CELLS DO NOT DESIGN FUTURE FORMS TO HANDLE FUTURE CONDITIONS. They design new forms IN RESPONSE to changes in conditions. For example, I regard it as absurd to imagine pre-whale legs turning into flippers before there is any water for them to swim in.

DAVID: All based on the observation cells act as if intelligent, when it is equally possible, they act on intelligent instructions they have been given by design.

If you give cellular intelligence an equal chance of being the truth, then it is absurd to reject the possibility. As an agnostic, I find that there is a 50/50 chance of God existing. All my theories must therefore include that possibility. Unlike you, I regard 50/50 as possible, and not as grounds for rejection.

DAVID: Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.

dhw: Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.

dhw: Yes. So how does that come to mean that you are right and other observers are wrong?

DAVID: Because I believe there MUST BE a designer, based logically on the complex sign of irreducible complexity requiring design over natural evolution theory.

How does this disqualify the theory that the designer designed intelligent cells to design the complexities of all future life forms? Did he not, according to you, design human brains capable of designing all the complexities of modern technology?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Monday, June 27, 2022, 16:36 (640 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have always allowed for God as the designer of the first cells. All branches are related in so far as they all spring from the first cells (Darwin’s few forms or one). However, this theory precludes the concept of species coming into being without any precursors, and so I have listed possible reasons for the Cambrian “gap”, the foremost being Shapiro’s proposal that intelligent cells are responsible for evolutionary innovation. And the fact that all branches spring from the earliest cells does not mean that all branches lead to humans and our food, let alone that they were individually designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food.

The bold is true. We humans are at the end of one branch. Darwin knew the Cambrian gap damaged his itty-bitty step theory. He hoped for gap fossils, which in the new 410,000-year study DO NOT exist. It goes from very simple to very complex in an amazingly short time compared to every other known gap.


DAVID: From an evidentiary standpoint a designer God is not a silly concept. That species adapt to changes is obvious, but they stay the same species.

dhw: Your dodging technique is becoming painfully obvious and out of order. Nowhere have I said that a designer God is a silly concept! I am an agnostic! I have asked why you consider my concept of intelligent organisms (perhaps designed by your God) RESPONDING to new conditions to be sillier than your concept of God preprogramming or dabbling changes BEFORE the new conditions have come into existence. And yes, we know that adaptation means preservation of the species, but since nobody knows how one species turns into another, it is not unreasonable to propose that maybe the same mechanism for adaptive structural changes also enables intelligent organisms to innovate.

DAVID: You still want brilliant cells to get together and design future forms to handle future conditions.

dhw: How many more times? In my theory, CELLS DO NOT DESIGN FUTURE FORMS TO HANDLE FUTURE CONDITIONS. They design new forms IN RESPONSE to changes in conditions. For example, I regard it as absurd to imagine pre-whale legs turning into flippers before there is any water for them to swim in.

All species adapt and stay the same species currently. Does not explain speciation.


DAVID: All based on the observation cells act as if intelligent, when it is equally possible, they act on intelligent instructions they have been given by design.

dhw: If you give cellular intelligence an equal chance of being the truth, then it is absurd to reject the possibility. As an agnostic, I find that there is a 50/50 chance of God existing. All my theories must therefore include that possibility. Unlike you, I regard 50/50 as possible, and not as grounds for rejection.

A 50/50 equation allows anyone to pick a side. I'm on the God side.


DAVID: Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.

dhw: Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.

dhw: Yes. So how does that come to mean that you are right and other observers are wrong?

DAVID: Because I believe there MUST BE a designer, based logically on the complex sign of irreducible complexity requiring design over natural evolution theory.

dhw: How does this disqualify the theory that the designer designed intelligent cells to design the complexities of all future life forms? Did he not, according to you, design human brains capable of designing all the complexities of modern technology?

You scurry back to your obtuse view of how to design complexity. Designing living life forms is way beyond any form of modern technology. A very strained comparison don't you think?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 11:29 (640 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] the fact that all branches spring from the earliest cells does not mean that all branches lead to humans and our food, let alone that they were individually designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food.

DAVID: The bold is true. We humans are at the end of one branch.

And that raises the question which I asked under “Archerfish”:
dhw: But according to you, his one and only purpose was to set up H. sapiens and the ecosystems which would provide our food. How does that come to mean that all the extinct species and eco systems (and also the archerfish’s special neurons) were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food?

DAVID: The bold is your distorted version of my view, which you keep flogging as if it answers my approach to analyzing God's purposes.

There is no distortion. The “absolute requirement” is your expression, as is your belief that all extinct life forms etc. – most of which had no connection with humans plus food - were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” plus their food. What follows is a complete evasion of my question.

DAVID: In creating a universe, a special Earth to allow life. creating living forms, and then designing a series of forms which eventually reach a human form, so unusual it could not logically occur naturally that series of events shows stepwise purposes by a designing mind, which you accept with a 50/50 probability.

We are not discussing proof of design but the specific questions: if your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food a) why do you think he individually created every life form etc. that had no connection with us? And b) if he was capable of designing species without precursors, why did he design us in stages? Your previous answer has been that you don’t know, and it “makes sense only to God”. Any change? (NB Please note that 50/50 does not mean rejection.)

DAVID: You still want brilliant cells to get together and design future forms to handle future conditions.

dhw: How many more times? In my theory, CELLS DO NOT DESIGN FUTURE FORMS TO HANDLE FUTURE CONDITIONS. They design new forms IN RESPONSE to changes in conditions. For example, I regard it as absurd to imagine pre-whale legs turning into flippers before there is any water for them to swim in.

DAVID: All species adapt and stay the same species currently. Does not explain speciation.

Nobody can explain speciation, and so we have different theories. But if cell communities can autonomously change their own structures in order to adapt to new conditions, maybe they can use the same mechanism to invent new ways of using the new conditions (innovation).

DAVID: Your unproven theory extrapolates from observations by many scientists that cells act intelligently, which certainly is true.

dhw: Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.

dhw: Yes. So how does that come to mean that you are right and other observers are wrong?

DAVID: Because I believe there MUST BE a designer, based logically on the complex sign of irreducible complexity requiring design over natural evolution theory.

dhw: How does this disqualify the theory that the designer designed intelligent cells to design the complexities of all future life forms? Did he not, according to you, design human brains capable of designing all the complexities of modern technology?

DAVID:You scurry back to your obtuse view of how to design complexity. Designing living life forms is way beyond any form of modern technology. A very strained comparison don't you think?

You have missed the point. If you believe your God designed one mechanism that is capable of autonomous invention (the human brain), why are you so opposed to the possibility of his designing another mechanism that is also capable of autonomous invention (the intelligent cell)?

Neurons control new connections

QUOTES: we showed that new synapses conform to the functional organization of synapses already present on a neuron through a game of cellular trial and error: when the neuron detects a synchronized cluster, it locally samples other nearby inputs until it finds one that is also in sync and gets rid of any new synapses that don't meet these requirements."

"'Our findings are even more incredible when considering that all the events described in this paper likely happen over a very small domain of a single neuron, suggesting that neurons must have a way to differentiate events occurring in one place on their dendrites vs. another," Hedrick said.

DAVID: neurons must know how to do this from the very beginning of brain function, or the brain could not learn. Fits the definition of irreducibly complex and therefore must have been designed.

Neurons are cells. The article shows how cells cooperate, and even a single cell samples, finds, gets rid of, has ways to differentiate, and – in your comment – “must know” what to do. And you agree that there is a 50/50 chance that this denotes autonomous intelligence. How wonderful that you consider the theory of the intelligent cell to be a 50/50 possibility.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 16:29 (639 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 16:50

DAVID: In creating a universe, a special Earth to allow life. creating living forms, and then designing a series of forms which eventually reach a human form, so unusual it could not logically occur naturally that series of events shows stepwise purposes by a designing mind, which you accept with a 50/50 probability.

dhw: We are not discussing proof of design but the specific questions: if your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food a) why do you think he individually created every life form etc. that had no connection with us?

He chose to evolve us stepwise from bacteria. I accept history as God's doing.

dhw: And b) if he was capable of designing species without precursors, why did he design us in stages? Your previous answer has been that you don’t know, and it “makes sense only to God”. Any change? (NB Please note that 50/50 does not mean rejection.)

Same answer! God's choice for His unknown reasons.

dhw: Thank you. Observation by many scientists that cells act intelligently sounds like quite a good reason for scientists to believe that cells are intelligent.

DAVID: Depends on the observer, doesn't it? The cells could contain a beautifully coded set of proper responses.

dhw: Yes. So how does that come to mean that you are right and other observers are wrong?

DAVID: Because I believe there MUST BE a designer, based logically on the complex sign of irreducible complexity requiring design over natural evolution theory.

dhw: How does this disqualify the theory that the designer designed intelligent cells to design the complexities of all future life forms? Did he not, according to you, design human brains capable of designing all the complexities of modern technology?

DAVID:You scurry back to your obtuse view of how to design complexity. Designing living life forms is way beyond any form of modern technology. A very strained comparison don't you think?

dhw: You have missed the point. If you believe your God designed one mechanism that is capable of autonomous invention (the human brain), why are you so opposed to the possibility of his designing another mechanism that is also capable of autonomous invention (the intelligent cell)?

It is a possibility. That explains evolution is all God's doing by secondary intention. If you accept that point, you must necessarily accept God. Or why do you bother with that theory? Your answer?


Neurons control new connections

QUOTES: we showed that new synapses conform to the functional organization of synapses already present on a neuron through a game of cellular trial and error: when the neuron detects a synchronized cluster, it locally samples other nearby inputs until it finds one that is also in sync and gets rid of any new synapses that don't meet these requirements."

"'Our findings are even more incredible when considering that all the events described in this paper likely happen over a very small domain of a single neuron, suggesting that neurons must have a way to differentiate events occurring in one place on their dendrites vs. another," Hedrick said.

DAVID: neurons must know how to do this from the very beginning of brain function, or the brain could not learn. Fits the definition of irreducibly complex and therefore must have been designed.

dhw: Neurons are cells. The article shows how cells cooperate, and even a single cell samples, finds, gets rid of, has ways to differentiate, and – in your comment – “must know” what to do. And you agree that there is a 50/50 chance that this denotes autonomous intelligence. How wonderful that you consider the theory of the intelligent cell to be a 50/50 possibility.

Same old dodge. Tell me how cells become so intelligent all by themselves naturally?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Wednesday, June 29, 2022, 09:23 (639 days ago) @ David Turell

Neurons control new connections

dhw: Neurons are cells. The article shows how cells cooperate, and even a single cell samples, finds, gets rid of, has ways to differentiate, and – in your comment – “must know” what to do. And you agree that there is a 50/50 chance that this denotes autonomous intelligence. How wonderful that you consider the theory of the intelligent cell to be a 50/50 possibility.

DAVID: Same old dodge. Tell me how cells become so intelligent all by themselves naturally?

There are two separate issues, which you keep conflating: 1) are cells intelligent? 2) If they are, what might be the source of their intelligence? The answer to the second question is that nobody knows. It is exactly the same as asking: 1) Are we alive? 2) If we are, what might be the source of life? You and I would agree that we are alive, and so then we ask what might be the source of life. Same answer: nobody knows. Your theory is your God. The atheist’s theory would be chance. And I find both theories equally difficult to believe in, for reasons which I have given you over and over again.

DAVID: I've agreed God's form of evolution is designed creation. Again, you act ignorant of Adler's position which is mine: humans, as a result of natural evolution, are so unusual, we should not expect a natural cause, but accept humans are a proof of God.

dhw: When will you stop dodging? The discussion here is not about God’s existence - ALL life’s complexities and not just humans can be viewed as evidence for the existence of God - but about your illogical combination of evolutionary theories.

DAVID: I can't help you undo your obvious rigid prejudices to new approaches to new views of evolution based on new knowledge about DNA.

You have just dodged the issue of your nonsensical combination of theories by diverting discussion to the existence of God, and now you are doing the same by pretending that I do not accept the new findings. I am perfectly happy to accept that our new knowledge of DNA changes the lines of descent, and that the Cambrian gap has shrunk to 410,000years. Neither of these new factors explains your combined theories, which make sense only to God, and neither of them changes the definition of common descent.

DAVID: In creating a universe, a special Earth to allow life. creating living forms, and then designing a series of forms which eventually reach a human form, so unusual it could not logically occur naturally that series of events shows stepwise purposes by a designing mind, which you accept with a 50/50 probability.

dhw: We are not discussing proof of design but the specific questions: if your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food a) why do you think he individually created every life form etc. that had no connection with us?

DAVID: He chose to evolve us stepwise from bacteria. I accept history as God's doing.

And in your theory he also chose to design all the other individual life forms, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans plus food although you claim that all of them were an “absolute requirement” for human plus food. Please stop editing out those parts of your theory which contradict one another.

dhw: And b) if he was capable of designing species without precursors, why did he design us in stages? Your previous answer has been that you don’t know, and it “makes sense only to God”. Any change? (NB Please note that 50/50 does not mean rejection.)

DAVID: Same answer! God's choice for His unknown reasons.

It’s YOUR choice, and you claim it makes sense to you, although only God knows why he would have done it that way. I have even gone so far as to offer you theories which do make humans your God’s purpose, and which do explain our evolution by stages, but you won’t even consider these because they entail human patterns of thought, although you believe that your God may have human patterns of thought.

Early humans

DAVID: compare these length of time periods of change to the brief Cambrian gap. The gaps and time periods of human development are becoming clearer and are reasonable when compared to other fossil series like whales.

Yes, most speciation occurs in bursts after long periods of stasis (= punctuated equilibrium). This fits in with the theory that evolutionary change takes place when the environment changes. It is possible that the Cambrian explosion was caused by a major change in the environment (increased oxygen perhaps?), which allowed for a major burst of innovations over a comparatively short period of time.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 29, 2022, 16:26 (638 days ago) @ dhw

Neurons control new connections

DAVID: Same old dodge. Tell me how cells become so intelligent all by themselves naturally?

dhw: There are two separate issues, which you keep conflating: 1) are cells intelligent? 2) If they are, what might be the source of their intelligence? The answer to the second question is that nobody knows. It is exactly the same as asking: 1) Are we alive? 2) If we are, what might be the source of life? You and I would agree that we are alive, and so then we ask what might be the source of life. Same answer: nobody knows. Your theory is your God. The atheist’s theory would be chance. And I find both theories equally difficult to believe in, for reasons which I have given you over and over again.

You realize over and over that complexity of design keeps you agnostic but refuse a necessary designer. Same old dodge.


DAVID: I've agreed God's form of evolution is designed creation. Again, you act ignorant of Adler's position which is mine: humans, as a result of natural evolution, are so unusual, we should not expect a natural cause, but accept humans are a proof of God.

dhw: When will you stop dodging? The discussion here is not about God’s existence - ALL life’s complexities and not just humans can be viewed as evidence for the existence of God - but about your illogical combination of evolutionary theories.

DAVID: I can't help you undo your obvious rigid prejudices to new approaches to new views of evolution based on new knowledge about DNA.

dhw: You have just dodged the issue of your nonsensical combination of theories by diverting discussion to the existence of God, and now you are doing the same by pretending that I do not accept the new findings. I am perfectly happy to accept that our new knowledge of DNA changes the lines of descent, and that the Cambrian gap has shrunk to 410,000years. Neither of these new factors explains your combined theories, which make sense only to God, and neither of them changes the definition of common descent.

How evolution occurs is obviously large changes in DNA, and our debate is who or what controls those changes, not my theories about God wishing to create us.


dhw: We are not discussing proof of design but the specific questions: if your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food a) why do you think he individually created every life form etc. that had no connection with us?

DAVID: He chose to evolve us stepwise from bacteria. I accept history as God's doing.

dhw: And in your theory he also chose to design all the other individual life forms, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans plus food although you claim that all of them were an “absolute requirement” for human plus food. Please stop editing out those parts of your theory which contradict one another.

If God chose to evolve us, all your weird interpretation of that position cannot apply. You have evolution disappearing.


dhw: It’s YOUR choice, and you claim it makes sense to you, although only God knows why he would have done it that way.

Why can't you understand I accept history as God's doings for His own reasons. My interpretations always follow that approach. I can't help you with your desire for God's personal reasoning.


Early humans

DAVID: compare these length of time periods of change to the brief Cambrian gap. The gaps and time periods of human development are becoming clearer and are reasonable when compared to other fossil series like whales.

dhw: Yes, most speciation occurs in bursts after long periods of stasis (= punctuated equilibrium). This fits in with the theory that evolutionary change takes place when the environment changes. It is possible that the Cambrian explosion was caused by a major change in the environment (increased oxygen perhaps?), which allowed for a major burst of innovations over a comparatively short period of time.

Again, fully dodges the point of the time needed for new complex phenotypes. The
Cambrian is still, after 150+ years of new fossil findings the one premier outlier of all the time gaps!!! It wasn't just more oxygen, your present crutch.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Thursday, June 30, 2022, 08:35 (638 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You realize over and over that complexity of design keeps you agnostic but refuse a necessary designer. Same old dodge.

I do not “refuse”. I am an agnostic, and all my alternative theories allow for your God. See Part One.

DAVID: How evolution occurs is obviously large changes in DNA, and our debate is who or what controls those changes, not my theories about God wishing to create us.

Our debate is indeed over who or what controls these changes, and how they are achieved. Hence your theory that your God controls them, that he does so for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food, and in order to do this, he designs countless life forms (plus econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders), the vast majority of which have no connection with sapiens plus food. This combination of theories “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: If God chose to evolve us, all your weird interpretation of that position cannot apply. You have evolution disappearing.

We both accept that humans evolved, so if God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to say that he chose to evolve us. But according to you, he also chose to “evolve” all the life forms that had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your theory that all extinct life forms etc. were preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for humans plus our food. You agree, because according to you, this combination of theories “makes sense only to God.

DAVID: Why can't you understand I accept history as God's doings for His own reasons. My interpretations always follow that approach. I can't help you with your desire for God's personal reasoning.

Anyone who believes in God will accept history as God’s doings for his own reasons. That does not mean that his one and only reason was to design us plus food, or that he did this by designing countless life forms that had no connection with us and our food. Similarly, we evolutionists accept that humans evolved in stages, but if you argue that your God was capable of designing species without precursors, and if you say that humans were his one and only goal from the beginning, we have the same problem as above: why would he have “chosen” such an indirect method of achieving his one and only goal? According to you, the theory “makes sense only to God”. Maybe there are other, more logical theories that we humans CAN understand, but you reject them all, because you insist that your inexplicable “interpretation” is fact, not theory.

dhw: […]most speciation occurs in bursts after long periods of stasis (= punctuated equilibrium). This fits in with the theory that evolutionary change takes place when the environment changes. It is possible that the Cambrian explosion was caused by a major change in the environment (increased oxygen perhaps?), which allowed for a major burst of innovations over a comparatively short period of time.

DAVID: Again, fully dodges the point of the time needed for new complex phenotypes. The Cambrian is still, after 150+ years of new fossil findings the one premier outlier of all the time gaps!!! It wasn't just more oxygen, your present crutch.

Nobody knows the cause, but increased oxygen is one theory concerning the conditions which allowed all the changes. I have devoted several entries suggesting that the time needed for speciation depends on generations and not on the calendar, and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that intelligent cell communities (as opposed to random mutations) might produce the necessary innovations within the 30,000 or so generations that would have succeeded one another over 410,000 years.

Under Extremophiles,yet more repetition:

DAVID: I accept that what history shows for all occurrences/events is/was God's doing. We arrived after a very prolonged time period of about 3.8 billion years

If God exists, then we would all accept that the history was his doing, and I think we all agree that humans arrived after 3.8 billion years or so. And lots and lots of other life forms that had no connection with us and our food came and went during those billions of years, so how does that come to mean they were all preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food?

DAVID: You don't believe in God, so therefore He didn't do it?

You usual misrepresentation of agnosticism and my alternative theories, ALL of which allow for God’s existence.

DAVID: That means it all happened by chance, but since it shows purposeful directionality of ever more complexity, how can chance produce that?

And you know perfectly well that I find chance as difficult to believe in as “an unknown and unknowable, sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being” (see Part One).

Your further comments are further repetitions. If only you would stop pretending that your combined theories are facts, and you would acknowledge that if they "make sense only to God", then they do not make sense to you, we could put a stop to the repetition and all your evasions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 30, 2022, 14:38 (637 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You realize over and over that complexity of design keeps you agnostic but refuse a necessary designer. Same old dodge.

I do not “refuse”. I am an agnostic, and all my alternative theories allow for your God. See Part One.

DAVID: How evolution occurs is obviously large changes in DNA, and our debate is who or what controls those changes, not my theories about God wishing to create us.

dhw: Our debate is indeed over who or what controls these changes, and how they are achieved. Hence your theory that your God controls them, that he does so for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food, and in order to do this, he designs countless life forms (plus econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders), the vast majority of which have no connection with sapiens plus food. This combination of theories “makes sense only to God”.

It also makes sense to me that all of this is a result of God's activity, created by His own reasoning, and thus "makes [full] sense only to God"


DAVID: If God chose to evolve us, all your weird interpretation of that position cannot apply. You have evolution disappearing.

dhw: We both accept that humans evolved, so if God exists, it is perfectly reasonable to say that he chose to evolve us. But according to you, he also chose to “evolve” all the life forms that had no connection with us, which makes nonsense of your theory that all extinct life forms etc. were preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for humans plus our food. You agree, because according to you, this combination of theories “makes sense only to God.

You accept God evolved us, but then try to do away with all the earlier creature stages that lead stepwise to us. In view of God as designer, He decided all those steps were required, and it makes sense to Him.


DAVID: Why can't you understand I accept history as God's doings for His own reasons. My interpretations always follow that approach. I can't help you with your desire for God's personal reasoning.

dhw: Anyone who believes in God will accept history as God’s doings for his own reasons. That does not mean that his one and only reason was to design us plus food, or that he did this by designing countless life forms that had no connection with us and our food. Similarly, we evolutionists accept that humans evolved in stages, but if you argue that your God was capable of designing species without precursors, and if you say that humans were his one and only goal from the beginning, we have the same problem as above: why would he have “chosen” such an indirect method of achieving his one and only goal?

Same simple answer. God has the right to choose His methods.


DAVID: Again, fully dodges the point of the time needed for new complex phenotypes. The Cambrian is still, after 150+ years of new fossil findings the one premier outlier of all the time gaps!!! It wasn't just more oxygen, your present crutch.

dhw: Nobody knows the cause, but increased oxygen is one theory concerning the conditions which allowed all the changes. I have devoted several entries suggesting that the time needed for speciation depends on generations and not on the calendar, and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that intelligent cell communities (as opposed to random mutations) might produce the necessary innovations within the 30,000 or so generations that would have succeeded one another over 410,000 years.

Why ignore my comparison with all other known gaps? What does 30,000 theoretical generations mean among evolution facts? You are scrambling to protect your Darwinist theories.


Under Extremophiles,yet more repetition:

DAVID: I accept that what history shows for all occurrences/events is/was God's doing. We arrived after a very prolonged time period of about 3.8 billion years

dhw: If God exists, then we would all accept that the history was his doing, and I think we all agree that humans arrived after 3.8 billion years or so. And lots and lots of other life forms that had no connection with us and our food came and went during those billions of years, so how does that come to mean they were all preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food?

Simple. God's choice of methodology.


dhw: And you know perfectly well that I find chance as difficult to believe in as “an unknown and unknowable, sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being” (see Part One).

dhw: Your further comments are further repetitions. If only you would stop pretending that your combined theories are facts, and you would acknowledge that if they "make sense only to God", then they do not make sense to you, we could put a stop to the repetition and all your evasions.

More psychoanalysis. It all makes sense to me as I think about God, and you do not think about Him in the same way. The design we see requires a designer, who is 'unknown and unknowable' and must be a 'sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being' logically!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Friday, July 01, 2022, 10:49 (637 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You accept God evolved us, but then try to do away with all the earlier creature stages that lead stepwise to us. In view of God as designer, He decided all those steps were required, and it makes sense to Him.

If God exists, I accept that God evolved us and I accept that there were earlier creatures that led stepwise to us! But (a) YOU try to “do away with” all the earlier stages that did NOT lead stepwise to us (by ignoring them), and when I remind you about them, you insist that your God designed them individually as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food although they had no connection with us and our food. And (b) when I remind you of your belief that your God created species with no precursors, and ask why in that case he designed us in stages - the only species you say he wanted to design – you admit that it makes no sense to you either. So it WOULD make sense to see if your God might have had a different purpose for creating life from the one you impose on him, or might have had logical reasons for achieving that purpose in the manner you impose on him. Hence my various alternatives, which you agree fit in logically with the history of life as we know it.

The Cambrian Gap

dhw: Nobody knows the cause, but increased oxygen is one theory concerning the conditions which allowed all the changes. I have devoted several entries suggesting that the time needed for speciation depends on generations and not on the calendar, and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that intelligent cell communities (as opposed to random mutations) might produce the necessary innovations within the 30,000 or so generations that would have succeeded one another over 410,000 years.

DAVID: Why ignore my comparison with all other known gaps? What does 30,000 theoretical generations mean among evolution facts? You are scrambling to protect your Darwinist theories.

I have not ignored it. I have pointed out that “gaps” are caused by the fact that conditions remain the same for long periods of “stasis”, and the comparatively short period of time covered by the Cambrian would be sufficient for 30,000 or so generations of intelligent organisms to design new responses to the new conditions. The number is theoretical -I don’t mind how many generations you think would fill that period - but do you really believe that the generations themselves are theoretical? That there weren’t generations after generations of organisms during the 410,000 years? Of course the intelligent cell is theoretical, but no more so than your unknown and unknowable sourceless, immaterial mind preprogramming every change 3.8 billion years ago, or popping in to perform countless psychokinetic operations on existing organisms, or psychokinetically conjuring up new ones from scratch.

dhw: If only you would stop pretending that your combined theories are facts, and you would acknowledge that if they "make sense only to God", then they do not make sense to you, we could put a stop to the repetition and all your evasions.

DAVID: More psychoanalysis.

There is no psychoanalysis involved. Your theories are not facts, and since you say they “make sense only to God”, quite clearly they do not make sense to you!

DAVID: It all makes sense to me as I think about God, and you do not think about Him in the same way. The design we see requires a designer, who is 'unknown and unknowable' and must be a 'sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being' logically!!!

Back you go to the question of God’s existence, but all the theories of evolution we have discussed ACCEPT the possible existence of your God, and it is your interpretation of his goal and methods that do not make sense to you. In this context, how you “think about God” is that God only wanted to design humans plus food, and so he designed countless organisms that had no connection with humans plus food, and he designed humans in stages although he could have designed us without any precursors. In both cases, you consider these combinations of theories to be senseless, but you happen to know that they make sense to God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 01, 2022, 16:08 (636 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You accept God evolved us, but then try to do away with all the earlier creature stages that lead stepwise to us. In view of God as designer, He decided all those steps were required, and it makes sense to Him.

dhw: If God exists, I accept that God evolved us and I accept that there were earlier creatures that led stepwise to us! But (a) YOU try to “do away with” all the earlier stages that did NOT lead stepwise to us (by ignoring them), and when I remind you about them, you insist that your God designed them individually as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food although they had no connection with us and our food. And (b) when I remind you of your belief that your God created species with no precursors, and ask why in that case he designed us in stages - the only species you say he wanted to design – you admit that it makes no sense to you either.

The bold is your unreasonably distorted interpretation of how I view God. What God created and how He did it were for His own reasons, which I do not have to understand to accept them. Obviously, I try to interpret them.

dhw: So it WOULD make sense to see if your God might have had a different purpose for creating life from the one you impose on him, or might have had logical reasons for achieving that purpose in the manner you impose on him. Hence my various alternatives, which you agree fit in logically with the history of life as we know it.

The bold is only partially correct and you knowingly ignore the incorrect part. I conceded your God theories logically fit a very humanized form of a God.


The Cambrian Gap

dhw: Nobody knows the cause, but increased oxygen is one theory concerning the conditions which allowed all the changes. I have devoted several entries suggesting that the time needed for speciation depends on generations and not on the calendar, and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that intelligent cell communities (as opposed to random mutations) might produce the necessary innovations within the 30,000 or so generations that would have succeeded one another over 410,000 years.

DAVID: Why ignore my comparison with all other known gaps? What does 30,000 theoretical generations mean among evolution facts? You are scrambling to protect your Darwinist theories.

dhw: I have not ignored it. I have pointed out that “gaps” are caused by the fact that conditions remain the same for long periods of “stasis”, and the comparatively short period of time covered by the Cambrian would be sufficient for 30,000 or so generations of intelligent organisms to design new responses to the new conditions. The number is theoretical -I don’t mind how many generations you think would fill that period - but do you really believe that the generations themselves are theoretical? That there weren’t generations after generations of organisms during the 410,000 years?

What you have obviously ignored yet again, is the obvious point: in all of evolutionary history there is no other gap like the Cambrian. All you do is theorize bloviated generations when how speciation happens is not known, and only you raise that issue desperately to save your Darwinian prejudices.

dhw: If only you would stop pretending that your combined theories are facts, and you would acknowledge that if they "make sense only to God", then they do not make sense to you, we could put a stop to the repetition and all your evasions.

DAVID: More psychoanalysis.

dhw: There is no psychoanalysis involved. Your theories are not facts, and since you say they “make sense only to God”, quite clearly they do not make sense to you!

What God does always makes sense to Him and to me, because God always knows what He is doing.


DAVID: It all makes sense to me as I think about God, and you do not think about Him in the same way. The design we see requires a designer, who is 'unknown and unknowable' and must be a 'sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being' logically!!!

dhw: Back you go to the question of God’s existence, but all the theories of evolution we have discussed ACCEPT the possible existence of your God, and it is your interpretation of his goal and methods that do not make sense to you. In this context, how you “think about God” is that God only wanted to design humans plus food, and so he designed countless organisms that had no connection with humans plus food, and he designed humans in stages although he could have designed us without any precursors. In both cases, you consider these combinations of theories to be senseless, but you happen to know that they make sense to God.

And they also make perfect sense to me if not to you. I repeat the obvious. You obviously do not know how to think about God as I do. This gap has driven our discussions for years.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Saturday, July 02, 2022, 11:08 (636 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s theory of evolution

dhw: The history that we know is of countless life forms, econiches etc. And since the majority of these had no connection with sapiens and our food, it makes no sense to theorize that all of them were preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for sapiens and our food.

DAVID: All the 'countless life forms' form the history of evolution which led to us. Your objections simply throws all of that out as if it never happened. That is part of your weird thought process.

Your objections simply throw out all the life forms etc. which you say your God designed individually and which did NOT lead to us or our food, although you tell us that they were preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. And this is part of your combination of theories which you yourself regard as senseless, since you cannot find any rational explanation and it “makes sense only to God”.

The Krebs cycle

DAVID: I've been long convinced that deep-sea vents were involved in the origin of life. The Kreb's cycle is at the heart of living biochemistry. That is runs backward and forward is a strong indication of a designer at work. How could that have happened by chance? I haven't read this book, but it obviously would help anyone to understand how to look at life through its biochemistry.

Back we go to the origin of life, and I agree that this is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a designer. But the existence of a sourceless, immaterial, all-powerful mind which can create a whole universe and living material beings out of its own immateriality is just as great a mystery as the origin of life, and no amount of blather about “first cause” can solve it.

The Cambrian Gap

dhw: I have pointed out that “gaps” are caused by the fact that conditions remain the same for long periods of “stasis”, and the comparatively short period of time covered by the Cambrian would be sufficient for 30,000 or so generations of intelligent organisms to design new responses to the new conditions. The number is theoretical -I don’t mind how many generations you think would fill that period - but do you really believe that the generations themselves are theoretical? That there weren’t generations after generations of organisms during the 410,000 years?

DAVID: What you have obviously ignored yet again, is the obvious point: in all of evolutionary history there is no other gap like the Cambrian. All you do is theorize bloviated generations when how speciation happens is not known, and only you raise that issue desperately to save your Darwinian prejudices.

Of course nobody knows how speciation happens, and of course I accept that the Cambrian is a mystery, and so I look for possible answers to the relevant questions. For some reason, you prefer to dismiss my theories because they are only theories, whereas you can’t see that “all you do” is theorize about a super mind, unknown and unknowable, who preprogrammed it all 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping in to perform countless operations or to produced brand new species that had no precursors, although history generally confirms the theory that all life forms except the first evolved from earlier life forms. You accept that there is a 50/50 chance that cells are intelligent, and offer no reason for rejecting my proposal that evolutionary changes take place between generations, regardless of the amount of time between bursts of innovation. So please explain why you think it is impossible for your God to have designed intelligent cells which, given the right conditions, might have produced the same changes within the same period of time that you say he took to produce them?

dhw: If only you would stop pretending that your combined theories are facts, and you would acknowledge that if they "make sense only to God", then they do not make sense to you, we could put a stop to the repetition and all your evasions.

DAVID: More psychoanalysis.

dhw: There is no psychoanalysis involved. Your theories are not facts, and since you say they “make sense only to God”, quite clearly they do not make sense to you!

DAVID: What God does always makes sense to Him and to me, because God always knows what He is doing.

I have no doubt that if God exists, he knows what he is doing and also why he is doing it. You have said that your version “makes sense only to God”, so how can it make sense to you, unless you and God are one and the same?

DAVID: You obviously do not know how to think about God as I do. This gap has driven our discussions for years.

I must confess I find it much more logical to think that God himself has comprehensibly logical reasons for everything that he does, as opposed to your version of his deeds and his reasons, which you yourself find totally incomprehensible, since it “makes sense only to God”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 02, 2022, 16:52 (635 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: All the 'countless life forms' form the history of evolution which led to us. Your objections simply throws all of that out as if it never happened. That is part of your weird thought process.

dhw: Your objections simply throw out all the life forms etc. which you say your God designed individually and which did NOT lead to us or our food, although you tell us that they were preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. And this is part of your combination of theories which you yourself regard as senseless, since you cannot find any rational explanation and it “makes sense only to God”.

Same weird thought process, how to go from bacteria to humans without all the in-between forms? All of this makes sense to God and to me, if not you.


The Krebs cycle

DAVID: I've been long convinced that deep-sea vents were involved in the origin of life. The Kreb's cycle is at the heart of living biochemistry. That is runs backward and forward is a strong indication of a designer at work. How could that have happened by chance? I haven't read this book, but it obviously would help anyone to understand how to look at life through its biochemistry.

dhw: Back we go to the origin of life, and I agree that this is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a designer. But the existence of a sourceless, immaterial, all-powerful mind which can create a whole universe and living material beings out of its own immateriality is just as great a mystery as the origin of life, and no amount of blather about “first cause” can solve it.

First cause is a reasonable issue, not blather. You prefer design without the designer. Logical?


The Cambrian Gap

dhw: I have pointed out that “gaps” are caused by the fact that conditions remain the same for long periods of “stasis”, and the comparatively short period of time covered by the Cambrian would be sufficient for 30,000 or so generations of intelligent organisms to design new responses to the new conditions. The number is theoretical -I don’t mind how many generations you think would fill that period - but do you really believe that the generations themselves are theoretical? That there weren’t generations after generations of organisms during the 410,000 years?

DAVID: What you have obviously ignored yet again, is the obvious point: in all of evolutionary history there is no other gap like the Cambrian. All you do is theorize bloviated generations when how speciation happens is not known, and only you raise that issue desperately to save your Darwinian prejudices.

dhw: Of course, nobody knows how speciation happens, and of course I accept that the Cambrian is a mystery, and so I look for possible answers to the relevant questions...You accept that there is a 50/50 chance that cells are intelligent, and offer no reason for rejecting my proposal that evolutionary changes take place between generations, regardless of the amount of time between bursts of innovation. So please explain why you think it is impossible for your God to have designed intelligent cells which, given the right conditions, might have produced the same changes within the same period of time that you say he took to produce them?

Alot of talk around the main point I present, so I'll try again to nail it and you down. A 410,000-year gap in which very complex animals appeared from simple forms was measured from existing fossils. Wholly new organ systems and eyes appeared. Now look at other known fossil series such as the whales. Millions of years from one earlier form to the next, not with such a massive invention as the Cambrian animals, but a species modification of all the existing complex systems and eyes.

And your newly minted, invented theory, to save your prejudices, is some generations can do it. Any authoritative source?

As for second-hand design mechanisms, I have given you my objections, not worth repeating, many times.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Sunday, July 03, 2022, 09:26 (635 days ago) @ David Turell

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: Same weird thought process, how to go from bacteria to humans without all the in-between forms? All of this makes sense to God and to me, if not you.

I can only assume you don’t read what I write, so all I can do is repeat it. Yes, evolution leads from bacteria to humans through a succession of in-between forms. But if your God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus our food, why – according to you – would he have specially designed all the countless life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that had no connection with humans plus our food, and since they did not lead to humans, how could they have been preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food? You can’t explain it. It “makes sense only to God”. Ergo it doesn’t make sense to you.

The Krebs cycle

dhw: Back we go to the origin of life, and I agree that this is one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a designer. But the existence of a sourceless, immaterial, all-powerful mind which can create a whole universe and living material beings out of its own immateriality is just as great a mystery as the origin of life, and no amount of blather about “first cause” can solve it.

DAVID: First cause is a reasonable issue, not blather. You prefer design without the designer. Logical?

When will you learn that I do not prefer any explanation? I am an agnostic. “First cause” is a cop-out. Nobody knows the source of consciousness. You say the source of consciousness is consciousness. And by calling it God, you have solved the mystery.

The Cambrian Gap

dhw: Of course, nobody knows how speciation happens, and of course I accept that the Cambrian is a mystery, and so I look for possible answers to the relevant questions...You accept that there is a 50/50 chance that cells are intelligent, and offer no reason for rejecting my proposal that evolutionary changes take place between generations, regardless of the amount of time between bursts of innovation. So please explain why you think it is impossible for your God to have designed intelligent cells which, given the right conditions, might have produced the same changes within the same period of time that you say he took to produce them?

DAVID: A lot of talk around the main point I present, so I'll try again to nail it and you down. A 410,000-year gap in which very complex animals appeared from simple forms was measured from existing fossils. Wholly new organ systems and eyes appeared. Now look at other known fossil series such as the whales. Millions of years from one earlier form to the next, not with such a massive invention as the Cambrian animals, but a species modification of all the existing complex systems and eyes.
And your newly minted, invented theory, to save your prejudices, is some generations can do it. Any authoritative source?

As you have edited out parts of my earlier response, please tell me the authoritative source for your theory that an unknown mind programmed these inventions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in 550 million years ago to cobble together new organ systems and eyes (although all he ever wanted to do was design sapiens and our food). Of course we can only come up with theories. Why have you ignored the perfectly reasonable proposal that speciation happens when conditions change, and that although there were long periods of stasis when conditions did not change, the Cambrian was an exception, and whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations? And why do you consider it unreasonable to assume that changes take place from generation to generation, regardless of the time that elapses between bursts of innovation?

DAVID: As for second-hand design mechanisms, I have given you my objections, not worth repeating, many times.

I know that you reject the 50/50 possibility that your God might have created cellular intelligence capable of designing “evolutionary novelty”(Shapiro), but why should your prejudice automatically mean that the theory is unreasonable?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 03, 2022, 16:01 (634 days ago) @ dhw

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: Same weird thought process, how to go from bacteria to humans without all the in-between forms? All of this makes sense to God and to me, if not you.

dhw: I can only assume you don’t read what I write, so all I can do is repeat it. Yes, evolution leads from bacteria to humans through a succession of in-between forms. But if your God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus our food, why – according to you – would he have specially designed all the countless life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that had no connection with humans plus our food, and since they did not lead to humans, how could they have been preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food? You can’t explain it. It “makes sense only to God”. Ergo it doesn’t make sense to you.

I read your exact words!!! Your usual complete non-sequitur: " Yes, evolution leads from bacteria to humans through a succession of in-between forms." And then an opposite totally contradictory thought: "why – according to you – would he have specially designed all the countless life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that had no connection with humans plus our food, and since they did not lead to humans," It is obvious the two sentences totally conflict!!! Making total sense, God chose to do it this way.


The Krebs cycle

DAVID: First cause is a reasonable issue, not blather. You prefer design without the designer. Logical?

dhw: When will you learn that I do not prefer any explanation? I am an agnostic. “First cause” is a cop-out. Nobody knows the source of consciousness. You say the source of consciousness is consciousness. And by calling it God, you have solved the mystery.

I like my answer to Why is there anything?


The Cambrian Gap

dhw: Of course, nobody knows how speciation happens, and of course I accept that the Cambrian is a mystery, and so I look for possible answers to the relevant questions...You accept that there is a 50/50 chance that cells are intelligent, and offer no reason for rejecting my proposal that evolutionary changes take place between generations, regardless of the amount of time between bursts of innovation. So please explain why you think it is impossible for your God to have designed intelligent cells which, given the right conditions, might have produced the same changes within the same period of time that you say he took to produce them?

DAVID: A lot of talk around the main point I present, so I'll try again to nail it and you down. A 410,000-year gap in which very complex animals appeared from simple forms was measured from existing fossils. Wholly new organ systems and eyes appeared. Now look at other known fossil series such as the whales. Millions of years from one earlier form to the next, not with such a massive invention as the Cambrian animals, but a species modification of all the existing complex systems and eyes.
And your newly minted, invented theory, to save your prejudices, is some generations can do it. Any authoritative source?

dhw: As you have edited out parts of my earlier response, please tell me the authoritative source for your theory that an unknown mind programmed these inventions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in 550 million years ago to cobble together new organ systems and eyes (although all he ever wanted to do was design sapiens and our food). Of course we can only come up with theories. Why have you ignored the perfectly reasonable proposal that speciation happens when conditions change, and that although there were long periods of stasis when conditions did not change, the Cambrian was an exception, and whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations? And why do you consider it unreasonable to assume that changes take place from generation to generation, regardless of the time that elapses between bursts of innovation?

More blather about how speciation may occur because you cannot answer my challenge, that the Cambrian is like no other gap and requires tremendous amounts of new designs in a figurative blink of the eye. The bold is sheer sophistry. Changed conditions allow for change but are never the actual driving cause, are they?


DAVID: As for second-hand design mechanisms, I have given you my objections, not worth repeating, many times.

dhw: I know that you reject the 50/50 possibility that your God might have created cellular intelligence capable of designing “evolutionary novelty”(Shapiro), but why should your prejudice automatically mean that the theory is unreasonable?

Another non-answer. Handing off a design project to another designer creates more difficulty than it is worth, if a specific goal is required. The first designer must instruct the second designer or, in your case, brilliant cell design committees.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Monday, July 04, 2022, 09:20 (634 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] Your usual complete non-sequitur: " Yes, evolution leads from bacteria to humans through a succession of in-between forms." And then an opposite totally contradictory thought: "why – according to you – would he have specially designed all the countless life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that had no connection with humans plus our food, and since they did not lead to humans," It is obvious the two sentences totally conflict!!! Making total sense, God chose to do it this way.

You have edited out the link which emphasizes the “conflict” that makes nonsense of your combined theories. My second sentence began: “But if your God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus our food, why etc.” It makes no sense for your God to have a single purpose and then to deliberately design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with that purpose. You have recognized the “conflict”, which I call “contradiction”, and far from it making “total sense”, you can’t explain your theory, which “makes sense only to God”.

The Krebs cycle

dhw: […] “First cause” is a cop-out. Nobody knows the source of consciousness. You say the source of consciousness is consciousness. And by calling it God, you have solved the mystery.

DAVID: I like my answer to Why is there anything?

Of course you do. And I have every respect for your faith. I just don’t share it.

The Cambrian Gap

DAVID: […] A 410,000-year gap in which very complex animals appeared from simple forms was measured from existing fossils. Wholly new organ systems and eyes appeared. Now look at other known fossil series such as the whales. Millions of years from one earlier form to the next, not with such a massive invention as the Cambrian animals, but a species modification of all the existing complex systems and eyes.
And your newly minted, invented theory, to save your prejudices, is some generations can do it. Any authoritative source?

dhw: As you have edited out parts of my earlier response, please tell me the authoritative source for your theory that an unknown mind programmed these inventions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in 550 million years ago to cobble together new organ systems and eyes (although all he ever wanted to do was design sapiens and our food). Of course we can only come up with theories. Why have you ignored the perfectly reasonable proposal that speciation happens when conditions change, and that although there were long periods of stasis when conditions did not change, the Cambrian was an exception, and whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations? And why do you consider it unreasonable to assume that changes take place from generation to generation, regardless of the time that elapses between bursts of innovation?

DAVID: More blather about how speciation may occur because you cannot answer my challenge, that the Cambrian is like no other gap and requires tremendous amounts of new designs in a figurative blink of the eye.

I keep agreeing with your “challenge”, and have offered explanations. A “figurative blink of the eye” is not a real blink if you take into consideration the fact that common descent works through changes in existing life forms, which means generations and not periods of time.

DAVID: The bold is sheer sophistry. Changed conditions allow for change but are never the actual driving cause, are they?

When I say the change must have been sufficiently drastic “to allow for major innovations”, I mean “to allow for innovations”. Why is that sophistry? The driving force is the will of life forms to survive and/or improve their chances of survival. I propose that this will exerts itself whenever existing conditions change. We know that life forms adapt (or die), and I suggest that when conditions allow for new means of survival, intelligent cells produce “evolutionary novelty” (Shapiro). Whatever environmental changes took place during the Cambrian must have allowed for this process to be accelerated – and that is true whether your God did his dabbling, or intelligent cells (perhaps designed by your God) did their own designing.

DAVID: As for second-hand design mechanisms, I have given you my objections, not worth repeating, many times.

dhw: I know that you reject the 50/50 possibility that your God might have created cellular intelligence capable of designing “evolutionary novelty”(Shapiro), but why should your prejudice automatically mean that the theory is unreasonable?

DAVID: Another non-answer. Handing off a design project to another designer creates more difficulty than it is worth, if a specific goal is required. The first designer must instruct the second designer or, in your case, brilliant cell design committees.

What specific goal? Back you go to ignoring all the illogicalities that arise from your anthropocentric theory of evolution. Maybe your God did NOT start out with the one goal of designing humans plus food. Or maybe he did NOT design every individual life form etc. Or maybe he did NOT design new species without precursors. Maybe he designed a free-for-all, but dabbled occasionally when he felt like it. Or maybe one of my other alternative theistic theories is true. At least they make sense to you, unlike your own.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 04, 2022, 15:48 (633 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] Your usual complete non-sequitur: " Yes, evolution leads from bacteria to humans through a succession of in-between forms." And then an opposite totally contradictory thought: "why – according to you – would he have specially designed all the countless life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders that had no connection with humans plus our food, and since they did not lead to humans," It is obvious the two sentences totally conflict!!! Making total sense, God chose to do it this way.

dhw: You have edited out the link which emphasizes the “conflict” that makes nonsense of your combined theories. My second sentence began: “But if your God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus our food, why etc.” It makes no sense for your God to have a single purpose and then to deliberately design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with that purpose. You have recognized the “conflict”, which I call “contradiction”, and far from it making “total sense”, you can’t explain your theory, which “makes sense only to God”.

Design theory is presented once again in the other thread. An existing God created our reality for His own reasons, unknown to all of us. Your strange analysis distorts all of that.


The Cambrian Gap

DAVID: […] A 410,000-year gap in which very complex animals appeared from simple forms was measured from existing fossils. Wholly new organ systems and eyes appeared. Now look at other known fossil series such as the whales. Millions of years from one earlier form to the next, not with such a massive invention as the Cambrian animals, but a species modification of all the existing complex systems and eyes.

dhw: As you have edited out parts of my earlier response, please tell me the authoritative source for your theory that an unknown mind programmed these inventions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in 550 million years ago to cobble together new organ systems and eyes (although all he ever wanted to do was design sapiens and our food). Of course we can only come up with theories. Why have you ignored the perfectly reasonable proposal that speciation happens when conditions change, and that although there were long periods of stasis when conditions did not change, the Cambrian was an exception, and whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations? And why do you consider it unreasonable to assume that changes take place from generation to generation, regardless of the time that elapses between bursts of innovation?

DAVID: More blather about how speciation may occur because you cannot answer my challenge, that the Cambrian is like no other gap and requires tremendous amounts of new designs in a figurative blink of the eye.

dhw: I keep agreeing with your “challenge”, and have offered explanations. A “figurative blink of the eye” is not a real blink if you take into consideration the fact that common descent works through changes in existing life forms, which means generations and not periods of time.

TIME is a major issue for the Cambrian. There is no 'gradual change in existing forms'. You just made my case for abrupt design.


dhw: When I say the change must have been sufficiently drastic “to allow for major innovations”, I mean “to allow for innovations”. Why is that sophistry? The driving force is the will of life forms to survive and/or improve their chances of survival. I propose that this will exerts itself whenever existing conditions change. We know that life forms adapt (or die), and I suggest that when conditions allow for new means of survival, intelligent cells produce “evolutionary novelty” (Shapiro). Whatever environmental changes took place during the Cambrian must have allowed for this process to be accelerated – and that is true whether your God did his dabbling, or intelligent cells (perhaps designed by your God) did their own designing.

Same long discussion to avoid the logic of required design to explain the enormous changes in a short time.


dhw: I know that you reject the 50/50 possibility that your God might have created cellular intelligence capable of designing “evolutionary novelty”(Shapiro), but why should your prejudice automatically mean that the theory is unreasonable?

DAVID: Another non-answer. Handing off a design project to another designer creates more difficulty than it is worth, if a specific goal is required. The first designer must instruct the second designer or, in your case, brilliant cell design committees.

dhw: What specific goal? Back you go to ignoring all the illogicalities that arise from your anthropocentric theory of evolution. Maybe your God did NOT start out with the one goal of designing humans plus food. Or maybe he did NOT design every individual life form etc. Or maybe he did NOT design new species without precursors. Maybe he designed a free-for-all, but dabbled occasionally when he felt like it. Or maybe one of my other alternative theistic theories is true. At least they make sense to you, unlike your own.

Back you go to an entirely humanized God bumbling along. Of course, in this humanized form your proposals make sense. God is a person like no other person. I wish you would remember that.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Tuesday, July 05, 2022, 09:41 (633 days ago) @ David Turell

The first entry is covered in Part One.

The Cambrian Gap

dhw: As you have edited out parts of my earlier response, please tell me the authoritative source for your theory that an unknown mind programmed these inventions 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in 550 million years ago to cobble together new organ systems and eyes (although all he ever wanted to do was design sapiens and our food). Of course we can only come up with theories. Why have you ignored the perfectly reasonable proposal that speciation happens when conditions change, and that although there were long periods of stasis when conditions did not change, the Cambrian was an exception, and whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations? And why do you consider it unreasonable to assume that changes take place from generation to generation, regardless of the time that elapses between bursts of innovation?

DAVID: More blather about how speciation may occur because you cannot answer my challenge, that the Cambrian is like no other gap and requires tremendous amounts of new designs in a figurative blink of the eye.

dhw: I keep agreeing with your “challenge”, and have offered explanations. A “figurative blink of the eye” is not a real blink if you take into consideration the fact that common descent works through changes in existing life forms, which means generations and not periods of time.

DAVID: TIME is a major issue for the Cambrian. There is no 'gradual change in existing forms'. You just made my case for abrupt design.

I did not say there was a gradual change! My point is that the change in environmental conditions must have been such that it allowed for major innovations, and that innovations do not depend on the passage of time but on the response of each generation to the new conditions. I find it feasible that intelligent, inventive organisms would respond within very few generations.

dhw: (see above) […] whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations [...]

DAVID: The bold is sheer sophistry. Changed conditions allow for change but are never the actual driving cause, are they?

dhw: When I say the change must have been sufficiently drastic “to allow for major innovations”, I mean “to allow for innovations”. Why is that sophistry? The driving force is the will of life forms to survive and/or improve their chances of survival. I propose that this will exerts itself whenever existing conditions change. We know that life forms adapt (or die), and I suggest that when conditions allow for new means of survival, intelligent cells produce “evolutionary novelty” (Shapiro). Whatever environmental changes took place during the Cambrian must have allowed for this process to be accelerated – and that is true whether your God did his dabbling, or intelligent cells (perhaps designed by your God) did their own designing.

DAVID: Same long discussion to avoid the logic of required design to explain the enormous changes in a short time.

You accused me of sophistry by totally ignoring what I had written, and then you raised the question of the driving force, which I answered, and you have ignored the fact that I accept the argument for design, but instead of your God preprogramming every innovation 3.8 billion years ago, or performing millions of operations or (Cambrian) starting all over again by designing species without precursors, I propose that he gave cell communities the ability to do their own designing.

DAVID: Another non-answer. Handing off a design project to another designer creates more difficulty than it is worth, if a specific goal is required. The first designer must instruct the second designer or, in your case, brilliant cell design committees.

dhw: What specific goal? Back you go to ignoring all the illogicalities that arise from your anthropocentric theory of evolution. Maybe your God did NOT start out with the one goal of designing humans plus food. Or maybe he did NOT design every individual life form etc. Or maybe he did NOT design new species without precursors. Maybe he designed a free-for-all, but dabbled occasionally when he felt like it. Or maybe one of my other alternative theistic theories is true. At least they make sense to you, unlike your own.

DAVID: Back you go to an entirely humanized God bumbling along. Of course, in this humanized form your proposals make sense. God is a person like no other person. I wish you would remember that.

My God is not “entirely humanized”, and he does not “bumble along”, and I do not imagine for one moment that a sourceless, eternal, all-powerful, immaterial, conscious being is a person like us. But you agree that your possible Creator probably has thought patterns in common with his creations (us), and “I wish you would remember that” and would stop pretending that you alone know which thought patterns he has or hasn’t got. However, I must admit that I have a certain prejudice which puts me more in tune with theories that make sense to me and you than with theories which don't even make sense to their proposer (you).;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 05, 2022, 17:59 (632 days ago) @ dhw

The Cambrian Gap

DAVID: More blather about how speciation may occur because you cannot answer my challenge, that the Cambrian is like no other gap and requires tremendous amounts of new designs in a figurative blink of the eye.

dhw: I keep agreeing with your “challenge”, and have offered explanations. A “figurative blink of the eye” is not a real blink if you take into consideration the fact that common descent works through changes in existing life forms, which means generations and not periods of time.

DAVID: TIME is a major issue for the Cambrian. There is no 'gradual change in existing forms'. You just made my case for abrupt design.

dhw: I did not say there was a gradual change! My point is that the change in environmental conditions must have been such that it allowed for major innovations, and that innovations do not depend on the passage of time but on the response of each generation to the new conditions. I find it feasible that intelligent, inventive organisms would respond within very few generations.

Your invented generational theory for speciation does not explain wholly new life forms with no precursors in such a short period. Time is of the essence in this discussion.


dhw: (see above) […] whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations [...]

DAVID: The bold is sheer sophistry. Changed conditions allow for change but are never the actual driving cause, are they?

dhw: When I say the change must have been sufficiently drastic “to allow for major innovations”, I mean “to allow for innovations”. Why is that sophistry? The driving force is the will of life forms to survive and/or improve their chances of survival. I propose that this will exerts itself whenever existing conditions change. We know that life forms adapt (or die), and I suggest that when conditions allow for new means of survival, intelligent cells produce “evolutionary novelty” (Shapiro). Whatever environmental changes took place during the Cambrian must have allowed for this process to be accelerated – and that is true whether your God did his dabbling, or intelligent cells (perhaps designed by your God) did their own designing.

DAVID: Same long discussion to avoid the logic of required design to explain the enormous changes in a short time.

dhw: You accused me of sophistry by totally ignoring what I had written, and then you raised the question of the driving force, which I answered, and you have ignored the fact that I accept the argument for design, but instead of your God preprogramming every innovation 3.8 billion years ago, or performing millions of operations or (Cambrian) starting all over again by designing species without precursors, I propose that he gave cell communities the ability to do their own designing.

DAVID: Another non-answer. Handing off a design project to another designer creates more difficulty than it is worth, if a specific goal is required. The first designer must instruct the second designer or, in your case, brilliant cell design committees.

dhw: What specific goal? Back you go to ignoring all the illogicalities that arise from your anthropocentric theory of evolution. Maybe your God did NOT start out with the one goal of designing humans plus food. Or maybe he did NOT design every individual life form etc. Or maybe he did NOT design new species without precursors. Maybe he designed a free-for-all, but dabbled occasionally when he felt like it. Or maybe one of my other alternative theistic theories is true. At least they make sense to you, unlike your own.

DAVID: Back you go to an entirely humanized God bumbling along. Of course, in this humanized form your proposals make sense. God is a person like no other person. I wish you would remember that.

dhw: My God is not “entirely humanized”, and he does not “bumble along”, and I do not imagine for one moment that a sourceless, eternal, all-powerful, immaterial, conscious being is a person like us. But you agree that your possible Creator probably has thought patterns in common with his creations (us), and “I wish you would remember that” and would stop pretending that you alone know which thought patterns he has or hasn’t got. However, I must admit that I have a certain prejudice which puts me more in tune with theories that make sense to me and you than with theories which don't even make sense to their proposer (you).;-)

You are prejudiced to form a thought-experiment humanized God who thinks as you do. My God makes perfect sense to me ever since I realized a designing mind is necessary and must exist. Pure obvious logic you lack. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Wednesday, July 06, 2022, 11:29 (632 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: TIME is a major issue for the Cambrian. There is no 'gradual change in existing forms'. You just made my case for abrupt design.

dhw: I did not say there was a gradual change! My point is that the change in environmental conditions must have been such that it allowed for major innovations, and that innovations do not depend on the passage of time but on the response of each generation to the new conditions. I find it feasible that intelligent, inventive organisms would respond within very few generations.

DAVID: Your invented generational theory for speciation does not explain wholly new life forms with no precursors in such a short period. Time is of the essence in this discussion.

Your God’s existence, his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, his ad hoc dabbling, and theories 1), 2) and 3) are all “invented” theories. Since you believe in common descent, please explain why you do not think evolutionary changes in general could have occurred through the responses of each generation to new conditions. The Cambrian is an anomaly, because there are no fossils and because of the comparatively short time during which major changes took place, resulting in new species. We are talking of events that took place 550 million years ago. There are good reasons why there is no complete fossil record, but in any case, the theory that changing conditions could have been exceptionally favourable to innovation (which would also apply to your own theory of God using them) is perfectly feasible. It is also feasible that instead of your God using his intelligence to design the innovations, he endowed cells/cell communities with the intelligence to do the same, and this could be accomplished over a short period by sequent generations of intelligent cell communities.

dhw: […] whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations [...]

DAVID: The bold is sheer sophistry. Changed conditions allow for change but are never the actual driving cause, are they?

dhw: When I say the change must have been sufficiently drastic “to allow for major innovations”, I mean “to allow for innovations”. Why is that sophistry?

Why did you accuse me of sophistry?

dhw: I propose that he gave cell communities the ability to do their own designing.

DAVID: Another non-answer. Handing off a design project to another designer creates more difficulty than it is worth, if a specific goal is required. .

dhw: What specific goal? Back you go to ignoring all the illogicalities that arise from your anthropocentric theory of evolution. Maybe your God did NOT start out with the one goal of designing humans plus food. Or maybe he did NOT design every individual life form etc. Or maybe he did NOT design new species without precursors. Maybe he designed a free-for-all, but dabbled occasionally when he felt like it. Or maybe one of my other alternative theistic theories is true. At least they make sense to you, unlike your own.

DAVID: Back you go to an entirely humanized God bumbling along. Of course, in this humanized form your proposals make sense. God is a person like no other person. I wish you would remember that.

dhw: My God is not “entirely humanized”, and he does not “bumble along”, and I do not imagine for one moment that a sourceless, eternal, all-powerful, immaterial, conscious being is a person like us. But you agree that your possible Creator probably has thought patterns in common with his creations (us), and “I wish you would remember that” and would stop pretending that you alone know which thought patterns he has or hasn’t got. However, I must admit that I have a certain prejudice which puts me more in tune with theories that make sense to me and you than with theories which don't even make sense to their proposer (you).;-)

DAVID: You are prejudiced to form a thought-experiment humanized God who thinks as you do. My God makes perfect sense to me ever since I realized a designing mind is necessary and must exist. Pure obvious logic you lack.;-)

As always, I accept the logic of the design argument. I do not accept your interpretation of life’s history. Hence my various alternative THEISTIC theories. I don’t know why you consider that a series of different but logical alternative theories denotes “prejudice”. I would have thought the term was far more applicable to your rigid faith in a theory which you tell us makes no sense to you or to anyone else except your God. :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 06, 2022, 16:51 (631 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your invented generational theory for speciation does not explain wholly new life forms with no precursors in such a short period. Time is of the essence in this discussion.

dhw: Your God’s existence, his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, his ad hoc dabbling, and theories 1), 2) and 3) are all “invented” theories. Since you believe in common descent, please explain why you do not think evolutionary changes in general could have occurred through the responses of each generation to new conditions. The Cambrian is an anomaly, because there are no fossils and because of the comparatively short time during which major changes took place, resulting in new species.

The bold is absolutely wrong!!! The study used fossils from both periods to establish a new time for the gaps length!

dhw: […] whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations [...]

DAVID: The bold is sheer sophistry. Changed conditions allow for change but are never the actual driving cause, are they?

dhw: When I say the change must have been sufficiently drastic “to allow for major innovations”, I mean “to allow for innovations”. Why is that sophistry?

Why did you accuse me of sophistry?

Simple: 'changed conditions' do not explain the magnitude of difference in the new forms.

dhw: My God is not “entirely humanized”, and he does not “bumble along”, and I do not imagine for one moment that a sourceless, eternal, all-powerful, immaterial, conscious being is a person like us. But you agree that your possible Creator probably has thought patterns in common with his creations (us), and “I wish you would remember that” and would stop pretending that you alone know which thought patterns he has or hasn’t got. However, I must admit that I have a certain prejudice which puts me more in tune with theories that make sense to me and you than with theories which don't even make sense to their proposer (you).;-)

DAVID: You are prejudiced to form a thought-experiment humanized God who thinks as you do. My God makes perfect sense to me ever since I realized a designing mind is necessary and must exist. Pure obvious logic you lack.;-)

dhw: As always, I accept the logic of the design argument. I do not accept your interpretation of life’s history. Hence my various alternative THEISTIC theories. I don’t know why you consider that a series of different but logical alternative theories denotes “prejudice”. I would have thought the term was far more applicable to your rigid faith in a theory which you tell us makes no sense to you or to anyone else except your God. :-)

I've told you, over and over, God's actions make perfect sense to me. I trust He knows what He is doing for His own private reasons. He is a God you do not seem to understand, recognizing the only God you can imagine is overtly extremetly human in thought.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Thursday, July 07, 2022, 08:50 (631 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your invented generational theory for speciation does not explain wholly new life forms with no precursors in such a short period. Time is of the essence in this discussion.

dhw: Your God’s existence, his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, his ad hoc dabbling, and theories 1), 2) and 3) are all “invented” theories. Since you believe in common descent, please explain why you do not think evolutionary changes in general could have occurred through the responses of each generation to new conditions. The Cambrian is an anomaly, because there are no fossils and because of the comparatively short time during which major changes took place, resulting in new species.

DAVID: The bold is absolutely wrong!!! The study used fossils from both periods to establish a new time for the gaps length!

Badly phrased by me. My apologies. There are no fossils to trace links of common descent. Obviously there are fossils of the new species and there are fossils from the earlier period, otherwise we would not be talking of “gaps”. I notice that you have completely ignored the rest of my comment.

dhw: […] whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations [...]

DAVID: The bold is sheer sophistry. Changed conditions allow for change but are never the actual driving cause, are they?

dhw: When I say the change must have been sufficiently drastic “to allow for major innovations”, I mean “to allow for innovations”. Why is that sophistry?

DAVID: Simple: 'changed conditions' do not explain the magnitude of difference in the new forms.

I never said they did! Changing conditions “allow” for change, or in this case for major changes. The “actual driving cause” is the quest for survival or for improving chances of survival.

DAVID: You are prejudiced to form a thought-experiment humanized God who thinks as you do. My God makes perfect sense to me ever since I realized a designing mind is necessary and must exist. Pure obvious logic you lack.

dhw: As always, I accept the logic of the design argument. I do not accept your interpretation of life’s history. Hence my various alternative THEISTIC theories. I don’t know why you consider that a series of different but logical alternative theories denotes “prejudice”. I would have thought the term was far more applicable to your rigid faith in a theory which you tell us makes no sense to you or to anyone else except your God.

DAVID: I've told you, over and over, God's actions make perfect sense to me.

You have told me over and over that you cannot explain God’s actions (designing countless life forms, econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders which had no connection with sapiens plus food) as a means of fulfilling his one and only purpose of designing sapiens plus food. Your theory “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: I trust He knows what He is doing for His own private reasons.

If he exists, then of course he does. How does that come to mean that your totally illogical theory must be true?

DAVID: He is a God you do not seem to understand, recognizing the only God you can imagine is overtly extremely human in thought.

You have just admitted that he does what he does for his own ”private” reasons, and you yourself haven’t a clue what they are. So how does that come to mean that you understand him any more than I do? You have agreed that your own God may well enjoy creating and is sure to be interested in what he creates. Is this “overtly extremely human”? I would have thought it was a very logical assumption. Why would he do something he didn’t enjoy and wasn’t interested in? A God who experiments, gets new ideas as he goes along, or deliberately creates a free-for-all is no more “extremely human” than a God whose sole purpose is to create one species which might admire his work and even form a relationship with him, or who is too kind to design something he knows will harm us (three of your own speculations). Please note: mine are alternative, logical, theistic explanations of the history of life. I do not cling to any of them, as you cling to your own incomprehensible set of contradictions. I wonder which of these approaches you consider to be the more “prejudiced”. :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 07, 2022, 16:33 (630 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your invented generational theory for speciation does not explain wholly new life forms with no precursors in such a short period. Time is of the essence in this discussion.

dhw: Your God’s existence, his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, his ad hoc dabbling, and theories 1), 2) and 3) are all “invented” theories. Since you believe in common descent, please explain why you do not think evolutionary changes in general could have occurred through the responses of each generation to new conditions. The Cambrian is an anomaly, because there are no fossils and because of the comparatively short time during which major changes took place, resulting in new species.

DAVID: The bold is absolutely wrong!!! The study used fossils from both periods to establish a new time for the gaps length!

dhw: Badly phrased by me. My apologies. There are no fossils to trace links of common descent. Obviously there are fossils of the new species and there are fossils from the earlier period, otherwise we would not be talking of “gaps”. I notice that you have completely ignored the rest of my comment.

The red section is again your generational theory of speciation, which doesn't fit the facts of the fossil record. And again you have carefully avoided the main issue: the short time for huge changes in forms as compared to all other gaps in fossil series.


dhw: […] whatever may have been the change was sufficiently drastic to allow for major innovations [...]

DAVID: The bold is sheer sophistry. Changed conditions allow for change but are never the actual driving cause, are they?

dhw: When I say the change must have been sufficiently drastic “to allow for major innovations”, I mean “to allow for innovations”. Why is that sophistry?

DAVID: Simple: 'changed conditions' do not explain the magnitude of difference in the new forms.

dhw: I never said they did! Changing conditions “allow” for change, or in this case for major changes. The “actual driving cause” is the quest for survival or for improving chances of survival.

Are you implying the Ediacaran's made the quest? They knew what to do so abruptly? Really?


DAVID: I trust He knows what He is doing for His own private reasons.

dhw: If he exists, then of course he does. How does that come to mean that your totally illogical theory must be true?

If I believe in God then the theory fits. You don't know how to do that in you confusion about god..


DAVID: He is a God you do not seem to understand, recognizing the only God you can imagine is overtly extremely human in thought.

dhw: You have just admitted that he does what he does for his own ”private” reasons, and you yourself haven’t a clue what they are. So how does that come to mean that you understand him any more than I do? You have agreed that your own God may well enjoy creating and is sure to be interested in what he creates. Is this “overtly extremely human”? I would have thought it was a very logical assumption. Why would he do something he didn’t enjoy and wasn’t interested in? A God who experiments, gets new ideas as he goes along, or deliberately creates a free-for-all is no more “extremely human” than a God whose sole purpose is to create one species which might admire his work and even form a relationship with him, or who is too kind to design something he knows will harm us (three of your own speculations). Please note: mine are alternative, logical, theistic explanations of the history of life. I do not cling to any of them, as you cling to your own incomprehensible set of contradictions. I wonder which of these approaches you consider to be the more “prejudiced”. :-)

Your distorted view of my God, now bolded, is not what I have presented to you in the past. My very purposeful God is a marked contrast to yours. God knows exactly what to do at all stages of developments in the many processes He evolved, and He knew His endpoints in advance. Your God is unrecognizable to me when compared to my views.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Friday, July 08, 2022, 13:50 (629 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your invented generational theory for speciation does not explain wholly new life forms with no precursors in such a short period. Time is of the essence in this discussion.

dhw: Your God’s existence, his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, his ad hoc dabbling, and theories 1), 2) and 3) are all “invented” theories. Since you believe in common descent, please explain why you do not think evolutionary changes in general could have occurred through the responses of each generation to new conditions.

DAVID: The red section is again your generational theory of speciation, which doesn't fit the facts of the fossil record.

Are you now saying that ALL species have “evolved” [= been designed] from scratch? Common descent entails existing organisms changing their structure. How could this happen without changes from one generation to the next? But in many cases with subsequent refinements, improvements and variations, again from generation to generation. And why do you think structures would change without a change in conditions? Adaptation is clear proof of this interaction, so why not the same for innovation?

DAVID: And again you have carefully avoided the main issue: the short time for huge changes in forms as compared to all other gaps in fossil series.

You keep ignoring my response! I propose that whatever changed the Cambrian environment (maybe increased oxygen) must have allowed for far more novelties than in other periods. If we accept cellular intelligence (thank you for your 50/50), it is feasible that some intelligent organisms could not only adapt but might also have found new ways of exploiting the new conditions. And if we accept common descent, then existing organisms must have changed into different organisms, which could only happen through changes being reproduced from one generation to the next. Speciation is not caused by time passing but by the interaction between generations of existing organisms and their changed environment.

Humanization
DAVID: He is a God you do not seem to understand, recognizing the only God you can imagine is overtly extremely human in thought.

dhw: You have just admitted that he does what he does for his own ”private” reasons […] so how does that mean come to mean that you understand him any more than I do? You have agreed that your own God may well enjoy creating and is sure to be interested in what he creates. Is this “overtly extremely human”? I would have thought it was a very logical assumption. Why would he do something he didn’t enjoy and wasn’t interested in? A God who experiments, gets new ideas as he goes along, or deliberately creates a free-for-all is no more “extremely human” than a God whose sole purpose is to create one species which might admire his work and even form a relationship with him, or who is too kind to design something he knows will harm us (three of your own speculations). […]

DAVID: Your distorted view of my God, now bolded, is not what I have presented to you in the past.

I’ve been referring to these beliefs of yours (later called “guesses”) for years, and it’s frustrating that you should try to disown them now. It would take me too long to hunt for the first quotes, but a quick look back has enabled me to provide a few to confirm ALL of the above:

March 2021: God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it.
He wouldn’t create unless he liked doing it.
April 2021: All God’s works are for the good.
Sep. 2020: It is difficult to imagine that God purposely allowed harm to his creations, and therefore added editing mechanisms to protect as much as possible.
His human attributes INHO are God-like, His concern for us like our concern for others.
Dec. 2020: I’m sure He likes what he creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.
October 2020: I’m sure He sees what is going on with his own level of interest
December 2018: dhw: Twice in the last few days, without my asking, you have stated that your God wants us to think about him and wants a relationship with us.
I do not believe a God, who so carefully produced human consciousness so that we can think about him, would abandon the project.
Since only we recognize God exists, and that creates a special relationship, why should we search for other motives?

Do you actually renounce these views now, and why do you regard them as less “humanizing” than my alternative theories concerning his possible purpose and method of producing the history of life?

DAVID: My very purposeful God is a marked contrast to yours. God knows exactly what to do at all stages of developments in the many processes He evolved, and He knew His endpoints in advance. […]

I am aware of the rigidity of your belief that he had ONE endpoint (purpose) - not plural endpoints (purposes) – in mind from the start, and that he designed countless forms that had no connection with that endpoint (purpose), and that you cannot discern any logical reason why he would choose such a method to fulfil such a purpose. I am also aware that you do understand the logic behind the different alternatives (not beliefs) that I have offered.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 08, 2022, 15:58 (629 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, July 08, 2022, 16:06

DAVID: And again you have carefully avoided the main issue: the short time for huge changes in forms as compared to all other gaps in fossil series.

dhw: You keep ignoring my response! I propose that whatever changed the Cambrian environment (maybe increased oxygen) must have allowed for far more novelties than in other periods. If we accept cellular intelligence (thank you for your 50/50), it is feasible that some intelligent organisms could not only adapt but might also have found new ways of exploiting the new conditions. And if we accept common descent, then existing organisms must have changed into different organisms, which could only happen through changes being reproduced from one generation to the next. Speciation is not caused by time passing but by the interaction between generations of existing organisms and their changed environment.

Same subterfuge of invoking generational changes while ignoring that this gap is like none other in the record, and the new forms are not like anything in its past. They MUST have been designed to change from very simple to very complex. All that palaver to cover your rigidity sticking to old Darwinian thinking.


Humanization
DAVID: He is a God you do not seem to understand, recognizing the only God you can imagine is overtly extremely human in thought.

dhw: You have just admitted that he does what he does for his own ”private” reasons […] so how does that mean come to mean that you understand him any more than I do? You have agreed that your own God may well enjoy creating and is sure to be interested in what he creates. Is this “overtly extremely human”? I would have thought it was a very logical assumption. Why would he do something he didn’t enjoy and wasn’t interested in? A God who experiments, gets new ideas as he goes along, or deliberately creates a free-for-all is no more “extremely human” than a God whose sole purpose is to create one species which might admire his work and even form a relationship with him, or who is too kind to design something he knows will harm us (three of your own speculations). […]

DAVID: Your distorted view of my God, now bolded, is not what I have presented to you in the past.

I’ve been referring to these beliefs of yours (later called “guesses”) for years, and it’s frustrating that you should try to disown them now. It would take me too long to hunt for the first quotes, but a quick look back has enabled me to provide a few to confirm ALL of the above:

March 2021: God is in the business of creation and enjoys doing it.
He wouldn’t create unless he liked doing it.
April 2021: All God’s works are for the good.
Sep. 2020: It is difficult to imagine that God purposely allowed harm to his creations, and therefore added editing mechanisms to protect as much as possible.
His human attributes INHO are God-like, His concern for us like our concern for others.
Dec. 2020: I’m sure He likes what he creates, and that He is satisfied in His results as the inventor.
October 2020: I’m sure He sees what is going on with his own level of interest
December 2018: dhw: Twice in the last few days, without my asking, you have stated that your God wants us to think about him and wants a relationship with us.
I do not believe a God, who so carefully produced human consciousness so that we can think about him, would abandon the project.
Since only we recognize God exists, and that creates a special relationship, why should we search for other motives?

dhw: Do you actually renounce these views now, and why do you regard them as less “humanizing” than my alternative theories concerning his possible purpose and method of producing the history of life?

DAVID: My very purposeful God is a marked contrast to yours. God knows exactly what to do at all stages of developments in the many processes He evolved, and He knew His endpoints in advance. […]

dhw: I am aware of the rigidity of your belief that he had ONE endpoint (purpose) - not plural endpoints (purposes) – in mind from the start, and that he designed countless forms that had no connection with that endpoint (purpose), and that you cannot discern any logical reason why he would choose such a method to fulfil such a purpose. I am also aware that you do understand the logic behind the different alternatives (not beliefs) that I have offered.

I am aware that your God actions as alternatives fit a very human-thinking God. I've agreed to your conclusions based on your strange form of god, that in that singular case they are logical. As for all the saved previous quotes, you always fail to mention they are my guesses as to how God might resemble or relate to us, guesses encouraged by your leading questions to which I politely responded. Your view of God has no resemblance to mine.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2: more Cambrian

by David Turell @, Friday, July 08, 2022, 16:26 (629 days ago) @ David Turell

A new complex sea monster described in the Cambrian with eyes to see, brains to interpret:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2327909-three-eyed-predator-stalked-the-seas-500-m...

"A three-eyed animal with wing-like fins once swam through shallow seas, using heightened visual perception to hunt smaller sea animals.

"Stanleycaris hirpex lived in the Cambrian Period about 500 million years ago, not long after the first eyes appeared in the fossil record. It is the first animal with three eyes known among the arthropods, the group containing insects, arachnids and crustaceans, but the researchers who described it think there may be others in which a third eye has been overlooked.

"S. hirpex was roughly the size of a human hand and had two protruding eyes with hundreds of lenses on each side of its head, plus a third, much larger eye in the middle.

"Living among finger-sized animals, it probably used its advanced visual system to chase down fast-moving prey, says Joseph Moysiuk at the University of Toronto in Canada.

***

"Many of their 268 specimens even had their soft tissue intact – including brains, nerves and reflective materials in their visual systems. “When you split one of these rocks in the field, you can see their eyes gleaming – after 506 million years – in the sunlight. So it was pretty clear from when we first started looking at the organism that it had three eyes,” says Moysiuk.

"The animals had 17 body segments, two pairs of stiff blades along the lower third of its body and spiked claws that could probably rake prey right into its toothed jaws. “This was a pretty ferocious animal,” he says."

Comment: the Ediacaran's were frond-like sessile stalks with none of the attributes of these animals, some of whom appeared just 410,000 years later! It is well accepted the brain is the most complex item in the universe. These animals had brains with all the complexity that implies. It had to have had neurons precursors to ours. dhw's frantic estimate of 30,000 generations of adapting cells did this. Preposterous.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2: more Cambrian

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 10, 2022, 01:51 (628 days ago) @ David Turell

Note the advanced complexity of this very large arthropod fossil:

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/balhuticaris-voltae-10983.html?utm_source=feedburn...

"Balhuticaris voltae swam in the oceans of the Cambrian period approximately 506 million years ago.

"At 24.5 cm (9.6 inches) long, the ancient animal is one of the largest Cambrian arthropods and the biggest bivalved arthropod known to date, with the closest being Nereocaris exilis and Tuzoia.

"Balhuticaris voltae was likely a type of hymenocarine, a group of Cambrian arthropods that possessed bivalved carapaces and looked superficially like shrimps.

“'Cambrian bivalved arthropods are a group of arthropods characterized by their cephalothoracic bivalved carapaces,” said University of Toronto paleontologists Alejandro Izquierdo-López and Jean-Bernard Caron.

“'Many bivalved arthropods are known only from isolated carapaces, but fossils with soft tissue preservation are revealing an increasingly complex polyphyletic group, mostly comprising the stem-group euarthropod Isoxyidae and the Hymenocarina.”

***

"Balhuticaris voltae had an extremely elongated and multisegmented body bearing ca. 110 pairs of homonomous biramous limbs.

"The animal’s unusual carapace resembled an arch; it covered only the frontalmost section of the body but extended ventrally beyond the legs.

"It had a complex sensory system and was probably an active swimmer thanks to its powerful paddle-shaped exopods and a long and flexible body.

“'With a total of 110 post-cephalic segments, Balhuticaris voltae has the highest number of segments recorded among Cambrian arthropods,” the researchers said.

***

“'Balhuticaris voltae is one of the biggest fully-preserved animals from the Burgess Shale and the Cambrian,” the scientists said.

“'The increasing ecological complexity of the Cambrian has long been recognized based on its planktonic communities or the filling of the pelagic zone and species such as Balhuticaris voltae, thus, not only exemplify how gigantism in the Cambrian occurred in a wider number of groups than Radiodonta but also exemplify this increasing complexity of the Cambrian ecosystems.'”

Comment: these active swimmers were coordinated by having eyes, brains, widespread nervous control over muscles. They had full digestive systems to handle what they ingested. WE can assume there was some sort of renal system based on what organs arthropods have today. All of this complexity appeared only 410,000 years removed from the very simple Ediacaran frond-like sessile forms. And dhw proposes 30,000 generational adaptations could do this. Really?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Saturday, July 09, 2022, 08:26 (629 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I propose that whatever changed the Cambrian environment (maybe increased oxygen) must have allowed for far more novelties than in other periods. If we accept cellular intelligence (thank you for your 50/50), it is feasible that some intelligent organisms could not only adapt but might also have found new ways of exploiting the new conditions. And if we accept common descent, then existing organisms must have changed into different organisms, which could only happen through changes being reproduced from one generation to the next. Speciation is not caused by time passing but by the interaction between generations of existing organisms and their changed environment.

DAVID: Same subterfuge of invoking generational changes while ignoring that this gap is like none other in the record, and the new forms are not like anything in its past.

I have not ignored the unsolved mystery of the Cambrian gap but have tried to offer a possible explanation. Why is it a “subterfuge” to point out that we know through adaptation that changes can (and often must) be made quickly and passed on from generation to generation, and so maybe major changes (innovation) can follow the same process? The range of “novelties” would depend on the nature of the environmental change (increased oxygen in the Cambrian?), not on the amount of time that passes between bursts of innovation.

DAVID: They MUST have been designed to change from very simple to very complex. […]

I am also arguing for design, but it doesn’t seem to register with you that if your God exists, he might be capable of endowing cells with the intelligence to do their own designing – just as he has endowed humans to do their own designing. […]

DAVID: A new complex sea monster described in the Cambrian with eyes to see, brains to interpret:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2327909-three-eyed-predator-stalked-the-seas-500-m...

DAVID: the Ediacaran's were frond-like sessile stalks with none of the attributes of these animals, some of whom appeared just 410,000 years later! It is well accepted the brain is the most complex item in the universe. These animals had brains with all the complexity that implies. It had to have had neurons precursors to ours. dhw's frantic estimate of 30,000 generations of adapting cells did this. Preposterous.

Last month you kindly reproduced an article on neuropeptides:
QUOTE: The modern brain arose from hundreds of millions of years of incremental advances in complexity. Evolutionary biologists have traced that progress back through the branch of the animal family tree that includes all creatures with central nervous systems, the bilaterians, but it is clear that fundamental elements of the nervous system existed much earlier….

Maybe my 30,000 generations didn’t have to invent quite as much as you have suggested. Extreme changes in the environment might well have allowed an acceleration of new uses and new neuron networks.

Humanization

DAVID: He is a God you do not seem to understand, recognizing the only God you can imagine is overtly extremely human in thought.

dhw: […] You have agreed that your own God may well enjoy creating and is sure to be interested in what he creates. Is this “overtly extremely human”? […]. Why would he do something he didn’t enjoy and wasn’t interested in? A God who experiments, gets new ideas as he goes along, or deliberately creates a free-for-all is no more “extremely human” than a God whose sole purpose is to create one species which might admire his work and even form a relationship with him, or who is too kind to design something he knows will harm us (three of your own speculations). […]

DAVID: Your distorted view of my God, now bolded, is not what I have presented to you in the past.

dhw: I’ve been referring to these beliefs of yours (later called “guesses”) for years", and it’s frustrating that you should try to disown them now. [I went on to provide a list of past quotes - see yesterday’s post.]

dhw: Do you actually renounce these views now, and why do you regard them as less “humanizing” than my alternative theories concerning his possible purpose and method of producing the history of life?

Why don’t you answer my two questions?

DAVID:I am aware that your God actions as alternatives fit a very human-thinking God.

No more human than the God you described in all the quotes.

DAVID: I've agreed to your conclusions based on your strange form of god, that in that singular case they are logical.

What is “strange” about a God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, experiments, gets new ideas, designs a free-for-all? Who are you to judge what is “normal” for an unknown and unknowable God?

DAVID: As for all the saved previous quotes, you always fail to mention they are my guesses as to how God might resemble or relate to us, guesses encouraged by your leading questions to which I politely responded. Your view of God has no resemblance to mine.

Once again, you don’t read what I write. Note the now bolded observation: “I’ve been referring to these beliefs of yours (later called “guesses”) for years….Of course they’re guesses. So are my theories. So why are your guesses less “human” than mine?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 09, 2022, 16:41 (628 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same subterfuge of invoking generational changes while ignoring that this gap is like none other in the record, and the new forms are not like anything in its past.

dhw: I have not ignored the unsolved mystery of the Cambrian gap but have tried to offer a possible explanation. Why is it a “subterfuge” to point out that we know through adaptation that changes can (and often must) be made quickly and passed on from generation to generation, and so maybe major changes (innovation) can follow the same process? The range of “novelties” would depend on the nature of the environmental change (increased oxygen in the Cambrian?), not on the amount of time that passes between bursts of innovation.

The only generational adaptations we know about are very small changes within species. Using your now bold theory. Generations occur in specific timed periods so time does apply and must be considered.


DAVID: They MUST have been designed to change from very simple to very complex. […]

dhw: I am also arguing for design, but it doesn’t seem to register with you that if your God exists, he might be capable of endowing cells with the intelligence to do their own designing – just as he has endowed humans to do their own designing. […]

Back you go to inefficient secondhand design.


DAVID: A new complex sea monster described in the Cambrian with eyes to see, brains to interpret:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2327909-three-eyed-predator-stalked-the-seas-500-m...

DAVID: the Ediacaran's were frond-like sessile stalks with none of the attributes of these animals, some of whom appeared just 410,000 years later! It is well accepted the brain is the most complex item in the universe. These animals had brains with all the complexity that implies. It had to have had neurons precursors to ours. dhw's frantic estimate of 30,000 generations of adapting cells did this. Preposterous.

dhw: Last month you kindly reproduced an article on neuropeptides:
QUOTE: The modern brain arose from hundreds of millions of years of incremental advances in complexity. Evolutionary biologists have traced that progress back through the branch of the animal family tree that includes all creatures with central nervous systems, the bilaterians, but it is clear that fundamental elements of the nervous system existed much earlier….

Maybe my 30,000 generations didn’t have to invent quite as much as you have suggested. Extreme changes in the environment might well have allowed an acceleration of new uses and new neuron networks.

Completely ignored what I presented about the very simple Ediacarans providing next to nothing for the Cambrians.


Humanization

dhw: I’ve been referring to these beliefs of yours (later called “guesses”) for years", and it’s frustrating that you should try to disown them now. [I went on to provide a list of past quotes - see yesterday’s post.]

dhw: Do you actually renounce these views now, and why do you regard them as less “humanizing” than my alternative theories concerning his possible purpose and method of producing the history of life?

dhw: Why don’t you answer my two questions?

Fully answered in the past: My thoughts about how God' emotions and thought patterns mirror ours are guesswork answers to your previous questions. They in no way change my view of a very purposeful God who know exactly what he is doing and exactly how to reach His goals, no experimentation every involved.


DAVID: I've agreed to your conclusions based on your strange form of god, that in that singular case they are logical.

dhw: What is “strange” about a God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, experiments, gets new ideas, designs a free-for-all? Who are you to judge what is “normal” for an unknown and unknowable God?

I have every right to think of my God in my personal way, just as you do for yours.


DAVID: As for all the saved previous quotes, you always fail to mention they are my guesses as to how God might resemble or relate to us, guesses encouraged by your leading questions to which I politely responded. Your view of God has no resemblance to mine.

dhw: Once again, you don’t read what I write. Note the now bolded observation: “I’ve been referring to these beliefs of yours (later called “guesses”) for years….Of course they’re guesses. So are my theories. So why are your guesses less “human” than mine?

All human guesses are human. I read everything you write and ignore senseless repetition of your illogical theories about mine, especially my views of how to think about God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Sunday, July 10, 2022, 12:19 (627 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] we know through adaptation that changes can (and often must) be made quickly and passed on from generation to generation, and so maybe major changes (innovation) can follow the same process. The range of “novelties” would depend on the nature of the environmental change (increased oxygen in the Cambrian?), not on the amount of time that passes between bursts of innovation.

DAVID: The only generational adaptations we know about are very small changes within species. Using your now bold theory. Generations occur in specific timed periods so time does apply and must be considered.

You are repeating what I have said. We KNOW that generations can adapt quickly, and as nobody knows how speciation occurs, I am proposing that under favourable conditions the same mechanism (possibly invented by your God) may also enable them to innovate quickly. But it’s a THEORY – as is the existence of God and your own illogical theory concerning his purpose and method.

DAVID: They MUST have been designed to change from very simple to very complex. […]

dhw: I am also arguing for design, but it doesn’t seem to register with you that if your God exists, he might be capable of endowing cells with the intelligence to do their own designing – just as he has endowed humans to do their own designing. […]

DAVID: Back you go to inefficient secondhand design.

Why do you call it inefficient? You have agreed that all my alternative theories fit in perfectly with the history of life as we know it. Only your own theory defies all logic.

DAVID: A new complex sea monster described in the Cambrian with eyes to see, brains to interpret:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2327909-three-eyed-predator-stalked-the-seas-500-m...
And today:
DAVID: Note the advanced complexity of this very large arthropod fossil:
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/balhuticaris-voltae-10983.html?utm_source=feedburn...

DAVID: All of this complexity appeared only 410,000 years removed from the very simple Ediacaran frond-like sessile forms. And dhw proposes 30,000 generational adaptations could do this. Really?

A central nervous system (see yesterday’s quote) is a start – but I’m not going to pretend that I can solve a mystery which nobody in the world has solved! I can only look at alternative theories. The fact is that these creatures DID emerge from approx. 30,000 generations! My proposal that organisms/cell communities, whose intelligence may have been designed by your God and who responded generation by generation to new opportunities provided by an extra-special change in the environment, seems to me at least as credible as your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or ad hoc dabble to produce balhuticaris voltae plus countless other organisms in countless other econiches as preparation and an “absolute requirement” for him to design the only species he wanted to design: H. sapiens (plus food).

Humanization

DAVID: My thoughts about how God' emotions and thought patterns mirror ours are guesswork answers to your previous questions. They in no way change my view of a very purposeful God who know exactly what he is doing and exactly how to reach His goals, no experimentation ever involved.

Of course if God exists he would know what he is doing. Why have you changed your one and only goal (sapiens plus food) into goals? What are the other goals? If his goal was to design sapiens, why should he not experiment (that would explain all the discarded designs)? Or why can’t he have enjoyed designing all kinds of life, and had new ideas as he went along? Or decided to design an autonomous mechanism which would produce the ever changing history which he would – as you put it – watch with interest (and perhaps dabble when he felt like it)? In all cases, he would have known what he was doing and why!

dhw: […] why are your guesses less “human” than mine?

DAVID: All human guesses are human. I read everything you write and ignore senseless repetition of your illogical theories about mine, especially my views of how to think about God.

I really don’t know what you mean by “how to think about God”, unless it’s that I must accept your view of what he does and why, regardless of the fact that it “makes sense only to God” – which can only mean that it does not make sense to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 10, 2022, 16:08 (627 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The only generational adaptations we know about are very small changes within species. Using your now bold theory. Generations occur in specific timed periods so time does apply and must be considered.

dhw: You are repeating what I have said. We KNOW that generations can adapt quickly,

Don't you read what I write? Generational quick adaptations 'are very small changes'.

dhw: I am also arguing for design, but it doesn’t seem to register with you that if your God exists, he might be capable of endowing cells with the intelligence to do their own designing – just as he has endowed humans to do their own designing. […]

DAVID: Back you go to inefficient secondhand design.

dhw: Why do you call it inefficient? You have agreed that all my alternative theories fit in perfectly with the history of life as we know it. Only your own theory defies all logic.

More distorted propaganda. Like Goebel's point, if repeated often enough it can become truth. I agreed that only if we accepted your humanized god would your theories reach logical.


DAVID: A new complex sea monster described in the Cambrian with eyes to see, brains to interpret:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2327909-three-eyed-predator-stalked-the-seas-500-m...
And today:
DAVID: Note the advanced complexity of this very large arthropod fossil:
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/balhuticaris-voltae-10983.html?utm_source=feedburn...

DAVID: All of this complexity appeared only 410,000 years removed from the very simple Ediacaran frond-like sessile forms. And dhw proposes 30,000 generational adaptations could do this. Really?

dhw: A central nervous system (see yesterday’s quote) is a start – but I’m not going to pretend that I can solve a mystery which nobody in the world has solved! I can only look at alternative theories. The fact is that these creatures DID emerge from approx. 30,000 generations! My proposal that organisms/cell communities, whose intelligence may have been designed by your God and who responded generation by generation to new opportunities provided by an extra-special change in the environment, seems to me at least as credible as your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or ad hoc dabble to produce balhuticaris voltae plus countless other organisms in countless other econiches as preparation and an “absolute requirement” for him to design the only species he wanted to design: H. sapiens (plus food).

As usual, lots of verbal supposings. Your alterative theories are anything but God, or a weakend secondhand for God mechanism.


Humanization

DAVID: My thoughts about how God' emotions and thought patterns mirror ours are guesswork answers to your previous questions. They in no way change my view of a very purposeful God who know exactly what he is doing and exactly how to reach His goals, no experimentation ever involved.

dhw: Of course if God exists he would know what he is doing. Why have you changed your one and only goal (sapiens plus food) into goals? What are the other goals? If his goal was to design sapiens, why should he not experiment (that would explain all the discarded designs)? Or why can’t he have enjoyed designing all kinds of life, and had new ideas as he went along? Or decided to design an autonomous mechanism which would produce the ever changing history which he would – as you put it – watch with interest (and perhaps dabble when he felt like it)? In all cases, he would have known what he was doing and why!

Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.


dhw: […] why are your guesses less “human” than mine?

DAVID: All human guesses are human. I read everything you write and ignore senseless repetition of your illogical theories about mine, especially my views of how to think about God.

dhw: I really don’t know what you mean by “how to think about God”, unless it’s that I must accept your view of what he does and why, regardless of the fact that it “makes sense only to God” – which can only mean that it does not make sense to you.

God makes perfect sense to me if not you. The point of your website.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Monday, July 11, 2022, 09:28 (627 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The only generational adaptations we know about are very small changes within species. Using your now bold theory. Generations occur in specific timed periods so time does apply and must be considered.

dhw: You are repeating what I have said. We KNOW that generations can adapt quickly,

DAVID: Don't you read what I write? Generational quick adaptations 'are very small changes'.

Yes, those are the changes we KNOW. And I am suggesting that the same mechanism may be responsible for the large changes we call innovations.

DAVID: A new complex sea monster described in the Cambrian with eyes to see, brains to interpret:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2327909-three-eyed-predator-stalked-the-seas-500-m...
And today:
DAVID: Note the advanced complexity of this very large arthropod fossil:
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/balhuticaris-voltae-10983.html?utm_source=feedburn...

DAVID: All of this complexity appeared only 410,000 years removed from the very simple Ediacaran frond-like sessile forms. And dhw proposes 30,000 generational adaptations could do this. Really?

dhw: A central nervous system (see yesterday’s quote) is a start – but I’m not going to pretend that I can solve a mystery which nobody in the world has solved! I can only look at alternative theories. The fact is that these creatures DID emerge from approx. 30,000 generations! My proposal that organisms/cell communities, whose intelligence may have been designed by your God and who responded generation by generation to new opportunities provided by an extra-special change in the environment, seems to me at least as credible as your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or ad hoc dabble to produce balhuticaris voltae plus countless other organisms in countless other econiches as preparation and an “absolute requirement” for him to design the only species he wanted to design: H. sapiens (plus food).

DAVID: As usual, lots of verbal supposings.

All our theories are “verbal supposing”. How else can we formulate them?

DAVID: Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them!

dhw: […] why are your guesses less “human” than mine?

DAVID: All human guesses are human. I read everything you write and ignore senseless repetition of your illogical theories about mine, especially my views of how to think about God.

dhw: I really don’t know what you mean by “how to think about God”, unless it’s that I must accept your view of what he does and why, regardless of the fact that it “makes sense only to God” – which can only mean that it does not make sense to you.

DAVID: God makes perfect sense to me if not you. The point of your website.

The existence of God makes perfect sense to you, and I accept that the design argument makes perfect sense. It is your theory concerning his one and only goal and illogical way of achieving it that according to you “makes sense only to God”, and therefore can’t possibly make sense to anyone else, including you. Please stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 11, 2022, 17:13 (626 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The only generational adaptations we know about are very small changes within species. Using your now bold theory. Generations occur in specific timed periods so time does apply and must be considered.

dhw: You are repeating what I have said. We KNOW that generations can adapt quickly,

DAVID: Don't you read what I write? Generational quick adaptations 'are very small changes'.

dhw: Yes, those are the changes we KNOW. And I am suggesting that the same mechanism may be responsible for the large changes we call innovations.

You are twisting away from the issue of speciation. We agree adaptations within species are small changes, not innovations. The rest for your point is pure theory with underlying factual support.


DAVID: A new complex sea monster described in the Cambrian with eyes to see, brains to interpret:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2327909-three-eyed-predator-stalked-the-seas-500-m...
And today:
DAVID: Note the advanced complexity of this very large arthropod fossil:
http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/balhuticaris-voltae-10983.html?utm_source=feedburn...

DAVID: All of this complexity appeared only 410,000 years removed from the very simple Ediacaran frond-like sessile forms. And dhw proposes 30,000 generational adaptations could do this. Really?

dhw: A central nervous system (see yesterday’s quote) is a start – but I’m not going to pretend that I can solve a mystery which nobody in the world has solved! I can only look at alternative theories. The fact is that these creatures DID emerge from approx. 30,000 generations! My proposal that organisms/cell communities, whose intelligence may have been designed by your God and who responded generation by generation to new opportunities provided by an extra-special change in the environment, seems to me at least as credible as your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or ad hoc dabble to produce balhuticaris voltae plus countless other organisms in countless other econiches as preparation and an “absolute requirement” for him to design the only species he wanted to design: H. sapiens (plus food).

DAVID: As usual, lots of verbal supposings.

All our theories are “verbal supposing”. How else can we formulate them?

DAVID: Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

dhw: Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them!

You don't seem to absorb what I write: see other thread for my reply. " The process of evolution presents a series of discarded forms and many branches which do not lead specifically to humans, but necessarily form the ecosystems which provide food for life to continue."


dhw: […] why are your guesses less “human” than mine?

DAVID: All human guesses are human. I read everything you write and ignore senseless repetition of your illogical theories about mine, especially my views of how to think about God.

dhw: I really don’t know what you mean by “how to think about God”, unless it’s that I must accept your view of what he does and why, regardless of the fact that it “makes sense only to God” – which can only mean that it does not make sense to you.

DAVID: God makes perfect sense to me if not you. The point of your website.

dhw: The existence of God makes perfect sense to you, and I accept that the design argument makes perfect sense. It is your theory concerning his one and only goal and illogical way of achieving it that according to you “makes sense only to God”, and therefore can’t possibly make sense to anyone else, including you. Please stop dodging.

I'm sorry you are so confused about the issue of now to think about God as I do.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Tuesday, July 12, 2022, 08:50 (626 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The only generational adaptations we know about are very small changes within species. Using your now bold theory. Generations occur in specific timed periods so time does apply and must be considered.

dhw: You are repeating what I have said. We KNOW that generations can adapt quickly,

DAVID: Don't you read what I write? Generational quick adaptations 'are very small changes'.

dhw: Yes, those are the changes we KNOW. And I am suggesting that the same mechanism may be responsible for the large changes we call innovations.

DAVID: You are twisting away from the issue of speciation. We agree adaptations within species are small changes, not innovations. The rest for your point is pure theory with [dhw: presumably should be “without”] underlying factual support.

I am not “twisting away” – I am offering a theory to explain speciation. I keep agreeing that adaptations are small changes, but I am proposing that the same mechanism might be responsible for major changes (i.e. the innovations that lead to speciation). Although there is support in the scientific community for the theory of “cellular intelligence”, which is the mechanism I propose both for adaptation and innovation, of course it’s a theory. Nobody knows how speciation happens. Your own theory has no more factual support than mine!

DAVID: Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

dhw: Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them!

DAVID: You don't seem to absorb what I write: see other thread for my reply. "The process of evolution presents a series of discarded forms and many branches which do not lead specifically to humans, but necessarily form the ecosystems which provide food for life to continue."

Of course, all extinct ecosystems provided food for whatever species existed at the time. You just keep leaving out the fact that if your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus food, his individual design of countless forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans plus food was a “deviation” from his one and only purpose! Thank you for this very apt description, which pinpoints the illogicality of your combined theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 13, 2022, 17:43 (624 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You are repeating what I have said. We KNOW that generations can adapt quickly,

DAVID: Don't you read what I write? Generational quick adaptations 'are very small changes'.

dhw: Yes, those are the changes we KNOW. And I am suggesting that the same mechanism may be responsible for the large changes we call innovations.

DAVID: You are twisting away from the issue of speciation. We agree adaptations within species are small changes, not innovations. The rest for your point is pure theory with [dhw: presumably should be “without”] underlying factual support.

dhw: I am not “twisting away” – I am offering a theory to explain speciation. I keep agreeing that adaptations are small changes, but I am proposing that the same mechanism might be responsible for major changes (i.e. the innovations that lead to speciation). Although there is support in the scientific community for the theory of “cellular intelligence”, which is the mechanism I propose both for adaptation and innovation, of course it’s a theory. Nobody knows how speciation happens. Your own theory has no more factual support than mine!

In an accepted definition of absolute proof my choice of God as the designer is from the preponderance of evidence.


DAVID: Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

dhw: Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them!

DAVID: You don't seem to absorb what I write: see other thread for my reply. "The process of evolution presents a series of discarded forms and many branches which do not lead specifically to humans, but necessarily form the ecosystems which provide food for life to continue."

dhw: Of course, all extinct ecosystems provided food for whatever species existed at the time. You just keep leaving out the fact that if your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus food, his individual design of countless forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans plus food was a “deviation” from his one and only purpose! Thank you for this very apt description, which pinpoints the illogicality of your combined theories.

God did not deviate from His goal. All along He designed evolution to produce us, and we are here. It is your sole objection He took too long, when He could have simply produced us, but the food had to be there also, didn't it?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Thursday, July 14, 2022, 09:09 (624 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are twisting away from the issue of speciation. We agree adaptations within species are small changes, not innovations. The rest for your point is pure theory with [dhw: presumably should be “without”] underlying factual support.

dhw: I am not “twisting away” – I am offering a theory to explain speciation. I keep agreeing that adaptations are small changes, but I am proposing that the same mechanism might be responsible for major changes (i.e. the innovations that lead to speciation). Although there is support in the scientific community for the theory of “cellular intelligence”, which is the mechanism I propose both for adaptation and innovation, of course it’s a theory. Nobody knows how speciation happens. Your own theory has no more factual support than mine!

DAVID: In an accepted definition of absolute proof my choice of God as the designer is from the preponderance of evidence.

The design argument is an excellent one, but if it constituted absolute proof, then there would be no discussion on the subject. In any case, our disagreement is not over God the designer, but over your view of how and why he might have designed speciation. And there is no more “proof” of his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions than there is of his personal intervention. So please stop pretending that your theistic theory has more “factual support” than mine.

DAVID: Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

dhw: Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them!

DAVID: You don't seem to absorb what I write: see other thread for my reply. "The process of evolution presents a series of discarded forms and many branches which do not lead specifically to humans, but necessarily form the ecosystems which provide food for life to continue."

dhw: Of course, all extinct ecosystems provided food for whatever species existed at the time. You just keep leaving out the fact that if your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus food, his individual design of countless forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans plus food was a “deviation” from his one and only purpose! Thank you for this very apt description, which pinpoints the illogicality of your combined theories.

DAVID: God did not deviate from His goal. All along He designed evolution to produce us, and we are here. It is your sole objection He took too long, when He could have simply produced us, but the food had to be there also, didn't it?

It is not my objection that he took too long! My objection is that if his one and only purpose had been to “produce us” and our food, it is illogical that he should have individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You agree! Your theory “makes sense only to God”! Why do you keep agreeing that it makes no sense to you, and then keep on insisting that you know it’s true?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 14, 2022, 17:39 (623 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In an accepted definition of absolute proof my choice of God as the designer is from the preponderance of evidence.

dhw: The design argument is an excellent one, but if it constituted absolute proof, then there would be no discussion on the subject. In any case, our disagreement is not over God the designer, but over your view of how and why he might have designed speciation. And there is no more “proof” of his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions than there is of his personal intervention. So please stop pretending that your theistic theory has more “factual support” than mine.

We both know God is not proven, which allows our imaginations to play. I don't accept your 'play' form.


DAVID: Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

dhw: Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them!

The simple explanation you refuse to accept is God chose to evolve us.


DAVID: God did not deviate from His goal. All along He designed evolution to produce us, and we are here. It is your sole objection He took too long, when He could have simply produced us, but the food had to be there also, didn't it?

dhw: It is not my objection that he took too long! My objection is that if his one and only purpose had been to “produce us” and our food, it is illogical that he should have individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. You agree! Your theory “makes sense only to God”! Why do you keep agreeing that it makes no sense to you, and then keep on insisting that you know it’s true?

Your usual confusion about how believes believe in God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Friday, July 15, 2022, 11:19 (623 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […], our disagreement is not over God the designer, but over your view of how and why he might have designed speciation. And there is no more “proof” of his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions than there is of his personal intervention. So please stop pretending that your theistic theory has more “factual support” than mine.

DAVID: We both know God is not proven, which allows our imaginations to play. I don't accept your 'play' form.

You don’t accept any of my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution because you stick rigidly to the only one which doesn’t make sense to you.

DAVID: Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

dhw: Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them!

DAVID: The simple explanation you refuse to accept is God chose to evolve us.

I have never questioned the fact that we evolved, and if God exists, then all of my alternative theories allow for him choosing to evolve us. But they do not allow for him having us as his one and only goal and then deviating from his goal by designing countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us.

End of Ordovician
QUOTE: “'When you shift from greenhouse conditions to ice house conditions, there are going to be major changes in ocean circulation patterns,” Mitchell says.

DAVID: all extinctions changed the course of evolution, but life never was destroyed and new forms charged on as if nothing ever happened.

Changing the course of evolution over and over again seems like an odd procedure for “a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

Older time line for humans
DAVID: this seems like a more reasonable timeline for our development. But in contrast to whales our evolution is like a speedboat. They look fifteen million years or more.

One can’t help wondering why your all-powerful God devoted so much of his creative genius to all the different stages of human and whale evolution although apparently all he wanted was sapiens (plus food) and he was perfectly capable of designing new species without any precursors at all (see your Cambrian theory). But again, this is part of the combination of theories which “makes sense only to God”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Friday, July 15, 2022, 15:37 (622 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […], our disagreement is not over God the designer, but over your view of how and why he might have designed speciation. And there is no more “proof” of his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions than there is of his personal intervention. So please stop pretending that your theistic theory has more “factual support” than mine.

DAVID: We both know God is not proven, which allows our imaginations to play. I don't accept your 'play' form.

dhw: You don’t accept any of my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution because you stick rigidly to the only one which doesn’t make sense to you.

God always makes sense to me, but yours doesn't


DAVID: Again we must consider your very humanized God. Not my version a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

dhw: Your version is precisely the opposite: he has one goal (sapiens plus food), and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with sapiens plus food. That’s what I would call “deviations”, and you can’t explain them!

DAVID: The simple explanation you refuse to accept is God chose to evolve us.

dhw: I have never questioned the fact that we evolved, and if God exists, then all of my alternative theories allow for him choosing to evolve us. But they do not allow for him having us as his one and only goal and then deviating from his goal by designing countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us.

Ghoosing to evolve us explains all your strange illogical objections.


End of Ordovician
QUOTE: “'When you shift from greenhouse conditions to ice house conditions, there are going to be major changes in ocean circulation patterns,” Mitchell says.

DAVID: all extinctions changed the course of evolution, but life never was destroyed and new forms charged on as if nothing ever happened.

dhw: Changing the course of evolution over and over again seems like an odd procedure for “a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.

Your logic is not God's as you criticize His evolutionary actions once again. Evolution is a staged process, in which a degree of complexity is developed at each stage. Stages can be ended when the requirements of an advance are met, then forms can be discarded, and new ones designed based on new available underlying biochemistry.


Older time line for humans
DAVID: this seems like a more reasonable timeline for our development. But in contrast to whales our evolution is like a speedboat. They look fifteen million years or more.

dhw: One can’t help wondering why your all-powerful God devoted so much of his creative genius to all the different stages of human and whale evolution although apparently all he wanted was sapiens (plus food) and he was perfectly capable of designing new species without any precursors at all (see your Cambrian theory). But again, this is part of the combination of theories which “makes sense only to God”.

Why shouldn't it make sense to God if not to you?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by dhw, Saturday, July 16, 2022, 08:11 (622 days ago) @ David Turell

Horizontal gene transfer at all levels
DAVID: HGT is a major evolutionary mechanism and as I view God's controls, a way He can step in for a 'dabble'.

dhw: As I view it, this would be a way in which your God could have organized a free-for-all, through which autonomous cells would have created the vast variety of life forms extant and extinct that constitute the history of life on Earth.

DAVID: Free-for-alls do not show the directionality evolution shows.

What “directionality”? Evolution shows us a bush of life that branched out in countless directions, with the vast majority of the branches having died out and having played “no role in current time”. You want to focus on one single “direction” (sapiens plus food) and ignore all the rest that had no connection with sapiens plus food.

dhw: […] our disagreement is not over God the designer, but over your view of how and why he might have designed speciation. And there is no more “proof” of his 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions than there is of his personal intervention. So please stop pretending that your theistic theory has more “factual support” than mine.

DAVID: We both know God is not proven, which allows our imaginations to play. I don't accept your 'play' form.

dhw: You don’t accept any of my logical alternative theistic theories of evolution because you stick rigidly to the only one which doesn’t make sense to you.

DAVID: God always makes sense to me, but yours doesn't.

We are not talking about “God” but about your theories concerning your God’s motives and methods. What did you mean when you told us that your theories “made sense only to God” if you did NOT mean they didn’t make sense to you?

End of Ordovician
QUOTE: “'When you shift from greenhouse conditions to ice house conditions, there are going to be major changes in ocean circulation patterns,” Mitchell says.

DAVID: all extinctions changed the course of evolution, but life never was destroyed and new forms charged on as if nothing ever happened.

dhw: Changing the course of evolution over and over again seems like an odd procedure for “a very organized purposeful God who knows exactly how to proceed without deviations.”

DAVID: Your logic is not God's as you criticize His evolutionary actions once again.

I am not criticizing God! I am criticizing your illogical theory!

DAVID: Evolution is a staged process, in which a degree of complexity is developed at each stage. Stages can be ended when the requirements of an advance are met, then forms can be discarded, and new ones designed based on new available underlying biochemistry.

So didn’t your God know about the “available underlying biochemistry” when apparently he started out on his one and only mission to design sapiens plus food? Why did he have to design (as an “absolute requirement”) and then “discard” all the countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens plus food? If the course of evolution changed over and over again, with the extinction of vast numbers of species that had been individually designed by your God and had no connection with sapiens plus food, how does this denote that your God proceeded to design sapiens plus food “without deviations”? I know your answer to all these questions: it all “makes sense only to God.”

Older time line for humans
DAVID: this seems like a more reasonable timeline for our development. But in contrast to whales our evolution is like a speedboat. They look fifteen million years or more.

dhw: One can’t help wondering why your all-powerful God devoted so much of his creative genius to all the different stages of human and whale evolution although apparently all he wanted was sapiens (plus food) and he was perfectly capable of designing new species without any precursors at all (see your Cambrian theory). But again, this is part of the combination of theories which “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: Why shouldn't it make sense to God if not to you?

I don’t understand your question. You say your theory “makes sense only to God”. It certainly doesn’t make sense to me, and your statement can only mean that it doesn’t make sense to you either. Of course you are welcome to believe in a theory which doesn’t make sense to you, but that really doesn’t lend much credence to the theory, does it?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 2

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 16, 2022, 14:29 (621 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Free-for-alls do not show the directionality evolution shows.

dhw: What “directionality”? Evolution shows us a bush of life that branched out in countless directions, with the vast majority of the branches having died out and having played “no role in current time”. You want to focus on one single “direction” (sapiens plus food) and ignore all the rest that had no connection with sapiens plus food.

The obvious directionality is increasing complexity reached in our brain.


DAVID: God always makes sense to me, but yours doesn't.

dhw: We are not talking about “God” but about your theories concerning your God’s motives and methods. What did you mean when you told us that your theories “made sense only to God” if you did NOT mean they didn’t make sense to you?

I accept God's production of our reality makes perfect sense to me, but the issue you stumble over is I don't know why He chose evolution as His method for his own reasons, which 'make sense only to God'.


End of Ordovician

DAVID: Your logic is not God's as you criticize His evolutionary actions once again.

I am not criticizing God! I am criticizing your illogical theory!

DAVID: Evolution is a staged process, in which a degree of complexity is developed at each stage. Stages can be ended when the requirements of an advance are met, then forms can be discarded, and new ones designed based on new available underlying biochemistry.

dhw: So didn’t your God know about the “available underlying biochemistry” when apparently he started out on his one and only mission to design sapiens plus food? Why did he have to design (as an “absolute requirement”) and then “discard” all the countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens plus food? If the course of evolution changed over and over again, with the extinction of vast numbers of species that had been individually designed by your God and had no connection with sapiens plus food, how does this denote that your God proceeded to design sapiens plus food “without deviations”? I know your answer to all these questions: it all “makes sense only to God.”

Same reply: "I accept God's production of our reality makes perfect sense to me, but the issue you stumble over is I don't know why He chose evolution as His method for his own reasons, which 'make sense only to God'".


Older time line for humans
DAVID: this seems like a more reasonable timeline for our development. But in contrast to whales our evolution is like a speedboat. They look fifteen million years or more.

dhw: One can’t help wondering why your all-powerful God devoted so much of his creative genius to all the different stages of human and whale evolution although apparently all he wanted was sapiens (plus food) and he was perfectly capable of designing new species without any precursors at all (see your Cambrian theory). But again, this is part of the combination of theories which “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: Why shouldn't it make sense to God if not to you?

dhw" I don’t understand your question. You say your theory “makes sense only to God”. It certainly doesn’t make sense to me, and your statement can only mean that it doesn’t make sense to you either. Of course you are welcome to believe in a theory which doesn’t make sense to you, but that really doesn’t lend much credence to the theory, does it?

Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 08, 2022, 20:59 (659 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My statements mean I accept the history as God's direct work. He is the author/creator of the history. The fact that you do not accept that is why my theories confuse you. We are discussing at two different levels. Remember I do not accept how you think about God in any way.


dhw: For the history see above. As regards your theories, the statements I am referring to have nothing to do with your “acceptance” of history, but concern the logic behind the theories, which over and over again you say you can’t explain, you can’t know God’s reasons, I should go and ask God, and they “make sense only to God”. Do you really want me to compile a list with dates?

You simply will not accept my view that God did all of this. Instead you want me to analyze this the way you do, from your humaized God point of view, which I do not accept. That way is critical of the timing how humans arrived. The timing dosn't trouble me at all. God can do it any way He wishes for His own unknown reasons. I have no reason to dispute that point as you do. So to repeat, I can't answer your invented illogical questions. They have made no sense to me for the many years you've raised them.


The rise of the mammals

QUOTE: "Within just a few hundred thousand years of the asteroid impact that wiped out all nonbird dinos some 66 million years ago, mammals moved in to fill the vacancy, rapidly getting a lot bigger, ballooning from, say, mouse-sized to beaver-sized. Pretty soon, they got a lot smarter too. In a geologic blink — a scant 10 million years — mammals’ brains caught up with their brawn, and then the Age of Mammals was off to the races."

DAVID: from the standpoint of design, the story fits perfectly. Their waiting in the wings sounds exactly liike pre-planning. What is the driving force that chance mutations could create? IT doen't exist. Only a desinging mind could direct mutations to produce a big-brained human.

dhw: We long ago dismissed the concept of random mutations as the “driving force”, and according to you, only a designing mind could produce every species that ever existed. And so from the standpoint of design, the story sounds exactly like lack of planning. If your all-powerful God’s intention right from the start was to design humans (plus food), what was the point of him specially designing dinosaurs and then wiping them all out?

Again, weird humanized analysis. Dinosaurs were a step along the sasy to more comoplexity. Birds arrived out of them as well as lizzard and other forms, all of which contribute to the mutifacited ecosystems that provide food for all. I accept that each step fits into God's preconceived plan for evolution.


Giraffe (shifted from “More miscellany")

dhw: […]it’s hard to see why the giraffe’s long neck was – according to your theory of evolution - an “absolute requirement” for the design of humans and our food.

DAVID: You gave the reason above. Giraffes contribute to their required ecosystem.

dhw: All life forms contribute to their ecosystem, but that doesn’t mean all past life forms and ecosystems were specially designed as “absolute requirements” for humans and our food!

DAVID: Your view of the need for our huge human population food supply is shortsighted as usual.

dhw: So if the giraffe didn’t have its long neck, we humans would starve? And 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and ecosystems, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans and our food, were specially designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food! And you think I am shortsighted?

Yes. Thank you for the retorical queston.


New extremophiles
QUOTE: “[Polycephalum] makes decisions with no apparent source of intelligence.”

dhw: I suppose you believe that 3.8 billion years ago, God gave these extremophiles instructions on how to survive, because they were all “absolute requirements” for him to design humans and our food.

DAVID: My view is if life started in the Hadean period of chaos on early Earth, it had to have very tough aspects of its resistence to adversity. That life is here is a miracle I would attribute to a designing God.

dhw: I agree with most of this, and I certainly can’t discount God as the designer of the original cells. But your theory that all these life forms were “absolute requirements” for humans? Nah, I can’t buy that.

DAVID: What will it take to open up the cement strangling your concepts of evoution?

dhw: I have offered several theistic concepts of evolution, each of which fits in logically with the history of life as we know it. You have offered one, which is so illogical that according to you it “makes sense only to God”. Please ask yourself the question you have asked me.

I accept that God does exactly what He wishes: Evolution as seen in hisotry is His wish.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Thursday, June 09, 2022, 08:22 (659 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My statements mean I accept the history as God's direct work. He is the author/creator of the history. The fact that you do not accept that is why my theories confuse you. We are discussing at two different levels. Remember I do not accept how you think about God in any way.

You keep on ignoring my response to this! If God exists, we would both accept that the history is his work, but the only history we know is 1) countless numbers of life forms and econiches, most of which are extinct and had no connection with humans and our econiches, 2) we and our econiches are the last so far, and 3) we evolved in stages. History does not show that a) we plus our food were your God’s only purpose, b) that he individually designed every species and econiche, or c) that he did so because every one of them was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us humans. Those are your theories, you can’t explain the logic behind them, and you tell me to ask God for an explanation.

DAVID: You simply will not accept my view that God did all of this.

Did all of what? I do not accept that an all-powerful God who apparently has only one purpose (to design us and our food) would first of all individually design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us!

DAVID: Instead you want me to analyze this the way you do, from your humaized God point of view, which I do not accept.

Your non-acceptance of “human thought patterns and emotions” in a God who you think probably has human thought patterns and emotions has nothing whatsoever to do with the total illogicality of your combined theories, which “make sense only to God”. Attacking my alternatives does not make your own illogical theories logical.

DAVID: God can do it any way He wishes for His own unknown reasons.

Agreed. But you keep insisting that “it” = his only purpose (to design humans plus our food), and he does “it” by designing countless life forms that have no connection with humans plus our food. You can find no reason why he should fulfil such a purpose in such a way, but you kid yourself that this is “history”. It’s not. It is an illogical interpretation of history for which you can find no explanation.


The rise of the mammals

DAVID: from the standpoint of design, the story fits perfectly. Their waiting in the wings sounds exactly liike pre-planning. What is the driving force that chance mutations could create? IT doen't exist. Only a desinging mind could direct mutations to produce a big-brained human.

dhw: We long ago dismissed the concept of random mutations as the “driving force” [see final comment below], and according to you, only a designing mind could produce every species that ever existed. And so from the standpoint of design, the story sounds exactly like lack of planning. If your all-powerful God’s intention right from the start was to design humans (plus food), what was the point of him specially designing dinosaurs and then wiping them all out?

DAVID: Again, weird humanized analysis. Dinosaurs were a step along the way to more complexity. Birds arrived out of them as well as lizzard and other forms, all of which contribute to the mutifacited ecosystems that provide food for all. I accept that each step fits into God's preconceived plan for evolution.

So your all-powerful God could not have designed his one and only goal of humans and our food if he hadn’t designed the brontosaurus plus umpteen millions of other life forms that had no connection with us but were an absolute requirement for his individual design of us and our food. And I should ask God to explain your theory, because - not surprisingly - you can’t.

New extremophiles

DAVID: My view is if life started in the Hadean period of chaos on early Earth, it had to have very tough aspects of its resistence to adversity. That life is here is a miracle I would attribute to a designing God.

dhw: I agree with most of this, and I certainly can’t discount God as the designer of the original cells. But your theory that all these life forms were “absolute requirements” for humans? Nah, I can’t buy that.

DAVID: What will it take to open up the cement strangling your concepts of evoution?

dhw: I have offered several theistic concepts of evolution, each of which fits in logically with the history of life as we know it. You have offered one, which is so illogical that according to you it “makes sense only to God”. Please ask yourself the question you have asked me.

Harmful mutations

DAVID: dhw and I long ago threw out chance mutations as causes of evolution. That leaves us with not knowing how speciation occurs. I rely on God. dhw has his own various theories.

I’ve only reproduced this because it marks one of the rare subjects on which we agree! :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 09, 2022, 16:56 (658 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You simply will not accept my view that God did all of this.

dhw: Did all of what? I do not accept that an all-powerful God who apparently has only one purpose (to design us and our food) would first of all individually design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us!

Again your reasoning against God's. I fully accept it as God's choice of method.


DAVID: God can do it any way He wishes for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: Agreed. But you keep insisting that “it” = his only purpose (to design humans plus our food), and he does “it” by designing countless life forms that have no connection with humans plus our food. You can find no reason why he should fulfil such a purpose in such a way, but you kid yourself that this is “history”. It’s not. It is an illogical interpretation of history for which you can find no explanation.

It is your illogical interpretation. View it as God's choice of method for His own reasons. An indesputable point.>


New extremophiles

DAVID: My view is if life started in the Hadean period of chaos on early Earth, it had to have very tough aspects of its resistence to adversity. That life is here is a miracle I would attribute to a designing God.

dhw: I agree with most of this, and I certainly can’t discount God as the designer of the original cells. But your theory that all these life forms were “absolute requirements” for humans? Nah, I can’t buy that.

DAVID: What will it take to open up the cement strangling your concepts of evoution?

dhw: I have offered several theistic concepts of evolution, each of which fits in logically with the history of life as we know it. You have offered one, which is so illogical that according to you it “makes sense only to God”. Please ask yourself the question you have asked me.

God can choose any method of creation He wishes for His own reasons. Deny that.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Friday, June 10, 2022, 10:29 (658 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not accept that an all-powerful God who apparently has only one purpose (to design us and our food) would first of all individually design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us!

DAVID: Again your reasoning against God's. I fully accept it as God's choice of method.

It is my reasoning against your interpretation of God’s goal and your interpretation of his method of achieving that goal. Stop pretending that I am criticizing God.

dhw: You can find no reason why he should fulfil such a purpose in such a way, but you kid yourself that this is “history”. It’s not. It is an illogical interpretation of history for which you can find no explanation.

DAVID: It is your illogical interpretation. View it as God's choice of method for His own reasons. An indesputable point.

Yes, if God exists, evolution was his choice of method in order to achieve his choice of goal. That does not mean that his goal was humans (plus food), and it does not mean that in order to design humans he chose to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. I propose that an all-powerful God is more likely to have had a goal and method that logically explain the history of life as we know it (countless forms of life and food supplies - mainly unconnected with humans and our food supply – that have come and gone, the latest of these being us and our food supply).

New extremophiles

DAVID: What will it take to open up the cement strangling your concepts of evoution?

dhw: I have offered several theistic concepts of evolution, each of which fits in logically with the history of life as we know it. You have offered one, which is so illogical that according to you it “makes sense only to God”. Please ask yourself the question you have asked me.

DAVID: God can choose any method of creation He wishes for His own reasons. Deny that.

Of course he can, if he exists. How does that come to mean that he must have chosen a combination of goal and method which is so bafflingly illogical that according to you it “makes sense only to God”?

RNA viruses

DAVID: Here again we see the vital importance of an ecosystem. All ecosystems are vital and contribute to the food supply and to other balances on Earth that protect life. These ere produced by a slow process of evolution preparing the way for the current huge human population, wshich couild easily be anticipated by a designer once our brain arrived with all its immense powers. dhw constantly complains God used a round-about way to produce humans. Really???

Yes, really. What do you mean by God “anticipated” and “once our brain arrived”? According to you, we (plus our food) were his one and only goal right from the start, and he designed us bit by bit, and he designed every single life form that preceded us and had no connection with us. For the nth time, ALL ecosystems are vital for the life forms of which they are composed. But not every life form and ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for your God to design humans plus our food. Yes, I would say that individually designing countless life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans and our ecosystems was a roundabout way of individually designing every stage of humans until he designed sapiens (plus food). So maybe sapiens and our ecosystems were NOT his one and only purpose right from the start, and/or maybe he did NOT individually design every life form and ecosystem that had no connection with sapiens (plus food).

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Friday, June 10, 2022, 17:02 (657 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again your reasoning against God's. I fully accept it as God's choice of method.

dhw: It is my reasoning against your interpretation of God’s goal and your interpretation of his method of achieving that goal. Stop pretending that I am criticizing God.

We appeared from bacteria through a process of evolution. I view it as a God-controlled process, so yes, you are criticising my God.


dhw: You can find no reason why he should fulfil such a purpose in such a way, but you kid yourself that this is “history”. It’s not. It is an illogical interpretation of history for which you can find no explanation.

DAVID: It is your illogical interpretation. View it as God's choice of method for His own reasons. An indesputable point.

dhw: Yes, if God exists, evolution was his choice of method in order to achieve his choice of goal. That does not mean that his goal was humans (plus food),

But WE are here as an endpoint.

dhw: and it does not mean that in order to design humans he chose to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. I propose that an all-powerful God is more likely to have had a goal and method that logically explain the history of life as we know it (countless forms of life and food supplies - mainly unconnected with humans and our food supply – that have come and gone, the latest of these being us and our food supply).

An irreligous view that fits Adler's point God cares about us or doesn't 50/50. If God ran evolution as we both agree, and with purpose, as the current endpoint, we are the goal.


RNA viruses

DAVID: Here again we see the vital importance of an ecosystem. All ecosystems are vital and contribute to the food supply and to other balances on Earth that protect life. These ere produced by a slow process of evolution preparing the way for the current huge human population, wshich couild easily be anticipated by a designer once our brain arrived with all its immense powers. dhw constantly complains God used a round-about way to produce humans. Really???

dhw: Yes, really. What do you mean by God “anticipated” and “once our brain arrived”? According to you, we (plus our food) were his one and only goal right from the start, and he designed us bit by bit, and he designed every single life form that preceded us and had no connection with us. For the nth time, ALL ecosystems are vital for the life forms of which they are composed. But not every life form and ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for your God to design humans plus our food. Yes, I would say that individually designing countless life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans and our ecosystems was a roundabout way of individually designing every stage of humans until he designed sapiens (plus food). So maybe sapiens and our ecosystems were NOT his one and only purpose right from the start, and/or maybe he did NOT individually design every life form and ecosystem that had no connection with sapiens (plus food).

Still off on your woolly tangent of analysis. We both know what happened under God's control, which simply means He arrvied at producing us by that method.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Saturday, June 11, 2022, 09:18 (657 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Again your reasoning against God's. I fully accept it as God's choice of method.

dhw: It is my reasoning against your interpretation of God’s goal and your interpretation of his method of achieving that goal. Stop pretending that I am criticizing God.

DAVID: We appeared from bacteria through a process of evolution. I view it as a God-controlled process, so yes, you are criticising my God.

We agree that ALL life forms appeared from bacteria through a process of evolution, and if God exists, then he invented the process of evolution. What I criticize is your insistence that 1) your God individually designed EVERY life form, and did so 2) for the sole purpose of designing us and our food, although the vast majority of the life forms he created had no connection with us and our food. It is you who make your God act in a manner which is inexplicable if both your theories are correct. So maybe at least one of them is wrong.

dhw: I propose that an all-powerful God is more likely to have had a goal and method that logically explain the history of life as we know it (countless forms of life and food supplies - mainly unconnected with humans and our food supply – that have come and gone, the latest of these being us and our food supply).

DAVID: An irreligous view that fits Adler's point God cares about us or doesn't 50/50. If God ran evolution as we both agree, and with purpose, as the current endpoint, we are the goal.

Why is it “irreligious” to propose that if God exists, he would have had a goal and method that logically explain the history of life as we know it? What has religion and “caring about us” got to do with it anyway? The “current endpoint” does not explain why your version of God would have individually designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with us.

dhw: So maybe sapiens and our ecosystems were NOT his one and only purpose right from the start, and/or maybe he did NOT individually design every life form and ecosystem that had no connection with sapiens (plus food).

DAVID: Still off on your woolly tangent of analysis. We both know what happened under God's control, which simply means He arrvied at producing us by that method.

According to you, he also arrived at producing millions and millions of life forms that had no connection with us. If he did so deliberately, and was in full control, his purpose could hardly have been confined to designing us and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 11, 2022, 15:56 (656 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again your reasoning against God's. I fully accept it as God's choice of method.

dhw: It is my reasoning against your interpretation of God’s goal and your interpretation of his method of achieving that goal. Stop pretending that I am criticizing God.

DAVID: We appeared from bacteria through a process of evolution. I view it as a God-controlled process, so yes, you are criticising my God.

dhw: We agree that ALL life forms appeared from bacteria through a process of evolution, and if God exists, then he invented the process of evolution. What I criticize is your insistence that 1) your God individually designed EVERY life form, and did so 2) for the sole purpose of designing us and our food, although the vast majority of the life forms he created had no connection with us and our food. It is you who make your God act in a manner which is inexplicable if both your theories are correct. So maybe at least one of them is wrong.

Your problem is viewing my theory as if there are two parts. If viewed as God's choice of method to reach His purposeful goal of humans, it consists of only one part.


dhw: I propose that an all-powerful God is more likely to have had a goal and method that logically explain the history of life as we know it (countless forms of life and food supplies - mainly unconnected with humans and our food supply – that have come and gone, the latest of these being us and our food supply).

DAVID: An irreligous view that fits Adler's point God cares about us or doesn't 50/50. If God ran evolution as we both agree, and with purpose, as the current endpoint, we are the goal.

dhw: Why is it “irreligious” to propose that if God exists, he would have had a goal and method that logically explain the history of life as we know it? What has religion and “caring about us” got to do with it anyway? The “current endpoint” does not explain why your version of God would have individually designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with us.

No connnection. Really? We are the current endpoint of an evolutionary process that went through all the stages you decry


dhw: So maybe sapiens and our ecosystems were NOT his one and only purpose right from the start, and/or maybe he did NOT individually design every life form and ecosystem that had no connection with sapiens (plus food).

DAVID: Still off on your woolly tangent of analysis. We both know what happened under God's control, which simply means He arrvied at producing us by that method.

dhw: According to you, he also arrived at producing millions and millions of life forms that had no connection with us. If he did so deliberately, and was in full control, his purpose could hardly have been confined to designing us and our food.

Again, a simple theory you try to slice up into disparate parts. One theory, once again, God's choice of method. Stop slicing!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Sunday, June 12, 2022, 10:40 (656 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Again your reasoning against God's. I fully accept it as God's choice of method.

dhw: It is my reasoning against your interpretation of God’s goal and your interpretation of his method of achieving that goal. Stop pretending that I am criticizing God.

DAVID: [...] Your problem is viewing my theory as if there are two parts. If viewed as God's choice of method to reach His purposeful goal of humans, it consists of only one part.

It is not history 1) that humans (plus food supply) were God’s one and only goal from the start of life, and 2) that God individually designed every life form (and food supply), and did so as “an absolute requirement” for his design of human (plus food supply).Since the vast majority of extinct life forms had no connection with humans, the two theories combined raise the unanswerable question: why would God design countless life forms (and food supplies) that had no connection with his one and only goal?

DAVID: No connnection. Really? We are the current endpoint of an evolutionary process that went through all the stages you decry.

I am not decrying anything except your refusal to accept that a theory which you cannot explain and which makes sense only to God might possibly be wrong. Or are you now telling us that designing the brontosaurus (multiplied by millions of other examples) was an “absolute requirement” for designing H. sapiens and our food?

Standard model
DAVID: All that hapens is dhw wants answers that do not exist for his own analysis that confuses him about why God did it the way He did it. The best way to think about it is early on there were bacteria at the start of life. There followed a whole continuous series of increasingly complex steps until humans arrived. That is what happened. We can analyze it for clues of purpose. But the method happened and cannot be questioned in and of itsslf since it represents pure historical fact.

For those of us who believe in the theory of evolution, it is indeed historical fact that ALL life forms – including those that are now extinct and did not lead to humans - descended in a continuous process from bacteria. Once more: It is not historical fact that your God designed every species individually, and it is not historical fact that every single one of them was an “absolute requirement” for the appearance of humans. The fact that we are the latest species does not mean that we were your God’s purpose right from the start of life, and the fact that you cannot supply an answer to my question why your God would use such a method to achieve such a goal would, I suggest, indicate confusion on your part rather than mine.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: Of course research continues. You are carefully throwing up lots of speciation theories to avoid the point that the complex animals of Cambrian appearing in a short time demands a designing mind produced them.

dhw: I have asked if - as you have claimed - the 410,000 figure is now accepted by everybody (no answer from you), and I have pointed out that it is irrelevant to the problem of the gaps in the fossil record.

DAVID: And I have answered: a peer-reviewed article in a major journal means it is accepted!!!

I didn’t know that one peer-reviewed article in one major journal indicated the establishment of a universally accepted truth, but it really doesn’t matter. The gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian is irrelevant to our discussion of the “gaps” in the fossil record.

dhw: […] changes to the genome take place by generations, not by the passage of time. Please tell us why this counts as “straw clutching”.

DAVID: True speciation is a major genome change. Most new species appear suddenly as if newly designed.

dhw:[…] . How “sudden” is “suddenly”? Yesterday, in response to the point that new species did NOT suddenly appear fully developed, you wrote: “Form changes take time to develop new DNA instructional information. That is the required time lapse for speciation.” How many thousands (even millions) of years do you regard as being “sudden”?

DAVID: Your plea above does not explain the gaps Gould recognized were a problem for Darwin theory. Species appear with gaps in form of the fossil series.

I did not make a plea. I asked you a direct question, based on your own statement: “form changes take time” etc. How many thousands of years do you regard as being “sudden”? As regards the gaps, Darwin himself recognized that they were a problem, and I have just devoted several posts to offering different reasons for the gaps in the fossil record.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 12, 2022, 16:53 (655 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: It is not history 1) that humans (plus food supply) were God’s one and only goal from the start of life, and 2) that God individually designed every life form (and food supply), and did so as “an absolute requirement” for his design of human (plus food supply).

Of course it is not history!! It is an interpretation of God's created evolution history.

Standard model
DAVID: All that hapens is dhw wants answers that do not exist for his own analysis that confuses him about why God did it the way He did it. The best way to think about it is early on there were bacteria at the start of life. There followed a whole continuous series of increasingly complex steps until humans arrived. That is what happened. We can analyze it for clues of purpose. But the method happened and cannot be questioned in and of itsslf since it represents pure historical fact.

dhw: For those of us who believe in the theory of evolution, it is indeed historical fact that ALL life forms – including those that are now extinct and did not lead to humans - descended in a continuous process from bacteria. Once more: It is not historical fact that your God designed every species individually, and it is not historical fact that every single one of them was an “absolute requirement” for the appearance of humans. The fact that we are the latest species does not mean that we were your God’s purpose right from the start of life, and the fact that you cannot supply an answer to my question why your God would use such a method to achieve such a goal would, I suggest, indicate confusion on your part rather than mine.

What you refuse to accept is I fully believe God does it any way He wishes and I don't need to queston it or satisfy your confusion about how God did it (His reasoning) as I view God.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: Of course research continues. You are carefully throwing up lots of speciation theories to avoid the point that the complex animals of Cambrian appearing in a short time demands a designing mind produced them.

dhw: I have asked if - as you have claimed - the 410,000 figure is now accepted by everybody (no answer from you), and I have pointed out that it is irrelevant to the problem of the gaps in the fossil record.

DAVID: And I have answered: a peer-reviewed article in a major journal means it is accepted!!!

dhw: I didn’t know that one peer-reviewed article in one major journal indicated the establishment of a universally accepted truth, but it really doesn’t matter.

Yes it does. What do you think peer-review entails? A review by several established recognized experts in the specific field.

dhw: The gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian is irrelevant to our discussion of the “gaps” in the fossil record.

It is very relevant. Such a huge change in animal forms in such a short period doesn't fit the usual timing of a speciation change as in the whale series.


DAVID: Your plea above does not explain the gaps Gould recognized were a problem for Darwin theory. Species appear with gaps in form of the fossil series.

dhw: I asked you a direct question, based on your own statement: “form changes take time” etc. How many thousands of years do you regard as being “sudden”? As regards the gaps, Darwin himself recognized that they were a problem, and I have just devoted several posts to offering different reasons for the gaps in the fossil record.

The true answer to how long speciation takes is unknown. The many gaps don't tell us. The gaps as missing fossils is a theory not supported by the Camrian research now that soft tissue fossils are turning up and Cambrian fossilsae being found all over the world as the gap remains.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1 The gap argumen

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 12, 2022, 23:55 (655 days ago) @ David Turell

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: The gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian is irrelevant to our discussion of the “gaps” in the fossil record.


It is very relevant. Such a huge change in animal forms in such a short period doesn't fit the usual timing of a speciation change as in the whale series.

I'm sick of this twisting of the gap importance by dhw finding old comments about it.

The abstract of the article itself follows. The whole article is behind a paywall:

https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12368

"The replacement of the late Precambrian Ediacaran biota by morphologically disparate animals at the beginning of the Phanerozoic was a key event in the history of life on Earth, the mechanisms and the time-scales of which are not entirely understood. A composite section in Namibia providing biostratigraphic and chemostratigraphic data bracketed by radiometric dating constrains the Ediacaran–Cambrian boundary to 538.6–538.8 Ma, more than 2 Ma younger than previously assumed. The U–Pb-CA-ID TIMS zircon ages demonstrate an ultrashort time frame for the LAD of the Ediacaran biota to the FAD of a complex, burrowing Phanerozoic biota represented by trace fossils to a 410 ka time window of 538.99 ± 0.21 Ma to 538.58 ± 0.19 Ma. The extremely short duration of the faunal transition from Ediacaran to Cambrian biota within less than 410 ka supports models of ecological cascades that followed the evolutionary breakthrough of increased mobility at the beginning of the Phanerozoic." (my bold)

"Faunal transition" means they studied the age of fossils on both sides of the gap.

("Last Appearance Datum ( LAD ): either local or global First Appearance Datum ( FAD ): either local or global Biozone (often just " zone "): Rock unit characterized by one or more taxa that permit it to be distinguished from adjacent rocks."

https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G331/lectures/331biostrat1.html

Comment: this measurement of the gap is very significant, not irrelevant!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Monday, June 13, 2022, 12:46 (654 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It is not history 1) that humans (plus food supply) were God’s one and only goal from the start of life, and 2) that God individually designed every life form (and food supply), and did so as “an absolute requirement” for his design of human (plus food supply).

DAVID: Of course it is not history!! It is an interpretation of God's created evolution history.

And if God exists, it is an interpretation which apparently makes no sense to anyone but God. I suggest that a theory which makes no sense to you or me might just possibly be wrong – especially when there are alternatives which fit in perfectly with the history of life as we know it. [...]

DAVID: What you refuse to accept is I fully believe God does it any way He wishes and I don't need to queston it or satisfy your confusion about how God did it (His reasoning) as I view God.

If God exists, I fully accept that he would run evolution “any way he wishes”, and I have offered various alternative versions of his wishes and his methods of fulfilling his wishes. As you view God, he had one wish, and fulfilled it by deliberately not fulfilling it until he had created all sorts of things that had no connection with his one wish. And you have no idea why.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: I didn’t know that one peer-reviewed article in one major journal indicated the establishment of a universally accepted truth, but it really doesn’t matter.

DAVID: Yes it does. What do you think peer-review entails? A review by several established recognized experts in the specific field.

I’m not disputing the findings, but I’ve got used to the fact that “recognized experts in the field” often disagree with one another, and since this is a brand new article, I thought there might be other views. In the abstract, it says:

"The replacement of the late Precambrian Ediacaran biota by morphologically disparate animals at the beginning of the Phanerozoic was a key event in the history of life on Earth, the mechanisms and the time-scales of which are not entirely understood[/b].”

Possible leeway? 411,000 years perhaps?

dhw: The gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian is irrelevant to our discussion of the “gaps” in the fossil record.

DAVID: It is very relevant. Such a huge change in animal forms in such a short period doesn't fit the usual timing of a speciation change as in the whale series.

First of all, how fully developed are the new forms? And secondly, even 410,000 years is a long time in terms of generations, and it is generations that create new species, not time. You yourself wrote:

DAVID: The true answer to how long speciation takes is unknown. The many gaps don't tell us.

Once again, the argument revolves round missing fossils, not around time:

DAVID: The gaps as missing fossils is a theory not supported by the Camrian research now that soft tissue fossils are turning up and Cambrian fossilsae being found all over the world as the gap remains.

So it is far from true to claim that there are no more fossils to be found – they are turning up all the time. And discoveries that indicate rudimentary brains and nervous systems and possibly sex existing long before the Cambrian would seem to indicate continuity rather than de novo speciation.

Punctuated trilobites
DAVID: The grasper organ found in trilobites is Cambrian, and presumes a penis. The bold is your pure invention. I did mention Edicarans are thought to be simple animals, so they possibly had sexual reproduction, but as sessile forms, sperm would have to float over to find an egg somehow. In Cambrian reproduction intromission is assumed. Your theoretical struggles show their rigidity.

dhw: You are right, my bold goes too far, as you said that Ediacaran animals “could have had” sex, not “did have”. However, the article on neuropeptides showed us that precursors to the fully developed Cambrian forms (brains and nervous systems) existed earlier, thus confirming the concept of continuity. And if the same “could have” applied to sexual reproduction, the theory of continuity can hardly be dismissed as wild. [You wrote: How does a sex organ discovery support your wild theory that dispenses with the Cambrian gap?]

DAVID: As you have just proven my theory, thank you! The true continuity of evolution is the ever- developing complexity of living biochemistry, as I have stated. Jumps in forms (gaps) are made possible by new biochemical proteins, as the neuropeptides example. Your education has advanced far beyond Darwin!

It certainly has, and Darwin would have been delighted at this vindication of his theory. If rudimentary brains and nervous systems and sexual reproduction already existed long before the Cambrian, what you call the “jumps” are nothing like as jumpy as you have made them out to be, even to the point of your claiming that the Cambrian produced species without any precursors (the exact opposite of continuity).

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Monday, June 13, 2022, 17:13 (654 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What you refuse to accept is I fully believe God does it any way He wishes and I don't need to queston it or satisfy your confusion about how God did it (His reasoning) as I view God.

If God exists, I fully accept that he would run evolution “any way he wishes”, and I have offered various alternative versions of his wishes and his methods of fulfilling his wishes. As you view God, he had one wish, and fulfilled it by deliberately not fulfilling it until he had created all sorts of things that had no connection with his one wish. And you have no idea why.

As above, His reasoning as to method doesn't matter to me. His created history tells me what He did.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: I’m not disputing the findings, but I’ve got used to the fact that “recognized experts in the field” often disagree with one another, and since this is a brand new article, I thought there might be other views. In the abstract, it says:

"The replacement of the late Precambrian Ediacaran biota by morphologically disparate animals at the beginning of the Phanerozoic was a key event in the history of life on Earth, the mechanisms and the time-scales of which are not entirely understood[/b].”

What you have quoted is a standard form of beginning an article: there is a problem we are trying to solve and then results are presented of findings.


dhw: The gap between Ediacaran and Cambrian is irrelevant to our discussion of the “gaps” in the fossil record.

DAVID: It is very relevant. Such a huge change in animal forms in such a short period doesn't fit the usual timing of a speciation change as in the whale series.

dhw: First of all, how fully developed are the new forms?

They lived as Cambrians. How much development was needed?

dhw: And secondly, even 410,000 years is a long time in terms of generations, and it is generations that create new species, not time. You yourself wrote:

DAVID: The true answer to how long speciation takes is unknown. The many gaps don't tell us.

dhw: Once again, the argument revolves round missing fossils, not around time:

The information I presented yesterday is exactly about fossils in two periods demonstrating the short time for massive change. Most gaps are much much longer as you know.


DAVID: The gaps as missing fossils is a theory not supported by the Camrian research now that soft tissue fossils are turning up and Cambrian fossils are being found all over the world as the gap remains.

dhw: So it is far from true to claim that there are no more fossils to be found – they are turning up all the time. And discoveries that indicate rudimentary brains and nervous systems and possibly sex existing long before the Cambrian would seem to indicate continuity rather than de novo speciation.

Please, stop changing facts. Brains and nerves have been seen only in the Cambrian, not the Edicaran!!! As for all the 'new' fossils, all they have done is emphasize the gap.


Punctuated trilobites
DAVID: The grasper organ found in trilobites is Cambrian, and presumes a penis. The bold is your pure invention. I did mention Edicarans are thought to be simple animals, so they possibly had sexual reproduction, but as sessile forms, sperm would have to float over to find an egg somehow. In Cambrian reproduction intromission is assumed. Your theoretical struggles show their rigidity.

dhw: You are right, my bold goes too far, as you said that Ediacaran animals “could have had” sex, not “did have”. However, the article on neuropeptides showed us that precursors to the fully developed Cambrian forms (brains and nervous systems) existed earlier, thus confirming the concept of continuity. And if the same “could have” applied to sexual reproduction, the theory of continuity can hardly be dismissed as wild. [You wrote: How does a sex organ discovery support your wild theory that dispenses with the Cambrian gap?]

DAVID: As you have just proven my theory, thank you! The true continuity of evolution is the ever- developing complexity of living biochemistry, as I have stated. Jumps in forms (gaps) are made possible by new biochemical proteins, as the neuropeptides example. Your education has advanced far beyond Darwin!

dhw: It certainly has, and Darwin would have been delighted at this vindication of his theory. If rudimentary brains and nervous systems and sexual reproduction already existed long before the Cambrian, what you call the “jumps” are nothing like as jumpy as you have made them out to be, even to the point of your claiming that the Cambrian produced species without any precursors (the exact opposite of continuity).

Your Darwin brain has assumed facts about the Ediacaran that have no proof. My only previous comment was about Edicaran animals possibly having some form of sex noted they were sessile and would have to float sperm over in the ocean to find eggs. Your rudimentary brains and nerves are figments of your wishful imagination as Darwin theory disappears.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Tuesday, June 14, 2022, 10:59 (654 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you refuse to accept is I fully believe God does it any way He wishes and I don't need to queston it or satisfy your confusion about how God did it (His reasoning) as I view God.

dhw: If God exists, I fully accept that he would run evolution “any way he wishes”, and I have offered various alternative versions of his wishes and his methods of fulfilling his wishes. As you view God, he had one wish, and fulfilled it by deliberately not fulfilling it until he had created all sorts of things that had no connection with his one wish. And you have no idea why.

DAVID: As above, His reasoning as to method doesn't matter to me. His created history tells me what He did.

And the history contains countless extinct life forms and econiches, most of which had no connection with the latest life forms (humans plus our food). It “doesn’t matter” to you that your reasoning concerning his possible purpose and method makes no sense to anyone, including yourself (only God can understand it). I don’t think you will make many converts with this approach to the quest for truth!


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: I’m not disputing the findings, but I’ve got used to the fact that “recognized experts in the field” often disagree with one another, and since this is a brand new article, I thought there might be other views. In the abstract, it says:
"The replacement of the late Precambrian Ediacaran biota by morphologically disparate animals at the beginning of the Phanerozoic was a key event in the history of life on Earth, the mechanisms and the time-scales of which are not entirely understood.”

DAVID: What you have quoted is a standard form of beginning an article: there is a problem we are trying to solve and then results are presented of findings.

That does not mean that the findings represent an indisputable truth.

Consciousness: Penrose-Hammeroff
DAVID: this paper rules out a theory, which is what studies like this do. However, findings like the 410,000-year Cambrian/Ediacaran will stand until/or if another study refutes their method. The method they used is well-established. dhw hopes in vain.

I am not “hoping” anything, since the 410,000 year gap does not make the slightest difference to the arguments used to explain gaps in the fossil record.

dhw: First of all, how fully developed are the new forms?

DAVID: They lived as Cambrians. How much development was needed?

I have no idea. The article I quoted suggested that “many of the Cambrian organisms […] did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time.” You responded: “Form changes take time to develop new DNA instructional information. That is the required time lapse for speciation.” So I don’t think anyone can answer your question.

dhw: And secondly, even 410,000 years is a long time in terms of generations, and it is generations that create new species, not time. You yourself wrote:
DAVID: The true answer to how long speciation takes is unknown. The many gaps don't tell us.

dhw: Once again, the argument revolves round missing fossils, not around time:

DAVID: The information I presented yesterday is exactly about fossils in two periods demonstrating the short time for massive change. Most gaps are much much longer as you know.

How does that counter the argument that speciation depends on generations and not on time? If you allow say 10 years for generations, you have 41,000 generations to produce your innovations. Halve it if you like. Even 20,000 generations should be enough for intelligent cell communities to come up with their innovations. Just a theory, but no more far-fetched than your 3.8-billion-year-old Book of Instructions, or your constant divine dabbling to create life forms that had no connection with your God’s alleged purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 14, 2022, 22:32 (653 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If God exists, I fully accept that he would run evolution “any way he wishes”, and I have offered various alternative versions of his wishes and his methods of fulfilling his wishes. As you view God, he had one wish, and fulfilled it by deliberately not fulfilling it until he had created all sorts of things that had no connection with his one wish. And you have no idea why.

DAVID: As above, His reasoning as to method doesn't matter to me. His created history tells me what He did.

dhw: And the history contains countless extinct life forms and econiches, most of which had no connection with the latest life forms (humans plus our food). It “doesn’t matter” to you that your reasoning concerning his possible purpose and method makes no sense to anyone, including yourself (only God can understand it). I don’t think you will make many converts with this approach to the quest for truth!

What you cannot comprehend is I do not question God's motives and what history shows me makes perfect sense to me as God's doings. This approach makes perfect sense to me, if not to you.>


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: I’m not disputing the findings, but I’ve got used to the fact that “recognized experts in the field” often disagree with one another, and since this is a brand new article, I thought there might be other views. In the abstract, it says:
"The replacement of the late Precambrian Ediacaran biota by morphologically disparate animals at the beginning of the Phanerozoic was a key event in the history of life on Earth, the mechanisms and the time-scales of which are not entirely understood.”

DAVID: What you have quoted is a standard form of beginning an article: there is a problem we are trying to solve and then results are presented of findings.

dhw: That does not mean that the findings represent an indisputable truth.

It will be hard to refute, since the uranium dating method they used is fully accepted, much to your obvious disappointment. This is a standard, not an ID article, but they have picked up to tout.


Consciousness: Penrose-Hammeroff
DAVID: this paper rules out a theory, which is what studies like this do. However, findings like the 410,000-year Cambrian/Ediacaran will stand until/or if another study refutes their method. The method they used is well-established. dhw hopes in vain.

dhw: I am not “hoping” anything, since the 410,000 year gap does not make the slightest difference to the arguments used to explain gaps in the fossil record.

dhw: First of all, how fully developed are the new forms?

DAVID: They lived as Cambrians. How much development was needed?

dhw: I have no idea. The article I quoted suggested that “many of the Cambrian organisms […] did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time.” You responded: “Form changes take time to develop new DNA instructional information. That is the required time lapse for speciation.” So I don’t think anyone can answer your question.

The issue still is even early Cambrians are vastly advanced over Edicarans, thus enormous change in a little bit of time.


dhw: And secondly, even 410,000 years is a long time in terms of generations, and it is generations that create new species, not time. You yourself wrote:
DAVID: The true answer to how long speciation takes is unknown. The many gaps don't tell us.

dhw: Once again, the argument revolves round missing fossils, not around time:

DAVID: The information I presented yesterday is exactly about fossils in two periods demonstrating the short time for massive change. Most gaps are much much longer as you know.

dhw: How does that counter the argument that speciation depends on generations and not on time? If you allow say 10 years for generations, you have 41,000 generations to produce your innovations. Halve it if you like. Even 20,000 generations should be enough for intelligent cell communities to come up with their innovations.

You are asssuming species change slowly over generations. There is no existing proof of that concept. All we have is fossil gaps. We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved. All you have is quoting hopeful explanations while I see a designer is required.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Wednesday, June 15, 2022, 09:35 (653 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you cannot comprehend is I do not question God's motives and what history shows me makes perfect sense to me as God's doings. This approach makes perfect sense to me, if not to you.

You do not question your theory that God’s one and only motive was to design humans plus food, and you acknowledge that you have no idea why he would choose a method to fulfil this purpose which entailed specially designing the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. You have admitted over and over again that you can’t explain why, and your theory “makes sense only to God”. Stop dodging.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: I’m not disputing the findings, but I’ve got used to the fact that “recognized experts in the field” often disagree with one another, and since this is a brand new article, I thought there might be other views. In the abstract, it says:

"The replacement of the late Precambrian Ediacaran biota by morphologically disparate animals at the beginning of the Phanerozoic was a key event in the history of life on Earth, the mechanisms and the time-scales of which are not entirely understood.”

DAVID: What you have quoted is a standard form of beginning an article: there is a problem we are trying to solve and then results are presented of findings.

dhw: That does not mean that the findings represent an indisputable truth.

DAVID: It will be hard to refute, since the uranium dating method they used is fully accepted, much to your obvious disappointment. This is a standard, not an ID article, but they have picked up to tout.

I am not “disappointed”, and have explained why the new findings make no difference to the discussion on missing fossils or to the feasibility of new species developing within the shortened period.

dhw: The article I quoted suggested that “many of the Cambrian organisms […] did not possess all of the defining characteristics of modern animal body plans. These defining characteristics appeared progressively over a much longer period of time.” You responded: “Form changes take time to develop new DNA instructional information. That is the required time lapse for speciation.”

DAVID: The issue still is even early Cambrians are vastly advanced over Edicarans, thus enormous change in a little bit of time.

Already answered below:

dhw: And secondly, even 410,000 years is a long time in terms of generations, and it is generations that create new species, not time. You yourself wrote:
DAVID: The true answer to how long speciation takes is unknown. The many gaps don't tell us.

dhw: […] If you allow say 10 years for generations, you have 41,000 generations to produce your innovations. Halve it if you like. Even 20,000 generations should be enough for intelligent cell communities to come up with their innovations.

DAVID: You are asssuming species change slowly over generations. There is no existing proof of that concept. All we have is fossil gaps. We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved. All you have is quoting hopeful explanations while I see a designer is required.

You have hit the nail on the head. WE DO NOT KNOW. And so I quote possible explanations, as alternatives to your “hopeful explanation” that there is a God who created new species without any precursors (although conversely you also believe in the continuity of the evolutionary process – see Part Two).

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 15, 2022, 15:37 (652 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, June 15, 2022, 15:43

DAVID: What you cannot comprehend is I do not question God's motives and what history shows me makes perfect sense to me as God's doings. This approach makes perfect sense to me, if not to you.

hw: You do not question your theory that God’s one and only motive was to design humans plus food, and you acknowledge that you have no idea why he would choose a method to fulfil this purpose which entailed specially designing the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. You have admitted over and over again that you can’t explain why, and your theory “makes sense only to God”. Stop dodging.

No dodge. Your complaint about my God doesn't recognize how I think about my God, as above..


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: That does not mean that the findings represent an indisputable truth.

DAVID: It will be hard to refute, since the uranium dating method they used is fully accepted, much to your obvious disappointment. This is a standard, not an ID article, but they have picked up to tout.

dhw: I am not “disappointed”, and have explained why the new findings make no difference to the discussion on missing fossils or to the feasibility of new species developing within the shortened period.

Missing fossils are totally off point and one of your dodges. The point is we see huge changes in a very sort time period from existing fossils.


dhw: And secondly, even 410,000 years is a long time in terms of generations, and it is generations that create new species, not time. You yourself wrote:

DAVID: The true answer to how long speciation takes is unknown. The many gaps don't tell us.

dhw: […] If you allow say 10 years for generations, you have 41,000 generations to produce your innovations. Halve it if you like. Even 20,000 generations should be enough for intelligent cell communities to come up with their innovations.

DAVID: You are asssuming species change slowly over generations. There is no existing proof of that concept. All we have is fossil gaps. We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved. All you have is quoting hopeful explanations while I see a designer is required.

dhw: You have hit the nail on the head. WE DO NOT KNOW. And so I quote possible explanations, as alternatives to your “hopeful explanation” that there is a God who created new species without any precursors (although conversely you also believe in the continuity of the evolutionary process – see Part Two).

The Cambrian gap is exactly what Darwin knew. New forms with no precursors!!! And now we know in just 410,000 years. With provable fossils from both periods.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Thursday, June 16, 2022, 10:52 (652 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you cannot comprehend is I do not question God's motives and what history shows me makes perfect sense to me as God's doings. This approach makes perfect sense to me, if not to you.

dhw: You do not question your theory that God’s one and only motive was to design humans plus food, and you acknowledge that you have no idea why he would choose a method to fulfil this purpose which entailed specially designing the countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food. You have admitted over and over again that you can’t explain why, and your theory “makes sense only to God”. Stop dodging.

DAVID: No dodge. Your complaint about my God doesn't recognize how I think about my God, as above.

You think about your God as having one purpose (us and our food), and therefore specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. And you have no idea why he would have done so. I recognize that you think your God acts in a way which only he can make sense of.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: I have explained why the new findings make no difference to the discussion on missing fossils or to the feasibility of new species developing within the shortened period.

DAVID: Missing fossils are totally off point and one of your dodges. The point is we see huge changes in a very short time period from existing fossils.

Missing fossils are totally on point! That is why you claim your God designed species without precursors. I have already answered the argument about huge changes in a short time:

dhw: And secondly, even 410,000 years is a long time in terms of generations, and it is generations that create new species, not time. You yourself wrote:

DAVID: The true answer to how long speciation takes is unknown. The many gaps don't tell us.

dhw: […] If you allow say 10 years for generations, you have 41,000 generations to produce your innovations. Halve it if you like. Even 20,000 generations should be enough for intelligent cell communities to come up with their innovations.

DAVID: […] There is no existing proof of that concept. All we have is fossil gaps. We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved. All you have is quoting hopeful explanations while I see a designer is required.

dhw: You have hit the nail on the head. WE DO NOT KNOW. And so I quote possible explanations, as alternatives to your “hopeful explanation” that there is a God who created new species without any precursors (although conversely you also believe in the continuity of the evolutionary process – see Part Two).

DAVID: The Cambrian gap is exactly what Darwin knew. New forms with no precursors!!! And now we know in just 410,000 years. With provable fossils from both periods.

You wrote: “We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved”, and you have totally ignored the argument that it is generations, not time that produce new species, and even 20,000 generations of intelligent cell communities could suffice for the production of new species. You call that a “hopeful explanation”. I call it a logical explanation, but of course it remains just as theoretical as your own: that an unknown eternal, universal mind preprogrammed or dabbled every change.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 16, 2022, 17:56 (651 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No dodge. Your complaint about my God doesn't recognize how I think about my God, as above.

dhw: You think about your God as having one purpose (us and our food), and therefore specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. And you have no idea why he would have done so. I recognize that you think your God acts in a way which only he can make sense of.

Thank you. We wouldn't be here, with God running evolution, unless His goal was to create us.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

DAVID: The true answer to how long speciation takes is unknown. The many gaps don't tell us.

dhw: […] If you allow say 10 years for generations, you have 41,000 generations to produce your innovations. Halve it if you like. Even 20,000 generations should be enough for intelligent cell communities to come up with their innovations.

DAVID: […] There is no existing proof of that concept. All we have is fossil gaps. We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved. All you have is quoting hopeful explanations while I see a designer is required.

dhw: You have hit the nail on the head. WE DO NOT KNOW. And so I quote possible explanations, as alternatives to your “hopeful explanation” that there is a God who created new species without any precursors (although conversely you also believe in the continuity of the evolutionary process – see Part Two).

DAVID: The Cambrian gap is exactly what Darwin knew. New forms with no precursors!!! And now we know in just 410,000 years. With provable fossils from both periods.

dhw: You wrote: “We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved”, and you have totally ignored the argument that it is generations, not time that produce new species, and even 20,000 generations of intelligent cell communities could suffice for the production of new species. You call that a “hopeful explanation”. I call it a logical explanation, but of course it remains just as theoretical as your own: that an unknown eternal, universal mind preprogrammed or dabbled every change.

So you brush off your hero's worry. Every species gap we have in fossils is millions of years
e xcept the Cambrian!!! Use the whale series as one example. There are many others. No examples of tiny genertional changes in fossils is ever found. All new species appear de novo. (Gould)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Friday, June 17, 2022, 13:10 (650 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: No dodge. Your complaint about my God doesn't recognize how I think about my God, as above.

dhw: You think about your God as having one purpose (us and our food), and therefore specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. And you have no idea why he would have done so. I recognize that you think your God acts in a way which only he can make sense of.

DAVID: Thank you. We wouldn't be here, with God running evolution, unless His goal was to create us.

According to you, there is not one single extinct species that wouldn’t have been here unless his goal was to create them, and as the vast majority had no connection with us or our food, his goal could therefore not have been confined to creating us and our food.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: You wrote: “We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved”, and you have totally ignored the argument that it is generations, not time that produce new species, and even 20,000 generations of intelligent cell communities could suffice for the production of new species. You call that a “hopeful explanation”. I call it a logical explanation, but of course it remains just as theoretical as your own: that an unknown eternal, universal mind preprogrammed or dabbled every change.

DAVID: So you brush off your hero's worry. Every species gap we have in fossils is millions of years except the Cambrian!!! Use the whale series as one example. There are many others. No examples of tiny genertional changes in fossils is ever found. All new species appear de novo. (Gould)

I’m not denying that the Cambrian explosion happened! No matter what theory you embrace, quite clearly there was a new and major development that accelerated speciation (maybe an increase in oxygen). And so in contrast to the long periods of stasis, with no innovations, the sudden change in conditions created a sudden burst of innovations. (This is what Gould called “punctuated equilibrium": periods of stasis punctuated by bursts of innovation.) And still you ignore the argument that it is generations, not time, that produce new species.

DAVID: We know of no biological process or processes that produce new species.

dhw: So why do you keep harping on about them?

DAVID: Because it is obvious evolution is based on new biochemistry being avaliable for new forms.

If we don’t know of any biological process that produces new species, how is it obvious that “new biochemistry” produces new species? What is obvious is that if you believe in common descent (as you claim to do), biochemical processes must lead to new uses of available materials.

Immunity system: lung cells

DAVID: In design theory it is reasonably proposed lungs were first designed with these cells in place, or lunged species would not have survived.

dhw: Alternatively, fatalities would have resulted in the surviving cells gradually learning to improve their design. (You seem to think that every disease would obliterate the whole species!) A parallel would be most of our human inventions, which worked OK originally but were gradually improved on by subsequent generations.

DAVID: After a time gap new species handle life very well. Means prepared in advance.

The time gap suggests to me that cells learn to handle the different demands. The “advance preparation” would be the provision of intelligence and flexibility, whereby the former uses the latter to adjust to changing conditions and requirements.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Friday, June 17, 2022, 16:44 (650 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You think about your God as having one purpose (us and our food), and therefore specially designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with us. And you have no idea why he would have done so. I recognize that you think your God acts in a way which only he can make sense of.

DAVID: Thank you. We wouldn't be here, with God running evolution, unless His goal was to create us.

dhw: According to you, there is not one single extinct species that wouldn’t have been here unless his goal was to create them, and as the vast majority had no connection with us or our food, his goal could therefore not have been confined to creating us and our food.

You constantly ignore that evolution blossoms into the huge bush of life, which then has multilpe ecosystems to provide food for all. That was/is one of God's purposeful goals, without which an arriving dominating species of humans would not have enough to eat. Why that dosn't compute with you is beyond strange.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: You wrote: “We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved”, and you have totally ignored the argument that it is generations, not time that produce new species, and even 20,000 generations of intelligent cell communities could suffice for the production of new species. You call that a “hopeful explanation”. I call it a logical explanation, but of course it remains just as theoretical as your own: that an unknown eternal, universal mind preprogrammed or dabbled every change.

DAVID: So you brush off your hero's worry. Every species gap we have in fossils is millions of years except the Cambrian!!! Use the whale series as one example. There are many others. No examples of tiny genertional changes in fossils is ever found. All new species appear de novo. (Gould)

dhw: I’m not denying that the Cambrian explosion happened! No matter what theory you embrace, quite clearly there was a new and major development that accelerated speciation (maybe an increase in oxygen). And so in contrast to the long periods of stasis, with no innovations, the sudden change in conditions created a sudden burst of innovations. (This is what Gould called “punctuated equilibrium": periods of stasis punctuated by bursts of innovation.) And still you ignore the argument that it is generations, not time, that produce new species.

Neat theory with NO fossil support.


DAVID: We know of no biological process or processes that produce new species.

dhw: So why do you keep harping on about them?

DAVID: Because it is obvious evolution is based on new biochemistry being avaliable for new forms.

dhw: If we don’t know of any biological process that produces new species, how is it obvious that “new biochemistry” produces new species? What is obvious is that if you believe in common descent (as you claim to do), biochemical processes must lead to new uses of available materials.

The new biochemistry must be available to allow new forms. I have God engineering and you have ???


Immunity system: lung cells

DAVID: In design theory it is reasonably proposed lungs were first designed with these cells in place, or lunged species would not have survived.

dhw: Alternatively, fatalities would have resulted in the surviving cells gradually learning to improve their design. (You seem to think that every disease would obliterate the whole species!) A parallel would be most of our human inventions, which worked OK originally but were gradually improved on by subsequent generations.

DAVID: After a time gap new species handle life very well. Means prepared in advance.

dhw: The time gap suggests to me that cells learn to handle the different demands. The “advance preparation” would be the provision of intelligence and flexibility, whereby the former uses the latter to adjust to changing conditions and requirements.

How cells automatically have intelligence cannot be simply stated as fact. How did those intelligent actions happen? What mechanism?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Saturday, June 18, 2022, 13:48 (649 days ago) @ David Turell

I have reorganized comments from this and the “information” thread in order to provide more coherence.

DAVID: We wouldn't be here, with God running evolution, unless His goal was to create us.

dhw: According to you, there is not one single extinct species that wouldn’t have been here unless his goal was to create them, and as the vast majority had no connection with us or our food, his goal could therefore not have been confined to creating us and our food.

DAVID: You constantly ignore that evolution blossoms into the huge bush of life, which then has multiple ecosystems to provide food for all.

That is precisely what YOU ignore. If your God only wanted to create humans plus our food, why did he individually design countless extinct life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with us? Would we have starved if he hadn’t designed the brontosaurus?

dhw: […] I find it hard to believe that 3.8 billion years ago your God provided cells with instructions on how to deal with every single new problem/condition/ opportunity that would arise for the rest of the future, or that he popped/pops in to issue instructions ad hoc.

DAVID: You find it hard to believe in God, so I'm not surprised at your view. Living one-celled Archaea started knowing exactly how to handle themselves or nothing would have evolved. Do you have any thoughts about first life's capabilities? I've given it lots of thought.

dhw: […] I would suggest that they did indeed start by knowing how to handle themselves and, crucially, not only how to reproduce but also how to adapt and diversify, and ultimately – through cooperation and communication – to build increasingly complex organs and organisms in the process we call evolution. The mechanism I propose is - surprise, surprise - a form of intelligence which enabled them to do all these things. And - surprise, surprise - I regard it as possible that this mechanism was designed by an unknown intelligence we call God.

DAVID: How else could intelligence have appeared besides your usual scurry back to a possible God?

I gave you a full reply to this yesterday:

dhw: […] I find the argument for design (in this case, that of the intelligent cell) perfectly logical, and am therefore open to the possibility of there being a designer. However, while I find it difficult to believe that chance (the other option, given an eternity and infinity of possible combinations) could create such complexity, I find it equally difficult to believe that there is an eternal, immaterial mind that had no source, and has simply been “there” forever, somehow creating vast quantities of matter out of its own immateriality, and exercising its powers of psychokinesis to manipulate the materials into galaxies and solar systems, bacteria and dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus.

DAVID: How likely is chance vs an active mind? The picket fence as usual.

Since both options seem equally irrational, it requires faith to believe in either.

bacteria

DAVID: That mutation and diversity are equally important seems a logical finding to me. This is a pure Darwinist study with no reference to intelligent design and I present it for general interest.

dhw: “Mutations” are generally associated with randomness, which would indeed be Darwinist, so I’m surprised at your acceptance of the term, but if we take it as simply meaning “changes”, then I would say that changes arising from adaptation to or exploitation of new conditions cause diversity.

DAVID: Mutations are code change in DNA. Why do you question my acceptance of them?

You pointed out that this was a Darwinist study, and Darwinists associate the word “mutations” with chance. All explained above.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: You wrote: “We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved”, and you have totally ignored the argument that it is generations, not time that produce new species […]

DAVID: […]. Every species gap we have in fossils is millions of years except the Cambrian!!! Use the whale series as one example. There are many others. No examples of tiny genertional changes in fossils is ever found. All new species appear de novo. (Gould)

dhw: I’m not denying that the Cambrian explosion happened! No matter what theory you embrace, quite clearly there was a new and major development that accelerated speciation (maybe an increase in oxygen). And so in contrast to the long periods of stasis, with no innovations, the sudden change in conditions created a sudden burst of innovations. (This is what Gould called “punctuated equilibrium": periods of stasis punctuated by bursts of innovation.) And still you ignore the argument that it is generations, not time, that produce new species.

DAVID: Neat theory with NO fossil support.

You continue to ignore all the arguments that explain why a complete fossil record is highly unlikely, and you have not explained why you think it is time and not generations that produce species.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 18, 2022, 15:50 (649 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You constantly ignore that evolution blossoms into the huge bush of life, which then has multiple ecosystems to provide food for all.

dhw:That is precisely what YOU ignore. If your God only wanted to create humans plus our food, why did he individually design countless extinct life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with us? Would we have starved if he hadn’t designed the brontosaurus?

The bold is your distorted version of my view of God's choices of purpose. Both Adler and I view humans as proof of God. So you fully disagree with one of the premier philosphers of the 20th century. I find you analyis totally illogical and always asked you if you want God to do direct creation for which history offers no evidence. Your tiny human logic is no match for God's choices.


dhw: […] I would suggest that they did indeed start by knowing how to handle themselves and, crucially, not only how to reproduce but also how to adapt and diversify, and ultimately – through cooperation and communication – to build increasingly complex organs and organisms in the process we call evolution. The mechanism I propose is - surprise, surprise - a form of intelligence which enabled them to do all these things. And - surprise, surprise - I regard it as possible that this mechanism was designed by an unknown intelligence we call God.

DAVID: How else could intelligence have appeared besides your usual scurry back to a possible God?

I gave you a full reply to this yesterday:

dhw: […] I find the argument for design (in this case, that of the intelligent cell) perfectly logical, and am therefore open to the possibility of there being a designer. However, while I find it difficult to believe that chance (the other option, given an eternity and infinity of possible combinations) could create such complexity, I find it equally difficult to believe that there is an eternal, immaterial mind that had no source, and has simply been “there” forever, somehow creating vast quantities of matter out of its own immateriality, and exercising its powers of psychokinesis to manipulate the materials into galaxies and solar systems, bacteria and dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus.

DAVID: How likely is chance vs an active mind? The picket fence as usual.

dhw: Since both options seem equally irrational, it requires faith to believe in either.

The necessity for a designing mind is a very rational thought


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: You wrote: “We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved”, and you have totally ignored the argument that it is generations, not time that produce new species […]

DAVID: […]. Every species gap we have in fossils is millions of years except the Cambrian!!! Use the whale series as one example. There are many others. No examples of tiny genertional changes in fossils is ever found. All new species appear de novo. (Gould)

dhw: I’m not denying that the Cambrian explosion happened! No matter what theory you embrace, quite clearly there was a new and major development that accelerated speciation (maybe an increase in oxygen). And so in contrast to the long periods of stasis, with no innovations, the sudden change in conditions created a sudden burst of innovations. (This is what Gould called “punctuated equilibrium": periods of stasis punctuated by bursts of innovation.) And still you ignore the argument that it is generations, not time, that produce new species.

DAVID: Neat theory with NO fossil support.

dhw: You continue to ignore all the arguments that explain why a complete fossil record is highly unlikely, and you have not explained why you think it is time and not generations that produce species.

Those arguments are no more than logical wishful guesses. I've given you an opinion from an archeologist you refuse to accept, that indicates after 170 years of studying the Camrbian Gap nothing important will be found to remove the gap. The new 410,000 year gap, when compared to other gaps, simply reinforces to magnitude of the phenotypical changes in an extremely short period. And finally your wishful generations theory has no evidence. All newspecies we know about appear afer gaps (punc-eq)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Sunday, June 19, 2022, 09:27 (649 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You constantly ignore that evolution blossoms into the huge bush of life, which then has multiple ecosystems to provide food for all.

dhw:That is precisely what YOU ignore. If your God only wanted to create humans plus our food, why did he individually design countless extinct life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with us? Would we have starved if he hadn’t designed the brontosaurus?

DAVID: The bold is your distorted version of my view of God's choices of purpose. Both Adler and I view humans as proof of God. So you fully disagree with one of the premier philosphers of the 20th century.

I do not “fully” disagree with Adler. I am an agnostic, and do you really believe there were no agnostic or atheist philosophers in the 20th century? I don’t how many more times you want me to repeat that I accept the logic of the design argument: i.e. the complexities of all life, including humans, are such that I cannot believe in chance. The disagreement, as you know perfectly well, is over your theories, (a) that your God’s only goal from the very beginning was humans plus food, (b) that he designed every individual life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., and (c) all the extinct ones were an “absolute requirement” for the design of us and our food.

DAVID: I find your analyis totally illogical and always asked you if you want God to do direct creation for which history offers no evidence. Your tiny human logic is no match for God's choices.

Re direct creation, according to you, your God individually designed every species etc. – although there is much confusion here, because you also believe in common descent. This would mean he redesigned existing species into new ones, but apparently in the Cambrian he did no such thing: he created new species without precursors. Re humans, there is indeed clear evidence that we evolved in stages, but since you believe your God could create new species without precursors, and humans (plus food) were the only species he wanted to design from the very beginning, I ask why you think he chose to design us in stages. You have no idea. It “makes sense only to God.” How does your cluelessness make my analysis illogical?

dhw: […] I find the argument for design (in this case, that of the intelligent cell) perfectly logical, and am therefore open to the possibility of there being a designer. However, while I find it difficult to believe that chance (the other option, given an eternity and infinity of possible combinations) could create such complexity, I find it equally difficult to believe that there is an eternal, immaterial mind that had no source, and has simply been “there” forever, somehow creating vast quantities of matter out of its own immateriality, and exercising its powers of psychokinesis to manipulate the materials into galaxies and solar systems, bacteria and dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus.[/i]

DAVID: How likely is chance vs an active mind? The picket fence as usual.

dhw: Since both options seem equally irrational, it requires faith to believe in either.

DAVID: The necessity for a designing mind is a very rational thought.

That is what I said in the very first sentence above (now bolded). Why have you ignored the last sentence, which describes the irrational side of your faith?

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: You wrote: “We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved”, and you have totally ignored the argument that it is generations, not time that produce new species […]

DAVID: […]. Every species gap we have in fossils is millions of years except the Cambrian!!! Use the whale series as one example. There are many others. No examples of tiny genertional changes in fossils is ever found. All new species appear de novo. (Gould)

dhw: I’m not denying that the Cambrian explosion happened! No matter what theory you embrace, quite clearly there was a new and major development that accelerated speciation (maybe an increase in oxygen). And so in contrast to the long periods of stasis, with no innovations, the sudden change in conditions created a sudden burst of innovations. (This is what Gould called “punctuated equilibrium": periods of stasis punctuated by bursts of innovation.) And still you ignore the argument that it is generations, not time, that produce new species.

DAVID: Neat theory with NO fossil support.

dhw: You continue to ignore all the arguments that explain why a complete fossil record is highly unlikely, and you have not explained why you think it is time and not generations that produce species.

DAVID: Those arguments are no more than logical wishful guesses. I've given you an opinion from an archeologist you refuse to accept, that indicates after 170 years of studying the Camrbian Gap nothing important will be found to remove the gap.

This may well be true, and if it is, I’ve offered you a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils, but you dismiss them all because the list was written in 2019!

Continued in Part Two

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 19, 2022, 16:20 (648 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I find your analyis totally illogical and always asked you if you want God to do direct creation for which history offers no evidence. Your tiny human logic is no match for God's choices.

dhw: Re direct creation, according to you, your God individually designed every species etc. – although there is much confusion here, because you also believe in common descent. This would mean he redesigned existing species into new ones, but apparently in the Cambrian he did no such thing: he created new species without precursors. Re humans, there is indeed clear evidence that we evolved in stages, but since you believe your God could create new species without precursors, and humans (plus food) were the only species he wanted to design from the very beginning, I ask why you think he chose to design us in stages. You have no idea. It “makes sense only to God.” How does your cluelessness make my analysis illogical?

Not clueless. You still do not follow my reasoning: God made us through stages of evolution He created. We can create a pattern of history that shows a common descent in the branches of the bush of life from simple to complex. The basis of life in its biochemistry means specialized proteins like the example neuropeptides must have precursors before specialized organs can be created to use them. A designer God can create the gaps we see in forms when the chemistry allows. As for human progression, it is mainly based on brain size and development and then full bipedalism. And yes, a dssigner God knows exactly what to do.


DAVID: How likely is chance vs an active mind? The picket fence as usual.

dhw: Since both options seem equally irrational, it requires faith to believe in either.

DAVID: The necessity for a designing mind is a very rational thought.

dhw: That is what I said in the very first sentence above (now bolded). Why have you ignored the last sentence, which describes the irrational side of your faith?

What is irrational is your clear view of design and refusal to decide a designer is required. Do you really see how complex the design is? That it is beyond chance.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: You wrote: “We do not know how species appear or the theoretical times involved”, and you have totally ignored the argument that it is generations, not time that produce new species […]

DAVID: […]. Every species gap we have in fossils is millions of years except the Cambrian!!! Use the whale series as one example. There are many others. No examples of tiny genertional changes in fossils is ever found. All new species appear de novo. (Gould)

dhw: I’m not denying that the Cambrian explosion happened! No matter what theory you embrace, quite clearly there was a new and major development that accelerated speciation (maybe an increase in oxygen). And so in contrast to the long periods of stasis, with no innovations, the sudden change in conditions created a sudden burst of innovations. (This is what Gould called “punctuated equilibrium": periods of stasis punctuated by bursts of innovation.) And still you ignore the argument that it is generations, not time, that produce new species.

DAVID: Neat theory with NO fossil support.

dhw: You continue to ignore all the arguments that explain why a complete fossil record is highly unlikely, and you have not explained why you think it is time and not generations that produce species.

DAVID: Those arguments are no more than logical wishful guesses. I've given you an opinion from an archeologist you refuse to accept, that indicates after 170 years of studying the Camrbian Gap nothing important will be found to remove the gap.

This may well be true, and if it is, I’ve offered you a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils, but you dismiss them all because the list was written in 2019!

And three years later we find the Cambrain gap is 410,000 years in size based on existing fossil studies. What would the 2019 writers say now!


Continued in Part Two

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Monday, June 20, 2022, 08:39 (648 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I find your analyis totally illogical and always asked you if you want God to do direct creation for which history offers no evidence. Your tiny human logic is no match for God's choices.

dhw: Re direct creation, according to you, your God individually designed every species etc. – although there is much confusion here, because you also believe in common descent. This would mean he redesigned existing species into new ones, but apparently in the Cambrian he did no such thing: he created new species without precursors. Re humans, there is indeed clear evidence that we evolved in stages, but since you believe your God could create new species without precursors, and humans (plus food) were the only species he wanted to design from the very beginning, I ask why you think he chose to design us in stages. You have no idea. It “makes sense only to God.” How does your cluelessness make my analysis illogical?

Your response to this is sheer waffle, dodging from one point to another as you try to avoid the plain fact that you can’t explain your combination of theories, which “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: Not clueless. You still do not follow my reasoning: God made us through stages of evolution He created.

The fact that we evolved in stages is not in dispute.

DAVID: We can create a pattern of history that shows a common descent in the branches of the bush of life from simple to complex.

Also true, but it does not mean that your God created every single species individually, or that every individual species was an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food.

DAVID: The basis of life in its biochemistry means specialized proteins like the example neuropeptides must have precursors before specialized organs can be created to use them.

Agreed. In the process of common descent, existing materials are put to new uses.

DAVID: A designer God can create the gaps we see in forms when the chemistry allows.

Fudge. The “gaps” we see in forms refers to your belief that during the Cambrian he designed species that had no precursors. “When the chemistry allows” is fudge for when conditions change (e.g. an increase in oxygen). In Part Two I asked if you believed in common descent, and you have referred me to this load of waffle, which does not answer my question. However, you point out the following:
DAVID: Common descent, in a definition, does not have to be defined as tiny changes by generations. All Darwinists like Gould describe gaps, not itty bitty steps.

Agreed. If you believe in common descent, then your God would take an existing species and introduce an innovation from one generation to the next. The same would apply if your God had given cells the intelligence to design their own innovations. And subsequent generations might well improve on the innovation – just as one generation of humans invents something new and subsequent generations improve on it. Do you believe in common descent, i.e. that all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: As for human progression, it is mainly based on brain size and development and then full bipedalism. And yes, a dssigner God knows exactly what to do.

We know that humans evolved in stages. I am not questioning the history, and you know that I’m not. You also know that you cannot find an explanation that will enable your combined theories to fit in with the history, as I have pointed out at the start of this post. Your combined theories “make sense only to God” – and as far as I know, you are not God.

DAVID: How likely is chance vs an active mind? The picket fence as usual.

dhw: Since both options seem equally irrational, it requires faith to believe in either.

DAVID: The necessity for a designing mind is a very rational thought.

dhw: That is what I said in the very first sentence above (now bolded). Why have you ignored the last sentence, which describes the irrational side of your faith?

DAVID: What is irrational is your clear view of design and refusal to decide a designer is required. Do you really see how complex the design is? That it is beyond chance.

I keep agreeing, and you keep ignoring the reason why I find the God theory equally irrational. So I will repeat it: “I find it equally difficult to believe that there is an eternal, immaterial mind that had no source, and has simply been “there” forever, somehow creating vast quantities of matter out of its own immateriality, and exercising its powers of psychokinesis to manipulate the materials into galaxies and solar systems, bacteria and dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus.”

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Monday, June 20, 2022, 16:13 (647 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Your response to this is sheer waffle, dodging from one point to another as you try to avoid the plain fact that you can’t explain your combination of theories, which “makes sense only to God”.

I don't have to explain to you God's reasoning, because I do not/cannot know it.


DAVID: Not clueless. You still do not follow my reasoning: God made us through stages of evolution He created.

dhw: The fact that we evolved in stages is not in dispute.

DAVID: We can create a pattern of history that shows a common descent in the branches of the bush of life from simple to complex.

dhw: Also true, but it does not mean that your God created every single species individually, or that every individual species was an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food.

But it is exactly what I believe, based on the evidence.


DAVID: The basis of life in its biochemistry means specialized proteins like the example neuropeptides must have precursors before specialized organs can be created to use them.

dhw: Agreed. In the process of common descent, existing materials are put to new uses.

DAVID: A designer God can create the gaps we see in forms when the chemistry allows.

Fudge. The “gaps” we see in forms refers to your belief that during the Cambrian he designed species that had no precursors. “When the chemistry allows” is fudge for when conditions change (e.g. an increase in oxygen). In Part Two I asked if you believed in common descent, and you have referred me to this load of waffle, which does not answer my question. However, you point out the following:
DAVID: Common descent, in a definition, does not have to be defined as tiny changes by generations. All Darwinists like Gould describe gaps, not itty bitty steps.

Agreed. If you believe in common descent, then your God would take an existing species and introduce an innovation from one generation to the next...Do you believe in common descent, i.e. that all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms.

Yes, based on continuous development of ever more complex biochemistry alowing gaps in form by the desiger God.


DAVID: As for human progression, it is mainly based on brain size and development and then full bipedalism. And yes, a dssigner God knows exactly what to do.

dhw: We know that humans evolved in stages. I am not questioning the history, and you know that I’m not. You also know that you cannot find an explanation that will enable your combined theories to fit in with the history, as I have pointed out at the start of this post. Your combined theories “make sense only to God” – and as far as I know, you are not God.

I accept that God knows/knew exactly how to evolve all: your incredulous bold.


DAVID: What is irrational is your clear view of design and refusal to decide a designer is required. Do you really see how complex the design is? That it is beyond chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing, and you keep ignoring the reason why I find the God theory equally irrational. So I will repeat it: “I find it equally difficult to believe that there is an eternal, immaterial mind that had no source, and has simply been “there” forever, somehow creating vast quantities of matter out of its own immateriality, and exercising its powers of psychokinesis to manipulate the materials into galaxies and solar systems, bacteria and dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus.”

Something made this all happen, not chance. There is too strong a drive to increasing complexity to not to assume a creative mind is behind it all.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Tuesday, June 21, 2022, 10:48 (647 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your response to this is sheer waffle, dodging from one point to another as you try to avoid the plain fact that you can’t explain your combination of theories, which “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: I don't have to explain to you God's reasoning, because I do not/cannot know it.

It is YOUR collection of theories that your God had only one purpose (sapiens plus food), that he specially designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest), and that all those that had no connection with us and our food were preparation and an “absolute requirement” for designing us and our food. YOU find this collection of YOUR theories inexplicable, and it is YOUR reasoning that you cannot explain.

dhw: Your combined theories “make sense only to God” – and as far as I know, you are not God.

DAVID: I accept that God knows/knew exactly how to evolve all: your incredulous bold.

If God exists, of course he does/did. That doesn’t mean his purpose was the one you impose on him, or the totally illogical method you impose on him to fulfil that purpose. Since it “makes sense only to God”, it does not make sense to you, so why do you keep defending it?

DAVID: We can create a pattern of history that shows a common descent in the branches of the bush of life from simple to complex.

dhw: Also true, but it does not mean that your God created every single species individually, or that every individual species was an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food.

DAVID: But it is exactly what I believe, based on the evidence.

Yes, it is your belief. What “evidence”? All we know is that history shows a vast bush of organisms, most of which are extinct and did NOT lead to humans (the latest species) or our food. Hence the illogicality of your belief.

dhw: If you believe in common descent, then your God would take an existing species and introduce an innovation from one generation to the next...Do you believe in common descent, i.e. that all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: Yes, based on continuous development of ever more complex biochemistry allowing gaps in form by the designer God.

By “gaps in form” do you mean species with no precursors (the opposite of common descent)? If not, what do you mean?

DAVID: What is irrational is your clear view of design and refusal to decide a designer is required. Do you really see how complex the design is? That it is beyond chance.

dhw: I keep agreeing, and you keep ignoring the reason why I find the God theory equally irrational. So I will repeat it: “I find it equally difficult to believe that there is an eternal, immaterial mind that had no source, and has simply been “there” forever, somehow creating vast quantities of matter out of its own immateriality, and exercising its powers of psychokinesis to manipulate the materials into galaxies and solar systems, bacteria and dinosaurs, humans and the duckbilled platypus.”

DAVID: Something made this all happen, not chance. There is too strong a drive to increasing complexity to not to assume a creative mind is behind it all.

And so you replace the mystery of our origins with the mystery of an unknown and unknowable thingummy that did it all, and by giving it a name, you think you’ve solved all the problems.

Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: This may well be true, and if it is, I’ve offered you a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils, but you dismiss them all because the list was written in 2019!

DAVID: And three years later we find the Cambrian gap is 410,000 years in size based on existing fossil studies. What would the 2019 writers say now!

dhw: The 2019 writers offer a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils. Nothing to do with the length of the Cambrian gap. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Stop dodging. Has everything to do with the Cambrian gap.

You continue to ignore reasons why the fossil record is incomplete, so here are some of them, selected from various websites:

The fossil record certainly has gaps, mostly because the conditions required to create fossils have been rare ever since life began on Earth. A very small percentage of animals that have lived and died ever became fossils. Thus, many pieces of the puzzle are missing; some will never be found.

Soft tissue fossilization is rare […] due to decomposition and scavengers.

Sediment has to cover an organism’s remains in order for the long fossilization process to begin. Most organisms decompose before this can happen.

Fossils may be set in stone, but they’re far from impervious. Like all rocks, they erode, melt and fragment.

You expect a record of every species and transition, with bodies preserved for hundreds of millions of years. Every new fossil creates a sensation precisely because preservation is so unlikely. But because there’s a new calculation that the Cambrian gap was only 410,000 years, you think none of the above reasons can possibly be valid any more, and there should be a complete fossil record of every organism that evolved 540 million years ago!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 21, 2022, 16:33 (646 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Your combined theories “make sense only to God” – and as far as I know, you are not God.

DAVID: I accept that God knows/knew exactly how to evolve all: your incredulous bold.

dhw: If God exists, of course he does/did. That doesn’t mean his purpose was the one you impose on him, or the totally illogical method you impose on him to fulfil that purpose. Since it “makes sense only to God”, it does not make sense to you, so why do you keep defending it?

I cannot be inside God's brain to know His reasoning. I can only see what He produced and therefore this last stage of humans was His purposeful act.


dhw: Yes, it is your belief. What “evidence”? All we know is that history shows a vast bush of organisms, most of which are extinct and did NOT lead to humans (the latest species) or our food. Hence the illogicality of your belief.

But humans are here after all that bushiness development, and is our food, which you ignore..


dhw: If you believe in common descent, then your God would take an existing species and introduce an innovation from one generation to the next...Do you believe in common descent, i.e. that all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: Yes, based on continuous development of ever more complex biochemistry allowing gaps in form by the designer God.

dhw: By “gaps in form” do you mean species with no precursors (the opposite of common descent)? If not, what do you mean?

Darwin's common descent meant itty bitty changes by generations. That does not exist in the fossil record. There are gaps. I don't view that definition of common descent as fitting the known record. So you can stick with orthodox Darwin but I don't have to.


Ediacaran-Cambrian transition: 410,000 years

dhw: This may well be true, and if it is, I’ve offered you a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils, but you dismiss them all because the list was written in 2019!

DAVID: And three years later we find the Cambrian gap is 410,000 years in size based on existing fossil studies. What would the 2019 writers say now!

dhw: The 2019 writers offer a list of reasons why there may be no more fossils. Nothing to do with the length of the Cambrian gap. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Stop dodging. Has everything to do with the Cambrian gap.

dhw: You continue to ignore reasons why the fossil record is incomplete, so here are some of them, selected from various websites:

The fossil record certainly has gaps, mostly because the conditions required to create fossils have been rare ever since life began on Earth. A very small percentage of animals that have lived and died ever became fossils. Thus, many pieces of the puzzle are missing; some will never be found.

Soft tissue fossilization is rare […] due to decomposition and scavengers.

Sediment has to cover an organism’s remains in order for the long fossilization process to begin. Most organisms decompose before this can happen.

Fossils may be set in stone, but they’re far from impervious. Like all rocks, they erode, melt and fragment.

dhw: You expect a record of every species and transition, with bodies preserved for hundreds of millions of years. Every new fossil creates a sensation precisely because preservation is so unlikely. But because there’s a new calculation that the Cambrian gap was only 410,000 years, you think none of the above reasons can possibly be valid any more, and there should be a complete fossil record of every organism that evolved 540 million years ago!

I know all those theories and fossil facts, just you do. The new discovery of such a short time has fossils on both sides. Nothing is absent! So we have huge phenotypic change opposite to Darwin theory, exactly Darwin's worry about his theory. In your view this lack of precursors destroys the theory of common descent. No it doesn't! Common descent theory takes a new form. Theories are maleable, but not yours, obviously.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Wednesday, June 22, 2022, 08:51 (646 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your combined theories “make sense only to God” – and as far as I know, you are not God.

DAVID: I accept that God knows/knew exactly how to evolve all: your incredulous bold.

dhw: If God exists, of course he does/did. That doesn’t mean his purpose was the one you impose on him, or the totally illogical method you impose on him to fulfil that purpose. Since it “makes sense only to God”, it does not make sense to you, so why do you keep defending it?

DAVID: I cannot be inside God's brain to know His reasoning. I can only see what He produced and therefore this last stage of humans was His purposeful act.

If he exists, then the whole history of life would have been his purposeful act! That does not mean that he specially designed each individual species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, and it does not mean – absurdly! – that all those that had no connection to humans and our food were nevertheless preparation and an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food!

dhw: All we know is that history shows a vast bush of organisms, most of which are extinct and did NOT lead to humans (the latest species) or our food. Hence the illogicality of your belief.

DAVID: But humans are here after all that bushiness development, and is our food, which you ignore.

Of course we are here. And countless species and their foods that had no connection with humans and our food were also here, which you ignore. So if humans and our food were his one and only purpose, why did he – according to you – design them all? You don’t know. You can’t find any logic in your theory. It “makes sense only to God”.

dhw: If you believe in common descent, then your God would take an existing species and introduce an innovation from one generation to the next...Do you believe in common descent, i.e. that all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: Yes, based on continuous development of ever more complex biochemistry allowing gaps in form by the designer God.

dhw: By “gaps in form” do you mean species with no precursors (the opposite of common descent)? If not, what do you mean?

DAVID: Darwin's common descent meant itty bitty changes by generations. That does not exist in the fossil record. There are gaps. I don't view that definition of common descent as fitting the known record. So you can stick with orthodox Darwin but I don't have to.

I don’t accept that “definition” either, so why do you persist in attacking Darwin instead of responding to my own arguments? I gave you my definition of common descent: “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”. Yes or no? According to you, your God creates species without any precursors. That means they are NOT descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: In your view this lack of precursors destroys the theory of common descent. No it doesn't! Common descent theory takes a new form. Theories are maleable, but not yours, obviously.

If life forms appear that are not directly descended from earlier life forms (i.e they have no precursors), then there can be no common descent. So please give us your definition of common descent if you disagree with mine. As regards the gaps in the fossil record, I have given you a list of logical reasons why fossils are such a rarity.

DAVID: I know all those theories and fossil facts, just you do. The new discovery of such a short time has fossils on both sides. Nothing is absent! So we have huge phenotypic change opposite to Darwin theory, exactly Darwin's worry about his theory.

I do not subscribe to Darwin’s gradualism. Why do you even mention it when I have set out my alternative, as in the following exchange?
dhw: I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

DAVID: Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps.

That is not what I have written. Please reread the bold. But I have suggested that there may be gradual improvements.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 22, 2022, 16:26 (645 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I cannot be inside God's brain to know His reasoning. I can only see what He produced and therefore this last stage of humans was His purposeful act.

dhw: If he exists, then the whole history of life would have been his purposeful act! That does not mean that he specially designed each individual species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, and it does not mean – absurdly! – that all those that had no connection to humans and our food were nevertheless preparation and an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food!

If God created all of history how did all species in evolution appear?


dhw: Of course we are here. And countless species and their foods that had no connection with humans and our food were also here, which you ignore. So if humans and our food were his one and only purpose, why did he – according to you – design them all? You don’t know. You can’t find any logic in your theory. It “makes sense only to God”.

You can't find the logic of my view of God, the designer.


dhw: By “gaps in form” do you mean species with no precursors (the opposite of common descent)? If not, what do you mean?

DAVID: Darwin's common descent meant itty bitty changes by generations. That does not exist in the fossil record. There are gaps. I don't view that definition of common descent as fitting the known record. So you can stick with orthodox Darwin but I don't have to.

dhw: I don’t accept that “definition” either, so why do you persist in attacking Darwin instead of responding to my own arguments? I gave you my definition of common descent: “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”. Yes or no? According to you, your God creates species without any precursors. That means they are NOT descended from earlier life forms.

Correct!! God designs them using the latest bochemistry. Thus the Cabrians in only 410,000 years.


DAVID: In your view this lack of precursors destroys the theory of common descent. No it doesn't! Common descent theory takes a new form. Theories are maleable, but not yours, obviously.

dhw: If life forms appear that are not directly descended from earlier life forms (i.e they have no precursors), then there can be no common descent. So please give us your definition of common descent if you disagree with mine. As regards the gaps in the fossil record, I have given you a list of logical reasons why fossils are such a rarity.

DAVID: I know all those theories and fossil facts, just you do. The new discovery of such a short time has fossils on both sides. Nothing is absent! So we have huge phenotypic change opposite to Darwin theory, exactly Darwin's worry about his theory.

dhw: I do not subscribe to Darwin’s gradualism. Why do you even mention it when I have set out my alternative, as in the following exchange?

dhw: I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

DAVID: Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps.

dhw: That is not what I have written. Please reread the bold. But I have suggested that there may be gradual improvements.

The red quote is exactly what you wrote.!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Thursday, June 23, 2022, 10:49 (645 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I cannot be inside God's brain to know His reasoning. I can only see what He produced and therefore this last stage of humans was His purposeful act.

dhw: If he exists, then the whole history of life would have been his purposeful act! That does not mean that he specially designed each individual species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, and it does not mean – absurdly! – that all those that had no connection to humans and our food were nevertheless preparation and an “absolute requirement” for humans and our food!

DAVID: If God created all of history how did all species in evolution appear?

As always, you dodge the illogicality of your combined theories. I’ve answered your question a hundred times with alternative theories, each of which you have agreed fits in logically with the higgledy-piggledy nature of evolution’s comings and goings. If God exists, he may have designed cellular intelligence to create a free-for-all, he may have designed all species because he enjoyed creating things that would interest him, he may have wanted to create a being like himself and experimented until he got the right formula, he may have had new ideas as he went along. Your only objection to all of these is that they entail human thought patterns, although you agree that he probably has human thought patterns. Meanwhile, your own combination of theories remains as illogical as ever. Please stop dodging!

dhw: Of course we are here. And countless species and their foods that had no connection with humans and our food were also here, which you ignore. So if humans and our food were his one and only purpose, why did he – according to you – design them all? You don’t know. You can’t find any logic in your theory. It “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: You can't find the logic of my view of God, the designer.

I accept the logic of God as designer, which is totally different from the illogicality of your theories about his motives and methods, which you regard as senseless, since they “make sense only to God”.

dhw: By “gaps in form” do you mean species with no precursors (the opposite of common descent)? If not, what do you mean?

DAVID: Darwin's common descent meant itty bitty changes by generations. That does not exist in the fossil record. There are gaps. I don't view that definition of common descent as fitting the known record. So you can stick with orthodox Darwin but I don't have to.

dhw: I don’t accept that “definition” either, so why do you persist in attacking Darwin instead of responding to my own arguments? I gave you my definition of common descent: “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”. Yes or no? According to you, your God creates species without any precursors. That means they are NOT descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: Correct!! God designs them using the latest biochemistry. Thus the Cambrians in only 410,000 years.

And so you do not believe in common descent, as I have defined it.

DAVID: In your view this lack of precursors destroys the theory of common descent. No it doesn't! Common descent theory takes a new form. Theories are maleable, but not yours, obviously.

dhw: If life forms appear that are not directly descended from earlier life forms (i.e. they have no precursors), then there can be no common descent. So please give us your definition of common descent if you disagree with mine.

Request ignored.

dhw: As regards the gaps in the fossil record, I have given you a list of logical reasons why fossils are such a rarity.

DAVID: I know all those theories and fossil facts, just you do. The new discovery of such a short time has fossils on both sides. Nothing is absent! So we have huge phenotypic change opposite to Darwin theory, exactly Darwin's worry about his theory.

dhw: I do not subscribe to Darwin’s gradualism. Why do you even mention it when I have set out my alternative, as in the following exchange?

dhw: I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

DAVID: Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps.

dhw: That is not what I have written. Please reread the bold. But I have suggested that there may be gradual improvements.

DAVID: The red quote is exactly what you wrote!

There is no red, but if you are referring to my bold, there are no itty-bitty steps: I am proposing extremely rapid adaptation AND exploitation (=innovation), even from one generation to the next.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 23, 2022, 15:47 (644 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Of course we are here. And countless species and their foods that had no connection with humans and our food were also here, which you ignore. So if humans and our food were his one and only purpose, why did he – according to you – design them all? You don’t know. You can’t find any logic in your theory. It “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: You can't find the logic of my view of God, the designer.

dhw: I accept the logic of God as designer, which is totally different from the illogicality of your theories about his motives and methods, which you regard as senseless, since they “make sense only to God”.

What that means is I trust that God knows what He is doing. That makes total sense since I fully believe God created the history we have.


dhw: By “gaps in form” do you mean species with no precursors (the opposite of common descent)? If not, what do you mean?

DAVID: Darwin's common descent meant itty bitty changes by generations. That does not exist in the fossil record. There are gaps. I don't view that definition of common descent as fitting the known record. So you can stick with orthodox Darwin but I don't have to.

dhw: I don’t accept that “definition” either, so why do you persist in attacking Darwin instead of responding to my own arguments? I gave you my definition of common descent: “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”. Yes or no? According to you, your God creates species without any precursors. That means they are NOT descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: Correct!! God designs them using the latest biochemistry. Thus the Cambrians in only 410,000 years.

dhw: And so you do not believe in common descent, as I have defined it.

I emphatically do not.


DAVID: In your view this lack of precursors destroys the theory of common descent. No it doesn't! Common descent theory takes a new form. Theories are malleable, but not yours, obviously.

dhw: If life forms appear that are not directly descended from earlier life forms (i.e. they have no precursors), then there can be no common descent. So please give us your definition of common descent if you disagree with mine.

Request ignored.

Evolution is based on advancing biochemistry with gaps in form by the designer of evolution.


dhw: As regards the gaps in the fossil record, I have given you a list of logical reasons why fossils are such a rarity.

DAVID: I know all those theories and fossil facts, just you do. The new discovery of such a short time has fossils on both sides. Nothing is absent! So we have huge phenotypic change opposite to Darwin theory, exactly Darwin's worry about his theory.

dhw: I do not subscribe to Darwin’s gradualism. Why do you even mention it when I have set out my alternative, as in the following exchange?

Did Darwin worry about Cambrian or not?


dhw: I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

DAVID: Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps.

dhw: That is not what I have written. Please reread the bold. But I have suggested that there may be gradual improvements.

DAVID: The red quote is exactly what you wrote!

dhw: There is no red, but if you are referring to my bold, there are no itty-bitty steps: I am proposing extremely rapid adaptation AND exploitation (=innovation), even from one generation to the next.

Red inserted again.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Friday, June 24, 2022, 09:17 (644 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I accept the logic of God as designer, which is totally different from the illogicality of your theories about his motives and methods, which you regard as senseless, since they “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: What that means is I trust that God knows what He is doing. That makes total sense since I fully believe God created the history we have.

If God exists, of course it makes total sense to assume that he knows what he is doing. That doesn’t mean that what he is doing is what you say he is doing, or his purpose is what you say is his purpose, or that what he is doing has to be incomprehensible to us humans! If you find your own theories senseless, maybe they are wrong.

dhw: […] why do you persist in attacking Darwin instead of responding to my own arguments? I gave you my definition of common descent: “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”. Yes or no? According to you, your God creates species without any precursors. That means they are NOT descended from earlier life forms.

DAVID: Correct!! God designs them using the latest biochemistry. Thus the Cambrians in only 410,000 years.

dhw: And so you do not believe in common descent, as I have defined it.

DAVID: I emphatically do not.

Thank you for this confirmation. Since you believe that your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, it would appear that you are a creationist rather than an evolutionist. Nothing wrong with that, if you are happy with your beliefs, but it makes a mockery of your next comment.

DAVID: In your view this lack of precursors destroys the theory of common descent. No it doesn't! Common descent theory takes a new form. Theories are malleable, but not yours, obviously.

dhw: If life forms appear that are not directly descended from earlier life forms (i.e. they have no precursors), then there can be no common descent. So please give us your definition of common descent if you disagree with mine.

DAVID: Evolution is based on advancing biochemistry with gaps in form by the designer of evolution.

This is not a definition of common descent! All “evolutionary changes” must be biochemical, regardless of whether they evolved from generation to generation, were designed by intelligent cells, or were separately programmed/dabbled by your God, and if “gaps in form” means separate creation (as above), then there is nothing left of the theory of common descent!

dhw: As regards the gaps in the fossil record, I have given you a list of logical reasons why fossils are such a rarity.

DAVID: I know all those theories and fossil facts, just you do. The new discovery of such a short time has fossils on both sides. Nothing is absent! So we have huge phenotypic change opposite to Darwin theory, exactly Darwin's worry about his theory.

dhw: I do not subscribe to Darwin’s gradualism. Why do you even mention it when I have set out my alternative, as in the following exchange?

DAVID: Did Darwin worry about Cambrian or not?

Yes, he did. But you are discussing the subject with me and not with Darwin, and I reject Darwin’s rigid gradualism.

dhw: I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

DAVID: Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps.

dhw: That is not what I have written. Please reread the bold. But I have suggested that there may be gradual improvements.

DAVID: The red quote is exactly what you wrote!

dhw: There is no red, but if you are referring to my bold, there are no itty-bitty steps: I am proposing extremely rapid adaptation AND exploitation (=innovation), even from one generation to the next.

DAVID: Red inserted again.

And changes within a single generation (from one generation to the next) could hardly be more opposed to the theory of itty-bitty steps! So what are you objecting to?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Friday, June 24, 2022, 16:21 (643 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What that means is I trust that God knows what He is doing. That makes total sense since I fully believe God created the history we have.

dhw: If God exists, of course it makes total sense to assume that he knows what he is doing. That doesn’t mean that what he is doing is what you say he is doing, or his purpose is what you say is his purpose, or that what he is doing has to be incomprehensible to us humans! If you find your own theories senseless, maybe they are wrong.

Please remember I don't find my theories senseless. Our views of God totally differ. WE are arguing past each other as past discussons show.

dhw: And so you do not believe in common descent, as I have defined it.

DAVID: I emphatically do not.

Thank you for this confirmation. Since you believe that your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, it would appear that you are a creationist rather than an evolutionist. Nothing wrong with that, if you are happy with your beliefs, but it makes a mockery of your next comment.

DAVID: In your view this lack of precursors destroys the theory of common descent. No it doesn't! Common descent theory takes a new form. Theories are malleable, but not yours, obviously.

dhw: If life forms appear that are not directly descended from earlier life forms (i.e. they have no precursors), then there can be no common descent. So please give us your definition of common descent if you disagree with mine.

DAVID: Evolution is based on advancing biochemistry with gaps in form by the designer of evolution.

dhw: This is not a definition of common descent! All “evolutionary changes” must be biochemical, regardless of whether they evolved from generation to generation, were designed by intelligent cells, or were separately programmed/dabbled by your God, and if “gaps in form” means separate creation (as above), then there is nothing left of the theory of common descent!

But it is common descent as we now see it to be. Aside from the Cambrian we still see comparative anatomy as evidence of common descent from ancestral forms. Most speciation has past form as part of it.


dhw: I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

DAVID: Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps.

dhw: That is not what I have written. Please reread the bold. But I have suggested that there may be gradual improvements.

DAVID: The red quote is exactly what you wrote!

dhw: There is no red, but if you are referring to my bold, there are no itty-bitty steps: I am proposing extremely rapid adaptation AND exploitation (=innovation), even from one generation to the next.

DAVID: Red inserted again.

dhw: And changes within a single generation (from one generation to the next) could hardly be more opposed to the theory of itty-bitty steps! So what are you objecting to?

Remember, what the gaps show us is not generational change, which by definition must be tiny steps of change. Generational change means an adaptation within the same species.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 08:08 (643 days ago) @ David Turell

According to David, his combination of evolutionary theories “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: What that means is I trust that God knows what He is doing. That makes total sense since I fully believe God created the history we have.

dhw: If God exists, of course it makes total sense to assume that he knows what he is doing. That doesn’t mean that what he is doing is what you say he is doing, or his purpose is what you say is his purpose, or that what he is doing has to be incomprehensible to us humans! If you find your own theories senseless, maybe they are wrong.

DAVID: Please remember I don't find my theories senseless. […]

When you tell me you can’t explain your combination of evolutionary theories and I should go and ask God, and your theories “make sense only to God”, I’m afraid the inevitable conclusion is that they don’t make sense to you – unless you happen to be God in disguise, which I very much doubt. (See “mud” in Part Two for more details.)

dhw: And so you do not believe in common descent, as I have defined it.

DAVID: I emphatically do not.

dhw: If life forms appear that are not directly descended from earlier life forms (i.e. they have no precursors), then there can be no common descent. So please give us your definition of common descent if you disagree with mine.

DAVID: Evolution is based on advancing biochemistry with gaps in form by the designer of evolution.

dhw: This is not a definition of common descent! All “evolutionary changes” must be biochemical, regardless of whether they evolved from generation to generation, were designed by intelligent cells, or were separately programmed/dabbled by your God, and if “gaps in form” means separate creation (as above), then there is nothing left of the theory of common descent!

DAVID: But it is common descent as we now see it to be. Aside from the Cambrian we still see comparative anatomy as evidence of common descent from ancestral forms. Most speciation has past form as part of it.

Thank you for confirming Darwin’s theory as supported by the evidence of comparative anatomy. But you have your God designing every species individually (not to mention every econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder), and you have him designing Cambrian species with no precursors. The latter is the exact opposite of common descent. The former might just as well be the belief of a creationist.

Octopus
DAVID: this study shows the availability of certain genes for direct use can create convergence. My point is simple: once useful biochemistry is developed/evolved, it can then be used in many new parallel developments, and certainly gaps in phenotypes.

Parallel developments would refer to convergence. Otherwise, you are repeating my own argument: evolution progresses through new uses of existing materials. “Common descent”, however, does not mean “gaps in phenotypes”.

DAVID: This view of common descent is not Darwinian, since he knew nothing about biochemistry. Remember, comparative anatomy shows common descent.

Comparative anatomy was precisely the bedrock of Darwin’s theory, which you keep pooh-poohing, all because we do not have a complete fossil record of every species and every transition. Convergence makes perfect sense, as intelligent organisms will find similar solutions to similar problems. Once again, if you do not accept my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, please give us your own definition.

dhw: I also find it perfectly reasonable to suppose that intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) would be able both to adapt and to exploit new conditions extremely rapidly, even from one generation to the next. In some cases, their very survival (adaptation) would depend on their doing so, whereas in others (exploitation leading to innovation) the process might be more gradual, as each generation improves on the work of its predecessor.

DAVID: Sticking with generations making new species in itty-bitty steps.

dhw: […] there are no itty-bitty steps: I am proposing extremely rapid adaptation AND exploitation (=innovation), even from one generation to the next.[But improvements may be itty-bitty.]

DAVID: Remember, what the gaps show us is not generational change, which by definition must be tiny steps of change. Generational change means an adaptation within the same species.

Nobody knows how speciation happens. I have no idea where you get your definition of “generational change” from. According to you, your God performs operations on existing organisms to give them flippers instead of legs, or bigger brains than they had before they went to sleep. If a generation can change its structure in order to adapt, how do you know it can’t do the same in order to innovate? The gaps don’t show us anything. That’s why they are gaps. Some would say there are gaps because fossilization is the exception, not the rule.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 16:45 (642 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please remember I don't find my theories senseless. […]

dhw: When you tell me you can’t explain your combination of evolutionary theories and I should go and ask God, and your theories “make sense only to God”, I’m afraid the inevitable conclusion is that they don’t make sense to you – unless you happen to be God in disguise, which I very much doubt. (See “mud” in Part Two for more details.)

That I cannot satisfy your strange objections to the way I see God does not mean my theories make no sense to me. Don't transpose your problems in logic to me.


DAVID: Evolution is based on advancing biochemistry with gaps in form by the designer of evolution.

dhw: This is not a definition of common descent! All “evolutionary changes” must be biochemical, regardless of whether they evolved from generation to generation, were designed by intelligent cells, or were separately programmed/dabbled by your God, and if “gaps in form” means separate creation (as above), then there is nothing left of the theory of common descent!

DAVID: But it is common descent as we now see it to be. Aside from the Cambrian we still see comparative anatomy as evidence of common descent from ancestral forms. Most speciation has past form as part of it.

dhw: Thank you for confirming Darwin’s theory as supported by the evidence of comparative anatomy. But you have your God designing every species individually (not to mention every econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder), and you have him designing Cambrian species with no precursors. The latter is the exact opposite of common descent. The former might just as well be the belief of a creationist.

Common descent from Darwin was based totally on comparative anatomy and geography of neighboring forms. We are way beyond that now with DNA analysis. The DNA bush is not Darwin's tree of life. See my new entry.


Octopus
DAVID: this study shows the availability of certain genes for direct use can create convergence. My point is simple: once useful biochemistry is developed/evolved, it can then be used in many new parallel developments, and certainly gaps in phenotypes.

dhw: Parallel developments would refer to convergence. Otherwise, you are repeating my own argument: evolution progresses through new uses of existing materials. “Common descent”, however, does not mean “gaps in phenotypes”.

Darwin knew the gaps but never abandoned common descent. What is your point ?


DAVID: This view of common descent is not Darwinian, since he knew nothing about biochemistry. Remember, comparative anatomy shows common descent.

dhw: Comparative anatomy was precisely the bedrock of Darwin’s theory, which you keep pooh-poohing, all because we do not have a complete fossil record of every species and every transition. Convergence makes perfect sense, as intelligent organisms will find similar solutions to similar problems. Once again, if you do not accept my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, please give us your own definition.

Defined: From biochemistry as the basis of evolution. With DNA relationships, we don't need fossils for relationships. We have a common code.


DAVID: Remember, what the gaps show us is not generational change, which by definition must be tiny steps of change. Generational change means an adaptation within the same species.

dhw: Nobody knows how speciation happens. I have no idea where you get your definition of “generational change” from. According to you, your God performs operations on existing organisms to give them flippers instead of legs, or bigger brains than they had before they went to sleep. If a generation can change its structure in order to adapt, how do you know it can’t do the same in order to innovate? The gaps don’t show us anything. That’s why they are gaps. Some would say there are gaps because fossilization is the exception, not the rule.

You can't sweep the gaps away. They tell us there must be a designer, just as complex designs do.

David's theory of evolution PART 1: define evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 25, 2022, 17:46 (642 days ago) @ David Turell

The point has come up as to how to define common descent, which originally was based on comparative anatomy and geography, now that DNA as a common code shakes up the standard tree of life:

https://www.sciencealert.com/new-dna-technology-is-shaking-up-the-branches-of-the-evolu...

"As our new research shows, appearances can be deceptive when it comes to family. New DNA technology is shaking up the family trees of many plants and animals.

"The primates, to which humans belong, were once thought to be close relatives of bats because of some similarities in our skeletons and brains. However, DNA data now places us in a group that includes rodents (rats and mice) and rabbits. Astonishingly, bats turn out to be more closely related to cows, horses, and even rhinoceroses than they are to us.

"Scientists in Darwin's time and through most of the 20th century could only work out the branches of the evolutionary tree of life by looking at the structure and appearance of animals and plants. Life forms were grouped according to similarities thought to have evolved together.

***

"Sloths and anteaters, armadillos, pangolins (scaly anteaters), and aardvarks were once thought to belong together in a group called edentates ("no teeth"), since they share aspects of their anatomy.

"Molecular trees showed that these traits evolved independently in different branches of the mammal tree. It turns out that aardvarks are more closely related to elephants while pangolins are more closely related to cats and dogs.

"There is another important line of evidence that was familiar to Darwin and his contemporaries. Darwin noted that animals and plants that appeared to share the closest common ancestry were often found close together geographically. The location of species is another strong indicator they are related: species that live near each other are more likely to share a family tree.

"For the first time, our recent paper cross-referenced location, DNA data, and appearance for a range of animals and plants. We looked at evolutionary trees based on appearance or on molecules for 48 groups of animals and plants, including bats, dogs, monkeys, lizards, and pine trees.

"Evolutionary trees based on DNA data were two-thirds more likely to match with the location of the species compared with traditional evolution maps. In other words, previous trees showed several species were related based on appearance.

"Our research showed they were far less likely to live near each other compared to species linked by DNA data.

"It may appear that evolution endlessly invents new solutions, almost without limits. But it has fewer tricks up its sleeve than you might think.

"Animals can look amazingly alike because they have evolved to do a similar job or live in a similar way. Birds, bats and the extinct pterosaurs have, or had, bony wings for flying, but their ancestors all had front legs for walking on the ground instead.

"Similar wing shapes and muscles evolved in different groups because the physics of generating thrust and lift in air are always the same. It is much the same with eyes, which may have evolved 40 times in animals, and with only a few basic "designs".

"Our eyes are similar to squid's eyes, with a crystalline lens, iris, retina, and visual pigments. Squid are more closely related to snails, slugs, and clams than us. But many of their mollusk relatives have only the simplest of eyes.

***

"Haeckel's drawings made brilliant observations of living things that influenced art and design in the 19th and 20th centuries. His family trees were based almost entirely on how those organisms looked and developed as embryos. Many of his ideas about evolutionary relationships were held until recently. (my bold)

"As it becomes easier and cheaper to obtain and analyze large volumes of molecular data, there will be many more surprises in store."

Comment: my definition of common descent must use this new approach, based on common biochemicals of which one, DNA, is the common code controlling the whole process. Therefore, gaps in form are of no issue, much to dhw's confusion, since he still is with Haeckel's views. Be sure to see the illustrations to see the marked differences in trees.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Sunday, June 26, 2022, 11:08 (642 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Please remember I don't find my theories senseless. […]

dhw: When you tell me you can’t explain your combination of evolutionary theories and I should go and ask God, and your theories “make sense only to God”, I’m afraid the inevitable conclusion is that they don’t make sense to you – unless you happen to be God in disguise, which I very much doubt.

DAVID: That I cannot satisfy your strange objections to the way I see God does not mean my theories make no sense to me. Don't transpose your problems in logic to me.

Please explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, 1) he would have individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with H. sapiens plus food; 2) he designed H. sapiens in multiple stages, although – being all-powerful – he was perfectly capable of designing species without any precursors; 3) how your statement that these theories ”make sense only to God” comes to mean that they also make sense to you.

DAVID: […] Aside from the Cambrian we still see comparative anatomy as evidence of common descent from ancestral forms. Most speciation has past form as part of it.

dhw: Thank you for confirming Darwin’s theory as supported by the evidence of comparative anatomy. But you have your God designing every species individually (not to mention every econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder), and you have him designing Cambrian species with no precursors. The latter is the exact opposite of common descent. The former might just as well be the belief of a creationist.

DAVID: Common descent from Darwin was based totally on comparative anatomy and geography of neighboring forms. We are way beyond that now with DNA analysis. The DNA bush is not Darwin's tree of life. See my new entry.

DAVID: The point has come up as to how to define common descent, which originally was based on comparative anatomy and geography, now that DNA as a common code shakes up the standard tree of life:
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-dna-technology-is-shaking-up-the-branches-of-the-evolu...

Thank you for this intriguing article, which I have now read in full.

QUOTE: “While Darwin (1859) showed that all life on Earth is related in a single evolutionary tree, he did little to map out its branches.

The article does not question the concept of the tree of common descent! It tells us that the branches of the tree are related in different ways from those that Darwin would have imagined, because it is not always comparative anatomy and geography that determine relationships. There is not even the tiniest hint that common descent means anything other than my definition that “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”.

Octopus
DAVID: this study shows the availability of certain genes for direct use can create convergence. My point is simple: once useful biochemistry is developed/evolved, it can then be used in many new parallel developments, and certainly gaps in phenotypes.

dhw: Parallel developments would refer to convergence. Otherwise, you are repeating my own argument: evolution progresses through new uses of existing materials. “Common descent”, however, does not mean “gaps in phenotypes”.

DAVID: Darwin knew the gaps but never abandoned common descent. What is your point?

The “gaps” are caused by the fact that new species “suddenly” appear in the fossil record, and they appear to have no connection with earlier life forms. Darwin believed that this was because (inevitably, as some scientists have pointed out, giving logical reasons which you refuse to consider) the fossil record is incomplete. I would go further: “suddenness” is relative, and if we think in terms of generations rather than time as the criterion for what is feasible, even 410,000 years becomes a huge expanse of time. What is “feasible”, however, is not the work of Darwin’s random mutations but that of Shapiro’s intelligent cells. My point is that gaps in the fossil record are open to a different interpretation from yours: I accept the possibility that your God designed the intelligent cell, and I find this theory more believable than the idea that your God preprogrammed every single life form etc. (including the Cambrian) 3.8 billion years ago, or that he conducted a non-stop series of operations on existing life forms or designed totally new life forms without precursors, and did all this solely in order to produce one species plus its food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 26, 2022, 15:39 (641 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: That I cannot satisfy your strange objections to the way I see God does not mean my theories make no sense to me. Don't transpose your problems in logic to me.

dhw: Please explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, 1) he would have individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with H. sapiens plus food;

He made the decision to evolve us, for His own reasons.

dhw: 2) he designed H. sapiens in multiple stages, although – being all-powerful – he was perfectly capable of designing species without any precursors

Same answer

dhw: 3) how your statement that these theories ”make sense only to God” comes to mean that they also make sense to you.

I fully accept the history of evolution as God's designed creation by His choice of method.


DAVID: […] Aside from the Cambrian we still see comparative anatomy as evidence of common descent from ancestral forms. Most speciation has past form as part of it.

dhw: Thank you for confirming Darwin’s theory as supported by the evidence of comparative anatomy. But you have your God designing every species individually (not to mention every econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder), and you have him designing Cambrian species with no precursors. The latter is the exact opposite of common descent. The former might just as well be the belief of a creationist.

DAVID: Common descent from Darwin was based totally on comparative anatomy and geography of neighboring forms. We are way beyond that now with DNA analysis. The DNA bush is not Darwin's tree of life. See my new entry.

DAVID: The point has come up as to how to define common descent, which originally was based on comparative anatomy and geography, now that DNA as a common code shakes up the standard tree of life:
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-dna-technology-is-shaking-up-the-branches-of-the-evolu...

Thank you for this intriguing article, which I have now read in full.

QUOTE: “While Darwin (1859) showed that all life on Earth is related in a single evolutionary tree, he did little to map out its branches.

dhw: The article does not question the concept of the tree of common descent! It tells us that the branches of the tree are related in different ways from those that Darwin would have imagined, because it is not always comparative anatomy and geography that determine relationships. There is not even the tiniest hint that common descent means anything other than my definition that “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”.

I have no disagreement, except you lose my emphasis on newly available biochemistry allowing for gap changes in phenotypical forms, which biochemistry includes the common code of DNA. The common DNA code underlies common descent.


Octopus
DAVID: this study shows the availability of certain genes for direct use can create convergence. My point is simple: once useful biochemistry is developed/evolved, it can then be used in many new parallel developments, and certainly gaps in phenotypes.

dhw: Parallel developments would refer to convergence. Otherwise, you are repeating my own argument: evolution progresses through new uses of existing materials. “Common descent”, however, does not mean “gaps in phenotypes”.

DAVID: Darwin knew the gaps but never abandoned common descent. What is your point?

dhw: The “gaps” are caused by the fact that new species “suddenly” appear in the fossil record, and they appear to have no connection with earlier life forms. Darwin believed that this was because (inevitably, as some scientists have pointed out, giving logical reasons which you refuse to consider) the fossil record is incomplete. I would go further: “suddenness” is relative, and if we think in terms of generations rather than time as the criterion for what is feasible, even 410,000 years becomes a huge expanse of time. What is “feasible”, however, is not the work of Darwin’s random mutations but that of Shapiro’s intelligent cells. My point is that gaps in the fossil record are open to a different interpretation from yours: I accept the possibility that your God designed the intelligent cell, and I find this theory more believable than the idea that your God preprogrammed every single life form etc. (including the Cambrian) 3.8 billion years ago, or that he conducted a non-stop series of operations on existing life forms or designed totally new life forms without precursors, and did all this solely in order to produce one species plus its food.

The 410,000-year Cambrian gap is like none other in history. It is based on fossils, not absence of them. You chose to ignore the magnitude of change from very simple to extremely complex in a very short period when compared to known series like the whales with millions of years for only species change. All based on God's powers of design and His choice to create stepwise by a system that has the appearance of evolution as envisioned by Darwin. Why should God think like you do?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Monday, June 27, 2022, 09:26 (641 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: That I cannot satisfy your strange objections to the way I see God does not mean my theories make no sense to me. Don't transpose your problems in logic to me.

dhw: Please explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food, 1) he would have individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with H. sapiens plus food;

DAVID: He made the decision to evolve us, for His own reasons.

You have made no attempt to explain the countless non-connected life forms, and if only he knows his reasons, then obviously your theories make no sense to you.

dhw: 2) he designed H. sapiens in multiple stages, although – being all-powerful – he was perfectly capable of designing species without any precursors

DAVID: Same answer.

Same comment.

dhw: 3) how your statement that these theories ”make sense only to God” comes to mean that they also make sense to you.

DAVID: I fully accept the history of evolution as God's designed creation by His choice of method.

If he exists, then so must we all, but if your theories concerning purpose and method “make sense only to God”, then clearly they do not make sense to you, so please stop dodging.

dhw: Thank you for confirming Darwin’s theory as supported by the evidence of comparative anatomy. But you have your God designing every species individually (not to mention every econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder), and you have him designing Cambrian species with no precursors. The latter is the exact opposite of common descent. The former might just as well be the belief of a creationist.

DAVID: Common descent from Darwin was based totally on comparative anatomy and geography of neighboring forms. We are way beyond that now with DNA analysis. The DNA bush is not Darwin's tree of life. See my new entry.
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-dna-technology-is-shaking-up-the-branches-of-the-evolu...

QUOTE: “While Darwin (1859) showed that all life on Earth is related in a single evolutionary tree, he did little to map out its branches.

dhw: The article does not question the concept of the tree of common descent! It tells us that the branches of the tree are related in different ways from those that Darwin would have imagined, because it is not always comparative anatomy and geography that determine relationships. There is not even the tiniest hint that common descent means anything other than my definition that “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”.

DAVID: I have no disagreement, except you lose my emphasis on newly available biochemistry allowing for gap changes in phenotypical forms, which biochemistry includes the common code of DNA. The common DNA code underlies common descent.

Presumably “gap changes in phenotypical forms” means species without precursors. The “common code of DNA” changes the lines of descent from preceding forms, but it does not refute my definition of “common descent”, and the theory that your God designed every single life form individually, including some that had no precursors, is creationist not evolutionist.

Octopus
DAVID: The 410,000-year Cambrian gap is like none other in history. It is based on fossils, not absence of them.

Of course this is based on the absence of fossils! If there were fossils of transitional forms, there would be no mystery!

DAVID: You chose to ignore the magnitude of change from very simple to extremely complex in a very short period when compared to known series like the whales with millions of years for only species change.

You have ignored what I wrote: “suddenness” is relative, and if we think in terms of generations rather than time as the criterion for what is feasible, even 410,000 years becomes a huge expanse of time. What is “feasible”, however, is not the work of Darwin’s random mutations but that of Shapiro’s intelligent cells…..

I have found an ID site which inadvertently puts the same case:
Cambrian Explosion and Darwin's Doubt - Geoscience Research In…
www.grisda.org/cambrian-explosion-and-darwins-doubt-1

QUOTE: An intelligent being could generate the genetic information needed for a diversity of body types in a short time. There is no need for random mutations, natural selection, or long periods of time. The theory of intelligent design provides an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.

If we espouse the theory – which you regard as 50% possible – that cells are intelligent beings, we have an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.

DAVID: All based on God's powers of design and His choice to create stepwise by a system that has the appearance of evolution as envisioned by Darwin. Why should God think like you do?

And now you dodge from the gaps and species with no predecessors to God’s choice to “create stepwise”. Darwin’s theory of common descent – as I have defined it – remains totally unchanged by the shift from comparative anatomy to DNA as the criterion for which branch is which. And of course if God exists, he would have designed evolution. But that does not mean he designed it for the purpose or by the method you impose on him. Your question to me is equally valid for you: “Why should God think like you do?”

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Monday, June 27, 2022, 16:20 (640 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Thank you for confirming Darwin’s theory as supported by the evidence of comparative anatomy. But you have your God designing every species individually (not to mention every econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder), and you have him designing Cambrian species with no precursors. The latter is the exact opposite of common descent. The former might just as well be the belief of a creationist.

DAVID: Common descent from Darwin was based totally on comparative anatomy and geography of neighboring forms. We are way beyond that now with DNA analysis. The DNA bush is not Darwin's tree of life. See my new entry.
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-dna-technology-is-shaking-up-the-branches-of-the-evolu...

QUOTE: “While Darwin (1859) showed that all life on Earth is related in a single evolutionary tree, he did little to map out its branches.

dhw: The article does not question the concept of the tree of common descent! It tells us that the branches of the tree are related in different ways from those that Darwin would have imagined, because it is not always comparative anatomy and geography that determine relationships. There is not even the tiniest hint that common descent means anything other than my definition that “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”.

DAVID: I have no disagreement, except you lose my emphasis on newly available biochemistry allowing for gap changes in phenotypical forms, which biochemistry includes the common code of DNA. The common DNA code underlies common descent.

dhw: Presumably “gap changes in phenotypical forms” means species without precursors. The “common code of DNA” changes the lines of descent from preceding forms, but it does not refute my definition of “common descent”, and the theory that your God designed every single life form individually, including some that had no precursors, is creationist not evolutionist.

I agree. God's method is evolution by designed creation.


Octopus
DAVID: The 410,000-year Cambrian gap is like none other in history. It is based on fossils, not absence of them.

dhw: Of course this is based on the absence of fossils! If there were fossils of transitional forms, there would be no mystery!

You miss the mystery. How did so much change in form occur in such a short time? Especially when compared to other time gaps in speciation? Think Whale series as one esample.


dhw: I have found an ID site which inadvertently puts the same case:
Cambrian Explosion and Darwin's Doubt - Geoscience Research In…
www.grisda.org/cambrian-explosion-and-darwins-doubt-1

QUOTE: An intelligent being could generate the genetic information needed for a diversity of body types in a short time. There is no need for random mutations, natural selection, or long periods of time. The theory of intelligent design provides an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: If we espouse the theory – which you regard as 50% possible – that cells are intelligent beings, we have an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion.

I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.


DAVID: All based on God's powers of design and His choice to create stepwise by a system that has the appearance of evolution as envisioned by Darwin. Why should God think like you do?

dhw: And now you dodge from the gaps and species with no predecessors to God’s choice to “create stepwise”. Darwin’s theory of common descent – as I have defined it – remains totally unchanged by the shift from comparative anatomy to DNA as the criterion for which branch is which. And, of course, if God exists, he would have designed evolution. But that does not mean he designed it for the purpose or by the method you impose on him. Your question to me is equally valid for you: “Why should God think like you do?”

I've agreed God's form of evolution is designed creation. Again, you act ignorant of Adler's position which is mine: humans, as a result of natural evolution, are so unusual, we should not expect a natural cause, but accept humans are a proof of God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 11:19 (640 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The DNA bush is not Darwin's tree of life. See my new entry.
https://www.sciencealert.com/new-dna-technology-is-shaking-up-the-branches-of-the-evolu...

QUOTE: “While Darwin (1859) showed that all life on Earth is related in a single evolutionary tree, he did little to map out its branches.”

dhw: The “common code of DNA” changes the lines of descent from preceding forms, but it does not refute my definition of “common descent”, and the theory that your God designed every single life form individually, including some that had no precursors, is creationist not evolutionist.

DAVID: I agree. God's method is evolution by designed creation.

The bedrock of the theory of evolution is that all varieties of plants and animals have “come into being through a progressive diversification that has accompanied their biogenetic descent from their ancestors” (Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought).That is the meaning of common descent. The article that we are discussing only tells us that the lines of descent are different from previous interpretations. It does nothing to contradict my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, which you rejected “emphatically” last week. I have asked you to provide your own definition, but all you have come up with is your theory that God designs all species separately, some of which have no precursors (the exact opposite of common descent).

Octopus
DAVID: The 410,000-year Cambrian gap is like none other in history. It is based on fossils, not absence of them.

dhw: Of course this is based on the absence of fossils! If there were fossils of transitional forms, there would be no mystery!

DAVID: You miss the mystery. How did so much change in form occur in such a short time? Especially when compared to other time gaps in speciation? Think Whale series as one esample.

Apart from your leaping away from the fossils mystery, you obviously don’t read my replies, so I will summarize them. Speciation takes place as a RESPONSE to new conditions. If conditions remain the same for a long time, then there will be long periods of stasis (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian explosion, but whatever it was (an increase in oxygen?) must have made a huge difference to the range of possibilities for the innovations that produce new species. 410,000 years may well be too short a period for Darwin’s random mutations to produce the new complexities, but the theory of cellular intelligence would allow plenty of time for let’s say 30,000 generations of organisms to invent new ways of exploiting the new environment.

DAVID: I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.

If you reject a 50% possibility, your rejection of the theory can only be the result of sheer prejudice. You would laugh your head off at me if I said I was an agnostic (= 50/50 for and against the existence of God) but I do not think God’s existence is “at all possible”!

DAVID: All based on God's powers of design and His choice to create stepwise by a system that has the appearance of evolution as envisioned by Darwin. Why should God think like you do?

dhw: And now you dodge from the gaps and species with no predecessors to God’s choice to “create stepwise”. Darwin’s theory of common descent – as I have defined it – remains totally unchanged by the shift from comparative anatomy to DNA as the criterion for which branch is which. And, of course, if God exists, he would have designed evolution. But that does not mean he designed it for the purpose or by the method you impose on him. Your question to me is equally valid for you: “Why should God think like you do?”

DAVID: I've agreed God's form of evolution is designed creation. Again, you act ignorant of Adler's position which is mine: humans, as a result of natural evolution, are so unusual, we should not expect a natural cause, but accept humans are a proof of God.

When will you stop dodging? The discussion here is not about God’s existence - ALL life’s complexities and not just humans can be viewed as evidence for the existence of God - but about your illogical combination of evolutionary theories. See Part Two.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 16:17 (639 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I agree. God's method is evolution by designed creation.

dhw: The bedrock of the theory of evolution is that all varieties of plants and animals have “come into being through a progressive diversification that has accompanied their biogenetic descent from their ancestors” (Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought).That is the meaning of common descent. The article that we are discussing only tells us that the lines of descent are different from previous interpretations. It does nothing to contradict my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, which you rejected “emphatically” last week. I have asked you to provide your own definition, but all you have come up with is your theory that God designs all species separately, some of which have no precursors (the exact opposite of common descent).

With our new knowledge of DNA, it is time to alter definitions of evolution. Old definitions are not set in stone. We have to account for the gaps in evolution recognizing old steps lead to new steps. We must recognize new steps need new protein molecules with new functions. Then the issue becomes the source of the necessary new molecules. A designer or intelligent cell factories.


Octopus
DAVID: The 410,000-year Cambrian gap is like none other in history. It is based on fossils, not absence of them.

dhw: Of course this is based on the absence of fossils! If there were fossils of transitional forms, there would be no mystery!

DAVID: You miss the mystery. How did so much change in form occur in such a short time? Especially when compared to other time gaps in speciation? Think Whale series as one example.

dhw: Apart from your leaping away from the fossils mystery, you obviously don’t read my replies, so I will summarize them. Speciation takes place as a RESPONSE to new conditions. If conditions remain the same for a long time, then there will be long periods of stasis (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian explosion, but whatever it was (an increase in oxygen?) must have made a huge difference to the range of possibilities for the innovations that produce new species. 410,000 years may well be too short a period for Darwin’s random mutations to produce the new complexities, but the theory of cellular intelligence would allow plenty of time for let’s say 30,000 generations of organisms to invent new ways of exploiting the new environment.

I know all your replies!!! They are a vague set of theoretical possibilities to wave way the problem. Cells produce a huge variety of biochemical molecules at very high speeds. No other function has ever been ascribed to them. That they act so intelligently can in no way imply they created the Cambrian gap all by themselves in such a short period.


DAVID: I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.

dhw: If you reject a 50% possibility, your rejection of the theory can only be the result of sheer prejudice.

Not prejudice but a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. I feel I have the knowledge to make an informed choice, based on real evidence.


DAVID: I've agreed God's form of evolution is designed creation. Again, you act ignorant of Adler's position which is mine: humans, as a result of natural evolution, are so unusual, we should not expect a natural cause, but accept humans are a proof of God.

dhw: When will you stop dodging? The discussion here is not about God’s existence - ALL life’s complexities and not just humans can be viewed as evidence for the existence of God - but about your illogical combination of evolutionary theories. See Part Two.

I can't help you undo your obvious rigid prejudices to new approaches to new views of evolution based on new knowledge about DNA

David's theory of evolution PART 1: early humans

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 28, 2022, 17:05 (639 days ago) @ David Turell

In South Africa:

https://www.sciencealert.com/cradle-of-humankind-fossils-may-be-a-million-years-older-t...

"Multiple ancient hominin remains from caves in South Africa may be much, much older than previous estimates suggested.

"The Sterkfontein limestone cave system, not far from Johannesburg, has yielded so many ancient bones from the hominin genus Australopithecus over the last century that its location has been dubbed the Cradle of Humankind – deeply important to the study of human evolution.

"Now, new dating techniques suggest that the remains date back nearly 4 million years – making them even older than the famous Australopithecus afarensis individual Dinkinesh, nicknamed Lucy.

"'Sterkfontein has more Australopithecus fossils than anywhere else in the world," said geologist and geophysicist Darryl Granger of Purdue University.

***

"Most of the Sterkfontein Australopithecus remains have been recovered from a cave infill called Member 4. That's exactly what it sounds like: material that filled what was previously a cavity, resulting in a sedimentary deposit; in this case, concealing but preserving ancient hominin remains. Member 4 previously yielded the famous Mrs. Ples skull, the most complete example of its kind ever discovered.

"Previous work on another famous Sterkfontein Australopithecus skeleton, that of the individual named Little Foot, excavated from the infill Member 2, returned an age of 3.67 million years. Granger's methods were instrumental in that dating. Since the ages of other deposits are still the topic of hot debate, he and colleagues turned their methods to Member 4.

"Rather than examining the flowstone, or other bones found nearby (that may not be contemporaneous to the remains in question), the team examined the rock in which the Australopithecus remains were embedded. Specifically, they probed the radioactive decay of two rare isotopes in quartz: aluminum-26 and beryllium-10.

"'These radioactive isotopes, known as cosmogenic nuclides, are produced by high-energy cosmic ray reactions near the ground surface, and their radioactive decay dates when the rocks were buried in the cave when they fell in the entrance together with the fossils," Granger explained.

"From these isotopes, the team discerned that the Australopithecus-bearing sediments all date from between 3.4 and 3.7 million years ago. That means the remains recovered from the deposit are all from around the beginning of the Australopithecus era, and not its end as previously thought.

"This has important implications for our understanding of human evolution, and Sterkfontein's place in it, the researchers said.

"'Younger hominins, including Paranthropus and our genus Homo, appear between about 2.8 and 2 million years ago," said archaeologist Dominic Stratford of the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa, Sterkfontein research coordinator.

***

"The new result, consistent with the dating of Little Foot, suggests that Homo and Paranthropus – also found in the Cradle of Humankind – emerged nearly a million years after the Member 4 individuals lived, which means the order of events, and where they occurred, can be revised.

""The redating of the Australopithecus-bearing infills at the Sterkfontein Caves will undoubtedly re-ignite the debate over the diverse characteristics of Australopithecus at Sterkfontein, and whether there could have been South African ancestors to later hominins," Granger said.

Comment: compare these length of time periods of change to the brief Cambrian gap. The gaps and time periods of human development are becoming clearer and are reasonable when compared to other fossil series like whales.

Early pre-hmans

by David Turell @, Friday, February 10, 2023, 15:32 (412 days ago) @ David Turell

Paranthropus had tools!!:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/library/item/10_february_2023/40...

"Beneath it [ a hippo], Blasto Onyango, head preparator of the National Museums of Kenya, found a huge hominin molar. It lay intermingled with hammerstones and sharp flakes that Finestone recognized as early Oldowan tools, an ancient technological breakthrough long thought to be a defining hallmark of our genus, Homo. But the molar was from a very different human relative: Paranthropus, known for its huge teeth and crested ape-size skull, not toolmaking skills. “When we found the Paranthropus molar, it got really, really exciting,” says Finestone, of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History.

"The tools, dated to about 2.8 million years ago, are the oldest known examples of the Oldowan toolkit. They also hint that Paranthropus, often seen as an also-ran in the story of human evolution, might have made or at least used tools. “I have been skeptical of Paranthropus using stone tools. … But maybe we do have multiple hominins using the Oldowan,” Finestone says. “We know very little about the beginnings of stone tools and the emergence of early Homo,” says paleoanthropologist Sileshi Semaw of Spain’s National Research Center for Human Evolution (CENIEH), who is not part of this study. This is “why the Nyayanga discovery is important.”

"It’s not the first time stone tools have been found with fossils of Paranthropus, a genus with several species that lived from about 2.8 million to 1.2 million years ago across Africa. In 1955, Louis and Mary Leakey discovered the Nutcracker Man, a skull with a robust jaw and teeth now classified as Paranthropus boisei, in the same 1.8-million-year-old layer of sediments as Oldowan tools. But Mary Leakey soon found a skull of Homo habilis (Latin for “handyman” in the same layer and thought that species, in our own genus, was a better fit as the principal toolmaker. Paranthropus, with its powerful jaws and teeth, was seen as not needing tools to process tough food. “Homo was always given credit for the tools,” says paleoanthropologist Bernard Wood of George Washington University.

"As more Oldowan tools were discovered across Africa and beyond, most researchers concluded that their appearance coincided with the earliest fossils of Homo, dating to 2.8 million years ago in Ethiopia. Many saw the Oldowan as a key technological revolution that helped early Homo expand its diet, adapt to different habitats, and rapidly extend its range in Africa and beyond to Asia, where some of the oldest Homo fossils are found with Oldowan tools, also known as Mode 1 tools. All of this, the theory goes, helped fuel Homo’s expanding brain.

***

"The ancient butchers left two hippo carcasses, many large-animal bones bearing cutmarks from tools, and 330 artifacts, including blades used to cut meat and plants. Plummer’s team used multiple methods to date the site to about 2.8 million years ago, with a range of 2.58 million to 3.03 million years. “They’ve made a solid case with the evidence they have,” says geologist Craig Feibel of Rutgers University, Piscataway."

Comment: this leads back to dhw's criticism of God's work. In a past discussion dhw wondered why God bothered to create so many pre-sapiens forms. My answer as usual is God prefers to create by evolution of living organisms, and in the universe by using a multitude of stars to create the original 92 elements, whilev the Earth evolved as life appeared on it.

Early pre-humans

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 31, 2023, 22:41 (210 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Thursday, August 31, 2023, 22:50

David: "Comment: this leads back to dhw's criticism of God's work. In a past discussion dhw wondered why God bothered to create so many pre-sapiens forms. My answer as usual is God prefers to create by evolution of living organisms, and in the universe by using a multitude of stars to create the original 92 elements, while the Earth evolved as life appeared on it."

"Here is a new study on pre-sapiens forms and how few remained after a deep freeze 900,000 years ago:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/extreme-cold-human-ancestors-population-crash-dna

"Human ancestors nearly died out between around 930,000 to 813,000 years ago in an evolutionarily pivotal population bust, a contested new study concludes.

"This potential winnowing of human ancestors into a barely sustainable number of survivors coincided with a period of extreme cold and extended droughts in Africa and Eurasia, previous geologic evidence indicates.

"If the new DNA-derived scenario holds up, relatively few survivors of the Stone Age big chill may have evolved into a species ancestral to Homo sapiens, Neandertals and Denisovans, say population geneticist Wangjie Hu of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City and colleagues. Previous analyses of DNA extracted from ancient fossils estimate that this common ancestral species appeared between around 700,000 and 500,000 years ago. (my bold)

***

"Hu’s team devised a new statistical method to estimate the timing and sizes of ancient breeding populations using patterns of shared gene variants in human populations today. The modern genetic data came from 3,154 people in 10 African populations and 40 European and Asian populations. Hu’s group obtained that information from two scientific databases of human DNA.

"The scientists calculated the expected diversity of these modern variants based on hypothetical ancient population histories, some of which included periods of drastic declines in numbers of breeding adults. A population crash among human ancestors that lasted from about 930,000 to 813,000 years ago best accounted for the genetic variation in the analyzed data, the researchers conclude.

***

"As that diminished population began to rebound, its members may have evolved into H. heidelbergensis, Hu’s group suspects Some researchers regard H. heidelbergensis as an ancestor of Denisovans, Neandertals and H. sapiens that first appeared around 700,000 years ago in Africa and Eurasia. But other scientists say that fossils assigned to H. heidelbergensis contain too many skeletal differences to qualify as a single Homo species. (my bold)

Note: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2390124-our-ancestors-may-have-come-close-to-extin...

"The early humans alive at this time have been assigned to a number of different species, including Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo antecessor and Homo bodoensis, and it is unclear which of these is our ancestor. There is also debate about whether they were indeed separate species."

***

"Present-day human DNA analyzed in the new study has been studied and modeled for years by other investigators, none of whom have cited any signs of such an ancient, steep population decline, Schiffels says.

"But severe climate shifts could potentially have pushed human ancestors and other species close to or over the brink of extinction, says population geneticist and study coauthor Ziqian Hao of Shandong First Medical University in Jinan, China. In the Aug. 10 Science, another team — including Ashton and Stringer — described ancient climate reconstructions indicating that a previously unrecognized cold phase in Europe led to sharp declines in hominid numbers about 1.1 million years ago.

"Hu and colleagues plan to incorporate ancient hominid DNA and a larger sample of present-day human DNA, especially from Africa, into further analyses of ancient population ups and downs."

Comment: For pre-human species we may be splitting instead of lumping! This suggests a pattern God uses to winnow down diversity of form and numbers. The cold snap loss of forms and the loss of dinosaurs are such a pattern. dhw constantly questions how God did things, but we arrived, and it is obvious, retrospectively that He knew exactly what He was doing.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Wednesday, June 29, 2022, 09:13 (639 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The article that we are discussing only tells us that the lines of descent are different from previous interpretations. It does nothing to contradict my definition of common descent as “all life forms except the first are directly descended from earlier life forms”, which you rejected “emphatically” last week. I have asked you to provide your own definition, but all you have come up with is your theory that God designs all species separately, some of which have no precursors (the exact opposite of common descent).

DAVID: With our new knowledge of DNA, it is time to alter definitions of evolution. Old definitions are not set in stone. We have to account for the gaps in evolution recognizing old steps lead to new steps. We must recognize new steps need new protein molecules with new functions. Then the issue becomes the source of the necessary new molecules. A designer or intelligent cell factories.

There is no need whatsoever to alter definitions of common descent (or of evolution), and the question remains precisely the same as ever, no matter whether descent depends on comparative anatomy or on DNA: how did it happen? And the alternatives are not “a designer or intelligent cell factories”, because the latter allow for your God as designer of cellular intelligence.

Octopus
dhw: […] you obviously don’t read my replies, so I will summarize them. Speciation takes place as a RESPONSE to new conditions. If conditions remain the same for a long time, then there will be long periods of stasis (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian explosion, but whatever it was (an increase in oxygen?) must have made a huge difference to the range of possibilities for the innovations that produce new species. 410,000 years may well be too short a period for Darwin’s random mutations to produce the new complexities, but the theory of cellular intelligence would allow plenty of time for let’s say 30,000 generations of organisms to invent new ways of exploiting the new environment.

DAVID: I know all your replies!!! They are a vague set of theoretical possibilities to wave way the problem. Cells produce a huge variety of biochemical molecules at very high speeds. No other function has ever been ascribed to them. That they act so intelligently can in no way imply they created the Cambrian gap all by themselves in such a short period.

Many scientists in the field have supported the concept of cellular intelligence, and Shapiro has ascribed evolutionary novelty to it. Not vague at all. But of course it is only a theory, as is your belief that there is an unknown and unknowable, sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being (see "more miscellany" - extremophiles) who drew up a programme 3.8 billion years ago for every single evolutionary novelty (not to mention lifestyle and natural wonder), or who alternatively performed countless operations (presumably by psychokinesis) to produce the countless evolutionary novelties, and did so for the sole purpose of producing one species and its food, although most of them had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.

dhw: If you reject a 50% possibility, your rejection of the theory can only be the result of sheer prejudice.

DAVID: Not prejudice but a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. I feel I have the knowledge to make an informed choice, based on real evidence.

50/50 probability does not mean 100% no. And folk like Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and many others may, I suggest, also have/have had a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. Here is a 1-minute video as an example based on our old friend slime mould:

Slime mould studied by Japanese scientists show cellular intelligence ...
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=CGClwVm-D4w

dhw: If you believe your God designed one mechanism that is capable of autonomous invention (the human brain), why are you so opposed to the possibility of his designing another mechanism that is also capable of autonomous invention (the intelligent cell)?

DAVID: It is a possibility. That explains evolution is all God's doing by secondary intention. If you accept that point, you must necessarily accept God. Or why do you bother with that theory? Your answer?

Thank you for at last accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence may be responsible for the innovations that lead to speciation. That is all I ask for, as it is one theory among others. I in turn accept the possibility that cellular intelligence was designed by your God because I also accept the possibility that your God exists. All our theories depend on possibilities, because nobody knows the truth. As regard the latter theory (God’s existence), I give it the same odds as you give to cellular intelligence: 50/50.

Continued in Part Two

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 29, 2022, 16:01 (638 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: With our new knowledge of DNA, it is time to alter definitions of evolution. Old definitions are not set in stone. We have to account for the gaps in evolution recognizing old steps lead to new steps. We must recognize new steps need new protein molecules with new functions. Then the issue becomes the source of the necessary new molecules. A designer or intelligent cell factories.

dhw: There is no need whatsoever to alter definitions of common descent (or of evolution), and the question remains precisely the same as ever, no matter whether descent depends on comparative anatomy or on DNA: how did it happen? And the alternatives are not “a designer or intelligent cell factories”, because the latter allow for your God as designer of cellular intelligence.

Which brings you back to my question in the other thread: if it is either design or intelligent cells from God, why deny God?


Octopus
dhw: […] you obviously don’t read my replies, so I will summarize them. Speciation takes place as a RESPONSE to new conditions. If conditions remain the same for a long time, then there will be long periods of stasis (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian explosion, but whatever it was (an increase in oxygen?) must have made a huge difference to the range of possibilities for the innovations that produce new species. 410,000 years may well be too short a period for Darwin’s random mutations to produce the new complexities, but the theory of cellular intelligence would allow plenty of time for let’s say 30,000 generations of organisms to invent new ways of exploiting the new environment.

DAVID: I know all your replies!!! They are a vague set of theoretical possibilities to wave way the problem. Cells produce a huge variety of biochemical molecules at very high speeds. No other function has ever been ascribed to them. That they act so intelligently can in no way imply they created the Cambrian gap all by themselves in such a short period.

Many scientists in the field have supported the concept of cellular intelligence, and Shapiro has ascribed evolutionary novelty to it. Not vague at all. But of course it is only a theory, as is your belief that there is an unknown and unknowable, sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being (see "more miscellany" - extremophiles) who drew up a programme 3.8 billion years ago for every single evolutionary novelty (not to mention lifestyle and natural wonder), or who alternatively performed countless operations (presumably by psychokinesis) to produce the countless evolutionary novelties, and did so for the sole purpose of producing one species and its food, although most of them had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.

dhw: If you reject a 50% possibility, your rejection of the theory can only be the result of sheer prejudice.

DAVID: Not prejudice but a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. I feel I have the knowledge to make an informed choice, based on real evidence.

dhw: 50/50 probability does not mean 100% no. And folk like Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and many others may, I suggest, also have/have had a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. Here is a 1-minute video as an example based on our old friend slime mould:

Slime mould studied by Japanese scientists show cellular intelligence ...
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=CGClwVm-D4w

dhw: If you believe your God designed one mechanism that is capable of autonomous invention (the human brain), why are you so opposed to the possibility of his designing another mechanism that is also capable of autonomous invention (the intelligent cell)?

DAVID: It is a possibility. That explains evolution is all God's doing by secondary intention. If you accept that point, you must necessarily accept God. Or why do you bother with that theory? Your answer?

dhw: Thank you for at last accepting the possibility that cellular intelligence may be responsible for the innovations that lead to speciation. That is all I ask for, as it is one theory among others. I in turn accept the possibility that cellular intelligence was designed by your God because I also accept the possibility that your God exists. All our theories depend on possibilities, because nobody knows the truth. As regard the latter theory (God’s existence), I give it the same odds as you give to cellular intelligence: 50/50.

Continued in Part Two

Ah, well. No change.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Thursday, June 30, 2022, 08:19 (638 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: With our new knowledge of DNA, it is time to alter definitions of evolution. Old definitions are not set in stone. We have to account for the gaps in evolution recognizing old steps lead to new steps. We must recognize new steps need new protein molecules with new functions. Then the issue becomes the source of the necessary new molecules. A designer or intelligent cell factories.

dhw: There is no need whatsoever to alter definitions of common descent (or of evolution), and the question remains precisely the same as ever, no matter whether descent depends on comparative anatomy or on DNA: how did it happen? And the alternatives are not “a designer or intelligent cell factories”, because the latter allow for your God as designer of cellular intelligence.

DAVID: Which brings you back to my question in the other thread: if it is either design or intelligent cells from God, why deny God?

After all these years, you still haven’t understood the meaning of agnosticism. Originally it referred to the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not, but many of us prefer to say we cannot decide whether there is a God or not. That means, to use your favourite odds, 50/50. Atheists deny God. The choice of explanation for the source of life is between God(s) and chance.

Octopus

dhw: […] Speciation takes place as a RESPONSE to new conditions. If conditions remain the same for a long time, then there will be long periods of stasis (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian explosion, but whatever it was (an increase in oxygen?) must have made a huge difference to the range of possibilities for the innovations that produce new species. 410,000 years may well be too short a period for Darwin’s random mutations to produce the new complexities, but the theory of cellular intelligence would allow plenty of time for let’s say 30,000 generations of organisms to invent new ways of exploiting the new environment.

DAVID: I know all your replies!!! They are a vague set of theoretical possibilities to wave way the problem. […]

dhw: Many scientists in the field have supported the concept of cellular intelligence, and Shapiro has ascribed evolutionary novelty to it. Not vague at all. But of course it is only a theory, as is your belief that there is bbbban unknown and unknowable, sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being (see Part Two) who drew up a programme 3.8 billion years ago for every single evolutionary novelty (not to mention lifestyle and natural wonder), or who alternatively performed countless operations (presumably by psychokinesis) to produce the countless evolutionary novelties, and did so for the sole purpose of producing one species and its food, although most of them had no connection with us and our food.

The remaining exchanges are devoted to the questions already answered here and in countless earlier posts. Round and round we go.

DAVID: I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.

dhw: If you reject a 50% possibility, your rejection of the theory can only be the result of sheer prejudice.

DAVID: Not prejudice but a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. I feel I have the knowledge to make an informed choice, based on real evidence.

dhw: 50/50 probability does not mean 100% no. And folk like Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and many others may, I suggest, also have/have had a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. Here is a 1-minute video as an example based on our old friend slime mould:
Slime mould studied by Japanese scientists show cellular intelligence ...
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=CGClwVm-D4w

All ignored, and from now on you do nothing but repeat your attempts to dodge the illogicality of your combined theories by changing the subject, or editing those theories, or accusing me of rejecting arguments which I accept. I shall quote your repeated comments, and repeat my answers in Part Two.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 30, 2022, 14:15 (637 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Which brings you back to my question in the other thread: if it is either design or intelligent cells from God, why deny God?

After all these years, you still haven’t understood the meaning of agnosticism. Originally it referred to the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not, but many of us prefer to say we cannot decide whether there is a God or not. That means, to use your favourite odds, 50/50. Atheists deny God. The choice of explanation for the source of life is between God(s) and chance.

And you think both are equal possibilities.


Octopus

dhw: […] Speciation takes place as a RESPONSE to new conditions. If conditions remain the same for a long time, then there will be long periods of stasis (Gould’s punctuated equilibrium). Nobody knows the cause of the Cambrian explosion, but whatever it was (an increase in oxygen?) must have made a huge difference to the range of possibilities for the innovations that produce new species. 410,000 years may well be too short a period for Darwin’s random mutations to produce the new complexities, but the theory of cellular intelligence would allow plenty of time for let’s say 30,000 generations of organisms to invent new ways of exploiting the new environment.

DAVID: I know all your replies!!! They are a vague set of theoretical possibilities to wave way the problem. […]

dhw: Many scientists in the field have supported the concept of cellular intelligence, and Shapiro has ascribed evolutionary novelty to it. Not vague at all. But of course it is only a theory, as is your belief that there is bbbban unknown and unknowable, sourceless, eternal, superintelligent being (see Part Two) who drew up a programme 3.8 billion years ago for every single evolutionary novelty (not to mention lifestyle and natural wonder), or who alternatively performed countless operations (presumably by psychokinesis) to produce the countless evolutionary novelties, and did so for the sole purpose of producing one species and its food, although most of them had no connection with us and our food.

The remaining exchanges are devoted to the questions already answered here and in countless earlier posts. Round and round we go.

DAVID: I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.

dhw: If you reject a 50% possibility, your rejection of the theory can only be the result of sheer prejudice.

DAVID: Not prejudice but a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. I feel I have the knowledge to make an informed choice, based on real evidence.

dhw: 50/50 probability does not mean 100% no. And folk like Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and many others may, I suggest, also have/have had a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. Here is a 1-minute video as an example based on our old friend slime mould:
Slime mould studied by Japanese scientists show cellular intelligence ...
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=CGClwVm-D4w

All ignored, and from now on you do nothing but repeat your attempts to dodge the illogicality of your combined theories by changing the subject, or editing those theories, or accusing me of rejecting arguments which I accept. I shall quote your repeated comments, and repeat my answers in Part Two.

I presented slime mold years ago, Why return? We disagreed then and do it now again. The mold responds to stimuli with programmed intelligent responses. It is not innately intelligent.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Friday, July 01, 2022, 10:46 (637 days ago) @ David Turell

Once again I have juxtaposed posts in order to give coherence to the different points of disagreement between David and myself. It’s all repetition, but perhaps eventually something positive may emerge from these discussions, and that is the hope that gave rise to this website in the first place.

Agnosticism
DAVID: Which brings you back to my question in the other thread: if it is either design or intelligent cells from God, why deny God?

dhw: After all these years, you still haven’t understood the meaning of agnosticism. Originally it referred to the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not, but many of us prefer to say we cannot decide whether there is a God or not. That means, to use your favourite odds, 50/50. Atheists deny God. The choice of explanation for the source of life is between God(s) and chance.

DAVID: And you think both are equal possibilities.

I find both of them equally difficult to believe in, but since one of them must be true, I neither deny nor accept either of them. But I have just as much right to speculate on the possible nature, purposes and methods of a possible God as you do, and I see no justification whatsoever in your repeated suggestion that somehow my agnosticism lends validity to your illogical combination of evolutionary theories, or invalidates my own logical alternatives.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I do not think the intelligent cell theory is at all possible!!! And you know it. The appearance of the cells from the outside has a 50/50 probability of cause! I've picked my 50% side of the equation.

dhw: If you reject a 50% possibility, your rejection of the theory can only be the result of sheer prejudice.

DAVID: Not prejudice but a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. I feel I have the knowledge to make an informed choice, based on real evidence.

dhw: 50/50 probability does not mean 100% no. And folk like Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and many others may, I suggest, also have/have had a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. Here is a 1-minute video as an example based on our old friend slime mould:

Slime mould studied by Japanese scientists show cellular intelligence ...
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=CGClwVm-D4w

DAVID: I presented slime mold years ago, Why return? We disagreed then and do it now again. The mold responds to stimuli with programmed intelligent responses. It is not innately intelligent.

It is absurd to say that my 50/50 for and against God = denial of God, and it is equally absurd for you to give odds of 50/50 for and against cellular intelligence and then say you “deny” the theory. The slime mould video is just another example of the fact that you are not the only person with a “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life”, and you cannot expect me to accept your assumption that you know more than some scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the biochemistry of life and disagree with you.

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: How evolution occurs is obviously large changes in DNA, and our debate is who or what controls those changes, not my theories about God wishing to create us.

dhw: Our debate is indeed over who or what controls these changes, and how they are achieved. Hence your theory that your God controls them, that he does so for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food, and in order to do this, he designs countless life forms (plus econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders), the vast majority of which have no connection with sapiens plus food.This combination of theories “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: It also makes sense to me that all of this is a result of God's activity, created by His own reasoning, and thus "makes [full] sense only to God".

All of what? If God exists, then of course the history of life on Earth is a result of his activity. That makes sense to all of us (given the “if”). The history that we know is of countless life forms, econiches etc. And since the majority of these had no connection with sapiens and our food, it makes no sense to theorize that all of them were preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for sapiens and our food.

(Continued in Part Two)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Friday, July 01, 2022, 15:40 (636 days ago) @ dhw

Once again I have juxtaposed posts in order to give coherence to the different points of disagreement between David and myself. It’s all repetition, but perhaps eventually something positive may emerge from these discussions, and that is the hope that gave rise to this website in the first place.

Agnosticism
DAVID: Which brings you back to my question in the other thread: if it is either design or intelligent cells from God, why deny God?

dhw: After all these years, you still haven’t understood the meaning of agnosticism. Originally it referred to the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not, but many of us prefer to say we cannot decide whether there is a God or not. That means, to use your favourite odds, 50/50. Atheists deny God. The choice of explanation for the source of life is between God(s) and chance.

DAVID: And you think both are equal possibilities.

dhw: I find both of them equally difficult to believe in, but since one of them must be true, I neither deny nor accept either of them. But I have just as much right to speculate on the possible nature, purposes and methods of a possible God as you do, and I see no justification whatsoever in your repeated suggestion that somehow my agnosticism lends validity to your illogical combination of evolutionary theories, or invalidates my own logical alternatives.

Somehow your pattern of thought leads you to think my theories are illogical. I think I am very logical. I've never understood your disconnected view from the moment you suggested God should have directly created us.


Cellular intelligence

dhw: 50/50 probability does not mean 100% no. And folk like Shapiro, McClintock, Margulis, Buehler and many others may, I suggest, also have/have had a deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life. Here is a 1-minute video as an example based on our old friend slime mould:

Slime mould studied by Japanese scientists show cellular intelligence ...
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=CGClwVm-D4w

DAVID: I presented slime mold years ago, Why return? We disagreed then and do it now again. The mold responds to stimuli with programmed intelligent responses. It is not innately intelligent.

dhw: It is absurd to say that my 50/50 for and against God = denial of God, and it is equally absurd for you to give odds of 50/50 for and against cellular intelligence and then say you “deny” the theory. The slime mould video is just another example of the fact that you are not the only person with a “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life”, and you cannot expect me to accept your assumption that you know more than some scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the biochemistry of life and disagree with you.

The problem is outside appearances allow for either/or interpretations. I find an excellent interpretation is intelligently designed automaticity, as does all of the ID community. The decision should not be based on innate prejudice. Minev is based on the requirement for a designer.


David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: How evolution occurs is obviously large changes in DNA, and our debate is who or what controls those changes, not my theories about God wishing to create us.

dhw: Our debate is indeed over who or what controls these changes, and how they are achieved. Hence your theory that your God controls them, that he does so for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food, and in order to do this, he designs countless life forms (plus econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders), the vast majority of which have no connection with sapiens plus food.This combination of theories “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: It also makes sense to me that all of this is a result of God's activity, created by His own reasoning, and thus "makes [full] sense only to God".

dhw: All of what? If God exists, then of course the history of life on Earth is a result of his activity. That makes sense to all of us (given the “if”). The history that we know is of countless life forms, econiches etc. And since the majority of these had no connection with sapiens and our food, it makes no sense to theorize that all of them were preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for sapiens and our food.

All the 'countless life forms' form the history of evolution which led to us. Your objections simply throws all of that out as if it never happened. That is part of your weird thought process.


(Continued in Part Two)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Saturday, July 02, 2022, 10:57 (636 days ago) @ David Turell

Agnosticism

DAVID: Which brings you back to my question in the other thread: if it is either design or intelligent cells from God, why deny God?

dhw: After all these years, you still haven’t understood the meaning of agnosticism. Originally it referred to the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not, but many of us prefer to say we cannot decide whether there is a God or not. That means, to use your favourite odds, 50/50. Atheists deny God. The choice of explanation for the source of life is between God(s) and chance.

DAVID: And you think both are equal possibilities.

dhw: I find both of them equally difficult to believe in, but since one of them must be true, I neither deny nor accept either of them. But I have just as much right to speculate on the possible nature, purposes and methods of a possible God as you do, and I see no justification whatsoever in your repeated suggestion that somehow my agnosticism lends validity to your illogical combination of evolutionary theories, or invalidates my own logical alternatives.

DAVID: Somehow your pattern of thought leads you to think my theories are illogical. I think I am very logical. I've never understood your disconnected view from the moment you suggested God should have directly created us.

I have never made any such suggestion! And I don't see how you can find your theory very logical when you admit that it "makes sense only to God." You continue to dodge all those parts of your theory which make no sense when combined: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages. As an agnostic, I try to find solutions to the unsolved mystery of speciation (= evolution) that do not exclude God. I accept the logic of the case for design, and find Darwin’s theory of random mutations too hard to swallow. And so, to counter your absurd accusation that I know better than your God what he should have done, I am assuming – unlike you – that he would have had logical reasons for everything he did. I shan’t repeat all my alternatives, but each of them accepts one or even two of the three contradictory theories listed above. They do not say what God should have done. They offer logical explanations for what we know actually happened, and your only objection is that they entail human thought patterns which are different from the human thought patterns you attribute to him. (DAVID: “I conceded your God theories logically fit a very humanized form of a God.”)


Cellular intelligence

dhw: It is absurd to say that my 50/50 for and against God = denial of God, and it is equally absurd for you to give odds of 50/50 for and against cellular intelligence and then say you “deny” the theory. The slime mould video is just another example of the fact that you are not the only person with a “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life”, and you cannot expect me to accept your assumption that you know more than some scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the biochemistry of life and disagree with you.

DAVID: The problem is outside appearances allow for either/or interpretations. I find an excellent interpretation is intelligently designed automaticity, as does all of the ID community. The decision should not be based on innate prejudice. Mine is based on the requirement for a designer.

The theory of cellular intelligence does not exclude your designer! Your prejudice is your assumption that the designer would not design a mechanism which would be able to do its own designing. Again, why should I accept that your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life” outweighs the deep knowledge of renowned experts in the field who have spent a lifetime studying the biochemistry of life?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 02, 2022, 16:25 (635 days ago) @ dhw

Agnosticism

DAVID: Somehow your pattern of thought leads you to think my theories are illogical. I think I am very logical. I've never understood your disconnected view from the moment you suggested God should have directly created us.

dhw: I have never made any such suggestion! And I don't see how you can find your theory very logical when you admit that it "makes sense only to God." You continue to dodge all those parts of your theory which make no sense when combined: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages.

I don't know how to find your contention that God could have directly created us and complained that He didn't. Considering God as a designer, I believe 1,2 & 3 are all very reasonable thoughts. Humans were certainly a goal, per Adler's approach.

dhw: As an agnostic, I try to find solutions to the unsolved mystery of speciation (= evolution) that do not exclude God. I accept the logic of the case for design, and find Darwin’s theory of random mutations too hard to swallow. And so, to counter your absurd accusation that I know better than your God what he should have done, I am assuming – unlike you – that he would have had logical reasons for everything he did.

His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

dhw: I shan’t repeat all my alternatives, but each of them accepts one or even two of the three contradictory theories listed above. They do not say what God should have done. They offer logical explanations for what we know actually happened, and your only objection is that they entail human thought patterns which are different from the human thought patterns you attribute to him. (DAVID: “I conceded your God theories logically fit a very humanized form of a God.”)

Have you discard your very human God?

Cellular intelligence

dhw: It is absurd to say that my 50/50 for and against God = denial of God, and it is equally absurd for you to give odds of 50/50 for and against cellular intelligence and then say you “deny” the theory. The slime mould video is just another example of the fact that you are not the only person with a “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life”, and you cannot expect me to accept your assumption that you know more than some scientists who have spent a lifetime studying the biochemistry of life and disagree with you.

DAVID: The problem is outside appearances allow for either/or interpretations. I find an excellent interpretation is intelligently designed automaticity, as does all of the ID community. The decision should not be based on innate prejudice. Mine is based on the requirement for a designer.

dhw: The theory of cellular intelligence does not exclude your designer! Your prejudice is your assumption that the designer would not design a mechanism which would be able to do its own designing. Again, why should I accept that your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life” outweighs the deep knowledge of renowned experts in the field who have spent a lifetime studying the biochemistry of life?

Your renowned experts used hyperbolic descriptions of cellular intelligent actions, implying innate intelligence as compared to intelligently designed instructions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Sunday, July 03, 2022, 09:19 (635 days ago) @ David Turell

Agnosticism

dhw: […] I don't see how you can find your theory very logical when you admit that it "makes sense only to God." You continue to dodge all those parts of your theory which make no sense when combined: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages.

DAVID: I don't know how to find your contention that God could have directly created us and complained that He didn't. Considering God as a designer, I believe 1,2 & 3 are all very reasonable thoughts. Humans were certainly a goal, per Adler's approach.

You keep ignoring the fact that it is the combination of these theories that makes no sense. I do not “complain” that he didn’t design us directly. I complain that the history (we evolved in stages) is not compatible with your combined theories that a) we were your God’s one and only goal, and b) he could have designed us without any precursors if he’d wanted to. 1, 2 and 3 are indeed reasonable thoughts, and that is why you focus on them separately, whereas it is their combination that makes no sense to you. What else are you referring to when you say you can’t explain your theory, I should go and ask God to explain it, and it “makes sense only to God”?

dhw: […] to counter your absurd accusation that I know better than your God what he should have done, I am assuming – unlike you – that he would have had logical reasons for everything he did.

DAVID: His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

How can you fully accept his logic when you don’t know what it is?

dhw: [My alternative theories] offer logical explanations for what we know actually happened, and your only objection is that they entail human thought patterns which are different from the human thought patterns you attribute to him. […]

DAVID: Have you discard your very human God?

I don’t understand your question. I offer ALTERNATIVE theories, each of which follows on from one or other of your three premises. You reject them all because they entail human thought patterns, although you believe your God probably has human thought patterns. Another of your self-contradictions.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: The problem is outside appearances allow for either/or interpretations. […] The decision should not be based on innate prejudice. Mine is based on the requirement for a designer.

dhw: The theory of cellular intelligence does not exclude your designer! Your prejudice is your assumption that the designer would not design a mechanism which would be able to do its own designing. Again, why should I accept that your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life” outweighs the deep knowledge of renowned experts in the field who have spent a lifetime studying the biochemistry of life?

DAVID: Your renowned experts used hyperbolic descriptions of cellular intelligent actions, implying innate intelligence as compared to intelligently designed instructions.

My renowned experts believe that cells are intelligent. You believe the odds are 50/50, but for you, 50/50 means 100% no. It is your belief that their expert descriptions are “hyperbolic”, and that cells only obey your God’s instructions. I presume you justify your beliefs because you regard your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life” as deeper than theirs.

Recovery from brain damage

QUOTES: "What the researchers saw was striking. Two months after an injury to the hippocampus, a brain region involved in learning and memory, neural circuits in the mice brains had reconfigured themselves.”

Sounds as if they know what they’re doing.

"'It looks like the entire brain is being carefully rewired to accommodate for the damage, regardless of whether there was direct injury to the region or not…"

If your God exists, didn’t write a book of instructions 3.8 billion years ago for mouse-brain rewiring, or doesn’t pop in whenever a mouse injures itself, I would suggest that maybe he designed cells to work out their own way of autonomously reconfiguring and rewiring themselves.

"In their imaging explorations, the team also found signs that the machinery brain cells use to establish distant connections remained intact after a severe injury. This bodes well for recovery because, Hunt says, it suggests there may be a way to entice the injured brain to repair lost connections on its own."

I guess that’s the aim of most medical treatment: to help the cells get back to their normal autonomy.

Human only networks

QUOTE: 'Interneurons make about a fourth to a third of cortical nerve cells that behave in a very peculiar way: they are highly active, however, not to activate other neurons, rather to silence them. Just like kindergarten caretakers, or guards in the museum: their very laborious and highly energy consuming activity is to keep others peaceful, quiet.”

Here we have a very vivid description of how intelligent cells organize themselves. We only need to substitute “communities” for “networks” to see how the system works.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 03, 2022, 15:37 (634 days ago) @ dhw

Agnosticism

dhw: You keep ignoring the fact that it is the combination of these theories that makes no sense. I do not “complain” that he didn’t design us directly. I complain that the history (we evolved in stages) is not compatible with your combined theories that a) we were your God’s one and only goal, and b) he could have designed us without any precursors if he’d wanted to. 1, 2 and 3 are indeed reasonable thoughts, and that is why you focus on them separately, whereas it is their combination that makes no sense to you. What else are you referring to when you say you can’t explain your theory, I should go and ask God to explain it, and it “makes sense only to God”?

There is a giant nuance of difference in our interpretations of my views: I fully believe God (as the designer) caused the process we refer to as evolution for His own reasons. In charge of creating reality, He chose the stepwise process we know. We argue over 'goal' or 'endpoint' as the human end of evolution, but it is the current endpoint. My explanation is perfectly clear: belief and trust in a God who knows full well how to do creation.


dhw: […] to counter your absurd accusation that I know better than your God what he should have done, I am assuming – unlike you – that he would have had logical reasons for everything he did.

DAVID: His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

dhw: How can you fully accept his logic when you don’t know what it is?

That is where interpretation comes in! And you, not understanding a believer's viewpont object totally irrationally.


DAVID: Have you discard your very human God?

dhw: mI don’t understand your question. I offer ALTERNATIVE theories, each of which follows on from one or other of your three premises. You reject them all because they entail human thought patterns, although you believe your God probably has human thought patterns. Another of your self-contradictions.

It is your contradiction to assume God has your human thought processes


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Your renowned experts used hyperbolic descriptions of cellular intelligent actions, implying innate intelligence as compared to intelligently designed instructions.

dhw: My renowned experts believe that cells are intelligent. You believe the odds are 50/50, but for you, 50/50 means 100% no. It is your belief that their expert descriptions are “hyperbolic”, and that cells only obey your God’s instructions. I presume you justify your beliefs because you regard your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life” as deeper than theirs.

I said they used hyperbole as an honest appraisal of their written views. All ID is with me.


Recovery from brain damage

"'It looks like the entire brain is being carefully rewired to accommodate for the damage, regardless of whether there was direct injury to the region or not…"

dhw: If your God exists, didn’t write a book of instructions 3.8 billion years ago for mouse-brain rewiring, or doesn’t pop in whenever a mouse injures itself, I would suggest that maybe he designed cells to work out their own way of autonomously reconfiguring and rewiring themselves.

The brain obviously requires that exact ability, so God provided it. It doesn't support your brilliant cell theory.

Human only networks

QUOTE: 'Interneurons make about a fourth to a third of cortical nerve cells that behave in a very peculiar way: they are highly active, however, not to activate other neurons, rather to silence them. Just like kindergarten caretakers, or guards in the museum: their very laborious and highly energy consuming activity is to keep others peaceful, quiet.”

dhw: Here we have a very vivid description of how intelligent cells organize themselves. We only need to substitute “communities” for “networks” to see how the system works.

Still struggling to protect your brilliant cell committee theory. The study on ty shows us how the brain uses its plasticity, a process no other organ has or needs.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Monday, July 04, 2022, 09:11 (634 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is a giant nuance of difference in our interpretations of my views: I fully believe God (as the designer) caused the process we refer to as evolution for His own reasons. In charge of creating reality, He chose the stepwise process we know.

If God exists, then of course he designed the process, and of course he had his own reasons, and of course the stepwise process of evolution would have been his choice.

DAVID: We argue over 'goal' or 'endpoint' as the human end of evolution, but it is the current endpoint. My explanation is perfectly clear: belief and trust in a God who knows full well how to do creation.

Of course if God exists, he knows how to do creation. We are not arguing about any of this, and you know it! We are arguing about the incompatibility of the three evolutionary theories I listed earlier: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages. Each of these is credible in itself but when combined, they do not make sense, as you have acknowledged again and again because you cannot find any logical link, and together they “make sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

dhw: How can you fully accept his logic when you don’t know what it is?

DAVID: That is where interpretation comes in! And you, not understanding a believer's viewpoint object totally irrationally.

And your interpretation “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to yourself. Please tell us what else “makes sense only to God” can mean. Nothing to do with belief or non-belief, since all my alternatives allow for God as the creator.

dhw: […] I offer ALTERNATIVE theories, each of which follows on from one or other of your three premises. You reject them all because they entail human thought patterns, although you believe your God probably has human thought patterns. Another of your self-contradictions.

DAVID: It is your contradiction to assume God has your human thought processes.

What gives you the authority to claim that he has your illogical human thought processes (which make no sense to you) rather than my logical ones?

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Your renowned experts used hyperbolic descriptions of cellular intelligent actions, implying innate intelligence as compared to intelligently designed instructions.

dhw: My renowned experts believe that cells are intelligent. You believe the odds are 50/50, but for you, 50/50 means 100% no. It is your belief that their expert descriptions are “hyperbolic”, and that cells only obey your God’s instructions. I presume you justify your beliefs because you regard your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life” as deeper than theirs.

DAVID: I said they used hyperbole as an honest appraisal of their written views. All ID is with me.

I know you said it. And I challenge your right to call their expert opinions “hyperbolic”! What makes you think that your knowledge of the biochemistry of life is “deeper” than theirs? I didn’t know that all ID-ers opposed the concept of cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God) and supported your view that your God preprogrammed every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping in to dabble each one individually. But in any case, I very much doubt if every scientist in the field is an ID-er.

Recovery from brain damage

QUOTE: "'It looks like the entire brain is being carefully rewired to accommodate for the damage, regardless of whether there was direct injury to the region or not…"

dhw: If your God exists, didn’t write a book of instructions 3.8 billion years ago for mouse-brain rewiring, or doesn’t pop in whenever a mouse injures itself, I would suggest that maybe he designed cells to work out their own way of autonomously reconfiguring and rewiring themselves.

DAVID: The brain obviously requires that exact ability, so God provided it. It doesn't support your brilliant cell theory.

The brain is a community of cells, and if the cells of the brain have the autonomous ability to reconfigure and rewire themselves, and God provided them with that ability, you have just accepted the theory of cellular intelligence. Congratulations.

Human only networks

dhw: Here we have a very vivid description of how intelligent cells organize themselves. We only need to substitute “communities” for “networks” to see how the system works.

DAVID: Still struggling to protect your brilliant cell committee theory. The study on ty shows us how the brain uses its plasticity, a process no other organ has or needs.

Once again, you don’t seem to realize that the brain is a community of cells. It is therefore cells that use their plasticity, which is not confined to the brain. If some cells did not have plasticity, evolution would never have happened.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Monday, July 04, 2022, 15:28 (633 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We argue over 'goal' or 'endpoint' as the human end of evolution, but it is the current endpoint. My explanation is perfectly clear: belief and trust in a God who knows full well how to do creation.

dhw: Of course if God exists, he knows how to do creation. We are not arguing about any of this, and you know it! We are arguing about the incompatibility of the three evolutionary theories I listed earlier: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages. Each of these is credible in itself but when combined, they do not make sense, as you have acknowledged again and again because you cannot find any logical link, and together they “make sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

I do not have three theories. They are your strange divisions. God chose to evolve us by designing stages of life leading to us as the endpoint. His design method does not require precursors. After all He knew how to invent life. One theory, design theory.


DAVID: His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

dhw: How can you fully accept his logic when you don’t know what it is?

You seem to miss the point, no one can know God's logic! If you knew it would you leave agnosticism?


DAVID: That is where interpretation comes in! And you, not understanding a believer's viewpoint object totally irrationally.

dhw: And your interpretation “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to yourself. Please tell us what else “makes sense only to God” can mean. Nothing to do with belief or non-belief, since all my alternatives allow for God as the creator.

Obviously you have no concept of how to 'allow for God' as the creator. You agree God can do anything He wishes but do not know His logic, do you? And then you go on to invent all sorts of human desires for God to follow.


dhw: What gives you the authority to claim that he has your illogical human thought processes (which make no sense to you) rather than my logical ones?

If God made sense to you, would you accept Him?


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I said they used hyperbole as an honest appraisal of their written views. All ID is with me.

dhw: I know you said it. And I challenge your right to call their expert opinions “hyperbolic”! What makes you think that your knowledge of the biochemistry of life is “deeper” than theirs? I didn’t know that all ID-ers opposed the concept of cellular intelligence (possibly designed by your God) and supported your view that your God preprogrammed every innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder 3.8 billion years ago, or kept popping in to dabble each one individually. But in any case, I very much doubt if every scientist in the field is an ID-er.

I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.


Recovery from brain damage

DAVID: The brain obviously requires that exact ability, so God provided it. It doesn't support your brilliant cell theory.

dhw: The brain is a community of cells, and if the cells of the brain have the autonomous ability to reconfigure and rewire themselves, and God provided them with that ability, you have just accepted the theory of cellular intelligence. Congratulations.

Your innate cell intelligence theory is pure extrapolation. God instructed the brain cells in how to have required plasticity.


Human only networks

dhw: Here we have a very vivid description of how intelligent cells organize themselves. We only need to substitute “communities” for “networks” to see how the system works.

DAVID: Still struggling to protect your brilliant cell committee theory. The study only shows us how the brain uses its plasticity, a process no other organ has or needs.

dhw: Once again, you don’t seem to realize that the brain is a community of cells. It is therefore cells that use their plasticity, which is not confined to the brain. If some cells did not have plasticity, evolution would never have happened.

Nice try! The brain requires this ability. You couldn't learn anything if it didn't. Interesting tortured twist of evolutionary fact: Cells do not have plasticity, only neuron networks do.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Tuesday, July 05, 2022, 09:24 (633 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are arguing about the incompatibility of the three evolutionary theories I listed earlier: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages. Each of these is credible in itself but when combined, they do not make sense, as you have acknowledged again and again because you cannot find any logical link, and together they “make sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I do not have three theories. They are your strange divisions. God chose to evolve us by designing stages of life leading to us as the endpoint. His design method does not require precursors. After all He knew how to invent life. One theory, design theory.

You are making a mockery of this discussion. If your God exists, then of course he designed evolution. The discussion concerns why and how he designed it, and each of the above is a separate theory. You admit that you cannot explain their combination, which “makes sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

dhw: How can you fully accept his logic when you don’t know what it is?

DAVID: You seem to miss the point, no one can know God's logic! If you knew it would you leave agnosticism?

If he exists, no one can know his purpose either, and no one knows how evolution works. So please stop pretending that you know both, and that your theories make sense to you although they make sense only to God. I would leave agnosticism if I was convinced that God exists. And then I would challenge your absurdly illogical combination of evolutionary theories just as I do now.

dhw: What gives you the authority to claim that he has your illogical human thought processes (which make no sense to you) rather than my logical ones?

DAVID: If God made sense to you, would you accept Him?

This tactic of avoiding my questions by asking your own is another tiresome dodge. I’ve answered your pointless question above. Now please answer my question.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.

If you are their equal, then they are your equal, 50/50. The theory of cellular intelligence has nothing to do with “rigid Darwinian prejudices”. It never occurred to Darwin that evolutionary innovations might be the result of cellular intelligence – he opted for random mutations, which I find unconvincing. But he declared that his theory did not exclude God as the creator. I have no idea why you see my theory as prejudice, while you apparently regard your 3.8-billion-year old book of divine instructions, or non-stop ad hoc divine dabbling, as objective science.

Recovery from brain damage

dhw: I would suggest that maybe he designed cells to work out their own way of autonomously reconfiguring and rewiring themselves.

DAVID: The brain obviously requires that exact ability, so God provided it. It doesn't support your brilliant cell theory.

dhw: The brain is a community of cells, and if the cells of the brain have the autonomous ability to reconfigure and rewire themselves, and God provided them with that ability, you have just accepted the theory of cellular intelligence. Congratulations.

DAVID: Your innate cell intelligence theory is pure extrapolation. God instructed the brain cells in how to have required plasticity.

Since the cells of the brain have the “exact ability” to “work out their own way of autonomously reconfiguring and rewiring themselves”, and you agree that God provided it, then you agree that they are intelligent! And yes, he would have given them the plasticity as well as the ability to use it. And yes, the theory is an extrapolation proposed by people whose knowledge of biochemistry is just as deep as yours.

Human only networks

DAVID: The study only shows us how the brain uses its plasticity, a process no other organ has or needs.

dhw: Once again, you don’t seem to realize that the brain is a community of cells. It is therefore cells that use their plasticity, which is not confined to the brain. If some cells did not have plasticity, evolution would never have happened.

DAVID: Nice try! The brain requires this ability. You couldn't learn anything if it didn't.

I am not denying that the brain cells have this ability!

DAVID: Interesting tortured twist of evolutionary fact: Cells do not have plasticity, only neuron networks do.

Stem cells can take on any form, but in any case neurons are cells, and their networks cover the whole body, not just the brain! How could evolution have taken place if these cellular networks did not have the ability to change?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 05, 2022, 17:46 (632 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I do not have three theories. They are your strange divisions. God chose to evolve us by designing stages of life leading to us as the endpoint. His design method does not require precursors. After all He knew how to invent life. One theory, design theory.

dhw: You are making a mockery of this discussion. If your God exists, then of course he designed evolution. The discussion concerns why and how he designed it, and each of the above is a separate theory. You admit that you cannot explain their combination, which “makes sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

For me the theories are not separate but involve one designing God choosing His methods for His own reasons. I have never understood your thinking.


DAVID: His logic is obviously not your logic, and I fully accept His logic from His own reasoning.

dhw: How can you fully accept his logic when you don’t know what it is?

DAVID: You seem to miss the point, no one can know God's logic! If you knew it would you leave agnosticism?

dhw: If he exists, no one can know his purpose either, and no one knows how evolution works. So please stop pretending that you know both, and that your theories make sense to you although they make sense only to God. I would leave agnosticism if I was convinced that God exists. And then I would challenge your absurdly illogical combination of evolutionary theories just as I do now.

As above, only absurd to you. I am assured of my views by the ID folks with my thinking.


dhw: What gives you the authority to claim that he has your illogical human thought processes (which make no sense to you) rather than my logical ones?

God makes perfect sense to me, as I recognize God has His reasons for His methodology. I do not need to know them, as you do.


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.

dhw: If you are their equal, then they are your equal, 50/50. The theory of cellular intelligence has nothing to do with “rigid Darwinian prejudices”...I have no idea why you see my theory as prejudice, while you apparently regard your 3.8-billion-year old book of divine instructions, or non-stop ad hoc divine dabbling, as objective science.

Not objective science, but an interpretation of how God might have created His form of designed evolution.


Human only networks

DAVID: The study only shows us how the brain uses its plasticity, a process no other organ has or needs.

dhw: Once again, you don’t seem to realize that the brain is a community of cells. It is therefore cells that use their plasticity, which is not confined to the brain. If some cells did not have plasticity, evolution would never have happened.

DAVID: Nice try! The brain requires this ability. You couldn't learn anything if it didn't.

dhw: I am not denying that the brain cells have this ability!

DAVID: Interesting tortured twist of evolutionary fact: Cells do not have plasticity, only neuron networks do.

dhw: Stem cells can take on any form, but in any case neurons are cells, and their networks cover the whole body, not just the brain! How could evolution have taken place if these cellular networks did not have the ability to change?

Once again you run off point. The plasticity of the brain is required so it can learn to handle new uses. You want to again introduce your brilliant cell committees wherever you can. Cell networks are changed in speciation. There is no proof the cells do it themselves.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Wednesday, July 06, 2022, 11:22 (632 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are arguing about the incompatibility of the three evolutionary theories I listed earlier: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages.

DAVID: I do not have three theories. They are your strange divisions. God chose to evolve us by designing stages of life leading to us as the endpoint. His design method does not require precursors. After all He knew how to invent life. One theory, design theory.

dhw: You are making a mockery of this discussion. If your God exists, then of course he designed evolution. The discussion concerns why and how he designed it, and each of the above is a separate theory. You admit that you cannot explain their combination, which “makes sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: For me the theories are not separate but involve one designing God choosing His methods for His own reasons. I have never understood your thinking.

For the sake of this discussion, I am accepting the theory that your God exists, and so of course I accept that he would have had a purpose (you’ve left that out), and for his own reasons he would have chosen evolution as his method of achieving that purpose. Do you or do you not accept that the three theories above represent your beliefs concerning his purpose and his methods? If so, do you accept that when you say you can’t explain the combination of these theories, and it “makes sense only to God”, this can only mean it makes no sense to you?

Sea anemone stinger
QUOTE: Each stinger is good for just one shot. “It’s a one-hit wonder,” Karabulut says. “Once Nematostella uses it, it’s gone.”

DAVID: Another example of an irreducibly complex organ, which is so complex it had to appear all at once in complete form. This shows a designer is required.

Please tell us why you think this anemone had to be specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” and part of your God’s goal (theories 1 and 2 combined) of evolving [=designing] sapiens and our food.

DAVID: I am assured of my views by the ID folks with my thinking.

You are “assured” of your view that God exists by everyone who believes in God. That does not mean they all accept your combined theories of how and why your God designed every species etc. (see above) in a combination that makes no sense to you.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.

dhw: If you are their equal, then they are your equal, 50/50. The theory of cellular intelligence has nothing to do with “rigid Darwinian prejudices”...I have no idea why you see my theory as prejudice, while you apparently regard your 3.8-billion-year old book of divine instructions, or non-stop ad hoc divine dabbling, as objective science.

DAVID: Not objective science, but an interpretation of how God might have created His form of designed evolution.

Your interpretation of how and why your God might have created evolution (see the list of theories above) makes no sense to you, as only God can understand it. How does that make my logical theory prejudicial, and how does it prove that “my" scientists know less than you about biochemistry?

Human only networks

DAVID: Cells do not have plasticity, only neuron networks do.

dhw: Stem cells can take on any form, but in any case neurons are cells, and their networks cover the whole body, not just the brain! How could evolution have taken place if these cellular networks did not have the ability to change?

DAVID: Once again you run off point. The plasticity of the brain is required so it can learn to handle new uses. You want to again introduce your brilliant cell committees wherever you can. Cell networks are changed in speciation. There is no proof the cells do it themselves.

I have not denied that the brain has to be plastic! You wrote that only neuron networks have plasticity. I’ve reminded you that neurons are cells, that the brain consists of cell communities, and so does the rest of the body. Plasticity (the ability to change) is essential for speciation, as you have just confirmed. How is this “off point”? There is no “proof” for any of our theories – including yours – otherwise they would be facts.

Human evolution

DAVID: not a new proof of origin of Homos, but we still are left with a 4.5-million-year evolution of big-brained hominin/Homo forms. As I view God as the designer of evolutionary processes, we can see God prefers evolution as his main process. The universe evolved, the Earth evolved, life evolved after God started each event and pursued it.

If God exists, then of course evolution must have been his “main process”. That does not mean that the combination of your three “invented” (see Part Two) evolutionary theories listed at the start of this post – which “makes sense only to God” – must be true!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 06, 2022, 16:41 (631 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We are arguing about the incompatibility of the three evolutionary theories I listed earlier: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages.

DAVID: I do not have three theories. They are your strange divisions. God chose to evolve us by designing stages of life leading to us as the endpoint. His design method does not require precursors. After all He knew how to invent life. One theory, design theory.

DAVID: For me the theories are not separate but involve one designing God choosing His methods for His own reasons. I have never understood your thinking.

dhw: For the sake of this discussion, I am accepting the theory that your God exists, and so of course I accept that he would have had a purpose (you’ve left that out), and for his own reasons he would have chosen evolution as his method of achieving that purpose. Do you or do you not accept that the three theories above represent your beliefs concerning his purpose and his methods?

They are not three theories, but your illogical divisions. 1) is God's endpoint for his designed evolution process. 2 & 3) are both descriptions of His one design process

dhw: If so, do you accept that when you say you can’t explain the combination of these theories, and it “makes sense only to God”, this can only mean it makes no sense to you?

God is doing it this way for his own unknown reasons, which of course make sense to Him, and it makes perfect sense to me to trust in Him.


Sea anemone stinger
QUOTE: Each stinger is good for just one shot. “It’s a one-hit wonder,” Karabulut says. “Once Nematostella uses it, it’s gone.”

DAVID: Another example of an irreducibly complex organ, which is so complex it had to appear all at once in complete form. This shows a designer is required.

dhw: Please tell us why you think this anemone had to be specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” and part of your God’s goal (theories 1 and 2 combined) of evolving [=designing] sapiens and our food.

The sea anemone is part of the necessary ecosystem in which it exists to provide food.


DAVID: I am assured of my views by the ID folks with my thinking.

dhw: You are “assured” of your view that God exists by everyone who believes in God. That does not mean they all accept your combined theories of how and why your God designed every species etc. (see above) in a combination that makes no sense to you.

How do you know what ID accepts?


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.

dhw: If you are their equal, then they are your equal, 50/50. The theory of cellular intelligence has nothing to do with “rigid Darwinian prejudices”...I have no idea why you see my theory as prejudice, while you apparently regard your 3.8-billion-year old book of divine instructions, or non-stop ad hoc divine dabbling, as objective science.

DAVID: Not objective science, but an interpretation of how God might have created His form of designed evolution.

dhw: Your interpretation of how and why your God might have created evolution (see the list of theories above) makes no sense to you, as only God can understand it. How does that make my logical theory prejudicial, and how does it prove that “my" scientists know less than you about biochemistry?

Your experts and I know the same biochemistry. We can equally interpret.


Human only networks

DAVID: Cells do not have plasticity, only neuron networks do.

dhw: Stem cells can take on any form, but in any case neurons are cells, and their networks cover the whole body, not just the brain! How could evolution have taken place if these cellular networks did not have the ability to change?

DAVID: Once again you run off point. The plasticity of the brain is required so it can learn to handle new uses. You want to again introduce your brilliant cell committees wherever you can. Cell networks are changed in speciation. There is no proof the cells do it themselves.

dhw: I have not denied that the brain has to be plastic! You wrote that only neuron networks have plasticity. I’ve reminded you that neurons are cells, that the brain consists of cell communities, and so does the rest of the body. Plasticity (the ability to change) is essential for speciation, as you have just confirmed. How is this “off point”? There is no “proof” for any of our theories – including yours – otherwise they would be facts.

Again off point of specialized networks in human brains. Pure propaganda.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Thursday, July 07, 2022, 08:43 (631 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are arguing about the incompatibility of the three evolutionary theories I listed earlier: 1) your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food; 2) your God individually designed every species, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder, including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food; 3) your God directly designed some species without any precursors, but designed the only species he wanted to design (plus food) in stages.
Do you or do you not accept that the three theories above represent your beliefs concerning his purpose and his methods?

DAVID: They are not three theories, but your illogical divisions. 1) is God's endpoint for his designed evolution process. 2 & 3) are both descriptions of His one design process.

Bearing in mind that you have made it clear that the “endpoint” (sapiens plus food) represents your God’s one and only purpose, you are simply confirming my point that when you try to combine what you call the three “divisions” into one theory, they defy all logic, as you agree in the next exchange:

dhw: If so, do you accept that when you say you can’t explain the combination of these theories, and it “makes sense only to God”, this can only mean it makes no sense to you?

DAVID: God is doing it this way for his own unknown reasons, which of course make sense to Him, and it makes perfect sense to me to trust in Him.

Trusting in God does not alter the fact that YOUR “invented” theory does not make sense to YOU. So maybe it’s wrong.

Sea anemone stinger

dhw: Please tell us why you think this anemone had to be specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” and part of your God’s goal (theories 1 and 2 combined) of evolving [=designing] sapiens and our food.

DAVID: The sea anemone is part of the necessary ecosystem in which it exists to provide food.

All forms of life, extant and extinct, are/were part of their own ecosystem, in which they either eat or are eaten. How does that make them all an “absolute requirement” for your God’s sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: I am assured of my views by the ID folks with my thinking.

dhw: You are “assured” of your view that God exists by everyone who believes in God. That does not mean they all accept your combined theories of how and why your God designed every species etc. (see above) in a combination that makes no sense to you.

DAVID: How do you know what ID accepts?

I’m not sure what you mean by “assured of my views” etc., but I assume you think they all accept your illogical theory of evolution, which “makes sense only to God”. Same question to you: how do you know they all accept your illogical theory?

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.

dhw: […] Your interpretation of how and why your God might have created evolution (see the list of theories above) makes no sense to you, as only God can understand it. How does that make my logical theory prejudicial, and how does it prove that “my" scientists know less than you about biochemistry?

DAVID: Your experts and I know the same biochemistry. We can equally interpret.

If you are equal, how does that prove they know less than you? And in what way is my theory more prejudicial than your own?

Human only networks

dhw: I have not denied that the brain has to be plastic! You wrote that “only neuron networks have plasticity”. I’ve reminded you that neurons are cells, that the brain consists of cell communities, and so does the rest of the body. Plasticity (the ability to change) is essential for speciation, as you have just confirmed. […]

DAVID: Again off point of specialized networks in human brains. Pure propaganda.

All the networks are “specialized”. Do you or do you not agree that the ability of cells and their networks to change (plasticity) is essential for speciation?

Sea cucumber

QUOTE: "...since sea cucumbers lack any adaptive immunity and must rely on their innate defenses to survive, “it’s not so surprising that sea cucumbers evolved something special” to defend themselves.

DAVID: another example of an irreducibly complex mechanism with so many interlocking requirements, it must be created all at once, not step by step by chance. This must be designed.

As usual, I also reject chance. The obvious implication of the quote is that if sea cucumbers hadn’t worked out a way to defend themselves, they would not have survived. And as usual, my question to you is why your God regarded self-defending sea cucumbers as an “absolute requirement” to enable him to design sapiens and our food.

Hornets distribute agarwood seeds

DAVID: using attractive scents to lure hornets to disperse the seeds is a neat trick, not likely to develop by chance mutations.

Same as above. Thank you for these examples of Nature’s wonders. Regardless of one’s beliefs, one can only gasp at the ingenuity with which different forms of life pursue the quest for survival.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 07, 2022, 16:09 (630 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: They are not three theories, but your illogical divisions. 1) is God's endpoint for his designed evolution process. 2 & 3) are both descriptions of His one design process.

dhw: Bearing in mind that you have made it clear that the “endpoint” (sapiens plus food) represents your God’s one and only purpose, you are simply confirming my point that when you try to combine what you call the three “divisions” into one theory, they defy all logic, as you agree in the next exchange:

dhw: If so, do you accept that when you say you can’t explain the combination of these theories, and it “makes sense only to God”, this can only mean it makes no sense to you?

DAVID: God is doing it this way for his own unknown reasons, which of course make sense to Him, and it makes perfect sense to me to trust in Him.

dhw: Trusting in God does not alter the fact that YOUR “invented” theory does not make sense to YOU. So maybe it’s wrong.

If I invented these theories, which I think is one whole design theory, they must make sense to me!! Your objection is an insult to my thought processes.


Sea anemone stinger

dhw: Please tell us why you think this anemone had to be specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” and part of your God’s goal (theories 1 and 2 combined) of evolving [=designing] sapiens and our food.

DAVID: The sea anemone is part of the necessary ecosystem in which it exists to provide food.

dhw: All forms of life, extant and extinct, are/were part of their own ecosystem, in which they either eat or are eaten. How does that make them all an “absolute requirement” for your God’s sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food?

Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.


DAVID: I am assured of my views by the ID folks with my thinking.

dhw: You are “assured” of your view that God exists by everyone who believes in God. That does not mean they all accept your combined theories of how and why your God designed every species etc. (see above) in a combination that makes no sense to you.

DAVID: How do you know what ID accepts?

dhw: I’m not sure what you mean by “assured of my views” etc., but I assume you think they all accept your illogical theory of evolution, which “makes sense only to God”. Same question to you: how do you know they all accept your illogical theory?

Direct conversations at an ID convention,


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Your experts and I know the same biochemistry. We can equally interpret.

dhw: If you are equal, how does that prove they know less than you? And in what way is my theory more prejudicial than your own?

Never said that!!! We are equals as above.


Human only networks

DAVID: Again off point of specialized networks in human brains. Pure propaganda.

dhw: All the networks are “specialized”. Do you or do you not agree that the ability of cells and their networks to change (plasticity) is essential for speciation?

Weird: plasticity is at cellular function level. Speciation is at DNA level.


Sea cucumber

QUOTE: "...since sea cucumbers lack any adaptive immunity and must rely on their innate defenses to survive, “it’s not so surprising that sea cucumbers evolved something special” to defend themselves.

DAVID: another example of an irreducibly complex mechanism with so many interlocking requirements, it must be created all at once, not step by step by chance. This must be designed.

dhw: As usual, I also reject chance. The obvious implication of the quote is that if sea cucumbers hadn’t worked out a way to defend themselves, they would not have survived. And as usual, my question to you is why your God regarded self-defending sea cucumbers as an “absolute requirement” to enable him to design sapiens and our food.

Again, necessary ecosystems, your blind spot.


Hornets distribute agarwood seeds

DAVID: using attractive scents to lure hornets to disperse the seeds is a neat trick, not likely to develop by chance mutations.

dhw: Same as above. Thank you for these examples of Nature’s wonders. Regardless of one’s beliefs, one can only gasp at the ingenuity with which different forms of life pursue the quest for survival.

Yes, gasp at God-given ingenuity.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Friday, July 08, 2022, 13:40 (629 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Trusting in God does not alter the fact that YOUR “invented” theory does not make sense to YOU. So maybe it’s wrong.

DAVID: If I invented these theories, which I think is one whole design theory, they must make sense to me!! Your objection is an insult to my thought processes.

Why are you inserting the word design? We are not talking about the theory that life is so complex that it must have been designed. We are talking about your three theories, which you call “divisions”, concerning how and why evolution has taken place. You admit that you don’t know your God’s reasons for “doing it this way” (“this way” being your invented theory) and “it makes sense only to God”. Please stop pretending that this means it makes sense to you.

Sea anemone stinger (and also “sea cucumber")

DAVID: The sea anemone is part of the necessary ecosystem in which it exists to provide food.

dhw: All forms of life, extant and extinct, are/were part of their own ecosystem, in which they either eat or are eaten. How does that make them all an “absolute requirement” for your God’s sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.

Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, and I doubt if you can even explain why the sea anemone stinger is an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

Dragonfly migration

QUOTE:"The research leaves numerous other questions unanswered, such as how the dragonflies know when the winds are optimal for the journey, how they navigate to tiny islands in the Indian Ocean along the way and most puzzling of all, how this knowledge is passed from one generation to the next, since the same flight patterns occur every year." (David’s bold)

DAVID: the bold above asks the right questions. It is instinct by definition, but how did it develop by chance? […] It is part of an ecosystem designed by God.

Presumably you think teaching this species of dragonfly how to migrate was also an “absolute requirement” as part of your God’s one and only “goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Chance may well have played a role when the very first migrants flew off in search of better conditions. The same applies to all migratory creatures. The fact that the knowledge is passed on suggests that there is either communication between generations, or that cellular communities, which pass on genetic information to subsequent generations through reproduction, have memories not just of their composition but also of their experiences. What we call instinct might then be a similar kind of unconscious memory. Just an idea.

DAVID: I am assured of my views by the ID folks with my thinking.[…]

dhw:[…] how do you know they all accept your illogical theory?

DAVID: Direct conversations at an ID convention.

So all ID-ers believe that 3.8 billion years ago, their God compiled instructions for every evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history, or he personally dabbled each one ad hoc, and every single one was an “absolute requirement” for him to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H.sapiens and our food. I’m surprised. And frankly, deeply disappointed to hear they all believe in a theory that “makes sense only to God”. And there was me, thinking ID-ers wanted to use science to prove that there must be an intelligent designer.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Your experts and I know the same biochemistry. We can equally interpret.

dhw: If you are equal, how does that prove they know less than you? And in what way is my theory more prejudicial than your own?

DAVID: Never said that!!! We are equals as above.

You wrote: “I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.” Initially, you based your rejection of the theory on your “deep knowledge of the biochemistry of life”, dismissed the findings of “my” experts as hyperbole, and then tried to make out that their findings somehow make my theory a prejudice, as if your rigid rejection of a 50/50 possibility was not just that!

Human only networks

DAVID: Again off point of specialized networks in human brains. Pure propaganda. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: All the networks are “specialized”. Do you or do you not agree that the ability of cells and their networks to change (plasticity) is essential for speciation?

DAVID: Weird: plasticity is at cellular function level. Speciation is at DNA level.

Plasticity is what enables cell communities to create new forms. It is not confined to the brain. What is your point? Are you now telling us that DNA is separate from the cell?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Friday, July 08, 2022, 15:39 (629 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If I invented these theories, which I think is one whole design theory, they must make sense to me!! Your objection is an insult to my thought processes.

dhw: Why are you inserting the word design? We are not talking about the theory that life is so complex that it must have been designed...You admit that you don’t know your God’s reasons for “doing it this way” (“this way” being your invented theory) and “it makes sense only to God”. Please stop pretending that this means it makes sense to you.

Your non-belief confuses our view of my approach to God. I trust He knows what He is doing, and I am not pretending as you insist.


Sea anemone stinger (and also “sea cucumber")

DAVID: The sea anemone is part of the necessary ecosystem in which it exists to provide food.

dhw: All forms of life, extant and extinct, are/were part of their own ecosystem, in which they either eat or are eaten. How does that make them all an “absolute requirement” for your God’s sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food?

DAVID: Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.

dhw: Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, and I doubt if you can even explain why the sea anemone stinger is an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

No evasion. All life must eat in every ecosystem..


Dragonfly migration

QUOTE:"The research leaves numerous other questions unanswered, such as how the dragonflies know when the winds are optimal for the journey, how they navigate to tiny islands in the Indian Ocean along the way and most puzzling of all, how this knowledge is passed from one generation to the next, since the same flight patterns occur every year." (David’s bold)

DAVID: the bold above asks the right questions. It is instinct by definition, but how did it develop by chance? […] It is part of an ecosystem designed by God.

dhw: Presumably you think teaching this species of dragonfly how to migrate was also an “absolute requirement” as part of your God’s one and only “goal of evolving [=designing] humans” and their food. Chance may well have played a role when the very first migrants flew off in search of better conditions. The same applies to all migratory creatures. The fact that the knowledge is passed on suggests that there is either communication between generations, or that cellular communities, which pass on genetic information to subsequent generations through reproduction, have memories not just of their composition but also of their experiences. What we call instinct might then be a similar kind of unconscious memory. Just an idea.

Interesting


DAVID: I am assured of my views by the ID folks with my thinking.[…]

dhw:[…] how do you know they all accept your illogical theory?

DAVID: Direct conversations at an ID convention.

dhw: So all ID-ers believe that 3.8 billion years ago, their God compiled instructions for every evolutionary innovation, econiche, lifestyle and natural wonder in life’s history, or he personally dabbled each one ad hoc, and every single one was an “absolute requirement” for him to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H.sapiens and our food. I’m surprised. And frankly, deeply disappointed to hear they all believe in a theory that “makes sense only to God”. And there was me, thinking ID-ers wanted to use science to prove that there must be an intelligent designer.

Surprising isn't it, all ID thinks as I do.


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Your experts and I know the same biochemistry. We can equally interpret.

dhw: If you are equal, how does that prove they know less than you? And in what way is my theory more prejudicial than your own?

DAVID: Never said that!!! We are equals as above.

dhw: You wrote: “I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.”...and then tried to make out that their findings somehow make my theory a prejudice, as if your rigid rejection of a 50/50 possibility was not just that!

I initially presented that an outside look at cells offered to possibilities to choose from. I have a right to choose, while you jumped at the side which fit your preconceived Darwinian prejudices with no knowledge of biochemistry.


Human only networks

DAVID: Again off point of specialized networks in human brains. Pure propaganda. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: All the networks are “specialized”. Do you or do you not agree that the ability of cells and their networks to change (plasticity) is essential for speciation?

DAVID: Weird: plasticity is at cellular function level. Speciation is at DNA level.

dhw: Plasticity is what enables cell communities to create new forms. It is not confined to the brain. What is your point? Are you now telling us that DNA is separate from the cell?

The plasticity code in in the cell DNA.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1; ecosystems

by David Turell @, Friday, July 08, 2022, 16:56 (629 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.

dhw: Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, and I doubt if you can even explain why the sea anemone stinger is an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

No evasion. All life must eat in every ecosystem.. as this review tells us:

https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/ecosystems-what-they-are-and-why-they-are-important/

"...the best all-encompassing definition for an ecosystem is all of the living organisms (plants, animals, and bacteria) and the nonliving components (air, water, soil, weather) that interact with each other as a system. The size of an ecosystem can range from a small tide pool to a giant desert. All the members of the system are interconnected, so the loss or change of one factor can have large effects rippling through the entire ecosystem.

"Energy enters an ecosystem from the sun, which plants utilize, as well as carbon dioxide, which is used for photosynthesis. Animals eat the plants, moving the energy and matter through the ecosystem. When organic matter dies, decomposers break it down, releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

"Other larger external factors determine an ecosystem’s climate, time, topography, and material at the earth’s surface — these factors are not influenced by the ecosystem itself; they simply exist. Rainfall and temperature determine the amount of water and energy available to a system. Climate determines what sort of biome an ecosystem is in — these factors make one region a desert, another one fertile land, and another one a lake.

"Internal factors change how different species interact with each other. For example, if one species contracts a disease and dies off, it affects the whole system. These factors both control and are controlled by ecosystem interactions. In this way, there are different from external factors.

"Ecosystems are often a part of a larger biome, which should not be confused with an ecosystem: biomes are large areas of land based broadly on climate type and the species present. They are not based on the interactions between living and nonliving parts of a system.

"An ecosystem is defined as such because the species that interact form a network that depends on the environment. So a forest, such as the Amazon rainforest, can host many different ecosystems: a soil ecosystem, an understory ecosystem, a canopy, and a forest floor ecosystem. All the members of each system interact with one another and form a closed system.

***

"The normal functioning of an ecosystem provides humans with an abundance of services that we depend upon or that can significantly improve our quality of life. For example, pollination is necessary for about 75% of our crops, trees provide us with timber, and the oceans provide us with fish. The list of ecosystem-provided services is very, very long and includes several more nuanced entries that we tend to take for granted, like clean air, a stable climate, and safe drinking water.

***

"Human action is currently disrupting a large number of ecosystems. For example, by removing most of the fish from the ocean, the whole food chain and system are disrupted and can no longer function properly. The result is running out of certain types of seafood that we enjoy. Introducing invasive species also influences ecosystems because these invasive species outcompete several of the native species that are necessary for the system to work properly.

"On a larger scale, humans are even capable of influencing external factors. By causing the earth to warm via increased carbon dioxide emissions, it influences which plants and animals can live where. It is true that new species often enter ecosystems and that climate can naturally fluctuate but the current changes are so frequent and sudden that the ecosystems cannot adapt to new equilibrium. We are also shooting ourselves in the foot because disrupting ecosystems could have disastrous effects on ourselves: no pollination and hence few crops, bad air quality, fewer fish, and contaminated water are just a few examples. Maintaining the balance of the ecosystem benefits us personally."

Comment: dhw disparages my view of ecosystems, as above, so I keep trying to educate him. For more information on how humans need ecosystems use the following:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=ecosystems+importance+to+humans&t=crhs&ia=web

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Saturday, July 09, 2022, 08:15 (629 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] You admit that you don’t know your God’s reasons for “doing it this way” (“this way” being your invented theory) and “it makes sense only to God”. Please stop pretending that this means it makes sense to you.

DAVID: Your non-belief confuses our view of my approach to God. I trust He knows what He is doing, and I am not pretending as you insist.

If God exists, I have no doubt that he would know what he was doing and why he was doing it. Please stop messing about with vague generalizations. You say his only reason for creating life was to design sapiens plus food, and so what he did was design countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. You “trust” that this is true, even if it “makes sense only to God”, which means it doesn’t make sense to you. What else can it possibly mean?

Ecosystems
DAVID: Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.

dhw: Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, […]

DAVID: No evasion. All life must eat in every ecosystem.

Correct. That does not mean that all extinct life and all extinct ecosystems were an absolute requirement in preparation for sapiens plus food!

DAVID: dhw disparages my view of ecosystems, as above, so I keep trying to educate him. For more information on how humans need ecosystems use the following:

Of course humans need ecosystems. ALL life needs and needed ecosystems. How many more times are you going to ignore the same bolded response? Stop dodging!

ID and David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: I am assured of my views by the ID folks with my thinking.[…]

dhw:[…] how do you know they all accept your illogical theory?

DAVID: Direct conversations at an ID convention.

dhw: […] And there was me, thinking ID-ers wanted to use science to prove that there must be an intelligent designer.

DAVID: Surprising isn't it, all ID thinks as I do.

I’m sure they think as you do about intelligent design. I’m amazed to hear that all of them even know, let alone believe your inexplicable theory of evolution, which “makes sense only to God”, and therefore not to you or to them.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: You wrote: “I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.”...and then tried to make out that their findings somehow make my theory a prejudice, as if your rigid rejection of a 50/50 possibility was not just that!

DAVID: I initially presented that an outside look at cells offered two possibilities to choose from. I have a right to choose, while you jumped at the side which fit your preconceived Darwinian prejudices with no knowledge of biochemistry.

Of course you have a right to choose, and so do I. But Darwin never mentions the possibility that cells might be intelligent, let alone that their intelligence might be responsible for the mutations which he attributed to chance. My not being a biochemist does not mean that scientists such as McClintock, Margulis, Bühler and Shapiro have no knowledge of biochemistry, and far from my theory being based on prejudice, it was this proposal that gave rise to it, as it provides a very logical explanation why there has been such a huge variety of life forms that have come and gone as conditions have changed. You can’t even begin to explain this because you stick rigidly to your belief that your God designed every one of them, although most had no connection with what you say was the only life he wanted to design – that of sapiens and our food. I’d say that such rigid adherence to a theory that makes no sense to you sounds rather like prejudice.

Human only networks

DAVID: Again off point of specialized networks in human brains. Pure propaganda.

dhw: All the networks are “specialized”. Do you or do you not agree that the ability of cells and their networks to change (plasticity) is essential for speciation?

DAVID: Weird: plasticity is at cellular function level. Speciation is at DNA level.

dhw: Plasticity is what enables cell communities to create new forms. It is not confined to the brain. What is your point? Are you now telling us that DNA is separate from the cell?

DAVID: The plasticity code is in the cell DNA.
Thank you for telling us which part of the cell is responsible for its plasticity. How does that come to mean that the plasticity of cells and their networks all over the body is not essential for speciation?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 09, 2022, 15:56 (628 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your non-belief confuses our view of my approach to God. I trust He knows what He is doing, and I am not pretending as you insist.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that he would know what he was doing and why he was doing it. Please stop messing about with vague generalizations. You say his only reason for creating life was to design sapiens plus food, and so what he did was design countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. You “trust” that this is true, even if it “makes sense only to God”, which means it doesn’t make sense to you. What else can it possibly mean?

The fact that my thoughts seem senseless to you shows how you have no understanding of how to think about God as I do. Why can't you accept the above? "I trust He knows what He is doing,"


Ecosystems
DAVID: Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.

dhw: Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, […]

DAVID: No evasion. All life must eat in every ecosystem.

dhw: Correct. That does not mean that all extinct life and all extinct ecosystems were an absolute requirement in preparation for sapiens plus food!

DAVID: dhw disparages my view of ecosystems, as above, so I keep trying to educate him. For more information on how humans need ecosystems use the following:

dhw: Of course humans need ecosystems. ALL life needs and needed ecosystems. How many more times are you going to ignore the same bolded response? Stop dodging!

The major point: without delicate ecosystems at all stages of evolution to support life evolution would not have progressed. The bold is your usual illogical complaint.


ID and David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: Surprising isn't it, all ID thinks as I do.

dhw: I’m sure they think as you do about intelligent design. I’m amazed to hear that all of them even know, let alone believe your inexplicable theory of evolution, which “makes sense only to God”, and therefore not to you or to them.

Same nonsensical views of how to not think about God.


Cellular intelligence

dhw: You wrote: “I understand biochemistry equally to your self-chosen experts who happen to fit your rigid Darwinian prejudices.”...and then tried to make out that their findings somehow make my theory a prejudice, as if your rigid rejection of a 50/50 possibility was not just that!

DAVID: I initially presented that an outside look at cells offered two possibilities to choose from. I have a right to choose, while you jumped at the side which fit your preconceived Darwinian prejudices with no knowledge of biochemistry.

dhw: Of course you have a right to choose, and so do I. But Darwin never mentions the possibility that cells might be intelligent, let alone that their intelligence might be responsible for the mutations which he attributed to chance. My not being a biochemist does not mean that scientists such as McClintock, Margulis, Bühler and Shapiro have no knowledge of biochemistry, and far from my theory being based on prejudice, it was this proposal that gave rise to it, as it provides a very logical explanation why there has been such a huge variety of life forms that have come and gone as conditions have changed. You can’t even begin to explain this because you stick rigidly to your belief that your God designed every one of them, although most had no connection with what you say was the only life he wanted to design – that of sapiens and our food. I’d say that such rigid adherence to a theory that makes no sense to you sounds rather like prejudice.

What you call prejudice I call belief as in your now bold statement.


Human only networks

DAVID: Again off point of specialized networks in human brains. Pure propaganda.

dhw: All the networks are “specialized”. Do you or do you not agree that the ability of cells and their networks to change (plasticity) is essential for speciation?

DAVID: Weird: plasticity is at cellular function level. Speciation is at DNA level.

dhw: Plasticity is what enables cell communities to create new forms. It is not confined to the brain. What is your point? Are you now telling us that DNA is separate from the cell?

DAVID: The plasticity code is in the cell DNA.

dhw: Thank you for telling us which part of the cell is responsible for its plasticity. How does that come to mean that the plasticity of cells and their networks all over the body is not essential for speciation?

You are introducing a tortured interpretation of brain plasticity to explain the enigma of speciation. Why?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Sunday, July 10, 2022, 11:57 (627 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your non-belief confuses our view of my approach to God. I trust He knows what He is doing, and I am not pretending as you insist.

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that he would know what he was doing and why he was doing it. Please stop messing about with vague generalizations. You say his only reason for creating life was to design sapiens plus food, and so what he did was design countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. You “trust” that this is true, even if it “makes sense only to God”, which means it doesn’t make sense to you. What else can it possibly mean?

DAVID: The fact that my thoughts seem senseless to you shows how you have no understanding of how to think about God as I do. Why can't you accept the above? "I trust He knows what He is doing."

We are descending into farce. Once more: if God exists, I have no doubt he knows what he is doing. But when you tell me that you can’t find any logical explanation for YOUR theory bolded above, and it “makes sense only to God”, how can that mean it makes sense to you?

Ecosystems

DAVID: Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.

dhw: Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, […]

DAVID: No evasion. All life must eat in every ecosystem.

dhw: Correct. That does not mean that all extinct life and all extinct ecosystems were an absolute requirement in preparation for sapiens plus food!

DAVID: The major point: without delicate ecosystems at all stages of evolution to support life evolution would not have progressed. The bold is your usual illogical complaint.

If life hadn’t continued, then obviously there would be no life now! So back to the bold. Please explain why every extinct life form and ecosystem – including all those that did not lead to us and our food – had to be specially designed as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.


ID and David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: Surprising isn't it, all ID thinks as I do.

dhw: I’m sure they think as you do about intelligent design. I’m amazed to hear that all of them even know, let alone believe your inexplicable theory of evolution, which “makes sense only to God”, and therefore not to you or to them.

DAVID: Same nonsensical views of how to not think about God.

According to you, then, all ID-ers agree with your illogical theory of evolution, and believe that we must think of God as acting in a manner that makes no sense to us.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: […] My not being a biochemist does not mean that scientists such as McClintock, Margulis, Bühler and Shapiro have no knowledge of biochemistry, and far from my theory being based on prejudice, it was this proposal that gave rise to it, as it provides a very logical explanation why there has been such a huge variety of life forms that have come and gone as conditions have changed. You can’t even begin to explain this because you stick rigidly to your belief that your God designed every one of them, although most had no connection with what you say was the only life he wanted to design – that of sapiens and our food. I’d say that such rigid adherence to a theory that makes no sense to you sounds rather like prejudice.

DAVID: What you call prejudice I call belief as in your now bold statement.

You have confirmed your belief in the bolded theory, which “makes sense only to God” and therefore not to you. Because of this rigid belief, you reject any alternative, no matter how logical it may be. And yet you accuse me of prejudice!

Human only networks
dhw: Plasticity is what enables cell communities to create new forms. It is not confined to the brain. What is your point? Are you now telling us that DNA is separate from the cell?

DAVID: The plasticity code is in the cell DNA.

dhw: Thank you for telling us which part of the cell is responsible for its plasticity. How does that come to mean that the plasticity of cells and their networks all over the body is not essential for speciation?

DAVID: You are introducing a tortured interpretation of brain plasticity to explain the enigma of speciation. Why?

We are getting nowhere. My point is that plasticity is not confined to the brain, and if other cells were not plastic, evolution could never have happened. Perhaps you could remind us of the point you are trying to prove.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 10, 2022, 15:49 (627 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The fact that my thoughts seem senseless to you shows how you have no understanding of how to think about God as I do. Why can't you accept the above? "I trust He knows what He is doing."

dhw: We are descending into farce. Once more: if God exists, I have no doubt he knows what he is doing. But when you tell me that you can’t find any logical explanation for YOUR theory bolded above, and it “makes sense only to God”, how can that mean it makes sense to you?

Your farce alone. What is logical is I trust God knew how to do it. My analysis of God and evolution tells Adler and I God had a goal of producing humans by evolving them.


Ecosystems

DAVID: Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.

dhw: Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, […]

DAVID: No evasion. All life must eat in every ecosystem.

dhw: Correct. That does not mean that all extinct life and all extinct ecosystems were an absolute requirement in preparation for sapiens plus food!

DAVID: The major point: without delicate ecosystems at all stages of evolution to support life evolution would not have progressed. The bold is your usual illogical complaint.

dhw: If life hadn’t continued, then obviously there would be no life now! So back to the bold. Please explain why every extinct life form and ecosystem – including all those that did not lead to us and our food – had to be specially designed as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

Why can't you accept God CHOSE to evolve us from bacteria, as His created history shows.>

dhw: According to you, then, all ID-ers agree with your illogical theory of evolution, and believe that we must think of God as acting in a manner that makes no sense to us.

What makes perfect sense to us, if not you, is accepting God as the designer of evolution.


Human only networks
dhw: Plasticity is what enables cell communities to create new forms. It is not confined to the brain. What is your point? Are you now telling us that DNA is separate from the cell?

DAVID: The plasticity code is in the cell DNA.

dhw: Thank you for telling us which part of the cell is responsible for its plasticity. How does that come to mean that the plasticity of cells and their networks all over the body is not essential for speciation?

DAVID: You are introducing a tortured interpretation of brain plasticity to explain the enigma of speciation. Why?

dhw: We are getting nowhere. My point is that plasticity is not confined to the brain, and if other cells were not plastic, evolution could never have happened. Perhaps you could remind us of the point you are trying to prove.

The word plasticity, as applied to the brain, has very specific meaning. I'm not trying to prove anything except to point out your tortured attempt to bring the issue of speciation into a brain discussion.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Monday, July 11, 2022, 09:08 (627 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The fact that my thoughts seem senseless to you shows how you have no understanding of how to think about God as I do. Why can't you accept the above? "I trust He knows what He is doing."

dhw: We are descending into farce. Once more: if God exists, I have no doubt he knows what he is doing. But when you tell me that you can’t find any logical explanation for YOUR theory bolded above, and it “makes sense only to God”, how can that mean it makes sense to you?

DAVID: Your farce alone. What is logical is I trust God knew how to do it. My analysis of God and evolution tells Adler and I God had a goal of producing humans by evolving them.

Why do you say “a” goal? At the very centre of our disagreement is your insistence that your God’s one and only goal was to evolve (by which you mean design) H. sapiens and our food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which are extinct and did NOT lead to sapiens and our food. What is logical is that your God, if he exists, would have known what he wanted to do and would have known how to do it. That does not mean he only wanted to produce us and our food, but two of my alternative theistic theories actually allow for the possibility that we were or became “a” goal and also explain what you can’t explain: why he may indeed have designed and then discarded all the unconnected life forms etc. (experimentation, or new ideas as he went along). However, you reject these on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought, although in the past you have agreed that he certainly/probably/possibly has patterns of thought similar to ours.

Ecosystems

DAVID: Your usual illogical complaint. The huge human population requires multiple ecosystems.

dhw: Your usual evasion. You can’t explain why every extinct ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens plus food, […]

DAVID: No evasion. All life must eat in every ecosystem.

dhw: Correct. That does not mean that all extinct life and all extinct ecosystems were an absolute requirement in preparation for sapiens plus food!

DAVID: The major point: without delicate ecosystems at all stages of evolution to support life evolution would not have progressed. The bold is your usual illogical complaint.

dhw: If life hadn’t continued, then obviously there would be no life now! So back to the bold. Please explain why every extinct life form and ecosystem – including all those that did not lead to us and our food – had to be specially designed as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

DAVID: Why can't you accept God CHOSE to evolve us from bacteria, as His created history shows.

If he exists, I do accept it. I do not, however, accept the theory that we were his one and only goal from the very beginning, and therefore he individually designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us. I find this illogical, and so do you, because you say you can’t think of any reason why he would have chosen such a method.

ID
dhw: According to you, then, all ID-ers agree with your illogical theory of evolution, and believe that we must think of God as acting in a manner that makes no sense to us.

DAVID: What makes perfect sense to us, if not you, is accepting God as the designer of evolution.

Yes, that is what I have always thought was the point of the ID movement: to show that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and therefore there must be an intelligent designer. And I accept that this makes perfect sense. But you claim that they all believe the theory bolded above, which you say “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or them. Do you now wish to withdraw that claim?

Human only networks
dhw: My point is that plasticity is not confined to the brain, and if other cells were not plastic, evolution could never have happened. Perhaps you could remind us of the point you are trying to prove.

DAVID: The word plasticity, as applied to the brain, has very specific meaning. I'm not trying to prove anything except to point out your tortured attempt to bring the issue of speciation into a brain discussion.

I didn’t think there was any possible disagreement over the plasticity of the brain. And I don’t know why there should be any disagreement over the fact that for evolution to take place, there must be a degree of plasticity in all cell communities. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Monday, July 11, 2022, 17:02 (626 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What is logical is I trust God knew how to do it. My analysis of God and evolution tells Adler and I God had a goal of producing humans by evolving them.

dhw: Why do you say “a” goal? At the very centre of our disagreement is your insistence that your God’s one and only goal was to evolve (by which you mean design) H. sapiens and our food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which are extinct and did NOT lead to sapiens and our food.

Your comment still makes no logical sense. The process of evolution presents a series of discarded forms and many branches which do not lead specifically to humans, but necessarily form the ecosystems which provide food for life to continue.

dhw: What is logical is that your God, if he exists, would have known what he wanted to do and would have known how to do it. That does not mean he only wanted to produce us and our food, but two of my alternative theistic theories actually allow for the possibility that we were or became “a” goal and also explain what you can’t explain: why he may indeed have designed and then discarded all the unconnected life forms etc. (experimentation, or new ideas as he went along). However, you reject these on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought, although in the past you have agreed that he certainly/probably/possibly has patterns of thought similar to ours.

Continued disconnected illogical view.


Ecosystems

DAVID: Why can't you accept God CHOSE to evolve us from bacteria, as His created history shows.

dhw: If he exists, I do accept it. I do not, however, accept the theory that we were his one and only goal from the very beginning, and therefore he individually designed countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us. I find this illogical, and so do you, because you say you can’t think of any reason why he would have chosen such a method.

Same confusion regarding how to think about God. I fully accept God doing what He wishes for His own, unknown to me, reasons.


ID
dhw: According to you, then, all ID-ers agree with your illogical theory of evolution, and believe that we must think of God as acting in a manner that makes no sense to us.

DAVID: What makes perfect sense to us, if not you, is accepting God as the designer of evolution.

dhw: Yes, that is what I have always thought was the point of the ID movement: to show that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and therefore there must be an intelligent designer. And I accept that this makes perfect sense. But you claim that they all believe the theory bolded above, which you say “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or them. Do you now wish to withdraw that claim?

No.


Human only networks
dhw: My point is that plasticity is not confined to the brain, and if other cells were not plastic, evolution could never have happened. Perhaps you could remind us of the point you are trying to prove.

DAVID: The word plasticity, as applied to the brain, has very specific meaning. I'm not trying to prove anything except to point out your tortured attempt to bring the issue of speciation into a brain discussion.

dhw: I didn’t think there was any possible disagreement over the plasticity of the brain. And I don’t know why there should be any disagreement over the fact that for evolution to take place, there must be a degree of plasticity in all cell communities. Perhaps we can leave it at that.

Fine

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Tuesday, July 12, 2022, 08:43 (626 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What is logical is I trust God knew how to do it. My analysis of God and evolution tells Adler and I God had a goal of producing humans by evolving them.

dhw: Why do you say “a” goal? At the very centre of our disagreement is your insistence that your God’s one and only goal was to evolve (by which you mean design) H. sapiens and our food, and so he proceeded to design countless life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc., the vast majority of which are extinct and did NOT lead to sapiens and our food.

DAVID: Your comment still makes no logical sense. The process of evolution presents a series of discarded forms and many branches which do not lead specifically to humans, but necessarily form the ecosystems which provide food for life to continue.

Of course every ecosystem provided food for every species, but once again, as usual, you have left out the part of your theory which makes the rest illogical: namely that according to you, God’s one and only goal from the very beginning was to design sapiens plus food, and so it makes no sense to have him individually designing all those forms, branches and ecosystems that did not lead to sapiens plus food. Why do you continue to dodge when you admit that you can find no logical reason why your God should have used your version of his method to achieve your version of his goal?

dhw: What is logical is that your God, if he exists, would have known what he wanted to do and would have known how to do it. That does not mean he only wanted to produce us and our food, but two of my alternative theistic theories actually allow for the possibility that we were or became “a” goal and also explain what you can’t explain: why he may indeed have designed and then discarded all the unconnected life forms etc. (experimentation, or new ideas as he went along). However, you reject these on the grounds that they entail human patterns of thought, although in the past you have agreed that he certainly/probably/possibly has patterns of thought similar to ours.

DAVID: Continued disconnected illogical view.

You agree that your version “makes sense only to God”, and you have always agreed that my alternatives fit in logically with life’s history. There is no point in your parroting my criticism of your theory (disconnected and illogical) if you agree that my alternatives are connected and logical. If you’ve changed your mind, please tell us which parts are NOT logical.

DAVID: Same confusion regarding how to think about God. I fully accept God doing what He wishes for His own, unknown to me, reasons.
And later:
DAVID: I'm sorry you are so confused about the issue of how to think about God as I do.

If God exists, then we must all accept that he did what he wished and we can only guess at his reasons. That does not mean that we must “think about God as you do”, and accept that he did what YOU say he did (designed every individual life form) for what YOU say was his reason (they were all an “absolute requirement” in preparation for his design of sapiens plus food). Please stop pretending that you know “how to think about God”. Only God knows that, if he exists!

ID

DAVID: What makes perfect sense to us, if not you, is accepting God as the designer of evolution.

dhw: Yes, that is what I have always thought was the point of the ID movement: to show that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and therefore there must be an intelligent designer. And I accept that this makes perfect sense. But you claim that they all believe the theory bolded above, which you say “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or them. Do you now wish to withdraw that claim?

DAVID: No.

We therefore have it on record that according to you all ID-ers believe in a theory which “makes sense only to God”. I strongly suspect that some of them would be surprised.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 13, 2022, 17:33 (624 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your comment still makes no logical sense. The process of evolution presents a series of discarded forms and many branches which do not lead specifically to humans, but necessarily form the ecosystems which provide food for life to continue.

dhw: Of course every ecosystem provided food for every species, but once again, as usual, you have left out the part of your theory which makes the rest illogical: namely that according to you, God’s one and only goal from the very beginning was to design sapiens plus food, and so it makes no sense to have him individually designing all those forms, branches and ecosystems that did not lead to sapiens plus food. Why do you continue to dodge when you admit that you can find no logical reason why your God should have used your version of his method to achieve your version of his goal?

I've bolded once again your nonsensical view that you know better than God how to accomplish His creations. God's logic is not yours. You don't seem to understand my reasoning that leads me to simply accept that God has choices of method He chooses for His own reasons. I don't have to understand why, and I know you can't.


dhw: You agree that your version “makes sense only to God”, and you have always agreed that my alternatives fit in logically with life’s history. There is no point in your parroting my criticism of your theory (disconnected and illogical) if you agree that my alternatives are connected and logical. If you’ve changed your mind, please tell us which parts are NOT logical.

Same old distortion of my view of your imagined God and His intentions. The experimentation, the need for free-for-all, and all the other weak human-like God proposals are logical only in the framework of a weak uncertain of his goals god. Fin ally, please respect that version I have of you so-called god.


DAVID: Same confusion regarding how to think about God. I fully accept God doing what He wishes for His own, unknown to me, reasons.
And later:
DAVID: I'm sorry you are so confused about the issue of how to think about God as I do.

dhw: If God exists, then we must all accept that he did what he wished and we can only guess at his reasons. That does not mean that we must “think about God as you do”, and accept that he did what YOU say he did (designed every individual life form) for what YOU say was his reason (they were all an “absolute requirement” in preparation for his design of sapiens plus food). Please stop pretending that you know “how to think about God”. Only God knows that, if he exists!

According to Adler there is a way as to how to properly think about God in a book by that name. I have the book. Yes, only God knows but there is human guidance.


ID

DAVID: What makes perfect sense to us, if not you, is accepting God as the designer of evolution.

dhw: Yes, that is what I have always thought was the point of the ID movement: to show that life is too complex to have arisen by chance, and therefore there must be an intelligent designer. And I accept that this makes perfect sense. But you claim that they all believe the theory bolded above, which you say “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or them. Do you now wish to withdraw that claim?

DAVID: No.

dhw: We therefore have it on record that according to you all ID-ers believe in a theory which “makes sense only to God”. I strongly suspect that some of them would be surprised.

Amazing you have such wisdom about ID folks.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Thursday, July 14, 2022, 09:00 (624 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've bolded once again your nonsensical view that you know better than God how to accomplish His creations. God's logic is not yours. You don't seem to understand my reasoning that leads me to simply accept that God has choices of method He chooses for His own reasons. I don't have to understand why, and I know you can't.

You simply refuse to acknowledge that your interpretation of your God’s motive for and method of “accomplishing his creations” is your own unproven theory. It is not a fact that his one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus food, or that he individually designed every life form and econiche, or that he did so because every life form etc. was an “absolute requirement” for his design of humans plus food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans plus food. It is your “nonsensical view” that your theory is the objective truth, even though it “makes sense only to God”, which means that it doesn’t make sense to you. Please stop dodging. It is your thinking that I am criticizing – not your God’s!

dhw: You agree that your version “makes sense only to God”, and you have always agreed that my alternatives fit in logically with life’s history. There is no point in your parroting my criticism of your theory (“disconnected and illogical”) if you agree that my alternatives are connected and logical. If you’ve changed your mind, please tell us which parts are NOT logical.

DAVID: Same old distortion of my view of your imagined God and His intentions. The experimentation, the need for free-for-all, and all the other weak human-like God proposals are logical only in the framework of a weak uncertain of his goals god. Fin ally, please respect that version I have of you so-called god.

I don’t see uncertainty or weakness in a being that deliberately tries out different ways to achieve a particular purpose, or deliberately sets out to explore new paths. Was your God’s desire to create humans a “need”? Actually, your own guess was that he wanted us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. That sounds more “needy” to me than the desire, for instance, to create something out of enjoyment and interest. In any case, your dismissal of my alternatives does not make your own theory any the less “nonsensical”.

DAVID: I'm sorry you are so confused about the issue of how to think about God as I do.

dhw: […] Please stop pretending that you know “how to think about God”. Only God knows that, if he exists!

DAVID: According to Adler there is a way as to how to properly think about God in a book by that name. I have the book. Yes, only God knows but there is human guidance.

Dawkins’ “God Delusion” also tells us how to think about God! Why do you always quote Adler, as if somehow he knows what only God knows. In any case, you have told us repeatedly that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory of evolution.

ID
dhw: We therefore have it on record that according to you all ID-ers believe in a theory which “makes sense only to God”. I strongly suspect that some of them would be surprised.

DAVID: Amazing you have such wisdom about ID folks.

I don’t. I am simply amazed (a) that you know them all, and (b) that they all accept a theory which doesn’t makes sense to anyone except your/their God.

Water flies adapt to avoid capture
QUOTE: "The fact that various defences such as behavioural adaptations and changes in body structure can simultaneously be observed shows how adaptable and fascinating these tiny animals are.'"

DAVID: back to the same issue: species adaptation or help from God.

“Help from God” in what form? According to you, he programmed all these adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept popping in to dabble – in this case changing water flies’ bodies presumably because that was an “absolute requirement” for us humans to have enough food to live on. How about God’s help in the form of autonomous cellular intelligence, which enables life forms to adapt in order to survive (though of course not always successfully – hence all the extinctions!) without his having to keep popping in to do a dabble?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 14, 2022, 17:33 (623 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've bolded once again your nonsensical view that you know better than God how to accomplish His creations. God's logic is not yours. You don't seem to understand my reasoning that leads me to simply accept that God has choices of method He chooses for His own reasons. I don't have to understand why, and I know you can't.

dhw: You simply refuse to acknowledge that your interpretation of your God’s motive for and method of “accomplishing his creations” is your own unproven theory. It is not a fact that his one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus food, or that he individually designed every life form and econiche, or that he did so because every life form etc. was an “absolute requirement” for his design of humans plus food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans plus food. It is your “nonsensical view” that your theory is the objective truth, even though it “makes sense only to God”, which means that it doesn’t make sense to you. Please stop dodging. It is your thinking that I am criticizing – not your God’s!

My thinking in no way parallels yours. I have no 'objective truth' but have reached conclusions 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that God's existence is required. I simply accept what God does for His own reasons, something that is incomprehensible to you.


dhw: You agree that your version “makes sense only to God”, and you have always agreed that my alternatives fit in logically with life’s history. There is no point in your parroting my criticism of your theory (“disconnected and illogical”) if you agree that my alternatives are connected and logical. If you’ve changed your mind, please tell us which parts are NOT logical.

DAVID: Same old distortion of my view of your imagined God and His intentions. The experimentation, the need for free-for-all, and all the other weak human-like God proposals are logical only in the framework of a weak uncertain of his goals god. Fin ally, please respect that version I have of you so-called god.

dhw: I don’t see uncertainty or weakness in a being that deliberately tries out different ways to achieve a particular purpose, or deliberately sets out to explore new paths. Was your God’s desire to create humans a “need”? Actually, your own guess was that he wanted us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. That sounds more “needy” to me than the desire, for instance, to create something out of enjoyment and interest. In any case, your dismissal of my alternatives does not make your own theory any the less “nonsensical”.

My guesses about God's thoughts comes from a background of consdering God as extremrly purposeful and never needy like yours.

DAVID: According to Adler there is a way as to how to properly think about God in a book by that name. I have the book. Yes, only God knows but there is human guidance.

dhw: Dawkins’ “God Delusion” also tells us how to think about God! Why do you always quote Adler, as if somehow he knows what only God knows. In any case, you have told us repeatedly that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory of evolution.

His book assumes my view of evolution leading to humans by God's designs.


Water flies adapt to avoid capture
QUOTE: "The fact that various defences such as behavioural adaptations and changes in body structure can simultaneously be observed shows how adaptable and fascinating these tiny animals are.'"

DAVID: back to the same issue: species adaptation or help from God.

dhw: “Help from God” in what form? According to you, he programmed all these adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept popping in to dabble – in this case changing water flies’ bodies presumably because that was an “absolute requirement” for us humans to have enough food to live on. How about God’s help in the form of autonomous cellular intelligence, which enables life forms to adapt in order to survive (though of course not always successfully – hence all the extinctions!) without his having to keep popping in to do a dabble?

I wish you understood designer problems. Seondhand deigning is very cumbersome.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Friday, July 15, 2022, 11:13 (623 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My thinking in no way parallels yours. I have no 'objective truth' but have reached conclusions 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that God's existence is required. I simply accept what God does for His own reasons, something that is incomprehensible to you.

How many more times do I need to repeat that I am not challenging the logic of your design argument for God’s existence? But in the context of evolution, what you accept is your theory about his reason (singular) for creating the vast bush of life (to create sapiens plus food) and your theory about what he did (individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with sapiens plus food). You cannot find any logic in the combination of these two theories, which “makes sense only to God”, and yet you refuse to recognize that it is YOUR THEORY that is “incomprehensible” to me and to you.

DAVID: My guesses about God's thoughts comes from a background of considering God as extremely purposeful and never needy like yours.

My guess is unequivocal: that if God exists he would have had a purpose in creating life. And I have no doubt that he would have pursued that purpose without what you rightly call “deviations” (e.g. creating countless life forms that had no connection with the only life form he intended to create). “As for needy”, since you ignored the comment you were supposed to be answering, I will repeat it:
dhw: […] Was your God’s desire to create humans a “need”? Actually, your own guess was that he wanted us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. That sounds more “needy” to me than the desire, for instance, to create something out of enjoyment and interest. In any case, your dismissal of my alternatives does not make your own theory any the less “nonsensical”.

DAVID: According to Adler there is a way as to how to properly think about God in a book by that name. I have the book. Yes, only God knows but there is human guidance.

dhw: Dawkins’ “God Delusion” also tells us how to think about God! Why do you always quote
Adler, as if somehow he knows what only God knows. In any case, you have told us repeatedly that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory of evolution.

DAVID: His book assumes my view of evolution leading to humans by God's designs.

But you have told us that he does not tell us that his God created life for the one and only purpose of creating humans plus food and therefore individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. In any case, I don’t know why you keep quoting Adler as if he had a hotline to God.

Water flies adapt to avoid capture
DAVID: back to the same issue: species adaptation or help from God.

dhw: “Help from God” in what form? According to you, he programmed all these adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept popping in to dabble – in this case changing water flies’ bodies presumably because that was an “absolute requirement” for us humans to have enough food to live on. How about God’s help in the form of autonomous cellular intelligence, which enables life forms to adapt in order to survive (though of course not always successfully – hence all the extinctions!) without his having to keep popping in to do a dabble?

DAVID: I wish you understood designer problems. Seondhand deigning is very cumbersome.

I wish you understood how absurd it is to assume that your God either preprogrammed water fly defences 3.8 billion years ago or popped in to do a dabble because water fly defences were an “absolute requirement” for the design of sapiens plus our food.

Horizontal gene transfer at all levels
DAVID: HGT is a major evolutionary mechanism and as I view God's controls, a way He can step in for a 'dabble'.

As I view it, this would be a way in which your God could have organized a free-for-all, through which autonomous cells would have created the vast variety of life forms extant and extinct that constitute the history of life on Earth.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Friday, July 15, 2022, 15:26 (622 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My thinking in no way parallels yours. I have no 'objective truth' but have reached conclusions 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that God's existence is required. I simply accept what God does for His own reasons, something that is incomprehensible to you.

dhw: How many more times do I need to repeat that I am not challenging the logic of your design argument for God’s existence? But in the context of evolution, what you accept is your theory about his reason (singular) for creating the vast bush of life (to create sapiens plus food) and your theory about what he did (individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with sapiens plus food). You cannot find any logic in the combination of these two theories, which “makes sense only to God”, and yet you refuse to recognize that it is YOUR THEORY that is “incomprehensible” to me and to you.

Same logic you reject: God chose to evolve us from Archaea. Evolution connects all forms


DAVID: My guesses about God's thoughts comes from a background of considering God as extremely purposeful and never needy like yours.

dhw: My guess is unequivocal: that if God exists he would have had a purpose in creating life. And I have no doubt that he would have pursued that purpose without what you rightly call “deviations” (e.g. creating countless life forms that had no connection with the only life form he intended to create). “As for needy”, since you ignored the comment you were supposed to be answering, I will repeat it:
dhw: […] Was your God’s desire to create humans a “need”? Actually, your own guess was that he wanted us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. That sounds more “needy” to me than the desire, for instance, to create something out of enjoyment and interest. In any case, your dismissal of my alternatives does not make your own theory any the less “nonsensical”.

"Needy" implies more than a desire for a possible relationship with us. My point is God might have wanted to create us recognizing Him but not in a 'must need' sense.


DAVID: According to Adler there is a way as to how to properly think about God in a book by that name. I have the book. Yes, only God knows but there is human guidance.

dhw: Dawkins’ “God Delusion” also tells us how to think about God! Why do you always quote
Adler, as if somehow he knows what only God knows. In any case, you have told us repeatedly that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory of evolution.

DAVID: His book assumes my view of evolution leading to humans by God's designs.

dhw: But you have told us that he does not tell us that his God created life for the one and only purpose of creating humans plus food and therefore individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. In any case, I don’t know why you keep quoting Adler as if he had a hotline to God.

His hotline is much better than yours


Water flies adapt to avoid capture
DAVID: back to the same issue: species adaptation or help from God.

dhw: “Help from God” in what form? According to you, he programmed all these adaptations 3.8 billion years ago, or he kept popping in to dabble – in this case changing water flies’ bodies presumably because that was an “absolute requirement” for us humans to have enough food to live on. How about God’s help in the form of autonomous cellular intelligence, which enables life forms to adapt in order to survive (though of course not always successfully – hence all the extinctions!) without his having to keep popping in to do a dabble?

DAVID: I wish you understood designer problems. Secondhand deigning is very cumbersome.

dhw: I wish you understood how absurd it is to assume that your God either preprogrammed water fly defences 3.8 billion years ago or popped in to do a dabble because water fly defences were an “absolute requirement” for the design of sapiens plus our food.

I wish you would finally recognize the importance of each ecosystem.


Horizontal gene transfer at all levels

DAVID: HGT is a major evolutionary mechanism and as I view God's controls, a way He can step in for a 'dabble'.

dhw: As I view it, this would be a way in which your God could have organized a free-for-all, through which autonomous cells would have created the vast variety of life forms extant and extinct that constitute the history of life on Earth.

Free-for-alls do not show the directionality evolution shows.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Saturday, July 16, 2022, 08:05 (622 days ago) @ dhw

dhw […] : you refuse to recognize that it is YOUR THEORY that is “incomprehensible” to me and to you.

DAVID: Same logic you reject: God chose to evolve us from Archaea. Evolution connects all forms.

If God exists, he would have chosen to evolve (but by this you mean specially design) ALL species from bacteria, and although you claim that his one and only aim was to evolve (= design) sapiens plus food, the vast majority of the life forms and econiches you say he designed had no connection with sapiens plus food. You can find no logic in this theory, so why do you keep leaving out all the bits that make it illogical and then pretending I am at fault in repeating your own agreement that it “makes sense only to God”?

DAVID: My guesses about God's thoughts comes from a background of considering God as extremely purposeful and never needy like yours.

dhw: […] “As for needy”, since you ignored the comment you were supposed to be answering, I will repeat it:
dhw: […] Was your God’s desire to create humans a “need”? Actually, your own guess was that he wanted us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. That sounds more “needy” to me than the desire, for instance, to create something out of enjoyment and interest. In any case, your dismissal of my alternatives does not make your own theory any the less “nonsensical”.

DAVID: "Needy" implies more than a desire for a possible relationship with us. My point is God might have wanted to create us recognizing Him but not in a 'must need' sense.

I really can’t see why his wanting our admiration and recognition is not “needy” whereas enjoyment and interest in creating is “needy”. Shall we drop this silly subject?

DAVID: His [Adler’s] book assumes my view of evolution leading to humans by God's designs.

dhw: But you have told us that he does not tell us that his God created life for the one and only purpose of creating humans plus food and therefore individually designed countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans. In any case, I don’t know why you keep quoting Adler as if he had a hotline to God.

DAVID: His hotline is much better than yours.

I have never claimed to have a hotline, and I very much doubt if anyone else has one either (assuming, that is, that God even exists!)

Water flies adapt to avoid capture
dhw: I wish you understood how absurd it is to assume that your God either preprogrammed water fly defences 3.8 billion years ago or popped in to do a dabble because water fly defences were an “absolute requirement” for the design of sapiens plus our food.

DAVID: I wish you would finally recognize the importance of each ecosystem.

I wish you would finally recognize that each ecosystem is and was of life-and-death importance to all the organisms that live(d) in it, but that does NOT mean that every extinct ecosystyem was specially designed by your God or that, despite the fact that the vast majority had no connection with sapiens plus food, each one was an “absolute requirement” for his design of sapiens and our food!

Mange
DAVID: […] another study like the one in Yellowstone snowing how delicate an ecosystem is and how easily it can be damaged. It also shows the balanced state affects animal populations and the vegetation they feed upon. And the entire importance of ecosystems is based on food supply. This makes it obvious God's goal of humans had to include an enormous food supply to feed the huge population size humans would create.

As above. I don’t know why you have such difficulty understanding the bold, when you yourself pointed out that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life has no role in current time”. Once and for all: every ecosystem is delicate etc, shows the need for balance etc., is vital for food supply etc., and yes, humans need an enormous food supply. But THAT DOES NOT MEAN EVERY EXTINCT ECOSYSTEM WAS SPECIALLY DESIGNED AS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT FOR H. SAPIENS AND OUR FOOD.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 16, 2022, 14:15 (621 days ago) @ dhw

dhw […] : you refuse to recognize that it is YOUR THEORY that is “incomprehensible” to me and to you.

DAVID: Same logic you reject: God chose to evolve us from Archaea. Evolution connects all forms.

dhw: If God exists, he would have chosen to evolve (but by this you mean specially design) ALL species from bacteria, and although you claim that his one and only aim was to evolve (= design) sapiens plus food, the vast majority of the life forms and econiches you say he designed had no connection with sapiens plus food. You can find no logic in this theory, so why do you keep leaving out all the bits that make it illogical and then pretending I am at fault in repeating your own agreement that it “makes sense only to God”?

All your so-called bits and pieces exist only in your mind. It is all held together by my acceptance that God chose to evolve us, the most improbable result if chance is considered. I'm simply following Adler.


DAVID: "Needy" implies more than a desire for a possible relationship with us. My point is God might have wanted to create us recognizing Him but not in a 'must need' sense.

dhw: I really can’t see why his wanting our admiration and recognition is not “needy” whereas enjoyment and interest in creating is “needy”. Shall we drop this silly subject?

Yes.


Water flies adapt to avoid capture
dhw: I wish you understood how absurd it is to assume that your God either preprogrammed water fly defences 3.8 billion years ago or popped in to do a dabble because water fly defences were an “absolute requirement” for the design of sapiens plus our food.

DAVID: I wish you would finally recognize the importance of each ecosystem.

dhw: I wish you would finally recognize that each ecosystem is and was of life-and-death importance to all the organisms that live(d) in it, but that does NOT mean that every extinct ecosystyem was specially designed by your God or that, despite the fact that the vast majority had no connection with sapiens plus food, each one was an “absolute requirement” for his design of sapiens and our food!

Then we agree ecosystems evolved all the way from bacteria to humans. And all were required developing steps to reach humans.


Mange
DAVID: […] another study like the one in Yellowstone snowing how delicate an ecosystem is and how easily it can be damaged. It also shows the balanced state affects animal populations and the vegetation they feed upon. And the entire importance of ecosystems is based on food supply. This makes it obvious God's goal of humans had to include an enormous food supply to feed the huge population size humans would create.

dhw:n As above. I don’t know why you have such difficulty understanding the bold, when you yourself pointed out that “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life has no role in current time”. Once and for all: every ecosystem is delicate etc, shows the need for balance etc., is vital for food supply etc., and yes, humans need an enormous food supply. But THAT DOES NOT MEAN EVERY EXTINCT ECOSYSTEM WAS SPECIALLY DESIGNED AS AN ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT FOR H. SAPIENS AND OUR FOOD.

Same response: "Then we agree ecosystems evolved all the way from bacteria to humans. And all were required developing steps to reach humans." All of evolution is a series of more complex developments to reach the current endpoint.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Sunday, July 17, 2022, 08:42 (621 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw […] : you refuse to recognize that it is YOUR THEORY that is “incomprehensible” to me and to you.

DAVID: Same logic you reject: God chose to evolve us from Archaea. Evolution connects all forms.

dhw: If God exists, he would have chosen to evolve (but by this you mean specially design) ALL species from bacteria, and although you claim that his one and only aim was to evolve (= design) sapiens plus food, the vast majority of the life forms and econiches you say he designed had no connection with sapiens plus food. You can find no logic in this theory, so why do you keep leaving out all the bits that make it illogical and then pretending I am at fault in repeating your own agreement that it “makes sense only to God”?

DAVID: All your so-called bits and pieces exist only in your mind. It is all held together by my acceptance that God chose to evolve us, the most improbable result if chance is considered. I'm simply following Adler.

The so-called bits and pieces are all the theories you have been advocating on this forum for years and years. They are not held together by the fact that we evolved, because according to you, sapiens and food were your God’s one and only purpose, and yet he also evolved (= individually designed) countless extinct life forms and econiches that had no connection with us. And you have told us that Adler does not cover this blatant logical flaw in your theory, but even if he did, why should I accept illogical arguments just because they follow him?

Water flies adapt to avoid capture
DAVID: I wish you would finally recognize the importance of each ecosystem.

dhw: I wish you would finally recognize that each ecosystem is and was of life-and-death importance to all the organisms that live(d) in it, but that does NOT mean that every extinct ecosystyem was specially designed by your God or that, despite the fact that the vast majority had no connection with sapiens plus food, each one was an “absolute requirement” for his design of sapiens and our food!

DAVID: Then we agree ecosystems evolved all the way from bacteria to humans. And all were required developing steps to reach humans.

What??? That is the absurdly illogical conclusion which lies at the heart of our dispute! If your God individually designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens and our food, how can they all have been “required” to reach humans??? You don’t know. This absurd theory of yours “makes sense only to God.” Why do you keep promulgating a theory that makes no sense to you?

DAVID: Free-for-alls do not show the directionality evolution shows.

dhw: What “directionality”? Evolution shows us a bush of life that branched out in countless directions, with the vast majority of the branches having died out and having played “no role in current time”. You want to focus on one single “direction” (sapiens plus food) and ignore all the rest that had no connection with sapiens plus food.

DAVID: The obvious directionality is increasing complexity reached in our brain.

What about the countless life forms that had no connection with us and our brain?

DAVID: God always makes sense to me, but yours doesn't.

dhw: We are not talking about “God” but about your theories concerning your God’s motives and methods. What did you mean when you told us that your theories “made sense only to God” if you did NOT mean they didn’t make sense to you?

DAVID: I accept God's production of our reality makes perfect sense to me, but the issue you stumble over is I don't know why He chose evolution as His method for his own reasons, which 'make sense only to God'.

That is not what I stumble over. I have provided several alternative theories to explain why – if he exists - he chose evolution to produce the countless number of life forms and econiches that constitute the history of life on Earth, including those which had no connection with sapiens and our food.

dhw: You say your theory “makes sense only to God”. It certainly doesn’t make sense to me, and your statement can only mean that it doesn’t make sense to you either. Of course you are welcome to believe in a theory which doesn’t make sense to you, but that really doesn’t lend much credence to the theory, does it?

DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 17, 2022, 15:39 (620 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All your so-called bits and pieces exist only in your mind. It is all held together by my acceptance that God chose to evolve us, the most improbable result if chance is considered. I'm simply following Adler.

dhw: The so-called bits and pieces are all the theories you have been advocating on this forum for years and years. They are not held together by the fact that we evolved, because according to you, sapiens and food were your God’s one and only purpose, and yet he also evolved (= individually designed) countless extinct life forms and econiches that had no connection with us. And you have told us that Adler does not cover this blatant logical flaw in your theory, but even if he did, why should I accept illogical arguments just because they follow him?

Once again you ignore what evolution did as a whole. That all the branches are not human branches is obvious, but they must exist to provide food for all. You create the bits and pieces, with your disjointed view of the bush of life. In the giant ecosystem of life, all parts are dependent upon each other for food.


Water flies adapt to avoid capture
DAVID: I wish you would finally recognize the importance of each ecosystem.

dhw: I wish you would finally recognize that each ecosystem is and was of life-and-death importance to all the organisms that live(d) in it, but that does NOT mean that every extinct ecosystyem was specially designed by your God or that, despite the fact that the vast majority had no connection with sapiens plus food, each one was an “absolute requirement” for his design of sapiens and our food!

DAVID: Then we agree ecosystems evolved all the way from bacteria to humans. And all were required developing steps to reach humans.

dhw: What??? That is the absurdly illogical conclusion which lies at the heart of our dispute! If your God individually designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens and our food, how can they all have been “required” to reach humans??? You don’t know. This absurd theory of yours “makes sense only to God.” Why do you keep promulgating a theory that makes no sense to you?

The only aspect of my theory you have glommed onto is simply 'what makes sense to
God' is the reason He chose to evolve us. It is His private reasoning. Simply accepting it is OK. So it makes perfect sense to me and many others.

DAVID: God always makes sense to me, but yours doesn't.

dhw: We are not talking about “God” but about your theories concerning your God’s motives and methods. What did you mean when you told us that your theories “made sense only to God” if you did NOT mean they didn’t make sense to you?

DAVID: I accept God's production of our reality makes perfect sense to me, but the issue you stumble over is I don't know why He chose evolution as His method for his own reasons, which 'make sense only to God'.

dhw: That is not what I stumble over. I have provided several alternative theories to explain why – if he exists - he chose evolution to produce the countless number of life forms and econiches that constitute the history of life on Earth, including those which had no connection with sapiens and our food.

Just accept that your theories about God's reasoning results in your very humanized God version.


dhw: You say your theory “makes sense only to God”. It certainly doesn’t make sense to me, and your statement can only mean that it doesn’t make sense to you either. Of course you are welcome to believe in a theory which doesn’t make sense to you, but that really doesn’t lend much credence to the theory, does it?

DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).

Same mess of your psychoanalysis of my theory which I have fully rationally explained.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, July 18, 2022, 08:14 (620 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All your so-called bits and pieces exist only in your mind. It is all held together by my acceptance that God chose to evolve us, the most improbable result if chance is considered.

dhw: […] The so-called bits and pieces are all the theories you have been advocating on this forum for years and years. They are not held together by the fact that we evolved, because according to you, sapiens and food were your God’s one and only purpose, and yet he also evolved (= individually designed) countless extinct life forms and econiches that had no connection with us.

DAVID: Once again you ignore what evolution did as a whole. That all the branches are not human branches is obvious, but they must exist to provide food for all. You create the bits and pieces, with your disjointed view of the bush of life. In the giant ecosystem of life, all parts are dependent upon each other for food.

Of course all parts of all ecosystems depend on each other for food! But it is you who ignore what “evolution did as a whole”, because you insist that every extinct branch and every extinct ecosystem, including all those that had no connection with us and our food, was preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

DAVID: Then we agree ecosystems evolved all the way from bacteria to humans. And all were required developing steps to reach humans.

dhw: What??? That is the absurdly illogical conclusion which lies at the heart of our dispute! If your God individually designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens and our food, how can they all have been “required” to reach humans??? You don’t know. This absurd theory of yours “makes sense only to God.” Why do you keep promulgating a theory that makes no sense to you?

DAVID:The only aspect of my theory you have glommed onto is simply 'what makes sense to God' is the reason He chose to evolve us. It is His private reasoning. Simply accepting it is OK. So it makes perfect sense to me and many others.

Then please explain why your God, whose one and only purpose you say was to evolve (= design) h. sapiens plus food, evolved (designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with h. sapiens plus food. And while you’re at it, please explain how your inability to explain a theory which “makes sense only to God” can possibly mean that the theory makes sense to you?

dhw: I have provided several alternative theories to explain why – if he exists - he chose evolution to produce the countless number of life forms and econiches that constitute the history of life on Earth, including those which had no connection with sapiens and our food.

DAVID: Just accept that your theories about God's reasoning results in your very humanized God version.

One of your certainties in the past was that your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. One of my alternative theories is that he might have enjoyed creating all the life forms and econiches (including humans), and he wanted to create something that he would find interesting. Please explain why you find this possibility unacceptable.

DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).

DAVID: Same mess of your psychoanalysis of my theory which I have fully rationally explained.

Please tell me which of the above interpretations of your theory is "twisted". And once more, please explain rationally why a God whose one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus food proceeded to design countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, July 18, 2022, 17:13 (619 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you ignore what evolution did as a whole. That all the branches are not human branches is obvious, but they must exist to provide food for all. You create the bits and pieces, with your disjointed view of the bush of life. In the giant ecosystem of life, all parts are dependent upon each other for food.

dhw: Of course all parts of all ecosystems depend on each other for food! But it is you who ignore what “evolution did as a whole”, because you insist that every extinct branch and every extinct ecosystem, including all those that had no connection with us and our food, was preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

You forget my view is God did everything He thought He should/had to do to prepare for the appearance of humans and their eventual giant population. See below for my explanation of how I think about God:


DAVID:The only aspect of my theory you have glommed onto is simply 'what makes sense to God' is the reason He chose to evolve us. It is His private reasoning. Simply accepting it is OK. So it makes perfect sense to me and many others.

dhw: Then please explain why your God, whose one and only purpose you say was to evolve (= design) h. sapiens plus food, evolved (designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with h. sapiens plus food. And while you’re at it, please explain how your inability to explain a theory which “makes sense only to God” can possibly mean that the theory makes sense to you?

Your same inability to see God as I do.


dhw: I have provided several alternative theories to explain why – if he exists - he chose evolution to produce the countless number of life forms and econiches that constitute the history of life on Earth, including those which had no connection with sapiens and our food.

DAVID: Just accept that your theories about God's reasoning results in your very humanized God version.

dhw: One of your certainties in the past was that your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. One of my alternative theories is that he might have enjoyed creating all the life forms and econiches (including humans), and he wanted to create something that he would find interesting. Please explain why you find this possibility unacceptable.

God does not ever need anything for self-interest. He is complete within Himself, something you do not understand.


DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).

DAVID: Same mess of your psychoanalysis of my theory which I have fully rationally explained.

dhw: Please tell me which of the above interpretations of your theory is "twisted". And once more, please explain rationally why a God whose one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus food proceeded to design countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food.

Same response: "You forget my view is God did everything He thought He should/had to do to prepare for the appearance of humans and their eventual giant population.

And: The only aspect of my theory you have glommed onto is simply 'what makes sense to God' is the reason He chose to evolve us. It is His private reasoning. Simply accepting it is OK. So it makes perfect sense to me and many others.[/i]

And to repeat: you do not know how to think about God. Not an insult to your intelligence, but an inability to entertain a different sort of God than you are able to envision.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, July 19, 2022, 08:05 (619 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you ignore what evolution did as a whole. That all the branches are not human branches is obvious, but they must exist to provide food for all. You create the bits and pieces, with your disjointed view of the bush of life. In the giant ecosystem of life, all parts are dependent upon each other for food.

dhw: Of course all parts of all ecosystems depend on each other for food! But it is you who ignore what “evolution did as a whole”, because you insist that every extinct branch and every extinct ecosystem, including all those that had no connection with us and our food, was preparation for and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

DAVID: You forget my view is God did everything He thought He should/had to do to prepare for the appearance of humans and their eventual giant population.

How could I forget the view that has been the subject of this discussion year after year? Now, according to you, he thought that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food, he “should/had to” design countless life forms and econiches which had no connection with H. sapiens plus food. Not even he “chose to”, but it was some kind of obligation or compulsion. No wonder you say such a theory “makes sense only to God”.

dhw: […] please explain how your inability to explain a theory which “makes sense only to God” can possibly mean that the theory makes sense to you?

DAVID: Your same inability to see God as I do.

I must plead guilty to the crime of being unable to visualize an all-powerful, all-purposeful being who has one goal in mind, and thinks that in order to fulfil his one and only goal, he should/has to come up with countless designs that have no connection with his goal. And I am also guilty of scepticism concerning a theory that does not even make sense to the person who proposes it.

dhw: One of your certainties in the past was that your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. One of my alternative theories is that he might have enjoyed creating all the life forms and econiches (including humans), and he wanted to create something that he would find interesting. Please explain why you find this possibility unacceptable.

DAVID: God does not ever need anything for self-interest. He is complete within Himself, something you do not understand.

I don’t know why you keep talking of “need”. If he enjoys creating things he finds interesting (which you yourself proposed), why shouldn’t that be a reason for his creating them? However, since you adhere to the idea that H. sapiens (plus food) was his one and only goal, please tell us why you think he set out to design H. sapiens (plus food). If I were a believer, I would regard that as a number one priority question.

DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).[…]

DAVID: […] Same response: "You forget my view is God did everything He thought He should/had to do to prepare for the appearance of humans and their eventual giant population.

See above. Now please tell us which of the above “interpretations” of your theories is/are “twisted”.

DAVID: And: The only aspect of my theory you have glommed onto is simply 'what makes sense to God' is the reason He chose to evolve us. It is His private reasoning. Simply accepting it is OK. So it makes perfect sense to me and many others.[/i]

What makes perfect sense to you and others? Certainly not the combination of theories I have listed above, which you say “makes sense only to God”. A theist who believes in evolution will of course believe that God designed evolution, which includes us. How does that explain his individual design of all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with us?

DAVID: And to repeat: you do not know how to think about God. Not an insult to your intelligence, but an inability to entertain a different sort of God than you are able to envision.

Again, it’s true that I cannot envision a God whose reasoning tells him that in order to design H. sapiens plus food he must first design countless life forms that have no connection with H. sapiens plus food. I envision a God who knows what he wants and produces what he wants. Hence all my alternative theories, which you accept as being logical but which do not entail his "having to" produce things he didn’t actually want to produce.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 19, 2022, 20:27 (618 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You forget my view is God did everything He thought He should/had to do to prepare for the appearance of humans and their eventual giant population.

dhw: How could I forget the view that has been the subject of this discussion year after year? Now, according to you, he thought that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food, he “should/had to” design countless life forms and econiches which had no connection with H. sapiens plus food. Not even he “chose to”, but it was some kind of obligation or compulsion. No wonder you say such a theory “makes sense only to God”.

Not an 'obligation or compulsion'. You are back, as usual, to a humanized vision of God. God purposefully knows exactly what must be done in a proper design for the arrival of humans.


dhw: […] please explain how your inability to explain a theory which “makes sense only to God” can possibly mean that the theory makes sense to you?

DAVID: Your same inability to see God as I do.

dhw: I must plead guilty to the crime of being unable to visualize an all-powerful, all-purposeful being who has one goal in mind, and thinks that in order to fulfil his one and only goal, he should/has to come up with countless designs that have no connection with his goal. And I am also guilty of scepticism concerning a theory that does not even make sense to the person who proposes it.

Your analysis of God's work is at a skeptical human level of faulty reasoning compared to God's. God did what He knew he had to do. You simply don't understand how to view it.


dhw: One of your certainties in the past was that your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations. One of my alternative theories is that he might have enjoyed creating all the life forms and econiches (including humans), and he wanted to create something that he would find interesting. Please explain why you find this possibility unacceptable.

DAVID: God does not ever need anything for self-interest. He is complete within Himself, something you do not understand.

dhw: I don’t know why you keep talking of “need”. If he enjoys creating things he finds interesting (which you yourself proposed), why shouldn’t that be a reason for his creating them? However, since you adhere to the idea that H. sapiens (plus food) was his one and only goal, please tell us why you think he set out to design H. sapiens (plus food). If I were a believer, I would regard that as a number one priority question.

We do not know if God creates anything to please Himself. But we do know He has given us brains which can think about Him and ask questions. Anything further is guesswork.


DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).[…]

DAVID: […] Same response: "You forget my view is God did everything He thought He should/had to do to prepare for the appearance of humans and their eventual giant population.

dhw: See above. Now please tell us which of the above “interpretations” of your theories is/are “twisted”.

I accept what God did with no need to explain it to myself or you. His reasons are His alone.


DAVID: And: The only aspect of my theory you have glommed onto is simply 'what makes sense to God' is the reason He chose to evolve us. It is His private reasoning. Simply accepting it is OK. So it makes perfect sense to me and many others.[/i]

dhw: What makes perfect sense to you and others? Certainly not the combination of theories I have listed above, which you say “makes sense only to God”. A theist who believes in evolution will of course believe that God designed evolution, which includes us. How does that explain his individual design of all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with us?

What a foolish request! If God designed evolution, what we see is what He wished to do.


DAVID: And to repeat: you do not know how to think about God. Not an insult to your intelligence, but an inability to entertain a different sort of God than you are able to envision.

dhw: Again, it’s true that I cannot envision a God whose reasoning tells him that in order to design H. sapiens plus food he must first design countless life forms that have no connection with H. sapiens plus food. I envision a God who knows what he wants and produces what he wants. Hence all my alternative theories, which you accept as being logical but which do not entail his "having to" produce things he didn’t actually want to produce.

Again, foolishness. God designed evolution exactly as He wanted to. There is nothing He didn't want to produce. Just your total confusion about to how to think about God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, July 20, 2022, 08:32 (618 days ago) @ David Turell

I am combining this thread with “a mosaic development”, as the arguments are repeated.

DAVID: You forget my view is God did everything He thought He should/had to do to prepare for the appearance of humans and their eventual giant population.
And
DAVID: God simply follows the designs that He felt were necessary.
And:
DAVID: It makes perfect sense to accept what God does as His perfect choice for creation.
And:
DAVID: God purposefully knows exactly what must be done in a proper design for the arrival of humans.
And:
DAVID: If God designed evolution, what we see is what He wished to do.

And what we see is a higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms and econiches, the vast majority of which are extinct and had no connection with humans plus food. So he felt that in order to design humans plus food, it was necessary to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food, and this was the perfect way to produce humans, though this theory “makes sense only to God”. But I agree that what we see (countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans) must be what he wished. And since the above theory makes no sense to you or to me, I suggest we look for different views of his work that might make more sense to us.

DAVID: God does not ever need anything for self-interest. He is complete within Himself, something you do not understand.

dhw: I don’t know why you keep talking of “need”. If he enjoys creating things he finds interesting (which you yourself proposed), why shouldn’t that be a reason for his creating them?

DAVID: We do not know if God creates anything to please Himself.

But since you were once certain that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, you can hardly dismiss the possibility that he wanted to created things he would enjoy creating and would be interested in.

dhw: However, since you adhere to the idea that H. sapiens (plus food) was his one and only goal, please tell us why you think he set out to design H. sapiens (plus food). If I were a believer, I would regard that as a number one priority question.

DAVID: […] we do know He has given us brains which can think about Him and ask questions. Anything further is guesswork.
And:
He gave us brains so we could debate about Him. So we recognize Him.

EVERY theory is guesswork, including your God’s existence. So why do you think he wanted us to think about him, recognize him, and ask questions? And why do you think wanting recognition is less "human" than wanting to create something he would find interesting?

DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).[…]

DAVID: I accept what God did with no need to explain it to myself or you. His reasons are His alone.

dhw: […] You accused me of a twisted interpretation of your thoughts. Please say which of the above are “twisted”.

DAVID: dhw has always wondered why so many types of pre-sapiens were evolved. Well, this study shows exactly that is what happened.

dhw: I am not questioning that this happened! I ask why a God whose one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food proceeded to design all sort of life forms unconnected with H. sapiens plus food, and also designed all sorts of hominins and homos and then discarded them, although he was apparently perfectly capable of designing new species with no precursors (Cambrian).

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 20, 2022, 18:24 (617 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If God designed evolution, what we see is what He wished to do.

dhw: And what we see is a higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms and econiches, the vast majority of which are extinct and had no connection with humans plus food. So he felt that in order to design humans plus food, it was necessary to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food, and this was the perfect way to produce humans, though this theory “makes sense only to God”. But I agree that what we see (countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans) must be what he wished. And since the above theory makes no sense to you or to me, I suggest we look for different views of his work that might make more sense to us.

Don't include me in your nonsense. I fully accept what God did as logical for Him and for me. I've explained the huge bush of required ecosystems providing food for all, which explains all the forms that did not lead to humans.


DAVID: God does not ever need anything for self-interest. He is complete within Himself, something you do not understand.

dhw: I don’t know why you keep talking of “need”. If he enjoys creating things he finds interesting (which you yourself proposed), why shouldn’t that be a reason for his creating them?

DAVID: We do not know if God creates anything to please Himself.

dhw: But since you were once certain that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, you can hardly dismiss the possibility that he wanted to created things he would enjoy creating and would be interested in.

God is not the God you think about. He does not create as a primary purpose to have things to take interest in. His following what happens as an interest is a secondary event.


dhw: However, since you adhere to the idea that H. sapiens (plus food) was his one and only goal, please tell us why you think he set out to design H. sapiens (plus food). If I were a believer, I would regard that as a number one priority question.

DAVID: […] we do know He has given us brains which can think about Him and ask questions. Anything further is guesswork.
And:
He gave us brains so we could debate about Him. So we recognize Him.

dhw: EVERY theory is guesswork, including your God’s existence. So why do you think he wanted us to think about him, recognize him, and ask questions? And why do you think wanting recognition is less "human" than wanting to create something he would find interesting?

Answered above: "God is not the God you think about. He does not create as a primary purpose to have things to take interest in. His following what happens as an interest is a secondary event."


DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).[…]

DAVID: I accept what God did with no need to explain it to myself or you. His reasons are His alone.

dhw: […] You accused me of a twisted interpretation of your thoughts. Please say which of the above are “twisted”.

DAVID: dhw has always wondered why so many types of pre-sapiens were evolved. Well, this study shows exactly that is what happened.

dhw: I am not questioning that this happened! I ask why a God whose one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food proceeded to design all sort of life forms unconnected with H. sapiens plus food, and also designed all sorts of hominins and homos and then discarded them, although he was apparently perfectly capable of designing new species with no precursors (Cambrian).

God knows what He is doing, and has His own reasons for doing it the way we see. Why n ot just accept it? Or do you see better ways?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, July 21, 2022, 07:59 (617 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If God designed evolution, what we see is what He wished to do.

dhw: And what we see is a higgledy-piggledy bush of life forms and econiches, the vast majority of which are extinct and had no connection with humans plus food. So he felt that in order to design humans plus food, it was necessary to design countless life forms and foods that had no connection with humans plus food, and this was the perfect way to produce humans, though this theory “makes sense only to God”. But I agree that what we see (countless life forms etc. that had no connection with humans) must be what he wished. And since the above theory makes no sense to you or to me, I suggest we look for different views of his work that might make more sense to us.

DAVID: Don't include me in your nonsense. I fully accept what God did as logical for Him and for me. I've explained the huge bush of required ecosystems providing food for all, which explains all the forms that did not lead to humans.

If it is logical for him and for you, why can’t you give us his reasons for deliberately designing countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with his one and only reason for creating life – namely, to create us and our econiches. Yes, each ecosystem provides/provided food for all those life forms within it, and PAST ecosystems were for the PAST, not the present, and most past life forms had no role to play in current life, and your theory makes sense only to God. I’m quoting your own demolition of your theory, so please stop dodging.

DAVID: God does not ever need anything for self-interest. He is complete within Himself, something you do not understand.

dhw: […] since you were once certain that he enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, you can hardly dismiss the possibility that he wanted to created things he would enjoy creating and would be interested in.

DAVID: God is not the God you think about. He does not create as a primary purpose to have things to take interest in. His following what happens as an interest is a secondary event.

Written with great authority but, as you repeat below, all your theories and mine are nothing but “guesswork”. Now please tell us what you think was his “primary” purpose in creating humans and all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: […] we do know He has given us brains which can think about Him and ask questions. Anything further is guesswork.
And:
He gave us brains so we could debate about Him. So we recognize Him.

dhw: EVERY theory is guesswork, including your God’s existence. So why do you think he wanted us to think about him, recognize him, and ask questions? And why do you think wanting recognition is less "human" than wanting to create something he would find interesting?

DAVID: Answered above.

Not answered above.

DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).[…]

DAVID: I accept what God did with no need to explain it to myself or you. His reasons are His alone.

dhw: […] You accused me of a twisted interpretation of your thoughts. Please say which of the above are “twisted”.

Not answered.

DAVID: dhw has always wondered why so many types of pre-sapiens were evolved. Well, this study shows exactly that is what happened.

dhw: I am not questioning that this happened! I ask why a God whose one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food proceeded to design all sort of life forms unconnected with H. sapiens plus food, and also designed all sorts of hominins and homos and then discarded them, although he was apparently perfectly capable of designing new species with no precursors (Cambrian).[/b]

DAVID: God knows what He is doing, and has His own reasons for doing it the way we see. Why n ot just accept it? Or do you see better ways?

For doing what? Presumably designing humans. And there you go again, assuming that was his purpose, and that was his way of achieving its purpose, and he has his own reasons for doing what you say he did and why he did it that way, and you don’t know what those reasons could be, so please stop pretending that you “fully accept what God did as logical for Him and for me.”

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 21, 2022, 14:38 (616 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Don't include me in your nonsense. I fully accept what God did as logical for Him and for me. I've explained the huge bush of required ecosystems providing food for all, which explains all the forms that did not lead to humans.

dhw: If it is logical for him and for you, why can’t you give us his reasons for deliberately designing countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with his one and only reason for creating life – namely, to create us and our econiches. Yes, each ecosystem provides/provided food for all those life forms within it, and PAST ecosystems were for the PAST, not the present, and most past life forms had no role to play in current life, and your theory makes sense only to God. I’m quoting your own demolition of your theory, so please stop dodging.

You have presented your theory of my theory, which refuses to accept the simple statement that God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own unknown reasons. I cannot know
God's mind but can attempt to interpret His results. Your discussion of ecosystems fails to recognize evolution advances stepwise from past to present as a continuum. Your constant dodge is to try to present evolution as discontinuous.


DAVID: God is not the God you think about. He does not create as a primary purpose to have things to take interest in. His following what happens as an interest is a secondary event.

dhw: Written with great authority but, as you repeat below, all your theories and mine are nothing but “guesswork”. Now please tell us what you think was his “primary” purpose in creating humans and all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans.

Same strange dodge. Evolution is a continuum of development.


DAVID: […] we do know He has given us brains which can think about Him and ask questions. Anything further is guesswork.
And:
He gave us brains so we could debate about Him. So we recognize Him.

dhw: EVERY theory is guesswork, including your God’s existence. So why do you think he wanted us to think about him, recognize him, and ask questions? And why do you think wanting recognition is less "human" than wanting to create something he would find interesting?

By giving us a mind, which thinks, discussing God naturally flows. There is no way of knowing if God expected that result, so we are free to think as we wish. And whether He desired it as a result is also unknown. Your questions again fit your role as God's humanizer.


DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).[…]

DAVID: I accept what God did with no need to explain it to myself or you. His reasons are His alone.

dhw: […] You accused me of a twisted interpretation of your thoughts. Please say which of the above are “twisted”.

Frankly, I'm tired of your weird approach to analyzing evolution as having disparate parts. Common descent, as your favorite view directly implies that.


DAVID: dhw has always wondered why so many types of pre-sapiens were evolved. Well, this study shows exactly that is what happened.

dhw: I am not questioning that this happened! I ask why a God whose one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens plus food proceeded to design all sort of life forms unconnected with H. sapiens plus food, and also designed all sorts of hominins and homos and then discarded them, although he was apparently perfectly capable of designing new species with no precursors (Cambrian).[/b]

DAVID: God knows what He is doing, and has His own reasons for doing it the way we see. Why not just accept it? Or do you see better ways?

dhw: For doing what? Presumably designing humans. And there you go again, assuming that was his purpose, and that was his way of achieving its purpose, and he has his own reasons for doing what you say he did and why he did it that way, and you don’t know what those reasons could be, so please stop pretending that you “fully accept what God did as logical for Him and for me.”

You have never accepted God, so you don't understand the mindset that accepts God's works without question, but retains the right to interpret.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Monday, August 01, 2022, 08:12 (606 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have presented your theory of my theory, which refuses to accept the simple statement that God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own unknown reasons.

I’ve never refused to accept that we humans – like every other species – evolved from bacteria! If God exists, I’m also happy to accept that evolution was his choice of fulfilling whatever may have been his purpose. What I cannot accept is the theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, and his method of doing so was to produce countless species and ecosystems that had no connection with us or our food. You yourself can make no sense of this theory.

DAVID: I cannot know God's mind but can attempt to interpret His results. Your discussion of ecosystems fails to recognize evolution advances stepwise from past to present as a continuum. Your constant dodge is to try to present evolution as discontinuous.

Of course evolution advances from past to present, but as it does so, it branches out into species and ecosystems that have no connection with humans and our ecosystems. Past ecosystems were for the past, and extinct life has no role in current time. I am quoting you!

DAVID (under “death of a kelp system”): ecosystems are vital for the health of the living planet. That is a designing God saw to it that a very diverse bush of life was developed as evolution progressed to humans. Looking back there were ecosystems satisfying the need for food from the beginning of evolution through all ensuing stages. dhw denigrates this as God providing 'humans (plus food)', as if that was all that was necessary for God to do. The obvious history tells us the logical otherwise.

Of course ecosystems are and always were vital for the health of the planet, and in the course of 3.X billion years, they came and went, feeding countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens and our current ecosystems. It is YOU who claim that although nearly all the individually designed, extinct life forms and their ecosystems were for the PAST (as above), they were “necessary for God to do” (an “absolute requirement”) if he was to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing sapiens plus food! And you can’t explain this theory – it “makes sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: God is not the God you think about. He does not create as a primary purpose to have things to take interest in. His following what happens as an interest is a secondary event.

dhw: Written with great authority but, as you repeat below, all your theories and mine are nothing but “guesswork”. Now please tell us what you think was his “primary” purpose in creating humans and all the life forms and econiches that had no connection with humans.

DAVID: […] we do know He has given us brains which can think about Him and ask questions. Anything further is guesswork.
And:
DAVID: He gave us brains so we could debate about Him. So we recognize Him.

dhw: EVERY theory is guesswork, including your God’s existence. So why do you think he wanted us to think about him, recognize him, and ask questions? And why do you think wanting recognition is less "human" than wanting to create something he would find interesting?

DAVID: By giving us a mind, which thinks, discussing God naturally flows. There is no way of knowing if God expected that result, so we are free to think as we wish. And whether He desired it as a result is also unknown. Your questions again fit your role as God's humanizer.

Oh, your God gave us brains which can think about him and recognize him, but you don’t know if God wanted us to think about him and recognize him. So please tell us what you think was his purpose in creating a species which could think about him and recognize him.

DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).[…]

DAVID: I accept what God did with no need to explain it to myself or you. His reasons are His alone.

dhw: […] You accused me of a twisted interpretation of your thoughts. Please say which of the above are “twisted”.

DAVID: You have never accepted God, so you don't understand the mindset that accepts God's works without question, but retains the right to interpret.

I have never rejected God, and I fully accept the theory that if God exists, the history of life as we know it may be called “his works”. What I do not accept is an interpretation of that history which does not make sense to the interpreter or to me.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Monday, August 01, 2022, 19:34 (605 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, August 01, 2022, 19:40

DAVID: You have presented your theory of my theory, which refuses to accept the simple statement that God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: I’ve never refused to accept that we humans – like every other species – evolved from bacteria! If God exists, I’m also happy to accept that evolution was his choice of fulfilling whatever may have been his purpose. What I cannot accept is the theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, and his method of doing so was to produce countless species and ecosystems that had no connection with us or our food. You yourself can make no sense of this theory.

How to make sense of it is to recognize God knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it His way. Each stage of evolution had its own set of ecosystems to provide necessary food supply for all. Our knowledge of evolution demonstrates just that. The current ecosystem bush of life supports our current huge population, all evolved from past bushes.


DAVID: Your constant dodge is to try to present evolution as discontinuous.

dhw: Of course evolution advances from past to present, but as it does so, it branches out into species and ecosystems that have no connection with humans and our ecosystems. Past ecosystems were for the past, and extinct life has no role in current time. I am quoting you!

Exactly correct quote, repeated in your confused view of discontinuous evolution. The past is dead isn't it? Or do you communicate with it? The past is a stage in our evolution and dies, doesn't it?


DAVID (under “death of a kelp system”): ecosystems are vital for the health of the living planet. That is a designing God saw to it that a very diverse bush of life was developed as evolution progressed to humans. Looking back there were ecosystems satisfying the need for food from the beginning of evolution through all ensuing stages. dhw denigrates this as God providing 'humans (plus food)', as if that was all that was necessary for God to do. The obvious history tells us the logical otherwise.

dhw: Of course ecosystems are and always were vital for the health of the planet, and in the course of 3.X billion years, they came and went, feeding countless life forms that had no connection with sapiens and our current ecosystems. It is YOU who claim that although nearly all the individually designed, extinct life forms and their ecosystems were for the PAST (as above), they were “necessary for God to do” (an “absolute requirement”) if he was to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing sapiens plus food! And you can’t explain this theory – it “makes sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

Perfect sense as stated above and fully explained with belief in a thinking God designer.

DAVID: By giving us a mind, which thinks, discussing God naturally flows. There is no way of knowing if God expected that result, so we are free to think as we wish. And whether He desired it as a result is also unknown. Your questions again fit your role as God's humanizer.

dhw: Oh, your God gave us brains which can think about him and recognize him, but you don’t know if God wanted us to think about him and recognize him. So please tell us what you think was his purpose in creating a species which could think about him and recognize him.

We are here so He wanted to create us. His obvious purpose must include that we will recognize His existence. Other purposes are all guesswork.


DAVID: Your constant interpretation of my thoughts is so twisted and lacks so much insight into my thinking it seems impossible for me to explain it, but I have tried above.

dhw: How can you possibly explain a theory which “makes sense only to God”? Please tell me which of these “interpretations of your thoughts” are twisted: 1) God’s one and only purpose was to “evolve” (= design) sapiens plus food. 2) God individually “evolved” (= designed) countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food. 3) God designed some species (Cambrian) that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve in stages).[…]

DAVID: I accept what God did with no need to explain it to myself or you. His reasons are His alone.

dhw: […] You accused me of a twisted interpretation of your thoughts. Please say which of the above are “twisted”.

DAVID: You have never accepted God, so you don't understand the mindset that accepts God's works without question, but retains the right to interpret.

dhw: I have never rejected God, and I fully accept the theory that if God exists, the history of life as we know it may be called “his works”. What I do not accept is an interpretation of that history which does not make sense to the interpreter or to me.

It makes perfect sense to me. Your problem is your confused jumbled form of logical thought about God and how to think about Him.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Tuesday, August 02, 2022, 11:30 (605 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have presented your theory of my theory, which refuses to accept the simple statement that God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: I’ve never refused to accept that we humans – like every other species – evolved from bacteria! If God exists, I’m also happy to accept that evolution was his choice of fulfilling whatever may have been his purpose. What I cannot accept is the theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce us and our food, and his method of doing so was to produce countless species and ecosystems that had no connection with us or our food. You yourself can make no sense of this theory.

DAVID: How to make sense of it is to recognize God knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it His way. Each stage of evolution had its own set of ecosystems to provide necessary food supply for all. Our knowledge of evolution demonstrates just that. The current ecosystem bush of life supports our current huge population, all evolved from past bushes.

But all past bushes were not specially designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food, and that is what makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s one and only purpose from the beginning was to create us and our food! Stop dodging!

DAVID:[…] […] The past is dead isn't it? Or do you communicate with it? The past is a stage in our evolution and dies, doesn't it?

Yes, the past is dead, and only part of the past was a stage in our evolution, and the rest had no connection with us. Hence the absurdity of your theory that all those parts of the past that had no connection with us plus our food were individually designed as preparation for us. Stop dodging!

And under “earliest mammal ancestor”:
DAVID: it is obvious mammals were fore deigned in the development of evolutionary stages. dhw will worry about the many branches that head into different directions. Not to worry, they all fit into ecosystems for a food supply for all, not just for humans. (dhw’s bold)

Exactly. And that is why it is absurd to argue that they were all an “absolute requirement” in preparation for sapiens and our food! Stop dodging!

I asked what you thought was your God’s “primary purpose in creating humans.

DAVID: […] we do know He has given us brains which can think about Him and ask questions. Anything further is guesswork.
And:
DAVID: He gave us brains so we could debate about Him. So we recognize Him.

dhw: EVERY theory is guesswork, including your God’s existence. So why do you think he wanted us to think about him, recognize him, and ask questions? And why do you think wanting recognition is less "human" than wanting to create something he would find interesting?

DAVID: By giving us a mind, which thinks, discussing God naturally flows. There is no way of knowing if God expected that result, so we are free to think as we wish. And whether He desired it as a result is also unknown. Your questions again fit your role as God's humanizer.

dhw: Oh, your God gave us brains which can think about him and recognize him, but you don’t know if God wanted us to think about him and recognize him. So please tell us what you think was his purpose in creating a species which could think about him and recognize him.

DAVID: We are here so He wanted to create us. His obvious purpose must include that we will recognize His existence. Other purposes are all guesswork.

And countless numbers of life forms were here that had no connection with humans plus our food, and so according to you he must have wanted to create them. Why, if his only purpose was to create us plus our food? And why do you think his desire to be recognized is less “human” than enjoyment of creating things that will interest him?

DAVID: (transferred from “savannah theory”): Your humanized God seeks entertainment and allows evolution to proceed as a free-for-all. My view of God sees Him as fully purposeful at all times, creating without any self-needy desires.

I used your own terms when you were certain that he “enjoyed” creating” and was “interested” in his creations. I have never used the word “entertainment”. The free-for-all is ONE of my theories, to explain the existence of all those past life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, as well as all the life forms that cause damage to us and our ecosystems (the problem of theodicy), for which you can find no explanation.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 02, 2022, 18:50 (604 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How to make sense of it is to recognize God knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it His way. Each stage of evolution had its own set of ecosystems to provide necessary food supply for all. Our knowledge of evolution demonstrates just that. The current ecosystem bush of life supports our current huge population, all evolved from past bushes.

dhw: But all past bushes were not specially designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food, and that is what makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s one and only purpose from the beginning was to create us and our food! Stop dodging!

Humans arrived on their special branch, but they became custodians of the Earth and developed to an enormous population. God knew this would obviously happen so all the other branches had to be developed for ecosystems of food. Purely excellent designing for the preordained future. The dodge is yours in not understanding and rejecting this view.


DAVID:[…] […] The past is dead isn't it? Or do you communicate with it? The past is a stage in our evolution and dies, doesn't it?

dhw: Yes, the past is dead, and only part of the past was a stage in our evolution, and the rest had no connection with us. Hence the absurdity of your theory that all those parts of the past that had no connection with us plus our food were individually designed as preparation for us. Stop dodging!

To repeat, all past development of so many forms create today's food supply.


dhw: I asked what you thought was your God’s “primary purpose in creating humans.

dhw: Oh, your God gave us brains which can think about him and recognize him, but you don’t know if God wanted us to think about him and recognize him. So please tell us what you think was his purpose in creating a species which could think about him and recognize him.

DAVID: We are here so He wanted to create us. His obvious purpose must include that we will recognize His existence. Other purposes are all guesswork.

dhw: And countless numbers of life forms were here that had no connection with humans plus our food, and so according to you he must have wanted to create them. Why, if his only purpose was to create us plus our food? And why do you think his desire to be recognized is less “human” than enjoyment of creating things that will interest him?

food issue handled above. We do not know if God wanted recognition. What I am sure of is that my God does creates without any self-interest, while yours does.


DAVID: (transferred from “savannah theory”): Your humanized God seeks entertainment and allows evolution to proceed as a free-for-all. My view of God sees Him as fully purposeful at all times, creating without any self-needy desires.

dhw: I used your own terms when you were certain that he “enjoyed” creating” and was “interested” in his creations. I have never used the word “entertainment”. The free-for-all is ONE of my theories, to explain the existence of all those past life forms that had no connection with humans plus food, as well as all the life forms that cause damage to us and our ecosystems (the problem of theodicy), for which you can find no explanation.

All of your God personality suggestions imply self-interest.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Wednesday, August 03, 2022, 11:15 (604 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But all past bushes were not specially designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our food, and that is what makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s one and only purpose from the beginning was to create us and our food! Stop dodging!

DAVID: Humans arrived on their special branch, but they became custodians of the Earth and developed to an enormous population. God knew this would obviously happen so all the other branches had to be developed for ecosystems of food. Purely excellent designing for the preordained future. The dodge is yours in not understanding and rejecting this view.

You simply go on refusing to accept the obvious truths which you summed up yourself, and which you confirm every time I repeat the quotes: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “extinct life has no role in current time.” If God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus their food, why according to you did he individually design all the life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans plus our food, as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food? You agree that you don’t know why. Your theory “makes sense only to God.” So please stop contradicting yourself so that we can put an end to this constant repetition.

I asked what you thought was your God’s “primary purpose" in creating humans.


DAVID: We are here so He wanted to create us. His obvious purpose must include that we will recognize His existence. Other purposes are all guesswork.

dhw: Countless numbers of life forms were here that had no connection with humans plus our food, and so according to you he must have wanted to create them. Why, if his only purpose was to create us plus our food? And why do you think his desire to be recognized is less “human” than enjoyment of creating things that will interest him?

DAVID: We do not know if God wanted recognition. What I am sure of is that my God does creates without any self-interest, while yours does.

Once upon a time, you were also sure that he enjoyed creating, and watched his creations with interest. Now apparently his obvious purpose – as bolded above – must include our recognition of him, but we don’t know if he wanted recognition. We don’t know anything, and your certainty that he had no self-interest in creating life contradicts your past certainties, and has no greater validity than any other guesses about his nature.

De novo forms

QUOTE: "'The ancient, common origin of all these plate-like structures [in arthropods] suggests the gene networks that pattern these structures are very evolvable and plastic. They are capable of generating an awesome amount of diversity," Bruce says." (dhw's bold)

I see this statement as 100% compatible with the theory that as conditions have changed, cells/cell communities have used their evolvable plasticity to cope with or exploit them, thus generating the enormous diversity of species that characterizes the past and present history of life on Earth.

DAVID: the other alternative from this strained Darwinian approach is that this looks just like a designed process. The future changes carefully built into the beginning.

dhw: Why “strained”? The evolvability and plasticity of cells must have been built into their original form, or evolution would never have taken place! Whether God designed the first cells or not is one question. The other is how cells are able to use this flexibility. Your statement above suggests that your God preprogrammed those first cells with every life form etc. that has ever existed (you seem to have dispensed with dabbling) – according to you, inexplicably including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food. I prefer the theory that they used their perhaps God-given intelligence to do their own designing.

DAVID: I know your preferences.

And you continue to promote your own theories, which are self-contradictory and apparently comprehensible only to your God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 03, 2022, 17:35 (603 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You simply go on refusing to accept the obvious truths which you summed up yourself, and which you confirm every time I repeat the quotes: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “extinct life has no role in current time.” If God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus their food, why according to you did he individually design all the life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans plus our food, as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food? You agree that you don’t know why. Your theory “makes sense only to God.” So please stop contradicting yourself so that we can put an end to this constant repetition.

I have never contradicted myself. All those quotes are accurate and make perfect sense to me. Past is past and present is present in the continuity of evolution. God's choice to evolve rather than directly create is obvious. I cannot know why He chose that path nor know as you ask below why He wished to create us.


dhw: I asked what you thought was your God’s “primary purpose" in creating humans.

DAVID: We are here so He wanted to create us. His obvious purpose must include that we will recognize His existence. Other purposes are all guesswork.

dhw: Once upon a time, you were also sure that he enjoyed creating, and watched his creations with interest. Now apparently his obvious purpose – as bolded above – must include our recognition of him, but we don’t know if he wanted recognition. We don’t know anything, and your certainty that he had no self-interest in creating life contradicts your past certainties, and has no greater validity than any other guesses about his nature.

I still agree with all of the reasons you list as reasonable guesses, but the nuance that
I use of 'self-interest' you misunderstand. God creates what He wishes to create purposely, simply to create. He undoubtedly likes to create, or He wouldn't. But He doesn't do all of this to provide entertainment for Him. God is above that need. In creating our mental capacities, God would certainly expect we would recognize Him, but He didn't need us to do that as some necessary form of self-gratification. God does not have human neediness. Please recognize the nuances!


De novo forms

QUOTE: "'The ancient, common origin of all these plate-like structures [in arthropods] suggests the gene networks that pattern these structures are very evolvable and plastic. They are capable of generating an awesome amount of diversity," Bruce says." (dhw's bold)

dhw: I see this statement as 100% compatible with the theory that as conditions have changed, cells/cell communities have used their evolvable plasticity to cope with or exploit them, thus generating the enormous diversity of species that characterizes the past and present history of life on Earth.

Again, simple cells can design for the future with 'evolvable plasticity', a new unproven, not factual concept..


DAVID: the other alternative from this strained Darwinian approach is that this looks just like a designed process. The future changes carefully built into the beginning.

dhw: Why “strained”? The evolvability and plasticity of cells must have been built into their original form, or evolution would never have taken place! Whether God designed the first cells or not is one question. The other is how cells are able to use this flexibility. Your statement above suggests that your God preprogrammed those first cells with every life form etc. that has ever existed (you seem to have dispensed with dabbling) – according to you, inexplicably including all those that had no connection with sapiens plus food. I prefer the theory that they used their perhaps God-given intelligence to do their own designing.

DAVID: I know your preferences.

dhw: And you continue to promote your own theories, which are self-contradictory and apparently comprehensible only to your God.

You will never recognize I accept what God has created for His own unknown reasons, without having to know the reasons.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by dhw, Thursday, August 04, 2022, 09:14 (603 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You simply go on refusing to accept the obvious truths which you summed up yourself, and which you confirm every time I repeat the quotes: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms”, and “extinct life has no role in current time.” If God’s one and only purpose was to create humans plus their food, why according to you did he individually design all the life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans plus our food, as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food? You agree that you don’t know why. Your theory “makes sense only to God.” So please stop contradicting yourself so that we can put an end to this constant repetition.

DAVID: I have never contradicted myself. All those quotes are accurate and make perfect sense to me. Past is past and present is present in the continuity of evolution. God's choice to evolve rather than directly create is obvious. I cannot know why He chose that path nor know as you ask below why He wished to create us.

So how can you possibly know that his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create us and our ecosystems, and that he individually designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle and natural wonder as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us, although most of them had no connection with us? And how can you know that he is not motivated by any form of self-interest, as below?

dhw: I asked what you thought was your God’s “primary purpose" in creating humans.

DAVID: We are here so He wanted to create us. His obvious purpose must include that we will recognize His existence. Other purposes are all guesswork.

dhw: Once upon a time, you were also sure that he enjoyed creating, and watched his creations with interest. Now apparently his obvious purpose – as bolded above – must include our recognition of him, but we don’t know if he wanted recognition. We don’t know anything, and your certainty that he had no self-interest in creating life contradicts your past certainties, and has no greater validity than any other guesses about his nature.

DAVID: I still agree with all of the reasons you list as reasonable guesses, but the nuance that I use of 'self-interest' you misunderstand. God creates what He wishes to create purposely, simply to create. He undoubtedly likes to create, or He wouldn't. But He doesn't do all of this to provide entertainment for Him. God is above that need. In creating our mental capacities, God would certainly expect we would recognize Him, but He didn't need us to do that as some necessary form of self-gratification. God does not have human neediness. Please recognize the nuances!

I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. As above, how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? You make up his attributes (and non-attributes) as you go along in order to rescind all the humanizing features you have given him! And then you complain that my alternative theories of evolution “humanize” him!

De novo forms
QUOTE: "'The ancient, common origin of all these plate-like structures [in arthropods] suggests the gene networks that pattern these structures are very evolvable and plastic. They are capable of generating an awesome amount of diversity," Bruce says." (dhw's bold)

dhw: I see this statement as 100% compatible with the theory that as conditions have changed, cells/cell communities have used their evolvable plasticity to cope with or exploit them, thus generating the enormous diversity of species that characterizes the past and present history of life on Earth.

DAVID: Again, simple cells can design for the future with 'evolvable plasticity', a new unproven, not factual concept.

For the thousandth time, they do NOT design for the future. They design for their present, although what they design will survive into their future so long as it remains useful. And yes, it is a theory, as unproven as your own 3.8-billion-year-old book of divine instructions and your God performing endless operations on countless life forms in preparation for conditions that do not yet exist.

dhw: And you continue to promote your own theories, which are self-contradictory and apparently comprehensible only to your God.

DAVID: You will never recognize I accept what God has created for His own unknown reasons, without having to know the reasons.

But you insist that you DO know the reason: according to you, the reason was to design sapiens plus our food, although the vast majority of the life forms and ecosystems you say he individually designed had no connection with us and our food! And this is the contradiction which you never stop trying to dodge.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 04, 2022, 18:57 (602 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, August 04, 2022, 19:11

DAVID: I have never contradicted myself. All those quotes are accurate and make perfect sense to me. Past is past and present is present in the continuity of evolution. God's choice to evolve rather than directly create is obvious. I cannot know why He chose that path nor know as you ask below why He wished to create us.

dhw: So how can you possibly know that his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create us and our ecosystems, and that he individually designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle and natural wonder as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us, although most of them had no connection with us? And how can you know that he is not motivated by any form of self-interest, as below?

I don't know the absolute truths about God. I believe the logic that current biologic research tells me the complexity insists a designer did it. My concept of God's totally differs from yours as our discussions show. As for your question about God planning for us from the beginning, Adler's discussion is quite clear. Of course, Adler discusses it by saying our arrival proves God must exist, from his analysis of evolution.


dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. As above, how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? You make up his attributes (and non-attributes) as you go along in order to rescind all the humanizing features you have given him! And then you complain that my alternative theories of evolution “humanize” him!

My form of God does not need any type of self-gratification. When we attempt to ascribe some emotional reactions on His part, we must think of them as allegorical and perhaps humanizing. My descriptions of your God come from your desires for Him and descriptions of His emotions. Not pejorative, just very accurate. All His emotions and attributes I attempt to guess at I recognize as possibly humanizing, but I am forced to try and describe him and must use human terms.


De novo forms
QUOTE: "'The ancient, common origin of all these plate-like structures [in arthropods] suggests the gene networks that pattern these structures are very evolvable and plastic. They are capable of generating an awesome amount of diversity," Bruce says." (dhw's bold)

dhw: I see this statement as 100% compatible with the theory that as conditions have changed, cells/cell communities have used their evolvable plasticity to cope with or exploit them, thus generating the enormous diversity of species that characterizes the past and present history of life on Earth.

DAVID: Again, simple cells can design for the future with 'evolvable plasticity', a new unproven, not factual concept.

For the thousandth time, they do NOT design for the future. They design for their present, although what they design will survive into their future so long as it remains useful. And yes, it is a theory, as unproven as your own 3.8-billion-year-old book of divine instructions and your God performing endless operations on countless life forms in preparation for conditions that do not yet exist.

dhw: And you continue to promote your own theories, which are self-contradictory and apparently comprehensible only to your God.

DAVID: You will never recognize I accept what God has created for His own unknown reasons, without having to know the reasons.

dhw: But you insist that you DO know the reason: according to you, the reason was to design sapiens plus our food, although the vast majority of the life forms and ecosystems you say he individually designed had no connection with us and our food! And this is the contradiction which you never stop trying to dodge.

The whole thing is connected!!! Evolution is one continuum from bacteria to us. You are slicing and dicing again with no logic in your objection.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, August 05, 2022, 08:10 (602 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have never contradicted myself. All those quotes are accurate and make perfect sense to me. Past is past and present is present in the continuity of evolution. God's choice to evolve rather than directly create is obvious. I cannot know why He chose that path nor know as you ask below why He wished to create us.

dhw: So how can you possibly know that his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create us and our ecosystems, and that he individually designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle and natural wonder as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us, although most of them had no connection with us? And how can you know that he is not motivated by any form of self-interest, as below?

DAVID: I don't know the absolute truths about God. I believe the logic that current biologic research tells me the complexity insists a designer did it. My concept of God's totally differs from yours as our discussions show. As for your question about God planning for us from the beginning, Adler's discussion is quite clear. Of course, Adler discusses it by saying our arrival proves God must exist, from his analysis of evolution.

We are not discussing what Adler believes or doesn’t believe, but in any case the logic of the design argument as evidence for God’s existence has never been the subject of this disagreement. You keep using it as a way of dodging the illogicality of your theory as bolded above.

dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. As above, how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? You make up his attributes (and non-attributes) as you go along in order to rescind all the humanizing features you have given him! And then you complain that my alternative theories of evolution “humanize” him!

DAVID: My form of God does not need any type of self-gratification. When we attempt to ascribe some emotional reactions on His part, we must think of them as allegorical and perhaps humanizing. My descriptions of your God come from your desires for Him and descriptions of His emotions. Not pejorative, just very accurate. All His emotions and attributes I attempt to guess at I recognize as possibly humanizing, but I am forced to try and describe him and must use human terms.

Nobody “forced” you to say that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or that he must have created us because he wanted us to recognize him, or that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions in common with ours, just as nobody is forcing you to say your God does not need self-gratification. You know exactly what all these words mean, but if one minute you tell us you are sure of something, and then the next minute you take it all back, you make a mockery of our discussions. NOBODY knows the truth. So we discuss each theory to test whether it sounds feasible. You are very happy to use human logic when it comes to design, but when human logic indicates the absurdity of your theory of evolution, as bolded above, you insist that the theory must be right, although “it makes sense only to God” – i.e. not to you.

DAVID: You will never recognize I accept what God has created for His own unknown reasons, without having to know the reasons.

dhw: But you insist that you DO know the reason: according to you, the reason was to design sapiens plus our food, although the vast majority of the life forms and ecosystems you say he individually designed had no connection with us and our food! And this is the contradiction which you never stop trying to dodge.

DAVID: The whole thing is connected!!! Evolution is one continuum from bacteria to us. You are slicing and dicing again with no logic in your objection.

You have acknowledged over and over again that evolution is NOT one continuum from bacteria to us. It is one continuum from bacteria to countless branches of life forms and ecosystems including us and ours, and that is why it is illogical to propose that your God designed every single one, and did so because every single one was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems although the vast majority of them had no connection with us and our ecosystems. This is the theory which you cannot explain, admit makes sense only to God, and then dodge by editing it out of our discussion, as you have done at the beginning of this post. Believe it if you will, but please don’t go on repeating this endless series of dodges.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, August 05, 2022, 19:54 (601 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So how can you possibly know that his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create us and our ecosystems, and that he individually designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle and natural wonder as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us, although most of them had no connection with us?

DAVID: I don't know the absolute truths about God. I believe the logic that current biologic research tells me the complexity insists a designer did it. My concept of God's totally differs from yours as our discussions show. As for your question about God planning for us from the beginning, Adler's discussion is quite clear. Of course, Adler discusses it by saying our arrival proves God must exist, from his analysis of evolution.

dhw: We are not discussing what Adler believes or doesn’t believe, but in any case, the logic of the design argument as evidence for God’s existence has never been the subject of this disagreement. You keep using it as a way of dodging the illogicality of your theory as bolded above.

How can I not use design??? Its basis is having to recognize a designer and noting an endpoint of humans, which is so unusual that it also supports a purposeful designer with an obvious endpoint in mind. How you cannot follow this reasoning is beyond me.


dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. As above, how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? You make up his attributes (and non-attributes) as you go along in order to rescind all the humanizing features you have given him! And then you complain that my alternative theories of evolution “humanize” him!

DAVID: My form of God does not need any type of self-gratification. When we attempt to ascribe some emotional reactions on His part, we must think of them as allegorical and perhaps humanizing. My descriptions of your God come from your desires for Him and descriptions of His emotions. Not pejorative, just very accurate. All His emotions and attributes I attempt to guess at I recognize as possibly humanizing, but I am forced to try and describe him and must use human terms.

dhw: Nobody “forced” you to say that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or that he must have created us because he wanted us to recognize him, or that he probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions in common with ours, just as nobody is forcing you to say your God does not need self-gratification. You know exactly what all these words mean, but if one minute you tell us you are sure of something, and then the next minute you take it all back, you make a mockery of our discussions. NOBODY knows the truth. So we discuss each theory to test whether it sounds feasible. You are very happy to use human logic when it comes to design, but when human logic indicates the absurdity of your theory of evolution, as bolded above, you insist that the theory must be right, although “it makes sense only to God” – i.e. not to you.

What makes sense to God is His choice to evolve us, which makes perfect sense to me. Any absurdity is your lack of logic in recognizing complex design by not the obvious need for an existing designer.


DAVID: You will never recognize I accept what God has created for His own unknown reasons, without having to know the reasons.

dhw: But you insist that you DO know the reason: the reason was to design sapiens plus our food, although the vast majority of the life forms and ecosystems you say he individually designed had no connection with us and our food! And this is the contradiction which you never stop trying to dodge.

DAVID: The whole thing is connected!!! Evolution is one continuum from bacteria to us. You are slicing and dicing again with no logic in your objection.

dhw: You have acknowledged over and over again that evolution is NOT one continuum from bacteria to us. It is one continuum from bacteria to countless branches of life forms and ecosystems including us and ours, and that is why it is illogical to propose that your God designed every single one, and did so because every single one was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems although the vast majority of them had no connection with us and our ecosystems.

There is a continuum from bacteria to us if one traces out the proper branches. As for ecosystems for food. they are complexly intertwined to provide food for all living forms. And please recognize the bush is so large because our population has grown so large as
God expected it would.

dhw: This is the theory which you cannot explain, admit makes sense only to God, and then dodge by editing it out of our discussion, as you have done at the beginning of this post. Believe it if you will, but please don’t go on repeating this endless series of dodges.

The fact that I have fully explained it to my satisfaction just indicates your confusion. I won't back down, as long as you repeat your confused mantra of distorted logic

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, August 06, 2022, 13:26 (600 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So how can you possibly know that his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create us and our ecosystems, and that he individually designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle and natural wonder as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us, although most of them had no connection with us?

DAVID: I don't know the absolute truths about God. I believe the logic that current biologic research tells me the complexity insists a designer did it. My concept of God's totally differs from yours as our discussions show. As for your question about God planning for us from the beginning, Adler's discussion is quite clear. Of course, Adler discusses it by saying our arrival proves God must exist, from his analysis of evolution.

dhw: We are not discussing what Adler believes or doesn’t believe, but in any case, the logic of the design argument as evidence for God’s existence has never been the subject of this disagreement. You keep using it as a way of dodging the illogicality of your theory as bolded above.

DAVID: How can I not use design??? Its basis is having to recognize a designer and noting an endpoint of humans, which is so unusual that it also supports a purposeful designer with an obvious endpoint in mind. How you cannot follow this reasoning is beyond me.

As usual, you are dodging the point at issue by editing out those factors which make your theory illogical. All of the above IS logical. What is not logical is your claim that your all-powerful God started out with the sole purpose of designing sapiens and his food, but individually designed 3.X billion years’ worth of species, ecosystems, lifestyles and natural wonders the majority of which had no connection with sapiens plus food. A further illogicality is your claim that your all-powerful God was able to created species that had no precursors, and yet the only species he actually wanted to design (apart from our food) passed through stage after stage. You cannot explain either of these anomalies, and admit that they "make sense only to God". But you refuse even to consider the possibility that one or more of them might be wrong.

dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. As above, how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? You make up his attributes (and non-attributes) as you go along in order to rescind all the humanizing features you have given him! And then you complain that my alternative theories of evolution “humanize” him.

You abandoned this discussion.

DAVID: What makes sense to God is His choice to evolve us, which makes perfect sense to me. Any absurdity is your lack of logic in recognizing complex design by not the obvious need for an existing designer.

The same old dodge: focusing on the argument for God’s existence, the logic of which I accept, and ignoring all the above illogicalities of your theory concerning your God’s purpose and method.

DAVID: You will never recognize I accept what God has created for His own unknown reasons, without having to know the reasons.

dhw: But you insist that you DO know the reason: the reason was to design sapiens plus our food, although the vast majority of the life forms and ecosystems you say he individually designed had no connection with us and our food! And this is the contradiction which you never stop trying to dodge.

DAVID: The whole thing is connected!!! Evolution is one continuum from bacteria to us. You are slicing and dicing again with no logic in your objection.

dhw: You have acknowledged over and over again that evolution is NOT one continuum from bacteria to us. It is one continuum from bacteria to countless branches of life forms and ecosystems including us and ours, and that is why it is illogical to propose that your God designed every single one, and did so because every single one was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems although the vast majority of them had no connection with us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: There is a continuum from bacteria to us if one traces out the proper branches.

But the problem you keep dodging is all the other branches that did NOT lead to us although you claim they were all an absolute requirement for us! Please stop dodging!

DAVID: As for ecosystems for food. they are complexly intertwined to provide food for all living forms. And please recognize the bush is so large because our population has grown so large as God expected it would.

And they were complexly intertwined to provide for ALL the forms that lived for 3.X billion years before us, and you have no idea why he designed all those that had no connection with us and our large population. Please stop dodging!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 06, 2022, 17:21 (600 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How can I not use design??? Its basis is having to recognize a designer and noting an endpoint of humans, which is so unusual that it also supports a purposeful designer with an obvious endpoint in mind. How you cannot follow this reasoning is beyond me.

dhw: As usual, you are dodging the point at issue by editing out those factors which make your theory illogical. All of the above IS logical. What is not logical is your claim that your all-powerful God started out with the sole purpose of designing sapiens and his food, but individually designed 3.X billion years’ worth of species, ecosystems, lifestyles and natural wonders the majority of which had no connection with sapiens plus food.

What is illogical is your refusal to accept the theory that God CHOSE to create us by evolving us including all the factors in your bold. The history is God's creation. It tells us how we got here by God's actions. You irrationally question a God designer who created everything extant. Everything extant is the necessary food!!!

dhw: [/b]A further illogicality is your claim that your all-powerful God was able to created species that had no precursors, and yet the only species he actually wanted to design (apart from our food) passed through stage after stage. You cannot explain either of these anomalies, and admit that they "make sense only to God". But you refuse even to consider the possibility that one or more of them might be wrong.

Once again you are questioning how God did it. He had the right to jump ahead without precursors at any point He wished.


dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. As above, how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? You make up his attributes (and non-attributes) as you go along in order to rescind all the humanizing features you have given him! And then you complain that my alternative theories of evolution “humanize” him.

dhw: You abandoned this discussion.

I've answered before, but since you request again, God creates with full purpose and without self-consideration of His own emotional reactions. All of our human considerations about His emotions must be put in allegorical terms, since He is not human and is a person like no other person. He should enjoy what He does and wishing a relationship with us is obvious. I don't need to rediscuss your humanized God in the thought patterns you ascribe to Hin.


DAVID: The whole thing is connected!!! Evolution is one continuum from bacteria to us. You are slicing and dicing again with no logic in your objection.

dhw: You have acknowledged over and over again that evolution is NOT one continuum from bacteria to us. It is one continuum from bacteria to countless branches of life forms and ecosystems including us and ours, and that is why it is illogical to propose that your God designed every single one, and did so because every single one was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems although the vast majority of them had no connection with us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: There is a continuum from bacteria to us if one traces out the proper branches.

dhw: But the problem you keep dodging is all the other branches that did NOT lead to us although you claim they were all an absolute requirement for us! Please stop dodging!

Answer this question: how do we eat without all the branches creating food-supplying ecosystems as below:


DAVID: As for ecosystems for food. they are complexly intertwined to provide food for all living forms. And please recognize the bush is so large because our population has grown so large as God expected it would.

dhw: And they were complexly intertwined to provide for ALL the forms that lived for 3.X billion years before us, and you have no idea why he designed all those that had no connection with us and our large population. Please stop dodging!

Answered logically above. I have exactly the idea that answers you, FOOD.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, August 07, 2022, 10:54 (600 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How can I not use design??? Its basis is having to recognize a designer and noting an endpoint of humans, which is so unusual that it also supports a purposeful designer with an obvious endpoint in mind. How you cannot follow this reasoning is beyond me.

dhw: As usual, you are dodging the point at issue by editing out those factors which make your theory illogical. All of the above IS logical. What is not logical is your claim that your all-powerful God started out with the sole purpose of designing sapiens and his food, but individually designed 3.X billion years’ worth of species, ecosystems, lifestyles and natural wonders the majority of which had no connection with sapiens plus food.

DAVID: What is illogical is your refusal to accept the theory that God CHOSE to create us by evolving us including all the factors in your bold. The history is God's creation. It tells us how we got here by God's actions. You irrationally question a God designer who created everything extant. Everything extant is the necessary food!!!
And
DAVID: Answer this question: how do we eat without all the branches creating food-supplying ecosystems […]:

If God exists, then the history is indeed his creation. That is not what I question, and you know it. ALL life forms require and required food, so of course food is and always was necessary. Your illogicality lies in your insistence that he individually designed every extant AND EXTINCT life form and food supply as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us sapiens and our food, although - as you have repeatedly agreed - the vast majority of PAST forms and foods had no connection with us sapiens and our food. Please stop dodging!

dhw:A further illogicality is your claim that your all-powerful God was able to create species that had no precursors, and yet the only species (apart from our food) he actually wanted to design passed through stage after stage. You cannot explain either of these anomalies, and admit that they "make sense only to God". But you refuse even to consider the possibility that one or more of them might be wrong.

DAVID: Once again you are questioning how God did it. He had the right to jump ahead without precursors at any point He wished.

I am questioning your interpretation of how your all-powerful God did it. Of course he had the right to do whatever he wanted to do. But if, as you say, his sole aim was to design us and our food, then I suggest that he would have done so directly, since you say he created other species directly. That is why I propose that either he did NOT start out with the sole aim to design us and our food - especially since you claim he individually designed all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us - or those forms and foods and the different stages of our evolution could indicate experimentation or his having new ideas as he went along.

dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. […] how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? […]

DAVID: I've answered before, but since you request again, God creates with full purpose and without self-consideration of His own emotional reactions.

I agree that he must have had a purpose. What that purpose was is wide open to question. I have no idea what authority you have for saying he does not have any self interest/gratification/consideration, especially when you are certain that he enjoys creating, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, as you confirm below.

DAVID: All of our human considerations about His emotions must be put in allegorical terms, since He is not human and is a person like no other person. He should enjoy what He does and wishing a relationship with us is obvious. I don't need to rediscuss your humanized God in the thought patterns you ascribe to Him.

There is no need for “allegory”. Of course he’s not human, but since you believe he created us and everything else out of himself, it is perfectly feasible that what he created mirrors aspects of himself. How would he, for instance, create love if he had no idea what love was?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 07, 2022, 20:24 (599 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Answer this question: how do we eat without all the branches creating food-supplying ecosystems […]:

dhw: If God exists, then the history is indeed his creation. That is not what I question, and you know it. ALL life forms require and required food, so of course food is and always was necessary. Your illogicality lies in your insistence that he individually designed every extant AND EXTINCT life form and food supply as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us sapiens and our food, although - as you have repeatedly agreed - the vast majority of PAST forms and foods had no connection with us sapiens and our food. Please stop dodging!

In the bold you are directly denying me the right to believe in a designer God. And all the past living forms lead directly to us along our branch!! Stop slicing up evolution as if it is not a continuum. The 'requirement' is a big enough bush to feed our huge population, which a designer God anticipated.


dhw:A further illogicality is your claim that your all-powerful God was able to create species that had no precursors, and yet the only species (apart from our food) he actually wanted to design passed through stage after stage. You cannot explain either of these anomalies, and admit that they "make sense only to God". But you refuse even to consider the possibility that one or more of them might be wrong.

DAVID: Once again you are questioning how God did it. He had the right to jump ahead without precursors at any point He wished.

dhw: I am questioning your interpretation of how your all-powerful God did it. Of course he had the right to do whatever he wanted to do. But if, as you say, his sole aim was to design us and our food, then I suggest that he would have done so directly, since you say he created other species directly. That is why I propose that either he did NOT start out with the sole aim to design us and our food - especially since you claim he individually designed all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us - or those forms and foods and the different stages of our evolution could indicate experimentation or his having new ideas as he went along.

Once again, your humanized God appears. My concept of God fits my theory. Yours is not purposeful and is floundering.


dhw: I have always objected to your use of the words “entertainment” and “neediness” as being unnecessarily pejorative, and I have been scrupulous in repeating your own terms: enjoyment and interest. […] how can you possibly know that his enjoyment of (or liking for) creation and interest in us and desire for recognition are NOT some form of self-gratification? Once you agreed that the creator had probably/possibly endowed his creations with similar thought patterns and emotions to his own. And why not? […]

DAVID: I've answered before, but since you request again, God creates with full purpose and without self-consideration of His own emotional reactions.

dhw: I agree that he must have had a purpose. What that purpose was is wide open to question. I have no idea what authority you have for saying he does not have any self interest/gratification/consideration, especially when you are certain that he enjoys creating, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, as you confirm below.

My authority is Adler and his book 'How to think about God'.


DAVID: All of our human considerations about His emotions must be put in allegorical terms, since He is not human and is a person like no other person. He should enjoy what He does and wishing a relationship with us is obvious. I don't need to rediscuss your humanized God in the thought patterns you ascribe to Him.

dhw: There is no need for “allegory”. Of course he’s not human, but since you believe he created us and everything else out of himself, it is perfectly feasible that what he created mirrors aspects of himself. How would he, for instance, create love if he had no idea what love was?

For once you are thinking about a God in a reasonable way. Of course, He knows love and every other emotion. The point remains, God knows exactly what He wishes to create and does it by a process of evolution at every stage: universe, Earth, life. All with eventual goals constantly in sight.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, August 08, 2022, 11:14 (599 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Answer this question: how do we eat without all the branches creating food-supplying ecosystems […]:

dhw: If God exists, then the history is indeed his creation. That is not what I question, and you know it. ALL life forms require and required food, so of course food is and always was necessary. Your illogicality lies in your insistence that he individually designed every extant AND EXTINCT life form and food supply as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us sapiens and our food, although - as you have repeatedly agreed - the vast majority of PAST forms and foods had no connection with us sapiens and our food. 1) Please stop dodging!

DAVID: In the bold you are directly denying me the right to believe in a designer God.

Where on earth do you see that? I am questioning your belief that your designer God designed all extinct life forms and ecosystems as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food although most of them had no connection with us and our food! 2) Please stop dodging!

DAVID: And all the past living forms lead directly to us along our branch!!

But all past dead forms are not “along our branch”, and I am questioning your belief as bolded above. 3) Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Stop slicing up evolution as if it is not a continuum. The 'requirement' is a big enough bush to feed our huge population, which a designer God anticipated.

Evolution is a continuum which has branched out into countless life forms and ecosystems, the vast majority of which had no connection with us, and so I am questioning your belief as bolded above. 4) Please stop dodging!

dhw: A further illogicality is your claim that your all-powerful God was able to create species that had no precursors, and yet the only species (apart from our food) he actually wanted to design passed through stage after stage. […]

DAVID: Once again you are questioning how God did it. He had the right to jump ahead without precursors at any point He wished.

dhw: I am questioning your interpretation of how your all-powerful God did it. Of course he had the right to do whatever he wanted to do. But if, as you say, his sole aim was to design us and our food, then I suggest that he would have done so directly, since you say he created other species directly. That is why I propose that either he did NOT start out with the sole aim to design us and our food - especially since you claim he individually designed all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us - or those forms and foods and the different stages of our evolution could indicate experimentation or his having new ideas as he went along.

DAVID: Once again, your humanized God appears. My concept of God fits my theory. Yours is not purposeful and is floundering.

Your concept of God is that he had one purpose in mind, and proceeded to design countless life forms, econiches etc. that had no connection with his purpose, and then to fiddle with lots of preliminary forms before designing the one he wanted, although you believe he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors. You can find no rationality in this concept, which you say “makes sense only to God”. In all my alternatives, God is purposeful, and I do not regard experimental science or ongoing creativity as “floundering”.

dhw: I agree that he must have had a purpose. What that purpose was is wide open to question. I have no idea what authority you have for saying he does not have any self interest/gratification/consideration, especially when you are certain that he enjoys creating, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, as you confirm below.

DAVID: My authority is Adler and his book 'How to think about God'.

Unless Adler was God, I don’t know where he got his authority from, but if he believed as you do that God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, I really can’t see why he would think God is incapable of human-style self-interest.

DAVID: All of our human considerations about His emotions must be put in allegorical terms, since He is not human and is a person like no other person. He should enjoy what He does and wishing a relationship with us is obvious. I don't need to rediscuss your humanized God in the thought patterns you ascribe to Him.

dhw: There is no need for “allegory”. Of course he’s not human, but since you believe he created us and everything else out of himself, it is perfectly feasible that what he created mirrors aspects of himself. How would he, for instance, create love if he had no idea what love was?

DAVID: For once you are thinking about a God in a reasonable way. Of course, He knows love and every other emotion.

Wonderful! Then there is absolutely no reason to dismiss these emotions as “allegorical”, so please stop complaining about theories that entail your God having human patterns of thought and emotions.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, August 08, 2022, 15:34 (598 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In the bold you are directly denying me the right to believe in a designer God.

dhw: Where on earth do you see that? I am questioning your belief that your designer God designed all extinct life forms and ecosystems as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food although most of them had no connection with us and our food! 2) Please stop dodging!

Why must I repeat an argument you ignore? It is not just our food. All animal organisms must eat, and all the branches in ecosystems develop a huge food supply for the now huge human population. True or false?

dhw: I am questioning your interpretation of how your all-powerful God did it. Of course he had the right to do whatever he wanted to do. But if, as you say, his sole aim was to design us and our food, then I suggest that he would have done so directly, since you say he created other species directly. That is why I propose that either he did NOT start out with the sole aim to design us and our food - especially since you claim he individually designed all those life forms and foods that had no connection with us - or those forms and foods and the different stages of our evolution could indicate experimentation or his having new ideas as he went along.

DAVID: Once again, your humanized God appears. My concept of God fits my theory. Yours is not purposeful and is floundering.

dhw: Your concept of God is that he had one purpose in mind, and proceeded to design countless life forms, econiches etc. that had no connection with his purpose, and then to fiddle with lots of preliminary forms before designing the one he wanted, although you believe he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors. You can find no rationality in this concept, which you say “makes sense only to God”. In all my alternatives, God is purposeful, and I do not regard experimental science or ongoing creativity as “floundering”.

Of course, the God you invent carries your innate foibles.


dhw: I agree that he must have had a purpose. What that purpose was is wide open to question. I have no idea what authority you have for saying he does not have any self interest/gratification/consideration, especially when you are certain that he enjoys creating, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, as you confirm below.

DAVID: My authority is Adler and his book 'How to think about God'.

dhw: Unless Adler was God, I don’t know where he got his authority from, but if he believed as you do that God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, I really can’t see why he would think God is incapable of human-style self-interest.

As above, that is the God you want to invent. As for Adler he was a leading philosopher of religion, and an advisor to the Catholic Faith.


DAVID: All of our human considerations about His emotions must be put in allegorical terms, since He is not human and is a person like no other person. He should enjoy what He does and wishing a relationship with us is obvious. I don't need to rediscuss your humanized God in the thought patterns you ascribe to Him.

dhw: There is no need for “allegory”. Of course he’s not human, but since you believe he created us and everything else out of himself, it is perfectly feasible that what he created mirrors aspects of himself. How would he, for instance, create love if he had no idea what love was?

DAVID: For once you are thinking about a God in a reasonable way. Of course, He knows love and every other emotion.

dhw: Wonderful! Then there is absolutely no reason to dismiss these emotions as “allegorical”, so please stop complaining about theories that entail your God having human patterns of thought and emotions.

I'm complaining about how much you humanize your possible God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, August 09, 2022, 10:07 (598 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] I am questioning your belief that your designer God designed all extinct life forms and ecosystems as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food although most of them had no connection with us and our food! 2) Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Why must I repeat an argument you ignore? It is not just our food. All animal organisms must eat, and all the branches in ecosystems develop a huge food supply for the now huge human population. True or false?

All the branches in which ecosystems? You have now decided to leave out the whole of pre-human history! You have agreed that the majority of extinct branches of life forms and ecosystems did NOT lead to us or our food. It is therefore absurd to claim that they were all specially designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food. 3) Please stop dodging!

DAVID: My concept of God fits my theory. Yours is not purposeful and is floundering.

dhw: Your concept of God is that he had one purpose in mind, and proceeded to design countless life forms, econiches etc. that had no connection with his purpose, and then to fiddle with lots of preliminary forms before designing the one he wanted, although you believe he was perfectly capable of designing species with no precursors. You can find no rationality in this concept, which you say “makes sense only to God”. In all my alternatives, God is purposeful, and I do not regard experimental science or ongoing creativity as “floundering”.

DAVID: Of course, the God you invent carries your innate foibles.

The God you invent acts in a way which makes no sense to you (it “makes sense only to God”), and you agree that all my alternative versions have him acting in a way that fits in logically with life’s history. Your only objection to my different versions is that they entail thought patterns and emotions like ours, but you agree that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

dhw: I have no idea what authority you have for saying he does not have any self interest/gratification/consideration, especially when you are certain that he enjoys creating, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, as you confirm below.

DAVID: My authority is Adler and his book 'How to think about God'.

dhw: Unless Adler was God, I don’t know where he got his authority from, but if he believed as you do that God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, I really can’t see why he would think God is incapable of human-style self-interest.

DAVID: As above, that is the God you want to invent.

I have quoted your own proposals concerning your God’s thought patterns and emotions, and I fail to see how these can preclude self-interest.

DAVID: As for Adler he was a leading philosopher of religion, and an advisor to the Catholic Faith.

So now you – who pride yourself on NOT following religious teachings – expect atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and every religious and non-religious philosopher who ever lived, to bow to the authority of one philosopher just because you agree with him. (But I have no quarrel with Adler’s logical defence of design as evidence for a designer, since that is what you always fall back on when dodging the illogicalities of your theory of evolution.)

DAVID: All of our human considerations about His emotions must be put in allegorical terms, since He is not human and is a person like no other person. He should enjoy what He does and wishing a relationship with us is obvious. I don't need to rediscuss your humanized God in the thought patterns you ascribe to Him.

dhw: There is no need for “allegory”. Of course he’s not human, but since you believe he created us and everything else out of himself, it is perfectly feasible that what he created mirrors aspects of himself. How would he, for instance, create love if he had no idea what love was?

DAVID: For once you are thinking about a God in a reasonable way. Of course, He knows love and every other emotion.

dhw: Wonderful! Then there is absolutely no reason to dismiss these emotions as “allegorical”, so please stop complaining about theories that entail your God having human patterns of thought and emotions.

DAVID: I'm complaining about how much you humanize your possible God.

It’s probably no good my asking again, but I will: why do you think a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, wants our recognition and wants to have a relationship with us (all your terms) is less human than a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, and experiments and/or tries out new ideas?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 09, 2022, 16:43 (597 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why must I repeat an argument you ignore? It is not just our food. All animal organisms must eat, and all the branches in ecosystems develop a huge food supply for the now huge human population. True or false?

dhw: All the branches in which ecosystems? You have now decided to leave out the whole of pre-human history! You have agreed that the majority of extinct branches of life forms and ecosystems did NOT lead to us or our food.

I don't know how you can claim I agreed. I have constantly said evolution is a continuum, and the past must lead to the future. All ecosystems have a role in feeding us.

DAVID: Of course, the God you invent carries your innate foibles.

dhw: The God you invent acts in a way which makes no sense to you (it “makes sense only to God”), and you agree that all my alternative versions have him acting in a way that fits in logically with life’s history. Your only objection to my different versions is that they entail thought patterns and emotions like ours, but you agree that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

Why can't you see a God in charge of creation creates exactly what He wishes for His own reasons. We can only try to interpret His reasons from that viewpoint. Therefore, it 'makes sense only to God' is a logical starting point. 'Thought and emotions' must be expressed allegorically which means not in any way equivalent to ours. The personality of the God you present is very humanizing as you now seem to agree, and the God I present differs greatly.


dhw: I have no idea what authority you have for saying he does not have any self interest/gratification/consideration, especially when you are certain that he enjoys creating, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, as you confirm below.

DAVID: My authority is Adler and his book 'How to think about God'.

dhw: Unless Adler was God, I don’t know where he got his authority from, but if he believed as you do that God enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, wants us to recognize him, and wants a relationship with us, I really can’t see why he would think God is incapable of human-style self-interest.

DAVID: As above, that is the God you want to invent.

dhw: I have quoted your own proposals concerning your God’s thought patterns and emotions, and I fail to see how these can preclude self-interest.

I have said God does not create for self-entertainment. He creates to create not to satisfy Himself


DAVID: As for Adler he was a leading philosopher of religion, and an advisor to the Catholic Faith.

dhw: So now you – who pride yourself on NOT following religious teachings – expect atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and every religious and non-religious philosopher who ever lived, to bow to the authority of one philosopher just because you agree with him. (But I have no quarrel with Adler’s logical defence of design as evidence for a designer, since that is what you always fall back on when dodging the illogicalities of your theory of evolution.)

Thinking about God requires some guidelines if religious teachings are ignored. Adler, as a philosopher of religion does just that and I follow those guidelines he provides.


dhw: There is no need for “allegory”. Of course he’s not human, but since you believe he created us and everything else out of himself, it is perfectly feasible that what he created mirrors aspects of himself. How would he, for instance, create love if he had no idea what love was?

DAVID: For once you are thinking about a God in a reasonable way. Of course, He knows love and every other emotion.

dhw: Wonderful! Then there is absolutely no reason to dismiss these emotions as “allegorical”, so please stop complaining about theories that entail your God having human patterns of thought and emotions.

DAVID: I'm complaining about how much you humanize your possible God.

dhw: It’s probably no good my asking again, but I will: why do you think a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, wants our recognition and wants to have a relationship with us (all your terms) is less human than a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, and experiments and/or tries out new ideas?

Back to experimentation or changing course with new ideas. A purposeful God creates to determined endpoints He has identified. He is not a humanized God as you keep insisting.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, August 10, 2022, 11:22 (597 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why must I repeat an argument you ignore? It is not just our food. All animal organisms must eat, and all the branches in ecosystems develop a huge food supply for the now huge human population. True or false?

dhw: All the branches in which ecosystems? You have now decided to leave out the whole of pre-human history! You have agreed that the majority of extinct branches of life forms and ecosystems did NOT lead to us or our food.

DAVID: I don't know how you can claim I agreed. I have constantly said evolution is a continuum, and the past must lead to the future. All ecosystems have a role in feeding us.

You wrote: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” (The block capitals were your own.) And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” Yes, evolution is a continuum which produced countless branches of diversified life forms and ecosystems long before humans came on the scene. (Why have you used the present tense in your last sentence?) I must confess I find it hard to believe that you yourself now reject your above statements and believe your God designed every single PAST and extinct life form and food bush throughout 3.X billion pre-human years as an “absolute requirement” for himself to design the current us and our current food bush.

DAVID: Of course, the God you invent carries your innate foibles.

dhw: The God you invent acts in a way which makes no sense to you (it “makes sense only to God”), and you agree that all my alternative versions have him acting in a way that fits in logically with life’s history. Your only objection to my different versions is that they entail thought patterns and emotions like ours, but you agree that your God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: Why can't you see a God in charge of creation creates exactly what He wishes for His own reasons.

I have always agreed. We simply disagree on what he created and why he created it.

DAVID: We can only try to interpret His reasons from that viewpoint. Therefore, it 'makes sense only to God' is a logical starting point.

The key word is “only”. Why do you assume that his reasons will not make sense to us?

DAVID: 'Thought and emotions' must be expressed allegorically which means not in any way equivalent to ours.

I have no idea what you mean by “allegorically”. A couple of days ago, I asked how your God could have created love if he had no idea what love was. You replied: “For once you are thinking about God in a reasonable way. Of course, he knows love and every other emotion.” Please explain how his love is an “allegory”.

DAVID: The personality of the God you present is very humanizing as you now seem to agree, and the God I present differs greatly.

I agree that both of us present a God who has thought patterns and emotions like ours. I asked you a direct question:
dhw: why do you think a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, wants our recognition and wants to have a relationship with us (all your terms) is less human than a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, and experiments and/or tries out new ideas?

DAVID: Back to experimentation or changing course with new ideas. A purposeful God creates to determined endpoints He has identified. He is not a humanized God as you keep insisting.

I have included various thought patterns and emotions we have both listed, plus your God's very human desire for recognition and a relationship. My additions are comparable to your humanized version, which has him pursuing a single purpose and knowing exactly how to achieve it (you once compared yourself to him when talking about your own designs), whereas mine, in this case, have him either experimenting or trying new things. Unfortunately, your version has him incomprehensibly NOT pursuing his single purpose, because he spends 3.X billion years specially designing lots of different things that are not connected with his purpose, but in any case, why do you think your single-minded God is less human than my more open-minded God?

dhw: I have quoted your own proposals concerning your God’s thought patterns and emotions, and I fail to see how these can preclude self-interest.

DAVID: I have said God does not create for self-entertainment. He creates to create not to satisfy Himself.

I have never used the pejorative term “entertainment”, but in any case, you are certain that he enjoys creating, and I don’t see why his enjoyment should preclude the possibility that he might have created things because he wanted the enjoyment of creating them.

DAVID: Thinking about God requires some guidelines if religious teachings are ignored. Adler, as a philosopher of religion does just that and I follow those guidelines he provides.

I know you do, but I’m afraid that doesn’t help you to explain theories which you yourself regard as inexplicable and which make no sense to you – since they ”make sense only to God”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 10, 2022, 17:34 (596 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't know how you can claim I agreed. I have constantly said evolution is a continuum, and the past must lead to the future. All ecosystems have a role in feeding us.

dhw: You wrote: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” (The block capitals were your own.) And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” Yes, evolution is a continuum which produced countless branches of diversified life forms and ecosystems long before humans came on the scene.

You seem to follow my logic in those statements.

dhw: (Why have you used the present tense in your last sentence?)

I don't understand your question.

dhw: I must confess I find it hard to believe that you yourself now reject your above statements and believe your God designed every single PAST and extinct life form and food bush throughout 3.X billion pre-human years as an “absolute requirement” for himself to design the current us and our current food bush.

I don't reject the statements, and don't know why you think that.


DAVID: Why can't you see a God in charge of creation creates exactly what He wishes for His own reasons.

dhw: I have always agreed. We simply disagree on what he created and why he created it.

DAVID: We can only try to interpret His reasons from that viewpoint. Therefore, it 'makes sense only to God' is a logical starting point.

dhw: The key word is “only”. Why do you assume that his reasons will not make sense to us?

We cannot know His personal reasons but can analyze probable ones.


DAVID: 'Thought and emotions' must be expressed allegorically which means not in any way equivalent to ours.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by “allegorically”. A couple of days ago, I asked how your God could have created love if he had no idea what love was. You replied: “For once you are thinking about God in a reasonable way. Of course, he knows love and every other emotion.” Please explain how his love is an “allegory”.

Because He is a personage like no other human person.


dhw: why do you think a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, wants our recognition and wants to have a relationship with us (all your terms) is less human than a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, and experiments and/or tries out new ideas?

DAVID: Back to experimentation or changing course with new ideas. A purposeful God creates to determined endpoints He has identified. He is not a humanized God as you keep insisting.

dhw: I have included various thought patterns and emotions we have both listed, plus your God's very human desire for recognition and a relationship..... Unfortunately, your version has him incomprehensibly NOT pursuing his single purpose, because he spends 3.X billion years specially designing lots of different things that are not connected with his purpose, but in any case, why do you think your single-minded God is less human than my more open-minded God?

They are connected as food supply, as you know. Your incomprehensible confusion about God continues. You complain He didn't do it as you would have.


dhw: I have quoted your own proposals concerning your God’s thought patterns and emotions, and I fail to see how these can preclude self-interest.

DAVID: I have said God does not create for self-entertainment. He creates to create not to satisfy Himself.

dhw: I have never used the pejorative term “entertainment”, but in any case, you are certain that he enjoys creating, and I don’t see why his enjoyment should preclude the possibility that he might have created things because he wanted the enjoyment of creating them.

DAVID: Thinking about God requires some guidelines if religious teachings are ignored. Adler, as a philosopher of religion does just that and I follow those guidelines he provides.

dhw: I know you do, but I’m afraid that doesn’t help you to explain theories which you yourself regard as inexplicable and which make no sense to you – since they ”make sense only to God”.

Of course, they make sense to God and I accept that. He can create in any say He wishes.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, August 11, 2022, 11:57 (595 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have agreed that the majority of extinct branches if life forms and ecosystems did NOT lead to us or our food.

DAVID: I don't know how you can claim I agreed. I have constantly said evolution is a continuum, and the past must lead to the future. All ecosystems have a role in feeding us.

dhw: You wrote: “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” (The block capitals were your own.) And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” Yes, evolution is a continuum which produced countless branches of diversified life forms and ecosystems long before humans came on the scene.

DAVID: You seem to follow my logic in those statements.

Of course I do. And it makes nonsense of your claim that “all ecosystems have a role in feeding us”, and every extinct life form and ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” for the production of us and our food.

dhw: (Why have you used the present tense in your last sentence?)

DAVID: I don't understand your question.

“Have a role” only relates to the present. It leaves out all the PAST systems which had NO role, although you claim they were all essential.

dhw: I must confess I find it hard to believe that you yourself now reject your above statements and believe your God designed every single PAST and extinct life form and food bush throughout 3.X billion pre-human years as an “absolute requirement” for himself to design the current us and our current food bush.

DAVID: I don't reject the statements, and don't know why you think that.

You agree in the above statements that the majority of extinct forms had no role to play in the production of us and our food, but you deny that you agree (“I don’t know how you can claim I agreed.”)

DAVID: Why can't you see a God in charge of creation creates exactly what He wishes for His own reasons.

dhw: I have always agreed. We simply disagree on what he created and why he created it.

DAVID: We can only try to interpret His reasons from that viewpoint. Therefore, it 'makes sense only to God' is a logical starting point.

dhw: The key word is “only”. Why do you assume that his reasons will not make sense to us?

DAVID: We cannot know His personal reasons but can analyze probable ones.

Agreed. But your analysis has produced reasons which do not make sense even to you, and I suggest that this rather reduces their probability.

DAVID: 'Thought and emotions' must be expressed allegorically which means not in any way equivalent to ours.

dhw: […] A couple of days ago, I asked how your God could have created love if he had no idea what love was. You replied:“For once you are thinking about God in a reasonable way. Of course, he knows love and every other emotion.” Please explain how his love is an “allegory”.

DAVID: Because He is a personage like no other human person.

How does that come to mean he has created love which does not actually mean love?

dhw: why do you think a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, wants our recognition and wants to have a relationship with us (all your terms) is less human than a fully purposeful God who enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, knows love and every other emotion, and experiments and/or tries out new ideas?

DAVID: Back to experimentation or changing course with new ideas. A purposeful God creates to determined endpoints He has identified. He is not a humanized God as you keep insisting.

dhw: I have included various thought patterns and emotions we have both listed, plus your God's very human desire for recognition and a relationship..... Unfortunately, your version has him incomprehensibly NOT pursuing his single purpose, because he spends 3.X billion years specially designing lots of different things that are not connected with his purpose, but in any case, why do you think your single-minded God is less human than my more open-minded God?

DAVID: They are connected as food supply, as you know. […]

The majority are NOT connected as food supply, as you have agreed above, and you have not answered my question: why do you think your single-minded God is less human than my more open-minded God?

DAVID: Thinking about God requires some guidelines if religious teachings are ignored. Adler, as a philosopher of religion does just that and I follow those guidelines he provides.

dhw: I know you do, but I’m afraid that doesn’t help you to explain theories which you yourself regard as inexplicable and which make no sense to you – since they ”make sense only to God”.

DAVID: Of course, they make sense to God and I accept that. He can create in any say He wishes.

Whatever may have been your God’s purpose and method would make sense to him, and of course he can create any way he wishes. However, the wishes and ways you impose on him make no sense to you or to me, and your love of Adler does not make your theories any more intelligible.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 11, 2022, 17:09 (595 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: (Why have you used the present tense in your last sentence?)

DAVID: I don't understand your question.

dhw: “Have a role” only relates to the present. It leaves out all the PAST systems which had NO role, although you claim they were all essential.

The past certainly has a role of producing the present.


dhw: I must confess I find it hard to believe that you yourself now reject your above statements and believe your God designed every single PAST and extinct life form and food bush throughout 3.X billion pre-human years as an “absolute requirement” for himself to design the current us and our current food bush.

DAVID: I don't reject the statements, and don't know why you think that.

dhw: You agree in the above statements that the majority of extinct forms had no role to play in the production of us and our food, but you deny that you agree (“I don’t know how you can claim I agreed.”)

Confused thinking. Past forms produced us and our food supply by evolving into us.


DAVID: We cannot know His personal reasons but can analyze probable ones.

dhw: Agreed. But your analysis has produced reasons which do not make sense even to you, and I suggest that this rather reduces their probability.

I accept what God did and you don't is the reason we debate. What I think about God makes sesne to me even if you can't accept it.


DAVID: 'Thought and emotions' must be expressed allegorically which means not in any way equivalent to ours.

dhw: […] A couple of days ago, I asked how your God could have created love if he had no idea what love was. You replied:“For once you are thinking about God in a reasonable way. Of course, he knows love and every other emotion.” Please explain how his love is an “allegory”.

DAVID: Because He is a personage like no other human person.

dhw: How does that come to mean he has created love which does not actually mean love?

Of course, He gave us the ability to love, but His personal form of love may differ from ours.


dhw: I have included various thought patterns and emotions we have both listed, plus your God's very human desire for recognition and a relationship..... Unfortunately, your version has him incomprehensibly NOT pursuing his single purpose, because he spends 3.X billion years specially designing lots of different things that are not connected with his purpose, but in any case, why do you think your single-minded God is less human than my more open-minded God?

DAVID: They are connected as food supply, as you know. […]

dhw: The majority are NOT connected as food supply, as you have agreed above, and you have not answered my question: why do you think your single-minded God is less human than my more open-minded God?

By describing your God as open-minded that means not clearly determined to follow His planned purposes as I view my verson of God who knows exactly what He wants to do and follows His plan without changing his mind.


DAVID: Thinking about God requires some guidelines if religious teachings are ignored. Adler, as a philosopher of religion does just that and I follow those guidelines he provides.

dhw: I know you do, but I’m afraid that doesn’t help you to explain theories which you yourself regard as inexplicable and which make no sense to you – since they ”make sense only to God”.

DAVID: Of course, they make sense to God and I accept that. He can create in any say He wishes.

dhw: Whatever may have been your God’s purpose and method would make sense to him, and of course he can create any way he wishes. However, the wishes and ways you impose on him make no sense to you or to me, and your love of Adler does not make your theories any more intelligible.

Not intelligent to yo9, but to Adler. His approach in proving God involves the study of evolution which produced us, by assuming God caused evolution and how it reached us under His control.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, August 12, 2022, 11:21 (595 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: (Why have you used the present tense in your last sentence?)

DAVID: I don't understand your question.

dhw: “Have a role” only relates to the present. It leaves out all the PAST systems which had NO role, although you claim they were all essential.

DAVID: The past certainly has a role of producing the present.
And
Past forms produced us and our food supply by evolving into us.

Of course it does/they did, in the form of those branches of evolution that led to us and our food. But your trick is to ignore all those past forms which did NOT evolve into us and our food, although you believe your God designed each and every one of them as preparation and indeed an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. So please stop dodging.

DAVID: We cannot know His personal reasons but can analyze probable ones.

dhw: Agreed. But your analysis has produced reasons which do not make sense even to you, and I suggest that this rather reduces their probability.

DAVID: I accept what God did and you don't is the reason we debate. What I think about God makes sesne to me even if you can't accept it.

Please stop pretending that your THEORY about what God did and why is what God did and why. You claim that he designed countless life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans plus food, although humans plus food were his only purpose. And you claim that he created some species with no precursors, and so you can’t understand why he created us in stages. You say that these theories “make sense only to God”, and that means they do not make sense to you. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: 'Thought and emotions' must be expressed allegorically which means not in any way equivalent to ours.

dhw: […] A couple of days ago, I asked how your God could have created love if he had no idea what love was. You replied:“For once you are thinking about God in a reasonable way. Of course, he knows love and every other emotion.” Please explain how his love is an “allegory”.

DAVID: Because He is a personage like no other human person.

dhw: How does that come to mean he has created love which does not actually mean love?

DAVID: Of course, He gave us the ability to love, but His personal form of love may differ from ours.

So are you saying that we invented a form of the emotion of love that he knew nothing about? Once more, if he knows love and every other emotion, what do you mean by love and every other emotion being “allegorical”?

dhw: I have included various thought patterns and emotions we have both listed, plus your God's very human desire for recognition and a relationship..... Unfortunately, your version has him incomprehensibly NOT pursuing his single purpose, because he spends 3.X billion years specially designing lots of different things that are not connected with his purpose, but in any case, why do you think your single-minded God is less human than my more open-minded God?

DAVID: By describing your God as open-minded that means not clearly determined to follow His planned purposes as I view my verson of God who knows exactly what He wants to do and follows His plan without changing his mind.

If his plan was to create the free-for-all which seems to characterize the incessant comings and goings of life’s history, he knew what he wanted to do and followed his plan. But in any case, why do you think a single-minded designer (don’t forget the manner in which you compared yourself to him when talking of design) is less human than an experimental scientist, or an artist coming up with new ideas as he goes along?

dhw: Whatever may have been your God’s purpose and method would make sense to him, and of course he can create any way he wishes. However, the wishes and ways you impose on him make no sense to you or to me, and your love of Adler does not make your theories any more intelligible.

DAVID: Not intelligent to you, but to Adler. His approach in proving God involves the study of evolution which produced us, by assuming God caused evolution and how it reached us under His control.

Intelligible – not intelligent. I’m sorry, but I can only repeat that if your theories of evolution “make sense only to God”, no amount of Adler worship is going to make them intelligible to anyone.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, August 12, 2022, 17:54 (594 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The past certainly has a role of producing the present.
And
Past forms produced us and our food supply by evolving into us.

dhw: Of course it does/they did, in the form of those branches of evolution that led to us and our food. But your trick is to ignore all those past forms which did NOT evolve into us and our food, although you believe your God designed each and every one of them as preparation and indeed an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. So please stop dodging.

My belief is not a dodge, but analyzes in a way you do not. All of evolution is God's designs and all of those branches which did not lead to us created the huge food supply we need now.


DAVID: I accept what God did and you don't is the reason we debate. What I think about God makes sense to me even if you can't accept it.

dhw: Please stop pretending that your THEORY about what God did and why is what God did and why. You claim that he designed countless life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with humans plus food, although humans plus food were his only purpose. And you claim that he created some species with no precursors, and so you can’t understand why he created us in stages. You say that these theories “make sense only to God”, and that means they do not make sense to you. Please stop dodging.

I observe what God did and accept it. I don't have to know His reasons, but you demand them!!! We are not supposed to understand God fully, remember.

dhw: How does that come to mean he has created love which does not actually mean love?

DAVID: Of course, He gave us the ability to love, but His personal form of love may differ from ours.

dhw: So are you saying that we invented a form of the emotion of love that he knew nothing about? Once more, if he knows love and every other emotion, what do you mean by love and every other emotion being “allegorical”?

Constant misinterpretation. God's form of His own emotion of love may parallel ours but may not be exactly like our form. Samo old allegory approach, of course. And God knows exactly about our form of love. Why did you pose that question?


dhw: I have included various thought patterns and emotions we have both listed, plus your God's very human desire for recognition and a relationship..... Unfortunately, your version has him incomprehensibly NOT pursuing his single purpose, because he spends 3.X billion years specially designing lots of different things that are not connected with his purpose, but in any case, why do you think your single-minded God is less human than my more open-minded God?

DAVID: By describing your God as open-minded that means not clearly determined to follow His planned purposes as I view my verson of God who knows exactly what He wants to do and follows His plan without changing his mind.

dhw: If his plan was to create the free-for-all which seems to characterize the incessant comings and goings of life’s history, he knew what he wanted to do and followed his plan. But in any case, why do you think a single-minded designer (don’t forget the manner in which you compared yourself to him when talking of design) is less human than an experimental scientist, or an artist coming up with new ideas as he goes along?

The comparison to humans shows immediately how you humanize God in your imagination.


dhw: Whatever may have been your God’s purpose and method would make sense to him, and of course he can create any way he wishes. However, the wishes and ways you impose on him make no sense to you or to me, and your love of Adler does not make your theories any more intelligible.

DAVID: Not intelligent to you, but to Adler. His approach in proving God involves the study of evolution which produced us, by assuming God caused evolution and how it reached us under His control.

dhw: Intelligible – not intelligent. I’m sorry, but I can only repeat that if your theories of evolution “make sense only to God”, no amount of Adler worship is going to make them intelligible to anyone.

Adler's works are highly respected world-wide. He advised the Catholic Church as a philosopher of religion!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, August 13, 2022, 08:12 (594 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The past certainly has a role of producing the present.
And
Past forms produced us and our food supply by evolving into us.

dhw: Of course it does/they did, in the form of those branches of evolution that led to us and our food. But your trick is to ignore all those past forms which did NOT evolve into us and our food, although you believe your God designed each and every one of them as preparation and indeed an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. So please stop dodging.

DAVID: My belief is not a dodge, but analyzes in a way you do not. All of evolution is God's designs and all of those branches which did not lead to us created the huge food supply we need now.

So your God deliberately designed every single form of life and every econiche throughout 3.X billion years to lead either to us to our food bush, although “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life [which formed the bushes of the past for the past] has no role in current time”. And you have no idea why your all-powerful, all-purposeful God was unable to design his only goal (us and our food) without all these countless precursors, even though apparently he was perfectly capable of designing species without precursors. And your theories make sense only to God, i.e. not to you.


DAVID: I observe what God did and accept it. I don't have to know His reasons, but you demand them!!! We are not supposed to understand God fully, remember.

Same as usual. You accept your THEORIES about what God did, and why he did it, and your theories don’t make sense to you.

dhw: How does that ["allegorical love"] come to mean he has created love which does not actually mean love?

DAVID: Of course, He gave us the ability to love, but His personal form of love may differ from ours.

dhw: So are you saying that we invented a form of the emotion of love that he knew nothing about? Once more, if he knows love and every other emotion, what do you mean by love and every other emotion being “allegorical”?

DAVID: Constant misinterpretation. God's form of His own emotion of love may parallel ours but may not be exactly like our form. Samo old allegory approach, of course. And God knows exactly about our form of love. Why did you pose that question?

I want to know what you mean by “allegorical”. You agree that a Creator could have endowed us with emotions and thought patterns of his own, offer us a vision of God which includes just such emotions and patterns, complain if I do the same, and come up with “allegorical” emotion, which you then refuse to define.

dhw: […] why do you think a single-minded designer (don’t forget the manner in which you compared yourself to him when talking of design) is less human than an experimental scientist, or an artist coming up with new ideas as he goes along?

DAVID: The comparison to humans shows immediately how you humanize God in your imagination.

You dismissed my proposal that God may have enabled cells to do their own designing as “secondhand” design, and called on your own experience as a designer (much better to do it yourself). Wouldn't you call this "humanizing", and why is is less humanizing than a God who enables organisms to do their own designing, just as he enables humans to do their own designing?

Adler

dhw: […] if your theories of evolution “make sense only to God”, no amount of Adler worship is going to make them intelligible to anyone.

DAVID: Adler's works are highly respected world-wide. He advised the Catholic Church as a philosopher of religion!!!

I am not discussing Adler’s importance. I am discussing your theories, which by your own admission “make sense only to God”. That means even Adler would not have understood them – and I doubt if he even knew about those we have been discussing on this thread, since you always emphasize that his work is dedicated to the importance of humans as evidence for the existence of God and does NOT cover those theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 13, 2022, 18:25 (593 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My belief is not a dodge, but analyzes in a way you do not. All of evolution is God's designs and all of those branches which did not lead to us created the huge food supply we need now.

dhw: So your God deliberately designed every single form of life and every econiche throughout 3.X billion years to lead either to us to our food bush, although “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life [which formed the bushes of the past for the past] has no role in current time”. And you have no idea why your all-powerful, all-purposeful God was unable to design his only goal (us and our food) without all these countless precursors, even though apparently he was perfectly capable of designing species without precursors. And your theories make sense only to God, i.e. not to you.

This statement of yours shows how strangely you view God. I view all-powerful, all-purposeful God as knowing exactly what He has to do and wishes to do to produce humans. And the current history of evolution is that exact result. You are simply second=guessing God with your human mind. I don't do that as I try to analyze God's works.>


dhw: Same as usual. You accept your THEORIES about what God did, and why he did it, and your theories don’t make sense to you.

Your psychoanalysis of me is wrong. My theories make sense to me, if not to you.


DAVID: Constant misinterpretation. God's form of His own emotion of love may parallel ours but may not be exactly like our form. Samo old allegory approach, of course. And God knows exactly about our form of love. Why did you pose that question?

dhw: I want to know what you mean by “allegorical”. You agree that a Creator could have endowed us with emotions and thought patterns of his own, offer us a vision of God which includes just such emotions and patterns, complain if I do the same, and come up with “allegorical” emotion, which you then refuse to define.

I have defined it. When we say God loves, His form of love is His personal form of love, and we cannot know how it resembles ours


dhw: […] why do you think a single-minded designer (don’t forget the manner in which you compared yourself to him when talking of design) is less human than an experimental scientist, or an artist coming up with new ideas as he goes along?

DAVID: The comparison to humans shows immediately how you humanize God in your imagination.

dhw: You dismissed my proposal that God may have enabled cells to do their own designing as “secondhand” design, and called on your own experience as a designer (much better to do it yourself). Wouldn't you call this "humanizing", and why is is less humanizing than a God who enables organisms to do their own designing, just as he enables humans to do their own designing?

Of course, God has human attributes, as shown by human purposes and God's purposes. We design at our level and He a this. Has any human created life? How could living cells change a form of life?


Adler

dhw: […] if your theories of evolution “make sense only to God”, no amount of Adler worship is going to make them intelligible to anyone.

DAVID: Adler's works are highly respected world-wide. He advised the Catholic Church as a philosopher of religion!!!

dhw: I am not discussing Adler’s importance. I am discussing your theories, which by your own admission “make sense only to God”. That means even Adler would not have understood them – and I doubt if he even knew about those we have been discussing on this thread, since you always emphasize that his work is dedicated to the importance of humans as evidence for the existence of God and does NOT cover those theories.

Adler would agree God's reasons make sense to God, but we are not privy to them. He analyzes as I do. Without reading his instruction book "How to think about God", from my secondhand comments about him, your still know nothing about him. You have no knowledge how a philosopher of religion approaches the issue of thinking about God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, August 14, 2022, 10:36 (593 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My belief is not a dodge, but analyzes in a way you do not. All of evolution is God's designs and all of those branches which did not lead to us created the huge food supply we need now.

dhw: So your God deliberately designed every single form of life and every econiche throughout 3.X billion years to lead either to us to our food bush, although “the current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life [which formed the bushes of the past for the past] has no role in current time”. And you have no idea why your all-powerful, all-purposeful God was unable to design his only goal (us and our food) without all these countless precursors, even though apparently he was perfectly capable of designing species without precursors. And your theories make sense only to God, i.e. not to you.

DAVID: This statement of yours shows how strangely you view God. I view all-powerful, all-purposeful God as knowing exactly what He has to do and wishes to do to produce humans. And the current history of evolution is that exact result. You are simply second=guessing God with your human mind. I don't do that as I try to analyze God's works.>

I am not “second-guessing God”. I am looking at your human mind’s analysis of his works (if he exists), pointing out the illogicality of your analysis as summarized above, and reminding you of the fact that you yourself have said that these theories make sense only to God, which means they do not make sense to you!
.
DAVID: Your psychoanalysis of me is wrong. My theories make sense to me, if not to you.

How can they possibly make sense to you if they make sense only to God?

DAVID: Constant misinterpretation. God's form of His own emotion of love may parallel ours but may not be exactly like our form. Samo old allegory approach, of course. And God knows exactly about our form of love. Why did you pose that question?

dhw: I want to know what you mean by “allegorical”. […]

DAVID: I have defined it. When we say God loves, His form of love is His personal form of love, and we cannot know how it resembles ours.

We can’t “know” anything about God, including his very existence. It is therefore plainly absurd to argue that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, but they can’t possibly be like ours - e.g. enjoyment of experimenting, getting new ideas etc. - unless you approve of them - e.g. enjoyment of creating, interest in his creations, desire for recognition and for a relationship with us, although the first two of these apparently can’t possibly be part of his purpose for creating life.

dhw: You dismissed my proposal that God may have enabled cells to do their own designing as “secondhand” design, and called on your own experience as a designer (much better to do it yourself). Wouldn't you call this "humanizing", and why is is less humanizing than a God who enables organisms to do their own designing, just as he enables humans to do their own designing?

DAVID: Of course, God has human attributes, as shown by human purposes and God's purposes. We design at our level and He a this. Has any human created life? How could living cells change a form of life?

Thank you for once more agreeing that he has human attributes. So please stop dismissing logical theistic theories solely on the grounds that they “humanize” him. In answer to your questions: no human has created life. How does that come to mean that God could not have experimented, come up with new ideas, created a free-for-all? Still adopting a theistic approach, living cells could change their OWN forms if your God gave them the ability to do so.

Adler
DAVID: Adler's works are highly respected world-wide. He advised the Catholic Church as a philosopher of religion!!!

dhw: I am not discussing Adler’s importance. I am discussing your theories, which by your own admission “make sense only to God”. That means even Adler would not have understood them – and I doubt if he even knew about those we have been discussing on this thread, since you always emphasize that his work is dedicated to the importance of humans as evidence for the existence of God and does NOT cover those theories.

DAVID: Adler would agree God's reasons make sense to God but we are not privy to them.

So presumably Adler would agree that your theories of evolution, which do not make sense to you (they make sense ONLY to God), would not make sense to him either.

DAVID: He analyzes as I do. Without reading his instruction book "How to think about God", from my secondhand comments about him, your still know nothing about him. You have no knowledge how a philosopher of religion approaches the issue of thinking about God.

If you can’t find any sense in your own theories, please don’t try to defend them by giving me a reading list.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 14, 2022, 16:05 (592 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: This statement of yours shows how strangely you view God. I view all-powerful, all-purposeful God as knowing exactly what He has to do and wishes to do to produce humans. And the current history of evolution is that exact result. You are simply second=guessing God with your human mind. I don't do that as I try to analyze God's works.>

dhw: I am not “second-guessing God”. I am looking at your human mind’s analysis of his works (if he exists), pointing out the illogicality of your analysis as summarized above, and reminding you of the fact that you yourself have said that these theories make sense only to God, which means they do not make sense to you!
.
DAVID: Your psychoanalysis of me is wrong. My theories make sense to me, if not to you.

dhw: How can they possibly make sense to you if they make sense only to God?

I guess I'm happy and feel at home to illogical beliefs.


DAVID: Constant misinterpretation. God's form of His own emotion of love may parallel ours but may not be exactly like our form. Samo old allegory approach, of course. And God knows exactly about our form of love. Why did you pose that question?

dhw: I want to know what you mean by “allegorical”. […]

DAVID: I have defined it. When we say God loves, His form of love is His personal form of love, and we cannot know how it resembles ours.

dhw: We can’t “know” anything about God, including his very existence. It is therefore plainly absurd to argue that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, but they can’t possibly be like ours - e.g. enjoyment of experimenting, getting new ideas etc. - unless you approve of them - e.g. enjoyment of creating, interest in his creations, desire for recognition and for a relationship with us, although the first two of these apparently can’t possibly be part of his purpose for creating life.

Back you go to humanizing God.


dhw: You dismissed my proposal that God may have enabled cells to do their own designing as “secondhand” design, and called on your own experience as a designer (much better to do it yourself). Wouldn't you call this "humanizing", and why is is less humanizing than a God who enables organisms to do their own designing, just as he enables humans to do their own designing?

DAVID: Of course, God has human attributes, as shown by human purposes and God's purposes. We design at our level and He at his. Has any human created life? How could living cells change a form of life?

dhw: Thank you for once more agreeing that he has human attributes. So please stop dismissing logical theistic theories solely on the grounds that they “humanize” him. In answer to your questions: no human has created life. How does that come to mean that God could not have experimented, come up with new ideas, created a free-for-all? Still adopting a theistic approach, living cells could change their OWN forms if your God gave them the ability to do so.

God did give cellls some form change, but not speciation abilities.


Adler
DAVID: Adler's works are highly respected world-wide. He advised the Catholic Church as a philosopher of religion!!!

dhw: I am not discussing Adler’s importance. I am discussing your theories, which by your own admission “make sense only to God”. That means even Adler would not have understood them – and I doubt if he even knew about those we have been discussing on this thread, since you always emphasize that his work is dedicated to the importance of humans as evidence for the existence of God and does NOT cover those theories.

DAVID: Adler would agree God's reasons make sense to God but we are not privy to them.

dhw: So presumably Adler would agree that your theories of evolution, which do not make sense to you (they make sense ONLY to God), would not make sense to him either.

DAVID: He analyzes as I do. Without reading his instruction book "How to think about God", from my secondhand comments about him, your still know nothing about him. You have no knowledge how a philosopher of religion approaches the issue of thinking about God.

dhw: If you can’t find any sense in your own theories, please don’t try to defend them by giving me a reading list.

I'll stick with God's reasons for choosing to evolve us instead of directly creating us, are due to His own private reasons we cannot know. I'm sorry that fact disturbs you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, August 15, 2022, 08:15 (592 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: This statement of yours shows how strangely you view God. I view all-powerful, all-purposeful God as knowing exactly what He has to do and wishes to do to produce humans. And the current history of evolution is that exact result. You are simply second=guessing God with your human mind. I don't do that as I try to analyze God's works.>

dhw: I am not “second-guessing God”. I am looking at your human mind’s analysis of his works (if he exists), pointing out the illogicality of your analysis as summarized above, and reminding you of the fact that you yourself have said that these theories make sense only to God, which means they do not make sense to you!

DAVID: Your psychoanalysis of me is wrong. My theories make sense to me, if not to you.

dhw: How can they possibly make sense to you if they make sense only to God?

DAVID: I guess I'm happy and feel at home to illogical beliefs.

Thank you for this honest admission. I’ll note it for future reference whenever you claim that your illogical theories make sense to you!

DAVID: […] When we say God loves, His form of love is His personal form of love, and we cannot know how it resembles ours.

dhw: We can’t “know” anything about God, including his very existence. It is therefore plainly absurd to argue that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, but they can’t possibly be like ours - e.g. enjoyment of experimenting, getting new ideas etc. - unless you approve of them - e.g. enjoyment of creating, interest in his creations, desire for recognition and for a relationship with us, although the first two of these apparently can’t possibly be part of his purpose for creating life.

DAVID: Back you go to humanizing God.

The second “e.g.” lists YOUR humanizations of your God at various times! But you can’t see that your guesses are just as humanizing as mine! And why not, since it is perfectly feasible that the creation could mirror aspects of the creator.

DAVID: Of course, God has human attributes, as shown by human purposes and God's purposes. We design at our level and He at his. Has any human created life? How could living cells change a form of life?

dhw: Thank you for once more agreeing that he has human attributes. So please stop dismissing logical theistic theories solely on the grounds that they “humanize” him. In answer to your questions: no human has created life. How does that come to mean that God could not have experimented, come up with new ideas, created a free-for-all? Still adopting a theistic approach, living cells could change their OWN forms if your God gave them the ability to do so.

DAVID: God did give cells some form change, but not speciation abilities.

How do you know?

Adler

DAVID: Adler would agree God's reasons make sense to God but we are not privy to them.

dhw: So presumably Adler would agree that your theories of evolution, which do not make sense to you (they make sense ONLY to God), would not make sense to him either.

DAVID: He analyzes as I do. Without reading his instruction book "How to think about God", from my secondhand comments about him, your still know nothing about him. You have no knowledge how a philosopher of religion approaches the issue of thinking about God.

dhw: If you can’t find any sense in your own theories, please don’t try to defend them by giving me a reading list.

DAVID: I'll stick with God's reasons for choosing to evolve us instead of directly creating us, are due to His own private reasons we cannot know. I'm sorry that fact disturbs you.

It is not even a fact that God exists, let alone that his one and only purpose was to create us and our food, or that in order to do so he created countless other life forms unconnected with us and our food, or that he created some species without precursors. You agree that your theories don’t make sense to you, so please stick to “feeling at home to illogical beliefs” and don’t pretend that they will make sense if I read Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, August 15, 2022, 17:54 (591 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your psychoanalysis of me is wrong. My theories make sense to me, if not to you.

dhw: How can they possibly make sense to you if they make sense only to God?

DAVID: I guess I'm happy and feel at home to illogical beliefs.

dhw: Thank you for this honest admission. I’ll note it for future reference whenever you claim that your illogical theories make sense to you!

That was a 'tongue in cheek' comment. My view of God is perfectly logical.

DAVID: Back you go to humanizing God.

dhw: The second “e.g.” lists YOUR humanizations of your God at various times! But you can’t see that your guesses are just as humanizing as mine! And why not, since it is perfectly feasible that the creation could mirror aspects of the creator.

Yes, we are both humans imagining a God. but my God is highly purposeful and direct in producing His creations by evolutionary processes. By comparison, yours experiments, changes His mind and direction and enjoys watching a free-for-all advance evolution. Two very different forms of God.


DAVID: God did give cells some form change, but not speciation abilities.

dhw: How do you know?

I'll stick with current known facts of what cells can do to change.


Adler

DAVID: Adler would agree God's reasons make sense to God but we are not privy to them.

dhw: So presumably Adler would agree that your theories of evolution, which do not make sense to you (they make sense ONLY to God), would not make sense to him either.

DAVID: He analyzes as I do. Without reading his instruction book "How to think about God", from my secondhand comments about him, your still know nothing about him. You have no knowledge how a philosopher of religion approaches the issue of thinking about God.

dhw: If you can’t find any sense in your own theories, please don’t try to defend them by giving me a reading list.

DAVID: I'll stick with God's reasons for choosing to evolve us instead of directly creating us, are due to His own private reasons we cannot know. I'm sorry that fact disturbs you.

dhw: It is not even a fact that God exists, let alone that his one and only purpose was to create us and our food, or that in order to do so he created countless other life forms unconnected with us and our food, or that he created some species without precursors. You agree that your theories don’t make sense to you, so please stick to “feeling at home to illogical beliefs” and don’t pretend that they will make sense if I read Adler.

Adler and I both agree our theories are logical. WE have every right to analyze God's works as we do.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 08:59 (591 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My view of God is perfectly logical.

I don’t know what “view” you are referring to. It is your theories of evolution which “make sense only to God”, so how can they possibly be “perfectly logical” if they don’t make sense to you?

dhw: It is […] plainly absurd to argue that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, but they can’t possibly be like ours - e.g. enjoyment of experimenting, getting new ideas etc. - unless you approve of them - e.g. enjoyment of creating, interest in his creations, desire for recognition and for a relationship with us, although the first two of these apparently can’t possibly be part of his purpose for creating life.

DAVID: Back you go to humanizing God.

dhw: The second “e.g.” lists YOUR humanizations of your God at various times! But you can’t see that your guesses are just as humanizing as mine! And why not, since it is perfectly feasible that the creation could mirror aspects of the creator.

DAVID: Yes, we are both humans imagining a God. but my God is highly purposeful and direct in producing His creations by evolutionary processes. By comparison, yours experiments, changes His mind and direction and enjoys watching a free-for-all advance evolution. Two very different forms of God.

Not “and enjoys” but “or” – these are alternative theories. We agree that if God exists, he used the process of evolution to produce the history of life as we know it. And we agree that he would have had a purpose in doing so. However, your highly purposeful God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus food, but for reasons you cannot think of, he focused first on individually designing countless life forms, foods, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the majority of which did not lead to humans plus food. You agree that experimentation and/or new ideas would provide logical explanations for this apparent anomaly, but you dismiss both explanations because they “humanize” God, although your God is just as “humanized” as my alternatives. The free-for-all is highly purposeful, in keeping with your own belief that your God is capable of enjoyment, and is interested in the results of his work.

DAVID: God did give cells some form change, but not speciation abilities.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: I'll stick with current known facts of what cells can do to change.

Since you are a stickler for known facts, please tell us what known facts support your belief in a divine, 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, or endless divine operations on and courses for endless numbers of organisms from bacteria through to H. sapiens.

Why sex evolved: clues in Archaea

DAVID: It is generally considered that Archaea are the oldest form of life. That they carry the genes and protein for sexual fusion fits with my theory that most of the information for future functions existed in the first living DNA. This fits my form of God, who knows exactly what He wants, makes plans from the beginning, and sets an exact unchanging course. Compare that with dhw's humanized form of God who experiments, changes His mind, and allows free-for-all advances in evolution.

Again, not “and” allows but “or”. Here we have yet more evidence of common descent, but what “exact unchanging course” are you talking about? How does the origin of sex support your claim that (a) your God personally designed every single life form that descended from archaea, or (b) that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food, although the vast majority had no connection with H. sapiens plus food? You always leave out the elements of your evolutionary theory that make no sense even to you.

Adler

DAVID: Adler and I both agree our theories are logical. WE have every right to analyze God's works as we do.

You keep telling me that Adler does not cover your theories of evolution, and it is the argument for design via the uniqueness of humans that you agree on. Your other theories “make sense only to God”, so how could Adler agree that they are logical? But of course you have every right to analyse and believe whatever you choose to analyse and believe. I only object to your claim that your theories are logical and make sense to you, while in the same breath you tell us that you cannot know your God’s reasons, and your theories “make sense only to God”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 16, 2022, 18:02 (590 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My view of God is perfectly logical.

DAVID: Yes, we are both humans imagining a God. but my God is highly purposeful and direct in producing His creations by evolutionary processes. By comparison, yours experiments, changes His mind and direction and enjoys watching a free-for-all advance evolution. Two very different forms of God.

dhw: Not “and enjoys” but “or” – these are alternative theories. We agree that if God exists, he used the process of evolution to produce the history of life as we know it. And we agree that he would have had a purpose in doing so. However, your highly purposeful God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus food, but for reasons you cannot think of, he focused first on individually designing countless life forms, foods, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the majority of which did not lead to humans plus food.

The bold is exactly my point. All of the current bush supplies our food for our huge population.

dhw: You agree that experimentation and/or new ideas would provide logical explanations for this apparent anomaly, but you dismiss both explanations because they “humanize” God, although your God is just as “humanized” as my alternatives. The free-for-all is highly purposeful, in keeping with your own belief that your God is capable of enjoyment, and is interested in the results of his work.

We each describe different Gods, with human terms. Don't try to make them look alike, as above. They differ wsidely.


DAVID: God did give cells some form change, but not speciation abilities.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: I'll stick with current known facts of what cells can do to change.

dhw: Since you are a stickler for known facts, please tell us what known facts support your belief in a divine, 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, or endless divine operations on and courses for endless numbers of organisms from bacteria through to H. sapiens.

I have known facts about cells. We are discussing the here and now, not the devine. Plese stick to the subject,


Why sex evolved: clues in Archaea

DAVID: It is generally considered that Archaea are the oldest form of life. That they carry the genes and protein for sexual fusion fits with my theory that most of the information for future functions existed in the first living DNA. This fits my form of God, who knows exactly what He wants, makes plans from the beginning, and sets an exact unchanging course. Compare that with dhw's humanized form of God who experiments, changes His mind, and allows free-for-all advances in evolution.

dhw: Again, not “and” allows but “or”. Here we have yet more evidence of common descent, but what “exact unchanging course” are you talking about? How does the origin of sex support your claim that (a) your God personally designed every single life form that descended from archaea, or (b) that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food, although the vast majority had no connection with H. sapiens plus food? You always leave out the elements of your evolutionary theory that make no sense even to you.

It makes sense as food forr us now. You never answer that point!!


Adler

DAVID: Adler and I both agree our theories are logical. WE have every right to analyze God's works as we do.

dhw: You keep telling me that Adler does not cover your theories of evolution, and it is the argument for design via the uniqueness of humans that you agree on. Your other theories “make sense only to God”, so how could Adler agree that they are logical? But of course you have every right to analyse and believe whatever you choose to analyse and believe. I only object to your claim that your theories are logical and make sense to you, while in the same breath you tell us that you cannot know your God’s reasons, and your theories “make sense only to God”.

That paragraph shows exactly how differ in how to think about God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, August 17, 2022, 11:15 (590 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We agree that if God exists, he used the process of evolution to produce the history of life as we know it. And we agree that he would have had a purpose in doing so. However, your highly purposeful God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus food, but for reasons you cannot think of, he focused first on individually designing countless life forms, foods, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., the majority of which did not lead to humans plus food.

DAVID: The bold is exactly my point. All of the current bush supplies our food for our huge population.

Yes, the current bush supplies our food, and as you said yourself, past bushes supplied food for past forms of life, and the majority of these had no connection with us and our food, which makes nonsense of the theory that your God designed every extinct life form and bush, all of which were preparation and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

dhw: You agree that experimentation and/or new ideas would provide logical explanations for this apparent anomaly, but you dismiss both explanations because they “humanize” God, although your God is just as “humanized” as my alternatives. The free-for-all is highly purposeful, in keeping with your own belief that your God is capable of enjoyment, and is interested in the results of his work.

DAVID: We each describe different Gods, with human terms. Don't try to make them look alike, as above. They differ widely.

Of course they are different. That is the whole point! The one you describe has a purpose and method which, when combined, make no sense to you (your theories of evolution “make sense only to God”), whereas you find my various alternatives perfectly logical, but dismiss them because – just like yours – they use “human terms”!

DAVID: God did give cells some form change, but not speciation abilities.

dhw: How do you know?

DAVID: I'll stick with current known facts of what cells can do to change.

dhw: Since you are a stickler for known facts, please tell us what known facts support your belief in a divine, 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, or endless divine operations on and courses for endless numbers of organisms from bacteria through to H. sapiens.

DAVID: I have known facts about cells. We are discussing the here and now, not the devine. Please stick to the subject.

The subject is your theory of evolution. You dismiss the theory of cellular intelligence because you claim there are no known facts to support it. I am pointing out that there are no known facts to support your own theories (see above), so why don’t you dismiss them too?

Why sex evolved: clues in Archaea

DAVID: […] This fits my form of God, who knows exactly what He wants, makes plans from the beginning, and sets an exact unchanging course. Compare that with dhw's humanized form of God who experiments, changes His mind, and allows free-for-all advances in evolution.

dhw: [...]Here we have yet more evidence of common descent, but what “exact unchanging course” are you talking about? How does the origin of sex support your claim that (a) your God personally designed every single life form that descended from archaea, or (b) that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food, although the vast majority had no connection with H. sapiens plus food? You always leave out the elements of your evolutionary theory that make no sense even to you.

DAVID: It makes sense as food for us now. You never answer that point!!

As above, I keep answering that point by repeating your own statement that past food bushes were for the past and extinct life has no role to play in current life. When will you stop dodging?

Adler

DAVID: Adler and I both agree our theories are logical. WE have every right to analyze God's works as we do.

dhw: You keep telling me that Adler does not cover your theories of evolution, and it is the argument for design via the uniqueness of humans that you agree on. Your other theories “make sense only to God”, so how could Adler agree that they are logical? But of course you have every right to analyse and believe whatever you choose to analyse and believe. I only object to your claim that your theories are logical and make sense to you, while in the same breath you tell us that you cannot know your God’s reasons, and your theories “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: That paragraph shows exactly how differ in how to think about God.

It certainly does. We agree that nobody can possibly “know” his purposes and nature (or even whether he exists or not). However, you present him as acting in a manner that makes no sense to you or me, whereas I see him as a being whose purposes and actions – as presented in different alternatives – seem perfectly logical to both of us.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 17, 2022, 18:52 (589 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bold is exactly my point. All of the current bush supplies our food for our huge population.

dhw: Yes, the current bush supplies our food, and as you said yourself, past bushes supplied food for past forms of life, and the majority of these had no connection with us and our food, which makes nonsense of the theory that your God designed every extinct life form and bush, all of which were preparation and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

Evolution developed a hugh bush of food as you describe. How did it get so hugh if the past didn't happen? Your objection makes no sense.


DAVID: We each describe different Gods, with human terms. Don't try to make them look alike, as above. They differ widely.

dhw: Of course they are different. That is the whole point! The one you describe has a purpose and method which, when combined, make no sense to you (your theories of evolution “make sense only to God”), whereas you find my various alternatives perfectly logical, but dismiss them because – just like yours – they use “human terms”!

You've never understood How I view your God. I grant His very human form, but only then do your proposals make sense. My God makes perfect sense to me if not to you. You seem to think
I cannot think logicaly, and only you can.

dhw: Since you are a stickler for known facts, please tell us what known facts support your belief in a divine, 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, or endless divine operations on and courses for endless numbers of organisms from bacteria through to H. sapiens.

DAVID: I have known facts about cells. We are discussing the here and now, not the devine. Please stick to the subject.

dhw: The subject is your theory of evolution. You dismiss the theory of cellular intelligence because you claim there are no known facts to support it. I am pointing out that there are no known facts to support your own theories (see above), so why don’t you dismiss them too?

I'll stick to my theories, and you can stick to yours.


Why sex evolved: clues in Archaea

DAVID: […] This fits my form of God, who knows exactly what He wants, makes plans from the beginning, and sets an exact unchanging course. Compare that with dhw's humanized form of God who experiments, changes His mind, and allows free-for-all advances in evolution.

dhw: [...]Here we have yet more evidence of common descent, but what “exact unchanging course” are you talking about? How does the origin of sex support your claim that (a) your God personally designed every single life form that descended from archaea, or (b) that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food, although the vast majority had no connection with H. sapiens plus food? You always leave out the elements of your evolutionary theory that make no sense even to you.

DAVID: It makes sense as food for us now. You never answer that point!!

dhw: As above, I keep answering that point by repeating your own statement that past food bushes were for the past and extinct life has no role to play in current life. When will you stop dodging?

Your constant dodge is the past has no place in the present. Totally illogical.


Adler

DAVID: Adler and I both agree our theories are logical. WE have every right to analyze God's works as we do.

dhw: You keep telling me that Adler does not cover your theories of evolution, and it is the argument for design via the uniqueness of humans that you agree on. Your other theories “make sense only to God”, so how could Adler agree that they are logical? But of course you have every right to analyse and believe whatever you choose to analyse and believe. I only object to your claim that your theories are logical and make sense to you, while in the same breath you tell us that you cannot know your God’s reasons, and your theories “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: That paragraph shows exactly how we differ in how to think about God.

dhw: It certainly does. We agree that nobody can possibly “know” his purposes and nature (or even whether he exists or not). However, you present him as acting in a manner that makes no sense to you or me, whereas I see him as a being whose purposes and actions – as presented in different alternatives – seem perfectly logical to both of us.

I'll try again: You've never understood How I view your God. I grant His very human form, but only then do your proposals make sense. My God makes perfect sense to me if not to you. You seem to think I cannot think logically, and only you can.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, August 18, 2022, 13:06 (588 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All of the current bush supplies our food for our huge population.

dhw: Yes, the current bush supplies our food, and as you said yourself, past bushes supplied food for past forms of life, and the majority of these had no connection with us and our food, which makes nonsense of the theory that your God designed every extinct life form and bush, all of which were preparation and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

DAVID: Evolution developed a hugh bush of food as you describe. How did it get so hugh if the past didn't happen? Your objection makes no sense.
And later:
DAVID: Your constant dodge is the past has no place in the present. Totally illogical.

Where, oh where have you found a statement to the effect that the past didn’t happen??? The past contained some branches that led to us and our food, but it also contained countless branches that did NOT lead to us and our food. It is therefore illogical to say that your God designed every single branch as preparation and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

DAVID: We each describe different Gods, with human terms. Don't try to make them look alike, as above. They differ widely.

dhw: Of course they are different. That is the whole point! The one you describe has a purpose and method which, when combined, make no sense to you (your theories of evolution “make sense only to God”), whereas you find my various alternatives perfectly logical, but dismiss them because – just like yours – they use “human terms”!

DAVID: You've never understood How I view your God. I grant His very human form, but only then do your proposals make sense.

Thank you for granting his very human form and for agreeing that my proposals make sense.

DAVID: My God makes perfect sense to me if not to you. You seem to think I cannot think logically, and only you can.

But your very human God’s actions do not make sense to you, because your theories concerning his purpose and method of achieving that purpose “make sense only to God”. You think extremely logically when you argue the case for design, but you explicitly turn your back on logic when you propose a theory which you yourself cannot explain.

dhw: Since you are a stickler for known facts, please tell us what known facts support your belief in a divine, 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, or endless divine operations on and courses for endless numbers of organisms from bacteria through to H. sapiens.

DAVID: I have known facts about cells. We are discussing the here and now, not the devine. Please stick to the subject.

dhw: The subject is your theory of evolution. You dismiss the theory of cellular intelligence because you claim there are no known facts to support it. I am pointing out that there are no known facts to support your own theories (see above), so why don’t you dismiss them too?

DAVID: I'll stick to my theories, and you can stick to yours.

As you have every right to do. But please don’t dismiss mine on the grounds that there are no known facts to support my theories, when the same criticism can be levelled at your own.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 18, 2022, 17:22 (588 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All of the current bush supplies our food for our huge population.

dhw: Yes, the current bush supplies our food, and as you said yourself, past bushes supplied food for past forms of life, and the majority of these had no connection with us and our food, which makes nonsense of the theory that your God designed every extinct life form and bush, all of which were preparation and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

DAVID: Evolution developed a hugh bush of food as you describe. How did it get so hugh if the past didn't happen? Your objection makes no sense.
And later:
DAVID: Your constant dodge is the past has no place in the present. Totally illogical.

dhw: Where, oh where have you found a statement to the effect that the past didn’t happen???

I simply said the past leads to the future as you admit:

dhw: The past contained some branches that led to us and our food, but it also contained countless branches that did NOT lead to us and our food.

Opposite my contention that the entire set of ecosystems on Earth are interconnected and required for our food.


DAVID: You've never understood How I view your God. I grant His very human form, but only then do your proposals make sense.

dhw: Thank you for granting his very human form and for agreeing that my proposals make sense.

You are welcome


DAVID: My God makes perfect sense to me if not to you. You seem to think I cannot think logically, and only you can.

dhw: But your very human God’s actions do not make sense to you, because your theories concerning his purpose and method of achieving that purpose “make sense only to God”. You think extremely logically when you argue the case for design, but you explicitly turn your back on logic when you propose a theory which you yourself cannot explain.

My very purposeful God is not at all human although He has logical thought and in His own special way has our emotions of love and enjoyment.


dhw: The subject is your theory of evolution. You dismiss the theory of cellular intelligence because you claim there are no known facts to support it. I am pointing out that there are no known facts to support your own theories (see above), so why don’t you dismiss them too?

DAVID: I'll stick to my theories, and you can stick to yours.

dhw: As you have every right to do. But please don’t dismiss mine on the grounds that there are no known facts to support my theories, when the same criticism can be levelled at your own.

The cell intelligence theory is based purely on hyperbolic descriptions of cells actions. Since DNA is a recognized code and the whole genome is seen as a multilayer of controls, the instructions/information in DNA simply run the processes in the cell.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, August 19, 2022, 08:31 (588 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All of the current bush supplies our food for our huge population.

dhw: Yes, the current bush supplies our food, and as you said yourself, past bushes supplied food for past forms of life, and the majority of these had no connection with us and our food, which makes nonsense of the theory that your God designed every extinct life form and bush, all of which were preparation and an “absolute requirement” for us and our food!

DAVID: Evolution developed a hugh bush of food as you describe. How did it get so hugh if the past didn't happen? Your objection makes no sense.
And later:
DAVID: Your constant dodge is the past has no place in the present. Totally illogical.

dhw: Where, oh where have you found a statement to the effect that the past didn’t happen???

DAVID: I simply said the past leads to the future as you admit:

Where have I said the past didn’t happen? Of course the past leads to the future. That is the nature of time! But in the context of evolution:

dhw: The past contained some branches that led to us and our food, but it also contained countless branches that did NOT lead to us and our food.

DAVID: Opposite my contention that the entire set of ecosystems on Earth are interconnected and required for our food.

Once again, you are using the present tense (are interconnected), whereas we are talking about the entire set of ecosystems that existed before we did. Some of them did lead to us and our food supply, but the problem you keep dodging is why your God created all those extinct ecosystems and life forms that did not lead to us, although you believe his only purpose was to create us and our food supply.

DAVID: You've never understood How I view your God. I grant His very human form, but only then do your proposals make sense.

dhw: Thank you for granting his very human form and for agreeing that my proposals make sense.

You are welcome.

That should mark the end of your campaign against my alternative theories on the grounds that they “humanize” God.

DAVID: My God makes perfect sense to me if not to you. You seem to think I cannot think logically, and only you can.

dhw: But your very human God’s actions do not make sense to you, because your theories concerning his purpose and method of achieving that purpose “make sense only to God”. You think extremely logically when you argue the case for design, but you explicitly turn your back on logic when you propose a theory which you yourself cannot explain.

DAVID: My very purposeful God is not at all human although He has logical thought and in His own special way has our emotions of love and enjoyment.

We agree that he is purposeful. You "grant his human form" (by which I presume you mean his human attributes) and the fact that he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours, you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”, and in fact back in March 2020 you actually stated: “we can only know His logic is like ours”! And yet you say he is not at all human! You are making an art out of self-contradiction.

dhw: The subject is your theory of evolution. You dismiss the theory of cellular intelligence because you claim there are no known facts to support it. I am pointing out that there are no known facts to support your own theories (see above), so why don’t you dismiss them too?

DAVID: I'll stick to my theories, and you can stick to yours.

dhw: As you have every right to do. But please don’t dismiss mine on the grounds that there are no known facts to support my theories, when the same criticism can be levelled at your own.

DAVID: The cell intelligence theory is based purely on hyperbolic descriptions of cells actions. Since DNA is a recognized code and the whole genome is seen as a multilayer of controls, the instructions/information in DNA simply run the processes in the cell.

That is your version. There are other scientists whose research has led them to the conclusion that cells are intelligent entities. Now please tell us the "known facts" that support your theories of 1) a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, and 2) God having performed countless operations and held countless courses as he “dabbled” all extinct and extant evolutionary innovations and econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of designing us and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, August 19, 2022, 16:53 (587 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I simply said the past leads to the future as you admit:

Where have I said the past didn’t happen? Of course the past leads to the future. That is the nature of time! But in the context of evolution:

dhw: The past contained some branches that led to us and our food, but it also contained countless branches that did NOT lead to us and our food.

DAVID: Opposite my contention that the entire set of ecosystems on Earth are interconnected and required for our food.

dhw: Once again, you are using the present tense (are interconnected), whereas we are talking about the entire set of ecosystems that existed before we did. Some of them did lead to us and our food supply, but the problem you keep dodging is why your God created all those extinct ecosystems and life forms that did not lead to us, although you believe his only purpose was to create us and our food supply.

All of evolution produced a giant bush of life that is a series of interconnected ecosystems that provide food all, not just humans!!!


DAVID: You've never understood How I view your God. I grant His very human form, but only then do your proposals make sense.

dhw: Thank you for granting his very human form and for agreeing that my proposals make sense.

DAVID: You are welcome.

dhw: That should mark the end of your campaign against my alternative theories on the grounds that they “humanize” God.

Don't you realize my point? Your very human God allows you to create very human suppositions about how your humanlike God works His purposes. On that basis of course they are logical.

DAVID: My very purposeful God is not at all human although He has logical thought and in His own special way has our emotions of love and enjoyment.

dhw: We agree that he is purposeful. You "grant his human form" (by which I presume you mean his human attributes) and the fact that he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours, you are “sure we mimic him in many ways”, and in fact back in March 2020 you actually stated: “we can only know His logic is like ours”! And yet you say he is not at all human! You are making an art out of self-contradiction.

Our past discussions about God's human characteristics as above are theoretical. The comment: “'we can only know His logic is like ours'”! does not make God human. Please remember God is a being like no other being. I'll stick to my above declaration: DAVID: [i"] My very purposeful God is not at all human although He has logical thought and in His own special way has our emotions of love and enjoyment".[/i] No self-contradiction while you pounce on old statements and twist them out of context.


DAVID: The cell intelligence theory is based purely on hyperbolic descriptions of cells actions. Since DNA is a recognized code and the whole genome is seen as a multilayer of controls, the instructions/information in DNA simply run the processes in the cell.

dhw: That is your version. There are other scientists whose research has led them to the conclusion that cells are intelligent entities. Now please tell us the "known facts" that support your theories of 1) a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, and 2) God having performed countless operations and held countless courses as he “dabbled” all extinct and extant evolutionary innovations and econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of designing us and our food.

Same old trope, off subject of cell intelligence!!! Tor cell intelligence I have all the ID folks agreeing with me, led by many PH.D. doing active science research on the subject.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, August 20, 2022, 10:53 (587 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The past contained some branches that led to us and our food, but it also contained countless branches that did NOT lead to us and our food.

DAVID: Opposite my contention that the entire set of ecosystems on Earth are interconnected and required for our food.

dhw: Once again, you are using the present tense (are interconnected), whereas we are talking about the entire set of ecosystems that existed before we did. Some of them did lead to us and our food supply, but the problem you keep dodging is why your God created all those extinct ecosystems and life forms that did not lead to us, although you believe his only purpose was to create us and our food supply.

DAVID: All of evolution produced a giant bush of life that is a series of interconnected ecosystems that provide food all, not just humans!!!

Precisely. The history of life is also the history of ecosystems that provided food for the organisms that lived at any particular time, and even our current ecosystems are not geared solely to the production of food for humans. And that is why it is illogical to claim that every ecosystem, extant and extinct, was specially designed by your God as part of his one and only goal, and as an “absolute requirement”, in preparation for the evolution (= design) of humans and our food, although the vast majority had no connection with us and our food. Please stop dodging!

Human migration

DAVID: I'm sure dhw will notice the effect of necessary food sources driving the migration. And then poo-poo the importance of humans and their food.

Humans are important to humans, and food is important for ALL forms of life, including humans. What I “poopoo”, as you know only too well, is the illogical theory bolded above. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: You've never understood How I view your God. I grant His very human form, but only then do your proposals make sense.

dhw: Thank you for granting his very human form and for agreeing that my proposals make sense.

DAVID: You are welcome.

dhw: That should mark the end of your campaign against my alternative theories on the grounds that they “humanize” God.

DAVID: Don't you realize my point? Your very human God allows you to create very human suppositions about how your humanlike God works His purposes. On that basis of course they are logical.

Why is it always “very” human? I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God (enjoyment of and interest in creating and creations, his desire for recognition and for a relationship with us, his kindness, his love, his single-mindedness in the pursuit of his goal – in direct conflict with the fact that he designed countless life forms and foods that did not lead to his goal – and so on). But when I repeat some of these, and when I offer logical explanations of evolutionary history, you turn your back on the logic because they entail “human” attributes! You even agree that we “mimic” him in certain ways, but you never respond to the argument that it is perfectly feasible for a creator to imbue his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: The comment: “'we can only know His logic is like ours'”! does not make God human. Please remember God is a being like no other being.

Does anyone ever seriously propose that God, if he exists, is human? Please stop pretending that the human attributes we both ascribe to him somehow turn him into a two-legged daddy.

DAVID: The cell intelligence theory is based purely on hyperbolic descriptions of cells actions. Since DNA is a recognized code and the whole genome is seen as a multilayer of controls, the instructions/information in DNA simply run the processes in the cell.

dhw: That is your version. There are other scientists whose research has led them to the conclusion that cells are intelligent entities. Now please tell us the "known facts" that support your theories of 1) a 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions for the whole of evolution, and 2) God having performed countless operations and held countless courses as he “dabbled” all extinct and extant evolutionary innovations and econiches, lifestyles and natural wonders for the sole purpose of designing us and our food.

DAVID: Same old trope, off subject of cell intelligence!!! Tor cell intelligence I have all the ID folks agreeing with me, led by many PH.D. doing active science research on the subject.

You dismissed the theory as “purely hyperbolic descriptions”, and I have every right to point out that there are scientists in the field who disagree with you and with your ID-ers. You also claimed that there were no known facts to support my theory. I responded by pointing out that there are no “known facts” to support your theories either.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 20, 2022, 18:54 (586 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All of evolution produced a giant bush of life that is a series of interconnected ecosystems that provide food all, not just humans!!!

dhw: Precisely. The history of life is also the history of ecosystems that provided food for the organisms that lived at any particular time, and even our current ecosystems are not geared solely to the production of food for humans. And that is why it is illogical to claim that every ecosystem, extant and extinct, was specially designed by your God as part of his one and only goal, and as an “absolute requirement”, in preparation for the evolution (= design) of humans and our food, although the vast majority had no connection with us and our food. Please stop dodging!

Your usual complaint. I view the entire Earth and its inhabitants as serving our needs. You still slice up Evolution and its results. In the world of thinkers there are splitters and there are lumpers. I lu mp, you split.


Human migration

DAVID: I'm sure dhw will notice the effect of necessary food sources driving the migration. And then poo-poo the importance of humans and their food.

dhw: Humans are important to humans, and food is important for ALL forms of life, including humans. What I “poopoo”, as you know only too well, is the illogical theory bolded above. Please stop dodging!

Stop splitting!!!


DAVID: Don't you realize my point? Your very human God allows you to create very human suppositions about how your humanlike God works His purposes. On that basis of course they are logical.

Why is it always “very” human?

Because your God directly seeks entertainment, especially free-for-alls, has to experiment, suddenly decides to change course, and you claim He is not very human. There is no sense of directionality and clear purpose a proper form of God should have.

dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God (enjoyment of and interest in creating and creations, his desire for recognition and for a relationship with us, his kindness, his love, his single-mindedness in the pursuit of his goal – in direct conflict with the fact that he designed countless life forms and foods that did not lead to his goal – and so on).

God's personal view of His works are a minor aspect of how to look at God. You have to emphasize those, because you have no real response to my criticisms of your humanized God.

dhw: But when I repeat some of these, and when I offer logical explanations of evolutionary history, you turn your back on the logic because they entail “human” attributes! You even agree that we “mimic” him in certain ways, but you never respond to the argument that it is perfectly feasible for a creator to imbue his creations with some of his own attributes.

I have certainly with the bold in the past, remember?


DAVID: Same old trope, off subject of cell intelligence!!! Tor cell intelligence I have all the ID folks agreeing with me, led by many PH.D. doing active science research on the subject.

dhw: You dismissed the theory as “purely hyperbolic descriptions”, and I have every right to point out that there are scientists in the field who disagree with you and with your ID-ers.

And you picked out some old scientists on Google and blew up Shapiro out of proportion because from your rigid point of view cell must be highly intelligent and design new species at will, all to avoid God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, August 21, 2022, 12:09 (585 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All of evolution produced a giant bush of life that is a series of interconnected ecosystems that provide food all, not just humans!!!

dhw: Precisely. The history of life is also the history of ecosystems that provided food for the organisms that lived at any particular time, and even our current ecosystems are not geared solely to the production of food for humans. And that is why it is illogical to claim that every ecosystem, extant and extinct, was specially designed by your God as part of his one and only goal, and as an “absolute requirement”, in preparation for the evolution (= design) of humans and our food, although the vast majority had no connection with us and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Your usual complaint. I view the entire Earth and its inhabitants as serving our needs.

Quite apart from the blinkered human chauvinism of your comment, it is absurd to argue that throughout the 3.X billion years of life when we weren’t even there, the entire planet and every life form on it served our needs!

DAVID: You still slice up Evolution and its results. In the world of thinkers there are splitters and there are lumpers. I lump, you split.

Please stop using such general concepts to dodge what you yourself acknowledge to be theories which make sense only to your God, i.e. not to you.

DAVID: Don't you realize my point? Your very human God allows you to create very human suppositions about how your humanlike God works His purposes. On that basis of course they are logical.

dhw: Why is it always “very” human?

DAVID: Because your God directly seeks entertainment [dhw: I always object to your use of this derogatory term], especially free-for-alls, has to experiment, suddenly decides to change course, and you claim He is not very human. There is no sense of directionality and clear purpose a proper form of God should have.

These are all alternative explanations for the history of evolution, and you agree that all of them fit in logically with that history, whereas your own explanation (the theory bolded above) makes no sense to you (it makes sense only to God). You have absolutely no authority to decide what constitutes a “proper” God, but in any case, my alternatives do offer a sense of directionality and a clear purpose. These simply differ from your versions of direction and purpose.

dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God (enjoyment of and interest in creating and creations, his desire for recognition and for a relationship with us, his kindness, his love, his single-mindedness in the pursuit of his goal – in direct conflict with the fact that he designed countless life forms and foods that did not lead to his goal – and so on).

DAVID: God's personal view of His works are a minor aspect of how to look at God. You have to emphasize those, because you have no real response to my criticisms of your humanized God.

The above are not his “view of his works”. They are all human characteristics which you attribute to him. Your only criticisms consist in your refusal to accept the possibility that he might have other human characteristics which you don’t think he could have. Incidentally, I have been meaning for some time to point out that your beloved Adler’s view of God as “a person like no other person” is a direct acknowledgement that your God must have human attributes!

dhw: But when I repeat some of these, and when I offer logical explanations of evolutionary history, you turn your back on the logic because they entail “human” attributes! You even agree that we “mimic” him in certain ways, but you never respond to the argument that it is perfectly feasible for a creator to imbue his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: I have certainly with the bold in the past, remember?

I only remember you agreeing that he probably/possibly has human thought patterns etc, and we mimic him, but it’s fine with me if you acknowledge this argument. Yet more reason for you to stop using “humanization” as a tool with which to attack what you recognize as logical theistic explanations of evolution’s history.

DAVID: […] for cell intelligence I have all the ID folks agreeing with me, led by many PH.D. doing active science research on the subject.

dhw: You dismissed the theory as “purely hyperbolic descriptions”, and I have every right to point out that there are scientists in the field who disagree with you and with your ID-ers.

DAVID: And you picked out some old scientists on Google and blew up Shapiro out of proportion because from your rigid point of view cell must be highly intelligent and design new species at will, all to avoid God.

They are not all “old”, their findings are not invalidated by age, and I have reproduced Shapiro’s views as quoted in your own book, that cells are “cognitive entities” which produce “evolutionary novelty”. And please stop pretending that I am avoiding God when I ALWAYS allow for the possibility that it was your God who invented the intelligent cell.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 21, 2022, 14:41 (585 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your usual complaint. I view the entire Earth and its inhabitants as serving our needs.

dhw: Quite apart from the blinkered human chauvinism of your comment, it is absurd to argue that throughout the 3.X billion years of life when we weren’t even there, the entire planet and every life form on it served our needs!

My comment concerned the present.


DAVID: Don't you realize my point? Your very human God allows you to create very human suppositions about how your humanlike God works His purposes. On that basis of course they are logical.

dhw: Why is it always “very” human?

DAVID: Because your God directly seeks entertainment [dhw: I always object to your use of this derogatory term], especially free-for-alls, has to experiment, suddenly decides to change course, and you claim He is not very human. There is no sense of directionality and clear purpose a proper form of God should have.

dhw: These are all alternative explanations for the history of evolution, and you agree that all of them fit in logically with that history, whereas your own explanation (the theory bolded above) makes no sense to you (it makes sense only to God).

The usual distortion. My strict point is I cannot know God's reasons for His actions, but of course they make sense to Him. But I can analyze His actions to discern His reasons. What is
nonsensical about this approach?

dhw: You have absolutely no authority to decide what constitutes a “proper” God, but in any case, my alternatives do offer a sense of directionality and a clear purpose. These simply differ from your versions of direction and purpose.

And are clearly humanized purposes as listed.


dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God (enjoyment of and interest in creating and creations, his desire for recognition and for a relationship with us, his kindness, his love, his single-mindedness in the pursuit of his goal – in direct conflict with the fact that he designed countless life forms and foods that did not lead to his goal – and so on).

DAVID: God's personal view of His works are a minor aspect of how to look at God. You have to emphasize those, because you have no real response to my criticisms of your humanized God.

dhw: The above are not his “view of his works”. They are all human characteristics which you attribute to him. Your only criticisms consist in your refusal to accept the possibility that he might have other human characteristics which you don’t think he could have. Incidentally, I have been meaning for some time to point out that your beloved Adler’s view of God as “a person like no other person” is a direct acknowledgement that your God must have human attributes!

Of course, God has some human like attributes but they don't drive His purpoes


dhw: But when I repeat some of these, and when I offer logical explanations of evolutionary history, you turn your back on the logic because they entail “human” attributes! You even agree that we “mimic” him in certain ways, but you never respond to the argument that it is perfectly feasible for a creator to imbue his creations with some of his own attributes.

DAVID: I have certainly with the bold in the past, remember?

dhw: I only remember you agreeing that he probably/possibly has human thought patterns etc, and we mimic him, but it’s fine with me if you acknowledge this argument. Yet more reason for you to stop using “humanization” as a tool with which to attack what you recognize as logical theistic explanations of evolution’s history.

With a proviso: your logical 'theistic' explanations require a humanized God.


DAVID: […] for cell intelligence I have all the ID folks agreeing with me, led by many PH.D. doing active science research on the subject.

dhw: You dismissed the theory as “purely hyperbolic descriptions”, and I have every right to point out that there are scientists in the field who disagree with you and with your ID-ers.

DAVID: And you picked out some old scientists on Google and blew up Shapiro out of proportion because from your rigid point of view cell must be highly intelligent and design new species at will, all to avoid God.

dhw: They are not all “old”, their findings are not invalidated by age, and I have reproduced Shapiro’s views as quoted in your own book, that cells are “cognitive entities” which produce “evolutionary novelty”. And please stop pretending that I am avoiding God when I ALWAYS allow for the possibility that it was your God who invented the intelligent cell.

God's so-called intelligent cells are simply following His provided instructions.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, August 22, 2022, 08:57 (585 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your usual complaint. I view the entire Earth and its inhabitants as serving our needs.

dhw: Quite apart from the blinkered human chauvinism of your comment, it is absurd to argue that throughout the 3.X billion years of life when we weren’t even there, the entire planet and every life form on it served our needs!

DAVID: My comment concerned the present.

It always does, and that is how you try to dodge the question why your God specially designed all the PAST life forms and econiches that did NOT lead to us and our food, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food.

DAVID: Don't you realize my point? Your very human God allows you to create very human suppositions about how your humanlike God works His purposes. On that basis of course they are logical.

dhw: Why is it always “very” human?

DAVID: Because your God directly seeks entertainment [dhw: I always object to your use of this derogatory term], especially free-for-alls, has to experiment, suddenly decides to change course, and you claim He is not very human. There is no sense of directionality and clear purpose a proper form of God should have.

dhw: These are all alternative explanations for the history of evolution, and you agree that all of them fit in logically with that history, whereas your own explanation (the theory bolded above) makes no sense to you (it makes sense only to God).

DAVID: The usual distortion. My strict point is I cannot know God's reasons for His actions, but of course they make sense to Him. But I can analyze His actions to discern His reasons. What is nonsensical about this approach?

There is nothing nonsensical about the approach. Nobody can know God’s reasons for his actions (if he exists), but we both develop theories about his actions and his reasons. Yours is that his actions were to design every individual life form, econiche etc., including all those that had no connection with us, and the one and only reason for designing these life forms that had no connection with us was that he wanted to design us and our econiches. That is one of the theories which you tell us, not surprisingly, make sense only to God.

dhw: You have absolutely no authority to decide what constitutes a “proper” God, but in any case, my alternatives do offer a sense of directionality and a clear purpose. These simply differ from your versions of direction and purpose.

DAVID: And are clearly humanized purposes as listed.

And according to you, his theoretical, humanized purpose in designing all those unconnected life forms etc. was to design us so that we could recognize him and his work, and maybe have a relationship with him, though you are also sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but the reason for creating them could not possibly be that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God […]

DAVID: Of course, God has some human like attributes but they don't drive His purposes.

How can you possibly know that?

DAVID: […] for cell intelligence I have all the ID folks agreeing with me, led by many PH.D. doing active science research on the subject.

dhw: You dismissed the theory as “purely hyperbolic descriptions”, and I have every right to point out that there are scientists in the field who disagree with you and with your ID-ers.

DAVID: And you picked out some old scientists on Google and blew up Shapiro out of proportion because from your rigid point of view cell must be highly intelligent and design new species at will, all to avoid God.

dhw: They are not all “old”, their findings are not invalidated by age, and I have reproduced Shapiro’s views as quoted in your own book, that cells are “cognitive entities” which produce “evolutionary novelty”. And please stop pretending that I am avoiding God when I ALWAYS allow for the possibility that it was your God who invented the intelligent cell.

DAVID: God's so-called intelligent cells are simply following His provided instructions.

That is your theory, and other scientists believe that cells have an autonomous intelligence of their own, but of course that does not exclude the possibility that your God designed their autonomous intelligence, just as you believe he designed our own.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, August 22, 2022, 19:54 (584 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My comment concerned the present.

dhw: It always does, and that is how you try to dodge the question why your God specially designed all the PAST life forms and econiches that did NOT lead to us and our food, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food.

And my answer always is God chose to evolve us from bacteria (Archaea) at the start of life. Your only answer to this is the illogical bold above, since history tells us exactly my theory assuming God in charge. Your bold implies to me, in your mind, God did it the wrong way since He is thought to be able to do direct creation as shown by the Big Bang, starting life, etc. All believers will accept my reasoning, I am sure.

dhw: These are all alternative explanations for the history of evolution, and you agree that all of them fit in logically with that history, whereas your own explanation (the theory bolded above) makes no sense to you (it makes sense only to God).

DAVID: The usual distortion. My strict point is I cannot know God's reasons for His actions, but of course they make sense to Him. But I can analyze His actions to discern His reasons. What is nonsensical about this approach?

dhw: There is nothing nonsensical about the approach. Nobody can know God’s reasons for his actions (if he exists), but we both develop theories about his actions and his reasons. Yours is that his actions were to design every individual life form, econiche etc., including all those that had no connection with us, and the one and only reason for designing these life forms that had no connection with us was that he wanted to design us and our econiches. That is one of the theories which you tell us, not surprisingly, make sense only to God.

My answer is above. As an outsider to belief, try to understand God by assuming everything thrt happens is under His direct control for His reasons.


dhw: You have absolutely no authority to decide what constitutes a “proper” God, but in any case, my alternatives do offer a sense of directionality and a clear purpose. These simply differ from your versions of direction and purpose.

DAVID: And are clearly humanized purposes as listed.

dhw: And according to you, his theoretical, humanized purpose in designing all those unconnected life forms etc. was to design us so that we could recognize him and his work, and maybe have a relationship with him, though you are also sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but the reason for creating them could not possibly be that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

Exactly the point!!! God is not in the business of creating organisms primarily for His enjoyment, or interest, or entertainment. These are secondary after events that may or may not occur. God purposely creates what He wishes is all we can know.


dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God […]

DAVID: Of course, God has some human like attributes but they don't drive His purposes.

dhw: How can you possibly know that?

We can only observe what God does, anything more is pure conjecture, and we've done plenty of that.


DAVID: […] for cell intelligence I have all the ID folks agreeing with me, led by many PH.D. doing active science research on the subject.

dhw: You dismissed the theory as “purely hyperbolic descriptions”, and I have every right to point out that there are scientists in the field who disagree with you and with your ID-ers.

DAVID: And you picked out some old scientists on Google and blew up Shapiro out of proportion because from your rigid point of view cell must be highly intelligent and design new species at will, all to avoid God.

dhw: They are not all “old”, their findings are not invalidated by age, and I have reproduced Shapiro’s views as quoted in your own book, that cells are “cognitive entities” which produce “evolutionary novelty”. And please stop pretending that I am avoiding God when I ALWAYS allow for the possibility that it was your God who invented the intelligent cell.

DAVID: God's so-called intelligent cells are simply following His provided instructions.

dhw: That is your theory, and other scientists believe that cells have an autonomous intelligence of their own, but of course that does not exclude the possibility that your God designed their autonomous intelligence, just as you believe he designed our own.

Yees, God as the designer is my constant theme.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, August 23, 2022, 10:55 (584 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My comment concerned the present.

dhw: It always does, and that is how you try to dodge the question why your God specially designed all the PAST life forms and econiches that did NOT lead to us and our food, if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food.

DAVID: And my answer always is God chose to evolve us from bacteria (Archaea) at the start of life.

We agree that humans evolved from bacteria!!! But you insist that your God also individually designed all those past life forms and econiches that did NOT lead to us and our food, which makes nonsense of your claim that we and our food were his one and only purpose. Please, please, stop dodging!

dhw: These are all alternative explanations for the history of evolution, and you agree that all of them fit in logically with that history, whereas your own explanation (the theory bolded above) makes no sense to you (it makes sense only to God).

DAVID: The usual distortion. My strict point is I cannot know God's reasons for His actions, but of course they make sense to Him. But I can analyze His actions to discern His reasons. What is nonsensical about this approach?

dhw: There is nothing nonsensical about the approach. Nobody can know God’s reasons for his actions (if he exists), but we both develop theories about his actions and his reasons. Yours is [BOLDED ABOVE] That is one of the theories which you tell us, not surprisingly, make sense only to God.

DAVID: As an outsider to belief, try to understand God by assuming everything thrt happens is under His direct control for His reasons.

Please stop pretending that my criticisms of your illogical theories, and the logical alternatives I offer, are invalid because I am an agnostic. You do not have any more knowledge of the “truth” than I do. Of course if he exists he has his reasons for doing what he has done. Your theories make no sense to you. You agree that my alternatives are logical and make sense to you, but you reject them because they endow him with different human attributes than those you incorporate into your own theories.

dhw: […] according to you, his theoretical, humanized purpose in designing all those unconnected life forms etc. was to design us so that we could recognize him and his work, and maybe have a relationship with him, though you are also sure that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but the reason for creating them could not possibly be that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates.

DAVID: Exactly the point!!! God is not in the business of creating organisms primarily for His enjoyment, or interest, or entertainment. These are secondary after events that may or may not occur. God purposely creates what He wishes is all we can know.

We agree 100% that if he exists, he purposely creates what he wishes. If you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested", you have no reason to dismiss the idea that he might primarily “wish” to create things he will enjoy and be interested in! (That includes us.)

dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God […]

DAVID: Of course, God has some human like attributes but they don't drive His purposes.

dhw: How can you possibly know that?

DAVID: We can only observe what God does, anything more is pure conjecture, and we've done plenty of that.

Correct. So please stop assuming that your illogical conjectures must be true and none of my logical alternatives can possibly be true because you are a believer and I am an agnostic.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: God's so-called intelligent cells are simply following His provided instructions.

dhw: That is your theory, and other scientists believe that cells have an autonomous intelligence of their own, but of course that does not exclude the possibility that your God designed their autonomous intelligence, just as you believe he designed our own.

DAVID: Yes, God as the designer is my constant theme.

I have no objections to the logical assumption that if God exists, he is the designer. We simpler differ on what he might have designed and why he might have designed it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 23, 2022, 15:58 (583 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: And my answer always is God chose to evolve us from bacteria (Archaea) at the start of life.

dhw: We agree that humans evolved from bacteria!!! But you insist that your God also individually designed all those past life forms and econiches that did NOT lead to us and our food, which makes nonsense of your claim that we and our food were his one and only purpose. Please, please, stop dodging!

Our difference is about food supply. I view the entire bush of life as vital to feed us in this huge population we've grown into.


DAVID: As an outsider to belief, try to understand God by assuming everything that happens is under His direct control for His reasons.

dhw: Please stop pretending that my criticisms of your illogical theories, and the logical alternatives I offer, are invalid because I am an agnostic. You do not have any more knowledge of the “truth” than I do. Of course if he exists he has his reasons for doing what he has done. Your theories make no sense to you. You agree that my alternatives are logical and make sense to you, but you reject them because they endow him with different human attributes than those you incorporate into your own theories.

Once again, stop accusing me of nonsense. My theories are perfectly logical to me, if not to you, as your now bolded statement shows.


DAVID: Exactly the point!!! God is not in the business of creating organisms primarily for His enjoyment, or interest, or entertainment. These are secondary after events that may or may not occur. God purposely creates what He wishes is all we can know.

dhw: We agree 100% that if he exists, he purposely creates what he wishes. If you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested", you have no reason to dismiss the idea that he might primarily “wish” to create things he will enjoy and be interested in! (That includes us.)

God does not need self-gratifying results of His creations.


dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God […]

DAVID: Of course, God has some human like attributes but they don't drive His purposes.

dhw: How can you possibly know that?

DAVID: We can only observe what God does, anything more is pure conjecture, and we've done plenty of that.

dhw: Correct. So please stop assuming that your illogical conjectures must be true and none of my logical alternatives can possibly be true because you are a believer and I am an agnostic.

If you assume my theories make no sense to me, I can assume your theories are the results of false assumptions about God, especially His personality.


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: God's so-called intelligent cells are simply following His provided instructions.

dhw: That is your theory, and other scientists believe that cells have an autonomous intelligence of their own, but of course that does not exclude the possibility that your God designed their autonomous intelligence, just as you believe he designed our own.

DAVID: Yes, God as the designer is my constant theme.

dhw: I have no objections to the logical assumption that if God exists, he is the designer. We simpler differ on what he might have designed and why he might have designed it.

True.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, August 24, 2022, 11:03 (583 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: And my answer always is God chose to evolve us from bacteria (Archaea) at the start of life.

dhw: We agree that humans evolved from bacteria!!! But you insist that your God also individually designed all those past life forms and econiches that did NOT lead to us and our food, which makes nonsense of your claim that we and our food were his one and only purpose. Please, please, stop dodging!

DAVID: Our difference is about food supply. I view the entire bush of life as vital to feed us in this huge population we've grown into.

Once again you are talking about the present! There is no point in my repeating our "difference", as now bolded above, which you continue to dodge.

DAVID: As an outsider to belief, try to understand God by assuming everything that happens is under His direct control for His reasons.

dhw: Please stop pretending that my criticisms of your illogical theories, and the logical alternatives I offer, are invalid because I am an agnostic. You do not have any more knowledge of the “truth” than I do. Of course if he exists he has his reasons for doing what he has done. Your theories make no sense to you. You agree that my alternatives are logical and make sense to you, but you reject them because they endow him with different human attributes than those you incorporate into your own theories.

DAVID: Once again, stop accusing me of nonsense. My theories are perfectly logical to me, if not to you, as your now bolded statement shows.

My bolded statement agrees that he has his reasons. I keep asking you to explain your theories, such as the one bolded above, but you can’t, and your answer is that they “make sense only to God”. That can only mean that they do not make sense to you!

DAVID: God is not in the business of creating organisms primarily for His enjoyment, or interest, or entertainment. These are secondary after events that may or may not occur. God purposely creates what He wishes is all we can know.

dhw: We agree 100% that if he exists, he purposely creates what he wishes. If you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested", you have no reason to dismiss the idea that he might primarily “wish” to create things he will enjoy and be interested in! (That includes us.)

DAVID: God does not need self-gratifying results of His creations.

My personal view would be that (if he exists) he doesn’t “need” them – I don’t imagine him thinking he’d be miserable without them. I am simply following up on your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and I propose that in that case, it is feasible that he creates things because he wants to enjoy the occupation of creating and wants to create things that will interest him. Just a theory, but perfectly logical, don’t you think?

dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God […]

DAVID: Of course, God has some human like attributes but they don't drive His purposes.

dhw: How can you possibly know that?

DAVID: We can only observe what God does, anything more is pure conjecture, and we've done plenty of that.

dhw: Correct. So please stop assuming that your illogical conjectures must be true and none of my logical alternatives can possibly be true because you are a believer and I am an agnostic.

DAVID: If you assume my theories make no sense to me, I can assume your theories are the results of false assumptions about God, especially His personality.

I do not “assume” your theories of evolution (e.g. the one I have bolded above) make no sense to you. You have said so yourself when you tell us you can’t know God’s reasons for the purpose and actions you impose on him, and they “make sense only to God”. I have no idea what gives you the right to assume that my theories are “false assumptions” when nobody can possibly know the truth about your God’s personality (if he exists).

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 24, 2022, 15:35 (582 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Our difference is about food supply. I view the entire bush of life as vital to feed us in this huge population we've grown into.

dhw: Once again you are talking about the present! There is no point in my repeating our "difference", as now bolded above, which you continue to dodge.

It is not a dodge. The present comes from the ongoing evolutionary past. Stop slicing up evolution!


DAVID: As an outsider to belief, try to understand God by assuming everything that happens is under His direct control for His reasons.

dhw: Please stop pretending that my criticisms of your illogical theories, and the logical alternatives I offer, are invalid because I am an agnostic. You do not have any more knowledge of the “truth” than I do. Of course if he exists he has his reasons for doing what he has done. Your theories make no sense to you. You agree that my alternatives are logical and make sense to you, but you reject them because they endow him with different human attributes than those you incorporate into your own theories.

DAVID: Once again, stop accusing me of nonsense. My theories are perfectly logical to me, if not to you, as your now bolded statement shows.

dhw: My bolded statement agrees that he has his reasons. I keep asking you to explain your theories, such as the one bolded above, but you can’t, and your answer is that they “make sense only to God”. That can only mean that they do not make sense to you!

I accept God's historical works in our recorded history. My analyses then try to understand why God did it that way. They make sense to me. if not to you


DAVID: God is not in the business of creating organisms primarily for His enjoyment, or interest, or entertainment. These are secondary after events that may or may not occur. God purposely creates what He wishes is all we can know.

dhw: We agree 100% that if he exists, he purposely creates what he wishes. If you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested", you have no reason to dismiss the idea that he might primarily “wish” to create things he will enjoy and be interested in! (That includes us.)

DAVID: God does not need self-gratifying results of His creations.

dhw: My personal view would be that (if he exists) he doesn’t “need” them – I don’t imagine him thinking he’d be miserable without them. I am simply following up on your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and I propose that in that case, it is feasible that he creates things because he wants to enjoy the occupation of creating and wants to create things that will interest him. Just a theory, but perfectly logical, don’t you think?

No, He is not that human. He doesn't create out of self-interest.


dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God […]

DAVID: Of course, God has some human like attributes but they don't drive His purposes.

dhw: How can you possibly know that?

DAVID: We can only observe what God does, anything more is pure conjecture, and we've done plenty of that.

dhw: Correct. So please stop assuming that your illogical conjectures must be true and none of my logical alternatives can possibly be true because you are a believer and I am an agnostic.

DAVID: If you assume my theories make no sense to me, I can assume your theories are the results of false assumptions about God, especially His personality.

dhw: I do not “assume” your theories of evolution (e.g. the one I have bolded above) make no sense to you. You have said so yourself when you tell us you can’t know God’s reasons for the purpose and actions you impose on him, and they “make sense only to God”.

The bold: But you insist that your God also individually designed all those past life forms and econiches that did NOT lead to us and our food, which makes nonsense of your claim that we and our food were his one and only purpose.

You refuse to accept my reasoning that all of the past leads to the giant current bush of food supply. What you are constantly doing is separating the past from now!!!

dhw: I have no idea what gives you the right to assume that my theories are “false assumptions” when nobody can possibly know the truth about your God’s personality (if he exists).

I have every right to disagree with your designed personality of God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, August 25, 2022, 11:13 (582 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Our difference is about food supply. I view the entire bush of life as vital to feed us in this huge population we've grown into.

dhw: Once again you are talking about the present! There is no point in my repeating our "difference", as now bolded [below], which you continue to dodge.

DAVID: It is not a dodge. The present comes from the ongoing evolutionary past. Stop slicing up evolution!

Of course the present comes from the past! But that does not mean that every single life form and food of the past was preparation for and led to H. sapiens and our present food, though you claim that we and our food were your God’s one and only purpose! Please stop hiding behind vague generalisations!

DAVID: As an outsider to belief, try to understand God by assuming everything that happens is under His direct control for His reasons.

dhw: Please stop pretending that my criticisms of your illogical theories, and the logical alternatives I offer, are invalid because I am an agnostic. You do not have any more knowledge of the “truth” than I do. Of course if he exists he has his reasons for doing what he has done. Your theories make no sense to you. […]

DAVID: Once again, stop accusing me of nonsense. My theories are perfectly logical to me, if not to you, as your now bolded statement shows.

dhw: My bolded statement agrees that he has his reasons. I keep asking you to explain your theories, such as the one bolded above, but you can’t, and your answer is that they “make sense only to God”. That can only mean that they do not make sense to you!

DAVID: I accept God's historical works in our recorded history. My analyses then try to understand why God did it that way. They make sense to me. if not to you.

You may try to analyse why he would have fulfilled his one and only purpose by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his purpose, but you cannot find a single reason, and therefore you tell us that your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: God does not need self-gratifying results of His creations.

dhw: My personal view would be that (if he exists) he doesn’t “need” them – I don’t imagine him thinking he’d be miserable without them. I am simply following up on your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and I propose that in that case, it is feasible that he creates things because he wants to enjoy the occupation of creating and wants to create things that will interest him. Just a theory, but perfectly logical, don’t you think?

DAVID: No, He is not that human. He doesn't create out of self-interest.

How do you know? In any case, "self-interest" means you only care about yourself, and that is very different from creating things you enjoy creating and find interesting. We may want to have children because we like the idea of parenthood, but that doesn’t mean we only care about ourselves. If your God is loving, maybe he created life because he liked the idea of having something to love. Would you dismiss that as “self-interest”?

dhw: I keep pointing out all the possible “human” attributes you ascribe to your God […]

DAVID: Of course, God has some human like attributes but they don't drive His purposes.

dhw: How can you possibly know that?

DAVID: We can only observe what God does, anything more is pure conjecture, and we've done plenty of that.

dhw: Correct. So please stop assuming that your illogical conjectures must be true and none of my logical alternatives can possibly be true because you are a believer and I am an agnostic.

DAVID: You refuse to accept my reasoning that all of the past leads to the giant current bush of food supply. What you are constantly doing is separating the past from now!!!

Once more, please stop hiding behind vague generalizations. Yes, the past leads to the present, and we and our food have evolved from past life forms and foods. But you admit yourself that “ALL” of the past (i.e. the vast majority of extinct life forms and bushes) does NOT lead to the current bush of food supply. And so you continue to dodge the insoluble problem bolded at the start of this post.

dhw: I have no idea what gives you the right to assume that my theories are “false assumptions” when nobody can possibly know the truth about your God’s personality (if he exists).

DAVID: I have every right to disagree with your designed personality of God.

Of course you do, just as I have every right to disagree with your own “designed” personality of God. However, you actually agree with me that your God wouldn’t create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and you are equally certain that he is interested in his creations. And so I find it incomprehensible that you should consider it impossible that he might create BECAUSE he enjoys creating and BECAUSE he wants to create things he will find interesting.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 25, 2022, 22:51 (581 days ago) @ dhw

Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)
by dhw, Thursday, August 25, 2022, 11:13 (11 hours, 15 minutes ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Our difference is about food supply. I view the entire bush of life as vital to feed us in this huge population we've grown into.

dhw: Once again you are talking about the present! There is no point in my repeating our "difference", as now bolded [below], which you continue to dodge.

DAVID: It is not a dodge. The present comes from the ongoing evolutionary past. Stop slicing up evolution!

dhw: Of course the present comes from the past! But that does not mean that every single life form and food of the past was preparation for and led to H. sapiens and our present food, though you claim that we and our food were your God’s one and only purpose! Please stop hiding behind vague generalisations!

dhw makes slight of the necessary food supply in His constant illogical complaint. God knew the burgeoning human population had to have enough food. Look at this new analysis of our new food supply crisis:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02312-8?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_c...

"In the wake of Russia’s war on Ukraine, the global community is scrambling. The World Bank, the G7 group of the world’s largest developed economies, the European Union and the United States have collectively pledged more than US$40 billion to avert food and humanitarian crises (see Supplementary information). Yet these massive funds are unlikely to get women and girls the help they need. The investments might even exacerbate inequalities.

"Crises hit women and girls especially hard, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. It is estimated that the COVID-19 pandemic pushed an additional 47 million girls and women into extreme poverty, reversing decades of progress1. Data from 40 countries show that 36% of women stopped working during the pandemic compared with 28% of men, as shutdowns of schools, childcare centres and local markets kept women at home rather than earning income. Getting enough to eat has become more difficult, too. In 2021, at least 150 million more women than men were experiencing food insecurity, and the gap is growing.

"With the war raising prices of food, fuel and farming supplies, women and girls are most likely to bear the brunt. When resources are scarce, entrenched power imbalances mean that women have a tougher time growing and selling crops, running small businesses, accessing health care and education, and just leading their lives. As budgets shrink, women frequently act as ‘shock absorbers’, eating less to leave food for others in their household. In many cultures, women’s assets (including productive ones such as small livestock) are sold off before those that are controlled and used by men to generate income (such as farm machinery or cropland). Higher costs for fuels used in cooking and transport often mean that women have to spend more time gathering firewood and might need to walk, cycle or use public transport to take children to school or travel to markets or jobs."

Comment: lots of mediation programs are discussed in the article, but the point is made: we are not managing our huge evolutionary bush of food properly. The food dhw poo-poos.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, August 26, 2022, 05:50 (581 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw makes slight of the necessary food supply in His constant illogical complaint. God knew the burgeoning human population had to have enough food. Look at this new analysis of our new food supply crisis:

Another article damaging his thinking:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/library/item/26_august_2022/4036...

"Food webs influence ecosystem diversity and functioning. Contemporary defaunation has reduced food web complexity, but simplification caused by past defaunation is difficult to reconstruct given the sparse paleorecord of predator-prey interactions. We identified changes to terrestrial mammal food webs globally over the past ∼130,000 years using extinct and extant mammal traits, geographic ranges, observed predator-prey interactions, and deep learning models. Food webs underwent steep regional declines in complexity through loss of food web links after the arrival and expansion of human populations. We estimate that defaunation has caused a 53% decline in food web links globally. Although extinctions explain much of this effect, range losses for extant species degraded food webs to a similar extent, highlighting the potential for food web restoration via extant species recovery.

"Human activities have caused global extinction or local extirpation of many animal species. Habitat loss, direct exploitation, invasive species, and other global change drivers have contributed to recent defaunation, which in turn has caused cascading impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem functioning through disruption of food webs. Yet defaunation, and the potential for food web disruption, is not only a contemporary phenomenon. Declines in species diversity since the last interglacial period (∼130,000 years ago) are well known for groups such as terrestrial mammals. Although there are persistent discussions on the relative roles of humans, climate, and their interactions as drivers of these extinctions, the spatiotemporal pattern of declines strongly suggests a major human rol. The past, and ongoing, selective loss of large-bodied mammals has caused a marked downsizing of mammal assemblages relative to the preceding 30 million years

***

"Our reconstruction of terrestrial mammal food webs allowed us to estimate the global magnitude of mammal food web collapse since the Late Pleistocene. We found that although only ∼6% of terrestrial mammal species have gone extinct since the Late Pleistocene, more than half of mammal food web links have disappeared. Although much of the global food web simplification has resulted from extinctions that occurred centuries to millennia ago, range contractions in surviving species explain a similar magnitude of simplification. Controlled and natural experiments show that food web complexity supports ecosystem resilience and functioning, and ecological network simplification reduces ecosystem functioning (36). We found that the species most affected by defaunation are among the strongest contributors to food web complexity."

Comment: Same old story. All of the giant bush of evolution is a food supply for the huge human population. And all we do is unthinkingly damage it. And dhw distorts the importance of it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, August 26, 2022, 00:12 (581 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I accept God's historical works in our recorded history. My analyses then try to understand why God did it that way. They make sense to me. if not to you.

dhw: You may try to analyse why he would have fulfilled his one and only purpose by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his purpose, but you cannot find a single reason, and therefore you tell us that your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Please stop dodging.

I have given you the food supply reason and you reject it illogically. They make perfect sense to me.


DAVID: No, He is not that human. He doesn't create out of self-interest.

dhw:vHow do you know? In any case, "self-interest" means you only care about yourself, and that is very different from creating things you enjoy creating and find interesting. We may want to have children because we like the idea of parenthood, but that doesn’t mean we only care about ourselves. If your God is loving, maybe he created life because he liked the idea of having something to love. Would you dismiss that as “self-interest”?

I can see it as self-interest. Adler thinks He cares about us at the 50/50 level of possibility. Which means we cannot know.


dhw: Correct. So please stop assuming that your illogical conjectures must be true and none of my logical alternatives can possibly be true because you are a believer and I am an agnostic.

DAVID: You refuse to accept my reasoning that all of the past leads to the giant current bush of food supply. What you are constantly doing is separating the past from now!!!

dhw: Once more, please stop hiding behind vague generalizations. Yes, the past leads to the present, and we and our food have evolved from past life forms and foods. But you admit yourself that “ALL” of the past (i.e. the vast majority of extinct life forms and bushes) does NOT lead to the current bush of food supply.

I have always said all the past bushes form the current bush of food supply. Why do you distort again!

dhw: I have no idea what gives you the right to assume that my theories are “false assumptions” when nobody can possibly know the truth about your God’s personality (if he exists).

DAVID: I have every right to disagree with your designed personality of God.

dhw: Of course you do, just as I have every right to disagree with your own “designed” personality of God. However, you actually agree with me that your God wouldn’t create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and you are equally certain that he is interested in his creations. And so I find it incomprehensible that you should consider it impossible that he might create BECAUSE he enjoys creating and BECAUSE he wants to create things he will find interesting.

Self-interesting aspects of His creations do not drive my form of my God's personality.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, August 26, 2022, 11:15 (581 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I accept God's historical works in our recorded history. My analyses then try to understand why God did it that way. They make sense to me. if not to you.

dhw: You may try to analyse why he would have fulfilled his one and only purpose by designing countless life forms and foods that had no connection with his purpose, but you cannot find a single reason, and therefore you tell us that your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I have given you the food supply reason and you reject it illogically. They make perfect sense to me.

You have consistently told us that we humans need a huge food supply. Who could possibly disagree? But you have not explained why your God designed countless life forms and food supplies that did not lead to us and our food supply.

DAVID: I have always said all the past bushes form the current bush of food supply. Why do you distort again!

You must be joking. Since when have we humans dined on tinned trilobites and braised brontosaurus and roast raptor? How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life has no role in current time.” (Your own block capitals.)

DAVID: The present comes from the ongoing evolutionary past. Stop slicing up evolution!

dhw: Of course the present comes from the past! But that does not mean that every single life form and food of the past was preparation for and led to H. sapiens and our present food, though you claim that we and our food were your God’s one and only purpose! [See below.]

DAVID: dhw makes slight of the necessary food supply in His constant illogical complaint. God knew the burgeoning human population had to have enough food. Look at this new analysis of our new food supply crisis:

Aw shucks, David, You don’t have to be God to know that humans, just like our fellow animals, need “enough food”!

QUOTES: "In the wake of Russia’s war on Ukraine, the global community is scrambling. […] "Crises hit women and girls especially hard, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. […] It is estimated that the COVID-19 pandemic pushed an additional 47 million girls and women into extreme poverty, […] In 2021, at least 150 million more women than men were experiencing food insecurity, and the gap is growing."

DAVID: […] but the point is made: we are not managing our huge evolutionary bush of food properly. The food dhw poo-poos.

Sorry, but this is daft. I do not poo-poo food, and I am as appalled as you at human mismanagement of food supplies. This has nothing to do with your illogical theory bolded above for the thousandth time. Your dodging is becoming embarrassing!

DAVID: dhw makes slight of the necessary food supply in His constant illogical complaint. God knew the burgeoning human population had to have enough food. Look at this new analysis of our new food supply crisis:

QUOTES: "Food webs influence ecosystem diversity and functioning. Contemporary defaunation has reduced food web complexity, […] Food webs underwent steep regional declines in complexity through loss of food web links after the arrival and expansion of human populations."

DAVID: Same old story. All of the giant bush of evolution is a food supply for the huge human population. And all we do is unthinkingly damage it. And dhw distorts the importance of it.

The PAST bushes of evolution were not ALL a food supply for the huge human population, which did not even exist for 3.X billion years. But yes, we humans are unthinkingly damaging the current bush. As above, your dodges are become embarrassing.

DAVID: He doesn't create out of self-interest.

dhw: How do you know? In any case, "self-interest" means you only care about yourself, and that is very different from creating things you enjoy creating and find interesting. We may want to have children because we like the idea of parenthood, but that doesn’t mean we only care about ourselves. If your God is loving, maybe he created life because he liked the idea of having something to love. Would you dismiss that as “self-interest”?

DAVID: I can see it as self-interest. Adler thinks He cares about us at the 50/50 level of possibility. Which means we cannot know.

Of course we can’t know. So please stop making authoritative comments like “He doesn’t create out of self-interest.” 50/50 is not a rejection, and besides, you think he does care!

dhw: […] you actually agree with me that your God wouldn’t create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and you are equally certain that he is interested in his creations. And so I find it incomprehensible that you should consider it impossible that he might create BECAUSE he enjoys creating and BECAUSE he wants to create things he will find interesting.

DAVID: Self-interesting aspects of His creations do not drive my form of my God's personality.

And yet you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested". But I know you reject any interpretation that differs from your own. That does not make your guesses any more valid than mine.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, August 26, 2022, 16:19 (580 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have given you the food supply reason and you reject it illogically. They make perfect sense to me.

dhw: You have consistently told us that we humans need a huge food supply. Who could possibly disagree? But you have not explained why your God designed countless life forms and food supplies that did not lead to us and our food supply.

All of the branches from the beginning lead to the present. Why is that forgotten??? With God's designs all the branches arrived here producing us and a hugh bush of ecosystems but in trouble (see the entries).


DAVID: I have always said all the past bushes form the current bush of food supply. Why do you distort again!

dhw: You must be joking. Since when have we humans dined on tinned trilobites and braised brontosaurus and roast raptor? How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life has no role in current time.” (Your own block capitals.)

All perfectly true. I don't understand how you misinterpret those quotes. What is past is past. What is present is present, but all is connected in the history of the recorded evolutionary tree.

DAVID: dhw makes slight of the necessary food supply in His constant illogical complaint. God knew the burgeoning human population had to have enough food. Look at this new analysis of our new food supply crisis:

QUOTES: "Food webs influence ecosystem diversity and functioning. Contemporary defaunation has reduced food web complexity, […] Food webs underwent steep regional declines in complexity through loss of food web links after the arrival and expansion of human populations."

DAVID: Same old story. All of the giant bush of evolution is a food supply for the huge human population. And all we do is unthinkingly damage it. And dhw distorts the importance of it.

dhw: The PAST bushes of evolution were not ALL a food supply for the huge human population, which did not even exist for 3.X billion years. But yes, we humans are unthinkingly damaging the current bush. As above, your dodges are become embarrassing.

I am constantly perplexed at how you distort my quotes meanings. All a debating ploy?


DAVID: He doesn't create out of self-interest.

dhw: How do you know? In any case, "self-interest" means you only care about yourself, and that is very different from creating things you enjoy creating and find interesting. We may want to have children because we like the idea of parenthood, but that doesn’t mean we only care about ourselves. If your God is loving, maybe he created life because he liked the idea of having something to love. Would you dismiss that as “self-interest”?

DAVID: I can see it as self-interest. Adler thinks He cares about us at the 50/50 level of possibility. Which means we cannot know.

Of course we can’t know. So please stop making authoritative comments like “He doesn’t create out of self-interest.” 50/50 is not a rejection, and besides, you think he does care!

dhw: […] you actually agree with me that your God wouldn’t create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and you are equally certain that he is interested in his creations. And so I find it incomprehensible that you should consider it impossible that he might create BECAUSE he enjoys creating and BECAUSE he wants to create things he will find interesting.

DAVID: Self-interesting aspects of His creations do not drive my form of my God's personality.

dhw: And yet you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested". But I know you reject any interpretation that differs from your own. That does not make your guesses any more valid than mine.

I simply think my form of God comports with what I was taught in "How to think about God".

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, August 26, 2022, 16:20 (580 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have given you the food supply reason and you reject it illogically. They make perfect sense to me.

dhw: You have consistently told us that we humans need a huge food supply. Who could possibly disagree? But you have not explained why your God designed countless life forms and food supplies that did not lead to us and our food supply.


All of the branches from the beginning lead to the present. Why is that forgotten??? With God's designs all the branches arrived here producing us and a hugh bush of ecosystems but in trouble (see the entries).


DAVID: I have always said all the past bushes form the current bush of food supply. Why do you distort again!

dhw: You must be joking. Since when have we humans dined on tinned trilobites and braised brontosaurus and roast raptor? How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life has no role in current time.” (Your own block capitals.)


All perfectly true. I don't understand how you misinterpret those quotes. What is past is past. What is present is present, but all is connected in the history of the recorded evolutionary tree.

DAVID: dhw makes slight of the necessary food supply in His constant illogical complaint. God knew the burgeoning human population had to have enough food. Look at this new analysis of our new food supply crisis:

QUOTES: "Food webs influence ecosystem diversity and functioning. Contemporary defaunation has reduced food web complexity, […] Food webs underwent steep regional declines in complexity through loss of food web links after the arrival and expansion of human populations."

DAVID: Same old story. All of the giant bush of evolution is a food supply for the huge human population. And all we do is unthinkingly damage it. And dhw distorts the importance of it.

dhw: The PAST bushes of evolution were not ALL a food supply for the huge human population, which did not even exist for 3.X billion years. But yes, we humans are unthinkingly damaging the current bush. As above, your dodges are become embarrassing.


I am constantly perplexed at how you distort my quotes meanings. All a debating ploy?


DAVID: He doesn't create out of self-interest.

dhw: How do you know? In any case, "self-interest" means you only care about yourself, and that is very different from creating things you enjoy creating and find interesting. We may want to have children because we like the idea of parenthood, but that doesn’t mean we only care about ourselves. If your God is loving, maybe he created life because he liked the idea of having something to love. Would you dismiss that as “self-interest”?

DAVID: I can see it as self-interest. Adler thinks He cares about us at the 50/50 level of possibility. Which means we cannot know.

Of course we can’t know. So please stop making authoritative comments like “He doesn’t create out of self-interest.” 50/50 is not a rejection, and besides, you think he does care!

dhw: […] you actually agree with me that your God wouldn’t create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and you are equally certain that he is interested in his creations. And so I find it incomprehensible that you should consider it impossible that he might create BECAUSE he enjoys creating and BECAUSE he wants to create things he will find interesting.

DAVID: Self-interesting aspects of His creations do not drive my form of my God's personality.

dhw: And yet you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested". But I know you reject any interpretation that differs from your own. That does not make your guesses any more valid than mine.


I simply think my form of God comports with what I was taught in "How to think about God".

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, August 27, 2022, 07:35 (580 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have given you the food supply reason and you reject it illogically. They make perfect sense to me.

dhw: You have consistently told us that we humans need a huge food supply. Who could possibly disagree? But you have not explained why your God designed countless life forms and food supplies that did not lead to us and our food supply.

DAVID: All of the branches from the beginning lead to the present. Why is that forgotten??? With God's designs all the branches arrived here producing us and a hugh bush of ecosystems but in trouble (see the entries).

We and our huge bush of ecosystems descend from past life forms and past ecosystems, but in the course of history, many of the branches have led to extinction and NOT to humans and our food. Why is that forgotten? Ecosystems throughout history have got into trouble. Otherwise none of them would have become extinct. What has that got to do with your illogical theories of evolution?

DAVID: I have always said all the past bushes form the current bush of food supply. Why do you distort again!

dhw: You must be joking. Since when have we humans dined on tinned trilobites and braised brontosaurus and roast raptor? How often must I quote you? “The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms” and “extinct life has no role in current time.” (Your own block capitals.)

DAVID: All perfectly true. I don't understand how you misinterpret those quotes. What is past is past. What is present is present, but all is connected in the history of the recorded evolutionary tree.

All is/was connected to what? Yes, those of us who believe in common descent believe that all except the first life forms descended from earlier life forms. But that does not mean that they all led to sapiens and our food! They branched out. And the vast majority of those bushes and life forms that died out in the past were past and played no role in forming the bushes and life forms of the present.

DAVID: dhw makes slight of the necessary food supply in His constant illogical complaint. God knew the burgeoning human population had to have enough food. Look at this new analysis of our new food supply crisis:

QUOTES: "Food webs influence ecosystem diversity and functioning. Contemporary defaunation has reduced food web complexity, […] Food webs underwent steep regional declines in complexity through loss of food web links after the arrival and expansion of human populations."

DAVID: Same old story. All of the giant bush of evolution is a food supply for the huge human population. And all we do is unthinkingly damage it. And dhw distorts the importance of it.

dhw: The PAST bushes of evolution were not ALL a food supply for the huge human population, which did not even exist for 3.X billion years. But yes, we humans are unthinkingly damaging the current bush. As above, your dodges are become embarrassing.

DAViD: I am constantly perplexed at how you distort my quotes meanings. All a debating ploy?

I am totally perplexed by your belief that ALL extinct bushes and life forms over 3.X billion years were specially designed as an “absolute requirement” for the special design of us and our food. Your assertion that I distort the importance of the damage we are causing to our own ecosystems is just plain daft!

DAVID: Adler thinks He cares about us at the 50/50 level of possibility. Which means we cannot know.

dhw: Of course we can’t know. So please stop making authoritative comments like “He doesn’t create out of self-interest.” 50/50 is not a rejection, and besides, you think he does care!

dhw: […] you actually agree with me that your God wouldn’t create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and you are equally certain that he is interested in his creations. And so I find it incomprehensible that you should consider it impossible that he might create BECAUSE he enjoys creating and BECAUSE he wants to create things he will find interesting.

DAVID: Self-interesting aspects of His creations do not drive my form of my God's personality.

dhw: And yet you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested". But I know you reject any interpretation that differs from your own. That does not make your guesses any more valid than mine.

DAVID: I simply think my form of God comports with what I was taught in "How to think about God".

So your teacher taught you that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but could not possibly have created life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him. And may I ask where your teacher got his information from?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 27, 2022, 16:02 (579 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All of the branches from the beginning lead to the present. Why is that forgotten??? With God's designs all the branches arrived here producing us and a hugh bush of ecosystems but in trouble (see the entries).

dhw: We and our huge bush of ecosystems descend from past life forms and past ecosystems, but in the course of history, many of the branches have led to extinction and NOT to humans and our food. Why is that forgotten? Ecosystems throughout history have got into trouble. Otherwise none of them would have become extinct. What has that got to do with your illogical theories of evolution?

The huge food webs as shown in those entries have degraded under our control, but were originally precisely designed for us:

https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-phys-org-reconstructing-ice-age-diets...

"Research published this week in Science offers the clearest picture yet of the reverberating consequences of land mammal declines on food webs over the past 130,000 years. It’s not a pretty picture."

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-reconstructing-ice-age-diets-reveals.html

"While about 6% of land mammals have gone extinct in that time, we estimate that more than 50% of mammal food web links have disappeared," said ecologist Evan Fricke, lead author of the study. "And the mammals most likely to decline, both in the past and now, are key for mammal food web complexity."


DAVID: dhw makes slight of the necessary food supply in His constant illogical complaint. God knew the burgeoning human population had to have enough food. Look at this new analysis of our new food supply crisis:

QUOTES: "Food webs influence ecosystem diversity and functioning. Contemporary defaunation has reduced food web complexity, […] Food webs underwent steep regional declines in complexity through loss of food web links after the arrival and expansion of human populations."

DAVID: Same old story. All of the giant bush of evolution is a food supply for the huge human population. And all we do is unthinkingly damage it. And dhw distorts the importance of it.

dhw: The PAST bushes of evolution were not ALL a food supply for the huge human population, which did not even exist for 3.X billion years. But yes, we humans are unthinkingly damaging the current bush. As above, your dodges are become embarrassing.

DAViD: I am constantly perplexed at how you distort my quotes meanings. All a debating ploy?

dhw: I am totally perplexed by your belief that ALL extinct bushes and life forms over 3.X billion years were specially designed as an “absolute requirement” for the special design of us and our food. Your assertion that I distort the importance of the damage we are causing to our own ecosystems is just plain daft!

Not daft as the studies show, not by IDer's, but in Science Mag!!! Quoted in Phys. Org. Your distortion is in not recognizing the food web originally designed for us is damaged. The key is it was there, I say by God's design. The web came from past evolution!!!


dhw: […] you actually agree with me that your God wouldn’t create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and you are equally certain that he is interested in his creations. And so I find it incomprehensible that you should consider it impossible that he might create BECAUSE he enjoys creating and BECAUSE he wants to create things he will find interesting.

DAVID: Self-interesting aspects of His creations do not drive my form of my God's personality.

dhw: And yet you are sure he "enjoys" and is "interested". But I know you reject any interpretation that differs from your own. That does not make your guesses any more valid than mine.

DAVID: I simply think my form of God comports with what I was taught in "How to think about God".

dhw: So your teacher taught you that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but could not possibly have created life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him. And may I ask where your teacher got his information from?

Adler made the one observation, as a philosopher of religion, the probability God cares about us is 50/50%. The above is your imagination gone wild.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, August 28, 2022, 11:58 (578 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All of the branches from the beginning lead to the present. Why is that forgotten??? With God's designs all the branches arrived here producing us and a hugh bush of ecosystems but in trouble (see the entries).

dhw: We and our huge bush of ecosystems descend from past life forms and past ecosystems, but in the course of history, many of the branches have led to extinction and NOT to humans and our food. Why is that forgotten? Ecosystems throughout history have got into trouble. Otherwise none of them would have become extinct. What has that got to do with your illogical theories of evolution?

DAVID: The huge food webs as shown in those entries have degraded under our control, but were originally precisely designed for us:
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-phys-org-reconstructing-ice-age-diets...

QUOTE: "Research published this week in Science offers the clearest picture yet of the reverberating consequences of land mammal declines on food webs over the past 130,000 years. It’s not a pretty picture."

https://phys.org/news/2022-08-reconstructing-ice-age-diets-reveals.html

QUOTE: "While about 6% of land mammals have gone extinct in that time, we estimate that more than 50% of mammal food web links have disappeared," said ecologist Evan Fricke, lead author of the study. "And the mammals most likely to decline, both in the past and now, are key for mammal food web complexity."

There is no dispute over the fact that ecosystems are a kind of web, or that they can and do decline! You are focusing on something indisputable in order to distract attention from your illogical theory that your God designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and ecosystems, most of which did not lead to sapiens and our current ecosystems, although you believe every single one of them was an “absolute requirement” designed in preparation for sapiens and our current ecosystems.

dhw: […]. Your assertion that I distort the importance of the damage we are causing to our own ecosystems is just plain daft!

DAVID: Not daft as the studies show, not by IDer's, but in Science Mag!!! Quoted in Phys. Org. Your distortion is in not recognizing the food web originally designed for us is damaged. The key is it was there, I say by God's design. The web came from past evolution!!!

It is your accusation that I “distort” the importance of human damage to our ecosystems that is daft. And yes, our webs came from past evolution, but that does not mean that every single extinct web in the history of evolution was preparation for and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I simply think my form of God comports with what I was taught in "How to think about God".

dhw: So your teacher taught you that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but could not possibly have created life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him. And may I ask where your teacher got his information from?

DAVID: Adler made the one observation, as a philosopher of religion, the probability God cares about us is 50/50%. The above is your imagination gone wild.

And so the bold above does not comport with what your teacher taught you. Please stop involving Adler in your illogical theories.

Secondhand design (taken from “Savannah theory fading”)

DAVID: Secondhand design is a cumbersome mess, that you don't seem to understand. You've never tried it and I have with firsthand experience. […]

dhw: You are comparing your method of design to God’s, and it is a total mismatch. You have one plan, and you implement it directly. Then you say that is the efficient way to do it, and so he would not have “delegated” design to other minds (intelligent cells). But although you say that like you, your God had one plan, he did NOT implement it directly! He designed countless life forms that had no connection with his “plan”, and he did not even design his “endpoint” (sapiens) directly, but did countless twiddles before finally getting rid of all the irrelevant twiddles and hominins and homos that were not sapiens. It is all the diversions from your proposed “plan” that (a) you cannot explain, and (b) suggest he is not a Turell, and (c) are logically explained by my alternative theories.

DAVID: God's creation pattern is to evolve all forms stepwise: the universe from the BB, the Earth from its origin, life from its start to final sapiens from Erectus, etc. It is perfectly obvious pattern.

I’m not disputing stepwise evolution! I’m disputing your equation of your own single-minded, “firsthand” design of a single plan with what you believe to be your God’s countless “firsthand” designs which had no connection with what you believe to have been his single plan but which can be explained by my alternative theories.

DAVID: Your point now bolded is refuted by the studies I have quoted.

Those studies deal with the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the damage we are causing. They do NOT tell us that every extinct life form and ecosystem led to H. sapiens and our ecosystems, and THAT is the basis of your theories that “make sense only to God”. If you disagree, please tell us which of them “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 28, 2022, 15:32 (578 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: There is no dispute over the fact that ecosystems are a kind of web, or that they can and do decline! You are focusing on something indisputable in order to distract attention from your illogical theory that your God designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and ecosystems, most of which did not lead to sapiens and our current ecosystems, although you believe every single one of them was an “absolute requirement” designed in preparation for sapiens and our current ecosystems.

Since the past produces/evolves the present, the past forms are required. They all produce the current food webs/ecosystems


dhw: It is your accusation that I “distort” the importance of human damage to our ecosystems that is daft. And yes, our webs came from past evolution, but that does not mean that every single extinct web in the history of evolution was preparation for and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

I'm not dodging. Study the articles.

Secondhand design (taken from “Savannah theory fading”)

DAVID: Secondhand design is a cumbersome mess, that you don't seem to understand. You've never tried it and I have with firsthand experience. […]

dhw: You are comparing your method of design to God’s, and it is a total mismatch. You have one plan, and you implement it directly. Then you say that is the efficient way to do it, and so he would not have “delegated” design to other minds (intelligent cells). But although you say that like you, your God had one plan, he did NOT implement it directly! He designed countless life forms that had no connection with his “plan”, and he did not even design his “endpoint” (sapiens) directly, but did countless twiddles before finally getting rid of all the irrelevant twiddles and hominins and homos that were not sapiens. It is all the diversions from your proposed “plan” that (a) you cannot explain, and (b) suggest he is not a Turell, and (c) are logically explained by my alternative theories.

DAVID: God's creation pattern is to evolve all forms stepwise: the universe from the BB, the Earth from its origin, life from its start to final sapiens from Erectus, etc. It is perfectly obvious pattern.

dhw: I’m not disputing stepwise evolution! I’m disputing your equation of your own single-minded, “firsthand” design of a single plan with what you believe to be your God’s countless “firsthand” designs which had no connection with what you believe to have been his single plan but which can be explained by my alternative theories.

I know about your imagined theories which fit a humanized God.


DAVID: Your point now bolded is refuted by the studies I have quoted.

dhw: Those studies deal with the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the damage we are causing. They do NOT tell us that every extinct life form and ecosystem led to H. sapiens and our ecosystems, and THAT is the basis of your theories that “make sense only to God”. If you disagree, please tell us which of them “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

Of course, many branches of evolution did not lead to humans but to the necessary food webs we all recognize. All part of a necessary arrangement. I accept it all as God's plan, noting God evolves all His creations for His own reasons.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, August 29, 2022, 07:39 (578 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There is no dispute over the fact that ecosystems are a kind of web, or that they can and do decline! You are focusing on something indisputable in order to distract attention from your illogical theory that your God designed 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms and ecosystems, most of which did not lead to sapiens and our current ecosystems, although you believe every single one of them was an “absolute requirement” designed in preparation for sapiens and our current ecosystems.

DAVID: Since the past produces/evolves the present, the past forms are required. They all produce the current food webs/ecosystems.

Please explain why God had to specially design brontosauruses in order to produce the current food webs/ecosystems.

dhw: It is your accusation that I “distort” the importance of human damage to our ecosystems that is daft. And yes, our webs came from past evolution, but that does not mean that every single extinct web in the history of evolution was preparation for and “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and our food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I'm not dodging. Study the articles.

See below. They say nothing whatsoever about your theory bolded above.

Secondhand design (taken from “Savannah theory fading”)

DAVID: Secondhand design is a cumbersome mess, that you don't seem to understand. You've never tried it and I have with firsthand experience. […]

DAVID: God's creation pattern is to evolve all forms stepwise: the universe from the BB, the Earth from its origin, life from its start to final sapiens from Erectus, etc. It is perfectly obvious pattern.

dhw: I’m not disputing stepwise evolution! I’m disputing your equation of your own single-minded, “firsthand” design of a single plan with what you believe to be your God’s countless “firsthand” designs which had no connection with what you believe to have been his single plan but which can be explained by my alternative theories.

DAVID: I know about your imagined theories which fit a humanized God.

All theories, including those concerning the existence and nature of God, are “imagined”, since nobody knows the truth. Your “humanizing” argument has been discredited so many times by your own “humanizations” that there is no point in responding to it. And you have dodged the whole issue of “secondhand” design, in which you illogically equate your own single-minded plan and direct execution with your version of God’s plan and his roundabout ways of fulfilling it.

DAVID: Your point now bolded is refuted by the studies I have quoted.

dhw: Those studies deal with the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the damage we are causing. They do NOT tell us that every extinct life form and ecosystem led to H. sapiens and our ecosystems, and THAT is the basis of your theories that “make sense only to God”. If you disagree, please tell us which of them “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

DAVID: Of course, many branches of evolution did not lead to humans but to the necessary food webs we all recognize. All part of a necessary arrangement.

Once again you are telling us that every single life form that became extinct over 3.X billion years was individually designed as “necessary” or an “absolute requirement” for us or for our current "food webs". And yet you tell us that your God designed the Cambrian species, from which we and many of our fellow animals (and foods) are descended, without any precursors.

DAVID: I accept it all as God's plan, noting God evolves all His creations for His own reasons.

What you accept is your own version of your God’s plan, along with all its illogicalities, and your version of events “makes sense only to God”. You dodged my request above, so I’ll make it again. Please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, August 29, 2022, 22:46 (577 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Since the past produces/evolves the present, the past forms are required. They all produce the current food webs/ecosystems.

dhw: Please explain why God had to specially design brontosauruses in order to produce the current food webs/ecosystems.

Silly question. Bronto is a tiny part of the entire process


DAVID: God's creation pattern is to evolve all forms stepwise: the universe from the BB, the Earth from its origin, life from its start to final sapiens from Erectus, etc. It is perfectly obvious pattern.

dhw: I’m not disputing stepwise evolution! I’m disputing your equation of your own single-minded, “firsthand” design of a single plan with what you believe to be your God’s countless “firsthand” designs which had no connection with what you believe to have been his single plan but which can be explained by my alternative theories.

DAVID: I know about your imagined theories which fit a humanized God.

dhw: All theories, including those concerning the existence and nature of God, are “imagined”, since nobody knows the truth. Your “humanizing” argument has been discredited so many times by your own “humanizations” that there is no point in responding to it. And you have dodged the whole issue of “secondhand” design, in which you illogically equate your own single-minded plan and direct execution with your version of God’s plan and his roundabout ways of fulfilling it.

I'm sorry I understand the problems of design by a designer you don't. I've done many designs, and although I am not God, I know the equivalent problems secondhand has at my level.


DAVID: Your point now bolded is refuted by the studies I have quoted.

dhw: Those studies deal with the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the damage we are causing. They do NOT tell us that every extinct life form and ecosystem led to H. sapiens and our ecosystems, and THAT is the basis of your theories that “make sense only to God”. If you disagree, please tell us which of them “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

DAVID: Of course, many branches of evolution did not lead to humans but to the necessary food webs we all recognize. All part of a necessary arrangement.

dhw: Once again you are telling us that every single life form that became extinct over 3.X billion years was individually designed as “necessary” or an “absolute requirement” for us or for our current "food webs". And yet you tell us that your God designed the Cambrian species, from which we and many of our fellow animals (and foods) are descended, without any precursors.

God can design any stage any way He wishes. God chose to evolve us, as history shows.


DAVID: I accept it all as God's plan, noting God evolves all His creations for His own reasons.

dhw: What you accept is your own version of your God’s plan, along with all its illogicalities, and your version of events “makes sense only to God”. You dodged my request above, so I’ll make it again. Please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

What God did is for His reasons. Live with it

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, August 30, 2022, 12:01 (576 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Since the past produces/evolves the present, the past forms are required. They all produce the current food webs/ecosystems.

dhw: Please explain why God had to specially design brontosauruses in order to produce the current food webs/ecosystems.

DAVID: Silly question. Bronto is a tiny part of the entire process.

But you insist that your God individually designed every single life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., and every single one of them is/was a “tiny part” and is/was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens and our food. Since you have no idea why your God had to specifically design each “tiny part”, past and present, extinct and extant, in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our current food webs, you can only repeat that your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or anyone else.

DAVID: God's creation pattern is to evolve all forms stepwise: the universe from the BB, the Earth from its origin, life from its start to final sapiens from Erectus, etc. It is perfectly obvious pattern.

dhw: I’m not disputing stepwise evolution! I’m disputing your equation of your own single-minded, “firsthand” design of a single plan with what you believe to be your God’s countless “firsthand” designs which had no connection with what you believe to have been his single plan but which can be explained by my alternative theories.

DAVID: I know about your imagined theories which fit a humanized God.

dhw: All theories, including those concerning the existence and nature of God, are “imagined”, since nobody knows the truth. Your “humanizing” argument has been discredited so many times by your own “humanizations” that there is no point in responding to it. And you have dodged the whole issue of “secondhand” design, in which you illogically equate your own single-minded plan and direct execution with your version of God’s plan and his roundabout ways of fulfilling it.

DAVID: I'm sorry I understand the problems of design by a designer you don't. I've done many designs, and although I am not God, I know the equivalent problems secondhand has at my level.

But your level is not God’s level. You have a single goal, and if you can implement it yourself, you do so directly. For you, no point in getting someone else to do it (= secondhand). You try to apply this logic to God. What doesn’t make sense to you or me is the fact that you impose a single goal on him (designing us plus our food) but find that instead of implementing it directly, he designs countless life forms that have no connection with his goal, and even his goal (sapiens) is designed in stages with features that need to undergo change after change. If you wish to design a house, you do not begin by designing a bicycle, a motor car and an airplane. And you do not provide your house with bits and pieces which you will later change into different bits and pieces. The obvious conclusion: God’s goal and/or methods of achieving his goal can’t have been anything like yours.

DAVID: Of course, many branches of evolution did not lead to humans but to the necessary food webs we all recognize. All part of a necessary arrangement.

dhw: Once again you are telling us that every single life form that became extinct over 3.X billion years was individually designed as “necessary” or an “absolute requirement” for us or for our current "food webs". And yet you tell us that your God designed the Cambrian species, from which we and many of our fellow animals (and foods) are descended, without any precursors.

DAVID: God can design any stage any way He wishes. God chose to evolve us, as history shows.

We agree that humans evolved and God can do what he likes. That doesn’t mean his purpose and method were such that they make no sense to anyone but himself!

DAVID: I accept it all as God's plan, noting God evolves all His creations for His own reasons.

dhw: What you accept is your own version of your God’s plan, along with all its illogicalities, and your version of events “makes sense only to God”. You dodged my request above, so I’ll make it again. Please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

DAVID: What God did is for His reasons. Live with it.

If he exists, of course I can live with it. What I can’t live with is your theories, which make no sense even to you. I understand your reluctance to answer my question. That speaks for itself.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 30, 2022, 16:24 (576 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Silly question. Bronto is a tiny part of the entire process.

dhw: But you insist that your God individually designed every single life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., and every single one of them is/was a “tiny part” and is/was an “absolute requirement” for sapiens and our food. Since you have no idea why your God had to specifically design each “tiny part”, past and present, extinct and extant, in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our current food webs, you can only repeat that your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or anyone else.

But to believers it doesn't matter if we can't understand God's personal reasons. It is your problem you create in the way you approach God.


DAVID: I'm sorry I understand the problems of design by a designer you don't. I've done many designs, and although I am not God, I know the equivalent problems secondhand has at my level.

dhw: But your level is not God’s level. You have a single goal, and if you can implement it yourself, you do so directly. For you, no point in getting someone else to do it (= secondhand). You try to apply this logic to God. What doesn’t make sense to you or me is the fact that you impose a single goal on him (designing us plus our food) but find that instead of implementing it directly, he designs countless life forms that have no connection with his goal, and even his goal (sapiens) is designed in stages with features that need to undergo change after change. If you wish to design a house, you do not begin by designing a bicycle, a motor car and an airplane. And you do not provide your house with bits and pieces which you will later change into different bits and pieces. The obvious conclusion: God’s goal and/or methods of achieving his goal can’t have been anything like yours.

I'm discussing one specific: how to plan new species, and I know the secondhand problems. You are trying again to complain about how God evolved us. We have only one known history which I say God created. And I don't question His logic as your poor human reasoning does.


DAVID: I accept it all as God's plan, noting God evolves all His creations for His own reasons.

dhw: What you accept is your own version of your God’s plan, along with all its illogicalities, and your version of events “makes sense only to God”. You dodged my request above, so I’ll make it again. Please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

DAVID: What God did is for His reasons. Live with it.

dhw: If he exists, of course I can live with it. What I can’t live with is your theories, which make no sense even to you. I understand your reluctance to answer my question. That speaks for itself.

I accept God's works without question. I try to interpret. And as I interpret, it all makes sense to me.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, August 31, 2022, 08:38 (576 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] to believers it doesn't matter if we can't understand God's personal reasons. It is your problem you create in the way you approach God.

To believers in what? Different beliefs have resulted in some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, as believers disagree on God’s “personal reasons”. Do you honestly think that every believer in God believes that he had only one purpose (us and our food) and therefore designed every single extinct species, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems? If God exists, nobody knows his nature or his “personal reasons”, so why do you put forward theories that don’t make sense to you (they “make sense only to God”) if it doesn’t matter that we can’t know the truth?

Secondhand design

DAVID: I'm sorry I understand the problems of design by a designer you don't. I've done many designs, and although I am not God, I know the equivalent problems secondhand has at my level.

dhw: But your level is not God’s level. You have a single goal, and if you can implement it yourself, you do so directly. For you, no point in getting someone else to do it (= secondhand). You try to apply this logic to God. What doesn’t make sense to you or me is the fact that you impose a single goal on him (designing us plus our food) but find that instead of implementing it directly, he designs countless life forms that have no connection with his goal, and even his goal (sapiens) is designed in stages with features that need to undergo change after change. If you wish to design a house, you do not begin by designing a bicycle, a motor car and an airplane. And you do not provide your house with bits and pieces which you will later change into different bits and pieces. The obvious conclusion: God’s goal and/or methods of achieving his goal can’t have been anything like yours.

DAVID: I'm discussing one specific: how to plan new species, and I know the secondhand problems. You are trying again to complain about how God evolved us. We have only one known history which I say God created. And I don't question His logic as your poor human reasoning does.

Since when did you plan new species? Yes, you are discussing one specific – you plan one item and you execute your single plan directly, which is a more efficient way for you than passing it over to someone else (secondhand) who might mess it up. But the “known history” of life on Earth does not reveal the direct execution of the single plan you impose on your God. For those of us who believe in evolution, including yourself, your God did not directly design us sapiens and our food supplies. He directly designed countless species and food supplies that did not even lead to us, and he did not even design us directly, but did so in stages. The complete opposite of your good self, with your single plan and single mode of execution. This is not a “complaint about how God evolved us”. It is a complaint about your theories, which “make sense only to God” and therefore not to yourself, and about your rejection of an alternative THEISTIC theory (cellular intelligence, designed by your God) on the grounds that your God had to design the way you do, even though history shows that he didn’t.

dhw: Please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

DAVID: What God did is for His reasons. Live with it.

dhw: If he exists, of course I can live with it. What I can’t live with is your theories, which make no sense even to you. I understand your reluctance to answer my question. That speaks for itself.

DAVID: I accept God's works without question. I try to interpret. And as I interpret, it all makes sense to me.

You accept your interpretation of God’s work without question, and you admit that it “makes sense only to God”, which can only mean that it does not make sense to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, September 02, 2022, 18:38 (573 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] to believers it doesn't matter if we can't understand God's personal reasons. It is your problem you create in the way you approach God.

dhw: To believers in what? Different beliefs have resulted in some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, as believers disagree on God’s “personal reasons”. Do you honestly think that every believer in God believes that he had only one purpose (us and our food) and therefore designed every single extinct species, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems? If God exists, nobody knows his nature or his “personal reasons”, so why do you put forward theories that don’t make sense to you (they “make sense only to God”) if it doesn’t matter that we can’t know the truth?

I know past believers did terrible things in the name of God. Bringing it up now is unimportant, but shows your anti-belief prejudice. Just as you refuse to accept my view in my belief system that I can accept the history of evolution as God's works for His reasons and am content with it. The bold above is the basis for attempts at interpretation of His personality.


Secondhand design

DAVID: I'm sorry I understand the problems of design by a designer you don't. I've done many designs, and although I am not God, I know the equivalent problems secondhand has at my level.

dhw: But your level is not God’s level. You have a single goal, and if you can implement it yourself, you do so directly. For you, no point in getting someone else to do it (= secondhand). You try to apply this logic to God. What doesn’t make sense to you or me is the fact that you impose a single goal on him (designing us plus our food) but find that instead of implementing it directly, he designs countless life forms that have no connection with his goal, and even his goal (sapiens) is designed in stages with features that need to undergo change after change. If you wish to design a house, you do not begin by designing a bicycle, a motor car and an airplane. And you do not provide your house with bits and pieces which you will later change into different bits and pieces. The obvious conclusion: God’s goal and/or methods of achieving his goal can’t have been anything like yours.

DAVID: I'm discussing one specific: how to plan new species, and I know the secondhand problems. You are trying again to complain about how God evolved us. We have only one known history which I say God created. And I don't question His logic as your poor human reasoning does.

dhw: Since when did you plan new species? Yes, you are discussing one specific – you plan one item and you execute your single plan directly, which is a more efficient way for you than passing it over to someone else (secondhand) who might mess it up. But the “known history” of life on Earth does not reveal the direct execution of the single plan you impose on your God. For those of us who believe in evolution, including yourself, your God did not directly design us sapiens and our food supplies. He directly designed countless species and food supplies that did not even lead to us, and he did not even design us directly, but did so in stages. The complete opposite of your good self, with your single plan and single mode of execution.

You are totally ignoring the overwhelming evidence God prefers to evolve everything He ever created in small stages, with the exception of the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: This is not a “complaint about how God evolved us”. It is a complaint about your theories, which “make sense only to God” and therefore not to yourself, and about your rejection of an alternative THEISTIC theory (cellular intelligence, designed by your God) on the grounds that your God had to design the way you do, even though history shows that he didn’t.

It is obvious God designs in small stages. I reject your interpretation.


DAVID: I accept God's works without question. I try to interpret. And as I interpret, it all makes sense to me.

dhw: You accept your interpretation of God’s work without question, and you admit that it “makes sense only to God”, which can only mean that it does not make sense to you.

It makes perfect sense to me. Your psychoanalysis of me is silly.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, September 03, 2022, 09:43 (573 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] to believers it doesn't matter if we can't understand God's personal reasons. It is your problem you create in the way you approach God.

dhw: To believers in what? Different beliefs have resulted in some of the bloodiest conflicts in human history, as believers disagree on God’s “personal reasons”. Do you honestly think that every believer in God believes that he had only one purpose (us and our food) and therefore designed every single extinct species, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems? If God exists, nobody knows his nature or his “personal reasons”, so why do you put forward theories that don’t make sense to you (they “make sense only to God”) if it doesn’t matter that we can’t know the truth?

DAVID: I know past believers did terrible things in the name of God. Bringing it up now is unimportant, but shows your anti-belief prejudice.

I am not prejudiced against belief in God, but it is absurd to say it doesn’t matter to believers if we can’t understand his reasons. You seem to be unaware of the wars and acts of terrorism that are still going on because some believers think anyone who doesn’t share their interpretation of God’s wishes must be punished.

DAVID: Just as you refuse to accept my view in my belief system that I can accept the history of evolution as God's works for His reasons and am content with it. The bold above is the basis for attempts at interpretation of His personality.
And later:
You are totally ignoring the overwhelming evidence God prefers to evolve everything He ever created in small stages, with the exception of the Cambrian Explosion.

I also believe in evolution in small stages, and I accept that if God exists, that is the process he designed. I do not accept – as you well know, and continue to dodge – the theory that every single extinct life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for sapiens and our food supply. This theory of yours (which makes sense only to God, and therefore not to yourself) runs into additional trouble when you insist that we are descended from life forms which had no precursors. This clearly breaks the chain of common descent, which again makes nonsense of the idea that every life form etc. that preceded the Cambrian was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. You cannot even tell us why the brontosaurus was absolutely necessary for our food supply. My bold (“nobody knows his nature or his personal reasons) is of course the reason why we try to interpret. But it is no defence of an interpretation to admit that it doesn’t make sense even to the interpreter. (“It makes sense only to God.”)

DAVID: I accept God's works without question. I try to interpret. And as I interpret, it all makes sense to me.

dhw: You accept your interpretation of God’s work without question, and you admit that it “makes sense only to God”, which can only mean that it does not make sense to you.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me. Your psychoanalysis of me is silly.

I am not psychoanalysing you. I am repeating your own comment on your theories, and I keep asking you which of your theories “make sense only to God” if it is not the theories I have listed.

Transferred from “More miscellany”:

dhw: […] It was you who expressed certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. This offers a perfectly feasible purpose. You moaned that my proposal meant he didn’t care. It doesn't, but your irrelevant comment shows you trying to impose the “very humanized” concept of a God who cares! And you ignore the rest of my post, which challenges your concept of what is “easier” for God to do, and which offers an explanation for the vast diversity of life extant and extinct which makes nonsense of your anthropocentrism.

DAVID: Of course, God probably has some human emotion-like qualities in His personality, but I don't think they disturb His intentionality to change His intended direction of creation by evolution.

I don’t understand your answer. Whatever human thought patterns he has would have provided the motive for his creation of the process of evolution! Why would they make him change his motive? But perhaps you mean his human thought patterns could not possibly motivate him to do anything but abide by your illogical theories, which make sense only to him, and therefore not to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 03, 2022, 16:14 (572 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I know past believers did terrible things in the name of God. Bringing it up now is unimportant, but shows your anti-belief prejudice.

dhw: I am not prejudiced against belief in God, but it is absurd to say it doesn’t matter to believers if we can’t understand his reasons. You seem to be unaware of the wars and acts of terrorism that are still going on because some believers think anyone who doesn’t share their interpretation of God’s wishes must be punished.

I am fully aware of religious wars and condemn them as you do. but I don't dwell on them as you constantly do. You completely miss the Dayenu point of the Passover song, accepting God's gifts wit hout question.


DAVID: Just as you refuse to accept my view in my belief system that I can accept the history of evolution as God's works for His reasons and am content with it. The bold above is the basis for attempts at interpretation of His personality.
And later:
You are totally ignoring the overwhelming evidence God prefers to evolve everything He ever created in small stages, with the exception of the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: I also believe in evolution in small stages, and I accept that if God exists, that is the process he designed. I do not accept – as you well know, and continue to dodge – the theory that every single extinct life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc. was individually designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for sapiens and our food supply. This theory of yours (which makes sense only to God, and therefore not to yourself) runs into additional trouble when you insist that we are descended from life forms which had no precursors. This clearly breaks the chain of common descent, which again makes nonsense of the idea that every life form etc. that preceded the Cambrian was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. You cannot even tell us why the brontosaurus was absolutely necessary for our food supply. My bold (“nobody knows his nature or his personal reasons) is of course the reason why we try to interpret. But it is no defence of an interpretation to admit that it doesn’t make sense even to the interpreter. (“It makes sense only to God.”)

Your usual diatribe. The massive diversity of life forms is required for the enormous system of food supply coming from many large and small ecosystems. What I have bolded above is your constant confusion about evolution by God and Darwin evolution. They are look-alike but very different!!!! In God evolution God does whatever He wishes as the Cambrian, the fact of which destroys Darwin.

Transferred from “More miscellany”:

dhw: […] It was you who expressed certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. This offers a perfectly feasible purpose. You moaned that my proposal meant he didn’t care. It doesn't, but your irrelevant comment shows you trying to impose the “very humanized” concept of a God who cares! And you ignore the rest of my post, which challenges your concept of what is “easier” for God to do, and which offers an explanation for the vast diversity of life extant and extinct which makes nonsense of your anthropocentrism.

DAVID: Of course, God probably has some human emotion-like qualities in His personality, but I don't think they disturb His intentionality to change His intended direction of creation by evolution.

dhw: I don’t understand your answer. Whatever human thought patterns he has would have provided the motive for his creation of the process of evolution! Why would they make him change his motive? But perhaps you mean his human thought patterns could not possibly motivate him to do anything but abide by your illogical theories, which make sense only to him, and therefore not to you.

The God I envision has a direct vision for His evolutionary processes and pursues them very directly and with purpose. What emotions He might have similar to ours do not change His purposeful creations. They are a side issue which do not affect His pursuit of purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, September 04, 2022, 12:00 (571 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I am fully aware of religious wars and condemn them as you do. but I don't dwell on them as you constantly do. You completely miss the Dayenu point of the Passover song, accepting God's gifts without question.

This is a complete non sequitur! You wrote: “to believers it doesn’t matter if we can’t understand God’s personal reasons.” Some believers think they know God’s “personal reasons”, and it matters so much to them that they go and kill other believers who disagree with their interpretation of God’s “personal reasons”. As for the Dayenu point of view, if God exists, by all means let us be thankful for the wonderful things he has created, but why must we accept illogical theories about why and how he created them, and why must we turn a blind eye to the horrors that he has also created? Who made up such silly rules?

dhw: […] it is no defence of an interpretation to admit that it doesn’t make sense even to the interpreter. (“It makes sense only to God.”)

DAVID: Your usual diatribe. The massive diversity of life forms is required for the enormous system of food supply coming from many large and small ecosystems.

I shan’t repeat my “diatribe”, since you simply continue to leave out the salient parts of your theories. The massive diversity of life (animal and vegetable) over the last 3.8 billion years is what provided/provides the food supply for those within each and every ecosystem extinct and extant. That does not mean that every single extinct form of life and every single ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our food.

DAVID: What I have bolded above is your constant confusion about evolution by God and Darwin evolution. They are look-alike but very different!!!! In God evolution God does whatever He wishes as the Cambrian, the fact of which destroys Darwin.

The theory that H. sapiens descended from species that had no precursors (Cambrian) destroys the theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning was to design H. sapiens. The theory that your God designed every single life form as an “absolute requirement" for us and our food is destroyed by the fact that countless extinct life forms had no connection with us and our food. Darwin is irrelevant to this discussion. If God exists, I doubt if anyone would argue that he did not do what he wished to do. If we look on the history of life and interpret it as a free-for-all, then we would argue that he wished to create a free-for-all. The fact that an interpretation differs from your own interpretation does not automatically mean that it is wrong.

Transferred from “More miscellany”:

DAVID: The God I envision has a direct vision for His evolutionary processes and pursues them very directly and with purpose.

I agree, and all my alternative theories have him doing just that. Only your theories have him using evolutionary processes to pursue his purpose indirectly, and only your theories make no sense to you or to me. (They “make sense only to God.”)

DAVID: What emotions He might have similar to ours do not change His purposeful creations. They are a side issue which do not affect His pursuit of purpose.

We are talking about his purpose, and I suggest that whatever human emotions he might have would be the driving force behind his creativity. For instance, your own guess that he wanted to design a being who would recognize him, admire his work and have a relationship with him would motivate him into trying to create such a being. Or his “enjoyment” and “interest” might motivate him into creating things that he enjoys creating and will be interested in. You have proposed possible “emotions” that would not be a side issue but a purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 04, 2022, 16:50 (571 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am fully aware of religious wars and condemn them as you do. but I don't dwell on them as you constantly do. You completely miss the Dayenu point of the Passover song, accepting God's gifts without question.

dhw: This is a complete non sequitur! You wrote: “to believers it doesn’t matter if we can’t understand God’s personal reasons.” Some believers think they know God’s “personal reasons”, and it matters so much to them that they go and kill other believers who disagree with their interpretation of God’s “personal reasons”. As for the Dayenu point of view, if God exists, by all means let us be thankful for the wonderful things he has created, but why must we accept illogical theories about why and how he created them, and why must we turn a blind eye to the horrors that he has also created? Who made up such silly rules?

It is your problem, not mine. You always emphasize the horrible, while it is present it is a minuscule portion of all daily events.


dhw: […] it is no defence of an interpretation to admit that it doesn’t make sense even to the interpreter. (“It makes sense only to God.”)

DAVID: Your usual diatribe. The massive diversity of life forms is required for the enormous system of food supply coming from many large and small ecosystems.

dhw: I shan’t repeat my “diatribe”, since you simply continue to leave out the salient parts of your theories. The massive diversity of life (animal and vegetable) over the last 3.8 billion years is what provided/provides the food supply for those within each and every ecosystem extinct and extant. That does not mean that every single extinct form of life and every single ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our food.

The New Zealand story refutes you.


DAVID: What I have bolded above is your constant confusion about evolution by God and Darwin evolution. They are look-alike but very different!!!! In God evolution God does whatever He wishes as the Cambrian, the fact of which destroys Darwin.

dhw: The theory that H. sapiens descended from species that had no precursors (Cambrian) destroys the theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning was to design H. sapiens.

dhw please look at your own words, now in red:

dhw: The theory that your God designed every single life form as an “absolute requirement" for us and our food is destroyed by the fact that countless extinct life forms had no connection with us and our food. Darwin is irrelevant to this discussion. If God exists, I doubt if anyone would argue that he did not do what he wished to do. If we look on the history of life and interpret it as a free-for-all, then we would argue that he wished to create a free-for-all. The fact that an interpretation differs from your own interpretation does not automatically mean that it is wrong.

The Cambrian is God doing His designing job as He wishes. Your words agree!! The free-for-all
is the fixed pattern of ecosystems all over the world. See New Zealand entry today.

Transferred from “More miscellany”:

DAVID: The God I envision has a direct vision for His evolutionary processes and pursues them very directly and with purpose.

dhw: I agree, and all my alternative theories have him doing just that. Only your theories have him using evolutionary processes to pursue his purpose indirectly, and only your theories make no sense to you or to me. (They “make sense only to God.”)

Repeated fully answered in the past posts.


DAVID: What emotions He might have similar to ours do not change His purposeful creations. They are a side issue which do not affect His pursuit of purpose.

dhw: We are talking about his purpose, and I suggest that whatever human emotions he might have would be the driving force behind his creativity. For instance, your own guess that he wanted to design a being who would recognize him, admire his work and have a relationship with him would motivate him into trying to create such a being. Or his “enjoyment” and “interest” might motivate him into creating things that he enjoys creating and will be interested in. You have proposed possible “emotions” that would not be a side issue but a purpose.

All human guesses of God's possible pesonal reactions to His creations. I'll remind God is a person like no other person. I view Him as creating without emotions driving His creations. Your humanized God is just the opposite.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, September 05, 2022, 12:41 (570 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You wrote: “to believers it doesn’t matter if we can’t understand God’s personal reasons.” […] if God exists, by all means let us be thankful for the wonderful things he has created, but why must we accept illogical theories about why and how he created them, and why must we turn a blind eye to the horrors that he has also created? Who made up such silly rules?

DAVID: It is your problem, not mine. You always emphasize the horrible, while it is present it is a minuscule portion of all daily events.

1) Some believers kill those who can’t understand what they consider to be God’s “personal reasons”. Why is that not a problem for you?

2) The problem of theodicy is why an all-good God would have created bad. You do not solve the problem by pretending that disease, flood, famine, natural catastrophes etc. are “a minuscule portion of daily events”, bearing in mind that all these horrors also took place long before sapiens became able to interfere with Nature.

dhw: […] The massive diversity of life (animal and vegetable) over the last 3.8 billion years is what provided/provides the food supply for those within each and every ecosystem extinct and extant. That does not mean that every single extinct form of life and every single ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our food.

DAVID: The New Zealand story refutes you.

No it doesn’t. See “More miscellany”.

dhw: The theory that H. sapiens descended from species that had no precursors (Cambrian) destroys the theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning was to design H. sapiens.

DAVID: dhw please look at your own words, now in red:

dhw: […] If God exists, I doubt if anyone would argue that he did not do what he wished to do. If we look on the history of life and interpret it as a free-for-all, then we would argue that he wished to create a free-for-all. The fact that an interpretation differs from your own interpretation does not automatically mean that it is wrong.

DAVID: The Cambrian is God doing His designing job as He wishes. Your words agree!! The free-for-all is the fixed pattern of ecosystems all over the world. See New Zealand entry today.

Your theory that we are descended from species your God designed without precursors makes nonsense of the theory that we were his goal from the very beginning, if all he designed pre-Cambrian were species that did NOT lead to us! (But elsewhere, you agree that we descended from bacteria!) My "red" suggests that his wish may not have been what you wish he wished! The Cambrian remains a mystery, but gaps in the fossil record do not necessarily mean that there were no precursors (new fossil finds have blurred some of the apparent borderlines between Ediacaran and Cambrian) or that a sudden major change in the environment (e.g. an increase in oxygen) could not have produced sudden major changes resulting in speciation. See "More miscellany”. Thank you for acknowledging that ecosystems all over the world and throughout the history of life are a free-for-all. The exact opposite of your theory that every single one throughout 3.8 billion years was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food.

Transferred from “More miscellany”:

DAVID: The God I envision has a direct vision for His evolutionary processes and pursues them very directly and with purpose.

dhw: I agree, and all my alternative theories have him doing just that. Only your theories have him using evolutionary processes to pursue his purpose indirectly, and only your theories make no sense to you or to me. (They “make sense only to God.”)

DAVID: Repeated fully answered in the past posts.

Never answered. Once more, please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

DAVID: What emotions He might have similar to ours do not change His purposeful creations. They are a side issue which do not affect His pursuit of purpose.

dhw: We are talking about his purpose, and I suggest that whatever human emotions he might have would be the driving force behind his creativity.

DAVID: All human guesses of God's possible personal reactions to His creations.

Wrong. They are guesses/proposals concerning his reasons for creating his creations. And each of them is based on your own belief that he feels these emotions. Even you must recognize how daft it is to believe that from the very beginning your God wanted to design humans, but only after he had designed them did he realize that he wanted them to recognize him, admire his work and have a relationship with him! Or he enjoyed creating, but didn’t realize he enjoyed it until he’d done it...over and over again a few million times.

DAVID: I'll remind God is a person like no other person. I view Him as creating without emotions driving His creations. Your humanized God is just the opposite.

We would all agree that if he exists, he is like no other person, but he can hardly be a person without having personal attributes. See above for the daftness of your belief that whatever his human thought patterns might be, they have played no part in his reason for creating life, including humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, September 05, 2022, 16:05 (570 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is your problem, not mine. You always emphasize the horrible, while it is present it is a minuscule portion of all daily events.

dhw: 1) Some believers kill those who can’t understand what they consider to be God’s “personal reasons”. Why is that not a problem for you?

2) The problem of theodicy is why an all-good God would have created bad. You do not solve the problem by pretending that disease, flood, famine, natural catastrophes etc. are “a minuscule portion of daily events”, bearing in mind that all these horrors also took place long before sapiens became able to interfere with Nature.

More of the same gloomy approach

dhw: […] The massive diversity of life (animal and vegetable) over the last 3.8 billion years is what provided/provides the food supply for those within each and every ecosystem extinct and extant. That does not mean that every single extinct form of life and every single ecosystem was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our food.

DAVID: The New Zealand story refutes you.

dhw: No it doesn’t. See “More miscellany”.

I will


dhw: The theory that H. sapiens descended from species that had no precursors (Cambrian) destroys the theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning was to design H. sapiens.

DAVID: dhw please look at your own words, now in red:

dhw: […] If God exists, I doubt if anyone would argue that he did not do what he wished to do. If we look on the history of life and interpret it as a free-for-all, then we would argue that he wished to create a free-for-all. The fact that an interpretation differs from your own interpretation does not automatically mean that it is wrong.

DAVID: The Cambrian is God doing His designing job as He wishes. Your words agree!! The free-for-all is the fixed pattern of ecosystems all over the world. See New Zealand entry today.

dhw: Your theory that we are descended from species your God designed without precursors makes nonsense of the theory that we were his goal from the very beginning, if all he designed pre-Cambrian were species that did NOT lead to us! (But elsewhere, you agree that we descended from bacteria!) My "red" suggests that his wish may not have been what you wish he wished! The Cambrian remains a mystery, but gaps in the fossil record do not necessarily mean that there were no precursors (new fossil finds have blurred some of the apparent borderlines between Ediacaran and Cambrian) or that a sudden major change in the environment (e.g. an increase in oxygen) could not have produced sudden major changes resulting in speciation. See "More miscellany”. Thank you for acknowledging that ecosystems all over the world and throughout the history of life are a free-for-all. The exact opposite of your theory that every single one throughout 3.8 billion years was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food.

It is beyond amazing that you do not recognize the Cambrian Explosion requires a designer.


Transferred from “More miscellany”:

dhw: I agree, and all my alternative theories have him doing just that. Only your theories have him using evolutionary processes to pursue his purpose indirectly, and only your theories make no sense to you or to me. (They “make sense only to God.”)

DAVID: Repeated fully answered in the past posts.

dhw: Never answered. Once more, please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

When will you recognize I accept what God did for His own reasons. That means it all makes sense to me!


dhw: We are talking about his purpose, and I suggest that whatever human emotions he might have would be the driving force behind his creativity.

DAVID: All human guesses of God's possible personal reactions to His creations.

dhw: Wrong. They are guesses/proposals concerning his reasons for creating his creations. And each of them is based on your own belief that he feels these emotions. Even you must recognize how daft it is to believe that from the very beginning your God wanted to design humans, but only after he had designed them did he realize that he wanted them to recognize him, admire his work and have a relationship with him! Or he enjoyed creating, but didn’t realize he enjoyed it until he’d done it...over and over again a few million times.

Another humanizing view of God. God knew how we would react to Him well before creating us. God creates without self-interest.


DAVID: I'll remind God is a person like no other person. I view Him as creating without emotions driving His creations. Your humanized God is just the opposite.

dhw: We would all agree that if he exists, he is like no other person, but he can hardly be a person without having personal attributes. See above for the daftness of your belief that whatever his human thought patterns might be, they have played no part in his reason for creating life, including humans.

His personal attributes do not influence His purposeful creations.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, September 06, 2022, 07:34 (570 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You always emphasize the horrible, while it is present it is a minuscule portion of all daily events.

dhw: The problem of theodicy is why an all-good God would have created bad. You do not solve the problem by pretending that disease, flood, famine, natural catastrophes etc. are “a minuscule portion of daily events”, bearing in mind that all these horrors also took place long before sapiens became able to interfere with Nature.

DAVID: More of the same gloomy approach.

Congratulations on your highly original solution to the problem of theodicy: shut your eyes to the existence of bad. I wonder what you used to tell your patients when they came to you for help: “Your cripplingly painful and terminal disease is a minuscule portion of daily events. Go home and praise God for his goodness.” Luckily, I happen to know that you do not practise what you appear to preach.

dhw: 1) your theory that we are descended from species your God designed without precursors makes nonsense of the theory that we were his goal from the very beginning, if all he designed pre-Cambrian were species that did NOT lead to us! (But elsewhere, you agree that we descended from bacteria!) […] 2) The Cambrian remains a mystery, but gaps in the fossil record do not necessarily mean that there were no precursors (new fossil finds have blurred some of the apparent borderlines between Ediacaran and Cambrian) or that a sudden major change in the environment (e.g. an increase in oxygen) could not have produced sudden major changes resulting in speciation. See "More miscellany”. 3) Thank you for acknowledging that ecosystems all over the world and throughout the history of life are a free-for-all. The exact opposite of your theory that every single one throughout 3.8 billion years was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food.

DAVID: It is beyond amazing that you do not recognize the Cambrian Explosion requires a designer.

This is a new form of discussion. Ignore every point your interlocutor makes! I have inserted numbers for you. 1) your contradictory theories about your designer’s goal and method; 2) possible explanations for the sudden appearance of new Cambrian species, neither of which exclude your designer as the inventor of life and evolution; 3) another contradiction of your own theory about your designer’s goal and method. Your response to them all: I should recognize that there is a designer.

dhw: Once more, please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

DAVID: When will you recognize I accept what God did for His own reasons. That means it all makes sense to me!

Accepting your own theories about what God did for reasons which you don’t know and which make sense only to God does not mean that your theories make sense to you!
I went on to suggest reasons why God, if he exists, might have created life.

DAVID: All human guesses of God's possible personal reactions to His creations.

dhw: Wrong. They are guesses/proposals concerning his reasons for creating his creations. And each of them is based on your own belief that he feels these emotions. Even you must recognize how daft it is to believe that from the very beginning your God wanted to design humans, but only after he had designed them did he realize that he wanted them to recognize him, admire his work and have a relationship with him! Or he enjoyed creating, but didn’t realize he enjoyed it until he’d done it...over and over again a few million times.

DAVID: Another humanizing view of God. God knew how we would react to Him well before creating us. God creates without self-interest.

So apparently he didn’t want us to recognize him, and admire his work and have a relationship with him. He made us for no reason at all. And so presumably he created the whole of life for no reason at all. He just knew in advance everything that would happen and how he would react to it. He did enjoy every individual act of creation, and he was interested in every individual creation, but he didn’t actually enjoy every individual act of creation until he’d done it, and wasn’t interested in every individual creation until it was already there. It would seem that your all-purposeful God never actually had a purpose at all when he created life and us!

DAVID: I'll remind God is a person like no other person. I view Him as creating without emotions driving His creations. Your humanized God is just the opposite.

dhw: We would all agree that if he exists, he is like no other person, but he can hardly be a person without having personal attributes. See above for the daftness of your belief that whatever his human thought patterns might be, they have played no part in his reason for creating life, including humans.

DAVID: His personal attributes do not influence His purposeful creations.

What purpose? How can you have a purpose that does not depend on your personal wishes, and how can you have personal wishes without personal attributes?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 06, 2022, 17:00 (569 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: More of the same gloomy approach.

dhw: Congratulations on your highly original solution to the problem of theodicy: shut your eyes to the existence of bad. I wonder what you used to tell your patients when they came to you for help: “Your cripplingly painful and terminal disease is a minuscule portion of daily events. Go home and praise God for his goodness.” Luckily, I happen to know that you do not practise what you appear to preach.

I'm just following the views in Salvo magazine. Your approach is why I offered the article about liberals and conservatives and how we are so opposite


DAVID: It is beyond amazing that you do not recognize the Cambrian Explosion requires a designer.

dhw: This is a new form of discussion. Ignore every point your interlocutor makes! I have inserted numbers for you. 1) your contradictory theories about your designer’s goal and method; 2) possible explanations for the sudden appearance of new Cambrian species, neither of which exclude your designer as the inventor of life and evolution; 3) another contradiction of your own theory about your designer’s goal and method. Your response to them all: I should recognize that there is a designer.

1) God's goal and method is simple: design a series of stepwise forms until sapiens is reached. 2) God's design totally explains the Cambrian Explosion. 3) ecosystems are highly structured free-for-all battles for food, nothing like your imagined God's weak free-for-all loss of control over evolution. Satisfied?


dhw: Once more, please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

DAVID: When will you recognize I accept what God did for His own reasons. That means it all makes sense to me!

dhw: Accepting your own theories about what God did for reasons which you don’t know and which make sense only to God does not mean that your theories make sense to you!

You are confused again. I fully accept history as God's creation. After that precise step, I then theorize about God's actions, and of course, they make sense to me if not you.

DAVID: Another humanizing view of God. God knew how we would react to Him well before creating us. God creates without self-interest.

dhw: So apparently he didn’t want us to recognize him, and admire his work and have a relationship with him. He made us for no reason at all. And so presumably he created the whole of life for no reason at all. He just knew in advance everything that would happen and how he would react to it. He did enjoy every individual act of creation, and he was interested in every individual creation, but he didn’t actually enjoy every individual act of creation until he’d done it, and wasn’t interested in every individual creation until it was already there. It would seem that your all-purposeful God never actually had a purpose at all when he created life and us!

Once again you are trying to invent a personal God who cares about us. Adler warns he odds are 50/50.


DAVID: I'll remind God is a person like no other person. I view Him as creating without emotions driving His creations. Your humanized God is just the opposite.

dhw: We would all agree that if he exists, he is like no other person, but he can hardly be a person without having personal attributes. See above for the daftness of your belief that whatever his human thought patterns might be, they have played no part in his reason for creating life, including humans.

DAVID: His personal attributes do not influence His purposeful creations.

dhw: What purpose? How can you have a purpose that does not depend on your personal wishes, and how can you have personal wishes without personal attributes?

All true. Again, God is a personage like no other person!!! I can only go so far recognizing God does everything He does for His own unknown-to-us reasons.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, September 07, 2022, 11:44 (568 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: More of the same gloomy approach.

dhw: Congratulations on your highly original solution to the problem of theodicy: shut your eyes to the existence of bad. […]

DAVID: I'm just following the views in Salvo magazine. Your approach is why I offered the article about liberals and conservatives and how we are so opposite.

You are simply dodging the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

DAVID: (under “Predatory bacteria”): in God's eat or be eaten world these bacteria can be used […] The theodicy cranks will complain God should have made the world peaceful, but He chose not to for his own reasons. We have to work with it as it is, with our God-given brains.

Thank you for your acknowledgement that life is a constant free-for-all battle for survival (see also below). Theodicy is not a complaint, but a theological problem for theists who believe that God is all-good. Forgive me if I say that anyone who dismisses “bad” as a “minuscule portion of daily events” might well be regarded by others as a “crank”.

I raised three points which you have now answered:
DAVID: 1) God's goal and method is simple: design a series of stepwise forms until sapiens is reached.

You have managed yet again to forget that you cannot explain why, if sapiens plus econiches were his only goal, he first designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with that goal.

DAVID: 2) God's design totally explains the Cambrian Explosion.

Agreed. But your theory that we sapiens are descended from de novo Cambrian species contradicts your theory that his goal from the beginning was to design sapiens. There is no common descent from the beginning. Secondly, you have ignored the two possible explanations offered for the sudden appearance of new species (Darwin’s incomplete fossil record – new Ediacaran fossils have somewhat blurred the borderlines – and Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence).

DAVID: 3) ecosystems are highly structured free-for-all battles for food, nothing like your imagined God's weak free-for-all loss of control over evolution. Satisfied?

A free-for-all battle for survival does not suggest that every single life form in every single econiche for 3.X billion years was individually designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our econiches. And I am not suggesting “loss of control”, but that the “free-for-all” was what your God (if he exists) wanted and created.

dhw: Once more, please tell us which of your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.[…]

DAVID: You are confused again. I fully accept history as God's creation. After that precise step, I then theorize about God's actions, and of course, they make sense to me if not you.

If God exists, of course history is his creation. It is your theories about his purpose and actions that I challenge. And your response is that you cannot know his reasons, which in your own words “make sense only to God”, so please tell us which of your theories make sense only to God.

DAVID: […] God knew how we would react to Him well before creating us. God creates without self-interest.

dhw: So apparently he didn’t want us to recognize him, and admire his work and have a relationship with him. [NB: this was David’s guess, not mine.] He made us for no reason at all. And so presumably he created the whole of life for no reason at all. He just knew in advance everything that would happen and how he would react to it. He did enjoy every individual act of creation [David’s guess], and he was interested in every individual creation [David’s guess], but he didn’t actually enjoy every individual act of creation until he’d done it, and wasn’t interested in every individual creation until it was already there. It would seem that your all-purposeful God never actually had a purpose at all when he created life and us!

DAVID: Once again you are trying to invent a personal God who cares about us. Adler warns the odds are 50/50.

Where have you found the word “care” in the above? It is you who brought up the subject of care: DAVID (More miscellany, August 30): “You love to talk about your weird God who doesn’t care about his goals. I can’t accept him.” In fact, I have never said he does or doesn’t “care”. It is you who get yourself in a twist over the subject (see also discussions on theodicy).

DAVID: His personal attributes do not influence His purposeful creations.

dhw: What purpose? How can you have a purpose that does not depend on your personal wishes, and how can you have personal wishes without personal attributes?

DAVID: All true. Again, God is a personage like no other person!!! I can only go so far recognizing God does everything He does for His own unknown-to-us reasons.

And so your theory that he designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. for the one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food, although the majority did not lead to us and our econiches, makes sense only to God and therefore not to you. Thank you for the clarification.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 07, 2022, 15:04 (568 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You are simply dodging the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

I see it as small and you large.


DAVID: (under “Predatory bacteria”): in God's eat or be eaten world these bacteria can be used […] The theodicy cranks will complain God should have made the world peaceful, but He chose not to for his own reasons. We have to work with it as it is, with our God-given brains.

dhw: Thank you for your acknowledgement that life is a constant free-for-all battle for survival (see also below). Theodicy is not a complaint, but a theological problem for theists who believe that God is all-good. Forgive me if I say that anyone who dismisses “bad” as a “minuscule portion of daily events” might well be regarded by others as a “crank”.

The 'all-good God' created our lives which we enjoy, don't we? Same sour outlook of criticism.


dhw: I raised three points which you have now answered:
DAVID: 1) God's goal and method is simple: design a series of stepwise forms until sapiens is reached.

dhw: You have managed yet again to forget that you cannot explain why, if sapiens plus econiches were his only goal, he first designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with that goal.

You forgot the food (econiches) is important.


DAVID: 2) God's design totally explains the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: Agreed. But your theory that we sapiens are descended from de novo Cambrian species contradicts your theory that his goal from the beginning was to design sapiens. There is no common descent from the beginning. Secondly, you have ignored the two possible explanations offered for the sudden appearance of new species (Darwin’s incomplete fossil record – new Ediacaran fossils have somewhat blurred the borderlines – and Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence).

Forget Darwinist common descent!! God's form of evolution mimics Darwin, but His designing allows for skips and jumps like the Cambrian.


DAVID: 3) ecosystems are highly structured free-for-all battles for food, nothing like your imagined God's weak free-for-all loss of control over evolution. Satisfied?

dhw: A free-for-all battle for survival does not suggest that every single life form in every single econiche for 3.X billion years was individually designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our econiches. And I am not suggesting “loss of control”, but that the “free-for-all” was what your God (if he exists) wanted and created.

FREE means uncontrolled!!


DAVID: You are confused again. I fully accept history as God's creation. After that precise step, I then theorize about God's actions, and of course, they make sense to me if not you.

dhw: If God exists, of course history is his creation. It is your theories about his purpose and actions that I challenge. And your response is that you cannot know his reasons, which in your own words “make sense only to God”, so please tell us which of your theories make sense only to God.

Specifically: His choice to evolve every one of His creations.


DAVID: Once again you are trying to invent a personal God who cares about us. Adler warns the odds are 50/50.

dhw: Where have you found the word “care” in the above? It is you who brought up the subject of care: DAVID (More miscellany, August 30): “You love to talk about your weird God who doesn’t care about his goals. I can’t accept him.” In fact, I have never said he does or doesn’t “care”. It is you who get yourself in a twist over the subject (see also discussions on theodicy).

You don't understand discussions of God's attributes are weak theories about a personage who is like no other person.


dhw: And so your theory that he designed every life form, econiche, natural wonder etc. for the one and only purpose of designing H. sapiens plus food, although the majority did not lead to us and our econiches, makes sense only to God and therefore not to you. Thank you for the clarification.

From above: "Specifically: His choice to evolve every one of His creations" makes sense to God for His reasons. You point out He could directly create. But He didn't, all making sense only to Him.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, September 08, 2022, 11:23 (568 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You are simply dodging the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

DAVID: I see it as small and you large.

Either it’s a problem or it isn’t. The subject involves God’s nature, not how big or little is the problem, and theologians/philosophers have wrestled with it for centuries.

DAVID: (under “Predatory bacteria”): […] The theodicy cranks will complain God should have made the world peaceful, but He chose not to for his own reasons. We have to work with it as it is, with our God-given brains.

dhw: Theodicy is not a complaint, but a theological problem for theists who believe that God is all-good. Forgive me if I say that anyone who dismisses “bad” as a “minuscule portion of daily events” might well be regarded by others as a “crank”.

DAVID: The 'all-good God' created our lives which we enjoy, don't we? Same sour outlook of criticism.

Some people don’t enjoy suffering. Trying to reconcile the “bad” with the notion that God is “all-good” is not a sour outlook of criticism. Refusing even to consider the “bad” is an outlook of intellectual head-in-the-sand.

dhw: I raised three points which you have now answered:

DAVID: 1) God's goal and method is simple: design a series of stepwise forms until sapiens is reached.

dhw: You have managed yet again to forget that you cannot explain why, if sapiens plus econiches were his only goal, he first designed countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with that goal.

DAVID: You forgot the food (econiches) is important.

Food is important for all organisms. That does not mean that every item of food for every organism that ever lived was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for sapiens and his food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: 2) God's design totally explains the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: Agreed. But your theory that we sapiens are descended from de novo Cambrian species contradicts your theory that his goal from the beginning was to design sapiens. There is no common descent from the beginning. Secondly, you have ignored the two possible explanations offered for the sudden appearance of new species (Darwin’s incomplete fossil record – new Ediacaran fossils have somewhat blurred the borderlines – and Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence).

DAVID: Forget Darwinist common descent!! God's form of evolution mimics Darwin, but His designing allows for skips and jumps like the Cambrian.

Your theory is that your all-powerful, all-purposeful God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create H. sapiens plus his food. In that case, all organisms and foods from the very beginning would have led to H. sapiens plus his food (= common descent). But they didn’t all do so. And you even have sapiens descending from species that had no precursors at all (Cambrian). Clear implication: sapiens plus food were NOT his one and only purpose. Your response: your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. So maybe your theory is wrong. All bolded in the hope that you will stop editing out all the bits that make your theory incomprehensible to you.

DAVID: 3) ecosystems are highly structured free-for-all battles for food, nothing like your imagined God's weak free-for-all loss of control over evolution. Satisfied?

dhw: A free-for-all battle for survival does not suggest that every single life form in every single econiche for 3.X billion years was individually designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our econiches. And I am not suggesting “loss of control”, but that the “free-for-all” was what your God (if he exists) wanted and created.

DAVID: FREE means uncontrolled!!

Correct. But that does not mean “loss of control”, which implies that your God wanted control, had it, and lost it. In the free-for-all theory, he deliberately created something that would act independently of himself. He did not want control! (But he could dabble if he wished to.)

dhw: […] please tell us which of your theories make sense only to God.

DAVID: Specifically: His choice to evolve every one of His creations.

Your usual obfuscation. By “evolve” you mean individually design, and you’ve forgotten the Cambrian species, which you insist were NOT the products of evolution anyway. But it doesn’t matter which you mean. Either belief, that God (if he exists) decided to evolve or decided to individually design all his creations, makes perfect sense. What does not make sense is the theory I have bolded above.

DAVID: Once again you are trying to invent a personal God who cares about us. Adler warns the odds are 50/50.

dhw: […] It is you who brought up the subject of care: DAVID (More miscellany, August 30): “You love to talk about your weird God who doesn’t care about his goals. I can’t accept him.” In fact, I have never said he does or doesn’t “care”. It is you who get yourself in a twist over the subject (see also discussions on theodicy).

DAVID: You don't understand discussions of God's attributes are weak theories about a personage who is like no other person.

You have dodged your fake argument about “care”, and have now descended to the meaningless term “weak”. What is “weak”, for instance, about a God who in your own words enjoys creating and is interested in his creations?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 08, 2022, 16:30 (567 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 2) God's design totally explains the Cambrian Explosion.

dhw: Agreed. But your theory that we sapiens are descended from de novo Cambrian species contradicts your theory that his goal from the beginning was to design sapiens. There is no common descent from the beginning. Secondly, you have ignored the two possible explanations offered for the sudden appearance of new species (Darwin’s incomplete fossil record – new Ediacaran fossils have somewhat blurred the borderlines – and Shapiro’s theory of cellular intelligence).

DAVID: Forget Darwinist common descent!! God's form of evolution mimics Darwin, but His designing allows for skips and jumps like the Cambrian.

dhw: Your theory is that your all-powerful, all-purposeful God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create H. sapiens plus his food. In that case, all organisms and foods from the very beginning would have led to H. sapiens plus his food (= common descent). But they didn’t all do so. And you even have sapiens descending from species that had no precursors at all (Cambrian). Clear implication: sapiens plus food were NOT his one and only purpose. Your response: your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. So maybe your theory is wrong. All bolded in the hope that you will stop editing out all the bits that make your theory incomprehensible to you.

See my response in Ecosystems Importance entry today.


DAVID: 3) ecosystems are highly structured free-for-all battles for food, nothing like your imagined God's weak free-for-all loss of control over evolution. Satisfied?

dhw: A free-for-all battle for survival does not suggest that every single life form in every single econiche for 3.X billion years was individually designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our econiches. And I am not suggesting “loss of control”, but that the “free-for-all” was what your God (if he exists) wanted and created.

DAVID: FREE means uncontrolled!!

dhw: Correct. But that does not mean “loss of control”, which implies that your God wanted control, had it, and lost it. In the free-for-all theory, he deliberately created something that would act independently of himself. He did not want control! (But he could dabble if he wished to.)

Your human reasoning always leads to a humanized God, not controlling reality.


dhw: […] please tell us which of your theories make sense only to God.

DAVID: Specifically: His choice to evolve every one of His creations.

dhw: Your usual obfuscation. By “evolve” you mean individually design, and you’ve forgotten the Cambrian species, which you insist were NOT the products of evolution anyway. But it doesn’t matter which you mean. Either belief, that God (if he exists) decided to evolve or decided to individually design all his creations, makes perfect sense. What does not make sense is the theory I have bolded above.

The bolded objection comes from the fact I think about God totally differently than your thought patterns about God.


DAVID: Once again you are trying to invent a personal God who cares about us. Adler warns the odds are 50/50.

dhw: […] It is you who brought up the subject of care: DAVID (More miscellany, August 30): “You love to talk about your weird God who doesn’t care about his goals. I can’t accept him.” In fact, I have never said he does or doesn’t “care”. It is you who get yourself in a twist over the subject (see also discussions on theodicy).

DAVID: You don't understand discussions of God's attributes are weak theories about a personage who is like no other person.

dhw: You have dodged your fake argument about “care”, and have now descended to the meaningless term “weak”. What is “weak”, for instance, about a God who in your own words enjoys creating and is interested in his creations?

I use Adler as a guide for the caring issue. So? Your repeated use of past quotes must be in context. They are theoretical guesses about the personality we don't know, and can't know, as God is a personage like no other one. Again Adler.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, September 09, 2022, 07:44 (567 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

You keep making the same point over and over again:

DAVID: […] The point is clear: every living thing plays a role in the food web. The entire bush of life, with multiple unrelated genetic forms, creates the food web and is just as important a result of evolution as the appearance of humans. The planning by design is superb: enough food for a rapidly expanding human population. (Then you trace the history of our expansion).

(New Zealand:) Answered in my new entry 'ecosystem importance' today. It is all one big necessary design. [dhw: According to you, 3.X billion years’ worth of extinct ecosystems were necessary to feed a rapidly expanding human population.]

(Bees) … Years ago both dhw and I agreed it is bush of life, not a simple tree. That huge bush is the evidence of planning for the needed diversity. Yet dhw refuses to see the real picture of all leading to our food supply.

All living things play or played a role in their ecosystems. But there were countless living things and ecosystems in the huge bush of life before we appeared, and the majority did not lead to us or to our ecosystems. However, you insist that your God designed all those that did not lead to us or our ecosystems as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems, which you insist were his one and only goal. You can’t find any logical reason for this blatant contradiction, which is why you say your theories “make sense only to God

Neandertals: dhw's worries about all the hominins and homos before us should be dispensed by my theory about God that He carefully takes evolutionary steps with everything He creates, as shown by known history.

I’m not worried. I just don’t understand why an all-powerful God who only wanted to create H. sapiens should have bothered creating all the other homos first, although you believe he is perfectly capable of creating species without precursors (the Cambrian). You can’t understand it either – it “makes sense only to God”. NB I am not denying evolution by stages. I am suggesting that there may be a better explanation than the one you say "makes sense only to God", i.e. not to you.

DAVID: 3) ecosystems are highly structured free-for-all battles for food, nothing like your imagined God's weak free-for-all loss of control over evolution. Satisfied?

dhw: A free-for-all battle for survival does not suggest that every single life form in every single econiche for 3.X billion years was individually designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our econiches. And I am not suggesting “loss of control”, but that the “free-for-all” was what your God (if he exists) wanted and created.

DAVID: FREE means uncontrolled!!

dhw: Correct. But that does not mean “loss of control”, which implies that your God wanted control, had it, and lost it. In the free-for-all theory, he deliberately created something that would act independently of himself. He did not want control! (But he could dabble if he wished to.)

DAVID: Your human reasoning always leads to a humanized God, not controlling reality.

A God who deliberately creates life as a free-for-all is no more “humanized” than a God who creates a puppet show in which he pulls all the strings.

dhw: […] please tell us which of your theories make sense only to God.

DAVID: Specifically: His choice to evolve every one of His creations.

dhw: Your usual obfuscation. By “evolve” you mean individually design, and you’ve forgotten the Cambrian species, which you insist were NOT the products of evolution anyway. But it doesn’t matter which you mean. Either belief, that God (if he exists) decided to evolve or decided to individually design all his creations, makes perfect sense. What does not make sense is the theory I have bolded above.

DAVID: The bolded objection comes from the fact I think about God totally differently than your thought patterns about God.

Yes, you do. You think about him in such a way that your beliefs concerning his purpose and method make no sense to you. You find all my theistic alternatives logical, but reject them even when they are based on your own guesses concerning his human thought patterns.

DAVID: You don't understand discussions of God's attributes are weak theories about a personage who is like no other person.

dhw: You have dodged your fake argument about “care”, and have now descended to the meaningless term “weak”. What is “weak”, for instance, about a God who in your own words enjoys creating and is interested in his creations?

DAVID: I use Adler as a guide for the caring issue. So?

You wrote that I was “trying to invent a personal God who cares about us”. I did no such thing. You were the one who suggested that God cares about us.

DAVID: Your repeated use of past quotes must be in context. They are theoretical guesses about the personality we don't know, and can't know, as God is a personage like no other one. Again Adler.

We agree that nobody can possibly know God’s personality. Your guesses concerning his combined purpose and method make no sense to you (they “make sense only to God”). How does that make them more likely than my logical alternatives?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, September 09, 2022, 15:48 (566 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance

dhw: You keep making the same point over and over again:


DAVID: (Bees) … Years ago both dhw and I agreed it is bush of life, not a simple tree. That huge bush is the evidence of planning for the needed diversity. Yet dhw refuses to see the real picture of all leading to our food supply.

dhw: All living things play or played a role in their ecosystems. But there were countless living things and ecosystems in the huge bush of life before we appeared, and the majority did not lead to us or to our ecosystems. However, you insist that your God designed all those that did not lead to us or our ecosystems as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems, which you insist were his one and only goal. You can’t find any logical reason for this blatant contradiction, which is why you say your theories “make sense only to God

You always forget I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations. One branch led to us, the rest to food. There are no contradictions except the ones you invent.


dhw: Neandertals: dhw's worries about all the hominins and homos before us should be dispensed by my theory about God that He carefully takes evolutionary steps with everything He creates, as shown by known history.

dhw: I’m not worried. I just don’t understand why an all-powerful God who only wanted to create H. sapiens should have bothered creating all the other homos first, although you believe he is perfectly capable of creating species without precursors (the Cambrian). You can’t understand it either – it “makes sense only to God”. NB I am not denying evolution by stages. I am suggesting that there may be a better explanation than the one you say "makes sense only to God", i.e. not to you.

God evolves. The pattern is clear.


DAVID: The bolded objection comes from the fact I think about God totally differently than your thought patterns about God.

dhw: Yes, you do. You think about him in such a way that your beliefs concerning his purpose and method make no sense to you. You find all my theistic alternatives logical, but reject them even when they are based on your own guesses concerning his human thought patterns.

Your psychiatric analysis of my thinking continues. From above: " I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations". I don't think you really apprehend what that IMPLIES. And I reject your approach to your very humanized form of God, even as I've agreed your theories are consistent with a very humanized God..


DAVID: Your repeated use of past quotes must be in context. They are theoretical guesses about the personality we don't know, and can't know, as God is a personage like no other one. Again Adler.

dhw: We agree that nobody can possibly know God’s personality. Your guesses concerning his combined purpose and method make no sense to you (they “make sense only to God”). How does that make them more likely than my logical alternatives?

You will never understand the approach I use. I can never know God's personal reasoning, but I accept all of reality as His creation. That should make sense to all. I don't have any idea where you start. What is your initial premise about God?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, September 10, 2022, 08:54 (566 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

dhw: All living things play or played a role in their ecosystems. But there were countless living things and ecosystems in the huge bush of life before we appeared, and the majority did not lead to us or to our ecosystems. However, you insist that your God designed all those that did not lead to us or our ecosystems as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems, which you insist were his one and only goal. You can’t find any logical reason for this blatant contradiction, which is why you say your theories “make sense only to God

DAVID: You always forget I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations. One branch led to us, the rest to food. There are no contradictions except the ones you invent. (dhw’s bold)

This has become a continuous word game instead of a serious discussion on your God’s possible purpose, method and – ultimately – nature. If God exists, then he would certainly have created life, and the history of life must be what he wanted. 1) That does not mean he deliberately and individually designed every single organism and ecosystem that ever existed. 2) for those of us who believe in evolution, one branch led to us. Every branch and every organism "led to food". But not to food for us! SOME branches led to food for us, but vast numbers of organisms and ecosystems did not, and you cannot think of any reason why your God would have deliberately and individually designed all those organisms and ecosystems that did not lead to us and our food if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food. Please stop playing word games.

DAVID: (re Neandertals): dhw's worries about all the hominins and homos before us should be dispensed by my theory about God that He carefully takes evolutionary steps with everything He creates, as shown by known history.

dhw: I’m not worried. I just don’t understand why an all-powerful God who only wanted to create H. sapiens (plus our food) should have bothered creating all the other homos first, although you believe he is perfectly capable of creating species without precursors (the Cambrian). You can’t understand it either – it “makes sense only to God”. NB I am not denying evolution by stages. I am suggesting that there may be a better explanation than the one you say "makes sense only to God", i.e. not to you.

DAVID: God evolves. The pattern is clear.

More word games. We both believe in evolution, but by evolution you mean God individually designed every species, and you cannot understand why, if he wanted to design H. sapiens and was capable of designing species without any precursors (the Cambrian), he chose to design hominin after hominin and homo after homo before finally designing H. sapiens and getting rid of all the others. It is a theory that “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. To quote your memorable words to me: “You are too close to your beliefs, that you don’t see your built-in biases.

DAVID: Your psychiatric analysis of my thinking continues. From above: " I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations". I don't think you really apprehend what that IMPLIES. And I reject your approach to your very humanized form of God, even as I've agreed your theories are consistent with a very humanized God.

I have explained above exactly what it implies, and your rejection of my “very humanized God” is based on your “built-in bias” in favour of your own “very humanized God” – although in some cases, your humanizations are exactly the same as mine (e.g. enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations).

DAVID: You will never understand the approach I use. I can never know God's personal reasoning, but I accept all of reality as His creation. That should make sense to all.

Yet more word games. If God exists, none of us can know his personal reasoning, but all of us would have to accept that all of “reality” is his creation, reality being the world as we know it. What do not make sense to you or to me (but “only to God”) are your combined theories about his purpose and his method of achieving his purpose, as bolded over and over again.

DAVID: I don't have any idea where you start. What is your initial premise about God?

If God exists, my initial premises are that he would have had a purpose for creating life, and the history of life as we know it would logically reflect his purpose, which in turn would reflect his nature. The importance of this discussion for me is that if God exists, I would like to know as much as possible about his nature and his attitude towards his creations (especially us humans). No one can know the objective truth, but at least we can extrapolate theories from the reality we know, and we can test their feasibility by using the same human reasoning that enables us to formulate those theories in the first place. You use human reasoning to support your belief in your God’s existence, but when human reasoning shows the flaws in your theories about his purpose, method and nature, you turn your back on it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 10, 2022, 16:52 (565 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: You always forget I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations. One branch led to us, the rest to food. There are no contradictions except the ones you invent. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: If God exists, then he would certainly have created life, and the history of life must be what he wanted. 1) That does not mean he deliberately and individually designed every single organism and ecosystem that ever existed.

I mean exactly that. I believe in design of everything. You don't.

dhw: 2) for those of us who believe in evolution, one branch led to us. Every branch and every organism "led to food". But not to food for us! SOME branches led to food for us, but vast numbers of organisms and ecosystems did not, and you cannot think of any reason why your God would have deliberately and individually designed all those organisms and ecosystems that did not lead to us and our food if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food. Please stop playing word games.

No word games: the giant interlocking ecosystems today are God's deliberate plan to provide food for all living organisms. All developed from past branches!!! Those are the reasons you say I cannot think of!


DAVID: (re Neandertals): dhw's worries about all the hominins and homos before us should be dispensed by my theory about God that He carefully takes evolutionary steps with everything He creates, as shown by known history.

dhw: I’m not worried. I just don’t understand why an all-powerful God who only wanted to create H. sapiens (plus our food) should have bothered creating all the other homos first, although you believe he is perfectly capable of creating species without precursors (the Cambrian). You can’t understand it either – it “makes sense only to God”. NB I am not denying evolution by stages. I am suggesting that there may be a better explanation than the one you say "makes sense only to God", i.e. not to you.

DAVID: God evolves. The pattern is clear.

dhw: More word games. We both believe in evolution, but by evolution you mean God individually designed every species, and you cannot understand why, if he wanted to design H. sapiens and was capable of designing species without any precursors (the Cambrian), he chose to design hominin after hominin and homo after homo before finally designing H. sapiens and getting rid of all the others.

It is obvious when we use the word 'evolution,' we see different concepts. I see it as purely stepwise development by design. The designer can skip a step if He wishes (Cambrian). He is not required to have your human consistency complaint.


DAVID: You will never understand the approach I use. I can never know God's personal reasoning, but I accept all of reality as His creation. That should make sense to all.

dhw: Yet more word games. If God exists, none of us can know his personal reasoning, but all of us would have to accept that all of “reality” is his creation, reality being the world as we know it. What do not make sense to you or to me (but “only to God”) are your combined theories about his purpose and his method of achieving his purpose, as bolded over and over again.

I fully believe as Adler did, humans were a special purpose for God, and Adler used that thought to prove God!! Read his word games and be educated in relgiouss philosophy.


DAVID: I don't have any idea where you start. What is your initial premise about God?

dhw: If God exists, my initial premises are that he would have had a purpose for creating life, and the history of life as we know it would logically reflect his purpose, which in turn would reflect his nature. The importance of this discussion for me is that if God exists, I would like to know as much as possible about his nature and his attitude towards his creations (especially us humans). No one can know the objective truth, but at least we can extrapolate theories from the reality we know, and we can test their feasibility by using the same human reasoning that enables us to formulate those theories in the first place. You use human reasoning to support your belief in your God’s existence, but when human reasoning shows the flaws in your theories about his purpose, method and nature, you turn your back on it.

Thank you for this. The flaws in your approach to my theories are numerous. You keep denying the design approach which accepts everything is designed. Everything now existing reflects His purpose. The giant ecosystems are here for a purpose which I have explained as food for all. You complain about all the evolutionary branches that do not lead to us. Illogical! Only one branch can lead to us. Remember, we think about God very differently. I could go on but I've noted enough.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, September 11, 2022, 11:13 (565 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: You always forget I accept all of history as God's purposeful creations. One branch led to us, the rest to food. There are no contradictions except the ones you invent. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: If God exists, then he would certainly have created life, and the history of life must be what he wanted. 1) That does not mean he deliberately and individually designed every single organism and ecosystem that ever existed.

DAVID: I mean exactly that. I believe in design of everything. You don't.

I know you do, but even for a theist, the individual design of every organism, natural wonder etc. is a theory and not a fact.

DAVID: […] the giant interlocking ecosystems today are God's deliberate plan to provide food for all living organisms. All developed from past branches!!! Those are the reasons you say I cannot think of!

Once again you are editing evolution. Yes, all organisms eat/ate food and are/were eaten in their own ecosystems, and all current living things are developed from past branches. But you are deliberately editing out all the past branches that did NOT lead to all the things that are alive today but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for us and our food!

DAVID (under “Neandertals”): It is obvious when we use the word 'evolution,' we see different concepts. I see it as purely stepwise development by design. The designer can skip a step if He wishes (Cambrian). He is not required to have your human consistency complaint.

I also see evolution as stepwise development. It is your combination of purpose and method that “makes sense only to God” and therefore not to you. If his one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus food, as you claim, and if he had the power to create species without any precursors, as you claim, it makes no sense for him to design umpteen hominins and homos in itsy-bitsy stages. So I look for a logical theory to explain the stages.[…]

DAVID: I fully believe as Adler did, humans were a special purpose for God, and Adler used that thought to prove God!! Read his word games and be educated in religious philosophy.

Why do you keep dodging from sapiens as THE special purpose to A special purpose. Our subject is not “proof of God”, but why and how your God might have designed evolution. Please stop hiding behind Adler to defend theories which do not make sense even to you and which you have repeatedly said do NOT play a part in Adler’ religious philosophy.

DAVID: I don't have any idea where you start. What is your initial premise about God?

dhw: If God exists, my initial premises are that he would have had a purpose for creating life, and the history of life as we know it would logically reflect his purpose, which in turn would reflect his nature. The importance of this discussion for me is that if God exists, I would like to know as much as possible about his nature and his attitude towards his creations (especially us humans). No one can know the objective truth, but at least we can extrapolate theories from the reality we know, and we can test their feasibility by using the same human reasoning that enables us to formulate those theories in the first place. You use human reasoning to support your belief in your God’s existence, but when human reasoning shows the flaws in your theories about his purpose, method and nature, you turn your back on it.

DAVID: Thank you for this. The flaws in your approach to my theories are numerous. You keep denying the design approach which accepts everything is designed.

I accept A, not YOUR design approach. “Design” does not automatically mean your God individually designed every species, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., or that his sole purpose was to design us plus our food.

DAVID: Everything now existing reflects His purpose.

If God exists, I agree, but would add everything that existed before now. And it is clear that life’s history does not reflect the one and only purpose you impose on your God, which was to design H. sapiens plus his food. That is why your theory “makes sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

DAVID: The giant ecosystems are here for a purpose which I have explained as food for all.

Every ecosystem since the beginning of life has provided food for all the living things within it. That does not mean every ecosystem since the beginning of life was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for sapiens plus food!

DAVID: You complain about all the evolutionary branches that do not lead to us. Illogical! Only one branch can lead to us.

I do not complain. I use the facts to show that your theory makes no sense. Yes, only one branch can lead to us. Some other branches led to our food. Other branches – the vast majority – led neither to us nor our food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food! You admit that your theories are illogical (they make sense only to God), and then you play word games to try and hide the illogicality you have already acknowledged. Please stop it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 11, 2022, 17:10 (564 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: I mean exactly that. I believe in design of everything. You don't.

dhw: I know you do, but even for a theist, the individual design of every organism, natural wonder etc. is a theory and not a fact.

Same as all the folks you quote about cell brilliance, all opinion, not fact.


DAVID: […] the giant interlocking ecosystems today are God's deliberate plan to provide food for all living organisms. All developed from past branches!!! Those are the reasons you say I cannot think of!

dhw: Once again you are editing evolution. Yes, all organisms eat/ate food and are/were eaten in their own ecosystems, and all current living things are developed from past branches. But you are deliberately editing out all the past branches that did NOT lead to all the things that are alive today but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for us and our food!

I have always said all branches lead to current ecosystems.


DAVID (under “Neandertals”): It is obvious when we use the word 'evolution,' we see different concepts. I see it as purely stepwise development by design. The designer can skip a step if He wishes (Cambrian). He is not required to have your human consistency complaint.

dhw: I also see evolution as stepwise development. It is your combination of purpose and method that “makes sense only to God” and therefore not to you. If his one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus food, as you claim, and if he had the power to create species without any precursors, as you claim, it makes no sense for him to design umpteen hominins and homos in itsy-bitsy stages. So I look for a logical theory to explain the stages.[…]

It is what God desired to do. He can choose as many stages as He wishes. You can't outthink God and tell Him he did it wrong!!!


dhw: Please stop hiding behind Adler to defend theories which do not make sense even to you and which you have repeatedly said do NOT play a part in Adler’ religious philosophy.

I use Adler's religious philosophy to form my theories! Stop distorting!


DAVID: Thank you for this. The flaws in your approach to my theories are numerous. You keep denying the design approach which accepts everything is designed.

dhw: I accept A, not YOUR design approach. “Design” does not automatically mean your God individually designed every species, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., or that his sole purpose was to design us plus our food.

God designed reality; that means everything is His works.


DAVID: The giant ecosystems are here for a purpose which I have explained as food for all.

dhw: Every ecosystem since the beginning of life has provided food for all the living things within it. That does not mean every ecosystem since the beginning of life was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for sapiens plus food!

Under God's design purposes


DAVID: You complain about all the evolutionary branches that do not lead to us. Illogical! Only one branch can lead to us.

dhw: I do not complain. I use the facts to show that your theory makes no sense. Yes, only one branch can lead to us. Some other branches led to our food. Other branches – the vast majority – led neither to us nor our food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food! You admit that your theories are illogical (they make sense only to God), and then you play word games to try and hide the illogicality you have already acknowledged. Please stop it.

The entire Earth contains our ecosystems for food. How many more articles do I have to produce to crack your cemented mind?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, September 12, 2022, 13:46 (563 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: I mean exactly that. I believe in design of everything. You don't.

dhw: I know you do, but even for a theist, the individual design of every organism, natural wonder etc. is a theory and not a fact.

DAVID: Same as all the folks you quote about cell brilliance, all opinion, not fact.

You dismiss the theory of cellular intelligence because it is opinion not fact, so I point out that your own rigid beliefs are opinion not fact, so you point out that cellular theory is opinion not fact. You can’t see that your reason for dismissing theories you disagree with applies equally to your own beliefs!

DAVID: […] the giant interlocking ecosystems today are God's deliberate plan to provide food for all living organisms. All developed from past branches!!! Those are the reasons you say I cannot think of!

dhw: Once again you are editing evolution. Yes, all organisms eat/ate food and are/were eaten in their own ecosystems, and all current living things are developed from past branches. But you are deliberately editing out all the past branches that did NOT lead to all the things that are alive today but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for us and our food!

DAVID: I have always said all branches lead to current ecosystems.

You recently offered us a quote (re New Zealand): “Evolutionary history is full of strange twists and turns, but also dead ends” which I bolded and which you ignored. Your dodges include the fact that ecosystems provide “food for all” (which includes all extinct organisms that lived in them and had no connection with us or our food), and all our current ecosystems are descended from past ecosystems (bolded above), which again is true for us evolutionists, but does NOT mean that all extinct branches led to us and our ecosystems. I have asked you repeatedly how the brontosaurus (I recently added trilobites and moa) “provided a direct link (continuum) to our current ecosystems.” Your last reply was as above: “The systems are here descended from their ancestor systems.” Now please tell us at last how trilobites, the brontosaurus and the moa provided a direct link (continuum) to us and our ecosystems, and were “absolute requirements” to enable him to design us and our ecosystems.

dhw: (re Neanderthals): If his one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus food, as you claim, and if he had the power to create species without any precursors, as you claim, it makes no sense for him to design umpteen hominins and homos in itsy-bitsy stages. So I look for a logical theory to explain the stages.[…]

DAVID: It is what God desired to do. He can choose as many stages as He wishes. You can't outthink God and tell Him he did it wrong!!!

This is another of your silly dodges. Nowhere do I say that God – if he exists – did it wrong! I accept that we evolved in stages! But since it makes no sense even to you that an all-powerful God who only wanted to design H. sapiens proceeded to design umpteen hominins and homos before designing us and eliminating them, I am challenging your illogical interpretation of his purpose and/or his method, and have offered you logical alternatives.

DAVID: The flaws in your approach to my theories are numerous. You keep denying the design approach which accepts everything is designed.

dhw: I accept A, not YOUR design approach. “Design” does not automatically mean your God individually designed every species, ecosystem, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., or that his sole purpose was to design us plus our food.

DAVID: God designed reality; that means everything is His works.

More flannel. If he exists, and if reality is a free-for-all, then the free-for-all is his work. So?

DAVID: You complain about all the evolutionary branches that do not lead to us. Illogical! Only one branch can lead to us.

dhw: Exactly: only one branch can lead to us. Some other branches led to our food. Other branches – the vast majority – led neither to us nor our food, and so it makes no sense to claim that ALL of them were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food! You admit that your theories are illogical (they make sense only to God), and then you play word games to try and hide the illogicality you have already acknowledged. Please stop it.

DAVID: The entire Earth contains our ecosystems for food. How many more articles do I have to produce to crack your cemented mind?

Still dodging. The entire Earth contains ecosystems for food. That does not mean every single extinct ecosystem led to our current ecosystems and current foods, because vast numbers of extinct life forms and ecosystems came to a dead end. Please explain how the brontosaurus was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, September 12, 2022, 16:21 (563 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: Same as all the folks you quote about cell brilliance, all opinion, not fact.

dhw: You dismiss the theory of cellular intelligence because it is opinion not fact, so I point out that your own rigid beliefs are opinion not fact, so you point out that cellular theory is opinion not fact. You can’t see that your reason for dismissing theories you disagree with applies equally to your own beliefs!

I view the way you cling to cell intelligence as a means of reducing God's direct control of evoution ,


DAVID: […] the giant interlocking ecosystems today are God's deliberate plan to provide food for all living organisms. All developed from past branches!!! Those are the reasons you say I cannot think of!

dhw: Once again you are editing evolution. Yes, all organisms eat/ate food and are/were eaten in their own ecosystems, and all current living things are developed from past branches. But you are deliberately editing out all the past branches that did NOT lead to all the things that are alive today but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for us and our food!

DAVID: I have always said all branches lead to current ecosystems.

dhw: You recently offered us a quote (re New Zealand): “Evolutionary history is full of strange twists and turns, but also dead ends” which I bolded and which you ignored. Your dodges include the fact that ecosystems provide “food for all” (which includes all extinct organisms that lived in them and had no connection with us or our food), and all our current ecosystems are descended from past ecosystems (bolded above), which again is true for us evolutionists, but does NOT mean that all extinct branches led to us and our ecosystems. I have asked you repeatedly how the brontosaurus (I recently added trilobites and moa) “provided a direct link (continuum) to our current ecosystems.” Your last reply was as above: “The systems are here descended from their ancestor systems.” Now please tell us at last how trilobites, the brontosaurus and the moa provided a direct link (continuum) to us and our ecosystems, and were “absolute requirements” to enable him to design us and our ecosystems.

Let's understand belief: every organism on Earth is here because God desired to put it here. Even dead ends were desired, and how proven is it as dead ends they didn't play an advancing role?


dhw: (re Neanderthals): If his one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus food, as you claim, and if he had the power to create species without any precursors, as you claim, it makes no sense for him to design umpteen hominins and homos in itsy-bitsy stages. So I look for a logical theory to explain the stages.[…]

DAVID: It is what God desired to do. He can choose as many stages as He wishes. You can't outthink God and tell Him he did it wrong!!!

dhw: This is another of your silly dodges. Nowhere do I say that God – if he exists – did it wrong! I accept that we evolved in stages! But since it makes no sense even to you that an all-powerful God who only wanted to design H. sapiens proceeded to design umpteen hominins and homos before designing us and eliminating them, I am challenging your illogical interpretation of his purpose and/or his method, and have offered you logical alternatives.

Your thinking is so twisted: you accept all the stages of hominins arriving finally in us and you can't see us as his purpose! Adler is rolling over!! And what are your logical alternatives to the series of hominins/homos? Do you challenge that God builds in stages, and so it be said He evolves everything He creates?


DAVID: The entire Earth contains our ecosystems for food. How many more articles do I have to produce to crack your cemented mind?

dhw: Still dodging. The entire Earth contains ecosystems for food. That does not mean every single extinct ecosystem led to our current ecosystems and current foods, because vast numbers of extinct life forms and ecosystems came to a dead end. Please explain how the brontosaurus was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

Narrowness again. Every organism put on Earth was a desired result by God. You can't analyze God down to the last dot and tittle.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, September 13, 2022, 11:20 (563 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: I view the way you cling to cell intelligence as a means of reducing God's direct control of evolution.

Of course. One possible explanation for the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of life forms and ecosystems is that this is what your God wanted: a free-for-all (though with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). It is your obsession with the idea that God wanted total control that leads to most of the contradictions in your theories of evolution.

DAVID: […] the giant interlocking ecosystems today are God's deliberate plan to provide food for all living organisms. All developed from past branches!!! Those are the reasons you say I cannot think of!

dhw: Once again you are editing evolution. Yes, all organisms eat/ate food and are/were eaten in their own ecosystems, and all current living things are developed from past branches. But you are deliberately editing out all the past branches that did NOT lead to all the things that are alive today but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for us and our food!

DAVID: I have always said all branches lead to current ecosystems.

dhw: You recently offered us a quote (re New Zealand): “Evolutionary history is full of strange twists and turns, but also dead ends” which I bolded and which you ignored. Your dodges include the fact that ecosystems provide “food for all” (which includes all extinct organisms that lived in them and had no connection with us or our food), and all our current ecosystems are descended from past ecosystems (bolded above), which again is true for us evolutionists, but does NOT mean that all extinct branches led to us and our ecosystems. […]

DAVID: Let's understand belief: every organism on Earth is here because God desired to put it here. Even dead ends were desired, and how proven is it as dead ends they didn't play an advancing role?

Let’s understand your beliefs: your God’s one and only aim was to design H. sapiens and our foods, and so he individually designed countless organisms and foods that did not lead to us (dead ends), “extinct life has no role in current life”, but every dead end was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens plus food. “How proven is it” that every single dead end played an advancing role in the individual design of H. sapiens plus food?

dhw: (re Neanderthals): If his one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus food, as you claim, and if he had the power to create species without any precursors, as you claim, it makes no sense for him to design umpteen hominins and homos in itsy-bitsy stages. So I look for a logical theory to explain the stages.[…]

DAVID: […] Your thinking is so twisted: you accept all the stages of hominins arriving finally in us and you can't see us as his purpose!

If God exists, I accept all the stages of every organism that ever lived, and you can’t see that in your own theory, your purposeful God must have had a purpose in designing every one of them, including all those “dead ends” that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: Adler is rolling over!! And what are your logical alternatives to the series of hominins/homos? Do you challenge that God builds in stages, and so it be said He evolves everything He creates?

How many times must I repeat that I do not challenge the theory of evolution, which has all organisms evolving in stages? I challenge your absurd conclusion that every organism that came to a dead end was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food. I also point out that if your God had wanted to design H. sapiens directly, you demonstrate that he could have done so, since you believe he created some species without any precursors (Cambrian). These are the logical flaws in your theories which “make sense only to God”, and therefore not to you. Two of my theistic alternatives do allow for us humans and our food as a goal (not the goal), and you recognize their logic but try to wriggle out of it by insisting that your God has to correspond to your personal image of him.

DAVID: The entire Earth contains our ecosystems for food. How many more articles do I have to produce to crack your cemented mind?

dhw: Still dodging. The entire Earth contains ecosystems for food. That does not mean every single extinct ecosystem led to our current ecosystems and current foods, because vast numbers of extinct life forms and ecosystems came to a dead end. Please explain how the brontosaurus was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

DASVID: Narrowness again. Every organism put on Earth was a desired result by God. You can't analyze God down to the last dot and tittle.

A free-for-all, or humans arrived at through experimentation, or arrived at as a new idea after all the preceding dead ends, could also be a “desired result by God”, and it is you who try to “analyze to the last dot and tittle” by insisting that every extinct, dead-end dot and tittle (trilobite, brontosaurus, moa) was specially designed for the one and only purpose of preparing the way for us and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 13, 2022, 17:32 (562 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: I view the way you cling to cell intelligence as a means of reducing God's direct control of evolution.

dhw: Of course. One possible explanation for the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of life forms and ecosystems is that this is what your God wanted: a free-for-all (though with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). It is your obsession with the idea that God wanted total control that leads to most of the contradictions in your theories of evolution.

Why shouldn't an all-powerful God keep total control?


DAVID: Let's understand belief: every organism on Earth is here because God desired to put it here. Even dead ends were desired, and how proven is it as dead ends they didn't play an advancing role?

dhw: Let’s understand your beliefs: your God’s one and only aim was to design H. sapiens and our foods, and so he individually designed countless organisms and foods that did not lead to us (dead ends), “extinct life has no role in current life”, but every dead end was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens plus food. “How proven is it” that every single dead end played an advancing role in the individual design of H. sapiens plus food?

It is obvious to me the entire current ecosystem provides food for all. And we human are here. God reached His goal. Your obsession with past evolutionary branches is unreasonable. God did all of this and He knows exactly what He is doing.

DAVID: Adler is rolling over!! And what are your logical alternatives to the series of hominins/homos? Do you challenge that God builds in stages, and so it be said He evolves everything He creates?

dhw: How many times must I repeat that I do not challenge the theory of evolution, which has all organisms evolving in stages? I challenge your absurd conclusion that every organism that came to a dead end was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our food. I also point out that if your God had wanted to design H. sapiens directly, you demonstrate that he could have done so, since you believe he created some species without any precursors (Cambrian). These are the logical flaws in your theories which “make sense only to God”, and therefore not to you. Two of my theistic alternatives do allow for us humans and our food as a goal (not the goal), and you recognize their logic but try to wriggle out of it by insisting that your God has to correspond to your personal image of him.

A designer can do what He wishes. Stepwise or jump ahead. You don't undersand the concept.


DASVID: Narrowness again. Every organism put on Earth was a desired result by God. You can't analyze God down to the last dot and tittle.

dhw: A free-for-all, or humans arrived at through experimentation, or arrived at as a new idea after all the preceding dead ends, could also be a “desired result by God”, and it is you who try to “analyze to the last dot and tittle” by insisting that every extinct, dead-end dot and tittle (trilobite, brontosaurus, moa) was specially designed for the one and only purpose of preparing the way for us and our food.

Again, your total purpose is to humanize God's thinking

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, September 14, 2022, 10:31 (562 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: I view the way you cling to cell intelligence as a means of reducing God's direct control of evolution.

dhw: Of course. One possible explanation for the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of life forms and ecosystems is that this is what your God wanted: a free-for-all (though with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). It is your obsession with the idea that God wanted total control that leads to most of the contradictions in your theories of evolution.

DAVID: Why shouldn't an all-powerful God keep total control?

The question is not “why shouldn’t he?” but “did he?” and “did he want to?” Your response to all the logical contradictions in your theories concerning God’s “total control” ends up in your admission that you can’t explain them – they “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: Let's understand belief: every organism on Earth is here because God desired to put it here. Even dead ends were desired, and how proven is it as dead ends they didn't play an advancing role?

dhw: Let’s understand your beliefs: your God’s one and only aim was to design H. sapiens and our foods, and so he individually designed countless organisms and foods that did not lead to us (dead ends), “extinct life has no role in current life”, but every dead end was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens plus food. “How proven is it” that every single dead end played an advancing role in the individual design of H. sapiens plus food?

DAVID: It is obvious to me the entire current ecosystem provides food for all.

But you keep insisting that all the past, extinct dead-end organisms (and their ecosystems) which did not lead to us and our ecosystems were specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” for us and our current ecosystem. Please, please stop this silly dodging.

DAVID: And we human are here. God reached His goal. Your obsession with past evolutionary branches is unreasonable. God did all of this and He knows exactly what He is doing.
And later:
DAVID: A designer can do what He wishes. Stepwise or jump ahead. You don't understand the concept.

We humans are here, lots of other species are here, and countless numbers of other organisms were here, and had no connection with us although you insist that your God specially designed ALL of them in preparation for us. Why is it unreasonable to question such illogicality? I have no doubt that if God exists, he knows exactly what he is doing and knew exactly what he was doing in the past, and of course he can do what he wishes. And I see no reason why what he does should only make sense to him and not to us when there are other theistic explanations of life’s history which make perfect sense even to you.

dhw: Please explain how the brontosaurus was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food.

DAVID: Narrowness again. Every organism put on Earth was a desired result by God. You can't analyze God down to the last dot and tittle.

dhw: A free-for-all, or humans arrived at through experimentation, or arrived at as a new idea after all the preceding dead ends, could also be a “desired result by God”, and it is you who try to “analyze to the last dot and tittle” by insisting that every extinct, dead-end dot and tittle (trilobite, brontosaurus, moa) was specially designed for the one and only purpose of preparing the way for us and our food.

DAVID: Again, your total purpose is to humanize God's thinking.

The weakest of all your dodges. My “total purpose” here is to find logical theistic explanations for the history of evolution. Nobody knows your God’s true purpose, methods or nature, but there is absolutely no reason why – if he exists - your God should not have endowed us with some of his own thought patterns and emotions and logic, as you have agreed many times. What you fight against is any “humanization” that differs from your own, even if it provides logical answers to the questions arising from your own theories, which “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 14, 2022, 18:11 (561 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: I view the way you cling to cell intelligence as a means of reducing God's direct control of evolution.

dhw: Of course. One possible explanation for the higgledy-piggledy comings and goings of life forms and ecosystems is that this is what your God wanted: a free-for-all (though with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). It is your obsession with the idea that God wanted total control that leads to most of the contradictions in your theories of evolution.

DAVID: Why shouldn't an all-powerful God keep total control?

dhw: The question is not “why shouldn’t he?” but “did he?” and “did he want to?”

You have reduced the discussion to a human level while God is not human. History is what God produced. What we see is exactly what He wanted. I have shown you the structure of our food supply. I have demonstrated humans as an extraordinary endpoint. You pick this apart by presenting your very humanized form of a God, who experiments, enjoys free-for-alls, etc.


DAVID: It is obvious to me the entire current ecosystem provides food for all.

But you keep insisting that all the past, extinct dead-end organisms (and their ecosystems) which did not lead to us and our ecosystems were specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” for us and our current ecosystem. Please, please stop this silly dodging.

DAVID: And we human are here. God reached His goal. Your obsession with past evolutionary branches is unreasonable. God did all of this and He knows exactly what He is doing.
And later:
DAVID: A designer can do what He wishes. Stepwise or jump ahead. You don't understand the concept.

dhw: We humans are here, lots of other species are here, and countless numbers of other organisms were here, and had no connection with us although you insist that your God specially designed ALL of them in preparation for us. Why is it unreasonable to question such illogicality? I have no doubt that if God exists, he knows exactly what he is doing and knew exactly what he was doing in the past, and of course he can do what he wishes. And I see no reason why what he does should only make sense to him and not to us when there are other theistic explanations of life’s history which make perfect sense even to you.

A total non-answer to my point of how a designer works. I'll repeat. We cannot know God's reasons but must analyze His works. You and I seem to have a total disagreement about how to view those works. The discussion of food supply goes back to Malthus!!


DAVID: Again, your total purpose is to humanize God's thinking.

dhw: The weakest of all your dodges. My “total purpose” here is to find logical theistic explanations for the history of evolution. Nobody knows your God’s true purpose, methods or nature, but there is absolutely no reason why – if he exists - your God should not have endowed us with some of his own thought patterns and emotions and logic, as you have agreed many times. What you fight against is any “humanization” that differs from your own, even if it provides logical answers to the questions arising from your own theories, which “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

I'm not dodging. God must have His own way of creating for His own reasons. We see He evolved whatever he wished to create. Yes, or no? What He created are endpoints. Yes, or no?

I see nothing human in my version of God. His thought patterns, logic, and emotions must be allegorically discussed, since He is a person like no other person. Your 'making sense' complaint is totally illogical. I accept reality as God's creation. I analyze it for His possible reasoning. I've offered my views from the point of seeing God as totally purposeful. You don't like that form of God. Every person has a personal form of God. Yours is humanized and your conclusions are logical only on that basis. Offer me the same courteous view.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, September 15, 2022, 12:02 (560 days ago) @ David Turell

Ecosystem importance

DAVID: Why shouldn't an all-powerful God keep total control?

dhw: The question is not “why shouldn’t he?” but “did he?” and “did he want to?”

DAVID: You have reduced the discussion to a human level while God is not human. History is what God produced. What we see is exactly what He wanted.

Why is it not human to propose that your God wanted total control, but human to propose that he did not?

DAVID: I have shown you the structure of our food supply.

You have merely pointed out that all organisms, including ourselves, have always needed food. Most past organisms and ecosystems came to a dead end, i.e. did not lead to us and our ecosystem. Even current ecosystems may not be geared to us, as follows:
DAVID (re "immortal jellyfish"): dhw will ask why these exist. They fit into their ecosystem.

Their ecosystem, not ours. All of which makes nonsense of your claim that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed, including all the “dead ends”, was specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our current ecosystems.

DAVID: I have demonstrated humans as an extraordinary endpoint. You pick this apart by presenting your very humanized form of a God, who experiments, enjoys free-for-alls, etc.

I have no problem with humans as AN (but not THE) extraordinary endpoint. Elephants, camels and immortal jellyfish are also extraordinary endpoints. The brontosaurus WAS an extraordinary endpoint – but he came to a dead end. No connection with us or our ecosystems. And yet you say all dead ends were specially designed as “absolute requirements” for us and our ecosystems – a theory which makes no sense to anyone except, apparently, God. And please stop moaning when I propose logical theistic theories which explain the history of life but entail human patterns of thought etc., although you agree that he probably/possibly has patterns of thought etc. in common with ours. And please stop pretending that you do not impose human patterns of thought in your own opinions that he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, is too kind to wish us harm, wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. Why are your “humanizing” guesses permissible, whereas mine, which lead to logical explanations of life’s history, are not?

DAVID: We cannot know God's reasons but must analyze His works. You and I seem to have a total disagreement about how to view those works. The discussion of food supply goes back to Malthus!!

I have no problem with the obvious statement that every organism needs food. Apparently Malthus (1766-1834) advocated birth control, as food supplies would never be enough to satisfy demand. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your illogical theory as bolded above. I don’t know why you’ve brought him into it anyway – if your theory makes no sense to you (but only to God), why would it make sense to anyone else?

DAVID: God must have His own way of creating for His own reasons. We see He evolved whatever he wished to create. Yes, or no? What He created are endpoints. Yes, or no?

Yes, if he exists, he had his own way for his own reasons, but your way and your reasons make no sense to you or to me. Yes, if he exists, he used evolution as his way of fulfilling his wishes, and yes, every individual was and is an endpoint – and most of them were dead-end endpoints. You’re getting the message. We are just one of millions and millions of endpoints, most of which had no connection with us, which is why you tell us that your anthropocentric theory makes no sense to anyone, except your God.

DAVID: I see nothing human in my version of God.

See above for a now bolded list of your own theoretical humanizations.

DAVID: His thought patterns, logic, and emotions must be allegorically discussed, since He is a person like no other person.

“Allegorical” has no meaning here. There is no reason at all why attributes like enjoyment, interest, kindness, love, admiration etc. should not mean the same to the creator as they mean to us, since he would have invented them. That does not mean that the possible creator of the universe and life is a human being!

DAVID: Your 'making sense' complaint is totally illogical. I accept reality as God's creation. I analyze it for His possible reasoning.

If he exists, then of course “reality” is his creation. Your analysis for his possible reasoning leads you to tell us that (a) you can’t know his reasoning, and (b) your analysis “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Please stop blaming me for your own admission!

DAVID: I've offered my views from the point of seeing God as totally purposeful. You don't like that form of God.

I have always agreed that your God would be totally purposeful. The form of God I don’t like is one who despite his all-powerfulness and total purposefulness achieves your idea of his purpose by designing countless organisms that had no connection with his purpose. I prefer to think of God as a logical being whose entire work would correspond to his purpose. You don’t like that form of God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 15, 2022, 17:36 (560 days ago) @ dhw

Ecosystem importance

dhw: Why is it not human to propose that your God wanted total control, but human to propose that he did not?

We are discussing God's personality. I do not propose a humanized God. You do and have the right to do so. God is not human in any way. You are confusing human thought with God tbought.


DAVID: I have shown you the structure of our food supply.

dhw: You have merely pointed out that all organisms, including ourselves, have always needed food. Most past organisms and ecosystems came to a dead end, i.e. did not lead to us and our ecosystem. Even current ecosystems may not be geared to us, as follows:
DAVID (re "immortal jellyfish"): dhw will ask why these exist. They fit into their ecosystem.

Their ecosystem, not ours. All of which makes nonsense of your claim that every organism and every ecosystem that ever existed, including all the “dead ends”, was specially designed by your God as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for H. sapiens and our current ecosystems.

As usual you drop out the past as not leading directly to the future. All ecosystems are interlocking.


DAVID: I have demonstrated humans as an extraordinary endpoint. You pick this apart by presenting your very humanized form of a God, who experiments, enjoys free-for-alls, etc.

dhw: I have no problem with humans as AN (but not THE) extraordinary endpoint...And please stop pretending that you do not impose human patterns of thought in your own opinions that he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, is too kind to wish us harm, wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. Why are your “humanizing” guesses permissible, whereas mine, which lead to logical explanations of life’s history, are not?

My guesses about God's personality are not substantive. We don't know His personality, only His works to analyze.


DAVID: We cannot know God's reasons but must analyze His works. You and I seem to have a total disagreement about how to view those works. The discussion of food supply goes back to Malthus!!

dhw: I have no problem with the obvious statement that every organism needs food. Apparently Malthus (1766-1834) advocated birth control, as food supplies would never be enough to satisfy demand. Hardly a ringing endorsement of your illogical theory as bolded above. I don’t know why you’ve brought him into it anyway – if your theory makes no sense to you (but only to God), why would it make sense to anyone else?

Malthus worry about food supply is present today. Remember my entries!


DAVID: God must have His own way of creating for His own reasons. We see He evolved whatever he wished to create. Yes, or no? What He created are endpoints. Yes, or no?

dhw: Yes, if he exists, he had his own way for his own reasons, but your way and your reasons make no sense to you or to me... We are just one of millions and millions of endpoints, most of which had no connection with us, which is why you tell us that your anthropocentric theory makes no sense to anyone, except your God.

Your usual. Adler used us to prove God, we are that special.


DAVID: His thought patterns, logic, and emotions must be allegorically discussed, since He is a person like no other person.

dhw: “Allegorical” has no meaning here. There is no reason at all why attributes like enjoyment, interest, kindness, love, admiration etc. should not mean the same to the creator as they mean to us, since he would have invented them. That does not mean that the possible creator of the universe and life is a human being!

And exactly why 'allegorical' is required. God is in no way human. Read Adler!!!


DAVID: Your 'making sense' complaint is totally illogical. I accept reality as God's creation. I analyze it for His possible reasoning.

dhw: If he exists, then of course “reality” is his creation. Your analysis for his possible reasoning leads you to tell us that (a) you can’t know his reasoning, and (b) your analysis “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Please stop blaming me for your own admission!

You have no concept of how Adler teaches me to think about God!!!


DAVID: I've offered my views from the point of seeing God as totally purposeful. You don't like that form of God.

dhw: I have always agreed that your God would be totally purposeful. The form of God I don’t like is one who despite his all-powerfulness and total purposefulness achieves your idea of his purpose by designing countless organisms that had no connection with his purpose. I prefer to think of God as a logical being whose entire work would correspond to his purpose. You don’t like that form of God.

Again, applying your human logic poorly. My logic tells me all of those God-created organisms were required to be created since they exist.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, September 16, 2022, 07:51 (560 days ago) @ David Turell

Human side of God

dhw: Why is it not human to propose that your God wanted total control, but human to propose that he did not?

DAVID: We are discussing God's personality. I do not propose a humanized God. You do and have the right to do so. God is not human in any way. You are confusing human thought with God thought.

Why is it “God thought” to want full control and “human thought” not to want full control? Why are your thoughts about God divine and mine only human? Why do you agree that God probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, but insist that he doesn’t? I listed some of your human thoughts about God yesterday:

dhw... he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, is too kind to wish us harm, wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. Why are your “humanizing” guesses permissible, whereas mine, which lead to logical explanations of life’s history, are not?

DAVID: My guesses about God's personality are not substantive. We don't know His personality, only His works to analyze.
And later:
DAVID: God is in no way human. Read Adler!!!
And:
DAVID: He is a person like no other person.

Nobody’s guesses are "substantive", but please stop pretending you know that “God is not human in any way”, when you agree that he probably/possibly has human thought patterns etc. and you even guess which ones he might have. A “person” with all the human characteristics you have attributed to your God but who also created life and the universe and does not have arms, legs, eyes, or a brain will be a “person like no other person”. If you can’t find any defence in Adler for your illogical, anthropocentric theories of evolution, please stop pretending that he can give me the answers you can’t give me.

DAVID: You have no concept of how Adler teaches me to think about God!!!

If he teaches you to devise theories which “make sense only to God”, and therefore not to you or to him, then you are welcome to blame him for your illogicality.

Ecosystems

DAVID: I have shown you the structure of our food supply.

dhw: You have merely pointed out that all organisms, including ourselves, have always needed food. 1) Most past organisms (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus) and ecosystems came to a dead end, i.e. did not lead to us and our ecosystem. […]

DAVID: As usual you drop out the past as not leading directly to the future. All ecosystems are interlocking.

As a description of time, the past leads to the future. 2) But how can every organism (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus) and ecosystem which came to a dead end, i.e. which did NOT lead to us or our food – be “interlocking” with our current systems as “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food? You have no idea and your theory makes sense only to God.

DAVID: The discussion of food supply goes back to Malthus!!
And:
DAVID: Malthus worry about food supply is present today. Remember my entries!

The fact that, like Malthus, we are worried about food supply does not mean that Malthus tells us 3) his God designed every dead-end organism (e,g, our beloved brontosaurus) and ecosystem, and that all those which did not lead to us and our ecosystems were essential to enable him to design us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: God must have His own way of creating for His own reasons. We see He evolved whatever he wished to create. Yes, or no? What He created are endpoints. Yes, or no?

dhw: Yes, if he exists, he had his own way for his own reasons, but your way and your reasons make no sense to you or to me...4) We are just one of millions and millions of endpoints (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus), most of which had no connection with us, which is why you tell us that your anthropocentric theory makes no sense to anyone, except your God.

DAVID: Your usual. Adler used us to prove God, we are that special.

For the thousandth time we are not arguing about proving God but about your illogical theories of evolution which Adler apparently never discusses.

DAVID: I've offered my views from the point of seeing God as totally purposeful. You don't like that form of God.

dhw: I have always agreed that your God would be totally purposeful. The form of God I don’t like is one 5) who despite his all-powerfulness and total purposefulness achieves your idea of his purpose by designing countless organisms [e.g. our beloved brontosaurus] that had no connection with his purpose. I prefer to think of God as a logical being whose entire work would correspond to his purpose. You don’t like that form of God.

DAVID: Again, applying your human logic poorly. My logic tells me all of those God-created organisms were required to be created since they exist.

If God created all of them, then of course he wanted to create all of them. But that doesn’t mean 6) his only purpose was to create us and our food, and therefore all those which he created and which had no connection with us and our food [e.g. our beloved brontosaurus] must have been connected with us and our food though you can’t think how. Repeated six times, but still you keep dodging!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, September 16, 2022, 16:18 (559 days ago) @ dhw

Human side of God

DAVID: We are discussing God's personality. I do not propose a humanized God. You do and have the right to do so. God is not human in any way. You are confusing human thought with God thought.

dhw: Why is it “God thought” to want full control and “human thought” not to want full control? Why are your thoughts about God divine and mine only human?

I do not have divine thoughts. That is impossible.


dhw... he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, is too kind to wish us harm, wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. Why are your “humanizing” guesses permissible, whereas mine, which lead to logical explanations of life’s history, are not?

DAVID: My guesses about God's personality are not substantive. We don't know His personality, only His works to analyze.
And later:
DAVID: God is in no way human. Read Adler!!!
And:
DAVID: He is a person like no other person.

dhw: Nobody’s guesses are "substantive", but please stop pretending you know that “God is not human in any way”, when you agree that he probably/possibly has human thought patterns etc. and you even guess which ones he might have. A “person” with all the human characteristics you have attributed to your God but who also created life and the universe and does not have arms, legs, eyes, or a brain will be a “person like no other person”. If you can’t find any defence in Adler for your illogical, anthropocentric theories of evolution, please stop pretending that he can give me the answers you can’t give me.

Read Adler for yourself. He was anthropocentric in thought as I am. My theories are Adler and ID. I am not an autodidact in theology thought, are you?


Ecosystems

DAVID: I have shown you the structure of our food supply.

dhw: You have merely pointed out that all organisms, including ourselves, have always needed food. 1) Most past organisms (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus) and ecosystems came to a dead end, i.e. did not lead to us and our ecosystem. […]

DAVID: As usual you drop out the past as not leading directly to the future. All ecosystems are interlocking.

dhw: As a description of time, the past leads to the future. 2) But how can every organism (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus) and ecosystem which came to a dead end, i.e. which did NOT lead to us or our food – be “interlocking” with our current systems as “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food? You have no idea and your theory makes sense only to God.

Is evolution a contiuum or not???


DAVID: Your usual. Adler used us to prove God, we are that special.

dhw: For the thousandth time we are not arguing about proving God but about your illogical theories of evolution which Adler apparently never discusses.

Adler discussed the process of evolution and used our evolution in his proof. Stop discussing Adler from ignorance,

DAVID: Again, applying your human logic poorly. My logic tells me all of those God-created organisms were required to be created since they exist.

dhw: If God created all of them, then of course he wanted to create all of them. But that doesn’t mean 6) his only purpose was to create us and our food, and therefore all those which he created and which had no connection with us and our food [e.g. our beloved brontosaurus] must have been connected with us and our food though you can’t think how. Repeated six times, but still you keep dodging!

Back to Adler: our specialness shows God's purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, September 17, 2022, 10:43 (559 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We are discussing God's personality. I do not propose a humanized God. You do and have the right to do so. God is not human in any way. You are confusing human thought with God thought.

dhw: Why is it “God thought” to want full control and “human thought” not to want full control? Why are your thoughts about God divine and mine only human?

DAVID: I do not have divine thoughts. That is impossible.

You propose that your God wants full control, and in one of my theories, I propose that he doesn’t. Please explain why your proposal is “God thought” and mine is “human thought”.

dhw... he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, is too kind to wish us harm, wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him. Why are your “humanizing” guesses permissible, whereas mine, which lead to logical explanations of life’s history, are not?

DAVID: My guesses about God's personality are not substantive. We don't know His personality, only His works to analyze.
And later:
DAVID: God is in no way human. Read Adler!!!
And:
DAVID: He is a person like no other person.

dhw: Nobody’s guesses are "substantive", but please stop pretending you know that “God is not human in any way”, when you agree that he probably/possibly has human thought patterns etc. and you even guess which ones he might have. A “person” with all the human characteristics you have attributed to your God but who also created life and the universe and does not have arms, legs, eyes, or a brain will be a “person like no other person”. If you can’t find any defence in Adler for your illogical, anthropocentric theories of evolution, please stop pretending that he can give me the answers you can’t give me.

DAVID: Read Adler for yourself. He was anthropocentric in thought as I am. My theories are Adler and ID. [...]

These discussions are not about what Adler thinks or doesn’t think. Adler is not God. 1) How do you know that “God is not human in any way”, though he probably has thought patterns and emotions in common with us? 2) If (as you believe) your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, why (as you believe) did he individually design countless organisms (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus) and foods that did not lead to us and our food? 3) If (as you believe) your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens and our food, why did he decide to design lots of hominins and homos before designing sapiens if (as you believe) he was perfectly capable of designing species without any precursors (Cambrian)? I do not regard “Read Adler” as an answer to these questions. However, I can accept your answer that you have no idea, and your theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you or to me.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 17, 2022, 16:55 (558 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You propose that your God wants full control, and in one of my theories, I propose that he doesn’t. Please explain why your proposal is “God thought” and mine is “human thought”.

All of the possible reasons for actions by God indicate a personality requiring those actions. Your 'one of my theories' indicate you do not have a set description of God. You are amorphous in your concepts of God. I have one set view based on my reading/studies. I see your list of God's desires as showing a humanized God, not on showing the purposeful, selfless God I envision.


dhw: Nobody’s guesses are "substantive", but please stop pretending you know that “God is not human in any way”, when you agree that he probably/possibly has human thought patterns etc. and you even guess which ones he might have. A “person” with all the human characteristics you have attributed to your God but who also created life and the universe and does not have arms, legs, eyes, or a brain will be a “person like no other person”. If you can’t find any defence in Adler for your illogical, anthropocentric theories of evolution, please stop pretending that he can give me the answers you can’t give me.

DAVID: Read Adler for yourself. He was anthropocentric in thought as I am. My theories are Adler and ID. [...]

dhw: These discussions are not about what Adler thinks or doesn’t think. Adler is not God. 1) How do you know that “God is not human in any way”, though he probably has thought patterns and emotions in common with us? 2) If (as you believe) your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, why (as you believe) did he individually design countless organisms (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus) and foods that did not lead to us and our food? 3) If (as you believe) your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens and our food, why did he decide to design lots of hominins and homos before designing sapiens if (as you believe) he was perfectly capable of designing species without any precursors (Cambrian)? I do not regard “Read Adler” as an answer to these questions. However, I can accept your answer that you have no idea, and your theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you or to me.

Same old discussion from you. 1) Adler taught me how to think about God. 2) God used a process of creation that looks like evolution in the Darwin sense. That continuous process led to us and all the ecosystems of food supply, which supply is tenuous, and tells us all branches are necessary. 3) you have no concept of a designer. He can produce in simple steps or giant jumps (Cambrian) at His will. The Cambrian for thinking folks implies design, not your weird twist on it. As for your final distortion: My God does what He does for His own unknown reasons, but I have the IQ (mental capacity) to present cogent analyses of His works. And I have done just that here and in two books.

Can you off us any authority on agnosticism philosophy besides yourself?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, September 18, 2022, 11:26 (558 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You propose that your God wants full control, and in one of my theories, I propose that he doesn’t. Please explain why your proposal is “God thought” and mine is “human thought”.

DAVID: All of the possible reasons for actions by God indicate a personality requiring those actions. Your 'one of my theories' indicate you do not have a set description of God. You are amorphous in your concepts of God. I have one set view based on my reading/studies. I see your list of God's desires as showing a humanized God, not on showing the purposeful, selfless God I envision.

Of course, actions will reflect personality. All of my theories show a purposeful God, but since nobody can possibly know his personality, we can only offer theories. One minute you complain that my theories entail specific “human” characteristics, and the next you say they are “amorphous”! You yourself have no doubt that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and you even have him wanting our admiration, and you have no more proof of your “selflessness” than I have of my proposal that these human attributes suggest self-interest. Now please explain why the desire for full control is not human, whereas a desire to create autonomous beings is human.

dhw: These discussions are not about what Adler thinks or doesn’t think. Adler is not God. 1) How do you know that “God is not human in any way”, though he probably has thought patterns and emotions in common with us? 2) If (as you believe) your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, why (as you believe) did he individually design countless organisms (e.g. our beloved brontosaurus) and foods that did not lead to us and our food? 3) If (as you believe) your God’s one and only purpose was to design H. sapiens and our food, why did he decide to design lots of hominins and homos before designing sapiens if (as you believe) he was perfectly capable of designing species without any precursors (Cambrian)? I do not regard “Read Adler” as an answer to these questions. However, I can accept your answer that you have no idea, and your theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you or to me.

DAVID: Same old discussion from you. 1) Adler taught me how to think about God.

How does Adler know that God is not human in any way, though he probably has thought patterns and emotions in common with us?

2) God used a process of creation that looks like evolution in the Darwin sense. That continuous process led to us and all the ecosystems of food supply, which supply is tenuous, and tells us all branches are necessary.

That continuous process led to us and to our current tenuous ecosystems but also to all the tenuous ecosystems that came to a dead end and did not lead to us and our ecosystems. Why do you think he designed all the tenuous ecosystems that did not lead to ours, if his only purpose was to design us and our tenuous ecosystems?

3) you have no concept of a designer. He can produce in simple steps or giant jumps (Cambrian) at His will. The Cambrian for thinking folks implies design, not your weird twist on it.

I have no doubt that your God could produce in simple steps or giant jumps at his will. And that is why I am asking you why you think he chose to design H. sapiens – who you say was his one and only purpose right from the start of life – in itsy-bitsy stages. Your answer is that you don’t know,. and your theory makes sense only to God. Some “thinking folks”, including me, would say that all life forms are so complex that they imply design. This has nothing to do with the question I asked in (3).

DAVID: As for your final distortion: My God does what He does for His own unknown reasons, but I have the IQ (mental capacity) to present cogent analyses of His works. And I have done just that here and in two books.

I have never doubted your IQ, and I have admired and learnt a great deal from your cogent analyses in your two books, which both set out to prove God’s existence “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It is the theories concerning your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose, as reproduced in my three questions, that I find just as irrational as you do, since according to you they “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or me.

DAVID: Can you offer us any authority on agnosticism philosophy besides yourself?

No. I do not believe that there is any “authority” on theism, atheism, or agnosticism. But I suspect you are simply trying once again to distract attention from my criticisms by asking me for a reading list. I can’t give you one. However, as I wrote on the Blechly thread: "If our ideas are based on other people’s findings, it is up to us to defend them – not to issue a reading list."

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 18, 2022, 16:35 (557 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All of the possible reasons for actions by God indicate a personality requiring those actions. Your 'one of my theories' indicate you do not have a set description of God. You are amorphous in your concepts of God. I have one set view based on my reading/studies. I see your list of God's desires as showing a humanized God, not on showing the purposeful, selfless God I envision.

dhw: Of course, actions will reflect personality. All of my theories show a purposeful God, but since nobody can possibly know his personality, we can only offer theories. One minute you complain that my theories entail specific “human” characteristics, and the next you say they are “amorphous”! You yourself have no doubt that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and you even have him wanting our admiration, and you have no more proof of your “selflessness” than I have of my proposal that these human attributes suggest self-interest. Now please explain why the desire for full control is not human, whereas a desire to create autonomous beings is human.

God's 'full control' is a way of saying God maintains full control of His creations always. It is an allegorical thought on our part because that aspect of God's non-human personality may not represent desire.


DAVID: Same old discussion from you. 1) Adler taught me how to think about God.

dhw: How does Adler know that God is not human in any way, though he probably has thought patterns and emotions in common with us?

Adler is a famous philosopher of theology. What is your authority for your thoughts about God?


2) God used a process of creation that looks like evolution in the Darwin sense. That continuous process led to us and all the ecosystems of food supply, which supply is tenuous, and tells us all branches are necessary.

dhw: That continuous process led to us and to our current tenuous ecosystems but also to all the tenuous ecosystems that came to a dead end and did not lead to us and our ecosystems. Why do you think he designed all the tenuous ecosystems that did not lead to ours, if his only purpose was to design us and our tenuous ecosystems?

Old ecosystems supported old bushes of life. Evolution is an advancing set of systems. Why do you dwell on the past constantly when we now live in the evolved ecosystems of the present provided by God to serve the huge human population He anticipated.


DAVID: 3) you have no concept of a designer. He can produce in simple steps or giant jumps (Cambrian) at His will. The Cambrian for thinking folks implies design, not your weird twist on it.

dhw: I have no doubt that your God could produce in simple steps or giant jumps at his will. And that is why I am asking you why you think he chose to design H. sapiens – who you say was his one and only purpose right from the start of life – in itsy-bitsy stages. Your answer is that you don’t know,.

And my reasonable response is He chose to evolve us in stages. And I gave you evidence of His preferences: He evolved the universe from the BB. the Earth for life from its beginning and evolved life. Stop ignoring the evidence!! I do know!!!


DAVID: Can you offer us any authority on agnosticism philosophy besides yourself?

dhw: No. I do not believe that there is any “authority” on theism, atheism, or agnosticism. But I suspect you are simply trying once again to distract attention from my criticisms by asking me for a reading list. I can’t give you one. However, as I wrote on the Blechly thread: "If our ideas are based on other people’s findings, it is up to us to defend them – not to issue a reading list."

You are your own authority. I'm not.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, September 19, 2022, 09:36 (557 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] please explain why the desire for full control is not human, whereas a desire to create autonomous beings is human.

DAVID: God's 'full control' is a way of saying God maintains full control of His creations always. It is an allegorical thought on our part because that aspect of God's non-human personality may not represent desire.

I have no idea what you mean by “allegorical”. What does “full control” symbolize? And I have no idea what the rest of your sentence is supposed to mean. God is in full control but he doesn’t “desire” to be in full control? And his purpose was to design us, but he might not have desired to create us? Later you say he can create simple steps etc. "at His will", but will = what he "desires", doesn't it? I suggest that if God has a purpose, then that purpose is what he wants or desires. And I wish you’d stop playing word games. Wanting full control is just as human as not wanting full control.

DAVID: Same old discussion from you. 1) Adler taught me how to think about God.

dhw: How does Adler know that God is not human in any way, though he probably has thought patterns and emotions in common with us?

DAVID: Adler is a famous philosopher of theology. What is your authority for your thoughts about God?

Dawkins is a famous scientist and philosopher of atheism. So what? Nobody is an “authority” for thoughts about God. Please stop pretending that someone you agree with must be right because he is famous.

DAVID: 2) God used a process of creation that looks like evolution in the Darwin sense. That continuous process led to us and all the ecosystems of food supply, which supply is tenuous, and tells us all branches are necessary.

dhw: […] Why do you think he designed all the tenuous ecosystems that did not lead to ours, if his only purpose was to design us and our tenuous ecosystems?

DAVID: Old ecosystems supported old bushes of life. Evolution is an advancing set of systems. Why do you dwell on the past constantly when we now live in the evolved ecosystems of the present provided by God to serve the huge human population He anticipated.

I dwell on the past because you tell us your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our present ecosystems, but you also tell us he individually designed every PAST organism and ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our present ecosystems, although the vast majority of them did not lead to us and our ecosystems. This is so illogical that it “makes sense only to God”. Why do you dwell on the obvious fact that we now live in our current ecosystems? Look at this entry:


ecosystem importance: microplastic danger

DAVID: we inherited an evolved food chain of interlocking ecosystems, in which we are creating dangers. Those systems come from all the diversity in the current bush of life, evolved from all past bushes of life. Planned for human use by God.

Yes, we are creating dangers, the current forms of life form the current ecosystems, and all life forms and past bushes evolved from past life forms and past bushes. But NOT from ALL past life forms and ALL past bushes! The vast majority of them were dead ends which did NOT lead to us, and yet you say they were individually designed as “ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENTS” for us and our ecosystems!

DAVID: 3) you have no concept of a designer. He can produce in simple steps or giant jumps (Cambrian) at His will. […]

dhw: I have no doubt that your God could produce in simple steps or giant jumps at his will. And that is why I am asking you why you think he chose to design H. sapiens – who you say was his one and only purpose right from the start of life – in itsy-bitsy stages. Your answer is that you don’t know.

DAVID: And my reasonable response is He chose to evolve us in stages. And I gave you evidence of His preferences: He evolved the universe from the BB. the Earth for life from its beginning and evolved life. Stop ignoring the evidence!! I do know!!!

Yes, the universe and we evolved in stages! That is not the issue, which is your combination of theories: IF your God’s one and only purpose from the start was to produce H. sapiens, and IF your God was capable of designing species without predecessors (Cambrian), WHY do you think he designed us in itsy-bitsy stages? Maybe one of your IFs is wrong!

DAVID: Can you offer us any authority on agnosticism philosophy besides yourself?

dhw: No. I do not believe that there is any “authority” on theism, atheism, or agnosticism. […]

DAVID: You are your own authority. I'm not.

I have no authority whatsoever. Nor do you, and nor did Adler, and nor does Dawkins. The only authority on God and how to think about God is God, if he exists. Now please get on with discussing the arguments.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, September 19, 2022, 17:19 (556 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] please explain why the desire for full control is not human, whereas a desire to create autonomous beings is human.

DAVID: God's 'full control' is a way of saying God maintains full control of His creations always. It is an allegorical thought on our part because that aspect of God's non-human personality may not represent desire.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by “allegorical”.

Essentially 'figurative: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/allegory

dhw: I suggest that if God has a purpose, then that purpose is what he wants or desires. And I wish you’d stop playing word games. Wanting full control is just as human as not wanting full control.

Of course, God desires to create His purposes. But remember they are God's desires, not equivalent to our lesser human desires


DAVID: Same old discussion from you. 1) Adler taught me how to think about God.

dhw: How does Adler know that God is not human in any way, though he probably has thought patterns and emotions in common with us?

DAVID: Adler is a famous philosopher of theology. What is your authority for your thoughts about God?

dhw: Dawkins is a famous scientist and philosopher of atheism. So what? Nobody is an “authority” for thoughts about God. Please stop pretending that someone you agree with must be right because he is famous.

So you have no authority but yourself? Adler is an authority to teach "how to think about God{", his book!


DAVID: Old ecosystems supported old bushes of life. Evolution is an advancing set of systems. Why do you dwell on the past constantly when we now live in the evolved ecosystems of the present provided by God to serve the huge human population He anticipated.

dhw: I dwell on the past because you tell us your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our present ecosystems, but you also tell us he individually designed every PAST organism and ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our present ecosystems, although the vast majority of them did not lead to us and our ecosystems. This is so illogical that it “makes sense only to God”. Why do you dwell on the obvious fact that we now live in our current ecosystems? Look at this entry:


ecosystem importance: microplastic danger

DAVID: we inherited an evolved food chain of interlocking ecosystems, in which we are creating dangers. Those systems come from all the diversity in the current bush of life, evolved from all past bushes of life. Planned for human use by God.

dhw: Yes, we are creating dangers, the current forms of life form the current ecosystems, and all life forms and past bushes evolved from past life forms and past bushes. But NOT from ALL past life forms and ALL past bushes! The vast majority of them were dead ends which did NOT lead to us, and yet you say they were individually designed as “ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENTS” for us and our ecosystems!

If they existed, they were created by God purposefully.


DAVID: 3) you have no concept of a designer. He can produce in simple steps or giant jumps (Cambrian) at His will. […]

dhw: I have no doubt that your God could produce in simple steps or giant jumps at his will. And that is why I am asking you why you think he chose to design H. sapiens – who you say was his one and only purpose right from the start of life – in itsy-bitsy stages. Your answer is that you don’t know.

DAVID: And my reasonable response is He chose to evolve us in stages. And I gave you evidence of His preferences: He evolved the universe from the BB. the Earth for life from its beginning and evolved life. Stop ignoring the evidence!! I do know!!!

dhw: Yes, the universe and we evolved in stages! That is not the issue, which is your combination of theories: IF your God’s one and only purpose from the start was to produce H. sapiens, and IF your God was capable of designing species without predecessors (Cambrian), WHY do you think he designed us in itsy-bitsy stages? Maybe one of your IFs is wrong!

Why can't you accept the logical answer: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons


DAVID: Can you offer us any authority on agnosticism philosophy besides yourself?

dhw: No. I do not believe that there is any “authority” on theism, atheism, or agnosticism. […]

DAVID: You are your own authority. I'm not.

dhw: I have no authority whatsoever. Nor do you, and nor did Adler, and nor does Dawkins. The only authority on God and how to think about God is God, if he exists. Now please get on with discussing the arguments.

You obviously don't think about God as I do. All of His actions must be described figuratively in human terms, because we are forced to do so. Since He is God, we can only try to compare Him to us. He must have a mind as we do, but His mind must have powers we can only imagine. You want God to desire free-for-alls, to experiment, to change His mind and shift course. That is all your human thinking about God. I don't accept that humanized version of God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, September 20, 2022, 11:12 (556 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] please explain why the desire for full control is not human, whereas a desire to create autonomous beings is human.

DAVID: God's 'full control' is a way of saying God maintains full control of His creations always. It is an allegorical thought on our part because that aspect of God's non-human personality may not represent desire.

Allegorical: “A representation of an abstract or a spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.”
“A symbolic narrative”.

“Full control” is not a concrete or material form or a figurative treatment or a symbol.. Control means making something happen the way you want it to happen.

dhw: I suggest that if God has a purpose, then that purpose is what he wants or desires.[…].

DAVID: Of course, God desires to create His purposes. But remember they are God's desires, not equivalent to our lesser human desires.

Why is a divine desire to make things happen the way he wants them to happen not equivalent to a human desire to make things happen the way we want them to happen? And why is wanting control less human than not wanting control? You are making a mockery of language.

DAVID: Adler is a famous philosopher of theology. What is your authority for your thoughts about God?

dhw: Dawkins is a famous scientist and philosopher of atheism. So what? Nobody is an “authority” for thoughts about God. Please stop pretending that someone you agree with must be right because he is famous.

DAVID: So you have no authority but yourself? Adler is an authority to teach "how to think about God", his book!

I have no authority. Nor do you, Adler, Dawkins or Dennett. If God exists, the only “authority” on how to think about him is God himself.

DAVID: […] Why do you dwell on the past constantly when we now live in the evolved ecosystems of the present provided by God to serve the huge human population He anticipated.

dhw: I dwell on the past because you tell us your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our present ecosystems, but you also tell us he individually designed every PAST organism and ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our present ecosystems, although the vast majority of them did not lead to us and our ecosystems. This is so illogical that it “makes sense only to God”. Why do you dwell on the obvious fact that we now live in our current ecosystems? […]

ecosystem importance: microplastic danger

DAVID: we inherited an evolved food chain of interlocking ecosystems, in which we are creating dangers. Those systems come from all the diversity in the current bush of life, evolved from all past bushes of life. Planned for human use by God.

dhw: Yes, we are creating dangers, the current forms of life form the current ecosystems, and all current life forms and bushes evolved from past life forms and past bushes. But they did NOT evolve from ALL past life forms and ALL past bushes! [See bold above.[

DAVID: If they existed, they were created by God purposefully.

Maybe, but if he purposefully created life forms and bushes that had no connection with H. sapiens plus bushes, then his one and only purpose cannot have been to create H. sapiens plus bushes. You agree. Your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Stop dodging!

DAVID: […] my reasonable response is He chose to evolve us in stages. And I gave you evidence of His preferences: He evolved the universe from the BB. the Earth for life from its beginning and evolved life. Stop ignoring the evidence!! I do know!!!

dhw: Yes, the universe and we evolved in stages! That is not the issue, which is your combination of theories: IF your God’s one and only purpose was to produce H. sapiens, and IF your God could design species without predecessors (Cambrian), WHY do you think he designed us in itsy-bitsy stages? Maybe one of your IFs is wrong!

DAVID: Why can't you accept the logical answer: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

And you cannot think of any reasons!!! So I offer you logical alternatives, but you reject them all because they do not fit in with your preconceived ideas about your God! […]

DAVID […] Since He is God, we can only try to compare Him to us. He must have a mind as we do, but His mind must have powers we can only imagine.

Of course! We can’t create universes, and we can’t create consciousness or bacteria or any other living organism. But that needn’t stop him from having thought patterns, emotions and logic in common with ours, as you keep agreeing.

DAVID: You want God to desire free-for-alls, to experiment, to change His mind and shift course. That is all your human thinking about God. I don't accept that humanized version of God.

You accept a “humanized” version of God who acts in a manner which makes no sense to you, and you reject my logical alternatives because they involve thought patterns and emotions which in some cases (not all) are different from those you believe in.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 20, 2022, 16:40 (555 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Allegorical: “A representation of an abstract or a spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.”
“A symbolic narrative”.

“Full control” is not a concrete or material form or a figurative treatment or a symbol.. Control means making something happen the way you want it to happen.

You miss the point. God's view of control may not be ours.


DAVID: So you have no authority but yourself? Adler is an authority to teach "how to think about God", his book!

dhw: I have no authority. Nor do you, Adler, Dawkins or Dennett. If God exists, the only “authority” on how to think about him is God himself.

Exactly!!! We can only be figurative. Please stick to that proper reasoning.

ecosystem importance: microplastic danger

DAVID: If they existed, they were created by God purposefully.

dhw: Maybe, but if he purposefully created life forms and bushes that had no connection with H. sapiens plus bushes, then his one and only purpose cannot have been to create H. sapiens plus bushes. You agree. Your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Stop dodging!

Maybe!! God, as creator, had a purpose for everything He made appear!!


DAVID: […] my reasonable response is He chose to evolve us in stages. And I gave you evidence of His preferences: He evolved the universe from the BB. the Earth for life from its beginning and evolved life. Stop ignoring the evidence!! I do know!!!

dhw: Yes, the universe and we evolved in stages! That is not the issue, which is your combination of theories: IF your God’s one and only purpose was to produce H. sapiens, and IF your God could design species without predecessors (Cambrian), WHY do you think he designed us in itsy-bitsy stages? Maybe one of your IFs is wrong!

DAVID: Why can't you accept the logical answer: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

dhw: And you cannot think of any reasons!!! So I offer you logical alternatives, but you reject them all because they do not fit in with your preconceived ideas about your God! […]

You can't know God's reasoning any more than I can. WE can only analyze what HE produced.


DAVID: You want God to desire free-for-alls, to experiment, to change His mind and shift course. That is all your human thinking about God. I don't accept that humanized version of God.

dhw: You accept a “humanized” version of God who acts in a manner which makes no sense to you, and you reject my logical alternatives because they involve thought patterns and emotions which in some cases (not all) are different from those you believe in.

God makes perfect sense to me. As for your God, His humanized attributes are foreign to my thinking about God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, September 21, 2022, 08:34 (555 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Allegorical: “A representation of an abstract or a spiritual meaning through concrete or material forms; figurative treatment of one subject under the guise of another.”
“A symbolic narrative”.
“Full control” is not a concrete or material form or a figurative treatment or a symbol. Control means making something happen the way you want it to happen.

DAVID: You miss the point. God's view of control may not be ours.

You miss the point. “Control” is not allegorical or figurative. I have defined “control” for you. The dispute is over what your God wanted to do and did do. Now please tell us why your belief that your God wanted to and did have “full control” over evolution is not human, whereas my theory that he did not want “full control” but gave autonomous control to his creations is human. (And please note your self-contradiction in “More Miscellany” PART ONE, which I will highlight.)

DAVID: So you have no authority but yourself? Adler is an authority to teach "how to think about God", his book!

dhw: I have no authority. Nor do you, Adler, Dawkins or Dennett. If God exists, the only “authority” on how to think about him is God himself.

DAVID: Exactly!!! We can only be figurative. Please stick to that proper reasoning.

There is nothing “figurative” in our guesses. Control, free-for-all, enjoyment, interest, kindness are not symbols for something else! And your comment has nothing to do with your extraordinary belief that a human being can be an authority on how to think about God.

DAVID: (under ecosystem importance: If they [eco systems with no connection to ours] existed, they were created by God purposefully.

dhw: Maybe, but if he purposefully created life forms and bushes that had no connection with H. sapiens plus bushes, then his one and only purpose cannot have been to create H. sapiens plus bushes. You agree. Your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Maybe!! God, as creator, had a purpose for everything He made appear!!

Of course he did, but that does not mean that he purposefully designed every single life form and ecosystem! He may have wanted a free-for-all, and so by giving cells autonomous intelligence he would have got what he wanted. He may have wanted to create a being who would recognize him and admire his work (your terms) and may have experimented in order to get what he wanted – that is also purposeful. Or he may have set out as some humans do, to see where different experiments might lead him, and eventually have come up with a great idea: humans. Again, this is purposeful. But it doesn’t fit in with your idea of a God who knows everything and is always in full control (which is not an allegory).

DAVID: […] Why can't you accept the logical answer: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

dhw: And you cannot think of any reasons!!! So I offer you logical alternatives, but you reject them all because they do not fit in with your preconceived ideas about your God! […]

DAVID: You can't know God's reasoning any more than I can. WE can only analyze what HE produced.

Correct. And your analysis has produced theories that make no sense to you.[…]

DAVID: God makes perfect sense to me. As for your God, His humanized attributes are foreign to my thinking about God.

It is not “God” but your theories about God that “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. Some of my theoretical human attributes are the same as yours (enjoyment of creation, interest in his creations), I would not go so far as you with others (his kindness, his desire for total control, for recognition, and for a relationship with us), and I don’t see why your theoretical attributes are any less human than mine (e.g. experimenting in order to get what he wants, or to give himself new ideas).

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 21, 2022, 18:20 (554 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You miss the point. God's view of control may not be ours.

dhw: You miss the point. “Control” is not allegorical or figurative. I have defined “control” for you. The dispute is over what your God wanted to do and did do. Now please tell us why your belief that your God wanted to and did have “full control” over evolution is not human, whereas my theory that he did not want “full control” but gave autonomous control to his creations is human. (And please note your self-contradiction in “More Miscellany” PART ONE, which I will highlight.)

We cannot know how God thinks. We can imagine it is like how we do it. That is where you are wrong. In regard to 'control', in my view it relates to how purposeful God is. As before I view God as directly creating with no self-interest or reflection involved. You can try to make my God human as we must use human terms, but I see Him only in non-human terms, again, allegorically.


DAVID: So you have no authority but yourself? Adler is an authority to teach "how to think about God", his book!

dhw: I have no authority. Nor do you, Adler, Dawkins or Dennett. If God exists, the only “authority” on how to think about him is God himself.

DAVID: Exactly!!! We can only be figurative. Please stick to that proper reasoning.

dhw: There is nothing “figurative” in our guesses. Control, free-for-all, enjoyment, interest, kindness are not symbols for something else! And your comment has nothing to do with your extraordinary belief that a human being can be an authority on how to think about God.

How to think about God is one side of the coin. How you imagine God is the other side, related but very different. I think you are mixing it up.

DAVID: God, as creator, had a purpose for everything He made appear!!

dhw: Of course he did, but that does not mean that he purposefully designed every single life form and ecosystem!

A total non-sequitur. Either He designs everything, or He doesn't. Which is it?

dhw: He may have wanted a free-for-all, and so by giving cells autonomous intelligence he would have got what he wanted. He may have wanted to create a being who would recognize him and admire his work (your terms) and may have experimented in order to get what he wanted – that is also purposeful. Or he may have set out as some humans do, to see where different experiments might lead him, and eventually have come up with a great idea: humans. Again, this is purposeful. But it doesn’t fit in with your idea of a God who knows everything and is always in full control (which is not an allegory).

Of course, it doesn't. Purposeful at a human level of desire.


DAVID: […] Why can't you accept the logical answer: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

dhw: And you cannot think of any reasons!!! So I offer you logical alternatives, but you reject them all because they do not fit in with your preconceived ideas about your God! […]

I don't need to know His reasoning!!! And no one can know it,


DAVID: You can't know God's reasoning any more than I can. WE can only analyze what HE produced.

dhw: Correct. And your analysis has produced theories that make no sense to you.[…]

I don't need to know His reasoning!!! And no one can know it,

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, September 22, 2022, 11:10 (554 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You miss the point. God's view of control may not be ours.

dhw: You miss the point. “Control” is not allegorical or figurative. I have defined “control” for you. The dispute is over what your God wanted to do and did do. Now please tell us why your belief that your God wanted to and did have “full control” over evolution is not human, whereas my theory that he did not want “full control” but gave autonomous control to his creations is human. (And please note your self-contradiction in “More Miscellany” PART ONE, which I will highlight.)

DAVID: We cannot know how God thinks. We can imagine it is like how we do it. That is where you are wrong.

So when you say your God wants full control, your statement is meaningless, because you don’t know what control means to God. Ditto when I say he does not want full control. There seems to be no point in any discussion about your God, since apparently our words might not mean what we both think they mean.

DAVID: In regard to 'control', in my view it relates to how purposeful God is. As before I view God as directly creating with no self-interest or reflection involved. You can try to make my God human as we must use human terms, but I see Him only in non-human terms, again, allegorically.

I don’t know what you mean by reflection here, or what the word “control” symbolizes (“allegorically”), but in any case if the term "self-interest” might not mean the same to God as it means to us, what is the point of even mentioning it? You “cannot know how God thinks”, so your statement is as human and – according to your approach – as pointless as my support for your certainty that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. You are making nonsense of all discussion and all language.

DAVID: So you have no authority but yourself? Adler is an authority to teach "how to think about God", his book!

dhw: I have no authority. Nor do you, Adler, Dawkins or Dennett. If God exists, the only “authority” on how to think about him is God himself. […]

DAVID: How to think about God is one side of the coin. How you imagine God is the other side, related but very different. I think you are mixing it up.

How can any human being tell us how to think about or imagine God? Why is your belief that God wants total control and has no self-interest (a) not human, and (b) the right way to think about/imagine God?

DAVID: God, as creator, had a purpose for everything He made appear!!

dhw: Of course he did, but that does not mean that he purposefully designed every single life form and ecosystem!

DAVID: A total non-sequitur. Either He designs everything, or He doesn't. Which is it?

We don’t know. If autonomous intelligence is what he wanted to design (as exemplified by our own form of designing intelligence), then how can you think/imagine he could not possibly have wanted to design cells which could also do their own form of designing by autonomously finding their own means of survival? After all, “we cannot know how God thinks”.

dhw: He may have wanted a free-for-all, and so by giving cells autonomous intelligence he would have got what he wanted. He may have wanted to create a being who would recognize him and admire his work (your terms) and may have experimented in order to get what he wanted – that is also purposeful. Or he may have set out as some humans do, to see where different experiments might lead him, and eventually have come up with a great idea: humans. Again, this is purposeful. But it doesn’t fit in with your idea of a God who knows everything and is always in full control (which is not an allegory).

DAVID: Of course, it doesn't. Purposeful at a human level of desire.

If we “cannot know how God thinks”, how can you possibly know that he knows everything and wants and always has full control? Yes, “we can imagine it is like how we do it”, and since we cannot “know” the truth, what grounds can you possibly have for imagining that his purposefulness does NOT relate to one or other of the above theories, all of which – unlike your own “imagining” - provide a logical explanation for the history of evolution?

DAVID: You can't know God's reasoning any more than I can. WE can only analyze what HE produced.

dhw: Correct. And your analysis has produced theories that make no sense to you.[…]

DAVID: I don't need to know His reasoning!!! And no one can know it.

So please stop telling us that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, that he wanted and had full control, that he designed every life form and econiche, and all those that did not lead to us and our food were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, although this theory makes sense only to God (i.e. not to you), but you will stick to it and reject any alternative theory that does make sense because you can’t know how he thinks or reasons!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 22, 2022, 16:09 (553 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We cannot know how God thinks. We can imagine it is like how we do it. That is where you are wrong.

dhw: There seems to be no point in any discussion about your God, since apparently our words might not mean what we both think they mean.

We must understand God may see things in a totally different viewpoint.


DAVID: In regard to 'control', in my view it relates to how purposeful God is. As before I view God as directly creating with no self-interest or reflection involved. You can try to make my God human as we must use human terms, but I see Him only in non-human terms, again, allegorically.

dhw: I don’t know what you mean by reflection here,

I implied self-reflection.

dhw: or what the word “control” symbolizes (“allegorically”), but in any case if the term "self-interest” might not mean the same to God as it means to us, what is the point of even mentioning it? You “cannot know how God thinks”, so your statement is as human and – according to your approach – as pointless as my support for your certainty that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. You are making nonsense of all discussion and all language.

We must use human terms as we describe God's possible thoughts or actions. What you can't seem to remember, I view God as a personage like no other person.


DAVID: How to think about God is one side of the coin. How you imagine God is the other side, related but very different. I think you are mixing it up.

dhw: How can any human being tell us how to think about or imagine God? Why is your belief that God wants total control and has no self-interest (a) not human, and (b) the right way to think about/imagine God?

Read Adler's book. As a respected philosopher of religion his thinking must hold weight.


DAVID: God, as creator, had a purpose for everything He made appear!!

dhw: Of course he did, but that does not mean that he purposefully designed every single life form and ecosystem!

DAVID: A total non-sequitur. Either He designs everything, or He doesn't. Which is it?

dhw: We don’t know.

You don't know, and your retraction shows your view of God is a muddle of yes He designs and no He doesn't, so some ecosystems just arrived on their own!

dhw: He may have wanted a free-for-all, and so by giving cells autonomous intelligence he would have got what he wanted. He may have wanted to create a being who would recognize him and admire his work (your terms) and may have experimented in order to get what he wanted – that is also purposeful. Or he may have set out as some humans do, to see where different experiments might lead him, and eventually have come up with a great idea: humans. Again, this is purposeful. But it doesn’t fit in with your idea of a God who knows everything and is always in full control (which is not an allegory).

DAVID: Of course, it doesn't. Purposeful at a human level of desire.

dhw:b If we “cannot know how God thinks”, how can you possibly know that he knows everything and wants and always has full control? Yes, “we can imagine it is like how we do it”, and since we cannot “know” the truth, what grounds can you possibly have for imagining that his purposefulness does NOT relate to one or other of the above theories, all of which – unlike your own “imagining” - provide a logical explanation for the history of evolution?

Ny analysis is not yours.


DAVID: You can't know God's reasoning any more than I can. WE can only analyze what HE produced.

dhw: Correct. And your analysis has produced theories that make no sense to you.[…]

DAVID: I don't need to know His reasoning!!! And no one can know it.

dhw: So please stop telling us that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, that he wanted and had full control, that he designed every life form and econiche, and all those that did not lead to us and our food were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, although this theory makes sense only to God (i.e. not to you), but you will stick to it and reject any alternative theory that does make sense because you can’t know how he thinks or reasons!

My analysis comes from the concept of an all-powerful God who knows exactly what He wants to do and does it. A marked concept from your very humanized God who changes course, has to experiment and loves to enjoy free-for-alls.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, September 23, 2022, 09:09 (553 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We cannot know how God thinks. We can imagine it is like how we do it. That is where you are wrong.

dhw: There seems to be no point in any discussion about your God, since apparently our words might not mean what we both think they mean.

DAVID: We must understand God may see things in a totally different viewpoint.

You wrote: “God’s view of control may not be ours”, and so when you say your God is in full control of evolution, do you think it might mean he is not in full control of evolution?

dhw: […] if the term "self-interest” might not mean the same to God as it means to us, what is the point of even mentioning it? You “cannot know how God thinks”, so your statement is as human and – according to your approach – as pointless as my support for your certainty that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. You are making nonsense of all discussion and all language.

DAVID: We must use human terms as we describe God's possible thoughts or actions. What you can't seem to remember, I view God as a personage like no other person.

Since your God is an eternal, immaterial, sourceless, super-intelligent mind which can create universes and life, I don’t think many people would regard him as a person just like us. However, if he is a “personage”, then it is perfectly possible that he will have created “personal” attributes in us which reflect his own “personal” attributes.

dhw: How can any human being tell us how to think about or imagine God? Why is your belief that God wants total control and has no self-interest (a) not human, and (b) the right way to think about/imagine God?

DAVID: Read Adler's book. As a respected philosopher of religion his thinking must hold weight.

If you cannot answer my questions, please don’t tell me somebody else can.

DAVID: God, as creator, had a purpose for everything He made appear!!

dhw: Of course he did, but that does not mean that he purposefully designed every single life form and ecosystem!

DAVID: A total non-sequitur. Either He designs everything, or He doesn't. Which is it?

dhw: We don’t know.

DAVID: You don't know, and your retraction shows your view of God is a muddle of yes He designs and no He doesn't, so some ecosystems just arrived on their own!

What retraction? Your question demands an all or nothing. I have offered you a theistic theory in which your God designs the basic units of life and endows them with the ability to do their own designing. The most obvious example of this autonomy is human beings, but you refuse to believe that he is capable of designing cells with the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves. You don’t invalidate the theory by claiming that God must design everything himself or nothing at all! As for ecosystems, they consist of the animals and plants in particular areas, and the way in which they are related to one another bbband to their environmentbbb. You are tying yourself in knots over your uncertainty as to the degree of control your God exercises over environments (see “More miscellany, PART ONE). To quote you: “either he designs everything or he doesn’t.” And you think my view is a “muddle”!

DAVID: My analysis comes from the concept of an all-powerful God who knows exactly what He wants to do and does it. A marked concept from your very humanized God who changes course, has to experiment and loves to enjoy free-for-alls.

Your analysis results in the concept of a God who only wants to design H. sapiens and his food, and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with H. sapiens and his food. Your theory makes no sense to you. The above list of alternatives, on the contrary, makes perfect sense to you. In fact, you also have him changing course if you think he might have chucked Chixculub at the dinosaurs, but in any case wanting full control is no less human than wanting a free-for-all, he does not “have to” experiment but chooses to do so, and there is no reason at all why your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations should not constitute a purpose for his creating life in the first place, and what is wrong with creating and enjoying an interesting free-for-all? In brief, your one and only theory concerning your God’s purpose and method makes no sense to you or to me, you agree that my own theories are perfectly logical, and your only two objections are that your “humanizations” of God are not as human as mine, and mine are wrong because nobody can know the truth.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, September 23, 2022, 19:52 (552 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We cannot know how God thinks. We can imagine it is like how we do it. That is where you are wrong.

dhw: There seems to be no point in any discussion about your God, since apparently our words might not mean what we both think they mean.

DAVID: We must understand God may see things in a totally different viewpoint.

dhw: You wrote: “God’s view of control may not be ours”, and so when you say your God is in full control of evolution, do you think it might mean he is not in full control of evolution?

Not implied at all.


DAVID: We must use human terms as we describe God's possible thoughts or actions. What you can't seem to remember, I view God as a personage like no other person.

dhw: Since your God is an eternal, immaterial, sourceless, super-intelligent mind which can create universes and life, I don’t think many people would regard him as a person just like us. However, if he is a “personage”, then it is perfectly possible that he will have created “personal” attributes in us which reflect his own “personal” attributes.

But not reflect as in mirrored. Similarities in some way.


dhw: How can any human being tell us how to think about or imagine God? Why is your belief that God wants total control and has no self-interest (a) not human, and (b) the right way to think about/imagine God?[/b]

DAVID: Read Adler's book. As a respected philosopher of religion his thinking must hold weight.

dhw: If you cannot answer my questions, please don’t tell me somebody else can.

I have a guide in how I think about God. Your bold is my conclusion after years of study and reading over 100 books.


DAVID: God, as creator, had a purpose for everything He made appear!!

dhw: Of course he did, but that does not mean that he purposefully designed every single life form and ecosystem!

DAVID: A total non-sequitur. Either He designs everything, or He doesn't. Which is it?

dhw: We don’t know.

DAVID: You don't know, and your retraction shows your view of God is a muddle of yes He designs and no He doesn't, so some ecosystems just arrived on their own!

dhw: What retraction? Your question demands an all or nothing. I have offered you a theistic theory in which your God designs the basic units of life and endows them with the ability to do their own designing. The most obvious example of this autonomy is human beings, but you refuse to believe that he is capable of designing cells with the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves.

The autonomy of humans is not an equivalent to cell functional abilities. You've used this before and it is equivalent to comparing horses to oranges

dhw: You don’t invalidate the theory by claiming that God must design everything himself or nothing at all! As for ecosystems, they consist of the animals and plants in particular areas, and the way in which they are related to one another and to their environment. You are tying yourself in knots over your uncertainty as to the degree of control your God exercises over environments (see “More miscellany, PART ONE). To quote you: “either he designs everything or he doesn’t.” And you think my view is a “muddle”!

Answered in PART ONE.


DAVID: My analysis comes from the concept of an all-powerful God who knows exactly what He wants to do and does it. A marked concept from your very humanized God who changes course, has to experiment and loves to enjoy free-for-alls.

dhw: Your analysis results in the concept of a God who only wants to design H. sapiens and his food, and proceeds to design countless life forms and foods that have no connection with H. sapiens and his food. Your theory makes no sense to you. The above list of alternatives, on the contrary, makes perfect sense to you. In fact, you also have him changing course if you think he might have chucked Chixculub at the dinosaurs, but in any case wanting full control is no less human than wanting a free-for-all, he does not “have to” experiment but chooses to do so, and there is no reason at all why your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations should not constitute a purpose for his creating life in the first place, and what is wrong with creating and enjoying an interesting free-for-all? In brief, your one and only theory concerning your God’s purpose and method makes no sense to you or to me, you agree that my own theories are perfectly logical, and your only two objections are that your “humanizations” of God are not as human as mine, and mine are wrong because nobody can know the truth.

Stop declaring it makes no sense to me. It makes perfect sense to conclude God prefers to evolve everything as evidence shows. Are you blind to it?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, September 24, 2022, 08:46 (552 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We must understand God may see things in a totally different viewpoint.

dhw: You wrote: “God’s view of control may not be ours”, and so when you say your God is in full control of evolution, do you think it might mean he is not in full control of evolution?

DAVID: Not implied at all.

So when you say God is in full control of everything, but God may see things in a totally different viewpoint, what might “full control” mean if it doesn’t mean what you and I mean by “full control”?

DAVID: We must use human terms as we describe God's possible thoughts or actions. What you can't seem to remember, I view God as a personage like no other person.

dhw: Since your God is an eternal, immaterial, sourceless, super-intelligent mind which can create universes and life, I don’t think many people would regard him as a person just like us. However, if he is a “personage”, then it is perfectly possible that he will have created “personal” attributes in us which reflect his own “personal” attributes.

DAVID: But not reflect as in mirrored. Similarities in some way.

So when you say you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, why do you think his feelings of enjoyment and interest can’t be like ours, and can’t constitute a purpose for creating life? (Please don’t change the terms ”enjoy” and “interest”, as these are the words you have used.)

dhw: How can any human being tell us how to think about or imagine God? Why is your belief that God wants total control and has no self-interest (a) not human, and (b) the right way to think about/imagine God?

DAVID: Read Adler's book. As a respected philosopher of religion his thinking must hold weight.

dhw: If you cannot answer my questions, please don’t tell me somebody else can.

DAVID: I have a guide in how I think about God. Your bold is my conclusion after years of study and reading over 100 books.

I am not doubting your reading capacity. I have asked you three bolded questions. Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists? Please answer.

DAVID: Either He designs everything, or He doesn't. Which is it?

dhw: We don’t know.

DAVID: You don't know, and your retraction shows your view of God is a muddle of yes He designs and no He doesn't, so some ecosystems just arrived on their own!

dhw: What retraction? Your question demands an all or nothing. I have offered you a theistic theory in which your God designs the basic units of life and endows them with the ability to do their own designing. The most obvious example of this autonomy is human beings, but you refuse to believe that he is capable of designing cells with the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves.

DAVID: The autonomy of humans is not an equivalent to cell functional abilities. You've used this before and it is equivalent to comparing horses to oranges.

And you’ve missed the point before, which is: if your God wanted to create autonomous humans, why do you insist that he could not possibly have wanted to create autonomous cells? The principle is the same: he did not WANT to control humans. So maybe he did not WANT to control cells.

DAVID: My analysis comes from the concept of an all-powerful God who knows exactly what He wants to do and does it. A marked concept from your very humanized God who changes course, has to experiment and loves to enjoy free-for-alls.

dhw:: In brief, your one and only theory concerning your God’s purpose and method makes no sense to you or to me, you agree that my own theories are perfectly logical, and your only two objections are that your “humanizations” of God are not as human as mine, and mine are wrong because nobody can know the truth.

DAVID: Stop declaring it makes no sense to me. It makes perfect sense to conclude God prefers to evolve everything as evidence shows. Are you blind to it?

Stop dodging! We both accept evolution as a fact, and if God exists of course it makes perfect sense that he wanted evolution. But that does not mean (a) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, or (b) that he designed every life form individually, or (c) that every life form and ecosystem that had no connection with us and our food was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, and (d) according to you he did NOT evolve everything anyway, because you keep telling us that he designed Cambrian species that had no precursors. You also keep telling us you can’t find any reason for this illogical combination of beliefs, and you don’t have to, because you know it’s right and God has his reasons. The statement that your combined theories “make sense only to God” makes it perfectly clear that they do not make sense to you, so please stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 24, 2022, 17:47 (551 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So when you say God is in full control of everything, but God may see things in a totally different viewpoint, what might “full control” mean if it doesn’t mean what you and I mean by “full control”?

It may or may not.


DAVID: We must use human terms as we describe God's possible thoughts or actions. What you can't seem to remember, I view God as a personage like no other person.

dhw: Since your God is an eternal, immaterial, sourceless, super-intelligent mind which can create universes and life, I don’t think many people would regard him as a person just like us. However, if he is a “personage”, then it is perfectly possible that he will have created “personal” attributes in us which reflect his own “personal” attributes.

DAVID: But not reflect as in mirrored. Similarities in some way.

dhw: So when you say you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, why do you think his feelings of enjoyment and interest can’t be like ours, and can’t constitute a purpose for creating life? (Please don’t change the terms ”enjoy” and “interest”, as these are the words you have used.)

God may create and not need self-enjoyment or self-interest in what He has created.


DAVID: I have a guide in how I think about God. Your bold is my conclusion after years of study and reading over 100 books.

dhw: I am not doubting your reading capacity. I have asked you three bolded questions. Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists? Please answer.

We are discussing the human level! God won't tell us about Himself. There are philosophers who have given much thought to the problem and a good place to start one's thinking..


dhw: What retraction? Your question demands an all or nothing. I have offered you a theistic theory in which your God designs the basic units of life and endows them with the ability to do their own designing. The most obvious example of this autonomy is human beings, but you refuse to believe that he is capable of designing cells with the autonomous ability to make changes to themselves.

DAVID: The autonomy of humans is not an equivalent to cell functional abilities. You've used this before and it is equivalent to comparing horses to oranges.

dhw: And you’ve missed the point before, which is: if your God wanted to create autonomous humans, why do you insist that he could not possibly have wanted to create autonomous cells? The principle is the same: he did not WANT to control humans. So maybe he did not WANT to control cells.

I've missed nothing. I continue to view it as a very strained comparison. Show me a cell that has a mind.


DAVID: My analysis comes from the concept of an all-powerful God who knows exactly what He wants to do and does it. A marked concept from your very humanized God who changes course, has to experiment and loves to enjoy free-for-alls.

dhw:: In brief, your one and only theory concerning your God’s purpose and method makes no sense to you or to me, you agree that my own theories are perfectly logical, and your only two objections are that your “humanizations” of God are not as human as mine, and mine are wrong because nobody can know the truth.

DAVID: Stop declaring it makes no sense to me. It makes perfect sense to conclude God prefers to evolve everything as evidence shows. Are you blind to it?

dhw: Stop dodging! We both accept evolution as a fact, and if God exists of course it makes perfect sense that he wanted evolution. But that does not mean (a) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, or (b) that he designed every life form individually, or (c) that every life form and ecosystem that had no connection with us and our food was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, and (d) according to you he did NOT evolve everything anyway, because you keep telling us that he designed Cambrian species that had no precursors. You also keep telling us you can’t find any reason for this illogical combination of beliefs, and you don’t have to, because you know it’s right and God has his reasons. The statement that your combined theories “make sense only to God” makes it perfectly clear that they do not make sense to you, so please stop dodging.

You are confused: what makes sense only to God are His reasons for choosing to evolve everything, nothing more. I have established the historical facts that support that theory. As for the Cambrian, a designer can jump steps whenever He wishes. As for God's purpose to produce humans, the presence of human is used to prove God in that natural evolution is not capable of producing us.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, September 25, 2022, 08:26 (551 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So when you say God is in full control of everything, but God may see things in a totally different viewpoint, what might “full control” mean if it doesn’t mean what you and I mean by “full control”?

DAVID: It may or may not.

You are making a mockery of language.

dhw: when you say you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, why do you think his feelings of enjoyment and interest can’t be like ours, and can’t constitute a purpose for creating life? (Please don’t change the terms ”enjoy” and “interest”, as these are the words you have used.)

DAVID: God may create and not need self-enjoyment or self-interest in what He has created.

If you enjoy something, it means you get pleasure from it. You have said you are sure your God gets pleasure from creating. What is "self-enjoyment"? Do you mean your God doesn't need to masturbate? “Self-interest” means that you only care about yourself and do not care about anyone else – nothing whatsoever to with paying attention to something because you want to know what will happen to it, what it will do or become or create or show you or teach you etc.

dhw: Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists?

DAVID: We are discussing the human level! God won't tell us about Himself. There are philosophers who have given much thought to the problem and a good place to start one's thinking.

Apparently they have taught you that your God is in full control, enjoys creation, is interested in what he creates etc., but none of these words may mean what we mean by them. Presumably this applies to every statement anyone makes about your God, and since nobody can possibly know the truth anyway, there is no point in discussing his possible nature, purpose and methods. And there are hundreds of philosophers who all agree with you and with one another.

dhw: […] if your God wanted to create autonomous humans, why do you insist that he could not possibly have wanted to create autonomous cells? The principle is the same: he did not WANT to control humans. So maybe he did not WANT to control cells.

DAVID: […] I continue to view it as a very strained comparison. Show me a cell that has a mind.

I have never used the word “mind”, which is closely associated with “brain”. Some eminent scientists have concluded from their studies that cells are “cognitive (sentient) entities” and “possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (Shapiro), all of which are the hallmarks of autonomous intelligence. You don’t have to believe it. I’m simply asking why you think your God could not possibly have wanted to create such entities.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to conclude God prefers to evolve everything as evidence shows. Are you blind to it?

dhw: […] We both accept evolution as a fact, and if God exists of course it makes perfect sense that he wanted evolution. But that does not mean (a) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, or (b) that he designed every life form individually, or (c) that every life form and ecosystem that had no connection with us and our food was an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, and (d) according to you he did NOT evolve everything anyway, because you keep telling us that he designed Cambrian species that had no precursors. You also keep telling us you can’t find any reason for this illogical combination of beliefs, and you don’t have to, because you know it’s right and God has his reasons. The statement that your combined theories “make sense only to God” makes it perfectly clear that they do not make sense to you, so please stop dodging.

DAVID: You are confused: what makes sense only to God are His reasons for choosing to evolve everything, nothing more. I have established the historical facts that support that theory.

We both support the theory that evolution happened,and I suspect there have been scientists before you who established the historical facts that support the theory of evolution. But (a), (b) and (c) are not facts, and they contradict one another. And you have said that you can’t explain the contradictions – God has his reasons and we can’t know them!

DAVID: As for the Cambrian, a designer can jump steps whenever He wishes.

Of course, but according to you, we and much of our food are directly descended from organisms that God chose to design without precursors (i.e. they did not “evolve”), and this contradicts your belief that we and our food were his sole purpose right from the start. And so you tell us that your theory “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: As for God's purpose to produce humans, the presence of human is used to prove God in that natural evolution is not capable of producing us.

So are you now saying that “natural evolution” (by which I presume you mean evolution that is not controlled by your God, though control may not mean control) IS capable of producing trilobites, dinosaurs, moas and elephants? All of them can be used to “prove” that God exists, and that is not the point at issue. You simply use it in order to dodge all the contradictions I have listed.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 25, 2022, 18:25 (550 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God may create and not need self-enjoyment or self-interest in what He has created.

dhw: If you enjoy something, it means you get pleasure from it. You have said you are sure your God gets pleasure from creating. What is "self-enjoyment"? Do you mean your God doesn't need to masturbate? “Self-interest” means that you only care about yourself and do not care about anyone else – nothing whatsoever to with paying attention to something because you want to know what will happen to it, what it will do or become or create or show you or teach you etc.

You are attempting to apply human terms directly to God. Since He is not human. they have to be applied understanding the difference in Him.


dhw: Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists?

DAVID: We are discussing the human level! God won't tell us about Himself. There are philosophers who have given much thought to the problem and a good place to start one's thinking.

dhw: Apparently they have taught you that your God is in full control, enjoys creation, is interested in what he creates etc., but none of these words may mean what we mean by them. Presumably this applies to every statement anyone makes about your God, and since nobody can possibly know the truth anyway, there is no point in discussing his possible nature, purpose and methods. And there are hundreds of philosophers who all agree with you and with one another.

God is discussed all the time, despite your negative take. Log on to Ed Feser.


dhw: […] if your God wanted to create autonomous humans, why do you insist that he could not possibly have wanted to create autonomous cells? The principle is the same: he did not WANT to control humans. So maybe he did not WANT to control cells.

DAVID: […] I continue to view it as a very strained comparison. Show me a cell that has a mind.

dhw: I have never used the word “mind”, which is closely associated with “brain”. Some eminent scientists have concluded from their studies that cells are “cognitive (sentient) entities” and “possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities” (Shapiro), all of which are the hallmarks of autonomous intelligence. You don’t have to believe it. I’m simply asking why you think your God could not possibly have wanted to create such entities.

No good designer wants secondhand design. Cells can be viewed as automatons.


DAVID: You are confused: what makes sense only to God are His reasons for choosing to evolve everything, nothing more. I have established the historical facts that support that theory.

dhw: We both support the theory that evolution happened,and I suspect there have been scientists before you who established the historical facts that support the theory of evolution. But (a), (b) and (c) are not facts, and they contradict one another. And you have said that you can’t explain the contradictions – God has his reasons and we can’t know them!

Once again, the only reasons I cannot know is why God chooses to evolve everything. Wnhy do you expand my statement to so much nonsense about God?


DAVID: As for the Cambrian, a designer can jump steps whenever He wishes.

dhw: Of course, but according to you, we and much of our food are directly descended from organisms that God chose to design without precursors (i.e. they did not “evolve”), and this contradicts your belief that we and our food were his sole purpose right from the start. And so you tell us that your theory “makes sense only to God”.

Same nonsense, same non sequitur. All of the past leads to the present. Stop slicing the past away.


DAVID: As for God's purpose to produce humans, the presence of human is used to prove God in that natural evolution is not capable of producing us.

dhw: So are you now saying that “natural evolution” (by which I presume you mean evolution that is not controlled by your God, though control may not mean control) IS capable of producing trilobites, dinosaurs, moas and elephants? All of them can be used to “prove” that God exists, and that is not the point at issue. You simply use it in order to dodge all the contradictions I have listed.

More confusion. None of the animals you mention have human mental capacity! The contradictions are manufactured by you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, September 26, 2022, 08:39 (550 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

DAVID: God may create and not need self-enjoyment or self-interest in what He has created.

dhw: If you enjoy something, it means you get pleasure from it. You have said you are sure your God gets pleasure from creating. What is "self-enjoyment"? Do you mean your God doesn't need to masturbate? “Self-interest” means that you only care about yourself and do not care about anyone else – nothing whatsoever to do with paying attention to something because you want to know what will happen to it, what it will do or become or create or show you or teach you etc.

DAVID: You are attempting to apply human terms directly to God. Since He is not human. they have to be applied understanding the difference in Him.

It is you who apply “human” terms when you claim that he has full control, that he enjoys creating and that he is interested in what he creates, and now you are pretending you don’t know if the terms mean what you think they mean! Please stop playing silly word games.

dhw: Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists? […]

DAVID: God is discussed all the time, despite your negative take. Log on to Ed Feser.

Of course he is discussed all the time. Hundreds of books have been written about him. Do they all say the same thing? Now please answer the question above.

Design and purpose

dhw: […] if your God wanted to create autonomous humans, why do you insist that he could not possibly have wanted to create autonomous cells? The principle is the same: he did not WANT to control humans. So maybe he did not WANT to control cells..

DAVID: No good designer wants secondhand design. Cells can be viewed as automatons.

And cells, as we know from some eminent scientists, can be viewed as autonomously intelligent entities, and if your God designed them as such because he WANTED a free-for-all, who are you to say he is not a good designer? In your own theory, he only WANTS to create H. sapiens plus food, but before he does so, he designs countless dead-end species and foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose. Is that what you call a “good” designer?

DAVID: You are confused: what makes sense only to God are His reasons for choosing to evolve everything, nothing more. I have established the historical facts that support that theory.

dhw: We both support the theory that evolution happened, and I suspect there have been scientists before you who established the historical facts that support the theory of evolution. But (a), (b) and (c) are not facts, and they contradict one another. And you have said that you can’t explain the contradictions – God has his reasons and we can’t know them!

DAVID: Once again, the only reasons I cannot know is why God chooses to evolve everything. Why do you expand my statement to so much nonsense about God?

Thank you for agreeing that it is nonsense to claim that your all-powerful God had only one purpose and therefore designed (“evolved”) countless life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: As for the Cambrian, a designer can jump steps whenever He wishes.

dhw: Of course, but according to you, we and much of our food are directly descended from organisms that God chose to design without precursors, and this contradicts your belief that we and our food were his sole purpose right from the start. And so you tell us that your theory “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: Same nonsense, same non sequitur. All of the past leads to the present. Stop slicing the past away.

Some past forms have led to present forms, but you have agreed that the past is full of dead ends that have led nowhere. Thank you for agreeing that it is nonsense to claim that we are descended from organisms that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve), and yet we were your all-knowing, all-powerful, can-do-whatever-he-wishes God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning of evolution.

DAVID: As for God's purpose to produce humans, the presence of human is used to prove God in that natural evolution is not capable of producing us.

dhw: So are you now saying that “natural evolution” (by which I presume you mean evolution that is not controlled by your God, though control may not mean control) IS capable of producing trilobites, dinosaurs, moas and elephants? All of them can be used to “prove” that God exists, and that is not the point at issue. You simply use it in order to dodge all the contradictions I have listed.

DAVID: More confusion. None of the animals you mention have human mental capacity! The contradictions are manufactured by you.

But (a) you have quite rightly argued that ALL the complexities of life can be used as evidence of God’s existence, and (b) we are not discussing God’s existence here. We are discussing your theistic interpretation of evolution, which is riddled with the contradictions I have listed over and over again, and to which you reply that we cannot know God’s reasons, and your theories “make sense only to God.”

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, September 26, 2022, 13:14 (549 days ago) @ dhw

Nature of God

DAVID: You are attempting to apply human terms directly to God. Since He is not human. they have to be applied understanding the difference in Him.

dhw: It is you who apply “human” terms when you claim that he has full control, that he enjoys creating and that he is interested in what he creates, and now you are pretending you don’t know if the terms mean what you think they mean! Please stop playing silly word games.

It is not silly games. It is a philosophical point that God is not human and human terms do not aptly apply.


dhw: Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists? […]

DAVID: God is discussed all the time, despite your negative take. Log on to Ed Feser.

dhw: Of course he is discussed all the time. Hundreds of books have been written about him. Do they all say the same thing? Now please answer the question above.

God is telling us about Himself indirectly.


Design and purpose

dhw: […] if your God wanted to create autonomous humans, why do you insist that he could not possibly have wanted to create autonomous cells? The principle is the same: he did not WANT to control humans. So maybe he did not WANT to control cells..

DAVID: No good designer wants secondhand design. Cells can be viewed as automatons.

dhw: And cells, as we know from some eminent scientists, can be viewed as autonomously intelligent entities, and if your God designed them as such because he WANTED a free-for-all, who are you to say he is not a good designer? In your own theory, he only WANTS to create H. sapiens plus food, but before he does so, he designs countless dead-end species and foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose. Is that what you call a “good” designer?

God is a geat designer of what looks like evolution


DAVID: Once again, the only reasons I cannot know is why God chooses to evolve everything. Why do you expand my statement to so much nonsense about God?

dhw: Thank you for agreeing that it is nonsense to claim that your all-powerful God had only one purpose and therefore designed (“evolved”) countless life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with his purpose.

Your typical non-answer to avoid admitting your tactic.


DAVID: As for the Cambrian, a designer can jump steps whenever He wishes.

dhw: Of course, but according to you, we and much of our food are directly descended from organisms that God chose to design without precursors, and this contradicts your belief that we and our food were his sole purpose right from the start. And so you tell us that your theory “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: Same nonsense, same non sequitur. All of the past leads to the present. Stop slicing the past away.

dhw: Some past forms have led to present forms, but you have agreed that the past is full of dead ends that have led nowhere. Thank you for agreeing that it is nonsense to claim that we are descended from organisms that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve), and yet we were your all-knowing, all-powerful, can-do-whatever-he-wishes God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning of evolution.

Same non-answer as discussed above.


DAVID: As for God's purpose to produce humans, the presence of human is used to prove God in that natural evolution is not capable of producing us.

dhw: So are you now saying that “natural evolution” (by which I presume you mean evolution that is not controlled by your God, though control may not mean control) IS capable of producing trilobites, dinosaurs, moas and elephants? All of them can be used to “prove” that God exists, and that is not the point at issue. You simply use it in order to dodge all the contradictions I have listed.

DAVID: More confusion. None of the animals you mention have human mental capacity! The contradictions are manufactured by you.

dhw: But (a) you have quite rightly argued that ALL the complexities of life can be used as evidence of God’s existence, and (b) we are not discussing God’s existence here. We are discussing your theistic interpretation of evolution, which is riddled with the contradictions I have listed over and over again, and to which you reply that we cannot know God’s reasons, and your theories “make sense only to God.”

Same silly distortion of my statement taht only God knows why He evolves His creations.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, September 27, 2022, 11:46 (548 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

DAVID: You are attempting to apply human terms directly to God. Since He is not human. they have to be applied understanding the difference in Him.

dhw: It is you who apply “human” terms when you claim that he has full control, that he enjoys creating and that he is interested in what he creates, and now you are pretending you don’t know if the terms mean what you think they mean! Please stop playing silly word games.

DAVID: It is not silly games. It is a philosophical point that God is not human and human terms do not aptly apply.

You don’t need to be a philosopher to realize that an eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which creates a universe is not human. If you wish to discuss its purpose, methods and nature, it is impossible to do so without using “human terms”, and why shouldn’t we? For example, when you say your God has “full control”, we both know you mean God making something happen the way he wants it to happen. Why does this not “aptly apply”? When you say he enjoys creating, we both know you mean it gives him pleasure. Why does this not “aptly apply”? If the terms you use don’t mean what we both think they mean, there is no point in any discussion of God’s purpose, method and nature. Is that what Adler and other religious philosophers have taught you?

dhw: Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists? […]

DAVID: God is telling us about Himself indirectly.

If God exists, we can only extrapolate our theories about him from our human interpretations of history (of the universe and life). Presumably that’s what you mean by “indirectly”. These interpretations can only be subjective (hence the thousands of books on the subject), but if our human terms may not mean what we think they mean, then as above there is no point in any discussion. Meanwhile, do you agree or disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists?

Design and purpose

DAVID: No good designer wants secondhand design. Cells can be viewed as automatons.

dhw: And cells, as we know from some eminent scientists, can be viewed as autonomously intelligent entities, and if your God designed them as such because he WANTED a free-for-all, who are you to say he is not a good designer? In your own theory, he only WANTS to create H. sapiens plus food, but before he does so, he designs countless dead-end species and foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose. Is that what you call a “good” designer?

DAVID: God is a great designer of what looks like evolution.

So now evolution apparently isn’t evolution! Meanwhile, please answer the questions I asked above.

DAVID: As for the Cambrian, a designer can jump steps whenever He wishes.

dhw: Of course, but according to you, we and much of our food are directly descended from organisms that God chose to design without precursors, and this contradicts your belief that we and our food were his sole purpose right from the start. And so you tell us that your theory “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: Same nonsense, same non sequitur. All of the past leads to the present. Stop slicing the past away.

dhw: Some past forms have led to present forms, but you have agreed that the past is full of dead ends that have led nowhere. Thank you for agreeing that it is nonsense to claim that we are descended from organisms that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve), and yet we were your all-knowing, all-powerful, can-do-whatever-he-wishes God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning of evolution.

DAVID: Same non-answer as discussed above.

Not even discussed. You merely repeated the nonsense that ALL the past leads to the present, though dead ends lead nowhere.

DAVID: As for God's purpose to produce humans, the presence of human is used to prove God in that natural evolution is not capable of producing us.[…]

dhw: [..] (a) you have quite rightly argued that ALL the complexities of life can be used as evidence of God’s existence, and (b) we are not discussing God’s existence here. We are discussing your theistic interpretation of evolution, which is riddled with the contradictions I have listed over and over again, and to which you reply that we cannot know God’s reasons, and your theories “make sense only to God.”

DAVID: Same silly distortion of my statement that only God knows why He evolves His creations.

So please explain why he designed dead ends that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and why he designed H. sapiens in itsy-bitsy stages when he was perfectly capable of designing species without any precursors. These are the two theories which you have previously told us you can’t explain, and only God knows his reasons.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 27, 2022, 20:09 (548 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, September 27, 2022, 20:21

Nature of God

DAVID: It is not silly games. It is a philosophical point that God is not human and human terms do not aptly apply.

dhw: You don’t need to be a philosopher to realize that an eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which creates a universe is not human. If you wish to discuss its purpose, methods and nature, it is impossible to do so without using “human terms”, and why shouldn’t we? For example, when you say your God has “full control”, we both know you mean God making something happen the way he wants it to happen.... Why does this not “aptly apply”? If the terms you use don’t mean what we both think they mean, there is no point in any discussion of God’s purpose, method and nature. Is that what Adler and other religious philosophers have taught you?

Of course, we must discuss Him in our terms. It is all we have. But at the same time, we must do it realizing, we do not know to what extent those terms actually apply to God. Have you read about the philosophy of how to think about God to provide a background for your position?


dhw: Do you disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists? […]

DAVID: God is telling us about Himself indirectly.

dhw: If God exists, we can only extrapolate our theories about him from our human interpretations of history (of the universe and life). Presumably that’s what you mean by “indirectly”. These interpretations can only be subjective (hence the thousands of books on the subject), but if our human terms may not mean what we think they mean, then as above there is no point in any discussion. Meanwhile, do you agree or disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists?

He is and tells us through His works.


Design and purpose

dhw: And cells, as we know from some eminent scientists, can be viewed as autonomously intelligent entities, and if your God designed them as such because he WANTED a free-for-all, who are you to say he is not a good designer? In your own theory, he only WANTS to create H. sapiens plus food, but before he does so, he designs countless dead-end species and foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose. Is that what you call a “good” designer?

DAVID: God is a great designer of what looks like evolution.

dhw: So now evolution apparently isn’t evolution! Meanwhile, please answer the questions I asked above.

God is a great designer. You criticize His approach, but it worked. We are here.


dhw: Some past forms have led to present forms, but you have agreed that the past is full of dead ends that have led nowhere. Thank you for agreeing that it is nonsense to claim that we are descended from organisms that had no precursors (i.e. that did not evolve), and yet we were your all-knowing, all-powerful, can-do-whatever-he-wishes God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning of evolution.

DAVID: Same non-answer as discussed above.

dhw: Not even discussed. You merely repeated the nonsense that ALL the past leads to the present, though dead ends lead nowhere.

Dead ends were part of ecosystems no longer necessary as species become extinct.


DAVID: As for God's purpose to produce humans, the presence of human is used to prove God in that natural evolution is not capable of producing us.[…]

dhw: [..] (a) you have quite rightly argued that ALL the complexities of life can be used as evidence of God’s existence, and (b) we are not discussing God’s existence here. We are discussing your theistic interpretation of evolution, which is riddled with the contradictions I have listed over and over again, and to which you reply that we cannot know God’s reasons, and your theories “make sense only to God.”

DAVID: Same silly distortion of my statement that only God knows why He evolves His creations.

dhw: So please explain why he designed dead ends that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and why he designed H. sapiens in itsy-bitsy stages when he was perfectly capable of designing species without any precursors. These are the two theories which you have previously told us you can’t explain, and only God knows his reasons.

You are discussing God's design of evolution, and as a designer everything appearing is His wish. God did it His way, not your way.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, September 28, 2022, 13:43 (547 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

dhw: […] What might “full control” mean if it doesn’t mean what you and I mean by “full control”?

DAVID: It may or may not.[…]

dhw: […] You are pretending you don’t know if the terms man what you think they mean. Please stop playing silly word games.

DAVID: It is not silly games. It is a philosophical point that God is not human and human terms do not aptly apply.

dhw: You don’t need to be a philosopher to realize that an eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind which creates a universe is not human. If you wish to discuss its purpose, methods and nature, it is impossible to do so without using “human terms”, and why shouldn’t we? For example, when you say your God has “full control”, we both know you mean God making something happen the way he wants it to happen.... Why does this not “aptly apply”? If the terms you use don’t mean what we both think they mean, there is no point in any discussion of God’s purpose, method and nature. Is that what Adler and other religious philosophers have taught you?

DAVID: Of course, we must discuss Him in our terms. It is all we have. But at the same time, we must do it realizing, we do not know to what extent those terms actually apply to God. Have you read about the philosophy of how to think about God to provide a background for your position?

If God exists, then of course we don’t know if God is in full control, or enjoys creating, or is interested in us. But we do know what these words mean.So please stop playing silly word games. And please stop pretending that my criticism of your illogical thinking is the result of my not having read the books you have read. If you have found the answers, then please let us have them.

dhw: […] do you agree or disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists?

DAVID: He is and tells us through His works.

And so we interpret his works to create our theories about his possible purposes, methods and nature. And your interpretations have yielded theories which “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or me. One of them is bolded below.

Design and purpose

dhw: And cells, as we know from some eminent scientists, can be viewed as autonomously intelligent entities, and if your God designed them as such because he WANTED a free-for-all, who are you to say he is not a good designer? In your own theory, he only WANTS to create H. sapiens plus food, but before he does so, he designs countless dead-end species and foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose. Is that what you call a “good” designer?

DAVID: God is a great designer. You criticize His approach, but it worked. We are here.
And later:
You are discussing God's design of evolution, and as a designer everything appearing is His wish. God did it His way, not your way.

If God exists, of course he is a great designer, and of course what appears is his wish, and of course he did it his way. But we don’t know his wish or his way! What worked? Yes, we are here, along with countless other forms of life, and countless forms of life WERE here and are no longer here, and I assume that they were just as much a product of his wishes and his approach as we are. But you say that they were all designed only as preparation for us and our food, whereas you also say they were dead ends that had no connection with us and our food. I can’t see how your illogical theory makes him a “good” designer, whereas my logical alternatives make him a “bad” designer, and I am not criticizing his unknown approach, but am criticizing the illogicality of your own.

.DAVID: Dead ends were part of ecosystems no longer necessary as species become extinct.

Exactly. So obviously they were necessary for extinct forms, but were not “absolute requirements” that were "necessary" in preparation for us and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 28, 2022, 21:55 (547 days ago) @ dhw

Nature of God

DAVID: Of course, we must discuss Him in our terms. It is all we have. But at the same time, we must do it realizing, we do not know to what extent those terms actually apply to God. Have you read about the philosophy of how to think about God to provide a background for your position?

dhw: If God exists, then of course we don’t know if God is in full control, or enjoys creating, or is interested in us. But we do know what these words mean. So please stop playing silly word games. And please stop pretending that my criticism of your illogical thinking is the result of my not having read the books you have read. If you have found the answers, then please let us have them.

I've given you patterns of philosophic thought about God and religion. All you do is combat them. These are not silly word games but considerations as to how one should think about God.
As for my theories about God's works, they are separate from the debate about how to think about God's personality. And I note you still haven't answered the question, are there any supporting authorities you have for your positions?


dhw: […] do you agree or disagree that the only being qualified to tell us how to think about/imagine God is God himself, if he exists?

DAVID: He is and tells us through His works.

dhw: And so we interpret his works to create our theories about his possible purposes, methods and nature. And your interpretations have yielded theories which “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or me. One of them is bolded below.

Design and purpose

dhw: And cells, as we know from some eminent scientists, can be viewed as autonomously intelligent entities, and if your God designed them as such because he WANTED a free-for-all, who are you to say he is not a good designer? In your own theory, he only WANTS to create H. sapiens plus food, but before he does so, he designs countless dead-end species and foods that have no connection with his one and only purpose. Is that what you call a “good” designer?

I've explained His purposeful designs as ecosystems required in the past and leading to the present. As their usefulness is over with passage of time, they naturally disappear and have the appearance of dead ends. Everything God produces has a reason, and perhaps ones you can't see or don't understand.


DAVID: God is a great designer. You criticize His approach, but it worked. We are here.
And later:
You are discussing God's design of evolution, and as a designer everything appearing is His wish. God did it His way, not your way.

dhw: If God exists, of course he is a great designer, and of course what appears is his wish, and of course he did it his way. But we don’t know his wish or his way! What worked? Yes, we are here, along with countless other forms of life, and countless forms of life WERE here and are no longer here, and I assume that they were just as much a product of his wishes and his approach as we are. But you say that they were all designed only as preparation for us and our food, whereas you also say they were dead ends that had no connection with us and our food. I can’t see how your illogical theory makes him a “good” designer, whereas my logical alternatives make him a “bad” designer, and I am not criticizing his unknown approach, but am criticizing the illogicality of your own.'

Dead ends explained a used-up ecosystems.


.DAVID: Dead ends were part of ecosystems no longer necessary as species become extinct.

dhw: Exactly. So obviously they were necessary for extinct forms, but were not “absolute requirements” that were "necessary" in preparation for us and our food.

Everything God produces is a requirement in His eyes.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, September 29, 2022, 11:16 (547 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

DAVID: Of course, we must discuss Him in our terms. It is all we have. But at the same time, we must do it realizing, we do not know to what extent those terms actually apply to God. Have you read about the philosophy of how to think about God to provide a background for your position?

dhw: If God exists, then of course we don’t know if God is in full control, or enjoys creating, or is interested in us. But we do know what these words mean. So please stop playing silly word games. And please stop pretending that my criticism of your illogical thinking is the result of my not having read the books you have read. If you have found the answers, then please let us have them.

DAVID: I've given you patterns of philosophic thought about God and religion. All you do is combat them. These are not silly word games but considerations as to how one should think about God.

Among the patterns you have given me are that God is in full control, enjoys creating, and is interested in his creations, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions and logic like our own, and is kind. But apparently when we think about God, none of these words may mean the same to him as they do to us, which therefore suggests there is no point in your offering us any patterns.

DAVID: As for my theories about God's works, they are separate from the debate about how to think about God's personality.

The two overlap. A God who wants full control = personality; a God who fully controls every step of evolution refers to his works. Your theories about God’s works incorporate a subjective interpretation of his purpose and his method. Purpose: to design H. sapiens and his food; method: to design countless extinct life forms and foods, the vast majority of which were dead ends that did not lead to H. sapiens and his foods but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for the production of H. sapiens and his foods. You cannot find any explanation for this totally illogical theory, which is why I “combat” your theories on how to think about God and how to interpret his work.

DAVID: And I note you still haven't answered the question, are there any supporting authorities you have for your positions?

My answer has been that there are no “authorities” for any position. Only God – if he exists – can be an authority on his own personality and his purpose and method. I have not read any books on the subject of “how to think about God”, but I have a dear friend who has read loads and loads of them, and so I discuss the subject with him and question his authority. Nor have I read any books by McClintock, Margulis, Bühler or Shapiro, but largely thanks to my friend I know that they all believe(d) – the first two are dead now – in the theory of cellular intelligence. The theory that God designed life and then let it run its course is taken over from deism, and that God learns as he goes along is extrapolated from process theology. I have no idea if anyone else has proposed that God may have experimented in order to fulfil what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (to create us): I came up with it in my quest to find a logical explanation for your own theory, which otherwise makes no sense to you or me.

Design and purpose and dead ends

DAVID: Dead ends were part of ecosystems no longer necessary as species become extinct.

dhw: Exactly. So obviously they were necessary for extinct forms, but were not “absolute requirements” that were "necessary" in preparation for us and our food.

DAVID: Everything God produces is a requirement in His eyes.

Agreed. But obviously not a requirement for the design of H. sapiens and our food, so he must have had another purpose for designing them, or maybe he did not design them but they were part of a free-for-all which he engineered by designing the intelligent cell. Possible purpose: to enjoy creating something that would interest him. Just a theory, of course.

DAVID (under “More miscellany”): Past ecosystems fed past animals. With advances to new forms new ecosystems appeared, and old ones faded away as dead ends. Pure evolution at work through time.

An excellent description. Thank you for at last dropping your illogical theory that all past dead-end ecosystems and animals were individually designed by your God as “absolute requirements” for the individual design of H. sapiens and our ecosystems.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 29, 2022, 15:58 (546 days ago) @ dhw

Nature of God

DAVID: I've given you patterns of philosophic thought about God and religion. All you do is combat them. These are not silly word games but considerations as to how one should think about God.

dhw: Among the patterns you have given me are that God is in full control, enjoys creating, and is interested in his creations, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions and logic like our own, and is kind. But apparently when we think about God, none of these words may mean the same to him as they do to us, which therefore suggests there is no point in your offering us any patterns.

That God is a very different personage does not mean we can't analyze and debate


DAVID: As for my theories about God's works, they are separate from the debate about how to think about God's personality.

dhw: The two overlap. A God who wants full control = personality; a God who fully controls every step of evolution refers to his works. Your theories about God’s works incorporate a subjective interpretation of his purpose and his method. Purpose: to design H. sapiens and his food; method: to design countless extinct life forms and foods, the vast majority of which were dead ends that did not lead to H. sapiens and his foods but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for the production of H. sapiens and his foods. You cannot find any explanation for this totally illogical theory, which is why I “combat” your theories on how to think about God and how to interpret his work.

Whatever God produced, God considered required to continue His evolution of humans. How many times must I show that dead ends were part of ecosystems needed at that stage in e volution.


DAVID: And I note you still haven't answered the question, are there any supporting authorities you have for your positions?

dhw: My answer has been that there are no “authorities” for any position. Only God – if he exists – can be an authority on his own personality and his purpose and method. I have not read any books on the subject of “how to think about God”, but I have a dear friend who has read loads and loads of them, and so I discuss the subject with him and question his authority. Nor have I read any books by McClintock, Margulis, Bühler or Shapiro, but largely thanks to my friend I know that they all believe(d) – the first two are dead now – in the theory of cellular intelligence. The theory that God designed life and then let it run its course is taken over from deism, and that God learns as he goes along is extrapolated from process theology. I have no idea if anyone else has proposed that God may have experimented in order to fulfil what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (to create us): I came up with it in my quest to find a logical explanation for your own theory, which otherwise makes no sense to you or me.

Thank you for explaining your background as I have explained mine. Your quest makes sense to me. God did what He had to do to create humans. Accept that premise and your confusion will disappear.


Design and purpose and dead ends

DAVID: Dead ends were part of ecosystems no longer necessary as species become extinct.

dhw: Exactly. So obviously they were necessary for extinct forms, but were not “absolute requirements” that were "necessary" in preparation for us and our food.

Time passes in evolution. Each stage has its requirements.


DAVID: Everything God produces is a requirement in His eyes.

dhw: Agreed. But obviously not a requirement for the design of H. sapiens and our food, so he must have had another purpose for designing them, or maybe he did not design them but they were part of a free-for-all which he engineered by designing the intelligent cell. Possible purpose: to enjoy creating something that would interest him. Just a theory, of course.

A humanized God reappears.


DAVID (under “More miscellany”): Past ecosystems fed past animals. With advances to new forms new ecosystems appeared, and old ones faded away as dead ends. Pure evolution at work through time.

dhw: An excellent description. Thank you for at last dropping your illogical theory that all past dead-end ecosystems and animals were individually designed by your God as “absolute requirements” for the individual design of H. sapiens and our ecosystems.

I didn't drop God as designing all at every stage.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, September 30, 2022, 08:52 (546 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

DAVID: I've given you patterns of philosophic thought about God and religion. All you do is combat them. These are not silly word games but considerations as to how one should think about God.

dhw: Among the patterns you have given me are that God is in full control, enjoys creating, and is interested in his creations, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions and logic like our own, and is kind. But apparently when we think about God, none of these words may mean the same to him as they do to us, which therefore suggests there is no point in your offering us any patterns.

DAVID: That God is a very different personage does not mean we can't analyze and debate.

We can’t analyze and debate if you tell us that the words you use, such as “full control”, “enjoyment”, “interest”, might not mean the same to your God as they do to us.

DAVID: As for my theories about God's works, they are separate from the debate about how to think about God's personality.

dhw: The two overlap. A God who wants full control = personality; a God who fully controls every step of evolution refers to his works. Your theories about God’s works incorporate a subjective interpretation of his purpose and his method. Purpose: to design H. sapiens and his food; method: to design countless extinct life forms and foods, the vast majority of which were dead ends that did not lead to H. sapiens and his foods but which you claim were “absolute requirements” for the production of H. sapiens and his foods. You cannot find any explanation for this totally illogical theory, which is why I “combat” your theories on how to think about God and how to interpret his work.

DAVID: Whatever God produced, God considered required to continue His evolution of humans. How many times must I show that dead ends were part of ecosystems needed at that stage in evolution.
And:
DAVID: God did what He had to do to create humans. Accept that premise and your confusion will disappear.

You keep agreeing that the dead ends were part of ecosystems which were required for the life forms that existed at that time but by definition did NOT lead to us and our food. No, I cannot accept that your God “had to” create countless dead ends which had no connection with humans, solely in order to create humans (plus our food). That doesn’t make sense to me or to you (it “makes sense only to God”). Accept that your premise is senseless and therefore either his purpose or his actions must have been different from those you impose on him. Then “your confusion will disappear”.:-)

Design and purpose and dead ends

Yet more repetition here, but leading to a sensational conclusion.

DAVID: Dead ends were part of ecosystems no longer necessary as species become extinct.

dhw: Exactly. So obviously they were necessary for extinct forms, but were not “absolute requirements” that were "necessary" in preparation for us and our food.

DAVID: Time passes in evolution. Each stage has its requirements.

We agree, though I’m suspicious of the word “stage” here. A dead end is a final stage – it leads nowhere. Let’s stick to each ecosystem has its requirements.

DAVID (under “More miscellany”): Past ecosystems fed past animals. With advances to new forms new ecosystems appeared, and old ones faded away as dead ends. Pure evolution at work through time.

dhw: An excellent description. Thank you for at last dropping your illogical theory that all past dead-end ecosystems and animals were individually designed by your God as “absolute requirements” for the individual design of H. sapiens and our ecosystems.

DAVID: I didn't drop God as designing all at every stage.

You didn’t mention it, but in any case you have dropped the illogical theory that your God “had to” design every dead end in order to design us and our food. Congratulations on your new insight! :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, September 30, 2022, 19:58 (545 days ago) @ dhw

Nature of God

DAVID: That God is a very different personage does not mean we can't analyze and debate.

dhw: We can’t analyze and debate if you tell us that the words you use, such as “full control”, “enjoyment”, “interest”, might not mean the same to your God as they do to us.

We can debate because those are the only words we have!


DAVID: Whatever God produced, God considered required to continue His evolution of humans. How many times must I show that dead ends were part of ecosystems needed at that stage in evolution.
And:
DAVID: God did what He had to do to create humans. Accept that premise and your confusion will disappear.

dhw: You keep agreeing that the dead ends were part of ecosystems which were required for the life forms that existed at that time but by definition did NOT lead to us and our food. No, I cannot accept that your God “had to” create countless dead ends which had no connection with humans, solely in order to create humans (plus our food). That doesn’t make sense to me or to you (it “makes sense only to God”). Accept that your premise is senseless and therefore either his purpose or his actions must have been different from those you impose on him. Then “your confusion will disappear”.:-)

No your confusion continues. At each stage of evolution, the living animals had to have ecosystems for food support. Those ecosystems became ends as evolution moved to new stages. God, as designer of evolution, created everything He had to create. And you question God, not me, because what I have analyzed is an obvious answer to your questioning.;-) See below:


Design and purpose and dead ends

Yet more repetition here, but leading to a sensational conclusion.

DAVID: Dead ends were part of ecosystems no longer necessary as species become extinct.

dhw: Exactly. So obviously they were necessary for extinct forms, but were not “absolute requirements” that were "necessary" in preparation for us and our food.

DAVID: Time passes in evolution. Each stage has its requirements.

dhw: We agree, though I’m suspicious of the word “stage” here. A dead end is a final stage – it leads nowhere. Let’s stick to each ecosystem has its requirements.

When an ecosystem has outlived its usefulness it disappears. A definition of a dead end.


DAVID (under “More miscellany”): Past ecosystems fed past animals. With advances to new forms new ecosystems appeared, and old ones faded away as dead ends. Pure evolution at work through time.

dhw: An excellent description. Thank you for at last dropping your illogical theory that all past dead-end ecosystems and animals were individually designed by your God as “absolute requirements” for the individual design of H. sapiens and our ecosystems.

DAVID: I didn't drop God as designing all at every stage.

dhw: You didn’t mention it, but in any case you have dropped the illogical theory that your God “had to” design every dead end in order to design us and our food. Congratulations on your new insight! :-)

Not dropped at all. God designs all parts of all stages on the way to humans.;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 01, 2022, 09:21 (545 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

DAVID: That God is a very different personage does not mean we can't analyze and debate.

dhw: We can’t analyze and debate if you tell us that the words you use, such as “full control”, “enjoyment”, “interest”, might not mean the same to your God as they do to us.

DAVID: We can debate because those are the only words we have!

So when you say your God wants and has full control, enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and is kind, please don’t tell us these words may not mean what you and I think they mean.

DAVID: Whatever God produced, God considered required to continue His evolution of humans. How many times must I show that dead ends were part of ecosystems needed at that stage in evolution.
And:
DAVID: God did what He had to do to create humans. Accept that premise and your confusion will disappear.

dhw: You keep agreeing that the dead ends were part of ecosystems which were required for the life forms that existed at that time but by definition did NOT lead to us and our food. No, I cannot accept that your God “had to” create countless dead ends which had no connection with humans, solely in order to create humans (plus our food). That doesn’t make sense to me or to you (it “makes sense only to God”). Accept that your premise is senseless and therefore either his purpose or his actions must have been different from those you impose on him. Then “your confusion will disappear”. :-)

DAVID: No your confusion continues. At each stage of evolution, the living animals had to have ecosystems for food support. Those ecosystems became ends as evolution moved to new stages.

I said before that I’m suspicious of your use of the word “stage” which suggests a series of consecutive sections leading to a particular conclusion (i.e. sapiens plus food). This is misleading. Yes, every organism that ever lived required food, but the vast majority of organisms and their ecosystems were NOT stages on the way to sapiens plus food. They came to a dead end. And that is why your theory that we and our food were your God's one and only purpose makes no sense to you or to me.

DAVID: God, as designer of evolution, created everything He had to create.

I suggest that he didn’t “have to” create anything. Who forced him? I suggest he created what he wanted to create, and so, if he exists, either he wanted dead ends, which means that humans can’t have been his one and only purpose, or perhaps he set out wanting to create a being with thought patterns etc. like his own, but had to experiment before hitting on the right formula.

DAVID: And you question God, not me, because what I have analyzed is an obvious answer to your questioning. ;-) See below:

It is your illogical theories that I question. You have made the following statements about dead ends:

DAVID: Dead ends were part of ecosystems no longer necessary as species become extinct.

Necessary for what? (Repeated over and over again here and under “More Miscellany”.) Ecosystems provide and have always provided the food that enables organisms to survive. See below.

DAVID: Time passes in evolution. Each stage has its requirements.

Agreed, except for the misleading word “stages” – see earlier.

DAVID: When an ecosystem has outlived its usefulness it disappears. A definition of a dead end.

Ecosystems are only “useful” to the organisms that live in them (and which are a part of them – the other part being the environment). An ecosystem disappears when conditions are such that the organisms can no longer survive. A dead end leads nowhere, which is why it is absurd to say that your God designed every dead-end ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: Past ecosystems fed past animals. With advances to new forms new ecosystems appeared, and old ones faded away as dead ends. Pure evolution at work through time.

dhw: An excellent description. Thank you for at last dropping your illogical theory that all past dead-end ecosystems and animals were individually designed by your God as “absolute requirements” for the individual design of H. sapiens and our ecosystems.

DAVID: I didn't drop God as designing all at every stage.

dhw: You didn’t mention Him, but in any case you have dropped the illogical theory that your God “had to” design every dead end in order to design us and our food. Congratulations on your new insight! :-)

DAVID: Not dropped at all. God designs all parts of all stages on the way to humans. ;-)

A totally different statement from the one you made above, which no evolutionist would object to. Your last comment, as usual, fails to mention all the “parts of all stages” which did NOT lead to humans and their food (dead ends), and which make your anthropocentric theory of evolution so illogical that it “makes sense only to God”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 01, 2022, 16:09 (544 days ago) @ dhw

Nature of God

DAVID: That God is a very different personage does not mean we can't analyze and debate.

dhw: We can’t analyze and debate if you tell us that the words you use, such as “full control”, “enjoyment”, “interest”, might not mean the same to your God as they do to us.

DAVID: We can debate because those are the only words we have!

dhw: So when you say your God wants and has full control, enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and is kind, please don’t tell us these words may not mean what you and I think they mean.

They mean exactly what they mean to us, but at the divine level there may be a difference we cannot perceive. Just a philosophic point.


dhw: You keep agreeing that the dead ends were part of ecosystems which were required for the life forms that existed at that time but by definition did NOT lead to us and our food. No, I cannot accept that your God “had to” create countless dead ends which had no connection with humans, solely in order to create humans (plus our food). That doesn’t make sense to me or to you (it “makes sense only to God”). Accept that your premise is senseless and therefore either his purpose or his actions must have been different from those you impose on him. Then “your confusion will disappear”. :-)

DAVID: No your confusion continues. At each stage of evolution, the living animals had to have ecosystems for food support. Those ecosystems became ends as evolution moved to new stages.

dhw: I said before that I’m suspicious of your use of the word “stage” which suggests a series of consecutive sections leading to a particular conclusion (i.e. sapiens plus food). This is misleading. Yes, every organism that ever lived required food, but the vast majority of organisms and their ecosystems were NOT stages on the way to sapiens plus food. They came to a dead end. And that is why your theory that we and our food were your God's one and only purpose makes no sense to you or to me.

If God made the sort of dead ends you posit, He felt it was part of what He had to produce as He controlled evolution. As below:


DAVID: God, as designer of evolution, created everything He had to create.

dhw: I suggest that he didn’t “have to” create anything. Who forced him? I suggest he created what he wanted to create, and so, if he exists, either he wanted dead ends, which means that humans can’t have been his one and only purpose, or perhaps he set out wanting to create a being with thought patterns etc. like his own, but had to experiment before hitting on the right formula.

Again, a humanized God who wanders along not sure of where He is headed as He evolves His creations.


DAVID: When an ecosystem has outlived its usefulness it disappears. A definition of a dead end.

dhw: Ecosystems are only “useful” to the organisms that live in them (and which are a part of them – the other part being the environment). An ecosystem disappears when conditions are such that the organisms can no longer survive. A dead end leads nowhere, which is why it is absurd to say that your God designed every dead-end ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems.

Handled above. Everything in the fossil record was produced intentionally by God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 02, 2022, 12:18 (543 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

DAVID: That God is a very different personage does not mean we can't analyze and debate.

dhw: We can’t analyze and debate if you tell us that the words you use, such as “full control”, “enjoyment”, “interest”, might not mean the same to your God as they do to us.

DAVID: We can debate because those are the only words we have!

dhw: So when you say your God wants and has full control, enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and is kind, please don’t tell us these words may not mean what you and I think they mean.

DAVID: They mean exactly what they mean to us, but at the divine level there may be a difference we cannot perceive. Just a philosophic point.

If these discussions are to continue, I suggest we agree that such words as the above mean what we mean when we use them, though of course we can ask for explanations if the context makes the meaning unclear. See below.

DAVID: At each stage of evolution, the living animals had to have ecosystems for food support. Those ecosystems became ends as evolution moved to new stages.

dhw: I said before that I’m suspicious of your use of the word “stage” which suggests a series of consecutive sections leading to a particular conclusion (i.e. sapiens plus food). This is misleading. Yes, every organism that ever lived required food, but the vast majority of organisms and their ecosystems were NOT stages on the way to sapiens plus food. They came to a dead end. And that is why your theory that we and our food were your God's one and only purpose makes no sense to you or to me.

DAVID: If God made the sort of dead ends you posit, He felt it was part of what He had to produce as He controlled evolution. As below:

But why, according to you, did he “have to” produce dead ends which did not lead to H. sapiens plus food if his one and only purpose was to produce H.sapiens plus food? Your answer is that your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to you or me. As below:

DAVID: God, as designer of evolution, created everything He had to create.

dhw: I suggest that he didn’t “have to” create anything. Who forced him? I suggest he created what he wanted to create, and so, if he exists, either he wanted dead ends, which means that humans can’t have been his one and only purpose, or perhaps he set out wanting to create a being with thought patterns etc. like his own, but had to experiment before hitting on the right formula.

DAVID: Again, a humanized God who wanders along not sure of where He is headed as He evolves His creations.

The “experiment” theory is that, just like your own humanized God, he knows exactly where he’s heading, but evolves (by which you mean designs) different creations in order to find the right formula for what he wants. Now please give us your own theoretical reason for his designing dead ends that did not lead to his one and only purpose, which you have previously ”explained” as making sense “only to God”.

DAVID: When an ecosystem has outlived its usefulness it disappears. A definition of a dead end.

dhw: Ecosystems are only “useful” to the organisms that live in them (and which are a part of them – the other part being the environment). An ecosystem disappears when conditions are such that the organisms can no longer survive. A dead end leads nowhere, which is why it is absurd to say that your God designed every dead-end ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: Handled above. Everything in the fossil record was produced intentionally by God.

Unless of course it was not produced intentionally by God, but was the product of a free-for-all which was produced intentionally by God (if he exists).

DAVID (from “More miscellany”): For this discussion accept God produced all fossils in evolution. My theory is giant ecosystems which created dead-ends when no longer needed.

“No longer needed” for what? You keep telling us they were ALL needed to enable him to achieve his one and only purpose of designing us and our food! They obviously weren’t if they came to a dead end! But thank you so much for supporting the theory of a free-for-all, in which ecosystems “create” their own dead ends – which can only mean that the organisms of which they consist could no longer find means of survival when for some reason their living conditions underwent a change.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 02, 2022, 17:15 (543 days ago) @ dhw

Nature of God

dhw: So when you say your God wants and has full control, enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, probably/possibly has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and is kind, please don’t tell us these words may not mean what you and I think they mean.

DAVID: They mean exactly what they mean to us, but at the divine level there may be a difference we cannot perceive. Just a philosophic point.

dhw: If these discussions are to continue, I suggest we agree that such words as the above mean what we mean when we use them, though of course we can ask for explanations if the context makes the meaning unclear. See below.

Agreed


DAVID: God, as designer of evolution, created everything He had to create.

dhw: I suggest that he didn’t “have to” create anything. Who forced him? I suggest he created what he wanted to create, and so, if he exists, either he wanted dead ends, which means that humans can’t have been his one and only purpose, or perhaps he set out wanting to create a being with thought patterns etc. like his own, but had to experiment before hitting on the right formula.

DAVID: Again, a humanized God who wanders along not sure of where He is headed as He evolves His creations.

dhw: The “experiment” theory is that, just like your own humanized God, he knows exactly where he’s heading, but evolves (by which you mean designs) different creations in order to find the right formula for what he wants.

A proper purposeful God, as I see Him, knew exactly how to achieve His goals. I can't imagine Him producing a series of life-supporting universes until He got it right!!

dhw: Now please give us your own theoretical reason for his designing dead ends that did not lead to his one and only purpose, which you have previously ”explained” as making sense “only to God”.

See below:


DAVID: When an ecosystem has outlived its usefulness it disappears. A definition of a dead end.

dhw: Ecosystems are only “useful” to the organisms that live in them (and which are a part of them – the other part being the environment). An ecosystem disappears when conditions are such that the organisms can no longer survive. A dead end leads nowhere, which is why it is absurd to say that your God designed every dead-end ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems.

Of course, a no-longer-needed ecosystem becomes a dead end. But it served its purpose as evolution moved on. Your complaints circle around implying a discontinuous form of evolution, I've called 'slicing and dicing' in the past.


DAVID (from “More miscellany”): For this discussion accept God produced all fossils in evolution. My theory is giant ecosystems which created dead-ends when no longer needed.

dhw: “No longer needed” for what? You keep telling us they were ALL needed to enable him to achieve his one and only purpose of designing us and our food! They obviously weren’t if they came to a dead end! But thank you so much for supporting the theory of a free-for-all, in which ecosystems “create” their own dead ends – which can only mean that the organisms of which they consist could no longer find means of survival when for some reason their living conditions underwent a change.

Explained very clearly above.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 03, 2022, 07:34 (543 days ago) @ David Turell

Nature of God

DAVID: God, as designer of evolution, created everything He had to create.

dhw: I suggest that he didn’t “have to” create anything. Who forced him? I suggest he created what he wanted to create, and so, if he exists, either he wanted dead ends, which means that humans can’t have been his one and only purpose, or perhaps he set out wanting to create a being with thought patterns etc. like his own, but had to experiment before hitting on the right formula.[…]

DAVID: A proper purposeful God, as I see Him, knew exactly how to achieve His goals. I can't imagine Him producing a series of life-supporting universes until He got it right!!

I do wish you would stop assuming that any alternative to your nonsensical theories of evolution involves a God who is not “proper purposeful”. You can be “properly purposeful” if you have a purpose and try different ways of achieving that purpose. Strangely, you can imagine your God producing billions of extinct as well as extant and presumably lifeless stars, suns, galaxies etc. until he got it right. Or do you believe that every single extinct star was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for his design of H. sapiens plus food?

dhw: Now please give us your own theoretical reason for his designing dead ends that did not lead to his one and only purpose, which you have previously ”explained” as making sense “only to God”.

DAVID: See below:

There is no reason given – just a vague reference to no particular purpose.

dhw: Ecosystems are only “useful” to the organisms that live in them (and which are a part of them – the other part being the environment). An ecosystem disappears when conditions are such that the organisms can no longer survive. A dead end leads nowhere, which is why it is absurd to say that your God designed every dead-end ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: Of course, a no-longer-needed ecosystem becomes a dead end. But it served its purpose as evolution moved on. Your complaints circle around implying a discontinuous form of evolution, I've called 'slicing and dicing' in the past.

Needed for what? What was your God’s purpose in designing ecosystems which did not lead to us and our food, if your God’s only purpose was us and our food? You have no idea. It “makes sense only to God”. Evolution is continuous, but that does not mean every extinct, dead-end organism and ecosystem was designed as preparation for us and our food!

DAVID (from “More miscellany”): My theory is giant ecosystems which created dead-ends when no longer needed.

dhw: No longer needed for what? […] thank you so much for supporting the theory of a free-for-all, in which ecosystems “create” their own dead ends – which can only mean that the organisms of which they consist could no longer find means of survival when for some reason their living conditions underwent a change.

DAVID: Explained very clearly above.

You have just stated that ecosystems created dead ends. If your God didn’t create the dead ends himself, then you have a free-for-all! Once more: Ecosystems are created by the interplay between organisms and the environment, and they cease to exist when organisms can no longer find ways of surviving in the existing conditions. Do you agree? If so, how does this square with your God designing all of them as preparation for us and our ecosystems?

Ecosystem importance

QUOTES: "'Most organisms on the tree of life are microscopic. In fact, most life on Earth has always been microscopic. Microorganisms were the first predators on Earth, their greedy appetites were one of the leading factors of the evolution of more complex life in the early ages of Earth," Weiss explained.
"'As prey developed better defences, predators needed to develop better ways of catching them. After the evolution of multicellular, complex life they became the main food source for others such as krill and plankton, which in turn are food for larger species. red If the organisms at the very bottom were removed, all other parts of the food chain above them would collapse too," he added.
(David’s bold)


DAVID: Note my bold. It covers the Darwinist fairy tale for evolution, but it contains a kernel of truth in red. Ecosystems start at their bottom and their bottoms must survive.

What fairy tale? The microcosm reflects the macrocosm: right from the beginning, evolution has progressed by organisms finding more and more ways of surviving. I have no idea why you have bolded the obvious fact that the food chain depends on the organisms at the bottom. Do you think anyone would disagree? And none of this is relevant to your theory that all extinct, dead-end organisms and ecosystems were specially designed in preparation for us and our food. Please stop using the importance and nature of ecosystems (on which there is no disagreement) as a diversion from the illogicality of your theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 03, 2022, 18:24 (542 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A proper purposeful God, as I see Him, knew exactly how to achieve His goals. I can't imagine Him producing a series of life-supporting universes until He got it right!!

dhw: I do wish you would stop assuming that any alternative to your nonsensical theories of evolution involves a God who is not “proper purposeful”. You can be “properly purposeful” if you have a purpose and try different ways of achieving that purpose. Strangely, you can imagine your God producing billions of extinct as well as extant and presumably lifeless stars, suns, galaxies etc. until he got it right. Or do you believe that every single extinct star was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for his design of H. sapiens plus food?

My purposeful God knows exactly what He is doing and does it without your implied experimentation. God knows the proper requirements to achieve all the goals He can conceive of. At your human level of reasoning your questioning is wrong.


dhw: Ecosystems are only “useful” to the organisms that live in them (and which are a part of them – the other part being the environment). An ecosystem disappears when conditions are such that the organisms can no longer survive. A dead end leads nowhere, which is why it is absurd to say that your God designed every dead-end ecosystem as an “absolute requirement” for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: Of course, a no-longer-needed ecosystem becomes a dead end. But it served its purpose as evolution moved on. Your complaints circle around implying a discontinuous form of evolution, I've called 'slicing and dicing' in the past.

dhw: Needed for what? What was your God’s purpose in designing ecosystems which did not lead to us and our food, if your God’s only purpose was us and our food? You have no idea. It “makes sense only to God”. Evolution is continuous, but that does not mean every extinct, dead-end organism and ecosystem was designed as preparation for us and our food!

What we see in evolution is what God knew he had to create.


DAVID (from “More miscellany”): My theory is giant ecosystems which created dead-ends when no longer needed.

dhw: No longer needed for what? […] thank you so much for supporting the theory of a free-for-all, in which ecosystems “create” their own dead ends – which can only mean that the organisms of which they consist could no longer find means of survival when for some reason their living conditions underwent a change.

DAVID: Explained very clearly above.

dhw: You have just stated that ecosystems created dead ends. If your God didn’t create the dead ends himself, then you have a free-for-all! Once more: Ecosystems are created by the interplay between organisms and the environment, and they cease to exist when organisms can no longer find ways of surviving in the existing conditions. Do you agree? If so, how does this square with your God designing all of them as preparation for us and our ecosystems?

My God created ecosystems that ended when no longer needed since the evolutionary fauna were gone.


Ecosystem importance

QUOTES: "'Most organisms on the tree of life are microscopic. In fact, most life on Earth has always been microscopic. Microorganisms were the first predators on Earth, their greedy appetites were one of the leading factors of the evolution of more complex life in the early ages of Earth," Weiss explained.
"'As prey developed better defences, predators needed to develop better ways of catching them. After the evolution of multicellular, complex life they became the main food source for others such as krill and plankton, which in turn are food for larger species. red If the organisms at the very bottom were removed, all other parts of the food chain above them would collapse too," he added.
(David’s bold)


DAVID: Note my bold. It covers the Darwinist fairy tale for evolution, but it contains a kernel of truth in red. Ecosystems start at their bottom and their bottoms must survive.

dhw: What fairy tale? The microcosm reflects the macrocosm: right from the beginning, evolution has progressed by organisms finding more and more ways of surviving. I have no idea why you have bolded the obvious fact that the food chain depends on the organisms at the bottom. Do you think anyone would disagree? And none of this is relevant to your theory that all extinct, dead-end organisms and ecosystems were specially designed in preparation for us and our food. Please stop using the importance and nature of ecosystems (on which there is no disagreement) as a diversion from the illogicality of your theory.

What is illogical is your complaint that evolutionary ecosystems stopped. See above.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 04, 2022, 09:15 (542 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A proper purposeful God, as I see Him, knew exactly how to achieve His goals. I can't imagine Him producing a series of life-supporting universes until He got it right!!

dhw: I do wish you would stop assuming that any alternative to your nonsensical theories of evolution involves a God who is not “proper purposeful”. You can be “properly purposeful” if you have a purpose and try different ways of achieving that purpose. Strangely, you can imagine your God producing billions of extinct as well as extant and presumably lifeless stars, suns, galaxies etc. until he got it right. Or do you believe that every single extinct star was an “absolute requirement” in preparation for his design of H. sapiens plus food?

DAVID: My purposeful God knows exactly what He is doing and does it without your implied experimentation. God knows the proper requirements to achieve all the goals He can conceive of. At your human level of reasoning your questioning is wrong.

If God exists, I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. If he’s experimenting, I’m sure he knows he’s experimenting, and even knows why he’s experimenting. You insist he had only one goal: H. sapiens and his food. And you tell us he designed countless dead-end life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food. Your God sounds as if he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

DAVID: What we see in evolution is what God knew he had to create.

Who forced him? If God exists, I would propose that what we see is what he wanted to create, and what we see…here we go again…are countless organisms and ecosystems that did not lead to H. sapiens and our food, although you insist that all he wanted to create was H. sapiens and our food.

dhw: Ecosystems are created by the interplay between organisms and the environment, and they cease to exist when organisms can no longer find ways of surviving in the existing conditions. Do you agree? If so, how does this square with your God designing all of them as preparation for us and our ecosystems?

DAVID: My God created ecosystems that ended when no longer needed since the evolutionary fauna were gone.

For the umpteenth time, needed for what? The evolutionary fauna were “gone” because they could no longer survive in the prevailing conditions. And since these dead ends did not lead to us and our food, clearly they could not have been “needed” as preparations for us and our food, which - here we go again - is why your theory makes no sense!

Ecosystem importance

QUOTE: " If the organisms at the very bottom were removed, all other parts of the food chain above them would collapse too," he added. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. It covers the Darwinist fairy tale for evolution, but it contains a kernel of truth in red. Ecosystems start at their bottom and their bottoms must survive.

dhw: What fairy tale? The microcosm reflects the macrocosm: right from the beginning, evolution has progressed by organisms finding more and more ways of surviving. I have no idea why you have bolded the obvious fact that the food chain depends on the organisms at the bottom. Do you think anyone would disagree? And none of this is relevant to your theory that all extinct, dead-end organisms and ecosystems were specially designed in preparation for us and our food. Please stop using the importance and nature of ecosystems (on which there is no disagreement) as a diversion from the illogicality of your theory.

DAVID: What is illogical is your complaint that evolutionary ecosystems stopped. See above.

I have not complained that they stopped! I have explained why they “stopped”, and have pointed out that the obvious comments concerning the importance of the organisms at the bottom have nothing whatsoever to do with your illogical theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 04, 2022, 16:38 (541 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My purposeful God knows exactly what He is doing and does it without your implied experimentation. God knows the proper requirements to achieve all the goals He can conceive of. At your human level of reasoning your questioning is wrong.

dhw: If God exists, I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. If he’s experimenting, I’m sure he knows he’s experimenting, and even knows why he’s experimenting. You insist he had only one goal: H. sapiens and his food. And you tell us he designed countless dead-end life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food. Your God sounds as if he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

And I've explained the diversity of forms creates a giant ecosystem for food for all. It is your God, unsure of what He is doing, who has to experiment.


DAVID: What we see in evolution is what God knew he had to create.

dhw: Who forced him? If God exists, I would propose that what we see is what he wanted to create, and what we see…here we go again…are countless organisms and ecosystems that did not lead to H. sapiens and our food, although you insist that all he wanted to create was H. sapiens and our food.

No force involved. Those current ecosystems developed from the past are our food.


dhw: Ecosystems are created by the interplay between organisms and the environment, and they cease to exist when organisms can no longer find ways of surviving in the existing conditions. Do you agree? If so, how does this square with your God designing all of them as preparation for us and our ecosystems?

DAVID: My God created ecosystems that ended when no longer needed since the evolutionary fauna were gone.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, needed for what? The evolutionary fauna were “gone” because they could no longer survive in the prevailing conditions.

And if the fauna were gone their ecosystems were obviously no longer needed!!!

Ecosystem importance

QUOTE: " If the organisms at the very bottom were removed, all other parts of the food chain above them would collapse too," he added. (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold. It covers the Darwinist fairy tale for evolution, but it contains a kernel of truth in red. Ecosystems start at their bottom and their bottoms must survive.

dhw: What fairy tale? The microcosm reflects the macrocosm: right from the beginning, evolution has progressed by organisms finding more and more ways of surviving. I have no idea why you have bolded the obvious fact that the food chain depends on the organisms at the bottom. Do you think anyone would disagree? And none of this is relevant to your theory that all extinct, dead-end organisms and ecosystems were specially designed in preparation for us and our food. Please stop using the importance and nature of ecosystems (on which there is no disagreement) as a diversion from the illogicality of your theory.

DAVID: What is illogical is your complaint that evolutionary ecosystems stopped. See above.

dhw: I have not complained that they stopped! I have explained why they “stopped”, and have pointed out that the obvious comments concerning the importance of the organisms at the bottom have nothing whatsoever to do with your illogical theory.

Your explanation of why they stopped was incomplete as noted above.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 05, 2022, 11:44 (540 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My purposeful God knows exactly what He is doing and does it without your implied experimentation. God knows the proper requirements to achieve all the goals He can conceive of. At your human level of reasoning your questioning is wrong.

dhw: If God exists, I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. If he’s experimenting, I’m sure he knows he’s experimenting, and even knows why he’s experimenting. You insist he had only one goal: H. sapiens and his food. And you tell us he designed countless dead-end life forms and foods that did not lead to us and our food. Your God sounds as if he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

DAVID: And I've explained the diversity of forms creates a giant ecosystem for food for all. It is your God, unsure of what He is doing, who has to experiment.

Not “a” giant ecosystem. Every dead-end ecosystem provided food for all its organisms until it stopped doing so, and it is absurd to claim that every dead-end ecosystem was specially designed as preparation for us and our ecosystems since dead-end ecosystems do not lead anywhere! Please stop using these silly generalisations to cover the illogicality of your theory. Regardless of the experiment theory, a God who designs countless organisms and ecosystems that have nothing to do with his one and only purpose sounds like a God who does not know what he is doing. And that is not a criticism of your God but a criticism of your theory.

DAVID: What we see in evolution is what God knew he had to create.

dhw: Who forced him? If God exists, I would propose that what we see is what he wanted to create, and what we see…here we go again…are countless organisms and ecosystems that did not lead to H. sapiens and our food, although you insist that all he wanted to create was H. sapiens and our food.

DAVID: No force involved. Those current ecosystems developed from the past are our food.

“Had to” means he had no choice. And yes, CURRENT ecosystems which are our food developed from past ecosystems (that’s how evolution works), but as always you have left out all those past ecosystems which did not lead to our CURRENT ecosystems and which make nonsense of your theory that they were ALL “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. Please stop repeating the same old dodges.

DAVID: My God created ecosystems that ended when no longer needed since the evolutionary fauna were gone.

dhw: For the umpteenth time, needed for what? The evolutionary fauna were “gone” because they could no longer survive in the prevailing conditions.

DAVID: And if the fauna were gone their ecosystems were obviously no longer needed!!!

And still you refuse to say what the dead ends were needed for! They were NEVER needed for your God’s one and only purpose of designing us and our ecosystems, and that is why it makes no sense to claim he designed them all and did so as as preparation for us and our ecosystems!

DAVID: What is illogical is your complaint that evolutionary ecosystems stopped. See above.

dhw: I have not complained that they stopped! I have explained why they “stopped”, and have pointed out that the obvious comments concerning the importance of the organisms at the bottom have nothing whatsoever to do with your illogical theory.

DAVID: Your explanation of why they stopped was incomplete as noted above.

I repeat: they stopped because the organisms of which they were composed were no longer able to survive under the prevailing conditions. What else do you think stopped them?

Neanderthal disappearance

DAVID: if you cannot eat you got to leave [live] or die!!! Helps explain the Neanderthal die out. And again, tells us ecosystems come and go, and leave dead ends!!

I don’t know of anyone who would disagree with your first statement, and there is no dispute over the fact that ecosystems come and go leaving dead ends! As it happens, I would say Neanderthals themselves were not a dead end, as they interbred with sapiens and are still partially present in us. Once more: the illogicality of your ecosystem theory arises from all those dead-end ecosystems which your God specially designed and which had no connection at all with us. But see under “paleogenomics” for the illogicality of your human evolution theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 05, 2022, 17:30 (540 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: And I've explained the diversity of forms creates a giant ecosystem for food for all. It is your God, unsure of what He is doing, who has to experiment.

dhw: Not “a” giant ecosystem. Every dead-end ecosystem provided food for all its organisms until it stopped doing so, and it is absurd to claim that every dead-end ecosystem was specially designed as preparation for us and our ecosystems since dead-end ecosystems do not lead anywhere! Please stop using these silly generalisations to cover the illogicality of your theory. Regardless of the experiment theory, a God who designs countless organisms and ecosystems that have nothing to do with his one and only purpose sounds like a God who does not know what he is doing. And that is not a criticism of your God but a criticism of your theory.

God's form of evolution produced us. Assuming that is a goal, His method worked. Your view of evolution as all dead ends is strange. From those dead ends we have all the bush of current living forms. It seems God knew exactly what He was doing. You are still dicing up evolution into disconnected parts as a way of criticizing what God accomplished.


DAVID: What we see in evolution is what God knew he had to create.

dhw: Who forced him? If God exists, I would propose that what we see is what he wanted to create, and what we see…here we go again…are countless organisms and ecosystems that did not lead to H. sapiens and our food, although you insist that all he wanted to create was H. sapiens and our food.

DAVID: No force involved. Those current ecosystems developed from the past are our food.

dhw: “Had to” means he had no choice.

If He had precise goals, His choice was chosen!!

dhw: And yes, CURRENT ecosystems which are our food developed from past ecosystems (that’s how evolution works), but as always you have left out all those past ecosystems which did not lead to our CURRENT ecosystems and which make nonsense of your theory that they were ALL “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. Please stop repeating the same old dodges.

Again, your dodge is an imagined discontinuous strange evolution. Nothing developed from something. All unconnected dead ends


DAVID: And if the fauna were gone their ecosystems were obviously no longer needed!!!

dhw: I repeat: they stopped because the organisms of which they were composed were no longer able to survive under the prevailing conditions. What else do you think stopped them?

Well, finally some logic. From all the dead ends of evolution new forms appeared with new supporting ecosystems and eventually we arrived. That is how evolution works either naturally or by God design.


Neanderthal disappearance

DAVID: if you cannot eat you got to leave [live] or die!!! Helps explain the Neanderthal die out. And again, tells us ecosystems come and go, and leave dead ends!!

dhw: I don’t know of anyone who would disagree with your first statement, and there is no dispute over the fact that ecosystems come and go leaving dead ends! As it happens, I would say Neanderthals themselves were not a dead end, as they interbred with sapiens and are still partially present in us. Once more: the illogicality of your ecosystem theory arises from all those dead-end ecosystems which your God specially designed and which had no connection at all with us. But see under “paleogenomics” for the illogicality of your human evolution theory.

Despite the dead ends we are here.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 06, 2022, 12:12 (539 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: And I've explained the diversity of forms creates a giant ecosystem for food for all. It is your God, unsure of what He is doing, who has to experiment.

dhw: Not “a” giant ecosystem. Every dead-end ecosystem provided food for all its organisms until it stopped doing so, and it is absurd to claim that every dead-end ecosystem was specially designed as preparation for us and our ecosystems since dead-end ecosystems do not lead anywhere! Please stop using these silly generalisations to cover the illogicality of your theory. Regardless of the experiment theory, a God who designs countless organisms and ecosystems that have nothing to do with his one and only purpose sounds like a God who does not know what he is doing. And that is not a criticism of your God but a criticism of your theory.

DAVID: God's form of evolution produced us. Assuming that is a goal, His method worked. Your view of evolution as all dead ends is strange. From those dead ends we have all the bush of current living forms. It seems God knew exactly what He was doing. You are still dicing up evolution into disconnected parts as a way of criticizing what God accomplished.

This is the silliest distortion you have yet come up with! My view of evolution is not that it is ALL dead ends! You have even quoted what I wrote yesterday: " And yes, CURRENT ecosystems which are our food developed from past ecosystems (that’s how evolution works), but as always you have left out all those past ecosystems which did not lead to our CURRENT ecosystems and which make nonsense of your theory that they were ALL “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. Please stop repeating the same old dodges.

DAVID: What we see in evolution is what God knew he had to create. […]

dhw: “Had to” means he had no choice.

DAVID: If He had precise goals, His choice was chosen!!

If his one goal was to design us and our ecosystems, why did he “have to” create all the life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our ecosystems?

DAVID: And if the fauna were gone their ecosystems were obviously no longer needed!!!

dhw: And still you refuse to say what the dead ends were needed for! [dhw: You left this out.]

DAVID: What is illogical is your complaint that evolutionary ecosystems stopped. [dhw: You left this out as well, and so your editing removes two of your indefensible statements.]

dhw: I repeat: they stopped because the organisms of which they were composed were no longer able to survive under the prevailing conditions. What else do you think stopped them?

DAVID: Well, finally some logic. From all the dead ends of evolution new forms appeared with new supporting ecosystems and eventually we arrived. That is how evolution works either naturally or by God design.

No logic from you. New forms did not appear from dead ends, which by definition lead nowhere! New forms appeared from old forms which underwent countless mutations in the continuous process we call common descent. ALL current forms will have descended from earlier forms. THAT is how evolution works, but that does not mean that ALL earlier forms led to current forms! The majority came to a dead end!

Neanderthal disappearance

dhw: Once more: the illogicality of your ecosystem theory arises from all those dead-end ecosystems which your God specially designed and which had no connection at all with us. But see under “paleogenomics” for the illogicality of your human evolution theory.

DAVID: Despite the dead ends we are here.

You’ve got it. The dead ends had nothing to do with us or our food. And that is why it makes no sense to claim that all the dead-end life forms were specially designed as preparation for us and our food.

Microbiome importance

QUOTE: Microbial life was the first to inhabit our planet and will probably be the last.

DAVID: the article is filled with examples of how to improve this basic diversity at the bottom of our Earth's primary ecosystem. It came from God's dead ends, despite dhw's objections to dead ends as useless. He needs a big re-think.

The vital importance of microbial life is beyond dispute, but a dead end refers to something that comes to an end and leads nowhere. A life form that is still alive, is of vital importance to all other forms of life, and will probably remain alive until there is no other life left on this planet, is not a dead end! Please stop making a mockery of language!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 06, 2022, 18:21 (539 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God's form of evolution produced us. Assuming that is a goal, His method worked. Your view of evolution as all dead ends is strange. From those dead ends we have all the bush of current living forms. It seems God knew exactly what He was doing. You are still dicing up evolution into disconnected parts as a way of criticizing what God accomplished.

dhw: This is the silliest distortion you have yet come up with! My view of evolution is not that it is ALL dead ends! You have even quoted what I wrote yesterday: " And yes, CURRENT ecosystems which are our food developed from past ecosystems (that’s how evolution works), but as always you have left out all those past ecosystems which did not lead to our CURRENT ecosystems and which make nonsense of your theory that they were ALL “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. Please stop repeating the same old dodges.

God decides what is required for each stage of his designed evolution. That is what you do not understand about God!!! God is no frivolous!!


dhw: If his one goal was to design us and our ecosystems, why did he “have to” create all the life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our ecosystems?

You do not see the connections, but God as designer did. If God designs all parts were required. I am arguing at the God level. You are not.

dhw: I repeat: they stopped because the organisms of which they were composed were no longer able to survive under the prevailing conditions. What else do you think stopped them?

DAVID: Well, finally some logic. From all the dead ends of evolution new forms appeared with new supporting ecosystems and eventually we arrived. That is how evolution works either naturally or by God design.

dhw: No logic from you. New forms did not appear from dead ends, which by definition lead nowhere! New forms appeared from old forms which underwent countless mutations in the continuous process we call common descent. ALL current forms will have descended from earlier forms. THAT is how evolution works, but that does not mean that ALL earlier forms led to current forms! The majority came to a dead end!

Despite all your illogic, God designed what He knew He had to do and we are here.


Microbiome importance

QUOTE: Microbial life was the first to inhabit our planet and will probably be the last.

DAVID: the article is filled with examples of how to improve this basic diversity at the bottom of our Earth's primary ecosystem. It came from God's dead ends, despite dhw's objections to dead ends as useless. He needs a big re-think.

dhw: The vital importance of microbial life is beyond dispute, but a dead end refers to something that comes to an end and leads nowhere. A life form that is still alive, is of vital importance to all other forms of life, and will probably remain alive until there is no other life left on this planet, is not a dead end! Please stop making a mockery of language!

What you are doing is making a mockery of God's necessary designs.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 07, 2022, 08:48 (539 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God's form of evolution produced us. Assuming that is a goal, His method worked. Your view of evolution as all dead ends is strange. From those dead ends we have all the bush of current living forms. It seems God knew exactly what He was doing. You are still dicing up evolution into disconnected parts as a way of criticizing what God accomplished.

dhw: This is the silliest distortion you have yet come up with! My view of evolution is not that it is ALL dead ends! You have even quoted what I wrote yesterday: "And yes, CURRENT ecosystems which are our food developed from past ecosystems (that’s how evolution works), but as always you have left out all those past ecosystems which did not lead to our CURRENT ecosystems and which make nonsense of your theory that they were ALL “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. Please stop repeating the same old dodges.

DAVID: God decides what is required for each stage of his designed evolution. That is what you do not understand about God!!! God is no frivolous!!

You have just complained that my view of evolution is “all dead ends”, and I have pointed out that this is a silly distortion. See the bold above. I don’t know where you get the idea of “frivolousness” from, but I have to say I find it hard to take your argument seriously. If God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus our food, how can all the dead ends which did not lead to us and our food have been required in order to fulfil his purpose? You don’t know. Your theory “makes sense only to God”. So please stop pretending that you understand God!

DAVID: I am arguing at the God level. You are not.

I assume that his actions will logically follow on from his purpose. Your theory shows him performing countless actions that do not follow on from his purpose. How does that put you “at the God level”?

DAVID: […] From all the dead ends of evolution new forms appeared with new supporting ecosystems and eventually we arrived. That is how evolution works either naturally or by God design.

dhw:[…]. New forms did not appear from dead ends, which by definition lead nowhere! New forms appeared from old forms which underwent countless mutations in the continuous process we call common descent. ALL current forms will have descended from earlier forms. THAT is how evolution works, but that does not mean that ALL earlier forms led to current forms! The majority came to a dead end!

DAVID: Despite all your illogic, God designed what He knew He had to do and we are here.

You said new forms appeared from dead ends! And then you tell me I’m illogical! I assume he did what he wanted to do, and according to you, he designed countless dead-end life forms that were here and had no connection with us or our food. So why did he “have to” design them? If he did design them, and if he is not incompetent, then maybe he was experimenting, or maybe he had a purpose other than to design us and our food. Why is that illogical?

Microbiome importance

QUOTE: Microbial life was the first to inhabit our planet and will probably be the last.

DAVID: the article is filled with examples of how to improve this basic diversity at the bottom of our Earth's primary ecosystem. It came from God's dead ends, despite dhw's objections to dead ends as useless. He needs a big re-think.

dhw: The vital importance of microbial life is beyond dispute, but a dead end refers to something that comes to an end and leads nowhere. A life form that is still alive, is of vital importance to all other forms of life, and will probably remain alive until there is no other life left on this planet, is not a dead end! Please stop making a mockery of language!

DAVID: What you are doing is making a mockery of God's necessary designs.

There is no mockery on my part. I acknowledge the vital importance of microbial life, and whether God designed it or not, it is still alive, is still of vital importance, and so it is not a dead end! Look again at your statement above, now bolded. Better still, take it back.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 07, 2022, 15:21 (538 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God decides what is required for each stage of his designed evolution. That is what you do not understand about God!!! God is not frivolous!!

dhw: You have just complained that my view of evolution is “all dead ends”, and I have pointed out that this is a silly distortion. See the bold above. I don’t know where you get the idea of “frivolousness” from, but I have to say I find it hard to take your argument seriously. If God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus our food, how can all the dead ends which did not lead to us and our food have been required in order to fulfil his purpose? You don’t know. Your theory “makes sense only to God”. So please stop pretending that you understand God!

I have explained dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. I have explained God produces only what he feels is necessary. I view humans as a necessary goal. So I feel I do understand God. I can't answer for your confusion.


DAVID: I am arguing at the God level. You are not.

dhw:n I assume that his actions will logically follow on from his purpose. Your theory shows him performing countless actions that do not follow on from his purpose. How does that put you “at the God level”?

What 'follows on' are God's decisions to create. Not logical to your human reasoning.


DAVID: Despite all your illogic, God designed what He knew He had to do and we are here.

dhw: You said new forms appeared from dead ends! And then you tell me I’m illogical! I assume he did what he wanted to do, and according to you, he designed countless dead-end life forms that were here and had no connection with us or our food. So why did he “have to” design them? If he did design them, and if he is not incompetent, then maybe he was experimenting, or maybe he had a purpose other than to design us and our food. Why is that illogical?

Again, your weak human analysis of God. A God conducted designed evolution led to us though all the left-behind dead ends. All fulfilled God's purpose.


Microbiome importance

QUOTE: Microbial life was the first to inhabit our planet and will probably be the last.

DAVID: the article is filled with examples of how to improve this basic diversity at the bottom of our Earth's primary ecosystem. It came from God's dead ends, despite dhw's objections to dead ends as useless. He needs a big re-think.

dhw: The vital importance of microbial life is beyond dispute, but a dead end refers to something that comes to an end and leads nowhere. A life form that is still alive, is of vital importance to all other forms of life, and will probably remain alive until there is no other life left on this planet, is not a dead end! Please stop making a mockery of language!

DAVID: What you are doing is making a mockery of God's necessary designs.

dhw: There is no mockery on my part. I acknowledge the vital importance of microbial life, and whether God designed it or not, it is still alive, is still of vital importance, and so it is not a dead end! Look again at your statement above, now bolded. Better still, take it back.

The definition of evolution notes the passage of organisms as new ones appear. Your argument is a distortion of the process.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 08, 2022, 07:56 (538 days ago) @ David Turell

The following question continues to remain unanswered, and so I’ll apologize in advance for repeating it after every non-answer!

dhw: […] If God’s one and only purpose was to design sapiens plus our food, how can all the dead ends which did not lead to us and our food have been required in order to fulfil his purpose? You don’t know. Your theory “makes sense only to God”. So please stop pretending that you understand God!

DAVID: I have explained dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. I have explained God produces only what he feels is necessary. I view humans as a necessary goal. So I feel I do understand God. I can't answer for your confusion.

1) Dead-end ecosystems were only “necessary” for the organisms which lived within them and depended on them! 2) If God’s only purpose (as you claim) was to produce sapiens plus food, why would he have felt it was “necessary” for him to design dead ends which did not lead to (i.e. were not “necessary” for) sapiens plus food? 3) What are humans “necessary” for?

DAVID: I am arguing at the God level. You are not.

dhw: I assume that his actions will logically follow on from his purpose. Your theory shows him performing countless actions that do not follow on from his purpose. How does that put you “at the God level”?

DAVID: What 'follows on' are God's decisions to create. Not logical to your human reasoning.
And:
DAVID: A God conducted designed evolution led to us though all the left-behind dead ends. All fulfilled God's purpose.

If your God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus food, how can it have been logical for him to design countless life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us plus food? Left-behind dead ends did not lead to us plus food! By definition, dead ends lead nowhere. You are still playing silly word games.

Microbiome importance

QUOTE: Microbial life was the first to inhabit our planet and will probably be the last.

DAVID: the article is filled with examples of how to improve this basic diversity at the bottom of our Earth's primary ecosystem. It came from God's dead ends, despite dhw's objections to dead ends as useless. He needs a big re-think.

dhw: The vital importance of microbial life is beyond dispute, but a dead end refers to something that comes to an end and leads nowhere. A life form that is still alive, is of vital importance to all other forms of life, and will probably remain alive until there is no other life left on this planet, is not a dead end! Please stop making a mockery of language! […]

DAVID: The definition of evolution notes the passage of organisms as new ones appear. Your argument is a distortion of the process.

We all know that there are countless organisms which are now extinct (= the “passage of organisms”)! And we all know that new ones appeared! The distortion is your absurd claim that all the extinct ones, the majority of which did NOT lead to sapiens and our food, were necessary to fulfil your God’s one and only purpose, which was to design sapiens and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 08, 2022, 17:26 (537 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have explained dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. I have explained God produces only what he feels is necessary. I view humans as a necessary goal. So I feel I do understand God. I can't answer for your confusion.

dhw: 1) Dead-end ecosystems were only “necessary” for the organisms which lived within them and depended on them!

Yes. In all earlier stages up until now.

dhw: 2) If God’s only purpose (as you claim) was to produce sapiens plus food,

This is how you distort the discussion thru the trick of transforming God into a tunnel-visioned fool, who has nothing else on His Mind. This God created a universe, invented life, designed evolution. He knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it.

dhw: 3) What are humans “necessary” for?

Not just as the endpoint of evolution. In this civilized time with a large human population, we now control the Earth And must take care of it. God has done His job


dhw: If your God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus food, how can it have been logical for him to design countless life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us plus food? Left-behind dead ends did not lead to us plus food! By definition, dead ends lead nowhere. You are still playing silly word games.

Your word games: "This is how you distort the discussion thru the trick of transforming God into a tunnel-visioned fool, who has nothing else on His Mind. This God created a universe, invented life, designed evolution. He knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it." I plan to repeat this until your abandon your silly illogical question.


Microbiome importance

QUOTE: Microbial life was the first to inhabit our planet and will probably be the last.

DAVID: The definition of evolution notes the passage of organisms as new ones appear. Your argument is a distortion of the process.

dhw: We all know that there are countless organisms which are now extinct (= the “passage of organisms”)! And we all know that new ones appeared! The distortion is your absurd claim that all the extinct ones, the majority of which did NOT lead to sapiens and our food, were necessary to fulfil your God’s one and only purpose, which was to design sapiens and our food.

Your word games: "This is how you distort the discussion thru the trick of transforming God into a tunnel-visioned fool, who has nothing else on His Mind. This God created a universe, invented life, designed evolution. He knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it." I plan to repeat this until your abandon your silly illogical question.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 09, 2022, 11:14 (537 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have explained dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. I have explained God produces only what he feels is necessary. I view humans as a necessary goal. So I feel I do understand God. I can't answer for your confusion.

dhw: 1) Dead-end ecosystems were only “necessary” for the organisms which lived within them and depended on them!

DAVID: Yes. In all earlier stages up until now.

All ecosystems, including those of the present, are necessary for the organisms which live in them and depend on them. The point is that the dead-end organisms and ecosystems of the past did not lead to us and our ecosystems.

dhw: 2) If God’s only purpose (as you claim) was to produce sapiens plus food…[/b][dhw: you left out the rest of the question, which of course is the nub of our disagreement:)…. why would he have felt it was “necessary” for him to design dead ends which did not lead to (i.e. were not “necessary” for) sapiens plus food?

DAVID: This is how you distort the discussion thru the trick of transforming God into a tunnel-visioned fool, who has nothing else on His Mind. This God created a universe, invented life, designed evolution. He knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it.

If God exists, then of course he created the universe and invented life and designed evolution (which could include designing evolution as a free-for-all). And I would agree that he would have known exactly what he was doing (including designing a free-for-all, or experimenting for a particular purpose, or to see what would happen if…). But as usual, you have left out the only point on which we disagree – which is the question I have bolded above, concerning your theory of evolution! It is you who insist that your God invented life for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens and our food. Do you want me to give you a list of quotes in which you have stated this explicitly? But you also tell us that he designed countless life forms and econiches which were dead ends that did not lead to us and our food. This is illogical, and so it is you who transform your God into a tunnel-visioned fool! I am the one who tries to remove the illogicality of a theory - which, you admit, “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to yourself) - by offering logical alternatives.

dhw: 3) What are humans “necessary” for?

DAVID: Not just as the endpoint of evolution. In this civilized time with a large human population, we now control the Earth And must take care of it. God has done His job.

An interesting variation on Genesis, which raises a number of questions. The biggest threat to the Earth at the moment seems to be the large human population, with our astonishing intelligence having led to appalling destruction on a colossal scale. If, as you say, God has done his job, I wonder what he regarded as his “job” in the first place, especially if he is all-knowing, and therefore knew what a mess we humans would make of his special planet. Between ourselves, I reckon the Earth and our fellow animals would have a much better chance of survival if there were no humans at all.

The rest of this post, and parts of the “more miscellany” thread are devoted to your repeated avoidance of my second question above.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 09, 2022, 17:23 (536 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 2) If God’s only purpose (as you claim) was to produce sapiens plus food…[/b][dhw: you left out the rest of the question, which of course is the nub of our disagreement:)…. why would he have felt it was “necessary” for him to design dead ends which did not lead to (i.e. were not “necessary” for) sapiens plus food?

DAVID: This is how you distort the discussion thru the trick of transforming God into a tunnel-visioned fool, who has nothing else on His Mind. This God created a universe, invented life, designed evolution. He knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he created the universe and invented life and designed evolution (which could include designing evolution as a free-for-all). And I would agree that he would have known exactly what he was doing (including designing a free-for-all, or experimenting for a particular purpose, or to see what would happen if…). But as usual, you have left out the only point on which we disagree – which is the question I have bolded above, concerning your theory of evolution! It is you who insist that your God invented life for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens and our food. Do you want me to give you a list of quotes in which you have stated this explicitly? But you also tell us that he designed countless life forms and econiches which were dead ends that did not lead to us and our food. This is illogical, and so it is you who transform your God into a tunnel-visioned fool! I am the one who tries to remove the illogicality of a theory - which, you admit, “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to yourself) - by offering logical alternatives.

We have agreed all forms of evolution will have dead ends. But our evolution enters present time with results, so the dead ends are of no consequence. Adler used the appearance of humans as proof of God. As a philosopher of religion none of your complaints bothered him. I know why. He accepted the God I accept, and you say you accept as bolded above.


dhw: 3) What are humans “necessary” for?

DAVID: Not just as the endpoint of evolution. In this civilized time with a large human population, we now control the Earth And must take care of it. God has done His job.

dhw: An interesting variation on Genesis, which raises a number of questions. The biggest threat to the Earth at the moment seems to be the large human population, with our astonishing intelligence having led to appalling destruction on a colossal scale. If, as you say, God has done his job, I wonder what he regarded as his “job” in the first place, especially if he is all-knowing, and therefore knew what a mess we humans would make of his special planet. Between ourselves, I reckon the Earth and our fellow animals would have a much better chance of survival if there were no humans at all.

A very dark view of humans I do not agree with.


dhw: The rest of this post, and parts of the “more miscellany” thread are devoted to your repeated avoidance of my second question above.

Not avoided above

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 10, 2022, 09:03 (536 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 2) If God’s only purpose (as you claim) was to produce sapiens plus food…[dhw: you left out the rest of the question, which of course is the nub of our disagreement:)…. why would he have felt it was “necessary” for him to design dead ends which did not lead to (i.e. were not “necessary” for) sapiens plus food?

DAVID: This is how you distort the discussion thru the trick of transforming God into a tunnel-visioned fool, who has nothing else on His Mind. This God created a universe, invented life, designed evolution. He knows exactly what He is doing and how to do it.

dhw: If God exists, then of course he created the universe and invented life and designed evolution (which could include designing evolution as a free-for-all). And I would agree that he would have known exactly what he was doing (including designing a free-for-all, or experimenting for a particular purpose, or to see what would happen if…). But as usual, you have left out the only point on which we disagree – which is the question I have bolded above, concerning your theory of evolution! It is you who insist that your God invented life for the sole purpose of producing H. sapiens and our food. Do you want me to give you a list of quotes in which you have stated this explicitly? But you also tell us that he designed countless life forms and econiches which were dead ends that did not lead to us and our food. This is illogical, and so it is you who transform your God into a tunnel-visioned fool! I am the one who tries to remove the illogicality of a theory - which, you admit, “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to yourself) - by offering logical alternatives.

DAVID: We have agreed all forms of evolution will have dead ends. But our evolution enters present time with results, so the dead ends are of no consequence.

Well yes, in a few billion years time, there will be no Planet Earth! But not all past forms had dead ends, because as you keep reminding us, we and our ecosystems are here now. So what has that got to do with your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but he designed countless dead-end life forms and foods that did not lead to us? Of course past dead ends were of no consequence, which is why your theory that God designed them as “absolute requirements” for us and our food makes no sense. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Adler used the appearance of humans as proof of God. As a philosopher of religion none of your complaints bothered him. I know why. He accepted the God I accept, and you say you accept as bolded above.

We are not discussing proof of God’s existence, but your illogical theistic, anthropocentric theory of evolution! My one and only “complaint” is that your theory – as in the bolded question above (2), which you never cease to dodge – is illogical. As for what I have written above, it is that if God exists, I’m sure he would have known what he was doing, whereas you have your God designing things that have no connection with what he wanted to do, which clearly suggests that he didn’t know what he was doing. (And to forestall your usual misdirected complaint, that is not a criticism of your God, but a criticism of your theory.)

dhw: 3) What are humans “necessary” for?

DAVID: Not just as the endpoint of evolution. In this civilized time with a large human population, we now control the Earth And must take care of it. God has done His job.

dhw: An interesting variation on Genesis, which raises a number of questions. The biggest threat to the Earth at the moment seems to be the large human population, with our astonishing intelligence having led to appalling destruction on a colossal scale. If, as you say, God has done his job, I wonder what he regarded as his “job” in the first place, especially if he is all-knowing, and therefore knew what a mess we humans would make of his special planet. Between ourselves, I reckon the Earth and our fellow animals would have a much better chance of survival if there were no humans at all.

DAVID: A very dark view of humans I do not agree with.

Our planet could of course be destroyed by some natural catastrophe (or one organized by your God), but can you think of any other species capable of such destruction?

dhw: The rest of this post, and parts of the “more miscellany” thread are devoted to your repeated avoidance of my second question above.

DAVID: Not avoided above.

Of course you’ve avoided it. If you think you haven’t, then for the umpteenth time, please explain why your God, whose one and only purpose you say was to design us and our ecosystems, would have designed countless dead-end organisms and ecosystems which did NOT lead to us and our ecosystems.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 10, 2022, 16:44 (535 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, October 10, 2022, 16:59

DAVID: We have agreed all forms of evolution will have dead ends. But our evolution enters present time with results, so the dead ends are of no consequence.

dhw: Well yes, in a few billion years time, there will be no Planet Earth! But not all past forms had dead ends, because as you keep reminding us, we and our ecosystems are here now. So what has that got to do with your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but he designed countless dead-end life forms and foods that did not lead to us? Of course past dead ends were of no consequence, which is why your theory that God designed them as “absolute requirements” for us and our food makes no sense. Stop dodging!

An evolutionary process has dead ends Raup wrote an important book called 'Extinctions; Bad Genes or Bad Luck'. After many dead ends, we are here. We both accept that history. I view God as the designer of that history. God knows how to create and creates what is required. To advance evolution, dead ends must happen. You are again inventing a tunnel-visioned God to fit your distorted twist of history.


DAVID: Adler used the appearance of humans as proof of God. As a philosopher of religion none of your complaints bothered him. I know why. He accepted the God I accept, and you say you accept as bolded above.

dhw: We are not discussing proof of God’s existence, but your illogical theistic, anthropocentric theory of evolution!

You miss the point. Adler used my God's 'evolution', which is what you won't accept.

dhw: As for what I have written above, it is that if God exists, I’m sure he would have known what he was doing,

That is my belief. Your complaint below is an illogical mess:

dhw: whereas you have your God designing things that have no connection with what he wanted to do, which clearly suggests that he didn’t know what he was doing. (And to forestall your usual misdirected complaint, that is not a criticism of your God, but a criticism of your theory.)

If God knows what He is doing, as you state, then all of evolution is His doing! Your complaint is that if He did it planning on humans to appear, He did it all wrong to get there. Back to why not use direct creation? On that point we have to ask God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 11, 2022, 10:01 (535 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We have agreed all forms of evolution will have dead ends. But our evolution enters present time with results, so the dead ends are of no consequence.

dhw: Well yes, in a few billion years time, there will be no Planet Earth! But not all past forms had dead ends, because as you keep reminding us, we and our ecosystems are here now. So what has that got to do with your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but he designed countless dead-end life forms and foods that did not lead to us? Of course past dead ends were of no consequence, which is why your theory that God designed them as “absolute requirements” for us and our food makes no sense. Stop dodging!

DAVID: An evolutionary process has dead ends Raup wrote an important book called 'Extinctions; Bad Genes or Bad Luck'. After many dead ends, we are here. We both accept that history. I view God as the designer of that history. God knows how to create and creates what is required. To advance evolution, dead ends must happen. You are again inventing a tunnel-visioned God to fit your distorted twist of history.

As usual, you have left out that part of your theory which makes your God tunnel-visioned. God sayeth unto himself: “My one and only goal is to design sapiens and his food.” (That’s the bit you left out.) “An evolutionary process hath dead ends, and therefore in order to design sapiens and his food, I must design dead ends.” And a little PS: “I knoweth not why David Turell hath made the law that I must design dead ends in order to design what I want to design, but he knoweth best.”

DAVID: Adler used the appearance of humans as proof of God. As a philosopher of religion none of your complaints bothered him. I know why. He accepted the God I accept, and you say you accept as bolded above.

dhw: We are not discussing proof of God’s existence, but your illogical theistic, anthropocentric theory of evolution!

DAVID: You miss the point. Adler used my God's 'evolution', which is what you won't accept.

You keep telling us that Adler did NOT use “your evolution”, i.e. that your God’s one and only goal was to produce sapiens plus food and therefore he “had to” produce countless dead ends that did not lead to us and our food. You keep telling us that Adler used the uniqueness of sapiens to prove the existence of God. In any case, if Adler really did support your illogical theory, that would not make it logical!

dhw: As for what I have written above, it is that if God exists, I’m sure he would have known what he was doing…..

DAVID: That is my belief. Your complaint below is an illogical mess:

dhw: ...whereas you have your God designing things that have no connection with what he wanted to do, which clearly suggests that he didn’t know what he was doing. (And to forestall your usual misdirected complaint, that is not a criticism of your God, but a criticism of your theory.)

DAVID: If God knows what He is doing, as you state, then all of evolution is His doing!

He would have known what he was doing if all of evolution was NOT of his doing (e.g. if he deliberately created a free-for-all), and if he was experimenting or getting new ideas, he would have known that he was experimenting or getting new ideas.

DAVID: Your complaint is that if He did it planning on humans to appear, He did it all wrong to get there. Back to why not use direct creation? On that point we have to ask God.

Once more, I am not criticizing your God! My complaint is that you have proposed a theory that “makes sense only to God”, which means it makes no sense to you or to me.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 11, 2022, 15:43 (534 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: An evolutionary process has dead ends Raup wrote an important book called 'Extinctions; Bad Genes or Bad Luck'. After many dead ends, we are here. We both accept that history. I view God as the designer of that history. God knows how to create and creates what is required. To advance evolution, dead ends must happen. You are again inventing a tunnel-visioned God to fit your distorted twist of history.

dhw: As usual, you have left out that part of your theory which makes your God tunnel-visioned. God sayeth unto himself: “My one and only goal is to design sapiens and his food.” (That’s the bit you left out.) “An evolutionary process hath dead ends, and therefore in order to design sapiens and his food, I must design dead ends.” And a little PS: “I knoweth not why David Turell hath made the law that I must design dead ends in order to design what I want to design, but he knoweth best.”

Your usual distortion. Humans plus an adequate ecosystem are the final outcome of God's evolutionary design. That is pure history with leaving out the God part. Dead ends are part of any type of evolution, and you know it.


DAVID: Adler used the appearance of humans as proof of God. As a philosopher of religion none of your complaints bothered him. I know why. He accepted the God I accept, and you say you accept as bolded above.

dhw: We are not discussing proof of God’s existence, but your illogical theistic, anthropocentric theory of evolution!

DAVID: You miss the point. Adler used my God's 'evolution', which is what you won't accept.

dhw: You keep telling us that Adler did NOT use “your evolution”, i.e. that your God’s one and only goal was to produce sapiens plus food and therefore he “had to” produce countless dead ends that did not lead to us and our food. You keep telling us that Adler used the uniqueness of sapiens to prove the existence of God. In any case, if Adler really did support your illogical theory, that would not make it logical!

Adler's use of evolution is the same as mine in using the final result of evolution was humans. God had a goal/purpose of humans is the same theory for Adler and me. Your distortions are just distortions.


DAVID: If God knows what He is doing, as you state, then all of evolution is His doing!

dhw: He would have known what he was doing if all of evolution was NOT of his doing (e.g. if he deliberately created a free-for-all), and if he was experimenting or getting new ideas, he would have known that he was experimenting or getting new ideas.

Back to a dithering God not sure of how to do things. Not the God most folks think of.


DAVID: Your complaint is that if He did it planning on humans to appear, He did it all wrong to get there. Back to why not use direct creation? On that point we have to ask God.

dhw: Once more, I am not criticizing your God! My complaint is that you have proposed a theory that “makes sense only to God”, which means it makes no sense to you or to me.

Don't include me in your fuzzy thinking. What God did makes perfect sense. What is known only to God is why He chose to evolve us over direct creation. Please remember that distinction.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 12:28 (533 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As usual, you have left out that part of your theory which makes your God tunnel-visioned. God sayeth unto himself: “My one and only goal is to design sapiens and his food.” (That’s the bit you left out.) “An evolutionary process hath dead ends, and therefore in order to design sapiens and his food, I must design dead ends.” And a little PS: “I knoweth not why David Turell hath made the law that I must design dead ends in order to design what I want to design, but he knoweth best.”

DAVID: Your usual distortion. Humans plus an adequate ecosystem are the final outcome of God's evolutionary design. That is pure history with leaving out the God part. Dead ends are part of any type of evolution, and you know it.

“Pure history” shows that humans plus ecosystems containing humans, plus ecosystems that would no doubt survive very well without humans, are the latest outcome. You seem to think the story ends now. Who knows what evolution will have produced in say a million years from now (if the planet still exists)? “Any type” of evolution? I don’t know how many types of evolution you are thinking of, but once again you are simply dodging the illogicality of your theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God had only one purpose, to design us and our food, and therefore “had to” design countless dead ends that did not lead to us. It’s nonsense, “and you know it”. (See your final comment.)

DAVID: Adler used my God's 'evolution', which is what you won't accept.

dhw: You keep telling us that Adler did NOT use “your evolution”, i.e. that your God’s one and only goal was to produce sapiens plus food and therefore he “had to” produce countless dead ends that did not lead to us and our food. You keep telling us that Adler used the uniqueness of sapiens to prove the existence of God. In any case, if Adler really did support your illogical theory, that would not make it logical!

DAVID: Adler's use of evolution is the same as mine in using the final result of evolution was humans. God had a goal/purpose of humans is the same theory for Adler and me. Your distortions are just distortions.

The dispute is not over what Adler did or didn’t say, though you keep desperately bringing him in as if he is the ultimate authority. How does Adler know what evolution will produce a million years from now? Why have you again switched from “the” goal to “a” goal. What other goals do you think your God had (apart from producing our food as well as us)? What distortions? Are you now denying that the illogical theory I have bolded above is yours?

DAVID: If God knows what He is doing, as you state, then all of evolution is His doing!

dhw: He would have known what he was doing if all of evolution was NOT of his doing (e.g. if he deliberately created a free-for-all), and if he was experimenting or getting new ideas, he would have known that he was experimenting or getting new ideas.

DAVID: Back to a dithering God not sure of how to do things. Not the God most folks think of.

Back to your silly idea that a free-for-all, or getting new ideas, means dithering. Experimenting in order to achieve a purpose is considerably less “dithering” than pursuing a purpose by designing dead ends that have nothing to do with that purpose. You have admitted as much in a roundabout way with your next comment:

DAVID: Don't include me in your fuzzy thinking. What God did makes perfect sense. What is known only to God is why He chose to evolve us over direct creation. (dhw's bold)

Not only do you have your all-powerful God incomprehensibly choosing to evolve us (i.e. design his one and only purpose in stages, although you think he is perfectly capable of direct creation as in the Cambrian), but you also have him choosing to “evolve” (= design) countless organisms and ecosystems that have no connection with his purpose! This is YOUR THEORY, not historical fact, and YOUR THEORY makes no sense to you (the reason is “known only to God”).

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 12, 2022, 15:55 (533 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your usual distortion. Humans plus an adequate ecosystem are the final outcome of God's evolutionary design. That is pure history with leaving out the God part. Dead ends are part of any type of evolution, and you know it.

dhw: “Pure history” shows that humans plus ecosystems containing humans, plus ecosystems that would no doubt survive very well without humans, are the latest outcome. You seem to think the story ends now. Who knows what evolution will have produced in say a million years from now (if the planet still exists)? “Any type” of evolution? I don’t know how many types of evolution you are thinking of, but once again you are simply dodging the illogicality of your theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God had only one purpose, to design us and our food, and therefore “had to” design countless dead ends that did not lead to us. It’s nonsense, “and you know it”. (See your final comment.)

Either God designed the history of evolution, or it occurred naturally. It God is the designer and humans are the endpoint, I'll add 'currently' to satisfy you, that is all the facts we have. I've added my theory about God's desire to produce humans, and all you do is complain about evolutionary facts and imply God should have used another method. You have invented an illogical distortion, by complaining about what history presents. I believe it is a history created by God, and He chose evolution for His own personal reasons.


DAVID: Adler's use of evolution is the same as mine in using the final result of evolution was humans. God had a goal/purpose of humans is the same theory for Adler and me. Your distortions are just distortions.

dhw: The dispute is not over what Adler did or didn’t say, though you keep desperately bringing him in as if he is the ultimate authority. How does Adler know what evolution will produce a million years from now? Why have you again switched from “the” goal to “a” goal. What other goals do you think your God had (apart from producing our food as well as us)? What distortions? Are you now denying that the illogical theory I have bolded above is yours?

Same old palaver, answered above.


DAVID: If God knows what He is doing, as you state, then all of evolution is His doing!

dhw: He would have known what he was doing if all of evolution was NOT of his doing (e.g. if he deliberately created a free-for-all), and if he was experimenting or getting new ideas, he would have known that he was experimenting or getting new ideas.

DAVID: Back to a dithering God not sure of how to do things. Not the God most folks think of.

dhw: Back to your silly idea that a free-for-all, or getting new ideas, means dithering. Experimenting in order to achieve a purpose is considerably less “dithering” than pursuing a purpose by designing dead ends that have nothing to do with that purpose. You have admitted as much in a roundabout way with your next comment:

My concept of God does not include the need for Him to experiment or produce free-for-alls


DAVID: Don't include me in your fuzzy thinking. What God did makes perfect sense. What is known only to God is why He chose to evolve us over direct creation. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Not only do you have your all-powerful God incomprehensibly choosing to evolve us (i.e. design his one and only purpose in stages, although you think he is perfectly capable of direct creation as in the Cambrian), but you also have him choosing to “evolve” (= design) countless organisms and ecosystems that have no connection with his purpose! This is YOUR THEORY, not historical fact, and YOUR THEORY makes no sense to you (the reason is “known only to God”).

Makes perfect sense to me, believing in God. See answer above.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 13, 2022, 10:48 (533 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Either God designed the history of evolution, or it occurred naturally. It God is the designer and humans are the endpoint, I'll add 'currently' to satisfy you, that is all the facts we have. I've added my theory about God's desire to produce humans, and all you do is complain about evolutionary facts and imply God should have used another method. You have invented an illogical distortion, by complaining about what history presents. I believe it is a history created by God, and He chose evolution for His own personal reasons.

It is not even a fact that there is a God who designed anything, but since we are discussing a possible God’s purpose, method and nature, we are allowing for his existence. I do not complain about evolutionary facts. I present them to you, because you are desperate to ignore them: namely, it is a fact that prior to humans, there were countless life forms and ecosystems which came to a dead end and did not lead to us and our ecosystems. That is the part of factual history which you have yet again ignored, and which makes nonsense of your THREE “added” theories when you try to combine them: (1) that we were your God’s one and only purpose for creating life; 2) that your God designed every dead end individually; (3) that all the dead ends (which by definition did not lead to us and our food) were absolute requirements for us and our food. All you can say is that he “had his personal reasons”, i.e. you can’t make sense of your own “added” theories, which is precisely what I complain about!

DAVID: My concept of God does not include the need for Him to experiment or produce free-for-alls.

Not “need”. Why do you make your God needy? If God exists, our starting point is what he wanted. You say he wanted us and our food, and so he began by designing countless life forms etc., the majority of which did not lead to us and our food. And so either he wanted a being with thought patterns and emotions like his (which you think is possible/probable) but had to experiment before finding the right formula, or he did NOT design the countless dead ends, or he kept getting new ideas as he went along, or he had deliberately created some sort of law for himself: “Thou must first create dead ends if thou wishest to design humans and their ecosystems.” The latter seems to be your theory, which is why you can make no sense of it, as you admit below.

DAVID:[…] What is known only to God is why He chose to evolve us over direct creation. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Not only do you have your all-powerful God incomprehensibly choosing to evolve us (i.e. design his one and only purpose in stages, although you think he is perfectly capable of direct creation as in the Cambrian), but you also have him choosing to “evolve” (= design) countless organisms and ecosystems that have no connection with his purpose! This is YOUR THEORY, not historical fact, and YOUR THEORY makes no sense to you (the reason is “known only to God”).

DAVID: Makes perfect sense to me, believing in God. See answer above.

You have just said that the reason is “known only to God”, so how can it make perfect sense to you?

Tardigrades

DAVID: more amazing facts about Tardigrades. Why were they created? They fit a role in an ecosystem.

More fascinating facts about nature, spoilt only by your constant attempts to make sense of your nonsensical theory of evolution. Now instead of your God setting out with the single purpose of designing humans and our ecosystems, you have decided that God started out with the aim of creating ecosystems! This explains why he created all the life forms and organisms that had no connection with his previous purpose, because of course every organism that ever lived was part of an ecosystem!

Ecosystems matched

QUOTE: "All of the world's ecosystems show hallmarks of human influence, and many are under acute risks of collapse, with consequences for habitats of species, genetic diversity, ecosystem services, sustainable development and human well-being.

DAVID: The importance of ecosystems is not debated. What they mean is a living space for all and food for all.

I agree completely. The article focuses on the interdependence of our current ecosystems and the massive damage we are doing to them, to our fellow creatures, and to ourselves. And past ecosystems, including all the dead ends that did not lead to us and our food, have always meant a living space and food for all organisms that lived in and depended on them.

DAVID: If the bush of life had not been developed, a linear development would not have survived. Broad ecosystems were an absolute requirement to prepare for the human arrival and dominance.

How could the dead ends have been an “absolute requirement” to prepare for us? Was your all-powerful God incapable of creating us and our ecosystems without specially designing all the dead ends? You have admitted that you cannot understand why your God “chose to evolve us over direct creation”. (By “evolve” you mean he individually designed every stage of every dead end as well as every stage of our own species). The same applies to our food: all extinct foods which did not lead to OUR food were specially designed to feed us! You cannot understand your own theory, so maybe your own theory is wrong.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 13, 2022, 15:48 (532 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Either God designed the history of evolution, or it occurred naturally. It God is the designer and humans are the endpoint, I'll add 'currently' to satisfy you, that is all the facts we have. I've added my theory about God's desire to produce humans, and all you do is complain about evolutionary facts and imply God should have used another method. You have invented an illogical distortion, by complaining about what history presents. I believe it is a history created by God, and He chose evolution for His own personal reasons.

dhw: It is not even a fact that there is a God who designed anything, but since we are discussing a possible God’s purpose, method and nature, we are allowing for his existence. I do not complain about evolutionary facts. I present them to you, because you are desperate to ignore them: namely, it is a fact that prior to humans, there were countless life forms and ecosystems which came to a dead end and did not lead to us and our ecosystems. That is the part of factual history which you have yet again ignored, and which makes nonsense of your THREE “added” theories when you try to combine them: (1) that we were your God’s one and only purpose for creating life; 2) that your God designed every dead end individually; (3) that all the dead ends (which by definition did not lead to us and our food) were absolute requirements for us and our food. All you can say is that he “had his personal reasons”, i.e. you can’t make sense of your own “added” theories, which is precisely what I complain about!

The point you miss is if God is in charge and designed our evolution, all that pre-existed us in history was purposefully created by Him!! All dead ends were ecosystems no longer needed,
by-passed by progress in new forms and their different needs. God knew humans would take charge of Earth, grow to a huge population and need extensive ecosystems to supply enough food. The huge bush of life is that supply. See ecosystem entry yesterday to make the point. your complaint is an empty barrel of distorted invention.


DAVID: My concept of God does not include the need for Him to experiment or produce free-for-alls.

dhw: Not “need”. Why do you make your God needy? If God exists, our starting point is what he wanted. You say he wanted us and our food, and so he began by designing countless life forms etc., the majority of which did not lead to us and our food. And so either he wanted a being with thought patterns and emotions like his (which you think is possible/probable) but had to experiment before finding the right formula, or he did NOT design the countless dead ends, or he kept getting new ideas as he went along, or he had deliberately created some sort of law for himself: “Thou must first create dead ends if thou wishest to design humans and their ecosystems.” The latter seems to be your theory, which is why you can make no sense of it, as you admit below.

Same useless fluff. Note reply bove.

DAVID: Makes perfect sense to me, believing in God. See answer above.

dhw: You have just said that the reason is “known only to God”, so how can it make perfect sense to you?

I don't need to know his reasoning. Neither do you.


Tardigrades

DAVID: more amazing facts about Tardigrades. Why were they created? They fit a role in an ecosystem.

dhw: More fascinating facts about nature, spoilt only by your constant attempts to make sense of your nonsensical theory of evolution. Now instead of your God setting out with the single purpose of designing humans and our ecosystems, you have decided that God started out with the aim of creating ecosystems! This explains why he created all the life forms and organisms that had no connection with his previous purpose, because of course every organism that ever lived was part of an ecosystem!

Plese finally accept it: all life is in an ecosystem!!!


Ecosystems matched

DAVID: The importance of ecosystems is not debated. What they mean is a living space for all and food for all.

I agree completely. The article focuses on the interdependence of our current ecosystems and the massive damage we are doing to them, to our fellow creatures, and to ourselves. And past ecosystems, including all the dead ends that did not lead to us and our food, have always meant a living space and food for all organisms that lived in and depended on them.

DAVID: If the bush of life had not been developed, a linear development would not have survived. Broad ecosystems were an absolute requirement to prepare for the human arrival and dominance.

dhw: How could the dead ends have been an “absolute requirement” to prepare for us? Was your all-powerful God incapable of creating us and our ecosystems without specially designing all the dead ends? You have admitted that you cannot understand why your God “chose to evolve us over direct creation”. (By “evolve” you mean he individually designed every stage of every dead end as well as every stage of our own species). The same applies to our food: all extinct foods which did not lead to OUR food were specially designed to feed us! You cannot understand your own theory, so maybe your own theory is wrong.

I've presented my theory clearly above. Your muddled complaint ignoring facts just continues.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 14, 2022, 11:42 (531 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The point you miss is if God is in charge and designed our evolution, all that pre-existed us in history was purposefully created by Him!! All dead ends were ecosystems no longer needed, by-passed by progress in new forms and their different needs. God knew humans would take charge of Earth, grow to a huge population and need extensive ecosystems to supply enough food. The huge bush of life is that supply. See ecosystem entry yesterday to make the point. your complaint is an empty barrel of distorted invention.

You are repeating bits of your theory, and as usual leaving out the sections that make your theory illogical: you believe that he purposefully created everything that pre-existed us, you accept that this included dead ends that led nowhere and were replaced by different organisms and ecosystems with different needs, but – the bit you fail to mention – you insist that all of the dead ends that did not lead to us and our food were specially designed as “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food! Yes, we need extensive ecosystems to supply our food, but what you cannot understand is why he “evolved” all the dead ends that preceded us and our ecosystems, and why he “evolved” us in stages, if he was capable of direct creation – which you insist he was (see all your entries concerning the Cambrian). There is no “distorted invention” on my part. I keep quoting you, and you keep ignoring half the quotes. You even admit that your theories “make sense only to God”, and “what is known only to God is why he chose to evolve us over direct creation.” Since your combined theories do not make sense to you, please stop blaming me for pointing out why!

DAVID: I don't need to know his reasoning. Neither do you.

Agreed. But I do need to know your reasoning, and if you offer me a theory that makes no sense to you or to me, I don’t think it is in any way out of order for me to challenge it, or to suggest alternatives that do make sense even to you.

Tardigrades

DAVID: more amazing facts about Tardigrades. Why were they created? They fit a role in an ecosystem.

dhw: More fascinating facts about nature, spoilt only by your constant attempts to make sense of your nonsensical theory of evolution. Now instead of your God setting out with the single purpose of designing humans and our ecosystems, you have decided that God started out with the aim of creating ecosystems! This explains why he created all the life forms and organisms that had no connection with his previous purpose, because of course every organism that ever lived was part of an ecosystem!

DAVID: Please finally accept it: all life is in an ecosystem!!!

Of course I accept that all life always was and always will “fit a role in an ecosystem”. Please finally accept that much of past life and many past ecosystems were dead ends that have no role in OUR life and OUR ecosystems, although you insist that they were ALL specially designed as part of and essential to his plan to evolve us and our food!

Balance of nature

DAVID: Our food supply depends in part on wild animals, especially fish. As the human population grows, loss of any animals accentuates the problem of food supply.

I am in total agreement.

DAVID: dhw throws all of this problem into his derisive 'human plus food' discussion of God's real approach to create us by an evolutionary process. The intricate balance from the bush of life is not simply 'food'. It forms it own intricate balances.

Yet again: I attack your theory that your God individually created every extinct life form and ecosystem which did not lead to or have any role to play in the evolution of us and our food, but that they were all an “absolute requirement” in preparation for the fulfilment of his one and only purpose: to create us and our food. Please stop pretending that my criticism of this illogical theory means I don’t accept the importance of ecosystems and of the balance of nature. You have agreed that your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to yourself, so once again, please don’t blame me for your belief in a theory that doesn’t make sense to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 14, 2022, 16:08 (531 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The point you miss is if God is in charge and designed our evolution, all that pre-existed us in history was purposefully created by Him!! All dead ends were ecosystems no longer needed, by-passed by progress in new forms and their different needs. God knew humans would take charge of Earth, grow to a huge population and need extensive ecosystems to supply enough food. The huge bush of life is that supply. See ecosystem entry yesterday to make the point. your complaint is an empty barrel of distorted invention.

dhw: You are repeating bits of your theory, and as usual leaving out the sections that make your theory illogical: you believe that he purposefully created everything that pre-existed us, you accept that this included dead ends that led nowhere and were replaced by different organisms and ecosystems with different needs, but – the bit you fail to mention – you insist that all of the dead ends that did not lead to us and our food were specially designed as “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food!

"Absolute requirements" are your objections. Consider what you ignore: if God created all of evolution's history including all your dead ends, then God considered them required. Not my absolute requirements, God's!!

dhw: Yes, we need extensive ecosystems to supply our food, but what you cannot understand is why he “evolved” all the dead ends that preceded us and our ecosystems, and why he “evolved” us in stages, if he was capable of direct creation – which you insist he was (see all your entries concerning the Cambrian). There is no “distorted invention” on my part. I keep quoting you, and you keep ignoring half the quotes. You even admit that your theories “make sense only to God”, and “what is known only to God is why he chose to evolve us over direct creation.” Since your combined theories do not make sense to you, please stop blaming me for pointing out why!

I've made perfect sense above


DAVID: I don't need to know His reasoning. Neither do you.

dhw: Agreed. But I do need to know your reasoning, and if you offer me a theory that makes no sense to you or to me, I don’t think it is in any way out of order for me to challenge it, or to suggest alternatives that do make sense even to you.

Your objections wrongly interpret God's actions.


Tardigrades

DAVID: more amazing facts about Tardigrades. Why were they created? They fit a role in an ecosystem.

dhw: More fascinating facts about nature, spoilt only by your constant attempts to make sense of your nonsensical theory of evolution. Now instead of your God setting out with the single purpose of designing humans and our ecosystems, you have decided that God started out with the aim of creating ecosystems! This explains why he created all the life forms and organisms that had no connection with his previous purpose, because of course every organism that ever lived was part of an ecosystem!

DAVID: Please finally accept it: all life is in an ecosystem!!!

dhw: Of course I accept that all life always was and always will “fit a role in an ecosystem”. Please finally accept that much of past life and many past ecosystems were dead ends that have no role in OUR life and OUR ecosystems, although you insist that they were ALL specially designed as part of and essential to his plan to evolve us and our food!

God knows exactly what He needs to do and does it. He does not produce any unnecessary creations. Therefore, He felt all were required.


Balance of nature

DAVID: Our food supply depends in part on wild animals, especially fish. As the human population grows, loss of any animals accentuates the problem of food supply.

I am in total agreement.

DAVID: dhw throws all of this problem into his derisive 'human plus food' discussion of God's real approach to create us by an evolutionary process. The intricate balance from the bush of life is not simply 'food'. It forms it own intricate balances.

dhw: Yet again: I attack your theory that your God individually created every extinct life form and ecosystem which did not lead to or have any role to play in the evolution of us and our food, but that they were all an “absolute requirement” in preparation for the fulfilment of his one and only purpose: to create us and our food. Please stop pretending that my criticism of this illogical theory means I don’t accept the importance of ecosystems and of the balance of nature. You have agreed that your theory “makes sense only to God”, i.e. not to yourself, so once again, please don’t blame me for your belief in a theory that doesn’t make sense to you.

It is obvious you have no idea of how to interpret God's actions. I've explained it above: God knows exactly what He is doing, does it with purpose, so all that He creates is done with purpose and therfore, required.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 15, 2022, 10:01 (531 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The point you miss is if God is in charge and designed our evolution, all that pre-existed us in history was purposefully created by Him!! All dead ends were ecosystems no longer needed, by-passed by progress in new forms and their different needs. God knew humans would take charge of Earth, grow to a huge population and need extensive ecosystems to supply enough food. The huge bush of life is that supply. See ecosystem entry yesterday to make the point. your complaint is an empty barrel of distorted invention.

dhw: You are repeating bits of your theory, and as usual leaving out the sections that make your theory illogical: you believe that he purposefully created everything that pre-existed us, you accept that this included dead ends that led nowhere and were replaced by different organisms and ecosystems with different needs, but – the bit you fail to mention – you insist that all of the dead ends that did not lead to us and our food were specially designed as “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food!

DAVID: "Absolute requirements" are your objections. Consider what you ignore: if God created all of evolution's history including all your dead ends, then God considered them required. Not my absolute requirements, God's!!

You have repeated this throughout your post, the latest in your endless list of evasions. If God exists, then I have no doubt that he created what he wanted to create. In that sense, of course whatever he created was “required” to fulfil whatever was his purpose. But that does not mean his one and only purpose was to create us and our current ecosystems! (That is the part of your theory that you keep editing out.) Quite clearly, the dead ends which did not lead to us and our current ecosystems were not absolutely “required” to fulfil the purpose of creating us and our current ecosystems, and so if he really did create the dead ends, they must have been “required” for some other purpose. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: I don't need to know His reasoning. Neither do you.

dhw: Agreed. But I do need to know your reasoning, and if you offer me a theory that makes no sense to you or to me, I don’t think it is in any way out of order for me to challenge it, or to suggest alternatives that do make sense even to you.

DAVID: Your objections wrongly interpret God's actions.

My objections do not interpret God’s actions. They simply point out the absurd illogicality of YOUR interpretation of God’s actions, i.e. deliberate creation of life forms and ecosystems that were not required to fulfil what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. The fact that you object to my alternative theories (although you admit that they fit in logically with the history of life) does not remove the illogicality which results in your admission that your combined theories “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 15, 2022, 20:34 (530 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: "Absolute requirements" are your objections. Consider what you ignore: if God created all of evolution's history including all your dead ends, then God considered them required. Not my absolute requirements, God's!!


dhw: You have repeated this throughout your post, the latest in your endless list of evasions. If God exists, then I have no doubt that he created what he wanted to create. In that sense, of course whatever he created was “required” to fulfil whatever was his purpose. But that does not mean his one and only purpose was to create us and our current ecosystems! (That is the part of your theory that you keep editing out.) Quite clearly, the dead ends which did not lead to us and our current ecosystems were not absolutely “required” to fulfil the purpose of creating us and our current ecosystems, and so if he really did create the dead ends, they must have been “required” for some other purpose. When will you stop dodging?

We have to analyze God from what He created. And you are agreeing what is here is what he wanted. Now imagination sets in; what kind of God do you accept? Mine is fully purposeful. Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations. That view can be logically applied to the known history. And since very extraordinary humans arrived, we were His goal or purpose. That is Adler's teaching using evolution as I do, as God's creation. You offer a different God who also presents the same evolution but prefers entertainment, experiments, wants free-for-all evolution with no set outcome. He has the same dead ends as mine as cast aside ecosystems. You can excuse the dead ends, because your God doesn't have a definite end point. And then complain about mine because He does. Your complaint settles down to: we know He does direct creations, so why does he evolve His goals, which in evolution involve all sorts of side branches? We cannot ask Him, nor can we know His reasoning. What we do know is everything He creates, He has evolved. Evolution is His choice of action. Nothing I have presented is illogical.


DAVID: I don't need to know His reasoning. Neither do you.

dhw: Agreed. But I do need to know your reasoning, and if you offer me a theory that makes no sense to you or to me, I don’t think it is in any way out of order for me to challenge it, or to suggest alternatives that do make sense even to you.

My reasoning is presented logically above.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 16, 2022, 12:51 (529 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We have to analyze God from what He created. And you are agreeing what is here is what he wanted. Now imagination sets in; what kind of God do you accept? Mine is fully purposeful.

So is mine.

DAVID: Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.

Is required for what? (See below) Why do you assume he knows all outcomes? If the outcome is already fixed, then you are an advocate of predestination, which is yet another dilemma for theists who, like yourself, also believe in free will. It is perfectly feasible that a God who, as you have said, is interested in his creations (ALL his creations) would find it more interesting NOT to know all outcomes.

DAVID: That view can be logically applied to the known history. And since very extraordinary humans arrived, we were His goal or purpose. That is Adler's teaching using evolution as I do, as God's creation.

But according to you, your God designed EVERY form of life, and EVERY form of life “arrived”, so EVERY form of life must have been part of his goal or purpose. That includes EVERY form of life that had no connection with us, our food and our current ecosystems, and so EVERY form of life, extant and extinct, could NOT have been “required” for the one and only purpose you allow him (the design of us, our food and our current ecosystems). Please stop clinging to Adler. We are discussing your theories, and Adler as far as I know was not God.

DAVID: You offer a different God who also presents the same evolution but prefers entertainment, experiments, wants free-for-all evolution with no set outcome. He has the same dead ends as mine as cast aside ecosystems. You can excuse the dead ends, because your God doesn't have a definite end point. And then complain about mine because He does.

My alternatives all explain (not excuse) the dead ends for which you have no explanation! I complain because (a) you admit that it is illogical for your God to have a single purpose (us and our current ecosystems) and then to proceed to design countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us and our ecosystems, and (b) you believe in direct creation (the Cambrian), and admit that it is illogical for him to have created his one and only goal (sapiens) in stages: these theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you, but you still cling to them, and blame me for pointing out why they do not make sense.

DAVID: Your complaint settles down to: we know He does direct creations, so why does he evolve His goals…..

We don't know he "does direct creations", but that is part of your muddled theory (see (b) above). Why plural goals, when you insist that he only had one – us and our ecosystems?

DAVID: ….which in evolution involve all sorts of side branches? We cannot ask Him, nor can we know His reasoning. What we do know is everything He creates, He has evolved. Evolution is His choice of action. Nothing I have presented is illogical.

If we cannot know his reasoning, then please stop assuming that you know both his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose, even though the method does not fit in logically with the purpose. How can what you have presented be logical if you can’t understand the reasoning behind what you assume to be your God’s goal and method of achieving it?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 16, 2022, 16:50 (529 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We have to analyze God from what He created. And you are agreeing what is here is what he wanted. Now imagination sets in; what kind of God do you accept? Mine is fully purposeful.

dhw: So is mine.

His purposes involve entertaining Himself.


DAVID: Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.

dhw: Is required for what? (See below) Why do you assume he knows all outcomes? If the outcome is already fixed, then you are an advocate of predestination, which is yet another dilemma for theists who, like yourself, also believe in free will.

What God knows about His goals does not affect my free will.

dhw: It is perfectly feasible that a God who, as you have said, is interested in his creations (ALL his creations) would find it more interesting NOT to know all outcomes.

More humanizing of your vision of God. It is an example of how you write your fiction.


DAVID: That view can be logically applied to the known history. And since very extraordinary humans arrived, we were His goal or purpose. That is Adler's teaching using evolution as I do, as God's creation.

dhw: But according to you, your God designed EVERY form of life, and EVERY form of life “arrived”, so EVERY form of life must have been part of his goal or purpose. That includes EVERY form of life that had no connection with us, our food and our current ecosystems, and so EVERY form of life, extant and extinct, could NOT have been “required” for the one and only purpose you allow him (the design of us, our food and our current ecosystems). Please stop clinging to Adler. We are discussing your theories, and Adler as far as I know was not God.

You agree God can create anything He wishes! What we see is exactly what Gid did. Everything IS connected to us in the ecosystems we use for food. And those ecosystems, the experts say are becoming inadequate. That means all parts are required.


DAVID: You offer a different God who also presents the same evolution but prefers entertainment, experiments, wants free-for-all evolution with no set outcome. He has the same dead ends as mine as cast aside ecosystems. You can excuse the dead ends, because your God doesn't have a definite end point. And then complain about mine because He does.

dhw: My alternatives all explain (not excuse) the dead ends for which you have no explanation!

Remember, we both have Gods with dead ends. They are previously ecosystems no longer needed.

dhw: I complain because (a) you admit that it is illogical for your God to have a single purpose (us and our current ecosystems) and then to proceed to design countless life forms etc. that had no connection with us and our ecosystems, and (b) you believe in direct creation (the Cambrian), and admit that it is illogical for him to have created his one and only goal (sapiens) in stages: these theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you, but you still cling to them, and blame me for pointing out why they do not make sense.

Of course, God makes no sense to you. You constantly transform Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler, who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans


DAVID: ….which in evolution involve all sorts of side branches? We cannot ask Him, nor can we know His reasoning. What we do know is everything He creates, He has evolved. Evolution is His choice of action. Nothing I have presented is illogical.

dhw: If we cannot know his reasoning, then please stop assuming that you know both his purpose and his method of achieving that purpose, even though the method does not fit in logically with the purpose. How can what you have presented be logical if you can’t understand the reasoning behind what you assume to be your God’s goal and method of achieving it?

I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 17, 2022, 13:30 (528 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We have to analyze God from what He created. And you are agreeing what is here is what he wanted. Now imagination sets in; what kind of God do you accept? Mine is fully purposeful.

dhw: So is mine.

DAVID: His purposes involve entertaining Himself.

And later:

More humanizing of your vision of God. It is an example of how you write your fiction.

I have never used the word “entertain” but have stuck to your own terms: you are certain that he “enjoys” creating and is “interested” in his creations. Why are you sneering at your own beliefs, which include your agreement that your God probably/possibly has patterns of thought and emotions like ours?

DAVID: Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.

dhw: Is required for what? (See below) Why do you assume he knows all outcomes? If the outcome is already fixed, then you are an advocate of predestination, which is yet another dilemma for theists who, like yourself, also believe in free will.

DAVID: What God knows about His goals does not affect my free will.

If God knows “all outcomes”, he knows what is going to happen to his creations, and he knows what decisions individual humans are going to take (some of which may well affect the future of the world, since even individuals are capable of destroying it). In that case, free will is an illusion - hence the theological problem of predestination.

DAVID: You agree God can create anything He wishes! What we see is exactly what God did. Everything IS connected to us in the ecosystems we use for food. And those ecosystems, the experts say are becoming inadequate. That means all parts are required.

Yet again, you are focusing on our current ecosystems, and ignoring the history of life which produced countless extinct life forms and ecosystems which had no connection with humans and our current ecosystems and foods, although you claim that your God created all the dead ends as an absolute requirement for the fulfilment of his only purpose, which was to create us and our current ecosystems and foods. The fact that we are destroying our current ecosystems is totally irrelevant to your theories about your God’s past actions and single purpose, which are so illogical that you say they “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

dhw: My alternatives all explain (not excuse) the dead ends for which you have no explanation!

DAVID: Remember, we both have Gods with dead ends. They are previously ecosystems no longer needed.

The dead ends were NEVER needed to fulfil your idea of your God’s one and only purpose, and you admit that you have no idea why he designed them – hence your statement that your theories “make sense only to God”.

DAVID: Of course, God makes no sense to you. You constantly transform Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler, who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.

It is not your God who makes no sense to me, but your theories, which you admit make no sense to YOU! It is YOU who have created a tunnel-visioned bumbler etc., exactly as you describe him above!

DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.

Unexpected by whom? ALL of life – not just humans – is so complex that you use individual organs (see today’s post on the ear) and individual cells as evidence for your God’s existence, and I have no argument against the case you make for design. So please stop dodging the fact that we are assuming God’s existence in our discussions, and the disagreement concerns YOUR humanly illogical vision of him as a “tunnel-visioned bumbler”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 17, 2022, 16:36 (528 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I have never used the word “entertain” but have stuck to your own terms: you are certain that he “enjoys” creating and is “interested” in his creations. Why are you sneering at your own beliefs, which include your agreement that your God probably/possibly has patterns of thought and emotions like ours?

Your version of your God shows Him being enertained by a free-for-all. I'm allowed to interpret Him as you describe Him.


DAVID: What God knows about His goals does not affect my free will.

dhw: If God knows “all outcomes”, he knows what is going to happen to his creations, and he knows what decisions individual humans are going to take (some of which may well affect the future of the world, since even individuals are capable of destroying it). In that case, free will is an illusion - hence the theological problem of predestination.

I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.


DAVID: You agree God can create anything He wishes! What we see is exactly what God did. Everything IS connected to us in the ecosystems we use for food. And those ecosystems, the experts say are becoming inadequate. That means all parts are required.

dhw: Yet again, you are focusing on our current ecosystems, and ignoring the history of life which produced countless extinct life forms and ecosystems which had no connection with humans and our current ecosystems and foods, although you claim that your God created all the dead ends as an absolute requirement for the fulfilment of his only purpose, which was to create us and our current ecosystems and foods. The fact that we are destroying our current ecosystems is totally irrelevant to your theories about your God’s past actions and single purpose, which are so illogical that you say they “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

More distortions. Your God has the same dead ends!!! What makes sense to God is one single point: His reasons for choosing to evolve us rather than directly create us.


dhw: My alternatives all explain (not excuse) the dead ends for which you have no explanation!

DAVID: Remember, we both have Gods with dead ends. They are previously ecosystems no longer needed.

dhw: The dead ends were NEVER needed to fulfil your idea of your God’s one and only purpose, and you admit that you have no idea why he designed them – hence your statement that your theories “make sense only to God”.

More distortions. Read what I write, please.


DAVID: Of course, God makes no sense to you. You constantly transform Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler, who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.

dhw: It is not your God who makes no sense to me, but your theories, which you admit make no sense to YOU! It is YOU who have created a tunnel-visioned bumbler etc., exactly as you describe him above!

I've admitted nothing of the sort. Stop distorting what I write.


DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.

dhw: Unexpected by whom?

By any clear=thinking human

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 18, 2022, 09:07 (528 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have never used the word “entertain” but have stuck to your own terms: you are certain that he “enjoys” creating and is “interested” in his creations. Why are you sneering at your own beliefs, which include your agreement that your God probably/possibly has patterns of thought and emotions like ours?

DAVID: Your version of your God shows Him being entertained by a free-for-all. I'm allowed to interpret Him as you describe Him.

A free-for-all is one of my alternative explanations of evolution’s history, though without the word “entertain”. Of course you are “allowed” to tell us he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and I can’t see why you think I should not be allowed to use your belief as a clue to his possible purpose for creating life.

DAVID: What God knows about His goals does not affect my free will.

dhw: If God knows “all outcomes”, he knows what is going to happen to his creations, and he knows what decisions individual humans are going to take (some of which may well affect the future of the world, since even individuals are capable of destroying it). In that case, free will is an illusion - hence the theological problem of predestination.

DAVID: I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.

Your exact words were: “Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.” I also note your continued use of the plural “goals”, although you insist that your God had only one goal, which was to design us and the ecosystems which provide us with our food. There is no distortion on my part.

DAVID: You agree God can create anything He wishes! What we see is exactly what God did. Everything IS connected to us in the ecosystems we use for food. And those ecosystems, the experts say are becoming inadequate. That means all parts are required.

dhw: Yet again, you are focusing on our current ecosystems, and ignoring the history of life which produced countless extinct life forms and ecosystems which had no connection with humans and our current ecosystems and foods, although you claim that your God created all the dead ends as an absolute requirement for the fulfilment of his only purpose, which was to create us and our current ecosystems and foods. The fact that we are destroying our current ecosystems is totally irrelevant to your theories about your God’s past actions and single purpose, which are so illogical that you say they “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you.

DAVID: More distortions. Your God has the same dead ends!!! What makes sense to God is one single point: His reasons for choosing to evolve us rather than directly create us.

Of course he has the same dead ends! And that’s why it’s nonsense to claim that his one and only goal was to design us and our current ecosystems, and therefore he designed all the dead ends that had nothing to do with us and our ecosystems! And the second thing you can’t explain is why, if we and our food were his only purpose and if he was capable of direct design, he chose to design us in itsy-bitsy stages. You admit to that illogicality, and you try to dodge the dead-end illogicality.

DAVID: Of course, God makes no sense to you. You constantly transform Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler, who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.

dhw: It is not your God who makes no sense to me, but your theories, which you admit make no sense to YOU! It is YOU who have created a tunnel-visioned bumbler etc., exactly as you describe him above!

DAVID: I've admitted nothing of the sort. Stop distorting what I write.

I know you haven’t admitted it. That’s why I keep having to point it out to you! Your God is tunnel-visioned because you insist he could only possibly have had one purpose: to design us and our food. And your God is a bumbler, because in order to fulfil his only purpose, you have him designing countless life forms and ecosystems that have no connection with it! I offer alternative interpretations (the opposite of tunnel vision): maybe he wanted a free-for-all; maybe he did want us but was experimenting to find the right formula; maybe like many creative artists he kept getting new ideas as he went along and eventually hit on the idea of humans. Each of these alternatives provides a logical explanation for the dead ends and for the different stages of our own evolution.

DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.

dhw: Unexpected by whom?

DAVID: By any clear-thinking human.

Any “clear-thinking human”, according to you, will also say that every form of life is “unexpected”, so why do you use that argument in your attempt to prove that humans were your God’s one and only purpose?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 18, 2022, 15:46 (527 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.” I also note your continued use of the plural “goals”, although you insist that your God had only one goal, which was to design us and the ecosystems which provide us with our food. There is no distortion on my part.

And you assumed predestination for human thought and action.


DAVID: More distortions. Your God has the same dead ends!!! What makes sense to God is one single point: His reasons for choosing to evolve us rather than directly create us.

dhw: Of course he has the same dead ends! And that’s why it’s nonsense to claim that his one and only goal was to design us and our current ecosystems, and therefore he designed all the dead ends that had nothing to do with us and our ecosystems! And the second thing you can’t explain is why, if we and our food were his only purpose and if he was capable of direct design, he chose to design us in itsy-bitsy stages. You admit to that illogicality, and you try to dodge the dead-end illogicality.

DAVID: Of course, God makes no sense to you. You constantly transform Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler, who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.

dhw: It is not your God who makes no sense to me, but your theories, which you admit make no sense to YOU! It is YOU who have created a tunnel-visioned bumbler etc., exactly as you describe him above!

DAVID: I've admitted nothing of the sort. Stop distorting what I write.

dhw: I know you haven’t admitted it. That’s why I keep having to point it out to you! Your God is tunnel-visioned because you insist he could only possibly have had one purpose: to design us and our food. And your God is a bumbler, because in order to fulfil his only purpose, you have him designing countless life forms and ecosystems that have no connection with it! I offer alternative interpretations (the opposite of tunnel vision): maybe he wanted a free-for-all; maybe he did want us but was experimenting to find the right formula; maybe like many creative artists he kept getting new ideas as he went along and eventually hit on the idea of humans. Each of these alternatives provides a logical explanation for the dead ends and for the different stages of our own evolution.

Don't you realize the complete humanized God you are describing?


DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.

dhw: Unexpected by whom?

DAVID: By any clear-thinking human.

dhw: Any “clear-thinking human”, according to you, will also say that every form of life is “unexpected”, so why do you use that argument in your attempt to prove that humans were your God’s one and only purpose?

Unexpected is our human brain. It is Adler's point and mine.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 19, 2022, 08:51 (527 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.” I also note your continued use of the plural “goals”, although you insist that your God had only one goal, which was to design us and the ecosystems which provide us with our food. There is no distortion on my part.

DAVID: And you assumed predestination for human thought and action.

Aw shucks, David, you accused me of distortion and denied having used the expression “all outcomes”. At least pronounce me not guilty! :-) And I simply pointed out that if he knows all outcomes, then that leads to the problem of predestination versus free will. I did not assume anything. And I wish you would not keep referring to plural goals when you insist that your God only had one (us and our food).

DAVID: Of course, God makes no sense to you. You constantly transform Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler, who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.

dhw: It is not your God who makes no sense to me, but your theories, which you admit make no sense to YOU! It is YOU who have created a tunnel-visioned bumbler etc., exactly as you describe him above!

DAVID: I've admitted nothing of the sort. Stop distorting what I write.

If your theory "makes sense only to God", and we can't know his reasons for doing what you say he did, then it doesn't make sense to you!

dhw: Your God is tunnel-visioned because you insist he could only possibly have had one purpose: to design us and our food. And your God is a bumbler, because in order to fulfil his only purpose, you have him designing countless life forms and ecosystems that have no connection with it! I offer alternative interpretations (the opposite of tunnel vision): maybe he wanted a free-for-all; maybe he did want us but was experimenting to find the right formula; maybe like many creative artists he kept getting new ideas as he went along and eventually hit on the idea of humans. Each of these alternatives provides a logical explanation for the dead ends and for the different stages of our own evolution.

DAVID: Don't you realize the complete humanized God you are describing?

None of these versions make your God completely humanized. They entail human thought patterns and emotions and logic, some of which you yourself subscribe to (e.g. enjoyment and interest), and they all provide explanations for the dead ends you are unable to explain. Meanwhile, you appear to have overlooked the fact that it is your humanized God who is tunnel-visioned (only one possible purpose) and who bumbles along, creating “lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to his desired outcome, humans”.

DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.

dhw: Unexpected by whom?

DAVID: By any clear-thinking human.

dhw: Any “clear-thinking human”, according to you, will also say that every form of life is “unexpected”, so why do you use that argument in your attempt to prove that humans were your God’s one and only purpose?

DAVID: Unexpected is our human brain. It is Adler's point and mine.

And “unexpected” according to you is every form of life, and every natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest), all of which are so complex that they provide evidence of your God’s existence. But they still leave your God as a humanized, tunnel-visioned bumbler, in contrast to the alternatives I have presented.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 19, 2022, 15:45 (526 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.” I also note your continued use of the plural “goals”, although you insist that your God had only one goal, which was to design us and the ecosystems which provide us with our food. There is no distortion on my part.

The God I know had goals: He had to create and evolve a fine-tuned universe; He had to create the Milky Way; He had to place the Earth in a safe spot; than He had to create early life and guide by design the endpoint of humans. So much for 'only humans plus food'.


DAVID: Of course, God makes no sense to you. You constantly transform Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler, who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.

dhw: It is not your God who makes no sense to me, but your theories, which you admit make no sense to YOU! It is YOU who have created a tunnel-visioned bumbler etc., exactly as you describe him above!

DAVID: I've admitted nothing of the sort. Stop distorting what I write.

dhw: If your theory "makes sense only to God", and we can't know his reasons for doing what you say he did, then it doesn't make sense to you!

It makes perfect sense to me. His reasons for using evolution play no role in analyzing what He did and then guessing why He might have feelings about it.


DAVID: Don't you realize the complete humanized God you are describing?

dhw: None of these versions make your God completely humanized. They entail human thought patterns and emotions and logic, some of which you yourself subscribe to (e.g. enjoyment and interest), and they all provide explanations for the dead ends you are unable to explain.

Both you version of God and mine have the same dead ends in evolution. They are ecosystems no longer needed as evolution advances.

> DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.


dhw: Unexpected by whom?

DAVID: By any clear-thinking human.

dhw: Any “clear-thinking human”, according to you, will also say that every form of life is “unexpected”, so why do you use that argument in your attempt to prove that humans were your God’s one and only purpose?

DAVID: Unexpected is our human brain. It is Adler's point and mine.

dhw: And “unexpected” according to you is every form of life, and every natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest), all of which are so complex that they provide evidence of your God’s existence. But they still leave your God as a humanized, tunnel-visioned bumbler, in contrast to the alternatives I have presented.

A humanized-God version who doesn't care if He is not in control.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 20, 2022, 12:40 (525 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.”

I note your refusal to note that you said precisely what I said you said, and your accusation of distortion was a distortion. :-(

dhw: I also note your continued use of the plural “goals”, although you insist that your God had only one goal, which was to design us and the ecosystems which provide us with our food. There is no distortion on my part.

DAVID: The God I know had goals: He had to create and evolve a fine-tuned universe; He had to create the Milky Way; He had to place the Earth in a safe spot; than He had to create early life and guide by design the endpoint of humans. So much for 'only humans plus food'.

More dodging. According to you the one and only reason why he created all of this was to design us and our food. There is no dispute over the necessity for the universe (though one can certainly dispute the necessity for all the dead ends in the evolution of the universe), the Milky Way, safe Earth! If your God wanted to create life, of course he had to create a place where life could live! The dispute is over your belief that in order to design sapiens plus food, he “had to” design countless dead ends that had no connection with sapiens plus food. This is what makes no sense.

DAVID: Of course, God makes no sense to you. You constantly transform Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler, who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.

dhw: It is not your God who makes no sense to me, but your theories, which you admit make no sense to YOU! It is YOU who have created a tunnel-visioned bumbler etc., exactly as you describe him above!

DAVID: I've admitted nothing of the sort. Stop distorting what I write.

dhw: If your theory "makes sense only to God", and we can't know his reasons for doing what you say he did, then it doesn't make sense to you!

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me. His reasons for using evolution play no role in analyzing what He did and then guessing why He might have feelings about it.

His feelings have nothing to do with your theories that in order to design sapiens plus food, he had to design countless dead ends that had no connection with sapiens plus food, and he had to design us in stages although he was perfectly capable (according to you) of designing species without any precursors. These are the theories you admit you cannot explain, they “make sense only to God”, and we cannot know his reasons. Please stop this endless dodging.

DAVID (re my various alternative explanations): Don't you realize the complete humanized God you are describing?

dhw: None of these versions make your God completely humanized. They entail human thought patterns and emotions and logic, some of which you yourself subscribe to (e.g. enjoyment and interest), and they all provide explanations for the dead ends you are unable to explain.

DAVID: Both your version of God and mine have the same dead ends in evolution. They are ecosystems no longer needed as evolution advances.

Yes, they are the same dead ends. And they were NEVER needed for the fulfilment of what you claim was your God’s one and only purpose: sapiens plus food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.
And:
DAVID: Unexpected is our human brain. It is Adler's point and mine.

dhw: And “unexpected” according to you is every form of life, and every natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest), all of which are so complex that they provide evidence of your God’s existence. But they still leave your God as a humanized, tunnel-visioned bumbler, in contrast to the alternatives I have presented.

DAVID: A humanized-God version who doesn't care if He is not in control.

The free-for-all alternative means that he doesn’t WANT to have control. The other alternatives allow for control. Your own version, in your own worda, which are well worth repeating in full, is a humanized, “tunnel-visioned bumbler who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.” I could not have expressed it better myself.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 20, 2022, 17:24 (525 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.

dhw: Your exact words were: “Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.”

dhw: I note your refusal to note that you said precisely what I said you said, and your accusation of distortion was a distortion. :-(

I'm sorry you misunderstood: my point was God knew each physical outcome/phenotypic result.


DAVID: The God I know had goals: He had to create and evolve a fine-tuned universe; He had to create the Milky Way; He had to place the Earth in a safe spot; than He had to create early life and guide by design the endpoint of humans. So much for 'only humans plus food'

dhw: More dodging. According to you the one and only reason why he created all of this was to design us and our food. There is no dispute over the necessity for the universe (though one can certainly dispute the necessity for all the dead ends in the evolution of the universe), the Milky Way, safe Earth! If your God wanted to create life, of course he had to create a place where life could live! The dispute is over your belief that in order to design sapiens plus food, he “had to” design countless dead ends that had no connection with sapiens plus food. This is what makes no sense.

Please think! To evolve humans required 3.8 billion years and many necessary ecosystems along the way. The dead ends.


dhw: If your theory "makes sense only to God", and we can't know his reasons for doing what you say he did, then it doesn't make sense to you!

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me. His reasons for using evolution play no role in analyzing what He did and then guessing why He might have feelings about it.

dhw: His feelings have nothing to do with your theories that in order to design sapiens plus food, he had to design countless dead ends that had no connection with sapiens plus food, and he had to design us in stages although he was perfectly capable (according to you) of designing species without any precursors. These are the theories you admit you cannot explain, they “make sense only to God”, and we cannot know his reasons. Please stop this endless dodging.

Still distortion in my bold. His choice of using an evolutionary process makes sense to Him.


DAVID: Both your version of God and mine have the same dead ends in evolution. They are ecosystems no longer needed as evolution advances.

dhw: Yes, they are the same dead ends. And they were NEVER needed for the fulfilment of what you claim was your God’s one and only purpose: sapiens plus food. Please stop dodging!

Ecosystems throughout evolution supported the very process of evolution. You still don't like the idea God chose to evolve us. Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.


DAVID: I have given you a reasonable answer. He chose to evolve us from bacteria. As for goal, humans are a most unexpected form of naturally occurring evolution. They must be God-produced. (Adler logic) Your human logic is not God's logic.
And:
DAVID: Unexpected is our human brain. It is Adler's point and mine.

dhw: And “unexpected” according to you is every form of life, and every natural wonder (e.g. the weaverbird’s nest), all of which are so complex that they provide evidence of your God’s existence. But they still leave your God as a humanized, tunnel-visioned bumbler, in contrast to the alternatives I have presented.

DAVID: A humanized-God version who doesn't care if He is not in control.

dhw: The free-for-all alternative means that he doesn’t WANT to have control. The other alternatives allow for control. Your own version, in your own worda, which are well worth repeating in full, is a humanized, “tunnel-visioned bumbler who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.” I could not have expressed it better myself.

Don't turn my words on me. That was a derisive version of the type of God you turn my God into with your irrational distorted view of a God who chooses to evolve humans

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 21, 2022, 13:32 (524 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I didn't say 'all outcomes', you did! God has goals and knows how to reach them does not imply God knows my thoughts in the next month. Stop distorting.

hw: Your exact words were: “Everything He created is required and He knows all outcomes as He evolves creations.”

DAVID: I'm sorry you misunderstood: my point was God knew each physical outcome/phenotypic result.

Apologies for the misunderstanding, but this could be even more interesting. By giving us free will, your God sacrifices control of his creations, even giving us the ability to destroy them all. So you can believe in a free-for-all of which he does not know the outcome (humans controlling the world), but you can’t believe in a free-for-all of which he does not know the outcome (life forms designing their own means of survival in a constantly changing world). I wonder why your otherwise all-knowing God didn’t want to know what we humans would do while he watches us with interest.

dhw: The dispute is over your belief that in order to design sapiens plus food, he “had to” design countless dead ends that had no connection with sapiens plus food. This is what makes no sense.

DAVID: Please think! To evolve humans required 3.8 billion years and many necessary ecosystems along the way. The dead ends.

Please think! Dead ends do not lead anywhere and were NOT necessary if your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food!

DAVID: His choice of using an evolutionary process makes sense to Him.

If God exists, then of course evolution was his choice! What does not make sense is that you say his sole purpose in creating countless dead ends which had no connection with us was to create us and our food.

DAVID: Ecosystems throughout evolution supported the very process of evolution.

Of course every ecosystem supported every life form of which it was composed, including all those that had no connection with us and our food. Please stop stating the obvious, as if it justified your illogical theory.

DAVID: You still don't like the idea God chose to evolve us. ..

I have no objection to the fact that we evolved, or to the theory that if God exists, he chose to evolve us! My objection is to the illogical theory bolded above, which you keep dodging! I have offered you three logical theistic alternatives to explain the facts of history, but you reject them on the grounds that they suggest human thought patterns different from those you want him to have.

DAVID: ...Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.

According to you, that is precisely what he did during the Cambrian Explosion, and you even go so far as to specify that we ourselves and the animals we eat descended from those life forms, which had no predecessors. Your view of the Cambrian completely contradicts your theory that every pre-Cambrian life form and ecosystem was “necessary” to produce us (plus our food).

dhw: The free-for-all alternative means that he doesn’t WANT to have control. The other alternatives allow for control. Your own version, in your own words, which are well worth repeating in full, is a humanized, “tunnel-visioned bumbler who creates lots of unnecessary organisms on the way to His desired outcome, humans.” I could not have expressed it better myself.

DAVID: Don't turn my words on me. That was a derisive version of the type of God you turn my God into with your irrational distorted view of a God who chooses to evolve humans.

According to you, your God had only one purpose, and all his past actions were devoted to its fulfilment, although most of them did not lead to its fulfilment. That is tunnel vision, and his dead-end actions can only mean that he is a bumbler (or bungler) – i.e. he was confused and didn’t know what he was doing. I would not subscribe to such a derogatory view of your God, but apparently you do!

DAVID (under “Current and expected population”): Eleven billion and then decline is an interesting concept. All depends on birth rate couples decide upon. The is the 'humans plus food' dhw rales about.
And:
DAVID: (under “ecosystems mapped): dhw's complaint about 'humans and food' underscores his lack of appreciation of the attendant problem with meddling before learning of the issues.

These comments are becoming sillier and sillier. I am just as aware as you that we need food, our population is huge, ecosystems are dependent on balance, and we are destroying our own ecosystems. So please stop pretending that my “complaint” concerns these self-evident, deeply disturbing truths, and please stop using them as a diversionary tactic to avoid the illogicality of your theories of evolution, bolded above, which you admit “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 21, 2022, 17:18 (524 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm sorry you misunderstood: my point was God knew each physical outcome/phenotypic result.

dhw: Apologies for the misunderstanding, but this could be even more interesting. By giving us free will, your God sacrifices control of his creations, even giving us the ability to destroy them all. So you can believe in a free-for-all of which he does not know the outcome (humans controlling the world), but you can’t believe in a free-for-all of which he does not know the outcome (life forms designing their own means of survival in a constantly changing world). I wonder why your otherwise all-knowing God didn’t want to know what we humans would do while he watches us with interest.

We have become dominant, and God knew that would happen. He gave us free will. Obviously, we control our future and God wanted it that way. We are on our own by His choice.

DAVID: Please think! To evolve humans required 3.8 billion years and many necessary ecosystems along the way. The dead ends.

dhw: Please think! Dead ends do not lead anywhere and were NOT necessary if your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food!

Still not thinking. We were evolved. How does evolution work unless ecosystems support it all along the way from 3.8 billion years ago? As organisms disappeared so did ecosystems.


DAVID: Ecosystems throughout evolution supported the very process of evolution.

dhw: Of course every ecosystem supported every life form of which it was composed, including all those that had no connection with us and our food. Please stop stating the obvious, as if it justified your illogical theory.

But it does. The problem is your disjointed analysis.


DAVID: You still don't like the idea God chose to evolve us. ..

dhw: I have no objection to the fact that we evolved, or to the theory that if God exists, he chose to evolve us! My objection is to the illogical theory bolded above, which you keep dodging! I have offered you three logical theistic alternatives to explain the facts of history, but you reject them on the grounds that they suggest human thought patterns different from those you want him to have.

I have every right to criticize your form of God


DAVID: ...Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.

dhw: According to you, that is precisely what he did during the Cambrian Explosion, and you even go so far as to specify that we ourselves and the animals we eat descended from those life forms, which had no predecessors. Your view of the Cambrian completely contradicts your theory that every pre-Cambrian life form and ecosystem was “necessary” to produce us (plus our food).

You don't understand the Cambrian shows the best evidence for a designer we have, other than the designed complexity of any living biochemistry.

dhw: According to you, your God had only one purpose, and all his past actions were devoted to its fulfilment, although most of them did not lead to its fulfilment. That is tunnel vision, and his dead-end actions can only mean that he is a bumbler (or bungler) – i.e. he was confused and didn’t know what he was doing. I would not subscribe to such a derogatory view of your God, but apparently you do!

Pure distortion. We are the final fulfillment of an evolutionary process.


DAVID (under “Current and expected population”): Eleven billion and then decline is an interesting concept. All depends on birth rate couples decide upon. The is the 'humans plus food' dhw rales about.
And:
DAVID: (under “ecosystems mapped): dhw's complaint about 'humans and food' underscores his lack of appreciation of the attendant problem with meddling before learning of the issues.

dhw: These comments are becoming sillier and sillier. I am just as aware as you that we need food, our population is huge, ecosystems are dependent on balance, and we are destroying our own ecosystems. So please stop pretending that my “complaint” concerns these self-evident, deeply disturbing truths, and please stop using them as a diversionary tactic to avoid the illogicality of your theories of evolution, bolded above, which you admit “make sense only to God” and therefore not to you.

Your muddled distortion of decrying ecosystems as dead ends when they are necessary to exist and then disappear as stages of evolution appear and then disappear is unreasonably illogical.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 22, 2022, 08:22 (524 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: [...] By giving us free will, your God sacrifices control of his creations, even giving us the ability to destroy them all. So you can believe in a free-for-all of which he does not know the outcome (humans controlling the world), but you can’t believe in a free-for-all of which he does not know the outcome (life forms designing their own means of survival in a constantly changing world). I wonder why your otherwise all-knowing God didn’t want to know what we humans would do while he watches us with interest.

DAVID: We have become dominant, and God knew that would happen. He gave us free will. Obviously, we control our future and God wanted it that way. We are on our own by His choice. (dhw's bold)

The history of life has produced countless life forms etc., some of which have evolved into the life forms etc. that exist today, while others have been dead ends that have ceased to evolve into anything. One theistic explanation for the dead ends (which you can’t explain) is that your God gave all life forms the ability to design their own means of survival. Some failed while others succeeded. They controlled their future and God wanted it that way. They were on their own by his choice.

DAVID: Please think! To evolve humans required 3.8 billion years and many necessary ecosystems along the way. The dead ends.

dhw: Please think! Dead ends do not lead anywhere and were NOT necessary if your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food!

DAVID: Still not thinking. We were evolved. How does evolution work unless ecosystems support it all along the way from 3.8 billion years ago? As organisms disappeared so did ecosystems.

Still not thinking. All life forms except the very first were evolved. Some ecosystems supported those life forms that eventually evolved into us and our current ecosystems (although you deny this – see below re the Cambrian). Other ecosystems and organisms (the vast majority) from 3.8 billion years ago did NOT evolve into us and our ecosystems, and yet you insist that your God designed them all as “absolute requirements” for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: You still don't like the idea God chose to evolve us. ..

dhw: I have no objection to the fact that we evolved, or to the theory that if God exists, he chose to evolve us! My objection is to the illogical theory bolded above, which you keep dodging! I have offered you three logical theistic alternatives to explain the facts of history, but you reject them on the grounds that they suggest human thought patterns different from those you want him to have.

DAVID: I have every right to criticize your form of God.

Of course. The reverse is also true. And I have every right to point out that your criticism is based solely on the fact that you endow your vision of God with different humanizing thought patterns from those that I propose.

DAVID: ...Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.

dhw: According to you, that is precisely what he did during the Cambrian Explosion, and you even go so far as to specify that we ourselves and the animals we eat descended from those life forms, which had no predecessors. Your view of the Cambrian completely contradicts your theory that every pre-Cambrian life form and ecosystem was “necessary” to produce us (plus our food).

DAVID: You don't understand the Cambrian shows the best evidence for a designer we have, other than the designed complexity of any living biochemistry.

I understand your use of your theory as evidence for the existence of God, and I understand your desire to divert attention from the contradiction I’ve just pointed out.

dhw: According to you, your God had only one purpose, and all his past actions were devoted to its fulfilment, although most of them did not lead to its fulfilment. That is tunnel vision, and his dead-end actions can only mean that he is a bumbler (or bungler) – i.e. he was confused and didn’t know what he was doing. I would not subscribe to such a derogatory view of your God, but apparently you do!

DAVID: Pure distortion. We are the final fulfillment of an evolutionary process.

We are the latest product of evolution. Who knows what will happen over the next few thousand million years? But this has nothing to do with the fact that your attack on my theories presents your own version of a tunnel-visioned God who bumbles along producing life forms that have no connection with what you believe is his purpose.

DAVID: Your muddled distortion of decrying ecosystems as dead ends when they are necessary to exist and then disappear as stages of evolution appear and then disappear is unreasonably illogical.

Past dead end systems were necessary for the life forms that depended on them, but they were not necessary for us and our ecosystems. I have generously left out your muddled pretence that this somehow means I don’t understand the importance of ecosystems and the manner in which we are destroying our own.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 22, 2022, 16:11 (523 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We have become dominant, and God knew that would happen. He gave us free will. Obviously, we control our future and God wanted it that way. We are on our own by His choice. (dhw's bold)

dhw: The history of life has produced countless life forms etc., some of which have evolved into the life forms etc. that exist today, while others have been dead ends that have ceased to evolve into anything. One theistic explanation for the dead ends (which you can’t explain) is that your God gave all life forms the ability to design their own means of survival. Some failed while others succeeded. They controlled their future and God wanted it that way. They were on their own by his choice.

I've explained the dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. My God maintains control of evolution, not your humanized God's free-for-all.


DAVID: Still not thinking. We were evolved. How does evolution work unless ecosystems support it all along the way from 3.8 billion years ago? As organisms disappeared so did ecosystems.

dhw: Still not thinking. All life forms except the very first were evolved. Some ecosystems supported those life forms that eventually evolved into us and our current ecosystems (although you deny this – see below re the Cambrian). Other ecosystems and organisms (the vast majority) from 3.8 billion years ago did NOT evolve into us and our ecosystems, and yet you insist that your God designed them all as “absolute requirements” for us and our ecosystems.

What I have colored red is your imagination at work. With the current human population size, everything evolved from the past became all the ecosystems present today and necessary for human survival.


DAVID: ...Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.

dhw: According to you, that is precisely what he did during the Cambrian Explosion, and you even go so far as to specify that we ourselves and the animals we eat descended from those life forms, which had no predecessors. Your view of the Cambrian completely contradicts your theory that every pre-Cambrian life form and ecosystem was “necessary” to produce us (plus our food).

DAVID: You don't understand the Cambrian shows the best evidence for a designer we have, other than the designed complexity of any living biochemistry.

dhw: I understand your use of your theory as evidence for the existence of God, and I understand your desire to divert attention from the contradiction I’ve just pointed out.

Not a contradiction. A designer creates a point where basic biochemistry and Earth's progressive evolution provide the necessary substrate to allow the gap. Note phosphorous levels in sea water:

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-solve-an-origin-of-life-mystery/

"Researchers from the Universities of Cambridge and Cape Town may have found a solution to the mystery of how phosphorus came to be an essential component of life on Earth by recreating prehistoric seawater containing the element in a laboratory.

"Their findings, which were published in the journal Nature Communications, suggest that seawater may be the missing source of phosphate, suggesting that it could have been present in sufficient quantities to support life without the need for particular environmental conditions."


DAVID: Your muddled distortion of decrying ecosystems as dead ends when they are necessary to exist and then disappear as stages of evolution appear and then disappear is unreasonably illogical.

dhw: Past dead end systems were necessary for the life forms that depended on them, but they were not necessary for us and our ecosystems. I have generously left out your muddled pretence that this somehow means I don’t understand the importance of ecosystems and the manner in which we are destroying our own.

What evolved became our necessary ecosystems of today. Your pretense is dead ends make my God a bumbling muddled mess. As your God theoretically manages evolution, He produce the same dead ends. All evolution produces dead ends, an intrinsic result.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 23, 2022, 11:52 (522 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've explained the dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. My God maintains control of evolution, not your humanized God's free-for-all.

Yet again: no longer necessary for what? The dead ends were NEVER necessary for what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose: H. sapiens and our food. See below. The free-for-all theory would explain the dead ends (as would experimentation and new ideas). You have no explanation, which is why you keep dodging the issue.

DAVID: Still not thinking. We were evolved. How does evolution work unless ecosystems support it all along the way from 3.8 billion years ago? As organisms disappeared so did ecosystems.

dhw: Still not thinking. All life forms except the very first were evolved. Some ecosystems supported those life forms that eventually evolved into us and our current ecosystems (although you deny this – see below re the Cambrian). Other ecosystems and organisms (the vast majority) from 3.8 billion years ago did NOT evolve into us and our ecosystems, and yet you insist that your God designed them all as “absolute requirements” for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: What I have colored red is your imagination at work. With the current human population size, everything evolved from the past became all the ecosystems present today and necessary for human survival.

More silly obfuscation. Yes, current ecosystems evolved from the past. But current ecosystems did not evolve from the dead ends of the past. If they had evolved from the dead ends, the dead ends would not have been dead. And you cannot explain why your God would have designed the dead ends which did NOT evolve into the ecosystems present today and necessary for our survival.

DAVID: ...Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.

dhw: According to you, that is precisely what he did during the Cambrian Explosion, and you even go so far as to specify that we ourselves and the animals we eat descended from those life forms, which had no predecessors. Your view of the Cambrian completely contradicts your theory that every pre-Cambrian life form and ecosystem was “necessary” to produce us (plus our food).

DAVID: You don't understand the Cambrian shows the best evidence for a designer we have, other than the designed complexity of any living biochemistry.

dhw: I understand your use of your theory as evidence for the existence of God, and I understand your desire to divert attention from the contradiction I’ve just pointed out.

DAVID: Not a contradiction. A designer creates a point where basic biochemistry and Earth's progressive evolution provide the necessary substrate to allow the gap. Note phosphorous levels in sea water…

How phosphorus came to be present does not explain why your God, whose one and only purpose - according to you - from the very beginning of life was to design us (plus our food), did not – according to you – even begin to design the first steps in our evolution until he had first designed countless organisms and ecosystems, throughout thousands of millions of years, that had no connection with us! Because according to you, we are descended from Cambrian organisms which had no predecessors. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Your pretense is dead ends make my God a bumbling muddled mess. As your God theoretically manages evolution, He produce the same dead ends. All evolution produces dead ends, an intrinsic result.

I don’t know how many evolutions of life you have experienced. We agree that there were dead ends, but you insist that your God specially designed them, although they had no connection with the only things he wanted to design (us and our food). You can’t explain why he would have done so, and that is how YOU make your God a bumbler. I offer alternative explanations for the dead ends (a free-for-all, experimentation, new ideas), all of which you agree are perfectly logical, but they do not conform to your fixed and inexplicable interpretation of your God’s purpose and method.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 23, 2022, 17:24 (522 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've explained the dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. My God maintains control of evolution, not your humanized God's free-for-all.

dhw: Yet again: no longer necessary for what?

Remember? All explained as ecosystems required for a given period/stage of evolution.

dhw: Still not thinking. All life forms except the very first were evolved. Some ecosystems supported those life forms that eventually evolved into us and our current ecosystems (although you deny this – see below re the Cambrian). Other ecosystems and organisms (the vast majority) from 3.8 billion years ago did NOT evolve into us and our ecosystems, and yet you insist that your God designed them all as “absolute requirements” for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: What I have colored red is your imagination at work. With the current human population size, everything evolved from the past became all the ecosystems present today and necessary for human survival.

dhw: More silly obfuscation. Yes, current ecosystems evolved from the past. But current ecosystems did not evolve from the dead ends of the past. If they had evolved from the dead ends, the dead ends would not have been dead. And you cannot explain why your God would have designed the dead ends which did NOT evolve into the ecosystems present today and necessary for our survival.

Yes, current ecosystems evolved from the past but not from dead ends which are no longer necessary since their usefulness is over as evolution moves on to new stages. Your straw man of dead ends is an irrational manufactured complaint distorting the very meaning of evolution.


DAVID: ...Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.

dhw: According to you, that is precisely what he did during the Cambrian Explosion, and you even go so far as to specify that we ourselves and the animals we eat descended from those life forms, which had no predecessors. Your view of the Cambrian completely contradicts your theory that every pre-Cambrian life form and ecosystem was “necessary” to produce us (plus our food).

DAVID: You don't understand the Cambrian shows the best evidence for a designer we have, other than the designed complexity of any living biochemistry.

dhw: I understand your use of your theory as evidence for the existence of God, and I understand your desire to divert attention from the contradiction I’ve just pointed out.

DAVID: Not a contradiction. A designer creates a point where basic biochemistry and Earth's progressive evolution provide the necessary substrate to allow the gap. Note phosphorous levels in sea water…

dhw: How phosphorus came to be present does not explain why your God, whose one and only purpose - according to you - from the very beginning of life was to design us (plus our food), did not – according to you – even begin to design the first steps in our evolution until he had first designed countless organisms and ecosystems, throughout thousands of millions of years, that had no connection with us! Because according to you, we are descended from Cambrian organisms which had no predecessors. Please stop dodging!

I've fully answered your illogical complaint. A designer God can create gaps is evolutionary progressions.


DAVID: Your pretense is dead ends make my God a bumbling muddled mess. As your God theoretically manages evolution, He produce the same dead ends. All evolution produces dead ends, an intrinsic result.

dhw: I don’t know how many evolutions of life you have experienced. We agree that there were dead ends, but you insist that your God specially designed them, although they had no connection with the only things he wanted to design (us and our food). You can’t explain why he would have done so, and that is how YOU make your God a bumbler. I offer alternative explanations for the dead ends (a free-for-all, experimentation, new ideas), all of which you agree are perfectly logical, but they do not conform to your fixed and inexplicable interpretation of your God’s purpose and method.

Yes, I have my God and you have your imagined humanized god.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 24, 2022, 13:38 (521 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've explained the dead ends as no longer necessary ecosystems. My God maintains control of evolution, not your humanized God's free-for-all.

dhw: Yet again: no longer necessary for what?

DAVID: Remember? All explained as ecosystems required for a given period/stage of evolution.

This is what I keep telling you, though in more precise terms: the dead-end systems (as opposed to those that led to us and our food) were required/necessary for past organisms, and by definition neither the organisms nor their ecosystems had any connection with current organisms and ecosystems. Therefore it makes no sense to claim that they were all “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. This is the bit you keep leaving out.

DAVID: Yes, current ecosystems evolved from the past but not from dead ends which are no longer necessary since their usefulness is over as evolution moves on to new stages. Your straw man of dead ends is an irrational manufactured complaint distorting the very meaning of evolution.

You’ve almost grasped the message, except that you will go on using words like “necessary” and “useful”, while leaving out what they were necessary and useful for. So let me repeat yet again: your theory is that ALL past organisms and ecosystems were necessary for the design of sapiens and our food. The dead-end ecosystems, however, were necessary for the dead-end organisms, but NOT for us and our food. The meaning of evolution is: “the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms” (Penguin Dictionary of Science). It most emphatically is NOT the process by which all past forms and ecosystems were specially designed by God as “absolute requirements” in preparation for Homo sapiens and his food.

DAVID: ...Fine. Let's imagine direct creation of humans. They must have food you'll agree. The giant bush of evolution would need to be produced in a Big Bang of immediate creation for the proper supporting ecosystem.

dhw: According to you, that is precisely what he did during the Cambrian Explosion, and you even go so far as to specify that we ourselves and the animals we eat descended from those life forms, which had no predecessors. Your view of the Cambrian completely contradicts your theory that every pre-Cambrian life form and ecosystem was “necessary” to produce us (plus our food).

DAVID: I've fully answered your illogical complaint. A designer God can create gaps is evolutionary progressions.

I agree. A designer God can do whatever he likes. That is why it makes no sense to tell us that from the very beginning, 3.8 thousand million years ago, all he wanted to design was us and our food, and yet he designed countless organisms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our food, and he didn’t even begin to design us until 500+ million years ago, when he designed our ancestors who had no predecessors!

DAVID: Your pretense is dead ends make my God a bumbling muddled mess. As your God theoretically manages evolution, He produce the same dead ends. All evolution produces dead ends, an intrinsic result.

dhw: I don’t know how many evolutions of life you have experienced. We agree that there were dead ends, but you insist that your God specially designed them, although they had no connection with the only things he wanted to design (us and our food). You can’t explain why he would have done so, and that is how YOU make your God a bumbler. I offer alternative explanations for the dead ends (a free-for-all, experimentation, new ideas), all of which you agree are perfectly logical, but they do not conform to your fixed and inexplicable interpretation of your God’s purpose and method.

DAVID: Yes, I have my God and you have your imagined humanized god.

Your imagined humanized God is such a bungler that you have to admit that your theories would only make sense to him, which means they do not make sense to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 24, 2022, 16:38 (521 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Remember? All explained as ecosystems required for a given period/stage of evolution.

dhw: This is what I keep telling you, though in more precise terms: the dead-end systems (as opposed to those that led to us and our food) were required/necessary for past organisms, and by definition neither the organisms nor their ecosystems had any connection with current organisms and ecosystems. Therefore it makes no sense to claim that they were all “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. This is the bit you keep leaving out.

If God chose to evolve us, then everything He did during the evolution of us was necessary in His eyes. Your logic is not God's logic.


DAVID: Yes, current ecosystems evolved from the past but not from dead ends which are no longer necessary since their usefulness is over as evolution moves on to new stages. Your straw man of dead ends is an irrational manufactured complaint distorting the very meaning of evolution.

dhw: You’ve almost grasped the message, except that you will go on using words like “necessary” and “useful”, while leaving out what they were necessary and useful for. So let me repeat yet again: your theory is that ALL past organisms and ecosystems were necessary for the design of sapiens and our food. The dead-end ecosystems, however, were necessary for the dead-end organisms, but NOT for us and our food. The meaning of evolution is: “the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms” (Penguin Dictionary of Science). It most emphatically is NOT the process by which all past forms and ecosystems were specially designed by God as “absolute requirements” in preparation for Homo sapiens and his food.

To repeat: If God chose to evolve us, then everything He did during the evolution of us was necessary in His eyes. Your logic is not God's logic.


DAVID: I've fully answered your illogical complaint. A designer God can create gaps is evolutionary progressions.

dhw: I agree. A designer God can do whatever he likes. That is why it makes no sense to tell us that from the very beginning, 3.8 thousand million years ago, all he wanted to design was us and our food, and yet he designed countless organisms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our food, and he didn’t even begin to design us until 500+ million years ago, when he designed our ancestors who had no predecessors!

You start with "A designer God can do whatever he likes." And then go on to complain about what He did. Still no logic on your part about a designer God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, October 25, 2022, 10:36 (521 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Remember? All explained as ecosystems required for a given period/stage of evolution.

dhw: This is what I keep telling you, though in more precise terms: the dead-end systems (as opposed to those that led to us and our food) were required/necessary for past organisms, and by definition neither the organisms nor their ecosystems had any connection with current organisms and ecosystems. Therefore it makes no sense to claim that they were all “absolute requirements” for us and our current ecosystems. This is the bit you keep leaving out.

DAVID: If God chose to evolve us, then everything He did during the evolution of us was necessary in His eyes. Your logic is not God's logic.

It should be obvious to you that dead ends which did not lead to us could not have been necessary for our evolution. Why do you keep harping on about necessity? Our starting point is purpose, and your theory has your God apparently saying: “I only want to create sapiens and his food and therefore it is necessary for me to create countless organisms and foods that are not necessary for my purpose.” And you think my alternatives (see below)– which you agree are logical - make him into a “bumbler”!

The Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: I've fully answered your illogical complaint. A designer God can create gaps is evolutionary progressions.

dhw: I agree. A designer God can do whatever he likes. That is why it makes no sense to tell us that from the very beginning, 3.8 thousand million years ago, all he wanted to design was us and our food, and yet he designed countless organisms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our food, and he didn’t even begin to design us until 500+ million years ago, when he designed our ancestors who had no predecessors!

DAVID: You start with "A designer God can do whatever he likes." And then go on to complain about what He did. Still no logic on your part about a designer God.

I am complaining about your interpretation of what he did and why he did it. I’ve dealt above with your illogical theory of “necessity”. Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)
You agree that all my alternative theistic explanations (a free-for-all, experimentation, an ongoing creative process in which your God enjoys working on new ideas) all make perfect sense, but you prefer your bumbling version to at least three which genuinely have your God doing what he likes.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 25, 2022, 16:33 (520 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If God chose to evolve us, then everything He did during the evolution of us was necessary in His eyes. Your logic is not God's logic.

dhw: It should be obvious to you that dead ends which did not lead to us could not have been necessary for our evolution. Why do you keep harping on about necessity? Our starting point is purpose, and your theory has your God apparently saying: “I only want to create sapiens and his food and therefore it is necessary for me to create countless organisms and foods that are not necessary for my purpose.” And you think my alternatives (see below)– which you agree are logical - make him into a “bumbler”!

It is obvious that in any evolutionary process as organisms disappear their supporting ecosystems will also disappear, creating what we are calling dead ends. You are creating a problem when there is none.


The Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: I've fully answered your illogical complaint. A designer God can create gaps is evolutionary progressions.

dhw: I agree. A designer God can do whatever he likes. That is why it makes no sense to tell us that from the very beginning, 3.8 thousand million years ago, all he wanted to design was us and our food, and yet he designed countless organisms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our food, and he didn’t even begin to design us until 500+ million years ago, when he designed our ancestors who had no predecessors!

DAVID: You start with "A designer God can do whatever he likes." And then go on to complain about what He did. Still no logic on your part about a designer God.

dhw: I am complaining about your interpretation of what he did and why he did it. I’ve dealt above with your illogical theory of “necessity”. Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)
You agree that all my alternative theistic explanations (a free-for-all, experimentation, an ongoing creative process in which your God enjoys working on new ideas) all make perfect sense, but you prefer your bumbling version to at least three which genuinely have your God doing what he likes.

The 'necessity' is logically explained above. Your humanized version of God does things that do make sense for Him, is not the God I accept. Again, you are complaining about God's direct creation ability, as shown in the Big Bang and starting life. The only explanation for His use of evolution is, it was His choice. It makes sense to me in that a huge human population requires a huge ecosystem provided by an evolved bush of life.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, October 26, 2022, 08:31 (520 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If God chose to evolve us, then everything He did during the evolution of us was necessary in His eyes. Your logic is not God's logic.

dhw: It should be obvious to you that dead ends which did not lead to us could not have been necessary for our evolution. Why do you keep harping on about necessity? Our starting point is purpose, and your theory has your God apparently saying: “I only want to create sapiens and his food and therefore it is necessary for me to create countless organisms and foods that are not necessary for my purpose.” And you think my alternatives (see below)– which you agree are logical - make him into a “bumbler”!

DAVID: It is obvious that in any evolutionary process as organisms disappear their supporting ecosystems will also disappear, creating what we are calling dead ends. You are creating a problem when there is none.

Yes, it is obvious, and it is no problem at all. The problem is your insistence that every one of those dead ends was necessary for your God’s fulfilment of what you say was his one and only purpose (to design us and our food), although by definition not one of them was necessary for the fulfilment of that purpose. Please stop this endless dodging.

The Cambrian Explosion

dhw: Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)

You agree that my alternative theistic explanations (a free-for-all, experimentation, an ongoing creative process in which your God enjoys working on new ideas) all make perfect sense, but you prefer your bumbling version to at least three which genuinely have your God doing what he likes.

DAVID: Your humanized version of God does things that do make sense for Him, is not the God I accept.

I know you don’t accept any of these explanations, although you agree that they provide logical explanations for the dead ends which you can’t explain.

DAVID: Again, you are complaining about God's direct creation ability, as shown in the Big Bang and starting life.

I am not complaining about your God’s ability. I have agreed with you that he could do anything he liked. I complain about your illogical reasoning that dead ends which did not lead to us plus food were necessary for us and our food. And I complain about your self- contradiction in the theory bolded above.

DAVID: The only explanation for His use of evolution is, it was His choice.

If he exists, of course it was his choice. But you insist that he only had one purpose, and you insist that he chose to fulfil that purpose by bumbling through countless actions that had nothing to do with that purpose. Why do you insist on your God being so incompetent? In my alternatives, he does what he wants to do.

DAVID: It makes sense to me in that a huge human population requires a huge ecosystem provided by an evolved bush of life.

Of course that makes sense. You have simply left out all the theories discussed above that make no sense at all. Please stop dodging.

Cannibalism

DAVID: Human caloric need on a daily basis is a vital concept. dhw belittles it in his arguments about God's necessary roles. Note how the author makes it a critical point in studying human behavior in reference to food supply.

Please stop pretending that I am an idiot. Do you really think I am unaware that humans, just like every other organism, need food? The fact that humans ate one another does not in any way justify your absurd theory that in order to fulfil his sole purpose of designing humans plus food, he found it “necessary” to design countless, now extinct dead-end life forms and foods that were not “necessary” for him to fulfil his sole purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 26, 2022, 15:28 (519 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is obvious that in any evolutionary process as organisms disappear their supporting ecosystems will also disappear, creating what we are calling dead ends. You are creating a problem when there is none.

dhw; Yes, it is obvious, and it is no problem at all. The problem is your insistence that every one of those dead ends was necessary for your God’s fulfilment of what you say was his one and only purpose (to design us and our food), although by definition not one of them was necessary for the fulfilment of that purpose. Please stop this endless dodging.

The way your argument is stated diminishes the food-need problem. See below for more discussion of the high calorie needs.


The Cambrian Explosion

dhw: Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)

It all comes back to the food-need issue. Starting many new phyla which ended at 37, provided the necessary bush of life, which formed the overall ecosystems that provide our current food supply needs. What God did makes perfect sense to me.


dhw: You agree that my alternative theistic explanations (a free-for-all, experimentation, an ongoing creative process in which your God enjoys working on new ideas) all make perfect sense, but you prefer your bumbling version to at least three which genuinely have your God doing what he likes.

DAVID: Your humanized version of God does things that do make sense for Him, is not the God I accept.

dhw: I know you don’t accept any of these explanations, although you agree that they provide logical explanations for the dead ends which you can’t explain.

You obviously don't agree with my clear explanations of dead ends in evolution, but don't distort the issue by stating I 'can't explain'.


DAVID: Again, you are complaining about God's direct creation ability, as shown in the Big Bang and starting life.

dhw: I am not complaining about your God’s ability. I have agreed with you that he could do anything he liked. I complain about your illogical reasoning that dead ends which did not lead to us plus food were necessary for us and our food. And I complain about your self- contradiction in the theory bolded above.

Your same garbled lack of understanding the enormity of the food-need problem.


DAVID: The only explanation for His use of evolution is, it was His choice.

dhw: If he exists, of course it was his choice. But you insist that he only had one purpose, and you insist that he chose to fulfil that purpose by bumbling through countless actions that had nothing to do with that purpose. Why do you insist on your God being so incompetent? In my alternatives, he does what he wants to do.

So does my God who chose to evolve us.


Cannibalism

DAVID: Human caloric need on a daily basis is a vital concept. dhw belittles it in his arguments about God's necessary roles. Note how the author makes it a critical point in studying human behavior in reference to food supply.

dhw: Please stop pretending that I am an idiot. Do you really think I am unaware that humans, just like every other organism, need food? The fact that humans ate one another does not in any way justify your absurd theory that in order to fulfil his sole purpose of designing humans plus food, he found it “necessary” to design countless, now extinct dead-end life forms and foods that were not “necessary” for him to fulfil his sole purpose.

All those dead ends supported the process of evolution. Without them evolution could not continue to advance. Your weird view of evolutionary food-needs is wildly skewed.

Return to David's theory of evolution; food need

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 26, 2022, 16:37 (519 days ago) @ David Turell

This is one of new approaches to improve plant production:

https://phys.org/news/2022-10-uv-to-red-growth-global-food-issues.html

"An interdisciplinary team from Hokkaido University's Engineering and Agriculture departments and the Institute for Chemical Reaction Design and Discovery (WPI-ICReDD) has developed a europium-based thin-film coating that they demonstrated accelerates both vegetal plant and tree growth. This technology can improve plant production speed and has the potential to help address global food supply issues.

"Plants convert visible light to energy via a process called photosynthesis. In addition to visible light, sunlight also contains ultraviolet (UV) light. Researchers in this study aimed to provide plants with additional visible light to use in photosynthesis by employing a wavelength-converting material (WCM) that can convert the UV light into red light.

"Researchers developed a WCM based on a europium complex and made a thin-film coating that can be applied to commercially available plastic sheets. They not only showed that the film converts UV light to red light, but also that the film does not block any of the beneficial visible light from the sun. The film was then tested by comparing plant growth using sheets with and without the WCM coating. Trials were performed for both Swiss chard, a vegetal plant, and Japanese larch trees.

"In summer, when days are long and sun irradiation is strong, no significant difference was observed for Swiss chard when using the WCM films. In winter, however, when days are shorter and sunlight is weaker, Swiss chard plants grown using the WCM films showed 1.2 times greater plant height and 1.4 times greater biomass after 63 days. Researchers attributed this accelerated growth to the increased supply of red light provided by the WCM films.

"In summer, when days are long and sun irradiation is strong, no significant difference was observed for Swiss chard when using the WCM films. In winter, however, when days are shorter and sunlight is weaker, Swiss chard plants grown using the WCM films showed 1.2 times greater plant height and 1.4 times greater biomass after 63 days. Researchers attributed this accelerated growth to the increased supply of red light provided by the WCM films.

"'By using a coating of wavelength-changing material, we were able to successfully create a transparent film and demonstrate its ability to accelerate plant growth," said Sunao Shoji, lead author of the study published in Scientific Reports.

"'By rationally designing the light-emitting ion, we can freely control the color of emitted light to be other colors like green or yellow, so we expect to be able to create wavelength converting films that are optimized for different plant types. This opens a large avenue of future development for next generation agricultural and forestry engineering.'"

Comment: one example of the necessary research that continues to improve our plant food supply. The science behind food production has resulted in the following result: fewer people in agriculture are producing more food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, October 27, 2022, 08:52 (519 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is obvious that in any evolutionary process as organisms disappear their supporting ecosystems will also disappear, creating what we are calling dead ends. You are creating a problem when there is none.
dhw: Yes, it is obvious, and it is no problem at all. The problem is your insistence that every one of those dead ends was necessary for your God’s fulfilment of what you say was his one and only purpose (to design us and our food), although by definition not one of them was necessary for the fulfilment of that purpose. Please stop this endless dodging.

DAVID: The way your argument is stated diminishes the food-need problem. See below for more discussion of the high calorie needs.

All forms of life need food, and some need more calories than others. How does this prove that for 3.X billion years your God specially designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, strategy as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, although the vast majority led neither to us nor to our food? Over and over again you have told us that we can’t know your God’s reasons. In other words, quite understandably, you can’t make any sense of your theory,

The Cambrian Explosion

dhw: Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)

DAVID: It all comes back to the food-need issue. Starting many new phyla which ended at 37, provided the necessary bush of life, which formed the overall ecosystems that provide our current food supply needs. What God did makes perfect sense to me.

So now you are telling us that 500+ million years ago your God created not only the human line of life, but also those of our foods, without any predecessors. So all the life forms etc that he designed before the Cambrian had no connection with us or with our food supplies! They were all dead ends. Once more, why would your God, who can do what he likes, have designed all those dead ends?

DAVID […]: You obviously don't agree with my clear explanations of dead ends in evolution, but don't distort the issue by stating I 'can't explain'.

You have not explained them. Most of the time you tell us they were necessary, but it turns out they were only necessary for the organisms which lived at that time. NOT for us and our food supply! In your own words: “past ecosystems fed past animals. With advances to new forms new ecosystems appeared and old ones faded away as dead ends.” A dead end leads nowhere – and your Cambrian theory tells us that all preceding life forms and ecosystems were irrelevant to the evolution of us and our food! […]

DAVID: All those dead ends supported the process of evolution. Without them evolution could not continue to advance. Your weird view of evolutionary food-needs is wildly skewed.

What do you mean by “supported the process of evolution”? Your argument has always been that the dead ends were “necessary” for your God to be able to design us and our food. If we and our food were his only purpose and he could do what he liked, then all that was “necessary” was the lines of evolution that did lead to us and our food, and according to you, these lines only began during the Cambrian! And even after that, you have never been able to explain why your God “had to” design the brontosaurus (not to mention the rest of the dinosaurs who ruled the earth for 180 million years), and you can’t explain why he had to design us in stages. It “makes sense only to God”. So maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong with your theories?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 27, 2022, 15:47 (518 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The way your argument is stated diminishes the food-need problem. See below for more discussion of the high calorie needs.

dhw: All forms of life need food, and some need more calories than others. How does this prove that for 3.X billion years your God specially designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, strategy as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, although the vast majority led neither to us nor to our food? Over and over again you have told us that we can’t know your God’s reasons. In other words, quite understandably, you can’t make any sense of your theory,

The fact that I cannot know God's reasons for evolving us does not keep me from intelligently analyzing the history. Long ago we agreed Darwin's sketch of a simple tree of life was really a giant bush. That giant bush is the current set of ecosystems for our food supply. All evolved by God's design


The Cambrian Explosion

dhw: Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)

DAVID: It all comes back to the food-need issue. Starting many new phyla which ended at 37, provided the necessary bush of life, which formed the overall ecosystems that provide our current food supply needs. What God did makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: So now you are telling us that 500+ million years ago your God created not only the human line of life, but also those of our foods, without any predecessors. So all the life forms etc that he designed before the Cambrian had no connection with us or with our food supplies! They were all dead ends. Once more, why would your God, who can do what he likes, have designed all those dead ends?

Previously explained: the substrate of evolutionary advances involves advancing biochemical complexity in living forms and environmental changes offering a better environment (for the Cambrian more oxygen) for more complex forms. Evolution is the present built from the past.


DAVID […]: You obviously don't agree with my clear explanations of dead ends in evolution, but don't distort the issue by stating I 'can't explain'.

dhw: You have not explained them. Most of the time you tell us they were necessary, but it turns out they were only necessary for the organisms which lived at that time. NOT for us and our food supply! In your own words: “past ecosystems fed past animals. With advances to new forms new ecosystems appeared and old ones faded away as dead ends.” A dead end leads nowhere – and your Cambrian theory tells us that all preceding life forms and ecosystems were irrelevant to the evolution of us and our food! […]

Your usual distortion of slicing up evolution into disconnected parts as answered above and also below:


DAVID: All those dead ends supported the process of evolution. Without them evolution could not continue to advance. Your weird view of evolutionary food-needs is wildly skewed.

dhw: What do you mean by “supported the process of evolution”? Your argument has always been that the dead ends were “necessary” for your God to be able to design us and our food. If we and our food were his only purpose and he could do what he liked, then all that was “necessary” was the lines of evolution that did lead to us and our food, and according to you, these lines only began during the Cambrian! And even after that, you have never been able to explain why your God “had to” design the brontosaurus (not to mention the rest of the dinosaurs who ruled the earth for 180 million years), and you can’t explain why he had to design us in stages. It “makes sense only to God”. So maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong with your theories?

What is wrong is your weird interpretation of the evolutionary process. No point repeating points from above.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, October 28, 2022, 12:35 (517 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: All forms of life need food, and some need more calories than others. How does this prove that for 3.X billion years your God specially designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, strategy as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, although the vast majority led neither to us nor to our food? Over and over again you have told us that we can’t know your God’s reasons. In other words, quite understandably, you can’t make any sense of your theory,

DAVID: The fact that I cannot know God's reasons for evolving us does not keep me from intelligently analyzing the history. Long ago we agreed Darwin's sketch of a simple tree of life was really a giant bush. That giant bush is the current set of ecosystems for our food
supply. All evolved by God's design.

You never stop dodging. The giant bush of life goes back approx 3.8 billion years. It included countless dead-end life forms and ecosystems which had no connection with the current giant bush of life forms and ecosystems, although you believe that the current giant bush was your God’s one and only purpose from the start of life. Your God’s reasons for evolving us refer to a different theory (leading to your inability to explain why he designed us in stages instead of directly). The question you can’t answer here is why for 3.X billion years he designed giant bushes of life, the vast majority of whose branches had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose.

The Cambrian Explosion

dhw: Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)

DAVID: It all comes back to the food-need issue. Starting many new phyla which ended at 37, provided the necessary bush of life, which formed the overall ecosystems that provide our current food supply needs. What God did makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: Now you are telling us that 500+ million years ago your God created not only the human line of life, but also those of our foods, without any predecessors. So all the life forms etc that he designed before the Cambrian had no connection with us or with our food supplies! They were all dead ends. Once more, why would your God, who can do what he likes, have designed all those dead ends?

DAVID: Previously explained: the substrate of evolutionary advances involves advancing biochemical complexity in living forms and environmental changes offering a better environment (for the Cambrian more oxygen) for more complex forms. Evolution is the present built from the past.

All very true, but this does not explain why an all-powerful God who knows what he wants (us plus food), and knows how to get it, decided first to specially design environments and organisms which had no connection with the only forms and environments he wanted to design. He might just as well have started life in the Cambrian, since you insist that he designed our whole bush of life forms without any predecessors. The rest of your post simply continues your effort to dodge your own admission that you can’t provide any answers, and your theories make sense only to God.

Food need (transferred from “More miscellany”:

QUOTE: This technology can improve plant production speed and has the potential to help address global food supply issues.

DAVID: one example of the necessary research that continues to improve our plant food supply. The science behind food production has resulted in the following result: fewer people in agriculture are producing more food.

dhw: The subject of farming techniques is a very controversial one which I would not dare to approach! I have a very close friend who lectures and has written several books on the subject of modern farming methods that interfere with Nature, which he believes are already causing irreparable damage to the soil on which we depend.

DAVID: Then you do understand the vital balance between our burgeoning population and food.

I have never questioned it. ALL life forms need food and ALL ecosystems have always needed “balance” in order for them to get it! But this article has nothing to do with your illogical theories of evolution. The subject here is a new farming technique!

DAVID: But then the God you view didn't. My God, in a proper interpretation, knew the human population would be eventually huge and need a huge bush of life, which He therefore, provided.

But you still can’t explain why your God would have designed huge bushes of life for 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our giant food bush. I do wish you would stop using obvious truths to divert attention away from the illogical sections of your theories,

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, October 28, 2022, 19:29 (517 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The fact that I cannot know God's reasons for evolving us does not keep me from intelligently analyzing the history. Long ago we agreed Darwin's sketch of a simple tree of life was really a giant bush. That giant bush is the current set of ecosystems for our food
supply. All evolved by God's design.

dhw: You never stop dodging. The giant bush of life goes back approx 3.8 billion years. It included countless dead-end life forms and ecosystems which had no connection with the current giant bush of life forms and ecosystems, although you believe that the current giant bush was your God’s one and only purpose from the start of life. Your God’s reasons for evolving us refer to a different theory (leading to your inability to explain why he designed us in stages instead of directly). The question you can’t answer here is why for 3.X billion years he designed giant bushes of life, the vast majority of whose branches had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose.

No one knows God's exact reasoning, but what happened makes good sense to me. You must first make the assumption God chose to evolve us which fit the history. We are the surprising result, if natural evolution is accepted. That is Adler's point: our amazing brain with its fully capable consciousness had to be a result of direct God activity, not nature. The giant bush was created for a purpose: our food. All very logical.


The Cambrian Explosion

dhw: Your theory that we are descended from Cambrian organisms that had no predecessors makes nonsense of your theory that your God’s purpose from the very beginning of life was to create us and our food. A God who can do whatever he likes would not have “had to” create all the unnecessary organisms and ecosystems prior to the Cambrian, and even you admit that it makes no sense that even after the Cambrian he went on to design us in stages. (You say your theory “makes sense only to God”.)

DAVID: It all comes back to the food-need issue. Starting many new phyla which ended at 37, provided the necessary bush of life, which formed the overall ecosystems that provide our current food supply needs. What God did makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: Now you are telling us that 500+ million years ago your God created not only the human line of life, but also those of our foods, without any predecessors. So all the life forms etc that he designed before the Cambrian had no connection with us or with our food supplies! They were all dead ends. Once more, why would your God, who can do what he likes, have designed all those dead ends?

DAVID: Previously explained: the substrate of evolutionary advances involves advancing biochemical complexity in living forms and environmental changes offering a better environment (for the Cambrian more oxygen) for more complex forms. Evolution is the present built from the past.

dhw: All very true, but this does not explain why an all-powerful God who knows what he wants (us plus food), and knows how to get it, decided first to specially design environments and organisms which had no connection with the only forms and environments he wanted to design. He might just as well have started life in the Cambrian, since you insist that he designed our whole bush of life forms without any predecessors. The rest of your post simply continues your effort to dodge your own admission that you can’t provide any answers, and your theories make sense only to God.

Same old problem. Allow God to choose His methodology. He doesn't think as you do, telling us how He could do it better. Stick with real history and result in real answers.


Food need (transferred from “More miscellany”:

QUOTE: This technology can improve plant production speed and has the potential to help address global food supply issues.

DAVID: Then you do understand the vital balance between our burgeoning population and food.

dhw: I have never questioned it. ALL life forms need food and ALL ecosystems have always needed “balance” in order for them to get it! But this article has nothing to do with your illogical theories of evolution. The subject here is a new farming technique!

Which provides a better necessary food supply!!


DAVID: But then the God you view didn't. My God, in a proper interpretation, knew the human population would be eventually huge and need a huge bush of life, which He therefore, provided.

dhw: But you still can’t explain why your God would have designed huge bushes of life for 3.X billion years’ worth of life forms, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our giant food bush. I do wish you would stop using obvious truths to divert attention away from the illogical sections of your theories,

Nothing illogical. Today's bush provides our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, October 29, 2022, 08:56 (517 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] The question you can’t answer here is why for 3.X billion years he designed giant bushes of life, the vast majority of whose branches had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose.

DAVID: No one knows God's exact reasoning, but what happened makes good sense to me. You must first make the assumption God chose to evolve us which fit the history.

If your God exists, your assumption is that he chose to evolve (by which you actually mean design) every single life form that ever existed, not to mention every ecosystem, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder!

DAVID: We are the surprising result, if natural evolution is accepted. That is Adler's point: our amazing brain with its fully capable consciousness had to be a result of direct God activity, not nature.

The whole design argument is based on the principle that ALL life forms are too complex to have been the result of what you call “natural” evolution. Are you now telling us that, for instance, the brontosaurus was NOT a surprising result if “natural” evolution was accepted? But you are yet again deliberately pretending that the issue here is the existence of your God as designer in order to dodge the bolded question at the start of this post, which you can’t answer. This dodging game is getting tiresome!

DAVID: The giant bush was created for a purpose: our food. All very logical.
And later: .
DAVID: Today's bush provides our food.

I doubt if anyone would disagree with your observation that today's food supply supplies us with food. You are on safe ground. Now please explain why your God would have designed all the dead ends of past giant food bushes which had no connection with us and our food, although you insist that they were all “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food.

The Cambrian Explosion

DAVID: Starting many new phyla which ended at 37, provided the necessary bush of life, which formed the overall ecosystems that provide our current food supply needs. What God did makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: Now you are telling us that 500+ million years ago your God created not only the human line of life, but also those of our foods, without any predecessors. So all the life forms etc that he designed before the Cambrian had no connection with us or with our food supplies! They were all dead ends. Once more, why would your God, who can do what he likes, have designed all those dead ends?

DAVID: Previously explained: the substrate of evolutionary advances involves advancing biochemical complexity in living forms and environmental changes offering a better environment (for the Cambrian more oxygen) for more complex forms. Evolution is the present built from the past.

dhw: All very true, but this does not explain why an all-powerful God who knows what he wants (us plus food), and knows how to get it, decided first to specially design environments and organisms which had no connection with the only forms and environments he wanted to design. He might just as well have started life in the Cambrian, since you insist that he designed our whole bush of life forms without any predecessors. […]

DAVID: Same old problem. Allow God to choose His methodology. He doesn't think as you do, telling us how He could do it better. Stick with real history and result in real answers.

It is not “real history” that your God exists, that if he does, his sole purpose from the beginning was to design us and our food, or that he designed the countless forms of life and food which had no connection with us. Your personal opinions then become totally illogical if you also believe that after 3.x billion years, he started all over again with a collection of brand new life forms and foods without predecessors, some of which (but not all) eventually led to us. Why would your all-powerful God have created all those dead ends if he was planning to start afresh in the Cambrian? You can find no explanation, but you go on pretending that you know your God’s thoughts! By contrast, you have accepted that all my alternatives do fit in with “real history”, but they do not agree with your personal interpretation of your God’s thoughts.

Food need (transferred from “More miscellany”):

QUOTE: This technology can improve plant production speed and has the potential to help address global food supply issues.

DAVID: Then you do understand the vital balance between our burgeoning population and food.

dhw: I have never questioned it. ALL life forms need food and ALL ecosystems have always needed “balance” in order for them to get it! But this article has nothing to do with your illogical theories of evolution. The subject here is a new farming technique!

DAVID: Which provides a better necessary food supply!!

That remains to be seen. Meanwhile, please stop trying to equate our obvious need for food with the issue of why your God would act in ways which you impose on him and which you yourself cannot understand.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 29, 2022, 17:09 (516 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If your God exists, your assumption is that he chose to evolve (by which you actually mean design) every single life form that ever existed, not to mention every ecosystem, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder!


DAVID: We are the surprising result, if natural evolution is accepted. That is Adler's point: our amazing brain with its fully capable consciousness had to be a result of direct God activity, not nature.

dhw: The whole design argument is based on the principle that ALL life forms are too complex to have been the result of what you call “natural” evolution. Are you now telling us that, for instance, the brontosaurus was NOT a surprising result if “natural” evolution was accepted?

The form of the brontosaurus is not the surprise issue. It is our brain!!!

dhw: But you are yet again deliberately pretending that the issue here is the existence of your God as designer in order to dodge the bolded question at the start of this post, which you can’t answer. This dodging game is getting tiresome!

Same old answer: God as the designer CHOSE TO evolve us. God has the right to create by any method He wishes.


DAVID: Today's bush provides our food.

dhw: I doubt if anyone would disagree with your observation that today's food supply supplies us with food. You are on safe ground. Now please explain why your God would have designed all the dead ends of past giant food bushes which had no connection with us and our food, although you insist that they were all “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food.

Full explained as supporting ecosystems no longer needed.


The Cambrian Explosion

dhw: All very true, but this does not explain why an all-powerful God who knows what he wants (us plus food), and knows how to get it, decided first to specially design environments and organisms which had no connection with the only forms and environments he wanted to design. He might just as well have started life in the Cambrian, since you insist that he designed our whole bush of life forms without any predecessors. […]

DAVID: Same old problem. Allow God to choose His methodology. He doesn't think as you do, telling us how He could do it better. Stick with real history and result in real answers.

dhw: It is not “real history” that your God exists, that if he does, his sole purpose from the beginning was to design us and our food, or that he designed the countless forms of life and food which had no connection with us. Your personal opinions then become totally illogical if you also believe that after 3.x billion years, he started all over again with a collection of brand new life forms and foods without predecessors, some of which (but not all) eventually led to us. Why would your all-powerful God have created all those dead ends if he was planning to start afresh in the Cambrian?

Prior biochemical systems development and a changing/evolving Earth environment (i.e., more oxygen) set the stage for the Cambrian. Dead ends were necessary: "Full explained as supporting ecosystems no longer needed."


Food need (transferred from “More miscellany”):

dhw: I have never questioned it. ALL life forms need food and ALL ecosystems have always needed “balance” in order for them to get it! But this article has nothing to do with your illogical theories of evolution. The subject here is a new farming technique!

DAVID: Which provides a better necessary food supply!!

dhw: That remains to be seen. Meanwhile, please stop trying to equate our obvious need for food with the issue of why your God would act in ways which you impose on him and which you yourself cannot understand.

I impose nothing on God!! I view the history, we analyze, as God created. In that way I have full understanding based on assuming God chose this method.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, October 30, 2022, 08:22 (516 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] The question you can’t answer here is why for 3.X billion years he designed giant bushes of life, the vast majority of whose branches had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose. […]

DAVID: […] We are the surprising result, if natural evolution is accepted. That is Adler's point: our amazing brain with its fully capable consciousness had to be a result of direct God activity, not nature.

dhw: The whole design argument is based on the principle that ALL life forms are too complex to have been the result of what you call “natural” evolution. Are you now telling us that, for instance, the brontosaurus was NOT a surprising result if “natural” evolution was accepted?

DAVID: The form of the brontosaurus is not the surprise issue. It is our brain!!!

So if by “naturally” you mean that your God did not design it, you are not surprised that the brontosaurus evolved naturally, and yet you insist that your God designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder! Birds can’t even migrate “naturally” and possums can’t even feign death “naturally” – that would be too “surprising” for you!

dhw: But you are yet again deliberately pretending that the issue here is the existence of your God as designer in order to dodge the bolded question at the start of this post, which you can’t answer. This dodging game is getting tiresome!

DAVID: Same old answer: God as the designer CHOSE TO evolve us. God has the right to create by any method He wishes.

Same old dodge. If God exists, he chose evolution as the process by which ALL life forms except the very first came into being. Yes, of course he has the right to create by any method he wishes. But that does not mean he chose the absurdly illogical method described in the bolded question above which you keep dodging.

DAVID: Today's bush provides our food.

dhw: I doubt if anyone would disagree with your observation that today's food supply supplies us with food. You are on safe ground. Now please explain why your God would have designed all the dead ends of past giant food bushes which had no connection with us and our food, although you insist that they were all “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food.

DAVID: Full explained as supporting ecosystems no longer needed.

No longer needed for what? If they had no connection with us and our food, they were never needed for us and our food! You offer the same non-argument to defend your theory that all life forms and econiches that preceded the Cambrian were necessary for your God to design us and our food, although we and our food sprang from life forms that had no predecessors.

The Cambrian Explosion

dhw [...] Why would your all-powerful God have created all those dead ends if he was planning to start afresh in the Cambrian?

DAVID: Prior biochemical systems development and a changing/evolving Earth environment (i.e., more oxygen) set the stage for the Cambrian. Dead ends were necessary: "Full explained as supporting ecosystems no longer needed."

Full circle: they were NEVER needed for the creation of us and our food if we and our food are descended from ancestors designed WITHOUT ANY PREDECESSORS during the Cambrian. There was no need for any pre-Cambrian life at all if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food from scratch during the Cambrian!

Food need

dhw: …please stop trying to equate our obvious need for food with the issue of why your God would act in ways which you impose on him and which you yourself cannot understand.

DAVID: I impose nothing on God!! I view the history, we analyze, as God created. In that way I have full understanding based on assuming God chose this method.

But your assumption that in order to design sapiens and food, your God chose to design countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food, makes no sense. That is why you keep dodging the bolded question at the start of this post.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 30, 2022, 17:02 (515 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] The question you can’t answer here is why for 3.X billion years he designed giant bushes of life, the vast majority of whose branches had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose. […]

DAVID: […] We are the surprising result, if natural evolution is accepted. That is Adler's point: our amazing brain with its fully capable consciousness had to be a result of direct God activity, not nature.

dhw: The whole design argument is based on the principle that ALL life forms are too complex to have been the result of what you call “natural” evolution. Are you now telling us that, for instance, the brontosaurus was NOT a surprising result if “natural” evolution was accepted?

DAVID: The form of the brontosaurus is not the surprise issue. It is our brain!!!

dhw: So if by “naturally” you mean that your God did not design it, you are not surprised that the brontosaurus evolved naturally, and yet you insist that your God designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder! Birds can’t even migrate “naturally” and possums can’t even feign death “naturally” – that would be too “surprising” for you!

Total misinterpretation: Your misinterpretation comes from your diminished view of the human brain. Our brain is Adler's proof of God who designed all.

dhw: Same old dodge. If God exists, he chose evolution as the process by which ALL life forms except the very first came into being. Yes, of course he has the right to create by any method he wishes. But that does not mean he chose the absurdly illogical method described in the bolded question above which you keep dodging.

My dodge is my interpretation of the history of evolution as created by God. We are here and from the round-about method you criticize. God wanted us here as the endpoint of evolution


DAVID: Today's bush provides our food.

dhw: I doubt if anyone would disagree with your observation that today's food supply supplies us with food. You are on safe ground. Now please explain why your God would have designed all the dead ends of past giant food bushes which had no connection with us and our food, although you insist that they were all “absolute requirements” in preparation for us and our food.

DAVID: Full explained as supporting ecosystems no longer needed.

dhw: No longer needed for what? If they had no connection with us and our food, they were never needed for us and our food!

They were needed to support earlier stages of evolution which led to us. Stop slicing up evolution in to separate unrelated epochs.


The Cambrian Explosion

dhw [...] Why would your all-powerful God have created all those dead ends if he was planning to start afresh in the Cambrian?

DAVID: Prior biochemical systems development and a changing/evolving Earth environment (i.e., more oxygen) set the stage for the Cambrian. Dead ends were necessary: "Full explained as supporting ecosystems no longer needed."

dhw: Full circle: they were NEVER needed for the creation of us and our food if we and our food are descended from ancestors designed WITHOUT ANY PREDECESSORS during the Cambrian. There was no need for any pre-Cambrian life at all if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food from scratch during the Cambrian!

You cannot deny that prior biochemical systems development and a changing/evolving Earth environment (i.e., more oxygen) set the stage for the Cambrian.


Food need

dhw: …please stop trying to equate our obvious need for food with the issue of why your God would act in ways which you impose on him and which you yourself cannot understand.

DAVID: I impose nothing on God!! I view the history, we analyze, as God created. In that way I have full understanding based on assuming God chose this method.

dhw: But your assumption that in order to design sapiens and food, your God chose to design countless life forms and econiches that had no connection with sapiens plus food, makes no sense. That is why you keep dodging the bolded question at the start of this post.

From above: My dodge is my interpretation of the history of evolution as created by God. We are here and from the round-about method you criticize. God wanted us here as the endpoint of evolution, when you accept God is in charge. Obvious as a believer.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, October 31, 2022, 11:24 (514 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] The question you can’t answer here is why for 3.X billion years he designed giant bushes of life, the vast majority of whose branches had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose. […]

DAVID: […] We are the surprising result, if natural evolution is accepted. That is Adler's point: our amazing brain with its fully capable consciousness had to be a result of direct God activity, not nature.

dhw: The whole design argument is based on the principle that ALL life forms are too complex to have been the result of what you call “natural” evolution. Are you now telling us that, for instance, the brontosaurus was NOT a surprising result if “natural” evolution was accepted?

DAVID: The form of the brontosaurus is not the surprise issue. It is our brain!!!

dhw: So if by “naturally” you mean that your God did not design it, you are not surprised that the brontosaurus evolved naturally, and yet you insist that your God designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder! Birds can’t even migrate “naturally” and possums can’t even feign death “naturally” – that would be too “surprising” for you!

DAVID: Total misinterpretation: Your misinterpretation comes from your diminished view of the human brain. Our brain is Adler's proof of God who designed all.

There is no “diminished view” of our brain! Do you or do you not believe that the complexities of ALL life forms are such that they provide evidence for God the designer? In any case, yet again you have switched the subject from why your God designed all the dead ends, if all he wanted was us and our food, to our brilliant brains proving God’s existence. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: My dodge is my interpretation of the history of evolution as created by God. We are here and from the round-about method you criticize. God wanted us here as the endpoint of evolution.

Even if he did want us as the “endpoint”, you insist that all the dead ends he designed were “necessary” for us and our food although they had no connection with us or our food. That makes no sense. If all he wanted was us and our food, then all that was “necessary” was the lines of life that would lead to us and our food. But according to you, those lines only began in the Cambrian, and even then they did not all lead to us or our food!

DAVID: You cannot deny that prior biochemical systems development and a changing/evolving Earth environment (i.e., more oxygen) set the stage for the Cambrian.

Of course I’m not denying it! I see the history of life as a continuous sequence of changing environments that triggered the innovations and the constant comings and goings of countless life forms and ecosystems, the vast majority of which did not lead to us and our ecosystems. If God exists, I see this constantly changing history as the result of what he wanted, and I assume that he would not have been forced to do anything he didn’t want to do. You can’t understand why, if we plus our food were his only purpose right from the start, he "had to" or "chose to" - your verbs vary from post to post - “evolve” [= design] us by “evolving” [= designing] all the life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us, or why he had to/chose to “evolve” [= design] us in stages. You reject the three logical, theistic alternative explanations of history that I have proposed, and prefer to cling to your own non-explanation (these theories “make sense only to God”.) So be it. I think we have reached a “dead end”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, October 31, 2022, 15:30 (514 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The form of the brontosaurus is not the surprise issue. It is our brain!!!

dhw: So if by “naturally” you mean that your God did not design it, you are not surprised that the brontosaurus evolved naturally, and yet you insist that your God designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder! Birds can’t even migrate “naturally” and possums can’t even feign death “naturally” – that would be too “surprising” for you!

DAVID: Total misinterpretation: Your misinterpretation comes from your diminished view of the human brain. Our brain is Adler's proof of God who designed all.

dhw: There is no “diminished view” of our brain! Do you or do you not believe that the complexities of ALL life forms are such that they provide evidence for God the designer? In any case, yet again you have switched the subject from why your God designed all the dead ends, if all he wanted was us and our food, to our brilliant brains proving God’s existence. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: My dodge is my interpretation of the history of evolution as created by God. We are here and from the round-about method you criticize. God wanted us here as the endpoint of evolution.

hw: Even if he did want us as the “endpoint”, you insist that all the dead ends he designed were “necessary” for us and our food although they had no connection with us or our food. That makes no sense. If all he wanted was us and our food, then all that was “necessary” was the lines of life that would lead to us and our food. But according to you, those lines only began in the Cambrian, and even then they did not all lead to us or our food!

There are two early vertebrate forms in the Cambrian that lead to us and many of the animals that feed us, along with other animal forms that now fed us. Ones that do not feed us directly support ecosystems that do supply our food.


DAVID: You cannot deny that prior biochemical systems development and a changing/evolving Earth environment (i.e., more oxygen) set the stage for the Cambrian.

dhw: Of course I’m not denying it! I see the history of life as a continuous sequence of changing environments that triggered the innovations and the constant comings and goings of countless life forms and ecosystems, the vast majority of which did not lead to us and our ecosystems. If God exists, I see this constantly changing history as the result of what he wanted, and I assume that he would not have been forced to do anything he didn’t want to do. You can’t understand why, if we plus our food were his only purpose right from the start, he "had to" or "chose to" - your verbs vary from post to post - “evolve” [= design] us by “evolving” [= designing] all the life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us, or why he had to/chose to “evolve” [= design] us in stages. You reject the three logical, theistic alternative explanations of history that I have proposed, and prefer to cling to your own non-explanation (these theories “make sense only to God”.) So be it. I think we have reached a “dead end”.

We can end by agreeing with this piece of your statement: "If God exists, I see this constantly changing history as the result of what he wanted, and I assume that he would not have been forced to do anything he didn’t want to do." Our further views differ widely. So be it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, November 01, 2022, 10:59 (513 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The form of the brontosaurus is not the surprise issue. It is our brain!!!

dhw: So if by “naturally” you mean that your God did not design it, you are not surprised that the brontosaurus evolved naturally, and yet you insist that your God designed every life form, econiche, lifestyle, strategy and natural wonder! Birds can’t even migrate “naturally” and possums can’t even feign death “naturally” – that would be too “surprising” for you!

DAVID: Total misinterpretation: Your misinterpretation comes from your diminished view of the human brain. Our brain is Adler's proof of God who designed all.

dhw: There is no “diminished view” of our brain! Do you or do you not believe that the complexities of ALL life forms are such that they provide evidence for God the designer? In any case, yet again you have switched the subject from why your God designed all the dead ends, if all he wanted was us and our food, to our brilliant brains proving God’s existence. Please stop dodging! (See your response after the parentheses,)


(((An enzyme controls growth and Dumping cell waste and Protein folding
The following comment is applicable to all three posts:

DAVID Same old point: this must be a designed mechanism because of the complexity of the enzyme molecule and the feed-back controls.

I mention this only because you keep harping on about the unique design of the human brain as evidence for God’s existence, but at the same time you use even the tiniest complexities of life as evidence for the existence of God the designer. The argument for design has no relevance to the theory that every dead-end organ and organism that ever existed was an “absolute requirement” for us, our unique brain and our food supply.)))

DAVID: My dodge is my interpretation of the history of evolution as created by God. We are here and from the round-about method you criticize. God wanted us here as the endpoint of evolution.

dhw: Even if he did want us as the “endpoint”, you insist that all the dead ends he designed were “necessary” for us and our food although they had no connection with us or our food. That makes no sense. If all he wanted was us and our food, then all that was “necessary” was the lines of life that would lead to us and our food. But according to you, those lines only began in the Cambrian, and even then they did not all lead to us or our food!

DAVID: There are two early vertebrate forms in the Cambrian that lead to us and many of the animals that feed us, along with other animal forms that now fed us. Ones that do not feed us directly support ecosystems that do supply our food.

Thank you for partially confirming my point that your God began the process of designing us and our ecosystems from scratch in the Cambrian, which clearly means that all the life forms and ecosystems he designed during the 3+ billion years that preceded the Cambrian were unnecessary if his one and only aim was to create us and our ecosystems. But even then, I would still like to know why the brontosaurus and its ecosystem had to be specially designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems.

DAVID: You cannot deny that prior biochemical systems development and a changing/evolving Earth environment (i.e., more oxygen) set the stage for the Cambrian.

dhw: Of course I’m not denying it! I see the history of life as a continuous sequence of changing environments that triggered the innovations and the constant comings and goings of countless life forms and ecosystems, the vast majority of which did not lead to us and our ecosystems. If God exists, I see this constantly changing history as the result of what he wanted, and I assume that he would not have been forced to do anything he didn’t want to do. You can’t understand why, if we plus our food were his only purpose right from the start, he "had to" or "chose to" - your verbs vary from post to post - “evolve” [= design] us by “evolving” [= designing] all the life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us, or why he had to/chose to “evolve” [= design] us in stages. You reject the three logical, theistic alternative explanations of history that I have proposed, and prefer to cling to your own non-explanation (these theories “make sense only to God”.) So be it. I think we have reached a “dead end”.

DAVID: We can end by agreeing with this piece of your statement: "If God exists, I see this constantly changing history as the result of what he wanted, and I assume that he would not have been forced to do anything he didn’t want to do." Our further views differ widely. So be it.

It remains to be seen whether you can refrain from repeating your illogical theories! (Certain items under “More miscellany” suggest that you can’t or won’t!) :-|

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 01, 2022, 16:39 (513 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Total misinterpretation: Your misinterpretation comes from your diminished view of the human brain. Our brain is Adler's proof of God who designed all.

dhw: There is no “diminished view” of our brain! Do you or do you not believe that the complexities of ALL life forms are such that they provide evidence for God the designer? In any case, yet again you have switched the subject from why your God designed all the dead ends, if all he wanted was us and our food, to our brilliant brains proving God’s existence. Please stop dodging! (See your response after the parentheses,)>

(((An enzyme controls growth and Dumping cell waste and Protein folding
The following comment is applicable to all three posts:

DAVID Same old point: this must be a designed mechanism because of the complexity of the enzyme molecule and the feed-back controls.

dhw: I mention this only because you keep harping on about the unique design of the human brain as evidence for God’s existence, but at the same time you use even the tiniest complexities of life as evidence for the existence of God the designer. The argument for design has no relevance to the theory that every dead-end organ and organism that ever existed was an “absolute requirement” for us, our unique brain and our food supply.)))

The dead ends we have discussed are ecosystems that supplied necessary food at the time of their existence not what I have bolded above. Evolution could not have continued without them. All evolutionary processes have dead ends. God produced His designed evolution to contain what He wished.


DAVID: My dodge is my interpretation of the history of evolution as created by God. We are here and from the round-about method you criticize. God wanted us here as the endpoint of evolution.

dhw: Even if he did want us as the “endpoint”, you insist that all the dead ends he designed were “necessary” for us and our food although they had no connection with us or our food. That makes no sense. If all he wanted was us and our food, then all that was “necessary” was the lines of life that would lead to us and our food. But according to you, those lines only began in the Cambrian, and even then they did not all lead to us or our food!

DAVID: There are two early vertebrate forms in the Cambrian that lead to us and many of the animals that feed us, along with other animal forms that now fed us. Ones that do not feed us directly support ecosystems that do supply our food.

dhw: Thank you for partially confirming my point that your God began the process of designing us and our ecosystems from scratch in the Cambrian, which clearly means that all the life forms and ecosystems he designed during the 3+ billion years that preceded the Cambrian were unnecessary if his one and only aim was to create us and our ecosystems. But even then, I would still like to know why the brontosaurus and its ecosystem had to be specially designed as an “absolute requirement” in preparation for us and our ecosystems.

You have forgotten my point: all the Cambrian-preceding design went into developing advanced biochemical systems and evolving the Earth, such as land continents and more oxygen.


DAVID: You cannot deny that prior biochemical systems development and a changing/evolving Earth environment (i.e., more oxygen) set the stage for the Cambrian.

dhw: Of course I’m not denying it! I see the history of life as a continuous sequence of changing environments that triggered the innovations and the constant comings and goings of countless life forms and ecosystems, the vast majority of which did not lead to us and our ecosystems. If God exists, I see this constantly changing history as the result of what he wanted, and I assume that he would not have been forced to do anything he didn’t want to do. You can’t understand why, if we plus our food were his only purpose right from the start, he "had to" or "chose to" - your verbs vary from post to post - “evolve” [= design] us by “evolving” [= designing] all the life forms and ecosystems that did not lead to us, or why he had to/chose to “evolve” [= design] us in stages. You reject the three logical, theistic alternative explanations of history that I have proposed, and prefer to cling to your own non-explanation (these theories “make sense only to God”.) So be it. I think we have reached a “dead end”.

DAVID: We can end by agreeing with this piece of your statement: "If God exists, I see this constantly changing history as the result of what he wanted, and I assume that he would not have been forced to do anything he didn’t want to do." Our further views differ widely. So be it.

dhw: It remains to be seen whether you can refrain from repeating your illogical theories! (Certain items under “More miscellany” suggest that you can’t or won’t!) :-|

I'm here to represent God with God theories you don't accept.:-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, November 02, 2022, 11:14 (512 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The argument for design has no relevance to the theory that every dead-end organ and organism that ever existed was an “absolute requirement” for us, our unique brain and our food supply.)))

DAVID:The dead ends we have discussed are ecosystems that supplied necessary food at the time of their existence not what I have bolded above.

If I’ve understood you correctly, you are once more agreeing that the dead ends had nothing to do with your God’s one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food supplies, in contrast to other times in this discussion when you have insisted that every one was an “”absolute requirement” for us and our food. We are making progress, at least until you change your mind again.

DAVID: Evolution could not have continued without them.

Why not? According to you, the evolution of us and our food supplies did not begin until the
Cambrian, and the relevant species arrived without any predecessors, after which they "evolved" into us and our food (plus lots more dead ends)!

DAVID: All evolutionary processes have dead ends. God produced His designed evolution to contain what He wished.

How many evolutions of life do you know about? Of course if God exists he would have designed what he wished to design. What doesn’t make sense is that according to you, he only wished to design the life forms and foods which began during the Cambrian, and even then he designed organisms and foods which did not lead to us and our food! But if you agree that we and our food were NOT his one and only purpose (you frequently mention plural purposes – see under “toxoplasma” on the other thread – only to revert back to preparations for us and our food), then new windows will open to let in a bit more light on the actual history of life on Earth and a possible God’s other possible purposes and methods.

DAVID: […] all the Cambrian-preceding design went into developing advanced biochemical systems and evolving the Earth, such as land continents and more oxygen.

Why did he have to develop advanced biochemical systems if his sole purpose was to design us and our food and he began that process by designing the initial advanced forms from scratch, without any predecessors? And why, even then, did he have to design the brontosaurus before designing us and our ancestors? And if he was unable to design us and our food supplies until he’d fiddled with continents and different amounts of oxygen, why didn’t he just wait until they were ready? Same again: why design all the unnecessary dead end life forms and ecosystems before and even after the Cambrian?

DAVID: We can end by agreeing with this piece of your statement: "If God exists, I see this constantly changing history as the result of what he wanted, and I assume that he would not have been forced to do anything he didn’t want to do." Our further views differ widely. So be it.

dhw: It remains to be seen whether you can refrain from repeating your illogical theories! (Certain items under “More miscellany” suggest that you can’t or won’t!)

DAVID: I'm here to represent God with God theories you don't accept.

I’m here to represent those of us who are unable to fix on any explanation of life’s major mysteries, and to examine the reasonableness of whatever explanations are on offer. If I may say so, you are doing a great job representing the theory that there is/was a designer (a possible God), but you are tying yourself in knots with your theories about his purpose and methods of achieving that purpose!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 02, 2022, 14:21 (512 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:The dead ends we have discussed are ecosystems that supplied necessary food at the time of their existence not what I have bolded above.

dhw: If I’ve understood you correctly, you are once more agreeing that the dead ends had nothing to do with your God’s one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food supplies, in contrast to other times in this discussion when you have insisted that every one was an “”absolute requirement” for us and our food. We are making progress, at least until you change your mind again.

DAVID: Evolution could not have continued without them.

dhw: Why not? According to you, the evolution of us and our food supplies did not begin until the
Cambrian, and the relevant species arrived without any predecessors, after which they "evolved" into us and our food (plus lots more dead ends)!

Evolution started before the Cambrian.


DAVID: All evolutionary processes have dead ends. God produced His designed evolution to contain what He wished.

dhw: How many evolutions of life do you know about? Of course if God exists he would have designed what he wished to design. What doesn’t make sense is that according to you, he only wished to design the life forms and foods which began during the Cambrian, and even then he designed organisms and foods which did not lead to us and our food! But if you agree that we and our food were NOT his one and only purpose (you frequently mention plural purposes – see under “toxoplasma” on the other thread – only to revert back to preparations for us and our food), then new windows will open to let in a bit more light on the actual history of life on Earth and a possible God’s other possible purposes and methods.

DAVID: […] all the Cambrian-preceding design went into developing advanced biochemical systems and evolving the Earth, such as land continents and more oxygen.

dhw: Why did he have to develop advanced biochemical systems if his sole purpose was to design us and our food and he began that process by designing the initial advanced forms from scratch, without any predecessors? And why, even then, did he have to design the brontosaurus before designing us and our ancestors? And if he was unable to design us and our food supplies until he’d fiddled with continents and different amounts of oxygen, why didn’t he just wait until they were ready? Same again: why design all the unnecessary dead end life forms and ecosystems before and even after the Cambrian?

Simple usual answer: remember, my theory is 'God decided to evolve humans from Archaea?


DAVID: We can end by agreeing with this piece of your statement: "If God exists, I see this constantly changing history as the result of what he wanted, and I assume that he would not have been forced to do anything he didn’t want to do." Our further views differ widely. So be it.

dhw: It remains to be seen whether you can refrain from repeating your illogical theories! (Certain items under “More miscellany” suggest that you can’t or won’t!)

DAVID: I'm here to represent God with God theories you don't accept.

dhw: I’m here to represent those of us who are unable to fix on any explanation of life’s major mysteries, and to examine the reasonableness of whatever explanations are on offer. If I may say so, you are doing a great job representing the theory that there is/was a designer (a possible God), but you are tying yourself in knots with your theories about his purpose and methods of achieving that purpose!

Same answer. With God is charge, He chose to evolve us from Archaea, well before the Cambrian gap aoppeard.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, November 03, 2022, 08:26 (512 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID:The dead ends we have discussed are ecosystems that supplied necessary food at the time of their existence not what I have bolded above.

dhw: If I’ve understood you correctly, you are once more agreeing that the dead ends had nothing to do with your God’s one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food supplies, in contrast to other times in this discussion when you have insisted that every one was an “”absolute requirement” for us and our food. We are making progress, at least until you change your mind again.

DAVID: Evolution could not have continued without them.

dhw: Why not? According to you, the evolution of us and our food supplies did not begin until the Cambrian, and the relevant species arrived without any predecessors, after which they "evolved" into us and our food (plus lots more dead ends)!

DAVID: Evolution started before the Cambrian.

Of course it did! But according to your nonsensical theories, OUR evolution plus that of OUR food supply began in the Cambrian, when your God designed all the necessary phyla WITHOUT PREDECESSORS, although we and our food supplies are supposed by you to have been his one and only purpose from the very beginning! […]

DAVID: Simple usual answer: remember, my theory is 'God decided to evolve humans from Archaea’?

Minus the reference to God, that is the theory of evolution – all species originated from single-celled microorganisms! And that is why your theory that your God created our ancestors from scratch during the Cambrian contradicts your theory that his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create us and our food. In one breath you tell us that evolution is a continuous process, and in the next breath you announce that there are “gaps” (the Cambrian) when your God started it all afresh.

DAVID: I'm here to represent God with God theories you don't accept.

dhw: I’m here to represent those of us who are unable to fix on any explanation of life’s major mysteries, and to examine the reasonableness of whatever explanations are on offer. If I may say so, you are doing a great job representing the theory that there is/was a designer (a possible God), but you are tying yourself in knots with your theories about his purpose and methods of achieving that purpose!

DAVID: Same answer. With God is charge, He chose to evolve us from Archaea, well before the Cambrian gap appeared.

Same answer. If your God exists, according to you he chose to evolve us and our food supply from species which he designed WITHOUT PREDECESSORS.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 03, 2022, 17:05 (511 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Evolution started before the Cambrian.

dhw: Of course it did! But according to your nonsensical theories, OUR evolution plus that of OUR food supply began in the Cambrian, when your God designed all the necessary phyla WITHOUT PREDECESSORS, although we and our food supplies are supposed by you to have been his one and only purpose from the very beginning! […]

Preceding evolution to the Cambrian gap developed the necessary underlying biochemical systems to support the multi organ Cambrians. Also, the Earth's climate was evolving more oxygen in the atmosphere, as previously presented. Evolution is not stop and go but a continuous process of development from the past.


DAVID: Simple usual answer: remember, my theory is 'God decided to evolve humans from Archaea’?

dhw: Minus the reference to God, that is the theory of evolution – all species originated from single-celled microorganisms! And that is why your theory that your God created our ancestors from scratch during the Cambrian contradicts your theory that his one and only purpose from the very beginning was to create us and our food. In one breath you tell us that evolution is a continuous process, and in the next breath you announce that there are “gaps” (the Cambrian) when your God started it all afresh.

The Cambrian gap was first noted by your beloved Darwin.


DAVID: I'm here to represent God with God theories you don't accept.

dhw: I’m here to represent those of us who are unable to fix on any explanation of life’s major mysteries, and to examine the reasonableness of whatever explanations are on offer. If I may say so, you are doing a great job representing the theory that there is/was a designer (a possible God), but you are tying yourself in knots with your theories about his purpose and methods of achieving that purpose!

DAVID: Same answer. With God is charge, He chose to evolve us from Archaea, well before the Cambrian gap appeared.

dhw: Same answer. If your God exists, according to you he chose to evolve us and our food supply from species which he designed WITHOUT PREDECESSORS.

With God as designer no predecessors needed!!! That is the WHOLE point of this discussion. You cannot invert it to your purposes

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, November 04, 2022, 12:25 (510 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution started before the Cambrian.

dhw: Of course it did! But according to your nonsensical theories, OUR evolution plus that of OUR food supply began in the Cambrian, when your God designed all the necessary phyla WITHOUT PREDECESSORS, although we and our food supplies are supposed by you to have been his one and only purpose from the very beginning! […]

DAVID: Preceding evolution to the Cambrian gap developed the necessary underlying biochemical systems to support the multi organ Cambrians. Also, the Earth's climate was evolving more oxygen in the atmosphere, as previously presented. Evolution is not stop and go but a continuous process of development from the past.

I agree. That is why it is illogical to claim that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food supply, and yet he “had to” to design countless life forms and ecosystems both before and after the Cambrian that had no connection with us and our food supply. Your "continuous development" leads to dead ends even after the Cambrian (e.g our friend the brontosaurus), and the only species relevant to us and our food came out of the blue after 3.X billion years' worth of what you therefore believe were also dead ends, since none of them were our predecessors.

dhw: In one breath you tell us that evolution is a continuous process, and in the next breath you announce that there are “gaps” (the Cambrian) when your God started it all afresh.

DAVID: The Cambrian gap was first noted by your beloved Darwin.

That does not explain the contradictions in your theory.

DAVID: I'm here to represent God with God theories you don't accept.

dhw: I’m here to represent those of us who are unable to fix on any explanation of life’s major mysteries, and to examine the reasonableness of whatever explanations are on offer. If I may say so, you are doing a great job representing the theory that there is/was a designer (a possible God), but you are tying yourself in knots with your theories about his purpose and methods of achieving that purpose!

DAVID: Same answer. With God is charge, He chose to evolve us from Archaea, well before the Cambrian gap appeared.

dhw: Same answer. If your God exists, according to you he chose to evolve us and our food supply from species which he designed WITHOUT PREDECESSORS. [Addendum: so according to you, we could not have evolved from Archaea.]

DAVID: With God as designer no predecessors needed!!! That is the WHOLE point of this discussion. You cannot invert it to your purposes.

It is indeed the whole point! In one breath you tell us that all the dead ends were needed, and in the next breath you tell us they weren’t needed! We evolved from Archaea, but we didn't evolve from Archaea!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, November 04, 2022, 14:49 (510 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Preceding evolution to the Cambrian gap developed the necessary underlying biochemical systems to support the multi organ Cambrians. Also, the Earth's climate was evolving more oxygen in the atmosphere, as previously presented. Evolution is not stop and go but a continuous process of development from the past.

dhw: I agree. That is why it is illogical to claim that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food supply, and yet he “had to” to design countless life forms and ecosystems both before and after the Cambrian that had no connection with us and our food supply. Your "continuous development" leads to dead ends even after the Cambrian (e.g our friend the brontosaurus), and the only species relevant to us and our food came out of the blue after 3.X billion years' worth of what you therefore believe were also dead ends, since none of them were our predecessors.

You agree to what. You say, 'I agree' and run right back to your illogical dissection of evolution, as unrelated dead ends. Where did our enormous ecosystem providing our food supply come from?


dhw: In one breath you tell us that evolution is a continuous process, and in the next breath you announce that there are “gaps” (the Cambrian) when your God started it all afresh.

DAVID: The Cambrian gap was first noted by your beloved Darwin.

dhw: That does not explain the contradictions in your theory.

There are no contradictions in design theory. A break in continuity of phenotypic forms, as Edicaran to Cambrian is evidence of design, not an aberration as you view it.

DAVID: Same answer. With God is charge, He chose to evolve us from Archaea, well before the Cambrian gap appeared.

dhw: Same answer. If your God exists, according to you he chose to evolve us and our food supply from species which he designed WITHOUT PREDECESSORS. [Addendum: so according to you, we could not have evolved from Archaea.]

DAVID: With God as designer no predecessors needed!!! That is the WHOLE point of this discussion. You cannot invert it to your purposes.

dhw: It is indeed the whole point! In one breath you tell us that all the dead ends were needed, and in the next breath you tell us they weren’t needed! We evolved from Archaea, but we didn't evolve from Archaea!

I never said the dead ends were not needed!!! Your last sentence again shows you slicing up evolution into discontinuous parts. Without Archaea, no evolution, no humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, November 05, 2022, 07:40 (510 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Preceding evolution to the Cambrian gap developed the necessary underlying biochemical systems to support the multi organ Cambrians. Also, the Earth's climate was evolving more oxygen in the atmosphere, as previously presented. Evolution is not stop and go but a continuous process of development from the past.

dhw: I agree. That is why it is illogical to claim that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food supply, and yet he “had to” to design countless life forms and ecosystems both before and after the Cambrian that had no connection with us and our food supply. Your "continuous development" leads to dead ends even after the Cambrian (e.g our friend the brontosaurus), and the only species relevant to us and our food came out of the blue after 3.X billion years' worth of what you therefore believe were also dead ends, since none of them were our predecessors.

DAVID: You agree to what. You say, 'I agree' and run right back to your illogical dissection of evolution, as unrelated dead ends. Where did our enormous ecosystem providing our food supply come from?

It evolved from those branches of evolution which were NOT dead ends. According to you, those were all life forms that sprang from nowhere during the Cambrian, although many of those life forms (e.g. the dinosaurs) were also dead ends. My totally conventional proposal is that all life forms and their ecosystems, including ours and all the dead ends, evolved from Darwin’s original few forms or one.

dhw: In one breath you tell us that evolution is a continuous process, and in the next breath you announce that there are “gaps” (the Cambrian) when your God started it all afresh.

DAVID: The Cambrian gap was first noted by your beloved Darwin.

dhw: That does not explain the contradictions in your theory.

DAVID: There are no contradictions in design theory. A break in continuity of phenotypic forms, as Edicaran to Cambrian is evidence of design, not an aberration as you view it.

You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors!

DAVID: Same answer. With God is charge, He chose to evolve us from Archaea, well before the Cambrian gap appeared.

dhw: Same answer. If your God exists, according to you he chose to evolve us and our food supply from species which he designed WITHOUT PREDECESSORS. [Addendum: so according to you, we could not have evolved from Archaea.]

DAVID: With God as designer no predecessors needed!!! That is the WHOLE point of this discussion. You cannot invert it to your purposes.

dhw: It is indeed the whole point! In one breath you tell us that all the dead ends were needed, and in the next breath you tell us they weren’t needed! We evolved from Archaea, but we didn't evolve from Archaea!

DAVID: I never said the dead ends were not needed!!! Your last sentence again shows you slicing up evolution into discontinuous parts. Without Archaea, no evolution, no humans.

I agree with your last sentence. But it is you who slice evolution up into discontinuous parts when you say that we and our ecosystems are descended from 37 phyla which your God created without predecessors! “With God as designer no predecessors needed!!!” – So you say we are not descended from Archaea, and none of the preceding life forms were needed for the creation of the species which you claim were your God’s one and only purpose! They were dead ends!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 05, 2022, 17:55 (509 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You agree to what. You say, 'I agree' and run right back to your illogical dissection of evolution, as unrelated dead ends. Where did our enormous ecosystem providing our food supply come from?

dhw: It evolved from those branches of evolution which were NOT dead ends. According to you, those were all life forms that sprang from nowhere during the Cambrian, although many of those life forms (e.g. the dinosaurs) were also dead ends. My totally conventional proposal is that all life forms and their ecosystems, including ours and all the dead ends, evolved from Darwin’s original few forms or one.

Exactly. Evolution produces dead ends.


hw: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors!

Living forms run on biologic systems. The Ediacaran biologic systems are the basis for the phenotypic Cambrian changes in form, but not living biology which is continuous. The Cambrian is based upon the Ediacaran. That is evolution!!!! Your illogical argument comes from your lack of recognizing these two aspects of changing life forms in evolution.


dhw: In one breath you tell us that all the dead ends were needed, and in the next breath you tell us they weren’t needed! We evolved from Archaea, but we didn't evolve from Archaea!

DAVID: I never said the dead ends were not needed!!! Your last sentence again shows you slicing up evolution into discontinuous parts. Without Archaea, no evolution, no humans.

dhw: I agree with your last sentence. But it is you who slice evolution up into discontinuous parts when you say that we and our ecosystems are descended from 37 phyla which your God created without predecessors! “With God as designer no predecessors needed!!!” – So you say we are not descended from Archaea, and none of the preceding life forms were needed for the creation of the species which you claim were your God’s one and only purpose! They were dead ends!

Your same confusion!! Read my comments above.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, November 06, 2022, 11:22 (508 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You agree to what. You say, 'I agree' and run right back to your illogical dissection of evolution, as unrelated dead ends. Where did our enormous ecosystem providing our food supply come from?

dhw: It evolved from those branches of evolution which were NOT dead ends. According to you, those were all life forms that sprang from nowhere during the Cambrian, although many of those life forms (e.g. the dinosaurs) were also dead ends. My totally conventional proposal is that all life forms and their ecosystems, including ours and all the dead ends, evolved from Darwin’s original few forms or one.

DAVID: Exactly. Evolution produces dead ends.

You keep hiding behind “evolution” producing this, that and the other (nicely in keeping with my free-for-all alternative), and forgetting that according to your theory it is your God who specially designed all the dead ends, and he designed them all as absolute requirements for us and our food, although by definition none of them led to us and our food!

dhw: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors!

DAVID: Living forms run on biologic systems. The Ediacaran biologic systems are the basis for the phenotypic Cambrian changes in form, but not living biology which is continuous.

I don’t understand the second sentence. If Ediacaran “biological systems” provided the basis for new species, then we have continuity. Evolution’s history is that of living forms and biological systems changing into new forms and systems, so why do you say “not living biology"? What you have described IS living biology, and upholds the conventional view of evolution.

DAVID: The Cambrian is based upon the Ediacaran. That is evolution!!!!

Exactly! So why do you keep telling us that your God designed the 37 phyla from which we and our food (plus lots more dead ends) have descended, and they had no predecessors? Without predecessors you cannot have continuity!

DAVID: Your illogical argument comes from your lack of recognizing these two aspects of changing life forms in evolution.

Your illogical argument comes from your “lack of recognizing” that your desperate desire for discontinuity – in order to prove your God’s existence by having him design WITHOUT PREDECESSORS the phyla from which we and our food are descended - directly contradicts your belief that we were your God’s sole purpose from the start, which would require our continuous descent from archaea. And so in one breath you have continuous but discontinuous evolution, and descent from archaea but descent only from Cambrian phyla. And none of this even remotely begins to explain why your God deliberately designed the countless life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design.

DAVID: Your same confusion!! Read my comments above.

They are as confused and confusing as ever.:-(

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 06, 2022, 17:09 (508 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Exactly. Evolution produces dead ends.

dhw: You keep hiding behind “evolution” producing this, that and the other (nicely in keeping with my free-for-all alternative), and forgetting that according to your theory it is your God who specially designed all the dead ends, and he designed them all as absolute requirements for us and our food, although by definition none of them led to us and our food!

You keep forgetting your agreement God can do whatever He wishes. The history of evolution with its dead ends is what God produced on His way to the creation of humans.


dhw: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors!

DAVID: Living forms run on biologic systems. The Ediacaran biologic systems are the basis for the phenotypic Cambrian changes in form, but not living biology which is continuous.

dhw: I don’t understand the second sentence. If Ediacaran “biological systems” provided the basis for new species, then we have continuity. Evolution’s history is that of living forms and biological systems changing into new forms and systems, so why do you say “not living biology"? What you have described IS living biology, and upholds the conventional view of evolution.

I'll try again: the biochemistry that makes life is one aspect of evolution. The second aspect is the form of the living organisms. Ediacaran biochemistry is the biochemical basis for Cambrian forms. The continuity of evolution is in the underling biochemistry which then allows for/permits the changing phenotypic forms.


DAVID: The Cambrian is based upon the Ediacaran. That is evolution!!!!

dhw: Exactly! So why do you keep telling us that your God designed the 37 phyla from which we and our food (plus lots more dead ends) have descended, and they had no predecessors? Without predecessors you cannot have continuity!

But there is continuity in the biochemistry. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, November 07, 2022, 12:28 (507 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution produces dead ends.

dhw: You keep hiding behind “evolution” producing this, that and the other (nicely in keeping with my free-for-all alternative), and forgetting that according to your theory it is your God who specially designed all the dead ends, and he designed them all as absolute requirements for us and our food, although by definition none of them led to us and our food!

DAVID: You keep forgetting your agreement God can do whatever He wishes. The history of evolution with its dead ends is what God produced on His way to the creation of humans.

You keep deliberately leaving out your fixed beliefs (which are not facts) that 1) he individually designed every dead-end life form, ecosystem, natural wonder etc. that had no connection with us and our food, in spite of the fact that 2) his only purpose was to create us and our food. And you keep forgetting that if he can do whatever he wishes, it is totally illogical for him to “have to do” 1) as an “absolute requirement” if he is to achieve 2).

DAVID: Living forms run on biologic systems. The Ediacaran biologic systems are the basis for the phenotypic Cambrian changes in form, but not living biology which is continuous.

dhw: I don’t understand the second sentence. If Ediacaran “biological systems” provided the basis for new species, then we have continuity. Evolution’s history is that of living forms and biological systems changing into new forms and systems, so why do you say “not living biology"? What you have described IS living biology, and upholds the conventional view of evolution.

DAVID: I'll try again: the biochemistry that makes life is one aspect of evolution. The second aspect is the form of the living organisms. Ediacaran biochemistry is the biochemical basis for Cambrian forms. The continuity of evolution is in the underling biochemistry which then allows for/permits the changing phenotypic forms.

Yes, yes, all living things share the same biochemistry which allows for evolution. And evolution is the history of the changing “phenotypic” forms. But that does not mean that we humans and our food are the direct descendants of the brontosaurus. The history of the changing forms is one of countless branches, the majority of which did not lead to us and our food, even though they all use the biochemistry of life. Your statement of the obvious does not answer the point I made yesterday: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors!

DAVID: The Cambrian is based upon the Ediacaran. That is evolution!!!!

dhw: Exactly! So why do you keep telling us that your God designed the 37 phyla from which we and our food (plus lots more dead ends) have descended, and they had no predecessors? Without predecessors you cannot have continuity!

DAVID: But there is continuity in the biochemistry. ;-)

That does not mean we and our food are descended from every plant and animal that ever existed, and therefore it is nonsense to claim that your God designed every plant and animal that ever existed because they were all necessary for him to design us and our food. And if we are descended from phenotypic forms which your God designed in the Cambrian without predecessors, we cannot be descended from any forms that existed before the Cambrian! :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, November 07, 2022, 17:40 (507 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You keep forgetting your agreement God can do whatever He wishes. The history of evolution with its dead ends is what God produced on His way to the creation of humans.

dhw: You keep deliberately leaving out your fixed beliefs (which are not facts) that 1) he individually designed every dead-end life form, ecosystem, natural wonder etc. that had no connection with us and our food, in spite of the fact that 2) his only purpose was to create us and our food. And you keep forgetting that if he can do whatever he wishes, it is totally illogical for him to “have to do” 1) as an “absolute requirement” if he is to achieve 2).

God decides what He has to do. I'm sure you accept that point. Therefore, the dead ends you complain about are God-produced from His method of evolution, which has Him design all forms and provide ecosystems to feed them along the way in time.


DAVID: Living forms run on biologic systems. The Ediacaran biologic systems are the basis for the phenotypic Cambrian changes in form, but not living biology which is continuous.

dhw: I don’t understand the second sentence. If Ediacaran “biological systems” provided the basis for new species, then we have continuity. Evolution’s history is that of living forms and biological systems changing into new forms and systems, so why do you say “not living biology"? What you have described IS living biology, and upholds the conventional view of evolution.

DAVID: I'll try again: the biochemistry that makes life is one aspect of evolution. The second aspect is the form of the living organisms. Ediacaran biochemistry is the biochemical basis for Cambrian forms. The continuity of evolution is in the underling biochemistry which then allows for/permits the changing phenotypic forms.

dhw: Yes, yes, all living things share the same biochemistry which allows for evolution. And evolution is the history of the changing “phenotypic” forms. But that does not mean that we humans and our food are the direct descendants of the brontosaurus. The history of the changing forms is one of countless branches, the majority of which did not lead to us and our food, even though they all use the biochemistry of life. Your statement of the obvious does not answer the point I made yesterday: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors!

Again confusing the relationship of phenotypes with evolutionary biochemistry. The two are separate parts of evolution. We can trace our start from the first vertebrate fish in the Cambrian which is based on the biochemistry from the Ediacaran. A designer obviously can jump form types. The continuity is the living biochemistry.


DAVID: The Cambrian is based upon the Ediacaran. That is evolution!!!!

dhw: Exactly! So why do you keep telling us that your God designed the 37 phyla from which we and our food (plus lots more dead ends) have descended, and they had no predecessors? Without predecessors you cannot have continuity!

DAVID: But there is continuity in the biochemistry. ;-)

dhw: That does not mean we and our food are descended from every plant and animal that ever existed, and therefore it is nonsense to claim that your God designed every plant and animal that ever existed because they were all necessary for him to design us and our food. And if we are descended from phenotypic forms which your God designed in the Cambrian without predecessors, we cannot be descended from any forms that existed before the Cambrian! :-)

You are so confused without God. As designer He can do what He wishes. You are right. We come from Cambrian forms. Your strawman is that we come from nowhere. Preposterous!!! We are here and Archaea bacteria are the start of life. You cannot tear apart those facts, much as you are flailing around trying to do so.

Return to David's theory of evolution: an aged enzyme

by David Turell @, Monday, November 07, 2022, 19:51 (507 days ago) @ David Turell

An ancient enzyme from the Archaea used today in humans:

https://phys.org/news/2022-11-enzymes-human-cells-evolved-primordial.html

"A team of researchers at Umeå University has discovered that an enzyme in human cells has probably evolved from an ancient single-celled organism. The enzyme's unique properties mean that it could be used as a building block in the design of new enzymes, for example in processing wood raw materials.

***

"Now, a team of researchers from the Department of Chemistry at Umeå University has discovered clear traces of an archaea (odinarchaeota) in an enzyme found in the nucleus of human cells. The human enzyme is called AK6 and has a variety of functions, such as energy metabolism, genome stabilization and programmed cell death.

***

"The primitive predecessor odinarchaeota has a unique and valuable feature in comparison with the human enzyme AK6. While AK6 can only recognize and use one specific molecule when catalyzing a chemical reaction, the enzyme from odinarchaeota can use a wide range of molecules.

"'In the study, we discovered the molecular mechanism for this broad spectrum," says Elisabet Sauer-Eriksson, professor at the Department of Chemistry.

"'The trick is that the enzyme from odinarchaeota uses the amino acid glutamine, which has unique chemical properties that are used to their full potential in the enzyme. The general and broad recognition of different molecules takes place with a short loop sequence in the enzyme and this loop could be used as a Lego piece in the design of new enzymes.'"

Comment: this article puts to rest dhw's complaint about evolutionary continuity being disrupted with the advent of Cambrian forms without form predecessors. Evolutionary continuity is in the biochemistry, which then can be used in a massive variety of forms, as shown by the massive bush of life

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, November 08, 2022, 09:14 (507 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You keep forgetting your agreement God can do whatever He wishes. The history of evolution with its dead ends is what God produced on His way to the creation of humans.

dhw: You keep deliberately leaving out your fixed beliefs (which are not facts) that 1) he individually designed every dead-end life form, ecosystem, natural wonder etc. that had no connection with us and our food, in spite of the fact that 2) his only purpose was to create us and our food. And you keep forgetting that if he can do whatever he wishes, it is totally illogical for him to “have to do” 1) as an “absolute requirement” if he is to achieve 2).

DAVID: God decides what He has to do. I'm sure you accept that point.

No, I don’t. If your God exists as first cause, there is no pressure on him to do anything. I assume he does what he wants to do, not what he has to do.

DAVID: Therefore, the dead ends you complain about are God-produced from His method of evolution, which has Him design all forms and provide ecosystems to feed them along the way in time.

I do not complain about the dead ends, and of course all life forms require/required ecosystems to feed them. What I complain about, as you know perfectly well, is your illogical theory that his one and only purpose for creating life was to design sapiens plus food, and so he designed countless extinct life forms and ecosystems that had no link to sapiens pus food. Please will you stop dodging!

dhw: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors!

DAVID: Again confusing the relationship of phenotypes with evolutionary biochemistry. The two are separate parts of evolution. We can trace our start from the first vertebrate fish in the Cambrian which is based on the biochemistry from the Ediacaran. A designer obviously can jump form types. The continuity is the living biochemistry.
And under “an aged enzyme
DAVID: this article puts to rest dhw's complaint about evolutionary continuity being disrupted with the advent of Cambrian forms without form predecessors. Evolutionary continuity is in the biochemistry, which then can be used in a massive variety of forms, as shown by the massive bush of life.

All living forms are composed of cells (that’s your biochemistry). According to you, your God began creating life with the sole purpose of combining cells into the forms of sapiens plus food, and so he proceeded to combine cells into “a massive variety of forms”, the vast majority of which had nothing to do with sapiens plus food. After 3.X thousand million years’ worth of combining cells into forms that had nothing to do with sapiens plus food, he combined cells into forms which had no predecessors, and from some (but not all) of these forms he went on fiddling with cells until eventually he produced the forms we call sapiens plus all the other forms that sapiens eats. You can natter on about biochemistry (cells) as long as you like, but how does that explain why he used the biochemistry to create forms that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose? Please will you stop dodging!

dhw: […] if we are descended from phenotypic forms which your God designed in the Cambrian without predecessors, we cannot be descended from any forms that existed before the Cambrian!

DAVID: You are so confused without God. As designer He can do what He wishes. You are right. We come from Cambrian forms. Your strawman is that we come from nowhere. Preposterous!!! We are here and Archaea bacteria are the start of life. You cannot tear apart those facts, much as you are flailing around trying to do so.

It is you who are erecting preposterous strawmen! Where have I said we come from nowhere? Yes, we are here, and yes bacteria were the start of life. And my conventional theory is that we are descended from bacteria. Yours is that we are descended from species that “came from nowhere” (had no predecessors) during the Cambrian! It is you who flail around trying to tell us that because all life is biochemical we are descended from bacteria, but then you say we we are descended from Cambrian life forms that had no predecessors, which means we are not descended from bacteria!

Cambrian explosion: early skeletal form found

QUOTES: This really is a one-in-million discovery.

"In other words, external skeletons probably didn't arise just once but probably evolved several times in multiple different lineages.”

"Even from the little evidence scientists have found, it is clear that tube-shaped animals were popping up before the explosion of animal diversity that once took our life by storm. What triggered their expansion remains an open question…”

A few days ago I pointed out that the quest for fossils was not yet over. Thank you for proving my point and for providing us with another link between pre-explosion and explosion.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 08, 2022, 15:31 (506 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God decides what He has to do. I'm sure you accept that point.

dhw: No, I don’t. If your God exists as first cause, there is no pressure on him to do anything. I assume he does what he wants to do, not what he has to do.

Since your God is not goal-oriented (free-for-all) of course He doesn't know what He has to do.

dhw: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors!

DAVID: Again confusing the relationship of phenotypes with evolutionary biochemistry. The two are separate parts of evolution. We can trace our start from the first vertebrate fish in the Cambrian which is based on the biochemistry from the Ediacaran. A designer obviously can jump form types. The continuity is the living biochemistry.
And under “an aged enzyme
DAVID: this article puts to rest dhw's complaint about evolutionary continuity being disrupted with the advent of Cambrian forms without form predecessors. Evolutionary continuity is in the biochemistry, which then can be used in a massive variety of forms, as shown by the massive bush of life.

dhw: All living forms are composed of cells (that’s your biochemistry). According to you, your God began creating life with the sole purpose of combining cells into the forms of sapiens plus food, and so he proceeded to combine cells into “a massive variety of forms”, the vast majority of which had nothing to do with sapiens plus food. After 3.X thousand million years’ worth of combining cells into forms that had nothing to do with sapiens plus food, he combined cells into forms which had no predecessors, and from some (but not all) of these forms he went on fiddling with cells until eventually he produced the forms we call sapiens plus all the other forms that sapiens eats. You can natter on about biochemistry (cells) as long as you like, but how does that explain why he used the biochemistry to create forms that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose? Please will you stop dodging!

The history of evolution is what it is no matter how you distort the interpretation I have. I concentrate on the underlying biochemistry, because there can be no phenotypic forms without it. I'm not dodging. The finding of an enzyme tracing back to Archaea tells us there will be many more. Without those enzymes there is no life. And with established living biochemistry, a designing God can make any forms He wishes with or without predecessors. It is not a dodge. Learn to accept the point.


Cambrian explosion: early skeletal form found

QUOTES: This really is a one-in-million discovery.

"In other words, external skeletons probably didn't arise just once but probably evolved several times in multiple different lineages.”

"Even from the little evidence scientists have found, it is clear that tube-shaped animals were popping up before the explosion of animal diversity that once took our life by storm. What triggered their expansion remains an open question…”

dhw: A few days ago I pointed out that the quest for fossils was not yet over. Thank you for proving my point and for providing us with another link between pre-explosion and explosion.

It is not a link before the Cambrian. It is a Cambrian animal with a new discovery about it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, November 09, 2022, 11:59 (505 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God decides what He has to do. I'm sure you accept that point.

dhw: No, I don’t. If your God exists as first cause, there is no pressure on him to do anything. I assume he does what he wants to do, not what he has to do.

DAVID: Since your God is not goal-oriented (free-for-all) of course He doesn't know what He has to do.

A free-for-all would be goal-oriented, and your God would know precisely how to create it. You are certain that he watches his creations with interest, and so the goal of a free-for-all (which is only one of my alternative theistic explanations for evolution’s history) would be for God to provide himself with something he can watch with interest. A free-for-all would be far more interesting than a predictable puppet show in which he pulls all the strings. In order to create a free-for-all he obviously “has to” create mechanisms which will enable organisms to evolve autonomously – the basic mechanism for which would be the intelligent cell.

dhw [referring to the Cambrian]: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors! [...]

DAVID: The history of evolution is what it is no matter how you distort the interpretation I have. I concentrate on the underlying biochemistry, because there can be no phenotypic forms without it. I'm not dodging. The finding of an enzyme tracing back to Archaea tells us there will be many more. Without those enzymes there is no life. And with established living biochemistry, a designing God can make any forms He wishes with or without predecessors. It is not a dodge. Learn to accept the point.

Since you have totally ignored the response I gave in yesterday’s post, I will have to repeat it. The underlying chemistry is provided by the cells and all their mechanisms. Of course there can be no life and no speciation without the biochemical processes! And of course an all-powerful God can make any forms he wishes. There is no dispute here! The dispute, for the thousandth time, is over your claim that his only wish was to design sapiens and our food, but according to you 1) he used the biochemistry to design countless forms that had no connection with us and our food, and 2) he did not even begin to use the biochemistry in order to design us and our food until he had designed 3.X billion years’ worth of dead ends, because you tell us we and our food are descended not from bacteria but from forms which your God designed from scratch (without predecessors) during the Cambrian. Please stop dodging!

Cambrian explosion: early skeletal form found

QUOTES: This really is a one-in-million discovery.

"In other words, external skeletons probably didn't arise just once but probably evolved several times in multiple different lineages.”

"Even from the little evidence scientists have found, it is clear that tube-shaped animals were popping up before the explosion of animal diversity that once took our life by storm. What triggered their expansion remains an open question…” (dhw's bold)

dhw: A few days ago I pointed out that the quest for fossils was not yet over. Thank you for proving my point and for providing us with another link between pre-explosion and explosion.

DAVID: It is not a link before the Cambrian. It is a Cambrian animal with a new discovery about it.

I chose my words carefully: the link was between pre-explosion and explosion, following the (now bolded) wording in the article. It is humans who split time into units with separate names, but a linking predecessor in the chain of evolution is a predecessor whether it emerged in the late Ediacaran or the early Cambrian.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 09, 2022, 21:03 (505 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Wednesday, November 09, 2022, 21:11

DAVID: Since your God is not goal-oriented (free-for-all) of course He doesn't know what He has to do.

dhw: A free-for-all would be goal-oriented, and your God would know precisely how to create it. You are certain that he watches his creations with interest, and so the goal of a free-for-all (which is only one of my alternative theistic explanations for evolution’s history) would be for God to provide himself with something he can watch with interest. A free-for-all would be far more interesting than a predictable puppet show in which he pulls all the strings. In order to create a free-for-all he obviously “has to” create mechanisms which will enable organisms to evolve autonomously – the basic mechanism for which would be the intelligent cell.

Once again you have created a God who needs entertainment. There is no other
interpretation possible.


dhw [referring to the Cambrian]: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors! [...]

DAVID: The history of evolution is what it is no matter how you distort the interpretation I have. I concentrate on the underlying biochemistry, because there can be no phenotypic forms without it. I'm not dodging. The finding of an enzyme tracing back to Archaea tells us there will be many more. Without those enzymes there is no life. And with established living biochemistry, a designing God can make any forms He wishes with or without predecessors. It is not a dodge. Learn to accept the point.

dhw: Since you have totally ignored the response I gave in yesterday’s post, I will have to repeat it. The underlying chemistry is provided by the cells and all their mechanisms. Of course there can be no life and no speciation without the biochemical processes! And of course an all-powerful God can make any forms he wishes. There is no dispute here! The dispute, for the thousandth time, is over your claim that his only wish was to design sapiens and our food, but according to you 1) he used the biochemistry to design countless forms that had no connection with us and our food,

You cannot support that claim! Everything that exists today comes from past forms.

dhw: and 2) he did not even begin to use the biochemistry in order to design us and our food until he had designed 3.X billion years’ worth of dead ends, because you tell us we and our food are descended not from bacteria but from forms which your God designed from scratch (without predecessors) during the Cambrian. Please stop dodging!

Insane complaint!! Living biochemistry at the start of life is still used today. Advanced biochemistry in the Ediacaran, designed by God, allowed God to then go forward with new designed forms. A designer can make new forms whenever he wishes.


Cambrian explosion: early skeletal form found

QUOTES: This really is a one-in-million discovery.

"In other words, external skeletons probably didn't arise just once but probably evolved several times in multiple different lineages.”

"Even from the little evidence scientists have found, it is clear that tube-shaped animals were popping up before the explosion of animal diversity that once took our life by storm. What triggered their expansion remains an open question…” (dhw's bold)

dhw: A few days ago I pointed out that the quest for fossils was not yet over. Thank you for proving my point and for providing us with another link between pre-explosion and explosion.

DAVID: It is not a link before the Cambrian. It is a Cambrian animal with a new discovery about it.

dhw: I chose my words carefully: the link was between pre-explosion and explosion, following the (now bolded) wording in the article. It is humans who split time into units with separate names, but a linking predecessor in the chain of evolution is a predecessor whether it emerged in the late Ediacaran or the early Cambrian.

Ignoring your highlighting of speculation, the Cambrian is a specific geological age:

https://www.britannica.com/science/Cambrian-Period

"Cambrian Period, earliest time division of the Paleozoic Era, extending from 541 million to 485.4 million years ago."

Direct article quote: ""Several fortuitous fossils from China have defied the odds and are now providing archeologists with a real glimpse into early lifeforms that lived about 514 million years ago.

The animal appeared 27 million years after the Ediacaran!!!! You always sop up ungrounded Darwinian speculative drivel.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, November 10, 2022, 12:08 (504 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Since your God is not goal-oriented (free-for-all) of course He doesn't know what He has to do.

dhw: A free-for-all would be goal-oriented, and your God would know precisely how to create it. You are certain that he watches his creations with interest, and so the goal of a free-for-all (which is only one of my alternative theistic explanations for evolution’s history) would be for God to provide himself with something he can watch with interest. (…) In order to create a free-for-all he obviously “has to” create mechanisms which will enable organisms to evolve autonomously – the basic mechanism for which would be the intelligent cell.

DAVID: Once again you have created a God who needs entertainment. There is no other
interpretation possible.

I dislike your terminology, which cheapens the theory. Do you think Beethoven composed his 9th symphony because he was needy and required entertainment? You might consider our world as one colossal work of art, which your God – if he exists – enjoyed creating and which was and is endlessly interesting (those were your own terms). In any case, I’ve answered your objection at the start of this post: a free-for-all is goal-oriented and your God knows exactly what he “has to do” to achieve it.

dhw [referring to the Cambrian]: You cannot claim that there is a continuous line from the first life forms to us and our ecosystems and at the same time claim that we and our ecosystems are descended from a line of life forms and ecosystems that had no predecessors! [...]

DAVID: […] I concentrate on the underlying biochemistry, because there can be no phenotypic forms without it. […]

dhw: […] Of course there can be no life and no speciation without the biochemical processes! And of course an all-powerful God can make any forms he wishes. There is no dispute here! The dispute, for the thousandth time, is over your claim that his only wish was to design sapiens and our food, but according to you 1) he used the biochemistry to design countless forms that had no connection with us and our food…

DAVID: You cannot support that claim! Everything that exists today comes from past forms.

Why do you keep using the same silly dodge? Of course everything that exists today comes from past forms. That is the whole point of the theory of evolution. But you are simply ignoring all the dead ends that did NOT lead to what exists today!

dhw: …and 2) he did not even begin to use the biochemistry in order to design us and our food until he had designed 3.X billion years’ worth of dead ends, because you tell us we and our food are descended not from bacteria but from forms which your God designed from scratch (without predecessors) during the Cambrian. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Insane complaint!! Living biochemistry at the start of life is still used today. Advanced biochemistry in the Ediacaran, designed by God, allowed God to then go forward with new designed forms. A designer can make new forms whenever he wishes.

Assuming God’s existence, there is no dispute over this! All life is based on living biochemistry. You continue to edit out those sections of your theory that make no sense. If your God used living biochemistry to create our ancestors WITHOUT PREDECESSORS during the Cambrian, pre-Cambrian life forms (e.g bacteria) could not have been our ancestors! Hence the dispute bolded above “for the thousandth time”. Please stop dodging!

Cambrian explosion: early skeletal form found

Quote: "Even from the little evidence scientists have found, it is clear that tube-shaped animals were popping up before the explosion of animal diversity that once took our life by storm. […]” (dhw's bold)

DAVID: It is not a link before the Cambrian. It is a Cambrian animal with a new discovery about it.

dhw: I chose my words carefully: the link was between pre-explosion and explosion, following the (now bolded) wording in the article. It is humans who split time into units with separate names, but a linking predecessor in the chain of evolution is a predecessor whether it emerged in the late Ediacaran or the early Cambrian.

DAVID: Ignoring your highlighting of speculation, the Cambrian is a specific geological age: […] "Cambrian Period, earliest time division of the Paleozoic Era, extending from 541 million to 485.4 million years ago."

I know. But time is a continuum. The burning question is not when but if there are links between life forms, as below:

DAVID: Direct article quote: ""Several fortuitous fossils from China have defied the odds and are now providing archeologists with a real glimpse into early lifeforms that lived about 514 million years ago.
The animal appeared 27 million years after the Ediacaran!!!! You always sop up ungrounded Darwinian speculative drivel.

If newly discovered forms from 514 million years ago provide links to forms that appeared 500 million years ago, it’s possible that they in turn linked up with forms that existed 528 or 541 million years ago. ALL these fossils “defy the odds”. But you always “sop up” the ungrounded belief that there should be a complete record of every transition, or else your God created our ancestors from scratch, although paradoxically you also think our ancestors existed before he created them from scratch!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 10, 2022, 16:53 (504 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again you have created a God who needs entertainment. There is no other
interpretation possible.

dhw: I dislike your terminology, which cheapens the theory. Do you think Beethoven composed his 9th symphony because he was needy and required entertainment? You might consider our world as one colossal work of art, which your God – if he exists – enjoyed creating and which was and is endlessly interesting (those were your own terms). In any case, I’ve answered your objection at the start of this post: a free-for-all is goal-oriented and your God knows exactly what he “has to do” to achieve it.

I agree setting up a free-for-all is a goal. It is the aftermath where things happen independently and unexpectedly, and are entertaining that means a God no longer in control.

dhw: […] Of course there can be no life and no speciation without the biochemical processes! And of course an all-powerful God can make any forms he wishes. There is no dispute here! The dispute, for the thousandth time, is over your claim that his only wish was to design sapiens and our food, but according to you 1) he used the biochemistry to design countless forms that had no connection with us and our food…

DAVID: You cannot support that claim! Everything that exists today comes from past forms.

dhw: Why do you keep using the same silly dodge? Of course everything that exists today comes from past forms. That is the whole point of the theory of evolution. But you are simply ignoring all the dead ends that did NOT lead to what exists today!

Dead ends in any evolutionary process are a normal event! You just ignore that to be able to complain about them. Just a dodge.


dhw: …and 2) he did not even begin to use the biochemistry in order to design us and our food until he had designed 3.X billion years’ worth of dead ends, because you tell us we and our food are descended not from bacteria but from forms which your God designed from scratch (without predecessors) during the Cambrian. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Insane complaint!! Living biochemistry at the start of life is still used today. Advanced biochemistry in the Ediacaran, designed by God, allowed God to then go forward with new designed forms. A designer can make new forms whenever he wishes.

dhw: Assuming God’s existence, there is no dispute over this! All life is based on living biochemistry. You continue to edit out those sections of your theory that make no sense. If your God used living biochemistry to create our ancestors WITHOUT PREDECESSORS during the Cambrian, pre-Cambrian life forms (e.g bacteria) could not have been our ancestors! Hence the dispute bolded above “for the thousandth time”. Please stop dodging!

You continue to distort. Look at the known history and explain it without God designing forms s He wishes. God descended me from Archaea.


Cambrian explosion: early skeletal form found

Quote: "Even from the little evidence scientists have found, it is clear that tube-shaped animals were popping up before the explosion of animal diversity that once took our life by storm. […]” (dhw's bold)

DAVID: It is not a link before the Cambrian. It is a Cambrian animal with a new discovery about it.

dhw: I chose my words carefully: the link was between pre-explosion and explosion, following the (now bolded) wording in the article. It is humans who split time into units with separate names, but a linking predecessor in the chain of evolution is a predecessor whether it emerged in the late Ediacaran or the early Cambrian.

DAVID: Ignoring your highlighting of speculation, the Cambrian is a specific geological age: […] "Cambrian Period, earliest time division of the Paleozoic Era, extending from 541 million to 485.4 million years ago."

I know. But time is a continuum. The burning question is not when but if there are links between life forms, as below:

DAVID: Direct article quote: ""Several fortuitous fossils from China have defied the odds and are now providing archeologists with a real glimpse into early lifeforms that lived about 514 million years ago.
The animal appeared 27 million years after the Ediacaran!!!! You always sop up ungrounded Darwinian speculative drivel.

dhw: If newly discovered forms from 514 million years ago provide links to forms that appeared 500 million years ago, it’s possible that they in turn linked up with forms that existed 528 or 541 million years ago. ALL these fossils “defy the odds”. But you always “sop up” the ungrounded belief that there should be a complete record of every transition, or else your God created our ancestors from scratch, although paradoxically you also think our ancestors existed before he created them from scratch!

All new organisms appear in the fossil form fully prepared to handle their lives. There are no itty-bitty steps required by Darwin theory, fully admitted by Gould. I've bolded your totally untrue comment. God produces new forms when the underlying living biochemistry is ready to form them.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, November 11, 2022, 12:17 (503 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you have created a God who needs entertainment. There is no other
interpretation possible.

dhw: I dislike your terminology, which cheapens the theory. Do you think Beethoven composed his 9th symphony because he was needy and required entertainment? You might consider our world as one colossal work of art, which your God – if he exists – enjoyed creating and which was and is endlessly interesting (those were your own terms). In any case, I’ve answered your objection at the start of this post: a free-for-all is goal-oriented and your God knows exactly what he “has to do” to achieve it.

DAVID: I agree setting up a free-for-all is a goal. It is the aftermath where things happen independently and unexpectedly, and are entertaining that means a God no longer in control.

Of course a free-for-all means giving up control, and it is the unexpected that makes things more interesting than total predictability. But there is always the option of a dabble (e.g. a mass extinction) if he wants a change.

dhw: […] The dispute, for the thousandth time, is over your claim that his only wish was to design sapiens and our food, but according to you 1) he used the biochemistry to design countless forms that had no connection with us and our food

DAVID: You cannot support that claim! Everything that exists today comes from past forms.

dhw: Why do you keep using the same silly dodge? Of course everything that exists today comes from past forms. That is the whole point of the theory of evolution. But you are simply ignoring all the dead ends that did NOT lead to what exists today!

DAVID: Dead ends in any evolutionary process are a normal event! You just ignore that to be able to complain about them. Just a dodge.

How many evolutions of life do you know about? If your God is in total control, why would he deliberately create dead ends that have nothing to do with his one and only purpose? Do you think he says to himself: ”All evolutions have dead ends, so I have to create dead ends?”

dhw: […] If your God used living biochemistry to create our ancestors WITHOUT PREDECESSORS during the Cambrian, pre-Cambrian life forms (e.g bacteria) could not have been our ancestors! Hence the dispute bolded above “for the thousandth time”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: You continue to distort. Look at the known history and explain it without God designing forms He wishes. God descended me from Archaea.

I agree that we are descended from Archaea, but YOU say he descended us from Cambrian forms that had no predecessors, so how can we be descended from Archaea? If your God exists and really did design every form from the beginning, he must have had a reason for designing the dead ends (I’ve offered you three possibilities), but it couldn’t have been us plus food if he never even began to design us plus food until he’d finished designing dead ends that had nothing to do with us!

Cambrian explosion: early skeletal form found

dhw: If newly discovered forms from 514 million years ago provide links to forms that appeared 500 million years ago, it’s possible that they in turn linked up with forms that existed 528 or 541 million years ago. ALL these fossils “defy the odds”. But you always “sop up” the ungrounded belief that there should be a complete record of every transition, or else your God created our ancestors from scratch, although paradoxically you also think our ancestors existed before he created them from scratch!

DAVID: All new organisms appear in the fossil form fully prepared to handle their lives. There are no itty-bitty steps required by Darwin theory, fully admitted by Gould. I've bolded your totally untrue comment. God produces new forms when the underlying living biochemistry is ready to form them.

Of course every living form was able to live – otherwise it would never have existed! The bold is YOUR contradiction of yourself: you believe our ancestors were created in the Cambrian without predecessors, and you believe our ancestors were created before the Cambrian! As for living biochemistry, I thought you agreed that environmental conditions had to be ready before your God could use the biochemistry to create new forms. Why else would he have waited to create our ancestors without predecessors?

MASS EXTINCTION IN THE EDIACARAN

QUOTES: "All types of feeding modes and life habits experienced similar losses, with only 14 genera still seen in the Nama out of 70 known groups from the earlier White Sea stage"
.
"'Thus, our data support a link between Ediacaran biotic turnover and environmental change, similar to other major mass extinctions in the geologic record," the team concludes."

DAVID: not a surprising finding considering the other major events. Note the new ease of finding 'soft body' forms.

Yes, it’s wonderful how all these new discoveries are being made, although at one time you thought no more fossils would be found. Once more we have emphasis on the link between environmental change and speciation, and once more the question arises why your God would have deliberately designed the 56 dead-end genera that did not survive this particular extinction. Do you really believe they were “necessary” for God to be able to design our ancestors which had no predecessors?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, November 11, 2022, 16:18 (503 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I agree setting up a free-for-all is a goal. It is the aftermath where things happen independently and unexpectedly, and are entertaining that means a God no longer in control.

dhw: Of course a free-for-all means giving up control, and it is the unexpected that makes things more interesting than total predictability. But there is always the option of a dabble (e.g. a mass extinction) if he wants a change.

You won't leave your concept of a very human God.


DAVID: Dead ends in any evolutionary process are a normal event! You just ignore that to be able to complain about them. Just a dodge.

dhw: How many evolutions of life do you know about? If your God is in total control, why would he deliberately create dead ends that have nothing to do with his one and only purpose? Do you think he says to himself: ”All evolutions have dead ends, so I have to create dead ends?”

This is logically nept!! All evolution has branches that lead to dead ends as types of individuals don't survive and the ecosystem, they support, stop


dhw: […] If your God used living biochemistry to create our ancestors WITHOUT PREDECESSORS during the Cambrian, pre-Cambrian life forms (e.g bacteria) could not have been our ancestors! Hence the dispute bolded above “for the thousandth time”. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: You continue to distort. Look at the known history and explain it without God designing forms He wishes. God descended me from Archaea.

dhw: I agree that we are descended from Archaea, but YOU say he descended us from Cambrian forms that had no predecessors, so how can we be descended from Archaea? If your God exists and really did design every form from the beginning, he must have had a reason for designing the dead ends (I’ve offered you three possibilities), but it couldn’t have been us plus food if he never even began to design us plus food until he’d finished designing dead ends that had nothing to do with us!

Again your illogical distortion of my explanations


Cambrian explosion: early skeletal form found

dhw: If newly discovered forms from 514 million years ago provide links to forms that appeared 500 million years ago, it’s possible that they in turn linked up with forms that existed 528 or 541 million years ago. ALL these fossils “defy the odds”. But you always “sop up” the ungrounded belief that there should be a complete record of every transition, or else your God created our ancestors from scratch, although paradoxically you also think our ancestors existed before he created them from scratch!

DAVID: All new organisms appear in the fossil form fully prepared to handle their lives. There are no itty-bitty steps required by Darwin theory, fully admitted by Gould. I've bolded your totally untrue comment. God produces new forms when the underlying living biochemistry is ready to form them.

dhw: Of course every living form was able to live – otherwise it would never have existed! The bold is YOUR contradiction of yourself: you believe our ancestors were created in the Cambrian without predecessors, and you believe our ancestors were created before the Cambrian! As for living biochemistry, I thought you agreed that environmental conditions had to be ready before your God could use the biochemistry to create new forms. Why else would he have waited to create our ancestors without predecessors?

Simply accept a designer can do it any way He wishes.


MASS EXTINCTION IN THE EDIACARAN

QUOTES: "All types of feeding modes and life habits experienced similar losses, with only 14 genera still seen in the Nama out of 70 known groups from the earlier White Sea stage"
.
"'Thus, our data support a link between Ediacaran biotic turnover and environmental change, similar to other major mass extinctions in the geologic record," the team concludes."

DAVID: not a surprising finding considering the other major events. Note the new ease of finding 'soft body' forms.

dhw: Yes, it’s wonderful how all these new discoveries are being made, although at one time you thought no more fossils would be found. Once more we have emphasis on the link between environmental change and speciation, and once more the question arises why your God would have deliberately designed the 56 dead-end genera that did not survive this particular extinction. Do you really believe they were “necessary” for God to be able to design our ancestors which had no predecessors?

No new fossils were found!!! Extinction is disappearance. Whatever new biochemical processes came in the Ediacaran supported the next steps in the Cambrian.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, November 12, 2022, 11:37 (502 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I agree setting up a free-for-all is a goal. It is the aftermath where things happen independently and unexpectedly, and are entertaining that means a God no longer in control.

dhw: Of course a free-for-all means giving up control, and it is the unexpected that makes things more interesting than total predictability. But there is always the option of a dabble (e.g. a mass extinction) if he wants a change.

DAVID: You won't leave your concept of a very human God.
And under “horizontal gene transfer
DAVID: Guesses do not make a picture of the God personality I envision.

As I keep pointing out, the God personality you envision with your own guesses – enjoying creating, interested in his creations, too kind to design murderous viruses, trying to find antidotes, wanting to be admired, ready to help us if we’re threatened by an asteroid etc – is just as “humanized” as my various alternatives, but at least mine solve the problem of dead ends, which in your guesses leaves your God inexplicably designing life forms that have no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.

dhw: […] Do you think he says to himself: ”All evolutions have dead ends, so I have to create dead ends?”

DAVID: This is logically nept!! All evolution has branches that lead to dead ends as types of individuals don't survive and the ecosystem, they support, stop.

The only evolution of life we know about has dead ends. You don’t need to tell us what a dead end is. The dispute is over your absurd theory that they were all absolutely required for the design of sapiens plus food although they had no connection with sapiens plus food!

dhw: I agree that we are descended from Archaea, but YOU say he descended us from Cambrian forms that had no predecessors, so how can we be descended from Archaea? If your God exists and really did design every form from the beginning, he must have had a reason for designing the dead ends (I’ve offered you three possibilities), but it couldn’t have been us plus food if he never even began to design us plus food until he’d finished designing dead ends that had nothing to do with us!

DAVID: Again your illogical distortion of my explanations.

What have I distorted?

Cambrian explosion: early skeletal form found

DAVID: All new organisms appear in the fossil form fully prepared to handle their lives. There are no itty-bitty steps required by Darwin theory, fully admitted by Gould. […] God produces new forms when the underlying living biochemistry is ready to form them.

dhw: Of course every living form was able to live – otherwise it would never have existed! […] you believe our ancestors were created in the Cambrian without predecessors, and you believe our ancestors were created before the Cambrian! As for living biochemistry, I thought you agreed that environmental conditions had to be ready before your God could use the biochemistry to create new forms. Why else would he have waited to create our ancestors without predecessors?

DAVID: Simply accept a designer can do it any way He wishes.

Of course I accept that a designer can do what he wishes in the way he wishes. But I do not accept your illogical theories concerning the dead ends and the ancestors with no predecessors, both of which directly contradict your theory that his only purpose from the beginning was to design us and our food.

MASS EXTINCTION IN THE EDIACARAN

dhw: […] it’s wonderful how all these new discoveries are being made, although at one time you thought no more fossils would be found. Once more we have emphasis on the link between environmental change and speciation, and once more the question arises why your God would have deliberately designed the 56 dead-end genera that did not survive this particular extinction. Do you really believe they were “necessary” for God to be able to design our ancestors which had no predecessors?

DAVID: No new fossils were found!!! Extinction is disappearance. Whatever new biochemical processes came in the Ediacaran supported the next steps in the Cambrian.

Thank you. I may well have misunderstood the entry (my bolds) and your comment:
QUOTES: "[…] researchers have typically suspected a relative absence of soft-bodied animals in the Ediacaran's later stages are simply the result of a failure to be preserved. […] But the global fossil record indicates otherwise.
"The team found that there was an overall increase in biodiversity between the earlier and middle stages of the Ediacaran, known as the Avalon (575 to 560 million years ago) and White Sea stages (560 to 550 million years ago).

DAVID: Note the new ease of finding 'soft body' forms.

Thank you again for the correction. Meanwhile, of course, my question concerning the 56 dead ends remains unanswered.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 12, 2022, 16:07 (502 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You won't leave your concept of a very human God.
And under “horizontal gene transfer
DAVID: Guesses do not make a picture of the God personality I envision.

dhw: As I keep pointing out, the God personality you envision with your own guesses – enjoying creating, interested in his creations, too kind to design murderous viruses, trying to find antidotes, wanting to be admired, ready to help us if we’re threatened by an asteroid etc – is just as “humanized” as my various alternatives, but at least mine solve the problem of dead ends, which in your guesses leaves your God inexplicably designing life forms that have no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him.

I don't see how you have solved dead ends. We are studying the same evolution with the same human result as its end point. God starting life at the Archaea and ending it with us defines His purpose.


dhw: […] Do you think he says to himself: ”All evolutions have dead ends, so I have to create dead ends?”

DAVID: This is logically inept!! All evolution has branches that lead to dead ends as types of individuals don't survive and the ecosystem, they support, stop.

dhw: The only evolution of life we know about has dead ends. You don’t need to tell us what a dead end is. The dispute is over your absurd theory that they were all absolutely required for the design of sapiens plus food although they had no connection with sapiens plus food!

Again, you avoid the issue of food supply for what is currently alive. When they are replaced so is their food supply. If you really understand dead ends your complaint is totally irrational.


dhw: I agree that we are descended from Archaea, but YOU say he descended us from Cambrian forms that had no predecessors, so how can we be descended from Archaea? If your God exists and really did design every form from the beginning, he must have had a reason for designing the dead ends (I’ve offered you three possibilities), but it couldn’t have been us plus food if he never even began to design us plus food until he’d finished designing dead ends that had nothing to do with us!

DAVID: Again your illogical distortion of my explanations.

dhw: What have I distorted?

The entire concept of God designed evolution. The Cambrian is not break in evolution, but a gap in forms. Evolution is a continuous process either by chance or by a designer.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, November 13, 2022, 07:56 (502 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't see how you have solved dead ends. We are studying the same evolution with the same human result as its end point. God starting life at the Archaea and ending it with us defines His purpose.

First of all, in your post on “coming death of the sun”, we’re told that “humanity only has about 1 billion years left unless we find a way off this rock” and “that increase in brightness will end life on Earth. Our oceans will evaporate, and the surface will become too hot for water to form. We'll be about as kaput as you can get.” Bearing in mind the current climate change crisis, I for one would not like to predict what new species might evolve during all the environmental changes that will take place in the next thousand million years. For all we know, the endpoint might be loads and loads of new extremophiles. But that is a minor point in our discussion, since you have not understood how my three theistic alternatives “solve dead ends”: 1) in a free-for-all (which of course would also fit in with atheism), your God wants an ever changing and unpredictable variety of life forms, which he may watch with interest as different forms come and go. Hence all the dead ends. (But he may dabble if he wants to – e.g. Chixculub.) 2) Your God’s purpose was to design a material being with thought patterns and emotions like his own, but since he’d never attempted anything quite like it before, he had to experiment. As a result, he designed countless life forms which failed to fulfil his purpose (the dead ends), but eventually he hit on the right formula. 3) He had an idea: to create material life, and as he went on creating different forms, so he kept coming up with new ideas. These eventually led to the concept of a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own, and gradually he got close and closer to this goal. All three theories explain the puzzle of the dead ends, and your only objection has been that, just like your own version – which fails to solve the puzzle – they endow him with certain human thought patterns and emotions.

dhw: […] Do you think he says to himself: ”All evolutions have dead ends, so I have to create dead ends?”

DAVID: This is logically inept!! All evolution has branches that lead to dead ends as types of individuals don't survive and the ecosystem, they support, stop.

dhw: The only evolution of life we know about has dead ends. You don’t need to tell us what a dead end is. The dispute is over your absurd theory that they were all absolutely required for the design of sapiens plus food although they had no connection with sapiens plus food!

DAVID: Again, you avoid the issue of food supply for what is currently alive. When they are replaced so is their food supply. If you really understand dead ends your complaint is totally irrational.
And under “toxoplasma”:
DAVID: Evolution is a continuum and everyone must eat along the way. Now what has survived makes up the giant system of ecosystems that must be here to feed us now.

You’ve got it: what survived evolved into the life forms and ecosystems of today. What did not survive were the countless dead-end life forms and ecosystems which you say your God specially designed because they were absolutely necessary for us and our food although they had no connection with us and our food! So why did he design all the dead-end life forms which had to eat along the way if they had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? You have no idea. Your theory “makes sense only to God”. Please stop dodging!

dhw: I agree that we are descended from Archaea, but YOU say he descended us from Cambrian forms that had no predecessors, so how can we be descended from Archaea? If your God exists and really did design every form from the beginning, he must have had a reason for designing the dead ends (I’ve offered you three possibilities), but it couldn’t have been us plus food if he never even began to design us plus food until he’d finished designing dead ends that had nothing to do with us!

DAVID: Again your illogical distortion of my explanations.

dhw: What have I distorted?

DAVID: The entire concept of God designed evolution. The Cambrian is not break in evolution, but a gap in forms. Evolution is a continuous process either by chance or by a designer.

I agree that evolution is a continuous process, but if you insist that we are descended from life forms which your God designed WITHOUT PREDECESSORS, it is you who are breaking the continuity of the evolution of species! You have seized on the gaps in the fossil record as evidence of your God’s existence (only he could create species from scratch), without realizing that by doing so, you are contradicting your belief that we were our God’s purpose right from the beginning and that he began our continuous line of descent with bacteria.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 13, 2022, 16:24 (501 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't see how you have solved dead ends. We are studying the same evolution with the same human result as its end point. God starting life at the Archaea and ending it with us defines His purpose.

First of all, in your post on “coming death of the sun”, we’re told that “humanity only has about 1 billion years left unless we find a way off this rock” and “that increase in brightness will end life on Earth. Our oceans will evaporate, and the surface will become too hot for water to form. We'll be about as kaput as you can get.” Bearing in mind the current climate change crisis, I for one would not like to predict what new species might evolve during all the environmental changes that will take place in the next thousand million years. For all we know, the endpoint might be loads and loads of new extremophiles. But that is a minor point in our discussion, since you have not understood how my three theistic alternatives “solve dead ends”: 1) in a free-for-all (which of course would also fit in with atheism), your God wants an ever changing and unpredictable variety of life forms, which he may watch with interest as different forms come and go. Hence all the dead ends. (But he may dabble if he wants to – e.g. Chixculub.) 2) Your God’s purpose was to design a material being with thought patterns and emotions like his own, but since he’d never attempted anything quite like it before, he had to experiment. As a result, he designed countless life forms which failed to fulfil his purpose (the dead ends), but eventually he hit on the right formula. 3) He had an idea: to create material life, and as he went on creating different forms, so he kept coming up with new ideas. These eventually led to the concept of a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own, and gradually he got close and closer to this goal. All three theories explain the puzzle of the dead ends, and your only objection has been that, just like your own version – which fails to solve the puzzle – they endow him with certain human thought patterns and emotions.

God started a universe, created life (which is a lot more complicated) and evolved a human brain. Contrast that with you totally humanized bumbling God in your description. You are a great storyteller, but I think have little recognition of what a God is supposed to be.


DAVID: Again, you avoid the issue of food supply for what is currently alive. When they are replaced so is their food supply. If you really understand dead ends your complaint is totally irrational.
And under “toxoplasma”:
DAVID: Evolution is a continuum and everyone must eat along the way. Now what has survived makes up the giant system of ecosystems that must be here to feed us now.

dhw: You’ve got it: what survived evolved into the life forms and ecosystems of today. What did not survive were the countless dead-end life forms and ecosystems which you say your God specially designed because they were absolutely necessary for us and our food although they had no connection with us and our food!

And you don't have it. The dead ends were necessary food supply through all stages on the way to now.


dhw: I agree that we are descended from Archaea, but YOU say he descended us from Cambrian forms that had no predecessors, so how can we be descended from Archaea? If your God exists and really did design every form from the beginning, he must have had a reason for designing the dead ends (I’ve offered you three possibilities), but it couldn’t have been us plus food if he never even began to design us plus food until he’d finished designing dead ends that had nothing to do with us!

Irrational. God as designer can skip forms when He wishes. Proof is the Cambrian


DAVID: Again your illogical distortion of my explanations.

dhw: What have I distorted?

DAVID: The entire concept of God designed evolution. The Cambrian is not break in evolution, but a gap in forms. Evolution is a continuous process either by chance or by a designer.

dhw: I agree that evolution is a continuous process, but if you insist that we are descended from life forms which your God designed WITHOUT PREDECESSORS, it is you who are breaking the continuity of the evolution of species! You have seized on the gaps in the fossil record as evidence of your God’s existence (only he could create species from scratch), without realizing that by doing so, you are contradicting your belief that we were our God’s purpose right from the beginning and that he began our continuous line of descent with bacteria.

You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory. God is bright enough to see Archaea and envision the human brain to appear later on. Your guy surely isn't. See the bumbling mess of theory presented at first, above.

Return to Cornelius Hunter's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 13, 2022, 17:57 (501 days ago) @ David Turell

A new post from him:

https://evolutionnews.org/2022/11/there-is-no-settled-theory-of-evolution/

What is evolution? The origin of species by: natural selection, random causes, common descent, gradualism, etc. Right?

Wrong. Too often that is what is taught, but it is false. That’s according to evolutionists themselves. A typical example? See, “The study of evolution is fracturing — and that may be a good thing,” by Lund University biologist Erik Svensson, writing at The Conversation.

Evolutionists themselves can forfeit natural selection, random causes, common descent, etc. How do I know? Because it is in the literature.

So, what is evolution? In other words, what is core to the theory — and not forfeitable? It’s naturalism. Period. That is the only thing required of evolutionary theory. And naturalism is a religious requirement, not a scientific one.

Aside from naturalism, practically anything is fair game: Uncanny convergence, rapid divergence, lineage-specific biology, evolution of evolution, directed mutations, saltationism, unlikely simultaneous mutations, just-so stories, multiverses … the list goes on.

But this is where it gets interesting. Because if you have two theories, you don’t have one theory. In other words, you have a multitude of contradictory theories. And you have heated debates because nothing seems to fit the data. In science, that is not a good sign. But it is exactly what evolutionists have had — for over a century now.

There is no such thing as a settled theory of evolution. On that point, textbook orthodoxy is simply false.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, November 14, 2022, 08:31 (501 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't see how you have solved dead ends. We are studying the same evolution with the same human result as its end point. God starting life at the Archaea and ending it with us defines His purpose.

First of all, I pointed out that if, as the article on “coming death of the sun” proposed, life on earth will end in about a billion years from now, we can hardly talk of your God ending evolution with us. Who knows what the next billion years will bring? Secondly, I explained how my three theistic theories solved dead ends. Your reply ignores all of this:

DAVID: God started a universe, created life (which is a lot more complicated) and evolved a human brain.

If he exists, he also “evolved” (for you = designed) countless other life forms, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans or our food. Why have you edited them out?

DAVID: Contrast that with you totally humanized bumbling God in your description.

I have already provided you with an extensive list of your humanizations, exemplified by your comment under “Pete the Opossum”. I see nothing “bumbling” in a God who wishes to create a free-for-all and does so, or who experiments in order to find the best formula to implement a particular concept, or who enjoys developing new ideas as he goes along. Contrast these versions with your own God, who for unknown reasons “has to” design countless life forms that have no connection with the only life forms he wants to design. This theory is one big bumble!

DAVID: You are a great storyteller, but I think have little recognition of what a God is supposed to be.

How can anyone know what a God is “supposed to be”? Even you, with your illogical theories, keep telling us we can’t know his reasons and we mustn’t “humanize” him (although you never cease to do so).

DAVID: Evolution is a continuum and everyone must eat along the way. Now what has survived makes up the giant system of ecosystems that must be here to feed us now.

dhw: You’ve got it: what survived evolved into the life forms and ecosystems of today. What did not survive were the countless dead-end life forms and ecosystems which you say your God specially designed because they were absolutely necessary for us and our food although they had no connection with us and our food!

DAVID: And you don't have it. The dead ends were necessary food supply through all stages on the way to now.

But all “stages” did not lead to now or to us or to our food! As you say above, only “what has survived” led to now. The vast majority died out long before now and had no connection with now or with us, so they could not have been necessary for now or for us. But if your God designed them, he must have had a reason, and so back we go to the beginning of this post.

dhw: I agree that we are descended from Archaea, but YOU say he descended us from Cambrian forms that had no predecessors, so how can we be descended from Archaea?

DAVID: Irrational. God as designer can skip forms when He wishes. Proof is the Cambrian.

Of course he can skip forms if he wishes (assuming he exists). But you can hardly skip the fact that if our ancestors had no predecessors prior to the Cambrian, we cannot be said to have descended from forms prior to the Cambrian, and every pre-Cambrian life form cannot have been necessary for him to produce our ancestors.

dhw: You have seized on the gaps in the fossil record as evidence of your God’s existence (only he could create species from scratch), without realizing that by doing so, you are contradicting your belief that we were our God’s purpose right from the beginning and that he began our continuous line of descent with bacteria.

DAVID: You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory. God is bright enough to see Archaea and envision the human brain to appear later on. Your guy surely isn't. See the bumbling mess of theory presented at first, above.

I don’t know of any design theory which stipulates that before you design what you want to design, you must first design countless things that have no connection with what you want to design. Why “see” Archaea and then “envision” our brain? This suggests that the sight of Archaea gave him the idea for the human brain (links up with my 3rd theory). So from then on maybe he experimented to find the best way to create our brain (2nd theory)? But then maybe he realized that he was getting nowhere, and hit on a different idea (2nd theory) and created species from scratch (Cambrian), one of which would bring him the desired result, while some of the rest would provide our food supply? This is getting interesting!

I don’t know what “bumbling mess” you are referring to. The only mess I can see is the totally illogical theory that your God had to design life forms that had no connection with what he wanted to design, and that we are descended from species that had no predecessors although we are descended from species which were designed hundreds of millions of years before the species that had no predecessors.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, November 14, 2022, 15:44 (500 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God started a universe, created life (which is a lot more complicated) and evolved a human brain.

dhw: If he exists, he also “evolved” (for you = designed) countless other life forms, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans or our food. Why have you edited them out?

Same tunnel vision. Evolution must have dead ends or there is no evolutionary progress. I am fully aware of all the dead ends that were food supply for the lines that progressed to the
next stage, which also shows the progressive lines also had side branch dead ends.


DAVID: Contrast that with you totally humanized bumbling God in your description.

dhw: I have already provided you with an extensive list of your humanizations, exemplified by your comment under “Pete the Opossum”. I see nothing “bumbling” in a God who wishes to create a free-for-all and does so, or who experiments in order to find the best formula to implement a particular concept, or who enjoys developing new ideas as he goes along. Contrast these versions with your own God, who for unknown reasons “has to” design countless life forms that have no connection with the only life forms he wants to design. This theory is one big bumble!

Your humanized God is one big bumble.


DAVID: You are a great storyteller, but I think have little recognition of what a God is supposed to be.

dhw: How can anyone know what a God is “supposed to be”? Even you, with your illogical theories, keep telling us we can’t know his reasons and we mustn’t “humanize” him (although you never cease to do so).

DAVID: Evolution is a continuum and everyone must eat along the way. Now what has survived makes up the giant system of ecosystems that must be here to feed us now.

dhw: You’ve got it: what survived evolved into the life forms and ecosystems of today. What did not survive were the countless dead-end life forms and ecosystems which you say your God specially designed because they were absolutely necessary for us and our food although they had no connection with us and our food!

DAVID: And you don't have it. The dead ends were necessary food supply through all stages on the way to now.

dhw: But all “stages” did not lead to now or to us or to our food! As you say above, only “what has survived” led to now. The vast majority died out long before now and had no connection with now or with us, so they could not have been necessary for now or for us. But if your God designed them, he must have had a reason, and so back we go to the beginning of this post.

His reasons: 1) advance the complexity of living biochemistry; 2) advance the complexity of living forms: 3) feed the advancing forms with necessary ecosystems; 4) end with the human brain


dhw: I agree that we are descended from Archaea, but YOU say he descended us from Cambrian forms that had no predecessors, so how can we be descended from Archaea?

DAVID: Irrational. God as designer can skip forms when He wishes. Proof is the Cambrian.

dhw: Of course he can skip forms if he wishes (assuming he exists). But you can hardly skip the fact that if our ancestors had no predecessors prior to the Cambrian, we cannot be said to have descended from forms prior to the Cambrian, and every pre-Cambrian life form cannot have been necessary for him to produce our ancestors.

If God designed it, it was necessary. You have weird thoughts about God.


dhw: You have seized on the gaps in the fossil record as evidence of your God’s existence (only he could create species from scratch), without realizing that by doing so, you are contradicting your belief that we were our God’s purpose right from the beginning and that he began our continuous line of descent with bacteria.

DAVID: You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory. God is bright enough to see Archaea and envision the human brain to appear later on. Your guy surely isn't. See the bumbling mess of theory presented at first, above.

dhw: I don’t know of any design theory which stipulates that before you design what you want to design, you must first design countless things that have no connection with what you want to design. Why “see” Archaea and then “envision” our brain? This suggests that the sight of Archaea gave him the idea for the human brain (links up with my 3rd theory). So from then on maybe he experimented to find the best way to create our brain (2nd theory)? But then maybe he realized that he was getting nowhere, and hit on a different idea (2nd theory) and created species from scratch (Cambrian), one of which would bring him the desired result, while some of the rest would provide our food supply? This is getting interesting!

I don’t know what “bumbling mess” you are referring to. The only mess I can see is the totally illogical theory that your God had to design life forms that had no connection with what he wanted to design, and that we are descended from species that had no predecessors although we are descended from species which were designed hundreds of millions of years before the species that had no predecessors.

All answered in discussions above

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, November 15, 2022, 11:30 (499 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God started a universe, created life (which is a lot more complicated) and evolved a human brain.

dhw: If he exists, he also “evolved” (for you = designed) countless other life forms, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans or our food. Why have you edited them out?

DAVID: Same tunnel vision. Evolution must have dead ends or there is no evolutionary progress.

Why? If your God knew exactly how to produce humans plus food, then all he had to do was produce humans plus food (Creationism), but if he wanted to do it through evolution, then he could have stuck to the life forms that led to us and our food. That in fact is precisely what you think he did in the Cambrian, when he created life forms which had no predecessors and which led to us and our food. Although even then you have him also designing dead ends that did not lead to us and our food!

DAVID: I am fully aware of all the dead ends that were food supply for the lines that progressed to the next stage, which also shows the progressive lines also had side branch dead ends.

The fact that you are aware of the dead ends which had no connection with us and our food makes it all the more astonishing that you keep insisting they were necessary for us and our food.

DAVID: You are a great storyteller, but I think have little recognition of what a God is supposed to be.

dhw: How can anyone know what a God is “supposed to be”? Even you, with your illogical theories, keep telling us we can’t know his reasons and we mustn’t “humanize” him (although you never cease to do so). […]

DAVID: The dead ends were necessary food supply through all stages on the way to now.

dhw: But all “stages” did not lead to now or to us or to our food! As you say above, only “what has survived” led to now. The vast majority died out long before now and had no connection with now or with us, so they could not have been necessary for now or for us. But if your God designed them, he must have had a reason, and so back we go to the beginning of this post. [I offered you three logical reasons for the dead ends.]

DAVID: His reasons: 1) advance the complexity of living biochemistry; 2) advance the complexity of living forms: 3) feed the advancing forms with necessary ecosystems; 4) end with the human brain.

If he already knew all about “living biochemistry” and what advanced and complex living forms he wanted to design, why did he have to design countless forms, both less and more advanced and complex, that had no connection with his sole purpose - us and our food? And why did he have to design the brontosaurus’s brain if he only wanted to design the brains of mice and men?

DAVID: God as designer can skip forms when He wishes. Proof is the Cambrian.

dhw: Of course he can skip forms if he wishes (assuming he exists). But you can hardly skip the fact that if our ancestors had no predecessors prior to the Cambrian, we cannot be said to have descended from forms prior to the Cambrian, and every pre-Cambrian life form cannot have been necessary for him to produce our ancestors.

DAVID: If God designed it, it was necessary. You have weird thoughts about God.
And under “toxoplasm”:
DAVID: Everything God designs was necessary, because if God designed it and it appeared, it was necessary. Everything found in evolution was God's creation!! Why do you forget that point?

The usual flannel, followed by the usual question: Necessary for what? You keep telling us that all the life forms and their food (mainly other life forms) which had no connection with us and our food were necessary for us and our food. “Why do you forget that (illogical) point”? I suggest that if God designed it, he wanted to design it. If he wanted a free-for-all he got it, but that means he did not design everything found in evolution. I needn’t repeat my other alternative explanations.

DAVID: You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory.

dhw: I don’t know of any design theory which stipulates that before you design what you want to design, you must first design countless things that have no connection with what you want to design.

Not answered.

DAVID: God is bright enough to see Archaea and envision the human brain to appear later on.

dhw: Why “see” Archaea and then “envision” our brain? This suggests that the sight of Archaea gave him the idea for the human brain (links up with my 3rd theory). So from then on maybe he experimented to find the best way to create our brain (2nd theory)? But then maybe he realized that he was getting nowhere, and hit on a different idea (2nd theory) and created species from scratch (Cambrian), one of which would bring him the desired result, while some of the rest would provide our food supply? This is getting interesting!

Not answered. Please explain what you meant by the "envision" comment.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 15, 2022, 17:44 (499 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same tunnel vision. Evolution must have dead ends or there is no evolutionary progress.

dhw: Why? If your God knew exactly how to produce humans plus food, then all he had to do was produce humans plus food (Creationism), but if he wanted to do it through evolution, then he could have stuck to the life forms that led to us and our food. That in fact is precisely what you think he did in the Cambrian, when he created life forms which had no predecessors and which led to us and our food. Although even then you have him also designing dead ends that did not lead to us and our food!

When will you finally accept God does what God does. We must look at the known history, accept God created it, and then try to understand it. All you are doing is complaining about what God did and claim God should have done it differently. Try that approach and stop complaining.


DAVID: The dead ends were necessary food supply through all stages on the way to now.

dhw: But all “stages” did not lead to now or to us or to our food! As you say above, only “what has survived” led to now. The vast majority died out long before now and had no connection with now or with us, so they could not have been necessary for now or for us. But if your God designed them, he must have had a reason, and so back we go to the beginning of this post. [I offered you three logical reasons for the dead ends.]

DAVID: His reasons: 1) advance the complexity of living biochemistry; 2) advance the complexity of living forms: 3) feed the advancing forms with necessary ecosystems; 4) end with the human brain.

dhw: If he already knew all about “living biochemistry” and what advanced and complex living forms he wanted to design, why did he have to design countless forms, both less and more advanced and complex, that had no connection with his sole purpose - us and our food? And why did he have to design the brontosaurus’s brain if he only wanted to design the brains of mice and men?

More complaining and criticizing God's works. See response aabove.

DAVID: If God designed it, it was necessary. You have weird thoughts about God.
And under “toxoplasm”:
DAVID: Everything God designs was necessary, because if God designed it and it appeared, it was necessary. Everything found in evolution was God's creation!! Why do you forget that point?

dhw: The usual flannel, followed by the usual question: Necessary for what? You keep telling us that all the life forms and their food (mainly other life forms) which had no connection with us and our food were necessary for us and our food. “Why do you forget that (illogical) point”? I suggest that if God designed it, he wanted to design it. If he wanted a free-for-all he got it, but that means he did not design everything found in evolution. I needn’t repeat my other alternative explanations.

The now bold is the problem! Free-for-all is your imagined, and desired weak God not in full control. If not in control, why need Him at all? The puzzled agnostic mind at work!


DAVID: You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory.

dhw: I don’t know of any design theory which stipulates that before you design what you want to design, you must first design countless things that have no connection with what you want to design.

Not answered.

You have no idea about new designing. One tries different approaches and analyzes the best one. In evolution much design was food supply.


DAVID: God is bright enough to see Archaea and envision the human brain to appear later on.

dhw: Why “see” Archaea and then “envision” our brain? This suggests that the sight of Archaea gave him the idea for the human brain (links up with my 3rd theory). So from then on maybe he experimented to find the best way to create our brain (2nd theory)? But then maybe he realized that he was getting nowhere, and hit on a different idea (2nd theory) and created species from scratch (Cambrian), one of which would bring him the desired result, while some of the rest would provide our food supply? This is getting interesting!

Not answered. Please explain what you meant by the "envision" comment.

God obviously knew where He was headed in the beginning but chose to evolve it. Tath isd pure history if one accepts God created the history as I do.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, November 16, 2022, 11:58 (498 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If your God knew exactly how to produce humans plus food, then all he had to do was produce humans plus food (Creationism), but if he wanted to do it through evolution, then he could have stuck to the life forms that led to us and our food. That in fact is precisely what you think he did in the Cambrian, when he created life forms which had no predecessors and which led to us and our food. Although even then you have him also designing dead ends that did not lead to us and our food!

DAVID: When will you finally accept God does what God does. We must look at the known history, accept God created it, and then try to understand it. All you are doing is complaining about what God did and claim God should have done it differently. Try that approach and stop complaining.

Your customary flannel, in which you ignore the above arguments and your own contradictions (notably with your theory about the Cambrian). The known history is one of countless life forms and ecosystems that have come and gone. The vast majority of these had no link to us humans and our food, and yet you claim that they were all necessary for us and our food. That claim is totally illogical. I am not complaining about what your God did, but about your illogical interpretation of what he did and why he did it. And I have offered you alternative theistic explanations which you agree are logical, but which you reject because they “humanize” him in different ways from your own humanizations” of him. Please stop dodging. (But see below for your dramatic endorsement of one of my alternatives.)

DAVID: His reasons: 1) advance the complexity of living biochemistry; 2) advance the complexity of living forms: 3) feed the advancing forms with necessary ecosystems; 4) end with the human brain.

dhw: If he already knew all about “living biochemistry” and what advanced and complex living forms he wanted to design, why did he have to design countless forms, both less and more advanced and complex, that had no connection with his sole purpose - us and our food? And why did he have to design the brontosaurus’s brain if he only wanted to design the brains of mice and men?

DAVID: More complaining and criticizing God's works. See response above.

I have complained about your theories, have asked you specific questions concerning their logic, but you continue to dodge. See above.

DAVID: If God designed it, it was necessary. You have weird thoughts about God.
And under “toxoplasm”:
DAVID: Everything God designs was necessary, because if God designed it and it appeared, it was necessary. Everything found in evolution was God's creation!! Why do you forget that point?

dhw: The usual flannel, followed by the usual question: Necessary for what? You keep telling us that all the life forms and their food (mainly other life forms) which had no connection with us and our food were necessary for us and our food. “Why do you forget that (illogical) point”? I suggest that if God designed it, he wanted to design it. If he wanted a free-for-all he got it, but that means he did not design everything found in evolution. I needn’t repeat my other alternative explanations.

DAVID: The now bold is the problem! Free-for-all is your imagined, and desired weak God not in full control. If not in control, why need Him at all? The puzzled agnostic mind at work!

The bold is one of my alternative explanations of the history of evolution as we know it. If God decided to create a free-for-all (epitomized by the free will he apparently gave us humans) as being of greater interest to him than a puppet show in which he pulls all the strings, that would explain all the dead ends which you can’t explain. There is nothing weak about giving up control if it his wish to give up control, and this does not stop the “puzzled agnostic” from recognizing that the complexities of life may well point to the existence of a designer.

DAVID: You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory.

dhw: I don’t know of any design theory which stipulates that before you design what you want to design, you must first design countless things that have no connection with what you want to design.

Not answered.

DAVID: You have no idea about new designing. One tries different approaches and analyzes the best one. In evolution much design was food supply.

A God in full control of everything would know just how to design what he wanted to design. But thank you for endorsing my second theory, which explains all the dead ends as being due to his experimenting (trying different approaches) in order to find the best one. At last you are beginning to open your mind to my logical theistic alternatives. :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 16, 2022, 16:25 (498 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: When will you finally accept God does what God does. We must look at the known history, accept God created it, and then try to understand it. All you are doing is complaining about what God did and claim God should have done it differently. Try that approach and stop complaining.

dhw: Your customary flannel, in which you ignore the above arguments and your own contradictions (notably with your theory about the Cambrian). The known history is one of countless life forms and ecosystems that have come and gone. The vast majority of these had no link to us humans and our food, and yet you claim that they were all necessary for us and our food. That claim is totally illogical. I am not complaining about what your God did, but about your illogical interpretation of what he did and why he did it.

You don't approach history from my standpoint at all. I accept the history of evolution is God's creation. Therefore, everything you object is what He designed, and for His own reasons. My flannel is my belief system, which is obviously beyond your ability to understand. From Archaea to humans everything that occurred was God's doing and therefore a required development.


dhw: The usual flannel, followed by the usual question: Necessary for what? You keep telling us that all the life forms and their food (mainly other life forms) which had no connection with us and our food were necessary for us and our food. “Why do you forget that (illogical) point”? I suggest that if God designed it, he wanted to design it. If he wanted a free-for-all he got it, but that means he did not design everything found in evolution. I needn’t repeat my other alternative explanations.

DAVID: The now bold is the problem! Free-for-all is your imagined, and desired weak God not in full control. If not in control, why need Him at all? The puzzled agnostic mind at work!

The bold is one of my alternative explanations of the history of evolution as we know it. If God decided to create a free-for-all (epitomized by the free will he apparently gave us humans) as being of greater interest to him than a puppet show in which he pulls all the strings, that would explain all the dead ends which you can’t explain. There is nothing weak about giving up control if it his wish to give up control, and this does not stop the “puzzled agnostic” from recognizing that the complexities of life may well point to the existence of a designer.

DAVID: You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory.

dhw: I don’t know of any design theory which stipulates that before you design what you want to design, you must first design countless things that have no connection with what you want to design.

DAVID: You have no idea about new designing. One tries different approaches and analyzes the best one. In evolution much design was food supply.

dhw: A God in full control of everything would know just how to design what he wanted to design. But thank you for endorsing my second theory, which explains all the dead ends as being due to his experimenting (trying different approaches) in order to find the best one. At last you are beginning to open your mind to my logical theistic alternatives. :-)

The bold is correct. The rest is your flannel. My comment above was from the human level of design which is what I thought was your level of discussion. To be quite clear: in my designing I had to look at alternatives; God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, November 17, 2022, 09:06 (498 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: When will you finally accept God does what God does. We must look at the known history, accept God created it, and then try to understand it. All you are doing is complaining about what God did and claim God should have done it differently. Try that approach and stop complaining.

dhw: Your customary flannel, in which you ignore the above arguments and your own contradictions (notably with your theory about the Cambrian). The known history is one of countless life forms and ecosystems that have come and gone. The vast majority of these had no link to us humans and our food, and yet you claim that they were all necessary for us and our food. That claim is totally illogical. I am not complaining about what your God did, but about your illogical interpretation of what he did and why he did it.

DAVID: You don't approach history from my standpoint at all. I accept the history of evolution is God's creation.

If God exists, then we will all have to accept that, but the history is of countless life forms which have come and gone. It is not history that your God designed each one individually, or that his only purpose was to design us plus food, or that all the dead ends were necessary for the design of humans plus food!

DAVID: Therefore, everything you object is what He designed, and for His own reasons.

I accept that if he exists, he would have created the above bolded history for his own reasons. What I do not accept is your theory that his only reason was to design us and our food, and that his method was to design countless life forms and foods, the vast majority of which were dead ends that had no connection with us and our food. […]

DAVID: You are so conflicted in your total lack of understanding of design theory. [dhw’s bold]

dhw: I don’t know of any design theory which stipulates that before you design what you want to design, you must first design countless things that have no connection with what you want to design.

DAVID: You have no idea about new designing. One tries different approaches and analyzes the best one. In evolution much design was food supply.

dhw: A God in full control of everything would know just how to design what he wanted to design. But thank you for endorsing my second theory, which explains all the dead ends as being due to his experimenting (trying different approaches) in order to find the best one. At last you are beginning to open your mind to my logical theistic alternatives. :-)

DAVID: The bold is correct. The rest is your flannel. My comment above was from the human level of design which is what I thought was your level of discussion. To be quite clear: in my designing I had to look at alternatives; God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations. ;-)

This is the most ridiculous of your dodges so far! The point at issue is the dead ends, i.e those branches of evolution which did not lead to your God’s one and only purpose of sapiens plus food but which you tell us he had to design because “all evolution has branches that lead to dead ends as types of individuals don’t survive and the ecosystems they support stop”. When I propose that the dead ends might be the result of your God experimenting, you tell me that God does not need to experiment, and I don’t understand design theory. Then you tell me that design theory means experimenting! I say thank you for telling us that the dead ends could be the result of your God conforming to design theory by experimenting, but then you say he doesn’t! He is direct! So now he designed us without having to design all the dead ends which according to you and your design theory he had to design because all evolution has to have dead ends. Please stop contradicting yourself.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 17, 2022, 18:45 (497 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You don't approach history from my standpoint at all. I accept the history of evolution is God's creation.

dhw: If God exists, then we will all have to accept that, but the history is of countless life forms which have come and gone. It is not history that your God designed each one individually, or that his only purpose was to design us plus food, or that all the dead ends were necessary for the design of humans plus food!

Of course God is not historical!!! But my belief is God created everything and my views as stated starts with that fact.

dhw: A God in full control of everything would know just how to design what he wanted to design. But thank you for endorsing my second theory, which explains all the dead ends as being due to his experimenting (trying different approaches) in order to find the best one. At last you are beginning to open your mind to my logical theistic alternatives. :-)

DAVID: The bold is correct. The rest is your flannel. My comment above was from the human level of design which is what I thought was your level of discussion. To be quite clear: in my designing I had to look at alternatives; God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations. ;-)

dhw: This is the most ridiculous of your dodges so far! The point at issue is the dead ends, i.e those branches of evolution which did not lead to your God’s one and only purpose of sapiens plus food but which you tell us he had to design because “all evolution has branches that lead to dead ends as types of individuals don’t survive and the ecosystems they support stop”.

Above I explain I misunderstood the level of discussion of design at human level, not God level, and then you jump all over me as 'dodging'. :-(

dhw: When I propose that the dead ends might be the result of your God experimenting, you tell me that God does not need to experiment, and I don’t understand design theory. Then you tell me that design theory means experimenting! I say thank you for telling us that the dead ends could be the result of your God conforming to design theory by experimenting, but then you say he doesn’t! He is direct! So now he designed us without having to design all the dead ends which according to you and your design theory he had to design because all evolution has to have dead ends. Please stop contradicting yourself.

You invent contradictions in your head. Note the bold. Yes, He is direct in designing a new form and directly designs each step of evolution. Accept, in my view, He formed every step from Archaea to humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, November 18, 2022, 12:00 (496 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You don't approach history from my standpoint at all. I accept the history of evolution is God's creation.

dhw: If God exists, then we will all have to accept that, but the history is of countless life forms which have come and gone. It is not history that your God designed each one individually, or that his only purpose was to design us plus food, or that all the dead ends were necessary for the design of humans plus food!

DAVID: Of course God is not historical!!! But my belief is God created everything and my views as stated starts with that fact.

All these discussions start with “if God exists”, and the dispute is over your illogical combination of theories now bolded above, describing a God who specially designs dead ends that have no connection with his one and only purpose.

dhw: A God in full control of everything would know just how to design what he wanted to design. But thank you for endorsing my second theory, which explains all the dead ends as being due to his experimenting (trying different approaches) in order to find the best one. At last you are beginning to open your mind to my logical theistic alternatives. :-)

DAVID: The bold is correct. The rest is your flannel. My comment above was from the human level of design which is what I thought was your level of discussion. To be quite clear: in my designing I had to look at alternatives; God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations. ;-)

dhw: This is the most ridiculous of your dodges so far! The point at issue is the dead ends, i.e those branches of evolution which did not lead to your God’s one and only purpose of sapiens plus food but which you tell us he had to design because “all evolution has branches that lead to dead ends as types of individuals don’t survive and the ecosystems they support stop”.

DAVID: Above I explain I misunderstood the level of discussion of design at human level, not God level, and then you jump all over me as 'dodging'. :-(

The subject is dead ends, as explained above. You agree that a God in full control would know how to design what he wanted to design. When I pointed out the illogicality of an all-knowing God designing countless life forms that had no connection with those he wanted to design, you told me I didn’t understand design theory. Why did you mention design theory if it was not meant to explain what I didn’t understand? It turns out that design theory entails experimentation – one of the three alternatives I have suggested as explanations for the dead ends! And so you promptly tell us that God does not experiment but is “direct”! Back we go: If he is “direct”, how do you explain all the dead ends?

DAVID: Yes, He is direct in designing a new form and directly designs each step of evolution. Accept, in my view, He formed every step from Archaea to humans.

And so you start dodging again! Every “new form” which he is “direct in designing” includes all those new forms that were NOT steps from Archaea to humans plus our food – the dead ends which you cannot explain! Your view of design theory provides an explanation: experimentation, but apparently you only mentioned my lack of understanding design theory because although design theory confirms one of my own theories, it has nothing to do with God’s unknown reason for directly designing the dead ends! (Sadly, the dodging continues on the “More miscellany” thread.)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, November 18, 2022, 16:02 (496 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Above I explain I misunderstood the level of discussion of design at human level, not God level, and then you jump all over me as 'dodging'. :-(

dhw: The subject is dead ends, as explained above. You agree that a God in full control would know how to design what he wanted to design. When I pointed out the illogicality of an all-knowing God designing countless life forms that had no connection with those he wanted to design, you told me I didn’t understand design theory. Why did you mention design theory if it was not meant to explain what I didn’t understand? It turns out that design theory entails experimentation – one of the three alternatives I have suggested as explanations for the dead ends! And so you promptly tell us that God does not experiment but is “direct”! Back we go: If he is “direct”, how do you explain all the dead ends?

As usual you ignore or have forgotten my discussion of dead ends to which you have previously agreed. Living forms disappear as evolution moves to new stages. Living forms must eat and are supplied by ecosystems. As living forms disappear so do ecosystems. This naturally creates dead ends. A continuously branching, designed evolution by God will have a definite direction to end in humans. But not just humans, but a giant bush of life supplying, we hope, enough food for humans. I can see a careful plan by God, which anticipates our current population of eight billion. Why can't you? ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, November 19, 2022, 12:25 (495 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The subject is dead ends, as explained above. You agree that a God in full control would know how to design what he wanted to design. When I pointed out the illogicality of an all-knowing God designing countless life forms that had no connection with those he wanted to design, you told me I didn’t understand design theory. Why did you mention design theory if it was not meant to explain what I didn’t understand? It turns out that design theory entails experimentation – one of the three alternatives I have suggested as explanations for the dead ends! And so you promptly tell us that God does not experiment but is “direct”! Back we go: If he is “direct”, how do you explain all the dead ends?

DAVID: As usual you ignore or have forgotten my discussion of dead ends to which you have previously agreed. Living forms disappear as evolution moves to new stages. Living forms must eat and are supplied by ecosystems. As living forms disappear so do ecosystems. This naturally creates dead ends.

So far, so good – except that your use of the word “naturally” subtly omits your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every living form that came to a dead end.

DAVID: A continuously branching, designed evolution by God will have a definite direction to end in humans. But not just humans, but a giant bush of life supplying, we hope, enough food for humans.

Yes, there are continuous branches that have led to humans and to our food. Those branches were NOT dead ends. Your problem is all the branches that WERE dead ends, i.e. which did NOT lead to us and our food, but which you say your God deliberately designed because they were necessary for him to design the branches that DID lead to us and our food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I can see a careful plan by God, which anticipates our current population of eight billion. Why can't you? ;-)

I can see that all the specially designed dead ends that did NOT lead to us and our food, cannot have been necessary as preparation for your God to design the branches which DID lead to us. Why can’t you? Meanwhile, you have also dodged the rest of the paragraph at the start of this thread, in which I point out that you have inadvertently agreed to the theory of experimentation, but then backtracked in favour of direct design, as if all the dead ends were direct design of us and our food! ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 19, 2022, 16:26 (495 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As usual you ignore or have forgotten my discussion of dead ends to which you have previously agreed. Living forms disappear as evolution moves to new stages. Living forms must eat and are supplied by ecosystems. As living forms disappear so do ecosystems. This naturally creates dead ends.

dhw: So far, so good – except that your use of the word “naturally” subtly omits your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every living form that came to a dead end.

There is more than one way to use the word naturally. I don't need to list the synonyms.


DAVID: A continuously branching, designed evolution by God will have a definite direction to end in humans. But not just humans, but a giant bush of life supplying, we hope, enough food for humans.

dhw: Yes, there are continuous branches that have led to humans and to our food. Those branches were NOT dead ends. Your problem is all the branches that WERE dead ends, i.e. which did NOT lead to us and our food, but which you say your God deliberately designed because they were necessary for him to design the branches that DID lead to us and our food. Please stop dodging.

You've repeated a good view of my theory. Whatever is here God designed. What is the dodge???


DAVID: I can see a careful plan by God, which anticipates our current population of eight billion. Why can't you? ;-)

dhw: I can see that all the specially designed dead ends that did NOT lead to us and our food, cannot have been necessary as preparation for your God to design the branches which DID lead to us. Why can’t you? Meanwhile, you have also dodged the rest of the paragraph at the start of this thread, in which I point out that you have inadvertently agreed to the theory of experimentation, but then backtracked in favour of direct design, as if all the dead ends were direct design of us and our food! ;-)

Why can't you remember my 'backtrack' was carefully explained as a misunderstanding of who was designing, me or God. Whatever is here God designed. Whatever was 'then' God designed.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, November 20, 2022, 10:36 (495 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As usual you ignore or have forgotten my discussion of dead ends to which you have previously agreed. Living forms disappear as evolution moves to new stages. Living forms must eat and are supplied by ecosystems. As living forms disappear so do ecosystems. This naturally creates dead ends.

dhw: So far, so good – except that your use of the word “naturally” subtly omits your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every living form that came to a dead end.

DAVID: There is more than one way to use the word naturally. I don't need to list the synonyms.

You usually use it as a contrast to your God’s purposefulness. It doesn’t matter. You are merely confirming your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every dead end, knowing that it would not lead to the fulfilment of his one and only goal. Why would he do that? Only God knows – it certainly doesn’t make sense to anyone else.

DAVID: A continuously branching, designed evolution by God will have a definite direction to end in humans. But not just humans, but a giant bush of life supplying, we hope, enough food for humans.

dhw: Yes, there are continuous branches that have led to humans and to our food. Those branches were NOT dead ends. Your problem is all the branches that WERE dead ends, i.e. which did NOT lead to us and our food, but which you say your God deliberately designed because they were necessary for him to design the branches that DID lead to us and our food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: You've repeated a good view of my theory. Whatever is here God designed. What is the dodge???

That it is absurd to argue that life forms which had no connection with your God’s purpose (i.e all the dead ends) were necessary for the fulfilment of your God’s purpose. All you focused on in your reply were those branches which were NOT dead ends.

DAVID: I can see a careful plan by God, which anticipates our current population of eight billion. Why can't you?

dhw: I can see that all the specially designed dead ends that did NOT lead to us and our food, cannot have been necessary as preparation for your God to design the branches which DID lead to us. Why can’t you? Meanwhile, you have also dodged the rest of the paragraph at the start of this thread, in which I point out that you have inadvertently agreed to the theory of experimentation, but then backtracked in favour of direct design, as if all the dead ends were direct design of us and our food!

DAVID: Why can't you remember my 'backtrack' was carefully explained as a misunderstanding of who was designing, me or God. Whatever is here God designed. Whatever was 'then' God designed.

And when I pointed out to you that your version of God inexplicably designed countless life forms that had no connection with his purpose, you told me I didn’t understand design theory. It turned out that design theory supported one of my own explanations (experimentation). How can you possibly have interpreted the bold as a reference to YOUR method of designing? Why would you even have mentioned design theory if it wasn’t meant to be a response to my criticism of your illogical theory of evolution? There is nothing wrong with the theory of experimentation – you have already agreed that it fits in logically with the history of life, as do my other alternatives. You reject them all because their “humanizations” are different from your “humanizations”. The fact that experimentation fits in with your concept of “design theory” is simply an additional observation, and we can leave it at that.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 20, 2022, 15:55 (494 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So far, so good – except that your use of the word “naturally” subtly omits your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every living form that came to a dead end.

DAVID: There is more than one way to use the word naturally. I don't need to list the synonyms.

dhw: You usually use it as a contrast to your God’s purposefulness. It doesn’t matter. You are merely confirming your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every dead end, knowing that it would not lead to the fulfilment of his one and only goal. Why would he do that? Only God knows – it certainly doesn’t make sense to anyone else.

When you finally find out God's reasoning, tell me and the whole world!!


DAVID: I can see a careful plan by God, which anticipates our current population of eight billion. Why can't you?

dhw: I can see that all the specially designed dead ends that did NOT lead to us and our food, cannot have been necessary as preparation for your God to design the branches which DID lead to us. Why can’t you? Meanwhile, you have also dodged the rest of the paragraph at the start of this thread, in which I point out that you have inadvertently agreed to the theory of experimentation, but then backtracked in favour of direct design, as if all the dead ends were direct design of us and our food!

DAVID: Why can't you remember my 'backtrack' was carefully explained as a misunderstanding of who was designing, me or God. Whatever is here God designed. Whatever was 'then' God designed.

dhw: And when I pointed out to you that your version of God inexplicably designed countless life forms that had no connection with his purpose, you told me I didn’t understand design theory. It turned out that design theory supported one of my own explanations (experimentation). How can you possibly have interpreted the bold as a reference to YOUR method of designing? Why would you even have mentioned design theory if it wasn’t meant to be a response to my criticism of your illogical theory of evolution? There is nothing wrong with the theory of experimentation – you have already agreed that it fits in logically with the history of life, as do my other alternatives. You reject them all because their “humanizations” are different from your “humanizations”. The fact that experimentation fits in with your concept of “design theory” is simply an additional observation, and we can leave it at that.

Finally. It has all been repetitious for both of us and our followers.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, November 21, 2022, 08:09 (494 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Living forms disappear as evolution moves to new stages. Living forms must eat and are supplied by ecosystems. As living forms disappear so do ecosystems. This naturally creates dead ends.

dhw: So far, so good – except that your use of the word “naturally” subtly omits your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every living form that came to a dead end.

DAVID: There is more than one way to use the word naturally. I don't need to list the synonyms.

dhw: You usually use it as a contrast to your God’s purposefulness. It doesn’t matter. You are merely confirming your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every dead end, knowing that it would not lead to the fulfilment of his one and only goal. Why would he do that? Only God knows – it certainly doesn’t make sense to anyone else.

DAVID: When you finally find out God's reasoning, tell me and the whole world!!

Nobody knows the objective truth, but different people offer different theories. We then discuss them to see how convincing they are. Your theory doesn’t even make sense to you, so I really don’t know why you’ve convinced yourself that it must be true and God must have his reasons for acting in such a nonsensical manner.

dhw: There is nothing wrong with the theory of experimentation – you have already agreed that it fits in logically with the history of life, as do my other alternatives. You reject them all because their “humanizations” are different from your “humanizations”. The fact that experimentation fits in with your concept of “design theory” is simply an additional observation, and we can leave it at that.

DAVID: Finally. It has all been repetitious for both of us and our followers.

At least it's good to know that the experimentation theory fits in with your own concept of design. Sadly, though, it won’t end the repetitive discussion concerning why you think your God would have deliberately designed all the dead ends which had nothing to do with what you believe was his sole purpose (us and our food). See your non-stop dodging on the “More miscellany” thread.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, November 21, 2022, 16:32 (493 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, November 21, 2022, 17:10

dhw: You usually use it as a contrast to your God’s purposefulness. It doesn’t matter. You are merely confirming your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every dead end, knowing that it would not lead to the fulfilment of his one and only goal. Why would he do that? Only God knows – it certainly doesn’t make sense to anyone else.

DAVID: When you finally find out God's reasoning, tell me and the whole world!!

dhw: Nobody knows the objective truth, but different people offer different theories. We then discuss them to see how convincing they are. Your theory doesn’t even make sense to you, so I really don’t know why you’ve convinced yourself that it must be true and God must have his reasons for acting in such a nonsensical manner.

My theory makes sense to me and you tell me it doesn't? How do you read my mind? What a God does is perfect, making perfect sense to Him. Which means I trust in God and accept what
He has done. He evolved humans from Archaea. It had what you think are messy dead ends. Any type of evolutionary process will necessarily have dead ends. Your objection boils down to God stupidly decided to evolve us.


dhw: There is nothing wrong with the theory of experimentation – you have already agreed that it fits in logically with the history of life, as do my other alternatives. You reject them all because their “humanizations” are different from your “humanizations”. The fact that experimentation fits in with your concept of “design theory” is simply an additional observation, and we can leave it at that.

DAVID: Finally. It has all been repetitious for both of us and our followers.

dhw: At least it's good to know that the experimentation theory fits in with your own concept of design.

Considering some alternatives at the start of presenting design is at a human level. God, as a perfect mind, knows exactly what to do and how to do it at the start. But not your humanized form.

dhw: Sadly, though, it won’t end the repetitive discussion concerning why you think your God would have deliberately designed all the dead ends which had nothing to do with what you believe was his sole purpose (us and our food). See your non-stop dodging on the “More miscellany” thread.

I am convinced I give you very direct answers. You ended this discussion. I agreed, and back again you go. The main problem is your definition of possible Gods is not mine. Mine is pure perfection, no need for experimenting, just as a starter example.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, November 22, 2022, 11:22 (492 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] You are merely confirming your fixed belief that your God deliberately designed every dead end, knowing that it would not lead to the fulfilment of his one and only goal. Why would he do that? Only God knows – it certainly doesn’t make sense to anyone else.

DAVID: When you finally find out God's reasoning, tell me and the whole world!!

dhw: Nobody knows the objective truth, but different people offer different theories. We then discuss them to see how convincing they are. Your theory doesn’t even make sense to you, so I really don’t know why you’ve convinced yourself that it must be true and God must have his reasons for acting in such a nonsensical manner.

DAVID:My theory makes sense to me and you tell me it doesn't? How do you read my mind? What a God does is perfect, making perfect sense to Him.

You keep repeating that you cannot know his reasons. That can only mean that you yourself don’t understand your theory (which "makes sense only to God”). But of course if God exists, what he does will make perfect sense to HIM! That doesn’t mean that he does what you say he does and why he does it is why you say he does it! Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Which means I trust in God and accept what He has done. He evolved humans from Archaea. It had what you think are messy dead ends. Any type of evolutionary process will necessarily have dead ends. Your objection boils down to God stupidly decided to evolve us.

I also believe that we are evolved from Archaea, but you do not accept what he has done! You accept what you think he has done and why you think he has done it. We only know of one “evolutionary process” that has produced the history of life, and that process has resulted in countless dead ends, i.e life forms that had no connection with what you believe was your God’s one and only purpose. You know as well as I do that my objection is to your nonsensical theory. I have offered you two logical explanations for the dead ends (experimentation and the pursuit of new ideas) both of which allow for your God’s decision to evolve us, and even the third (a free-for all) gives him the option to dabble. These would even explain another of your contradictions: your belief that he designed Cambrian species which had no predecessors and from which we and our food supplies are directly descended, although you also say that we are descended from Archaea and all the dead ends that preceded the Cambrian.

dhw: At least it's good to know that the experimentation theory fits in with your own concept of design. [See below]

DAVID: Considering some alternatives at the start of presenting design is at a human level. God, as a perfect mind, knows exactly what to do and how to do it at the start. But not your humanized form.

What is a “perfect mind”? It’s your God who makes the rules, not you! If he wants to experiment, pursue new ideas, invent a free-for-all, who are you to say such wishes are “imperfect”? And if he shares certain thought patterns and emotions with the life forms he has created (as you agree he probably/possibly does), who are you to say that makes him imperfect?

dhw: Sadly, though, it won’t end the repetitive discussion concerning why you think your God would have deliberately designed all the dead ends which had nothing to do with what you believe was his sole purpose (us and our food). See your non-stop dodging on the “More miscellany” thread.

DAVID: I am convinced I give you very direct answers. You ended this discussion. I agreed, and back again you go. The main problem is your definition of possible Gods is not mine. Mine is pure perfection, no need for experimenting, just as a starter example.

You have misunderstood what I ended. You had contradicted yourself by attacking me for not understanding “design theory”, but when it turned out that your “design theory” was identical to my experimentation theory, for some reason it turned out that your attack on me and your reference to “design theory” was meant to prove that God did NOT experiment. Hence my single comment above, now bolded, which enabled us to finish the discussion on “design theory”.
As for “perfection”, your definition would appear to be “whatever fits in with David Turell’s theories”. :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 22, 2022, 16:47 (492 days ago) @ dhw

;-) > DAVID:My theory makes sense to me and you tell me it doesn't? How do you read my mind? What a God does is perfect, making perfect sense to Him.


dhw: You keep repeating that you cannot know his reasons. That can only mean that you yourself don’t understand your theory (which "makes sense only to God”). But of course if God exists, what he does will make perfect sense to HIM! That doesn’t mean that he does what you say he does and why he does it is why you say he does it! Please stop dodging!

WE both see the same evolutionary history. My interpretation is not yours. I have the same right to reject your interpretation as you do mine. It is a standoff.


DAVID: Which means I trust in God and accept what He has done. He evolved humans from Archaea. It had what you think are messy dead ends. Any type of evolutionary process will necessarily have dead ends. Your objection boils down to God stupidly decided to evolve us.

dhw: I also believe that we are evolved from Archaea, but you do not accept what he has done! You accept what you think he has done and why you think he has done it. We only know of one “evolutionary process” that has produced the history of life, and that process has resulted in countless dead ends, i.e life forms that had no connection with what you believe was your God’s one and only purpose. You know as well as I do that my objection is to your nonsensical theory. I have offered you two logical explanations for the dead ends (experimentation and the pursuit of new ideas) both of which allow for your God’s decision to evolve us, and even the third (a free-for all) gives him the option to dabble. These would even explain another of your contradictions: your belief that he designed Cambrian species which had no predecessors and from which we and our food supplies are directly descended, although you also say that we are descended from Archaea and all the dead ends that preceded the Cambrian.

Again you go off on your tangents. You've again introduced your woolly weak God. And again (!) a repetition of your misunderstanding of a designer God who can create gaps at will.


dhw: Sadly, though, it won’t end the repetitive discussion concerning why you think your God would have deliberately designed all the dead ends which had nothing to do with what you believe was his sole purpose (us and our food). See your non-stop dodging on the “More miscellany” thread.

DAVID: I am convinced I give you very direct answers. You ended this discussion. I agreed, and back again you go. The main problem is your definition of possible Gods is not mine. Mine is pure perfection, no need for experimenting, just as a starter example.

dhw: You have misunderstood what I ended. You had contradicted yourself by attacking me for not understanding “design theory”, but when it turned out that your “design theory” was identical to my experimentation theory, for some reason it turned out that your attack on me and your reference to “design theory” was meant to prove that God did NOT experiment. Hence my single comment above, now bolded, which enabled us to finish the discussion on “design theory”.
As for “perfection”, your definition would appear to be “whatever fits in with David Turell’s theories”. :-)

My God does not ever experiment. Your hilarious complaint about the designed Cambrian gap shows your total lack of understanding a designer God. The gap is the prime example of the need for a designing mind. In his own say Darwin knew it. And you have misunderstood my wish to stop this ping-pong discussion. It is endless repetition of our positions. ;-) &:-(

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, November 23, 2022, 13:46 (491 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID:My theory makes sense to me and you tell me it doesn't? How do you read my mind? What a God does is perfect, making perfect sense to Him.

dhw: You keep repeating that you cannot know his reasons. That can only mean that you yourself don’t understand your theory (which "makes sense only to God”). But of course if God exists, what he does will make perfect sense to HIM! That doesn’t mean that he does what you say he does and why he does it is why you say he does it! Please stop dodging!

DAVID: We both see the same evolutionary history. My interpretation is not yours. I have the same right to reject your interpretation as you do mine. It is a standoff.

Of course you have the same right. That is not the issue. You keep telling me that your theory makes sense to you, and in the same breath you tell me that you do not and cannot know your God’s reasons for choosing such an illogical way of fulfilling his goal. Your theory “makes perfect sense to Him”, not to you! Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Which means I trust in God and accept what He has done. He evolved humans from Archaea. It had what you think are messy dead ends.. Your objection boils down to God stupidly decided to evolve us.

dhw: I also believe that we are evolved from Archaea, but you do not accept what he has done! You accept what you think he has done and why you think he has done it. We only know of one “evolutionary process” that has produced the history of life, and that process has resulted in countless dead ends, i.e life forms that had no connection with what you believe was your God’s one and only purpose. You know as well as I do that my objection is to your nonsensical theory. I have offered you two logical explanations for the dead ends (experimentation and the pursuit of new ideas) both of which allow for your God’s decision to evolve us, and even the third (a free-for all) gives him the option to dabble.

DAVID: Again you go off on your tangents. You've again introduced your woolly weak God.

You have agreed that all my alternatives fit in logically with the history of life as we know it. I can’t see why any of them make him weaker or woollier than a God who has one purpose, but designs countless dead ends because “any type of evolutionary process will necessarily have dead ends” (repeated under “problems for Darwin”). We only know of one evolution of life! If your God exists, he makes the rules, so you have him shackling himself by some obscure law of his own making: “No matter what thou wishest, thou shalt design dead ends.”

dhw: [My alternative theories] would even explain another of your contradictions: your belief that he designed Cambrian species which had no predecessors and from which we and our food supplies are directly descended, although you also say that we are descended from Archaea and all the dead ends that preceded the Cambrian.

DAVID: And again (!) a repetition of your misunderstanding of a designer God who can create gaps at will.

Of course he can, and that is why you can’t understand why he chose to evolve us plus all the dead ends instead of creating us directly, and why you tie yourself in knots to explain the above contradiction. (The fact that all life forms result from biochemical processes does not resolve any of your contradictions.) But we both accept evolution as a fact, so I have offered you two logical reasons for our evolution AND for the dead ends (plus a third which can also be made to fit), but you prefer to stick with a theory that makes no sense to you.

DAVID: My God does not ever experiment.

I know. You stick to your rigid beliefs even though they make no sense to you.

DAVID: Your hilarious complaint about the designed Cambrian gap shows your total lack of understanding a designer God. The gap is the prime example of the need for a designing mind. In his own say Darwin knew it.

Yes, the arrival of new species without any predecessors, just like the complexities of all life forms, provides a strong case for a designing mind. No issue there. But unfortunately for you, if he designed us and our food from scratch, it knocks on the head your rigid belief that he specially designed every single pre-Cambrian life form as an absolute requirement for us and our food.

DAVID: And you have misunderstood my wish to stop this ping-pong discussion. It is endless repetition of our positions.

It is also my wish, but so long as you continue to hammer home your message that your God individually designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., and that every extinct, dead-end life form etc. was necessary for the design of us and our food, it will be impossible to stop. For more of your dodges see “More miscellany”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 23, 2022, 17:29 (491 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Of course you have the same right. That is not the issue. You keep telling me that your theory makes sense to you, and in the same breath you tell me that you do not and cannot know your God’s reasons for choosing such an illogical way of fulfilling his goal. Your theory “makes perfect sense to Him”, not to you! Please stop dodging!

I've told you you don't know how to think about God as I do. I don't need to know His reasons for His actions to accept Him and his works. You don't believe in Him and so your 'illogical way' comment is your confused human criticism of God's choice of action. I simply accept He chose to evolve us.

dhw: ... We only know of one evolution of life! If your God exists, he makes the rules, so you have him shackling himself by some obscure law of his own making: “No matter what thou wishest, thou shalt design dead ends.”

A total non-sequitur: if He makes the rules, He also makes the choice to evolve!!! All evolution must have dead ends or nothing evolves!!!


dhw: [My alternative theories] would even explain another of your contradictions: your belief that he designed Cambrian species which had no predecessors and from which we and our food supplies are directly descended, although you also say that we are descended from Archaea and all the dead ends that preceded the Cambrian.

DAVID: And again (!) a repetition of your misunderstanding of a designer God who can create gaps at will.

dw: Of course he can, and that is why you can’t understand why he chose to evolve us plus all the dead ends instead of creating us directly, and why you tie yourself in knots to explain the above contradiction.....

Your human choice for direct creation did not happen!! Therefore, God chose to evolve us. Pure logic.


DAVID: Your hilarious complaint about the designed Cambrian gap shows your total lack of understanding a designer God. The gap is the prime example of the need for a designing mind. In his own say Darwin knew it.

dhw: Yes, the arrival of new species without any predecessors, just like the complexities of all life forms, provides a strong case for a designing mind. No issue there. But unfortunately for you, if he designed us and our food from scratch, it knocks on the head your rigid belief that he specially designed every single pre-Cambrian life form as an absolute requirement for us and our food.

A designing mind can do anything it wishes. It evolved us from Archaea. That is known history, assuming the mind in action as I do.


DAVID: And you have misunderstood my wish to stop this ping-pong discussion. It is endless repetition of our positions.

dhw: It is also my wish, but so long as you continue to hammer home your message that your God individually designed every life form, ecosystem, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., and that every extinct, dead-end life form etc. was necessary for the design of us and our food, it will be impossible to stop. For more of your dodges see “More miscellany”.

My God doesn't dodge, and I will continue to advertise Him here.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, November 24, 2022, 12:36 (490 days ago) @ David Turell

As this thread and the “more miscellany” thread are riddled with repetitions, I will try to edit the discussion without all the sub-headings.

dhw: […] the argument is not about the present ecosystem but about your irrational insistence that your God had to design all the extinct dead end systems of the past because although they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose, they were all necessary for him to fulfil his one and only purpose. If you stop repeating your dodges, I can stop pointing them out!

DAVID: They are not dodges but represent that you do not think about God as I do. Everything on Earth now and all past history of evolution is God's work. We were evolved. Dead ends happened as in any evolutionary processes. Your illogical analysis of reality as it relates to God's actions is flawed at all times.

If God exists, of course evolution is his work. That is true whether he designed every species, created a free-for-all, experimented to find a particular formula, or had new ideas as he went along. We and all other species, including the dead ends, “evolved” (though for you, this means they were individually designed by your God). Please stop hiding behind these vague generalizations as if somehow they explained the irrational theory bolded above, which you admit makes no sense to you. As for your mantra that all evolutionary processes have dead ends, we only know of one evolutionary process for life on Earth. Or have you secretly travelled round the universe documenting all of your God’s other evolutions of life?

DAVID: You don't believe in Him and so your 'illogical way' comment is your confused human criticism of God's choice of action. I simply accept He chose to evolve us.

I don’t disbelieve in him either, and I am NOT criticizing him. If God exists, I have no problem with his choice to evolve us and every other life form that ever existed, since I believe in evolution. What I do not believe is your irrational theory bolded above, which yet again you try to dodge by pretending that my agnosticism makes me confused.

DAVID: The 'countless forms' are today's food!!! Stop slicing up evolution as disconnected.

dhw: The countless dead ends, as you have repeatedly acknowledged, are the life forms that did NOT lead to today’s food! They formed the ecoysystems of the past which were only for the past. Today’s food forms are descended from those branches of evolution that were not dead ends. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: You give a perfect description of how evolution works and then complain about it. Of course, the necessary dead ends are not in our line!!! Pure logic.

So they were NOT necessary for us and our line, although you keep telling us that they were! And so your logic leads you to conclude that it was logical for your God to design dead ends that had no connection with his purpose because they were necessary for his purpose although they were not necessary for his purpose. Alice would have loved you.

DAVID: A designing mind can do anything it wishes. It evolved us from Archaea. That is known history, assuming the mind in action as I do.

I agree. It is therefore nonsense to claim, as you do, that we and our food are descended from life forms which he designed during the Cambrian WITHOUT PREDECESSORS. You use the Cambrian gap as evidence for your God’s existence. (You wrote: “ The gap is the prime example of the need for a designing mind.”) But if there is a direct line from Archaea to us, then there have to be pre-Cambrian predecessors! You can’t have it both ways! (See also under “a new fungal family”.)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 24, 2022, 15:53 (490 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: They are not dodges but represent that you do not think about God as I do. Everything on Earth now and all past history of evolution is God's work. We were evolved. Dead ends happened as in any evolutionary processes. Your illogical analysis of reality as it relates to God's actions is flawed at all times.

dhw: If God exists, of course evolution is his work. That is true whether he designed every species, created a free-for-all, experimented to find a particular formula, or had new ideas as he went along. We and all other species, including the dead ends, “evolved” (though for you, this means they were individually designed by your God). Please stop hiding behind these vague generalizations as if somehow they explained the irrational theory bolded above, which you admit makes no sense to you. As for your mantra that all evolutionary processes have dead ends, we only know of one evolutionary process for life on Earth. Or have you secretly travelled round the universe documenting all of your God’s other evolutions of life?

There are all sorts of evolutions: human inventions have failed forms that are discarded; failed concepts in philosophy; failed political parties; etc. All dead ends. As for your failed mantra that God makes no sense to me, it is an empty space filler of a contorted accusation. My view of my God makes perfect sense to me.


DAVID: You don't believe in Him and so your 'illogical way' comment is your confused human criticism of God's choice of action. I simply accept He chose to evolve us.

dhw: I don’t disbelieve in him either, and I am NOT criticizing him. If God exists, I have no problem with his choice to evolve us and every other life form that ever existed, since I believe in evolution. What I do not believe is your irrational theory bolded above, which yet again you try to dodge by pretending that my agnosticism makes me confused.

I think your rigid Agnosticism distorts any view of God. I don't recognize the 'Gods' you invent.


DAVID: You give a perfect description of how evolution works and then complain about it. Of course, the necessary dead ends are not in our line!!! Pure logic.

dhw: So they were NOT necessary for us and our line, although you keep telling us that they were! And so your logic leads you to conclude that it was logical for your God to design dead ends that had no connection with his purpose because they were necessary for his purpose although they were not necessary for his purpose. Alice would have loved you.

You totally ignore the point I start with. God, the creator, created everything He thought necessary. Which then leads to accepting everything in God's evolutionary process was required. Alice is not helping you out of your confusion even while reminding us confusion exists.


DAVID: A designing mind can do anything it wishes. It evolved us from Archaea. That is known history, assuming the mind in action as I do.

dhw:I agree. It is therefore nonsense to claim, as you do, that we and our food are descended from life forms which he designed during the Cambrian WITHOUT PREDECESSORS. You use the Cambrian gap as evidence for your God’s existence. (You wrote: “ The gap is the prime example of the need for a designing mind.”) But if there is a direct line from Archaea to us, then there have to be pre-Cambrian predecessors! You can’t have it both ways! (See also under “a new fungal family”.)

Totally illogical. Only a Darwinian wants tiny step-by-step evolution!!! Gould pointed out small gaps everywhere. The Cambrian gap was recognized by Darwin, who hoped it wouild be filled about 170 years ago. Still there in spades with al the new discoveries in China.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, November 25, 2022, 12:47 (489 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As for your mantra that all evolutionary processes have dead ends, we only know of one evolutionary process for life on Earth. Or have you secretly travelled round the universe documenting all of your God’s other evolutions of life?

DAVID: There are all sorts of evolutions: human inventions have failed forms that are discarded; failed concepts in philosophy; failed political parties; etc. All dead ends.

So now you are telling us that your God, who knew exactly how to design what he wanted, designed life forms that failed to come up with the life forms he wanted to design. Your God kept failing, exactly like us humans! And you think I'm the one who " humanizes" your God! (Heaven forbid that you should accept that his failures might be a sign that he was experimenting.)

DAVID: As for your failed mantra that God makes no sense to me, it is an empty space filler of a contorted accusation. My view of my God makes perfect sense to me.

Please stop manufacturing straw men. I have never said that God makes no sense to you! It is your theory concerning his purpose and actions that you admit you cannot explain – it "makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: I think your rigid Agnosticism distorts any view of God. I don't recognize the 'Gods' you invent.

I think your rigid adherence to a theory you cannot understand yourself “distorts any view of God”. You recognize the logic of my alternative explanations concerning his purpose(s) and methods, but you prefer to dismiss these on the grounds that they imply patterns of human thought, emotions and logic that differ from those you attribute to him. (Surprisingly these now include the desire to design his own failures.)

DAVID: You give a perfect description of how evolution works and then complain about it. Of course, the necessary dead ends are not in our line!!! Pure logic.

dhw: So they were NOT necessary for us and our line, although you keep telling us that they were! And so your logic leads you to conclude that it was logical for your God to design dead ends that had no connection with his purpose because they were necessary for his purpose although they were not necessary for his purpose. Alice would have loved you.

DAVID: You totally ignore the point I start with. God, the creator, created everything He thought necessary. Which then leads to accepting everything in God's evolutionary process was required. Alice is not helping you out of your confusion even while reminding us confusion exists.

You agree that the dead ends were not necessary for our line plus food. But now you believe your God thought designing dead-end failures was necessary for him to succeed.

DAVID: A designing mind can do anything it wishes. It evolved us from Archaea. That is known history, assuming the mind in action as I do.

dhw: I agree. It is therefore nonsense to claim, as you do, that we and our food are descended from life forms which he designed during the Cambrian WITHOUT PREDECESSORS. You use the Cambrian gap as evidence for your God’s existence. (You wrote: “ The gap is the prime example of the need for a designing mind.”) But if there is a direct line from Archaea to us, then there have to be pre-Cambrian predecessors! You can’t have it both ways! (See also below, under “a new fungal family”.)

DAVID: Totally illogical. Only a Darwinian wants tiny step-by-step evolution!!! Gould pointed out small gaps everywhere. The Cambrian gap was recognized by Darwin, who hoped it wouild be filled about 170 years ago. Still there in spades with al the new discoveries in China.

Of course there are gaps. You can’t expect to find fossils of every single link in every single line for the last 3.8 billion years! But as usual, you have simply ignored the contradiction between your two sets of theories! If you believe there is a continuous line of descent from Archaea to us plus food, it makes no sense to state that we plus food are descended from life forms that had no predecessors!

New Edicarean fossils; new ones with meal

DAVID: we knew they had to eat and are early animals but not anywhere near as complex as Cambrian's.

dhw: That’s evolution for you – later animals build on the foundations laid by their ancestors. More support for the continuity of speciation, as opposed to speciation without predecessors.

DAVID: The Cambrian is exactly what you decry! Darwinian evolution of tiny phenotypic steps is dead! (dhw: David’s Cambrian theory is that God designed our ancestors plus foods from scratch, without any predecessors.)

And under “A new fungal family”:

DAVID: Where did our Archaean genes come from? CONTINUITY! "Darwinian evolution of tiny phenotypic steps is dead!"

Forget Darwin. Do you or do you not believe that we and our food evolved in a continuous line from Archaea? Or do you believe that we and our food descended from Cambrian life forms which your God designed from scratch without any predecessors?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, November 25, 2022, 18:21 (489 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There are all sorts of evolutions: human inventions have failed forms that are discarded; failed concepts in philosophy; failed political parties; etc. All dead ends.

dhw: So now you are telling us that your God, who knew exactly how to design what he wanted, designed life forms that failed to come up with the life forms he wanted to design. Your God kept failing, exactly like us humans! And you think I'm the one who " humanizes" your God!

I bring up human examples of dead ends to try and empty your head of worry about dead ends in any form of evolution, and back you bounce to worry about God's form of evolution. All dead ends are of equal importance as examples of how any form evolution works!

DAVID: As for your failed mantra that God makes no sense to me, it is an empty space filler of a contorted accusation. My view of my God makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: Please stop manufacturing straw men. I have never said that God makes no sense to you! It is your theory concerning his purpose and actions that you admit you cannot explain – it "makes sense only to God”.

And in that concept, it makes perfect sense to me. Something that evades your understanding.


DAVID: You totally ignore the point I start with. God, the creator, created everything He thought necessary. Which then leads to accepting everything in God's evolutionary process was required.

dhw: You agree that the dead ends were not necessary for our line plus food. But now you believe your God thought designing dead-end failures was necessary for him to succeed.

Again, your failure to comprehend. Whatever has appeared God considered was required

DAVID: Totally illogical. Only a Darwinian wants tiny step-by-step evolution!!! Gould pointed out small gaps everywhere. The Cambrian gap was recognized by Darwin, who hoped it would be filled about 170 years ago. Still there, in spades, with all the new discoveries in China.

dhw: Of course there are gaps. You can’t expect to find fossils of every single link in every single line for the last 3.8 billion years! But as usual, you have simply ignored the contradiction between your two sets of theories! If you believe there is a continuous line of descent from Archaea to us plus food, it makes no sense to state that we plus food are descended from life forms that had no predecessors!

A designer can create any gaps He wishes in phenotypes, but not in the biochemistry of living. Only advances in biochemistry permit advances in phenotypes. True evolutionary continuity is in advancing biochemistry, never phenotype.


New Edicarean fossils; new ones with meal

DAVID: we knew they had to eat and are early animals but not anywhere near as complex as Cambrian's.

dhw: That’s evolution for you – later animals build on the foundations laid by their ancestors. More support for the continuity of speciation, as opposed to speciation without predecessors.

DAVID: The Cambrian is exactly what you decry! Darwinian evolution of tiny phenotypic steps is dead! (dhw: David’s Cambrian theory is that God designed our ancestors plus foods from scratch, without any predecessors.)

And under “A new fungal family”:

DAVID: Where did our Archaean genes come from? CONTINUITY! "Darwinian evolution of tiny phenotypic steps is dead!"

dhw: Forget Darwin. Do you or do you not believe that we and our food evolved in a continuous line from Archaea? Or do you believe that we and our food descended from Cambrian life forms which your God designed from scratch without any predecessors?

From Archaea!!! Which provided the biochemistry for later forms to join in multicellularity. The bold is again Darwinian phenotypical interpretation of evolution

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, November 26, 2022, 08:42 (489 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There are all sorts of evolutions: human inventions have failed forms that are discarded; failed concepts in philosophy; failed political parties; etc. All dead ends.

dhw: So now you are telling us that your God, who knew exactly how to design what he wanted, designed life forms that failed to come up with the life forms he wanted to design. Your God kept failing, exactly like us humans! And you think I'm the one who " humanizes" your God!

DAVID: I bring up human examples of dead ends to try and empty your head of worry about dead ends in any form of evolution, and back you bounce to worry about God's form of evolution. All dead ends are of equal importance as examples of how any form evolution works!

So your God specially designed countless forms of life that had no connection with those that he wanted to design, because dead ends are important to show that evolution works by repeatedly failing to design what you want to design. I hope your all-powerful God knows what you are talking about.

DAVID: As for your failed mantra that God makes no sense to me, it is an empty space filler of a contorted accusation. My view of my God makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: Please stop manufacturing straw men. I have never said that God makes no sense to you! It is your theory concerning his purpose and actions that you admit you cannot explain – it "makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: And in that concept, it makes perfect sense to me. Something that evades your understanding.

In what context? Human attempts at design often fail in dead ends, and therefore if your all-powerful God wants to design something, first he has to design dead ends! (Just like humans, but you are not humanizing him, and his failed attempts to design what he wants to design can’t possibly be viewed as experiments.)

DAVID: You totally ignore the point I start with. God, the creator, created everything He thought necessary. Which then leads to accepting everything in God's evolutionary process was required.

dhw: You agree that the dead ends were not necessary for our line plus food. But now you believe your God thought designing dead-end failures was necessary for him to succeed.

DAVID: Again, your failure to comprehend. Whatever has appeared God considered was required.

And according to you, dead ends that had no connection with his purpose were “required”, because that is how human forms of evolution work.

dhw: (referring to the Cambrian): If you believe there is a continuous line of descent from Archaea to us plus food, it makes no sense to state that we plus food are descended from life forms that had no predecessors!

DAVID: A designer can create any gaps He wishes in phenotypes, but not in the biochemistry of living. Only advances in biochemistry permit advances in phenotypes. True evolutionary continuity is in advancing biochemistry, never phenotype.

ALL phenotypes evolve into different phenotypes through changes in the biochemistry.
You seem to be saying that speciation is irrelevant to the concept of common descent.

dhw: Do you or do you not believe that we and our food evolved in a continuous line from Archaea? Or do you believe that we and our food descended from Cambrian life forms which your God designed from scratch without any predecessors?

DAVID: From Archaea!!! Which provided the biochemistry for later forms to join in multicellularity.

So your God's apparent creation of the new Cambrian phenotypes (without predecessors) from which we are descended does not denote a break in evolutionary continuity, because "true" continuity is only defined by the fact that all evolutionary developments involve biochemical changes. And there was me thinking that the basis of evolution was the development of all living forms from earlier ancestral forms. :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 26, 2022, 16:42 (488 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I bring up human examples of dead ends to try and empty your head of worry about dead ends in any form of evolution, and back you bounce to worry about God's form of evolution. All dead ends are of equal importance as examples of how any form evolution works!

dhw: So your God specially designed countless forms of life that had no connection with those that he wanted to design, because dead ends are important to show that evolution works by repeatedly failing to design what you want to design. I hope your all-powerful God knows what you are talking about.

More tortured twists invented about evolution. In our case, simple became complex and many simple organisms disappeared. But many remain to form the ecosystems that feed us. A perfect example is dinosaurs becoming our birds. God knew how to evolve us. You don't understand my God.


DAVID: You totally ignore the point I start with. God, the creator, created everything He thought necessary. Which then leads to accepting everything in God's evolutionary process was required.

dhw: You agree that the dead ends were not necessary for our line plus food. But now you believe your God thought designing dead-end failures was necessary for him to succeed.

DAVID: Again, your failure to comprehend. Whatever has appeared God considered was required.

dhw: And according to you, dead ends that had no connection with his purpose were “required”, because that is how human forms of evolution work.

All forms of evolution may have dead ends while working from start to end. I used human to help you see teh need for dead ends. Direct creation solves the dead-end problem, as you have noted


dhw: (referring to the Cambrian): If you believe there is a continuous line of descent from Archaea to us plus food, it makes no sense to state that we plus food are descended from life forms that had no predecessors!

DAVID: A designer can create any gaps He wishes in phenotypes, but not in the biochemistry of living. Only advances in biochemistry permit advances in phenotypes. True evolutionary continuity is in advancing biochemistry, never phenotype.

dhw: ALL phenotypes evolve into different phenotypes through changes in the biochemistry.
You seem to be saying that speciation is irrelevant to the concept of common descent.

No, the level of developed biochemistry of life permits the design of a new more advanced species from old. Still speciation. Allows for gaps in forms from a continuous process, the complexification of living biochemistry.


dhw: Do you or do you not believe that we and our food evolved in a continuous line from Archaea? Or do you believe that we and our food descended from Cambrian life forms which your God designed from scratch without any predecessors?

DAVID: From Archaea!!! Which provided the biochemistry for later forms to join in multicellularity.

dhw: So your God's apparent creation of the new Cambrian phenotypes (without predecessors) from which we are descended does not denote a break in evolutionary continuity, because "true" continuity is only defined by the fact that all evolutionary developments involve biochemical changes. And there was me thinking that the basis of evolution was the development of all living forms from earlier ancestral forms. :-(

Sorry for your incomplete thinking. There are two levels to study. The inner biochemicals and the outer forms. Our neurons work like mouse neurons, but the underlying functions are used in humans to create more advanced neurons which function at a more complex way.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, November 27, 2022, 12:12 (487 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I bring up human examples of dead ends to try and empty your head of worry about dead ends in any form of evolution, and back you bounce to worry about God's form of evolution. All dead ends are of equal importance as examples of how any form evolution works!

dhw: So your God specially designed countless forms of life that had no connection with those that he wanted to design, because dead ends are important to show that evolution works by repeatedly failing to design what you want to design. I hope your all-powerful God knows what you are talking about.

DAVID: More tortured twists invented about evolution. In our case, simple became complex and many simple organisms disappeared. But many remain to form the ecosystems that feed us. A perfect example is dinosaurs becoming our birds. God knew how to evolve us. You don't understand my God.

Your usual blatant dodge. What you have written is spot on: we and our current ecosystems are descended from those forms of life that were not dead ends. But what you have left out of your account is the question why your God “needed” to design all the dead ends which had no connection with us and our food. Your absurd explanation in the comment at the head of this post is that your God designed them to show that evolution works by designing failures, which you even repeat as follows:

DAVID: All forms of evolution may have dead ends while working from start to end. I used human to help you see teh need for dead ends. Direct creation solves the dead-end problem, as you have noted.

What “need” for dead ends? Even on a human level, do you think every inventor, philosopher, scientist says to him/herself: “I need to fail before I succeed”? Do you really believe that your God said the same thing when – as you claim – he started out with the one and only goal of designing us and our food? “I need to design failures so that humans will know how important it is to fail before they succeed.” Of course direct creation would solve the problem! The problem is the fact that according to your theory, your God did NOT directly create what he wanted to create, but created failures! (See also “Viruses fight bat immunity” etc.)

dhw: (referring to the Cambrian): If you believe there is a continuous line of descent from Archaea to us plus food, it makes no sense to state that we plus food are descended from life forms that had no predecessors!

DAVID: A designer can create any gaps He wishes in phenotypes, but not in the biochemistry of living. Only advances in biochemistry permit advances in phenotypes. True evolutionary continuity is in advancing biochemistry, never phenotype.

dhw: ALL phenotypes evolve into different phenotypes through changes in the biochemistry.
You seem to be saying that speciation is irrelevant to the concept of common descent.

DAVID: No, the level of developed biochemistry of life permits the design of a new more advanced species from old. Still speciation. Allows for gaps in forms from a continuous process, the complexification of living biochemistry.

What permits speciation is the flexibility of the biochemistry of life. The theory of common descent, which you claim to believe in, is not based on the fact that all speciation entails changes in the biochemistry! Common descent consists in the “forms” that develop from earlier forms. And in your theory, the only “forms” we humans plus our food are descended from are those which your God created without predecessors. This breaks the continuity of common descent, thereby invalidating the theory that we plus our food are descended from Archaea and pre-Cambrian “forms”. (NB I myself do believe in a continuous line of descent from bacteria to us. Yes, the Cambrian is an unsolved mystery, but that does not remove the blatant contradiction between your two theories.)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 27, 2022, 17:05 (487 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I bring up human examples of dead ends to try and empty your head of worry about dead ends in any form of evolution, and back you bounce to worry about God's form of evolution. All dead ends are of equal importance as examples of how any form evolution works!

dhw: So your God specially designed countless forms of life that had no connection with those that he wanted to design, because dead ends are important to show that evolution works by repeatedly failing to design what you want to design. I hope your all-powerful God knows what you are talking about.

DAVID: More tortured twists invented about evolution. In our case, simple became complex and many simple organisms disappeared. But many remain to form the ecosystems that feed us. A perfect example is dinosaurs becoming our birds. God knew how to evolve us. You don't understand my God.

dhw: Your usual blatant dodge. What you have written is spot on: we and our current ecosystems are descended from those forms of life that were not dead ends. But what you have left out of your account is the question why your God “needed” to design all the dead ends which had no connection with us and our food. Your absurd explanation in the comment at the head of this post is that your God designed them to show that evolution works by designing failures, which you even repeat as follows:

DAVID: All forms of evolution may have dead ends while working from start to end. I used human to help you see the need for dead ends. Direct creation solves the dead-end problem, as you have noted.

dhw: What “need” for dead ends? Even on a human level, do you think every inventor, philosopher, scientist says to him/herself: “I need to fail before I succeed”? Do you really believe that your God said the same thing when – as you claim – he started out with the one and only goal of designing us and our food? “I need to design failures so that humans will know how important it is to fail before they succeed.” Of course direct creation would solve the problem! The problem is the fact that according to your theory, your God did NOT directly create what he wanted to create, but created failures! (See also “Viruses fight bat immunity” etc.)

Of course dead ends can be considered failures, but evolutions advance from failed experiments in form and function and then new attempts at success. Dinosaurs disappeared but gave us birds. But as always you ignore that God produced everything we know about, and if God created it He felt it was required to appear.


dhw: (referring to the Cambrian): If you believe there is a continuous line of descent from Archaea to us plus food, it makes no sense to state that we plus food are descended from life forms that had no predecessors!

DAVID: A designer can create any gaps He wishes in phenotypes, but not in the biochemistry of living. Only advances in biochemistry permit advances in phenotypes. True evolutionary continuity is in advancing biochemistry, never phenotype.

dhw: ALL phenotypes evolve into different phenotypes through changes in the biochemistry.
You seem to be saying that speciation is irrelevant to the concept of common descent.

DAVID: No, the level of developed biochemistry of life permits the design of a new more advanced species from old. Still speciation. Allows for gaps in forms from a continuous process, the complexification of living biochemistry.

dhw: What permits speciation is the flexibility of the biochemistry of life. The theory of common descent, which you claim to believe in, is not based on the fact that all speciation entails changes in the biochemistry! Common descent consists in the “forms” that develop from earlier forms.

It is time to forget Darwin and his ancient form of common descent. Modern work on relationships is done at the genome level, which at times finds surprising relationships contrary to analysis from form.

dhw: And in your theory, the only “forms” we humans plus our food are descended from are those which your God created without predecessors. This breaks the continuity of common descent,

Same answer given above. Genome trees are not Darwin's tree.

dhw: thereby invalidating the theory that we plus our food are descended from Archaea and pre-Cambrian “forms”. (NB I myself do believe in a continuous line of descent from bacteria to us. Yes, the Cambrian is an unsolved mystery, but that does not remove the blatant contradiction between your two theories.)

The contradiction is your 170-year-old thinking.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, November 28, 2022, 10:51 (486 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I bring up human examples of dead ends to try and empty your head of worry about dead ends in any form of evolution, and back you bounce to worry about God's form of evolution. All dead ends are of equal importance as examples of how any form evolution works!

dhw: So your God specially designed countless forms of life that had no connection with those that he wanted to design, because dead ends are important to show that evolution works by repeatedly failing to design what you want to design. I hope your all-powerful God knows what you are talking about.[…]

DAVID: [….] All forms of evolution may have dead ends while working from start to end. I used human to help you see the need for dead ends. Direct creation solves the dead-end problem, as you have noted.

dhw: What “need” for dead ends? Even on a human level, do you think every inventor, philosopher, scientist says to him/herself: “I need to fail before I succeed”? Do you really believe that your God said the same thing when – as you claim – he started out with the one and only goal of designing us and our food? “I need to design failures so that humans will know how important it is to fail before they succeed.” Of course direct creation would solve the problem! The problem is the fact that according to your theory, your God did NOT directly create what he wanted to create, but created failures! (See also “Viruses fight bat immunity” etc.)

DAVID: Of course dead ends can be considered failures, but evolutions advance from failed experiments in form and function and then new attempts at success. Dinosaurs disappeared but gave us birds. But as always you ignore that God produced everything we know about, and if God created it He felt it was required to appear.

The question is how dead ends that had no connection with his purpose could be required to appear in order for him to achieve his purpose. Thank you for again accepting one of my theistic answers, which is that the dead ends might be the result of your God experimenting. The last time I pointed this out to you (16th November), you replied: “God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations.” I’m glad you’ve changed your mind. Another of my theories (God had new ideas as he went along) could also fit in with your description above: producing a particular dinosaur might have given him the idea to produce a bird. I don’t “ignore” that God produced everything, because another of my theistic theories – which offers an equally logical explanation for the dead ends – is that he did NOT produce everything we know about, but that he created an autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence) which in turn produced not only us and our food but also all the dead ends which did not lead to us and our food. Your only objection to all of these has been that they “humanize” him in different ways from your own “humanizations” of him. One down, two to go!

dhw: (referring to the Cambrian): If you believe there is a continuous line of descent from Archaea to us plus food, it makes no sense to state that we plus food are descended from life forms that had no predecessors!

DAVID: A designer can create any gaps He wishes in phenotypes, but not in the biochemistry of living. Only advances in biochemistry permit advances in phenotypes. True evolutionary continuity is in advancing biochemistry, never phenotype.[…]

dhw: [….] What permits speciation is the flexibility of the biochemistry of life. The theory of common descent, which you claim to believe in, is not based on the fact that all speciation entails changes in the biochemistry! Common descent consists in the “forms” that develop from earlier forms.

DAVID: It is time to forget Darwin and his ancient form of common descent. Modern work on relationships is done at the genome level, which at times finds surprising relationships contrary to analysis from form.

Not “contrary to” but “in addition to”! Do you really think the new-found genomic relationships invalidate the form relationships? The more shared characteristics we find at whatever level, the greater the support for Darwin. And that does not resolve the contradiction between your two theories! If there are relationships at any level between the Cambrian organisms from which we are descended and those that preceded them, then the Cambrian organism had predecessors. That is why you agree that we are descended from bacteria! So how can you argue that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, November 28, 2022, 18:17 (486 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course dead ends can be considered failures, but evolutions advance from failed experiments in form and function and then new attempts at success. Dinosaurs disappeared but gave us birds. But as always you ignore that God produced everything we know about, and if God created it He felt it was required to appear.

dhw: The question is how dead ends that had no connection with his purpose could be required to appear in order for him to achieve his purpose. Thank you for again accepting one of my theistic answers, which is that the dead ends might be the result of your God experimenting. The last time I pointed this out to you (16th November), you replied: “God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations.” I’m glad you’ve changed your mind. Another of my theories (God had new ideas as he went along) could also fit in with your description above: producing a particular dinosaur might have given him the idea to produce a bird. I don’t “ignore” that God produced everything, because another of my theistic theories – which offers an equally logical explanation for the dead ends – is that he did NOT produce everything we know about, but that he created an autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence) which in turn produced not only us and our food but also all the dead ends which did not lead to us and our food. Your only objection to all of these has been that they “humanize” him in different ways from your own “humanizations” of him. One down, two to go!

The best example to discuss is dinosaurs. They ended up producing our birds, after being round successfully for millions of years. But they are gone as dead ends. This applies to many other forms that have disappeared and left behind new forms. I view God creating forms knowing they will disappear into new forms. That is evolution. I do not accept natural evolution and think your secondhand theory is another attempt to subtility get rid of a need for God.


DAVID: It is time to forget Darwin and his ancient form of common descent. Modern work on relationships is done at the genome level, which at times finds surprising relationships contrary to analysis from form.

Not “contrary to” but “in addition to”! Do you really think the new-found genomic relationships invalidate the form relationships? The more shared characteristics we find at whatever level, the greater the support for Darwin. And that does not resolve the contradiction between your two theories! If there are relationships at any level between the Cambrian organisms from which we are descended and those that preceded them, then the Cambrian organism had predecessors. That is why you agree that we are descended from bacteria! So how can you argue that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors?

Their predecessors are obviously the Ediacarans. They have the necessary underlying biochemistry to support the very new and very complex Cambrian forms. This gap is not speciation in any form you can describe, just a giant gap in forms.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, November 29, 2022, 12:21 (485 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course dead ends can be considered failures, but evolutions advance from failed experiments in form and function and then new attempts at success. […] (dhw’s bold)

dhw: […] Thank you for again accepting one of my theistic answers, which is that the dead ends might be the result of your God experimenting. The last time I pointed this out to you (16th November), you replied: “God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations.” I’m glad you’ve changed your mind.

You have dodged this completely!

dhw: Another of my theories (God had new ideas as he went along) could also fit in with your description above: producing a particular dinosaur might have given him the idea to produce a bird. […] another of my theistic theories – which offers an equally logical explanation for the dead ends – is that he did NOT produce everything we know about, but that he created an autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence) which in turn produced not only us and our food but also all the dead ends which did not lead to us and our food. Your only objection to all of these has been that they “humanize” him in different ways from your own “humanizations” of him. One down, two to go!

And you have also dodged this completely. Instead you have fastened on to the example of birds, which you keep repeating in order to dodge most of the other questions I have raised:

DAVID: The best example to discuss is dinosaurs. They ended up producing our birds, after being round successfully for millions of years. But they are gone as dead ends. This applies to many other forms that have disappeared and left behind new forms. I view God creating forms knowing they will disappear into new forms. That is evolution. I do not accept natural evolution and think your secondhand theory is another attempt to subtility get rid of a need for God.

Evolution is the theory that all forms of life are descended from earlier forms. You have picked on one example. 5 minutes’ research on the Internet tells us that there are seven known groups of dinosaurs, one of which was the theropods. Birds are descended from one clade of theropods called maniraptora –“the only known dinosaur group alive today”. But according to you, your God designed all the other dinosaur groups as well, and they were the dead ends which you cannot explain! Hence my repeated question to you: why did your God design the brontosaurus (a sauropod) – plus every other dead end in the history of evolution? Quoting an example of a continued line does not explain all the dead ends! Please stop dodging!!!

Now perhaps you will acknowledge that you have agreed to the experimentation theory, and in principle to the new ideas theory. As for your silly accusation that I am attempting to get rid of a need for your God, ALL my theories include him, two of them could ONLY refer to him, and the free-for-all explicitly allows for him as designer of the intelligent cell. Please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

DAVID: It is time to forget Darwin and his ancient form of common descent. Modern work on relationships is done at the genome level, which at times finds surprising relationships contrary to analysis from form.

dhw: Not “contrary to” but “in addition to”! Do you really think the new-found genomic relationships invalidate the form relationships? The more shared characteristics we find at whatever level, the greater the support for Darwin. [..] That is why you agree that we are descended from bacteria! So how can you argue that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors?

DAVID: Their predecessors are obviously the Ediacarans. They have the necessary underlying biochemistry to support the very new and very complex Cambrian forms. This gap is not speciation in any form you can describe, just a giant gap in forms.

The gap in forms is not in dispute, and a possible reason for that is the lack of fossils from species that would have died out 550+ million years ago. But since “form” is not the only criterion for descent, it makes no sense to claim that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors and yet at the same time to claim that modern research shows that they were descended from Archaea.

DAVID: Genome trees are not Darwin's tree.

No, they are an addition to Darwin’s tree, confirming his theory of common descent.

"Genome complexity: a new fungal family found

QUOTE: "They all look different but have the same genomic ancestor

We don’t need to quote the rest. This confirms Darwin’s theory of common descent.

DAVID: Please rethink your Darwinian approach to evolution. It is now dependent upon genome studies.

You keep talking as if genome studies invalidated Darwin’s theory of common descent! They CONFIRM it. Yes, yes, yes, we are descended from Archaea. And the Cambrian organisms were also descended from Archaea. Ergo, the Cambrian organisms had predecessors.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 29, 2022, 16:36 (485 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course dead ends can be considered failures, but evolutions advance from failed experiments in form and function and then new attempts at success. […] (dhw’s bold)

dhw: […] Thank you for again accepting one of my theistic answers, which is that the dead ends might be the result of your God experimenting. The last time I pointed this out to you (16th November), you replied: “God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations.” I’m glad you’ve changed your mind.

You have dodged this completely!

God knows exactly what He is doing. He can design forms which He intends to fail, when no longer needed in a particular ecosystem as evolution moves to the nest stage.


dhw: Another of my theories (God had new ideas as he went along) could also fit in with your description above: producing a particular dinosaur might have given him the idea to produce a bird. […] another of my theistic theories – which offers an equally logical explanation for the dead ends – is that he did NOT produce everything we know about, but that he created an autonomous mechanism (cellular intelligence) which in turn produced not only us and our food but also all the dead ends which did not lead to us and our food. Your only objection to all of these has been that they “humanize” him in different ways from your own “humanizations” of him. One down, two to go!

dhw: And you have also dodged this completely. Instead you have fastened on to the example of birds, which you keep repeating in order to dodge most of the other questions I have raised:

DAVID: The best example to discuss is dinosaurs. They ended up producing our birds, after being round successfully for millions of years. But they are gone as dead ends. This applies to many other forms that have disappeared and left behind new forms. I view God creating forms knowing they will disappear into new forms. That is evolution. I do not accept natural evolution and think your secondhand theory is another attempt to subtility get rid of a need for God.

Evolution is the theory that all forms of life are descended from earlier forms. You have picked on one example. 5 minutes’ research on the Internet tells us that there are seven known groups of dinosaurs, one of which was the theropods. Birds are descended from one clade of theropods called maniraptora –“the only known dinosaur group alive today”. But according to you, your God designed all the other dinosaur groups as well, and they were the dead ends which you cannot explain! Hence my repeated question to you: why did your God design the brontosaurus (a sauropod) – plus every other dead end in the history of evolution? Quoting an example of a continued line does not explain all the dead ends! Please stop dodging!!!

God knows exactly what He is doing. He can design forms which He intends to fail, when no longer needed in a particular ecosystem as evolution moves to the nest stage. He does not experiment. He plans the dead ends which are purposeful endings. Her does not give up design control.


dhw: Please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

All of your answers offer a smidgeon of grudging possibility of God.


dhw: So how can you argue that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors?[/i]

DAVID: Their predecessors are obviously the Ediacarans. They have the necessary underlying biochemistry to support the very new and very complex Cambrian forms. This gap is not speciation in any form you can describe, just a giant gap in forms.

The gap in forms is not in dispute, and a possible reason for that is the lack of fossils from species that would have died out 550+ billion years ago. But since “form” is not the only criterion for descent, it makes no sense to claim that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors and yet at the same time to claim that modern research shows that they were descended from Archaea.

They had no predecessors in form so in Darwin-speak following only forms, there are no predecessors.


"Genome complexity: a new fungal family found

QUOTE: "They all look different but have the same genomic ancestor

We don’t need to quote the rest. This confirms Darwin’s theory of common descent.

DAVID: Please rethink your Darwinian approach to evolution. It is now dependent upon genome studies.

dhw: You keep talking as if genome studies invalidated Darwin’s theory of common descent! They CONFIRM it. Yes, yes, yes, we are descended from Archaea. And the Cambrian organisms were also descended from Archaea. Ergo, the Cambrian organisms had predecessors.

But following the use of phenotypical analysis Darwin used, the Cambrian gap is a huge gap in forms. Genome studies correct relationships mistaken by using form only. I agree

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, November 30, 2022, 11:01 (484 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course dead ends can be considered failures, but evolutions advance from failed experiments in form and function and then new attempts at success. […] (dhw’s bold)

dhw: […] Thank you for again accepting one of my theistic answers, which is that the dead ends might be the result of your God experimenting. The last time I pointed this out to you (16th November), you replied: “God is direct and knows exactly how to proceed with no alternative experimentations.” I’m glad you’ve changed your mind.

DAVID: God knows exactly what He is doing. He can design forms which He intends to fail, when no longer needed in a particular ecosystem as evolution moves to the next stage.

So in order to fulfil what you believe has been his one and only purpose (us and our food) he deliberately designs not only those lines of descent and ecosystems that will lead to us and our food, but also those many, many lines and systems that he knows will fail because they have nothing to do with his one only purpose. This apparently is logical because he knows he’s designing failures. And although all evolutions “advance from failed experiments”, God’s failures are not experiments. (See below.)

You went on to provide us with a successful line of descent from one small clade of dinosaurs to present-day birds (the only known dinosaur group alive today), ignoring the hundreds and hundreds of specially designed dead-end dinosaurs.

dhw: Hence my repeated question to you: why did your God design the brontosaurus (a sauropod) – plus every other dead end in the history of evolution? Quoting an example of a continued line does not explain all the dead ends! Please stop dodging!!!

DAVID: God knows exactly what He is doing. He can design forms which He intends to fail, when no longer needed in a particular ecosystem as evolution moves to the next stage. He does not experiment. He plans the dead ends which are purposeful endings. He does not give up design control.

As above. Please stop dodging.

dhw: Please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

DAVID: All of your answers offer a smidgeon of grudging possibility of God.

The theories that your God may have been experimenting, or may have had new ideas as he went along, presuppose the existence of your God! You present illogical theories about your God’s possible purpose and method, and I present alternative theistic theories, which you agree are logical. So once more: please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

The Cambrian

dhw: The gap in forms is not in dispute, and a possible reason for that is the lack of fossils from species that would have died out 550+ million years ago. But since “form” is not the only criterion for descent, it makes no sense to claim that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors and yet at the same time to claim that modern research shows that they were descended from Archaea.

DAVID: They had no predecessors in form so in Darwin-speak following only forms, there are no predecessors.

His whole theory is based on common descent, and he had no doubt that there were predecessors. In “Darwin-speak” the best explanation for the gap was the lack of fossils, and so he would no doubt have been delighted that the gap has been filled by new research into genomics, which proves that there WERE predecessors.

"Genome complexity: a new fungal family found”

DAVID: Please rethink your Darwinian approach to evolution. It is now dependent upon genome studies.

dhw: You keep talking as if genome studies invalidated Darwin’s theory of common descent! They CONFIRM it. Yes, yes, yes, we are descended from Archaea. And the Cambrian organisms were also descended from Archaea. Ergo, the Cambrian organisms had predecessors.

DAVID: But following the use of phenotypical analysis Darwin used, the Cambrian gap is a huge gap in forms. Genome studies correct relationships mistaken by using form only. I agree.

Thank you. Modern research has proved Darwin right: there were predecessors. I trust that will put an end to this particular discussion.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 30, 2022, 17:23 (484 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God knows exactly what He is doing. He can design forms which He intends to fail, when no longer needed in a particular ecosystem as evolution moves to the next stage.

dhw: So in order to fulfil what you believe has been his one and only purpose (us and our food) he deliberately designs not only those lines of descent and ecosystems that will lead to us and our food, but also those many, many lines and systems that he knows will fail because they have nothing to do with his one only purpose. This apparently is logical because he knows he’s designing failures. And although all evolutions “advance from failed experiments”, God’s failures are not experiments. (See below.)

No experimentation ever needed. Species are created/designed to fit a purpose at a given level but then species ends are required for evolution to proceed to the next more complex level. All planned by God.


dhw: Hence my repeated question to you: why did your God design the brontosaurus (a sauropod) – plus every other dead end in the history of evolution? Quoting an example of a continued line does not explain all the dead ends! Please stop dodging!!!

DAVID: God knows exactly what He is doing. He can design forms which He intends to fail, when no longer needed in a particular ecosystem as evolution moves to the next stage. He does not experiment. He plans the dead ends which are purposeful endings. He does not give up design control.

dhw: Please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

DAVID: All of your answers offer a smidgeon of grudging possibility of God.

dhw: The theories that your God may have been experimenting, or may have had new ideas as he went along, presuppose the existence of your God!

Not my God who would never do what you claim for Him.

. dhw: You present illogical theories about your God’s possible purpose and method, and I present alternative theistic theories, which you agree are logical. So once more: please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

Your theories are logical only for your form of humanistic God. That does not imply I grant your theories apply to any other form of God. Your God is an illogical form


The Cambrian

dhw: The gap in forms is not in dispute, and a possible reason for that is the lack of fossils from species that would have died out 550+ billion years ago. But since “form” is not the only criterion for descent, it makes no sense to claim that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors and yet at the same time to claim that modern research shows that they were descended from Archaea.

DAVID: They had no predecessors in form so in Darwin-speak following only forms, there are no predecessors.

dhw: His whole theory is based on common descent, and he had no doubt that there were predecessors. In “Darwin-speak” the best explanation for the gap was the lack of fossils, and so he would no doubt have been delighted that the gap has been filled by new research into genomics, which proves that there WERE predecessors.

But we have the fossils and new biochemistry for Darwin to study. I wonder what his conclusions would be, as an agnostic. Like yours?


"Genome complexity: a new fungal family found”

DAVID: Please rethink your Darwinian approach to evolution. It is now dependent upon genome studies.

dhw: You keep talking as if genome studies invalidated Darwin’s theory of common descent! They CONFIRM it. Yes, yes, yes, we are descended from Archaea. And the Cambrian organisms were also descended from Archaea. Ergo, the Cambrian organisms had predecessors.

DAVID: But following the use of phenotypical analysis Darwin used, the Cambrian gap is a huge gap in forms. Genome studies correct relationships mistaken by using form only. I agree.

dhw: Thank you. Modern research has proved Darwin right: there were predecessors. I trust that will put an end to this particular discussion.

Yes! Common descent lives in a new form

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, December 01, 2022, 08:06 (484 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God knows exactly what He is doing. He can design forms which He intends to fail, when no longer needed in a particular ecosystem as evolution moves to the next stage.

dhw: So in order to fulfil what you believe has been his one and only purpose (us and our food) he deliberately designs not only those lines of descent and ecosystems that will lead to us and our food, but also those many, many lines and systems that he knows will fail because they have nothing to do with his one and only purpose. This apparently is logical because he knows he’s designing failures. And although all evolutions “advance from failed experiments”, God’s failures are not experiments. (See below.)

DAVID: No experimentation ever needed. Species are created/designed to fit a purpose at a given level but then species ends are required for evolution to proceed to the next more complex level. All planned by God.

“ All evolutions advance from failed experiments” but no experiments are ever needed. Your logic is becoming curiouser and curiouser. If your God’s only purpose was to design us plus our food, then the only species that were “required” were those that led to us plus our food. The countless species that did not lead to us plus our food were what we have called the dead ends. They were not required for evolution to lead to us plus our food. Yes or no?

dhw: Please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

DAVID: All of your answers offer a smidgeon of grudging possibility of God.

dhw: The theories that your God may have been experimenting, or may have had new ideas as he went along, presuppose the existence of your God!

DAVID: Not my God who would never do what you claim for Him.

Your rigid vision of what your God would and wouldn’t do does not entitle you to say that my different visions make me into a would-be atheist.

dhw: You present illogical theories about your God’s possible purpose and method, and I present alternative theistic theories, which you agree are logical. So once more: please stop hiding from the logic by pretending I’m a would-be atheist.

DAVID: Your theories are logical only for your form of humanistic God. That does not imply I grant your theories apply to any other form of God. Your God is an illogical form.

A God who experiments or gets new ideas or designs a free-for-all is no more illogical than an all-powerful God who has one purpose and deliberately designs countless failures that have no connection with his one purpose.

The Cambrian

dhw: The gap in forms is not in dispute, and a possible reason for that is the lack of fossils from species that would have died out 550+ billion years ago. But since “form” is not the only criterion for descent, it makes no sense to claim that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors and yet at the same time to claim that modern research shows that they were descended from Archaea.

DAVID: They had no predecessors in form so in Darwin-speak following only forms, there are no predecessors.

dhw: His whole theory is based on common descent, and he had no doubt that there were predecessors. In “Darwin-speak” the best explanation for the gap was the lack of fossils, and so he would no doubt have been delighted that the gap has been filled by new research into genomics, which proves that there WERE predecessors.

DAVID: But we have the fossils and new biochemistry for Darwin to study. I wonder what his conclusions would be, as an agnostic. Like yours?

Why “but”? Darwin’s concern was to prove his theory of common descent, and the new biochemistry confirms it. Since his belief in that theory did not affect his agnosticism, why should confirmation of his theory affect his agnosticism? Why have you raised this subject? You have now agreed with Darwin that there were predecessors. That should be the end of this discussion.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 01, 2022, 18:01 (483 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No experimentation ever needed. Species are created/designed to fit a purpose at a given level but then species ends are required for evolution to proceed to the next more complex level. All planned by God.

dhw: “ All evolutions advance from failed experiments” but no experiments are ever needed. Your logic is becoming curiouser and curiouser. If your God’s only purpose was to design us plus our food, then the only species that were “required” were those that led to us plus our food. The countless species that did not lead to us plus our food were what we have called the dead ends. They were not required for evolution to lead to us plus our food. Yes or no?

God plans everything. The dead ends are part of His designed evolution. When organisms are no longer needed to supply food, they disappear. Raup called extinctions bad luck, not a failure to survive. So, YES!!! Life lives on eating life. Again, dog-eating-dog world must be.


DAVID: Not my God who would never do what you claim for Him.

dhw: Your rigid vision of what your God would and wouldn’t do does not entitle you to say that my different visions make me into a would-be atheist.

What I receive from you comes across as more atheist than agnostic.


dhw: A God who experiments or gets new ideas or designs a free-for-all is no more illogical than an all-powerful God who has one purpose and deliberately designs countless failures that have no connection with his one purpose.

Designed disappearance is not a failure, but a required part of the plan's design..


The Cambrian

dhw: The gap in forms is not in dispute, and a possible reason for that is the lack of fossils from species that would have died out 550+ billion years ago. But since “form” is not the only criterion for descent, it makes no sense to claim that the Cambrian organisms had no predecessors and yet at the same time to claim that modern research shows that they were descended from Archaea.

DAVID: They had no predecessors in form so in Darwin-speak following only forms, there are no predecessors.

dhw: His whole theory is based on common descent, and he had no doubt that there were predecessors. In “Darwin-speak” the best explanation for the gap was the lack of fossils, and so he would no doubt have been delighted that the gap has been filled by new research into genomics, which proves that there WERE predecessors.

DAVID: But we have the fossils and new biochemistry for Darwin to study. I wonder what his conclusions would be, as an agnostic. Like yours?

dhw: Why “but”? Darwin’s concern was to prove his theory of common descent, and the new biochemistry confirms it. Since his belief in that theory did not affect his agnosticism, why should confirmation of his theory affect his agnosticism? Why have you raised this subject? You have now agreed with Darwin that there were predecessors. That should be the end of this discussion.

A fine conclusion

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, December 02, 2022, 13:04 (482 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: No experimentation ever needed. Species are created/designed to fit a purpose at a given level but then species ends are required for evolution to proceed to the next more complex level. All planned by God.

dhw: “All evolutions advance from failed experiments” but no experiments are ever needed. Your logic is becoming curiouser and curiouser. If your God’s only purpose was to design us plus our food, then the only species that were “required” were those that led to us plus our food. The countless species that did not lead to us plus our food were what we have called the dead ends. They were not required for evolution to lead to us plus our food. Yes or no?

DAVID: God plans everything. The dead ends are part of His designed evolution.

Never a straight answer. I‘m splitting up your non-reply because it is a series of non sequiturs, each of which is a contradiction in itself. Firstly, your God specially designs dead ends that have no connection with his one and only purpose because “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, but no experiments are needed, and later we will learn that the failures were not failures because they were designed to be failures.

DAVID: When organisms are no longer needed to supply food, they disappear.

Organisms disappear because they can’t get food, not because no other organism wants to eat them!

DAVID: Raup called extinctions bad luck, not a failure to survive.

Extinction MEANS failure to survive! Of course this may be the result of bad luck. According to you, it’s their bad luck that God specially designed them because he wanted them to fail to lead to his one and only purpose – presumably in order to prove your theory that all evolution advances from failed experiments, though he doesn’t experiment and doesn’t fail.

DAVID: So, YES!!! Life lives on eating life. Again, dog-eating-dog world must be.

A totally irrelevant conclusion to a discussion on why your God specially designed countless organisms that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose.

***

DAVID: Not my God who would never do what you claim for Him.

dhw: Your rigid vision of what your God would and wouldn’t do does not entitle you to say that my different visions make me into a would-be atheist.

DAVID: What I receive from you comes across as more atheist than agnostic.

I propose that your God may have had logical reasons for actions which you cannot explain. I offer you three alternatives, and that comes across as atheistic.

dhw: A God who experiments or gets new ideas or designs a free-for-all is no more illogical than an all-powerful God who has one purpose and deliberately designs countless failures that have no connection with his one purpose.

DAVID: Designed disappearance is not a failure, but a required part of the plan's design.

Elsewhere you have screamed at me: “Don’t you recognize evolution must have failures?” So a failure is not a failure if it is designed to fail. Why must evolution have failures? Because apparently “all dead ends are of equal importance as examples of how any form of evolution works.” So it seems that God designed his failures to prove your theory that evolution must produce failures if it is to succeed. However, on another occasion when I asked you to explain your God’s possible reasons for specially designing failures, you replied: “When you finally find out God’s reasoning, tell me and the whole world!” I prefer this acknowledgement that your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. At least it makes sense that your inexplicable theories do not make sense to you!

Reading God’s mind

QUOTE: “But that is not what God is like, given that he is eternal or outside time, and that he is omniscient and doesn’t have to “figure things out” through some kind of reasoning process." (David’s bold)

This is the same intellectual arrogance as that of Richard Dawkins (who calls God a “delusion”), which first spurred me into writing the “brief guide” and setting up this website. Nobody "knows" whether God exists or doesn't exist, and nobody "knows" what God is like if he does exist.

DAVID: note the bolded comments that many people have their own version of God. The message here is there is only one theistic accepted version of God, as described. I strongly agree with this description of God's attributes. dhw please note.

Accepted by whom? How dare anyone say that their version is correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong? That is the basis of all the destructive religious prejudices that have done so much damage to human society throughout history. Again: The only being who knows what God is like is God himself, if he exists. (My bold)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, December 02, 2022, 15:48 (482 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God plans everything. The dead ends are part of His designed evolution.

Never a straight answer. I‘m splitting up your non-reply because it is a series of non sequiturs, each of which is a contradiction in itself. Firstly, your God specially designs dead ends that have no connection with his one and only purpose because “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, but no experiments are needed, and later we will learn that the failures were not failures because they were designed to be failures.

As you raise your questions, I am allowed to rethink what I present as my views of how God must work. You demand more specificity. So: whatever happens is Gods works is the start. All failed dead ends are part of His planned design of evolving humans.


DAVID: When organisms are no longer needed to supply food, they disappear.

dhw: Organisms disappear because they can’t get food, not because no other organism wants to eat them!

Or they fail to adapt to changes! As planned.


DAVID: Raup called extinctions bad luck, not a failure to survive.

dhw: Extinction MEANS failure to survive! Of course this may be the result of bad luck. According to you, it’s their bad luck that God specially designed them because he wanted them to fail to lead to his one and only purpose – presumably in order to prove your theory that all evolution advances from failed experiments, though he doesn’t experiment and doesn’t fail.

From above: whatever happens is Gods works. All failed dead ends are part of His planned design of evolving humans.


***

dhw: A God who experiments or gets new ideas or designs a free-for-all is no more illogical than an all-powerful God who has one purpose and deliberately designs countless failures that have no connection with his one purpose.

DAVID: Designed disappearance is not a failure, but a required part of the plan's design.

dhw: Elsewhere you have screamed at me: “Don’t you recognize evolution must have failures?” So a failure is not a failure if it is designed to fail. Why must evolution have failures? Because apparently “all dead ends are of equal importance as examples of how any form of evolution works.” So it seems that God designed his failures to prove your theory that evolution must produce failures if it is to succeed. However, on another occasion when I asked you to explain your God’s possible reasons for specially designing failures, you replied: “When you finally find out God’s reasoning, tell me and the whole world!” I prefer this acknowledgement that your theories “make sense only to God”, i.e. not to you. At least it makes sense that your inexplicable theories do not make sense to you!

Again the first point to consider about God is everything that happens is caused by God. You discussions are spefic point complaints because you do not follow my starting point.


Reading God’s mind

QUOTE: “But that is not what God is like, given that he is eternal or outside time, and that he is omniscient and doesn’t have to “figure things out” through some kind of reasoning process." (David’s bold)

dhw: This is the same intellectual arrogance as that of Richard Dawkins (who calls God a “delusion”), which first spurred me into writing the “brief guide” and setting up this website. Nobody "knows" whether God exists or doesn't exist, and nobody "knows" what God is like if he does exist.

What is wrong with the assertion God is outside time?


DAVID: note the bolded comments that many people have their own version of God. The message here is there is only one theistic accepted version of God, as described. I strongly agree with this description of God's attributes. dhw please note.

dhw: Accepted by whom? How dare anyone say that their version is correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong? That is the basis of all the destructive religious prejudices that have done so much damage to human society throughout history. Again: The only being who knows what God is like is God himself, if he exists. (My bold)

If you try theistic theories they are solely unique to you. And rigid. Please start with God creates everything. That is an acceptable requirement.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, December 03, 2022, 12:56 (481 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God plans everything. The dead ends are part of His designed evolution.

shw: I‘m splitting up your non-reply because it is a series of non sequiturs, each of which is a contradiction in itself. Firstly, your God specially designs dead ends that have no connection with his one and only purpose because “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, but no experiments are needed, and later we will learn that the failures were not failures because they were designed to be failures.

DAVID: As you raise your questions, I am allowed to rethink what I present as my views of how God must work. You demand more specificity. So: whatever happens is Gods works is the start. All failed dead ends are part of His planned design of evolving humans.

We can certainly agree that if God exists, whatever happens is the result of his work. But once again you are hiding behind vague generalisations. For instance, whatever you, I, or anyone else does is “what happens”, but even you will not claim that what you say, do, write, think is “God’s works”. You have already told us that “similar to climate these ocean currents ran on their own, not under God’s intimate controls,” so not God’s work. And you have viruses and bacteria causing untold harm because they wander off in directions your God did not intend them to go (= not God’s work). The idea of a free-for-all is an extension of your own belief that whatever happens is NOT always God’s work. Of course I demand more “specificity”! As regards the failed dead ends, you go on to tell us they are not failures, because although they played no part in fulfilling his one and only purpose (us and our food), he deliberately designed them to fail, although you don’t know why because your theory “makes sense only to God”.

DAVID: When organisms are no longer needed to supply food, they disappear.

dhw: Organisms disappear because they can’t get food, not because no other organism wants to eat them!

DAVID: Or they fail to adapt to changes! As planned.

Your first statement was nonsense, but failure to adapt to change is spot on. You are left with the inexplicable theory that your God specially planned the failures that were not failures so that they would fail to adapt.

DAVID: Raup called extinctions bad luck, not a failure to survive.

dhw: Extinction MEANS failure to survive! Of course this may be the result of bad luck. According to you, it’s their bad luck that God specially designed them because he wanted them to fail to lead to his one and only purpose – presumably in order to prove your theory that all evolution advances from failed experiments, though he doesn’t experiment and doesn’t fail.

DAVID: From above: whatever happens is Gods works. All failed dead ends are part of His planned design of evolving humans.

As above: a theory which makes no sense even to you. We can skip the subsequent repetitions, except that I will repeat your own earlier comment: “When you finally find out God’s reasoning, tell me and the whole world!”

Reading God’s mind

QUOTE: “But that is not what God is like, given that he is eternal or outside time, and that he is omniscient and doesn’t have to “figure things out” through some kind of reasoning process." (David’s bold)

dhw: This is the same intellectual arrogance as that of Richard Dawkins (who calls God a “delusion”), which first spurred me into writing the “brief guide” and setting up this website. Nobody "knows" whether God exists or doesn't exist, and nobody "knows" what God is like if he does exist.

DAVID: What is wrong with the assertion God is outside time?

Why do you pick on just one of the assertions? It’s the whole package that I object to. A discussion of “outside time” would mean returning to a definition of “time”. No need.

DAVID: note the bolded comments that many people have their own version of God. The message here is there is only one theistic accepted version of God, as described. I strongly agree with this description of God's attributes. dhw please note.

dhw: Accepted by whom? How dare anyone say that their version is correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong? That is the basis of all the destructive religious prejudices that have done so much damage to human society throughout history. Again: bbbThe only being who knows what God is like is God himself, if he exists. (My bold)

DAVID: If you try theistic theories they are solely unique to you. And rigid. Please start with God creates everything. That is an acceptable requirement.

It is not, as detailed at the beginning of this post. You are the one who has come up with rigid theistic theories about evolution which make no sense to you, and I have offered alternative explanations which you reject simply because they do not fit in with your own ”humanizations”. Do you or do you not agree that the only being who knows what God is like (if he exists) is God himself?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 03, 2022, 17:39 (481 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As you raise your questions, I am allowed to rethink what I present as my views of how God must work. You demand more specificity. So: whatever happens is Gods works is the start. All failed dead ends are part of His planned design of evolving humans.

dhw: We can certainly agree that if God exists, whatever happens is the result of his work. But once again you are hiding behind vague generalisations. For instance, whatever you, I, or anyone else does is “what happens”, but even you will not claim that what you say, do, write, think is “God’s works”. You have already told us that “similar to climate these ocean currents ran on their own, not under God’s intimate controls,” so not God’s work. And you have viruses and bacteria causing untold harm because they wander off in directions your God did not intend them to go (= not God’s work).

You are again mixing up creation of organisms and what they do. God creates them per His plan, but after that they are free to act as they will, just as we do. Just as with Earth's God-given climate patterns. Please compartmentalize the different concepts in accusing God of lack of control.

dhw: The idea of a free-for-all is an extension of your own belief that whatever happens is NOT always God’s work.

Your idea of a free-for-all creating evolution is your concept of God not in control, not mine

dhw: Of course I demand more “specificity”! As regards the failed dead ends, you go on to tell us they are not failures, because although they played no part in fulfilling his one and only purpose (us and our food), he deliberately designed them to fail, although you don’t know why because your theory “makes sense only to God”.

I do know why!!! Whatever happens in creation, God did it!!! No need to dig further, for unknowable specificity. Your attitude is if I can't supply it must be wrong. Insane!!


Reading God’s mind

DAVID: note the bolded comments that many people have their own version of God. The message here is there is only one theistic accepted version of God, as described. I strongly agree with this description of God's attributes. dhw please note.

dhw: Accepted by whom? How dare anyone say that their version is correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong? That is the basis of all the destructive religious prejudices that have done so much damage to human society throughout history. Again: bbbThe only being who knows what God is like is God himself, if he exists. (My bold)

DAVID: If you try theistic theories they are solely unique to you. And rigid. Please start with God creates everything. That is an acceptable requirement.

dhw: It is not, as detailed at the beginning of this post. You are the one who has come up with rigid theistic theories about evolution which make no sense to you, and I have offered alternative explanations which you reject simply because they do not fit in with your own ”humanizations”. Do you or do you not agree that the only being who knows what God is like (if he exists) is God himself?

Yes. But a concept of an all-powerful God, as presented in the Bible is the God we MUST discuss. You forget that by presenting human Gods. Stick with the one described.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, December 04, 2022, 12:03 (480 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As you raise your questions, I am allowed to rethink what I present as my views of how God must work. You demand more specificity. So: whatever happens is Gods works is the start. All failed dead ends are part of His planned design of evolving humans.

dhw: We can certainly agree that if God exists, whatever happens is the result of his work. But once again you are hiding behind vague generalisations. For instance, whatever you, I, or anyone else does is “what happens”, but even you will not claim that what you say, do, write, think is “God’s works”. You have already told us that “similar to climate these ocean currents ran on their own, not under God’s intimate controls,” so not God’s work. And you have viruses and bacteria causing untold harm because they wander off in directions your God did not intend them to go (= not God’s work).

DAVID: You are again mixing up creation of organisms and what they do. God creates them per His plan, but after that they are free to act as they will, just as we do. Just as with Earth's God-given climate patterns. Please compartmentalize the different concepts in accusing God of lack of control.

I am not accusing him of anything. I am questioning the logic of your theories about him. Your statement was “whatever happens is God’s works”. You never cease to tell us that in order to achieve his one and only purpose of designing us and our food, your God needed to design all life styles (e.g. bird migration), all strategies (the opossum playing dead), even birds’ nests (weaverbird) and ant cities, bridges, agriculture, plus murderous viruses and bacteria, plus the countless extinct dead ends that had no connection with his one and only goal. When I ask you to explain why you think your God created all the “works” that had no connection with his goal, you tell me to go and ask him, which means you can’t make sense of your own theory. […]


DAVID: […] I do know why!!! Whatever happens in creation, God did it!!! No need to dig further, for unknowable specificity. Your attitude is if I can't supply it must be wrong. Insane!!

“God did it” is not a reason why God would have done it - and it remains a moot question whether he "did" it all anyway!

An aquatic dinosaur

DAVID: interesting in that it was only partially adapted to aquatic life. It may have evolved by trying to dive for food. But only if starving on land. More likely a God design. […]

dhw: […] Your first theory makes complete sense: organisms evolve when conditions require some kind of change. It is the effort to perform new activities that results in these changes. Your second theory as always begs the question why your God would specially design a half-in, half-out aquatic dinosaur if all he wanted to design was us and our food.

DAVID: You always forget the starting principal: Everything that ever appeared was God's work. As usual you imply God did it wrong. You know better.

As regards “everything that appeared” or "happened”, see above. Also as above, I do not imply that God “did it wrong”. That would apply to your own theory when you talk about necessary failures, accidents etc. I keep stating explicitly that my criticisms are of your illogical theories, not of God (if he exists)!

Reading God’s mind

dhw: Do you or do you not agree that the only being who knows what God is like (if he exists) is God himself?

Yes. But a concept of an all-powerful God, as presented in the Bible is the God we MUST discuss. You forget that by presenting human Gods. Stick with the one described.
And under “early fire use”:
DAVID: Your God would be more efficient is your implication. But what must be discussed is the God described in the Bible. Your imagined non-Biblical Gods are beside the point.

I’m amazed at your sudden devotion to the Bible. This will certainly win you favour with many Jews and Christians, but has absolutely no relevance to the illogicality of your non-biblical theory of evolution, and it does not answer any of the questions which you tell us only your God can answer. In any case, we do discuss the concept of an all-powerful God as presented in the Bible and elsewhere. And we discuss lots of other attributes, like your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, that he is “kindly”, and that maybe he created us because he wants us to admire his work. You are also certain that the only reason why he created all the failed dead ends was they were necessary for him to be able to design us because “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, and this somehow confirms his all-powerfulness, because his failed experiments are not failures or experiments. Did you find this in the Bible? Thank you for agreeing that the only being who knows what God is like (if he exists) is God himself. Your personal speculations are not “gospel”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 04, 2022, 16:43 (480 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are again mixing up creation of organisms and what they do. God creates them per His plan, but after that they are free to act as they will, just as we do. Just as with Earth's God-given climate patterns. Please compartmentalize the different concepts in accusing God of lack of control.

dhw: I am not accusing him of anything. I am questioning the logic of your theories about him. Your statement was “whatever happens is God’s works”. You never cease to tell us that in order to achieve his one and only purpose of designing us and our food, your God needed to design all life styles (e.g. bird migration), all strategies (the opossum playing dead), even birds’ nests (weaverbird) and ant cities, bridges, agriculture, plus murderous viruses and bacteria, plus the countless extinct dead ends that had no connection with his one and only goal. When I ask you to explain why you think your God created all the “works” that had no connection with his goal, you tell me to go and ask him, which means you can’t make sense of your own theory. […]

The bold, as usual, is way off base. I've told you to recognize God created everything, and if so, God felt everything was required to be produced before arriving at humans. All of the odd doings you pick on creates the giant ecosystem that barely feeds us eight billion now. It was all connected with His goal. Your human analysis of His works is simply criticism of God. You would down it more efficiently or invent another God to do it your way. A more clear-thinking theistic philosopher, Adler, used the evolution of humans, as created by God, proved God must exist. You simply throw out his argument with the bath water.


Reading God’s mind

dhw: Do you or do you not agree that the only being who knows what God is like (if he exists) is God himself?

Yes. But a concept of an all-powerful God, as presented in the Bible is the God we MUST discuss. You forget that by presenting human Gods. Stick with the one described.
And under “early fire use”:
DAVID: Your God would be more efficient is your implication. But what must be discussed is the God described in the Bible. Your imagined non-Biblical Gods are beside the point.

dhw: I’m amazed at your sudden devotion to the Bible. This will certainly win you favour with many Jews and Christians, but has absolutely no relevance to the illogicality of your non-biblical theory of evolution, and it does not answer any of the questions which you tell us only your God can answer. In any case, we do discuss the concept of an all-powerful God as presented in the Bible and elsewhere. And we discuss lots of other attributes, like your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, that he is “kindly”, and that maybe he created us because he wants us to admire his work. You are also certain that the only reason why he created all the failed dead ends was they were necessary for him to be able to design us because “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, and this somehow confirms his all-powerfulness, because his failed experiments are not failures or experiments. Did you find this in the Bible? Thank you for agreeing that the only being who knows what God is like (if he exists) is God himself. Your personal speculations are not “gospel”.

No, my speculations are Mine, not gospel. And gospel is group think as to what should be published, human best guesses. Just as His possible personal emotions and motives are best guesses. We do discuss the concept of all-powerful but end up with my type and your type, with no agreement between us. My all-powerful is direct, certain, and has a clear view of all desired endpoints to his actions. End points are planned, because every evolutionary process requires them, yes or no! Experimentation or changing his mind in mid-stream is not my all-powerful God. By definition He can't be that way, unlike your weird, weak God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, December 05, 2022, 14:16 (479 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've told you to recognize God created everything, and if so, God felt everything was required to be produced before arriving at humans. All of the odd doings you pick on creates the giant ecosystem that barely feeds us eight billion now. It was all connected with His goal.

You cannot tell me to “recognize” something just because you believe it! I emphatically do not recognize that your God (if he exists) would have individually designed every innovation (species), lifestyle (e.g. bird migration), strategy (the opossum playing dead), home (weaverbird’s nest, ant city) etc.[…]. And I cannot recognize your claim that all the dead ends were required for the design of us and our food. And as you yourself have repeatedly agreed, all the extinct, dead-end “odd doings” of the PAST have nothing to do with the giant ecosystem of the PRESENT.

DAVID: Your human analysis of His works is simply criticism of God.

There is no criticism of God if I question the logic of your “human” theories about what God wanted and did.

DAVID: You would down it more efficiently or invent another God to do it your way. A more clear-thinking theistic philosopher, Adler, used the evolution of humans, as created by God, proved God must exist. You simply throw out his argument with the bath water.

How many more times must I repeat that the dispute is not over the logic of the design argument as evidence for the existence of your God? Please stop dodging!

Reading God’s mind

dhw: Do you or do you not agree that the only being who knows what God is like (if he exists) is God himself?

DAVID: Yes. But a concept of an all-powerful God, as presented in the Bible is the God we MUST discuss. You forget that by presenting human Gods. Stick with the one described.

dhw: I’m amazed at your sudden devotion to the Bible. This will certainly win you favour with many Jews and Christians, but has absolutely no relevance to the illogicality of your non-biblical theory of evolution, and it does not answer any of the questions which you tell us only your God can answer.

DAVID: No, my speculations are Mine, not gospel. And gospel is group think as to what should be published, human best guesses. Just as His possible personal emotions and motives are best guesses.

So why did you suddenly decide we must discuss the God described in the Bible?

dhw: In any case, we do discuss the concept of an all-powerful God as presented in the Bible and elsewhere. And we discuss lots of other attributes, like your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, that he is “kindly”, and that maybe he created us because he wants us to admire his work. You are also certain that the only reason why he created all the failed dead ends was they were necessary for him to be able to design us because “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, and this somehow confirms his all-powerfulness, because his failed experiments are not failures or experiments. Did you find this in the Bible? Thank you for agreeing that the only being who knows what God is like (if he exists) is God himself. Your personal speculations are not “gospel”.

DAVID: We do discuss the concept of all-powerful but end up with my type and your type, with no agreement between us. My all-powerful is direct, certain, and has a clear view of all desired endpoints to his actions. End points are planned, because every evolutionary process requires them, yes or no!

I‘m not sure why you have suddenly introduced end points, when the dispute is over the relevance of all the dead ends to your God’s single purpose. An end point is the completion of a process. I don’t know what you mean by every evolutionary process requires completion. Do human-made evolutions like political and philosophical and educational systems, architecture, the arts require completion? My answer is no. They have always been ongoing. As for types of God, I remain open-minded. I test each of your imposed “humanizing” attributes against the history of life and your own observations of it, and I find that if his “clear view” of his one and only purpose is us and our food, the creation of-dead end failures is the opposite of “direct”.

DAVID: Experimentation or changing his mind in mid-stream is not my all-powerful God. By definition He can't be that way, unlike your weird, weak God.

You agreed to experimentation when you insisted that “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”. If we take the example of the extinction of the dinosaurs, “changing his mind in midstream” could denote the end of “a failed experiment” (they would not lead to us), or the arrival of new ideas, which eventually might lead to us. Your own theory is that apart from the tiny minority of surviving dinosaurs (birds), the rest were dead ends that had no connection with us and our food and were therefore required for the production of us and our food, because all evolutions require failed dead ends. You don’t find that “weird”?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, December 05, 2022, 19:00 (479 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've told you to recognize God created everything, and if so, God felt everything was required to be produced before arriving at humans. All of the odd doings you pick on creates the giant ecosystem that barely feeds us eight billion now. It was all connected with His goal.

dhw: You cannot tell me to “recognize” something just because you believe it! I emphatically do not recognize that your God (if he exists) would have individually designed every innovation (species), lifestyle (e.g. bird migration), strategy (the opossum playing dead), home (weaverbird’s nest, ant city) etc.[…].

I wish you would respect that the issue before us is a theoretical God, whom I accept. Under that approach I have every right to assume that what is here in reality represents God's wishes and accomplished works.

dhw: And I cannot recognize your claim that all the dead ends were required for the design of us and our food. And as you yourself have repeatedly agreed, all the extinct, dead-end “odd doings” of the PAST have nothing to do with the giant ecosystem of the PRESENT.

What I said was past ecosystems in the past fed life in the past and current ecosystems feeds life now, and were evolved from the past systems. Stop distorting!!!

Reading God’s mind

DAVID: No, my speculations are Mine, not gospel. And gospel is group think as to what should be published, human best guesses. Just as His possible personal emotions and motives are best guesses.

dhw: So why did you suddenly decide we must discuss the God described in the Bible?

We must start somewhere, and the God generally presented is all-powerful, all-everything else

DAVID: We do discuss the concept of all-powerful but end up with my type and your type, with no agreement between us. My all-powerful is direct, certain, and has a clear view of all desired endpoints to his actions. End points are planned, because every evolutionary process requires them, yes or no!

dhw: I‘m not sure why you have suddenly introduced end points, when the dispute is over the relevance of all the dead ends to your God’s single purpose. An end point is the completion of a process. I don’t know what you mean by every evolutionary process requires completion. Do human-made evolutions like political and philosophical and educational systems, architecture, the arts require completion? My answer is no. They have always been ongoing. As for types of God, I remain open-minded. I test each of your imposed “humanizing” attributes against the history of life and your own observations of it, and I find that if his “clear view” of his one and only purpose is us and our food, the creation of-dead end failures is the opposite of “direct”.

I wish you would respect that the issue before us is a theoretical God, whom I accept. Under that approach I have every right to assume that what is here in reality represents God's wishes and accomplished works. I used 'direct' in the sense of His personality, not something 'speedy'


DAVID: Experimentation or changing his mind in mid-stream is not my all-powerful God. By definition He can't be that way, unlike your weird, weak God.

dhw: You agreed to experimentation when you insisted that “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”. If we take the example of the extinction of the dinosaurs, “changing his mind in midstream” could denote the end of “a failed experiment” (they would not lead to us), or the arrival of new ideas, which eventually might lead to us. Your own theory is that apart from the tiny minority of surviving dinosaurs (birds), the rest were dead ends that had no connection with us and our food and were therefore required for the production of us and our food, because all evolutions require failed dead ends. You don’t find that “weird”?

You are still using your distorted view of any evolutionary process. Try this:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evolution

"Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear."

Note my bold things disappear!!! They have to go to make way for the improved models.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, December 06, 2022, 12:17 (478 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've told you to recognize God created everything, and if so, God felt everything was required to be produced before arriving at humans.

dhw: You cannot tell me to “recognize” something just because you believe it! I emphatically do not recognize that your God (if he exists) would have individually designed every innovation (species), lifestyle (e.g. bird migration), strategy (the opossum playing dead), home (weaverbird’s nest, ant city) etc.[…].

DAVID: I wish you would respect that the issue before us is a theoretical God, whom I accept. Under that approach I have every right to assume that what is here in reality represents God's wishes and accomplished works.

For the sake of argument, I also accept a theoretical God, and that what is here represents his wishes and accomplished works. Your vague generalisation is equally applicable to a God who wishes for a free-for-all, to experiment, or to give himself new ideas as he goes along. What your vague generalisation does not explain is why he would have “wished” only for us plus food and then “accomplished” countless dead-end life forms which had no connection with us plus food. Please stop dodging!

dhw: And I cannot recognize your claim that all the dead ends were required for the design of us and our food. And as you yourself have repeatedly agreed, all the extinct, dead-end “odd doings” of the PAST have nothing to do with the giant ecosystem of the PRESENT.

DAVID: What I said was past ecosystems in the past fed life in the past and current ecosystems feeds life now, and were evolved from the past systems. Stop distorting!!!

That is indeed what you agreed in the past. However, this time you wrote: “All of the odd doings you pick on creates the giant ecosystem that barely feeds us eight billion now. It was all connected with his goal.” The “odd doings I pick on” are the dead ends from which our giant ecosystem has NOT evolved and were therefore NOT connected with his goal (us and our giant ecosystem). Please stop dodging!

Reading God’s mind

DAVID: No, my speculations are Mine, not gospel. And gospel is group think as to what should be published, human best guesses. […]

dhw: So why did you suddenly decide we must discuss the God described in the Bible?

DAVID: We must start somewhere, and the God generally presented is all-powerful, all-everything else.

That’s how you have always presented him, so why suddenly bring in a book which you regard it as “group think as to what should be published”? Skip it – we don’t need these digressions.

DAVID: We do discuss the concept of all-powerful but end up with my type and your type, with no agreement between us. My all-powerful is direct, certain, and has a clear view of all desired endpoints to his actions. End points are planned, because every evolutionary process requires them, yes or no!

dhw: I‘m not sure why you have suddenly introduced end points, when the dispute is over the relevance of all the dead ends to your God’s single purpose. An end point is the completion of a process. I don’t know what you mean by every evolutionary process requires completion. Do human-made evolutions like political and philosophical and educational systems, architecture, the arts require completion? My answer is no. They have always been ongoing. As for types of God, I remain open-minded. I test each of your imposed “humanizing” attributes against the history of life and your own observations of it, and I find that if his “clear view” of his one and only purpose is us and our food, the creation of-dead end failures is the opposite of “direct”.

DAVID: I wish you would respect that the issue before us is a theoretical God, whom I accept. Under that approach I have every right to assume that what is here in reality represents God's wishes and accomplished works. I used 'direct' in the sense of His personality, not something 'speedy'

See above for “wishes and accomplished works”. Not a word about the “end point and completion” nonsense, and I have no idea what you mean by his “direct” personality in the context of why he created dead ends instead of directly creating the only things he wanted to create. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: You are still using your distorted view of any evolutionary process. Try this:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evolution
"Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear."
Note my bold things disappear!!! They have to go to make way for the improved models.

You really are clutching at straws. The “improved models” are the life forms that DID evolve from earlier life forms. The dead ends are the ones that did NOT evolve into anything. In your theory the "others that disappear" are the dead ends which you say your God specially designed as preparation for us and our food although they had no connection with us and our food! Now you are saying he specially designed the irrelevant dead ends because they had to disappear! Curiouser and curiouser.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 06, 2022, 15:42 (478 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I wish you would respect that the issue before us is a theoretical God, whom I accept. Under that approach I have every right to assume that what is here in reality represents God's wishes and accomplished works.

dhw: For the sake of argument, I also accept a theoretical God, and that what is here represents his wishes and accomplished works. Your vague generalisation is equally applicable to a God who wishes for a free-for-all, to experiment, or to give himself new ideas as he goes along. What your vague generalisation does not explain is why he would have “wished” only for us plus food and then “accomplished” countless dead-end life forms which had no connection with us plus food. Please stop dodging!

You have not accepted my challenge but sidestepped it. If everything here represents God's wishes, then humans were wished by God. He chose to evolve us which explains all the dead ends in the process of evolution. No generalization. And on ce again I fully reject your imagined humanized god.


dhw: And I cannot recognize your claim that all the dead ends were required for the design of us and our food. And as you yourself have repeatedly agreed, all the extinct, dead-end “odd doings” of the PAST have nothing to do with the giant ecosystem of the PRESENT.

DAVID: What I said was past ecosystems in the past fed life in the past and current ecosystems feeds life now, and were evolved from the past systems. Stop distorting!!!

dhw: That is indeed what you agreed in the past. However, this time you wrote: “All of the odd doings you pick on creates the giant ecosystem that barely feeds us eight billion now. It was all connected with his goal.” The “odd doings I pick on” are the dead ends from which our giant ecosystem has NOT evolved and were therefore NOT connected with his goal (us and our giant ecosystem). Please stop dodging!

What is here as our ecosystem evolved from the past. Yes, or no?


Reading God’s mind

DAVID: You are still using your distorted view of any evolutionary process. Try this:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evolution
"Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear."
Note my bold things disappear!!! They have to go to make way for the improved models.

dhw: You really are clutching at straws. The “improved models” are the life forms that DID evolve from earlier life forms. The dead ends are the ones that did NOT evolve into anything. In your theory the "others that disappear" are the dead ends which you say your God specially designed as preparation for us and our food although they had no connection with us and our food! Now you are saying he specially designed the irrelevant dead ends because they had to disappear! Curiouser and curiouser.

You avoided the bold in the definition of evolution: things must disappear. Any form of evolution requires disappearing forms!! Dead ends are part and parcel of any evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, December 07, 2022, 08:45 (478 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I wish you would respect that the issue before us is a theoretical God, whom I accept. Under that approach I have every right to assume that what is here in reality represents God's wishes and accomplished works.

dhw: For the sake of argument, I also accept a theoretical God, and that what is here represents his wishes and accomplished works. Your vague generalisation is equally applicable to a God who wishes for a free-for-all, to experiment, or to give himself new ideas as he goes along. What your vague generalisation does not explain is why he would have “wished” only for us plus food and then “accomplished” countless dead-end life forms which had no connection with us plus food. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: You have not accepted my challenge but sidestepped it. If everything here represents God's wishes, then humans were wished by God. He chose to evolve us which explains all the dead ends in the process of evolution. No generalization. And on ce again I fully reject your imagined humanized god.

You never stop editing out those aspects of your theory that make it illogical. If your God’s ONLY wish was to design us and our food, you cannot explain why he also designed all those life forms which had no connection with us and our food (i.e. the dead ends). You may reject my various explanations, but they fit in with your generalisation that what is here represents his wishes and works.

dhw: And I cannot recognize your claim that all the dead ends were required for the design of us and our food. And as you yourself have repeatedly agreed, all the extinct, dead-end “odd doings” of the PAST have nothing to do with the giant ecosystem of the PRESENT.

DAVID: What I said was past ecosystems in the past fed life in the past and current ecosystems feeds life now, and were evolved from the past systems. Stop distorting!!!

dhw: That is indeed what you agreed in the past. However, this time you wrote: “All of the odd doings you pick on creates the giant ecosystem that barely feeds us eight billion now. It was all connected with his goal.” The “odd doings I pick on” are the dead ends from which our giant ecosystem has NOT evolved and were therefore NOT connected with his goal (us and our giant ecosystem). Please stop dodging!

DAVID: What is here as our ecosystem evolved from the past. Yes, or no?

Yes. And your problem is all those life forms that did NOT evolve into our ecosystem.

DAVID: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evolution
"Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear."
Note my bold things disappear!!! They have to go to make way for the improved models.

dhw: You really are clutching at straws. The “improved models” are the life forms that DID evolve from earlier life forms. The dead ends are the ones that did NOT evolve into anything. In your theory the "others that disappear" are the dead ends which you say your God specially designed as preparation for us and our foodbbbalthough they had no connection with us and our food! Now you are saying he specially designed the irrelevant dead ends because they had to disappear! Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: You avoided the bold in the definition of evolution: things must disappear. Any form of evolution requires disappearing forms!! Dead ends are part and parcel of any evolution.
And transferred from More Miscellany, Part One:
DAVID: Any evolution requires loss of forms (dead ends). God's use of any evolutionary process will simply result in the same results. God not denigrated.

The definition does not say that things MUST disappear or that disappearing forms are required! It is simply a fact that they disappear! (Raup says it’s all a matter of bad luck, which doesn’t say much for your God’s total control, does it?) But you have your God specially designing all the forms that do NOT evolve into the only forms he wants to design. Why? Because they were required for us plus food although they were not required for us plus food. Or because “all evolutions advance from failed experiments” although he does not experiment or fail. Or because designing failed experiments that had no connection with what he wanted to design was part and parcel of all the human evolutions which would develop billions of years after he started designing his dead ends (which makes him as fallible as us humans). Or he had to design them because otherwise he could not have made them disappear!

DAVID: Full distortion of any true understanding of any evolution.

All I’ve done is list your various explanations for the dead ends.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 07, 2022, 17:57 (477 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have not accepted my challenge but sidestepped it. If everything here represents God's wishes, then humans were wished by God. He chose to evolve us which explains all the dead ends in the process of evolution. No generalization. And on ce again I fully reject your imagined humanized god.

dhw: You never stop editing out those aspects of your theory that make it illogical. If your God’s ONLY wish was to design us and our food, you cannot explain why he also designed all those life forms which had no connection with us and our food (i.e. the dead ends). You may reject my various explanations, but they fit in with your generalisation that what is here represents his wishes and works.

The simple explanation, which you always reject, is God chose to evolve us from bacteria, and in the process produced a huge bush of life which supplies our food. Dead ends are your argumentative straw man. They are a necessary part of any evolutionary process as noted in a dictionary definition you have ignored.


DAVID: What is here as our ecosystem evolved from the past. Yes, or no?

dhw: Yes. And your problem is all those life forms that did NOT evolve into our ecosystem.

They are your straw man, discarded naturally in evolution. Today's life forms a huge ecosystem supplying our food.


DAVID: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evolution
"Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear."
Note my bold things disappear!!! They have to go to make way for the improved models.

dhw: You really are clutching at straws. The “improved models” are the life forms that DID evolve from earlier life forms. The dead ends are the ones that did NOT evolve into anything. In your theory the "others that disappear" are the dead ends which you say your God specially designed as preparation for us and our foodbbbalthough they had no connection with us and our food! Now you are saying he specially designed the irrelevant dead ends because they had to disappear! Curiouser and curiouser.

DAVID: You avoided the bold in the definition of evolution: things must disappear. Any form of evolution requires disappearing forms!! Dead ends are part and parcel of any evolution.
And transferred from More Miscellany, Part One:
DAVID: Any evolution requires loss of forms (dead ends). God's use of any evolutionary process will simply result in the same results. God not denigrated.

dhw: The definition does not say that things MUST disappear or that disappearing forms are required! It is simply a fact that they disappear! (Raup says it’s all a matter of bad luck, which doesn’t say much for your God’s total control, does it?) But you have your God specially designing all the forms that do NOT evolve into the only forms he wants to design. Why? Because they were required for us plus food although they were not required for us plus food. Or because “all evolutions advance from failed experiments” although he does not experiment or fail. Or because designing failed experiments that had no connection with what he wanted to design was part and parcel of all the human evolutions which would develop billions of years after he started designing his dead ends (which makes him as fallible as us humans). Or he had to design them because otherwise he could not have made them disappear!

DAVID: Full distortion of any true understanding of any evolution.

dhw: All I’ve done is list your various explanations for the dead ends.

Does any evolutionary process result in dead ends. Yes or no?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, December 08, 2022, 13:20 (476 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] If everything here represents God's wishes, then humans were wished by God. He chose to evolve us which explains all the dead ends in the process of evolution. No generalization. And once again I fully reject your imagined humanized god.

dhw: You never stop editing out those aspects of your theory that make it illogical. If your God’s ONLY wish was to design us and our food, you cannot explain why he also designed all those life forms which had no connection with us and our food (i.e. the dead ends). You may reject my various explanations, but they fit in with your generalisation that what is here represents his wishes and works.

DAVID: The simple explanation, which you always reject, is God chose to evolve us from bacteria, and in the process produced a huge bush of life which supplies our food. Dead ends are your argumentative straw man. They are a necessary part of any evolutionary process as noted in a dictionary definition you have ignored.

The huge bush of life which supplies our food is not an explanation for your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our bush of food, and therefore he had to design countless dead ends which had nothing to do with us and our food, because dead ends are “necessary”. I will try to summarize yesterday’s lengthy response to your distortion of the dictionary definition which you say I ignored!

Definition: "Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear." (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold things disappear!!! They have to go to make way for the improved models.

The definition does not say that things "have to" disappear or that disappearing forms are required! It is simply a fact that they disappear! (Raup says it’s all a matter of bad luck, which doesn’t say much for your God’s total control, does it?) The “improved models” are the life forms that DID evolve from earlier life forms. The dead ends are the ones that did NOT evolve into anything. But you have your God specially designing all the forms that did NOT evolve into the only forms he wants to design. Why? Apparently so that he could make them disappear because all evolutions must have dead ends, and he found that his own “failed experiments” were cluttering up the available space!

DAVID: Does any evolutionary process result in dead ends. Yes or no?

Yes. Would an all-powerful God deliberately design countless life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? Yes or no?

DAVID (transferred from “More Miscellany, Part One): Did a giant bush of life appear now? Yes. Dead ends are naturally discarded older forms during an evolutionary process:

I agree. How does that come to mean that your God deliberately designed dead ends which had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design, and then had to get rid of them?

https://massivesci.com/articles/evolving-toward-extinction/

QUOTE: "Although specialization allows species to be highly adapted to their environment, it doesn’t mean they’re adaptable. If conditions change, they are likely to be more at risk.

Of course. Species die out when they cannot cope with changing conditions. Hence Raup’s “bad luck”. But this does not mean that they were all specially designed as preparation for us and our food!!!

QUOTES: "It’s easy to view the progress of evolutionary selection as one-directional – leading toward ever more refined and useful traits. In Darwin’s words, “natural selection will tend to render the organization of each being more specialized and perfect, and in this sense higher.
"But nature does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends."

DAVID: Your dead-end issue is a dead end it is so illogical.

The above quote could hardly be clearer. You believe your God specially designed all the dead ends. So in your theory we must substitute the word “God” for the word “nature”: God does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends. Your all-powerful but oh so “humanized” God makes the wrong choices – in keeping with your other faux pas, when you told us that “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, but then backtracked to tell us that there were no failures and no experiments in your God's totally controlled direction of evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 08, 2022, 16:31 (476 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The simple explanation, which you always reject, is God chose to evolve us from bacteria, and in the process produced a huge bush of life which supplies our food. Dead ends are your argumentative straw man. They are a necessary part of any evolutionary process as noted in a dictionary definition you have ignored.

The huge bush of life which supplies our food is not an explanation for your belief that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our bush of food, and therefore he had to design countless dead ends which had nothing to do with us and our food, because dead ends are “necessary”. I will try to summarize yesterday’s lengthy response to your distortion of the dictionary definition which you say I ignored!

Definition: "Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear." (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold things disappear!!! They have to go to make way for the improved models.

The definition does not say that things "have to" disappear or that disappearing forms are required! It is simply a fact that they disappear! (Raup says it’s all a matter of bad luck, which doesn’t say much for your God’s total control, does it?) The “improved models” are the life forms that DID evolve from earlier life forms. The dead ends are the ones that did NOT evolve into anything. But you have your God specially designing all the forms that did NOT evolve into the only forms he wants to design. Why? Apparently so that he could make them disappear because all evolutions must have dead ends, and he found that his own “failed experiments” were cluttering up the available space!

DAVID: Does any evolutionary process result in dead ends. Yes or no?

Yes. Would an all-powerful God deliberately design countless life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? Yes or no?

Yes. Using an evolutionary system results automatically in dead ends.


DAVID (transferred from “More Miscellany, Part One): Did a giant bush of life appear now? Yes. Dead ends are naturally discarded older forms during an evolutionary process:

dhw: I agree. How does that come to mean that your God deliberately designed dead ends which had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design, and then had to get rid of them?

Same old: God used evolution as His system of producing us.


https://massivesci.com/articles/evolving-toward-extinction/

QUOTE: "Although specialization allows species to be highly adapted to their environment, it doesn’t mean they’re adaptable. If conditions change, they are likely to be more at risk.

Of course. Species die out when they cannot cope with changing conditions. Hence Raup’s “bad luck”. But this does not mean that they were all specially designed as preparation for us and our food!!!

QUOTES: "It’s easy to view the progress of evolutionary selection as one-directional – leading toward ever more refined and useful traits. In Darwin’s words, “natural selection will tend to render the organization of each being more specialized and perfect, and in this sense higher.
"But nature does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends."

DAVID: Your dead-end issue is a dead end it is so illogical.

dhw: The above quote could hardly be clearer. You believe your God specially designed all the dead ends. So in your theory we must substitute the word “God” for the word “nature”: God does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends. Your all-powerful but oh so “humanized” God makes the wrong choices – in keeping with your other faux pas, when you told us that “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, but then backtracked to tell us that there were no failures and no experiments in your God's totally controlled direction of evolution.

Yes, God totally controlled evolution which alwsyss will produce dead ends.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, December 09, 2022, 09:08 (476 days ago) @ David Turell

This thread and “More Miscellany” Part One deal with the same issues, so I have combined and edited the exchanges,

Definition quoted by David: "Evolution is the process by which the physical characteristics of types of creatures change over time, new types of creatures develop, and others disappear." (David’s bold)

DAVID: Note my bold things disappear!!! They have to go to make way for the improved models.

The definition does not say that things "have to" disappear or that disappearing forms are required! It is simply a fact that they disappear! (Raup says it’s all a matter of bad luck, which doesn’t say much for your God’s total control, does it?) The “improved models” are the life forms that DID evolve from earlier life forms. The dead ends are the ones that did NOT evolve into anything. But you have your God specially designing all the forms that did NOT evolve into the only forms he wants to design. Why? Apparently so that he could make them disappear because all evolutions must have dead ends, and he found that his own “failed experiments” were cluttering up the available space!

DAVID: Does any evolutionary process result in dead ends. Yes or no?

Yes. Would an all-powerful God deliberately design countless life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? Yes or no?

DAVID: Yes. Using an evolutionary system results automatically in dead ends.

That was not what I asked! We know that dead ends occur in human-made evolutions and in the evolution of life. But your “yes” means that your all-powerful God deliberately designed countless life forms which had no connection with those he wanted to design! Why? See above for your now bolded explanation, which I’m afraid I just cannot take seriously.

DAVID: Did a giant bush of life appear now? Yes. Dead ends are naturally discarded older forms during an evolutionary process:

dhw: I agree. How does that come to mean that your God deliberately designed dead ends which had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design, and then had to get rid of them?

DAVID: Same old: God used evolution as His system of producing us.

According to you, your God individually designed every stage of every life form, including all those that had no connection with us and our food. Hence my question which you have dodged yet again.

https://massivesci.com/articles/evolving-toward-extinction/
QUOTES: "It’s easy to view the progress of evolutionary selection as one-directional – leading toward ever more refined and useful traits. In Darwin’s words, “natural selection will tend to render the organization of each being more specialized and perfect, and in this sense higher.
"But nature does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends."

dhw: The above quote could hardly be clearer. You believe your God specially designed all the dead ends. So in your theory we must substitute the word “God” for the word “nature”: God does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends. Your all-powerful but oh so “humanized” God makes the wrong choices – in keeping with your other faux pas, when you told us that “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, but then backtracked to tell us that there were no failures and no experiments in your God's totally controlled direction of evolution.

DAVID: Yes, God totally controlled evolution which always will produce dead ends.

If your God controlled it, then you are telling us that he actually wanted to make wrong choices!

dhw: I do not know of any evolution in which designers deliberately set out to create failures, as you seem to think your God did.

DAVID: I view God as deliberately deciding to evolve us.

And deliberately deciding to evolve (= design) every other life form that ever lived, including all his wrong choices, which he wanted to make because all evolutions produce dead ends aka failed experiments aka wrong choices.

DAVID: Evolution always has dead ends which naturally occur or are allowed by God to occur.

The dead ends are species that led nowhere, and according to you they did NOT occur naturally and they were not “allowed” by God. According to you, he deliberately designed them. Why? That’s the problem you keep dodging.

DAVID: Evolution is a process in which simple gives way to complex.

That is certainly part of the process, but it has nothing to do with your theory that your God deliberately designs failures.

DAVID: Whatever appears is God's intent. We appeared at the end of evolution. Ergo, we were His final intent. Again you turn Adler's argument on its head.

Adler used human uniqueness to prove the existence of God. This has nothing to do with your theory of evolution. I doubt if the next billion years or so will see no changes in the history of life on Earth, but in any case, your claim is that we and our food were your all-powerful, in-total-control God’s one and only intent from the very beginning, and so yet again, why design all the dead ends? You either dodge the question, or come up with answers like the one I have bolded at the start of this thread, or with the advice that I should go and ask God because your theories make sense only to him.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, December 09, 2022, 17:41 (475 days ago) @ dhw

This thread and “More Miscellany” Part One deal with the same issues, so I have combined and edited the exchanges,

dhw: The definition does not say that things "have to" disappear or that disappearing forms are required! It is simply a fact that they disappear! (Raup says it’s all a matter of bad luck, which doesn’t say much for your God’s total control, does it?) The “improved models” are the life forms that DID evolve from earlier life forms. The dead ends are the ones that did NOT evolve into anything. But you have your God specially designing all the forms that did NOT evolve into the only forms he wants to design. Why? Apparently so that he could make them disappear because all evolutions must have dead ends, and he found that his own “failed experiments” were cluttering up the available space!

What you complain about is actual evolutionary history. I say God created it in order to produce humans. You accept descent with modification, the same evolution in question here. So when I say God did it with purpose, suddenly evolution is filled with all sorts of mistakes. What a crazy complaint! OK with Darwin, but not if God had a hand in it.

(I removed the repetitious discussion, but more below:)


https://massivesci.com/articles/evolving-toward-extinction/
QUOTES: "It’s easy to view the progress of evolutionary selection as one-directional – leading toward ever more refined and useful traits. In Darwin’s words, “natural selection will tend to render the organization of each being more specialized and perfect, and in this sense higher.
"But nature does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends."

dhw: The above quote could hardly be clearer. You believe your God specially designed all the dead ends. So in your theory we must substitute the word “God” for the word “nature”: God does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends. Your all-powerful but oh so “humanized” God makes the wrong choices – in keeping with your other faux pas, when you told us that “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, but then backtracked to tell us that there were no failures and no experiments in your God's totally controlled direction of evolution.

DAVID: Yes, God totally controlled evolution which always will produce dead ends.

dhw: If your God controlled it, then you are telling us that he actually wanted to make wrong choices!

No, He knew there would be failed forms due to bad luck


dhw: I do not know of any evolution in which designers deliberately set out to create failures, as you seem to think your God did.

DAVID: I view God as deliberately deciding to evolve us.

dhw: And deliberately deciding to evolve (= design) every other life form that ever lived, including all his wrong choices, which he wanted to make because all evolutions produce dead ends aka failed experiments aka wrong choices.

See above: we are viewing one evolutionary process from history. Darwin proposed it as naturally occurring and what happened is accepted by you. When I say God designed it, it suddenly has all sorts of errors. It is the SAME!! from differing viewpoints.

***


dhw: That is certainly part of the process, but it has nothing to do with your theory that your God deliberately designs failures.

DAVID: Whatever appears is God's intent. We appeared at the end of evolution. Ergo, we were His final intent. Again you turn Adler's argument on its head.

dhw: Adler used human uniqueness to prove the existence of God. This has nothing to do with your theory of evolution.

Adler made a major point that Darwin evolution occurred naturally and when humans appeared, comparing them to past organisms, they were so highly unusual, chance and natural selection could not have produced them.

dhw: I doubt if the next billion years or so will see no changes in the history of life on Earth, but in any case, your claim is that we and our food were your all-powerful, in-total-control God’s one and only intent from the very beginning, and so yet again, why design all the dead ends? You either dodge the question, or come up with answers like the one I have bolded at the start of this thread, or with the advice that I should go and ask God because your theories make sense only to him.

I don't dodge. You have completely distorted the discussion by accepting Darwin evolution as is (with a qualification about chance mutation) but discovering all sorts of errors if God did it with purpose. So, God's purpose makes evolution suddenly all wrong? We are discussing one form of evolution, the one in history. This all relates to your question about God, noting a direct creation is more efficient. A truism, but God did not take your advice. He used a designed evolutionary system suddenly filled with errors in His judgement. Where were the errors when you were a happy Darwinist, before we met.??? I don't dodge, but it is difficult to follow your reasoning about God, since you view Him as very humanized in thought pattern.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, December 10, 2022, 08:03 (475 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] you have your God specially designing all the forms that did NOT evolve into the only forms he wants to design. Why? Apparently so that he could make them disappear because all evolutions must have dead ends, and he found that his own “failed experiments” were cluttering up the available space!

DAVID: What you complain about is actual evolutionary history. I say God created it in order to produce humans. You accept descent with modification, the same evolution in question here. So when I say God did it with purpose, suddenly evolution is filled with all sorts of mistakes. What a crazy complaint! OK with Darwin, but not if God had a hand in it.

The actual history of evolution is that single cells evolved into countless life forms, vast numbers of which disappeared, while others developed into new species leading to all the life forms we know today, including humans. For the sake of our discussions, I am accepting that God exists, in order to probe his possible purpose, methods and nature. Of course I agree God must have had a purpose. But why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God design life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? Your answer for the last couple of weeks has been that mistakes must happen in all evolutions, “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, and God has to make his earlier failed experiments disappear in order to make room for his successful ones. It is YOU who make the dead ends into “mistakes”, by insisting that your God’s only purpose was us and our food. The dead ends would not be “mistakes” if he did not design them - for instance, if his purpose was a free-for-all (and he could dabble if he felt like it). You have no answer to the bolded question above. Your earlier answers have also included the proposal that I should ask God, because you can’t be expected to know his reasons.

https://massivesci.com/articles/evolving-toward-extinction/
QUOTE: ""But nature does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends."

dhw: The above quote could hardly be clearer. You believe your God specially designed all the dead ends. So in your theory we must substitute the word “God” for the word “nature”: God does not always make the right choices. […]

DAVID: [...] God totally controlled evolution which always will produce dead ends.

dhw: If your God controlled it, then you are telling us that he actually wanted to make wrong choices!

DAVID: No, He knew there would be failed forms due to bad luck.

There you go again! According to you he designed all the forms. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately designed them knowing that chance would turn them into “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong choices” – because they would not lead to what he intended. As for bad luck, by definition that is chance taking over – pretty odd for a God who “totally controlled” evolution.

DAVID: Whatever appears is God's intent. We appeared at the end of evolution. Ergo, we were His final intent. Again you turn Adler's argument on its head.[…]

Our discussion is not about what Adler said or didn’t say, or about proving God’s existence. Our disagreement is about the theory that your God designed every single extinct life form, lifestyle, strategy etc., including all those that had no connection with us and our food, as necessary preparations for us and our food. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I don't dodge. You have completely distorted the discussion by accepting Darwin evolution as is (with a qualification about chance mutation) but discovering all sorts of errors if God did it with purpose. So, God's purpose makes evolution suddenly all wrong?

It’s not evolution or God that is made wrong! Your theory is that an all-powerful God has to make mistakes because all evolutions are full of mistakes, and in this case he actually designs them knowing that they are mistakes. It makes no sense to me or to you, as you admit when you say it “makes sense only to God”!

DAVID: Where were the errors when you were a happy Darwinist, before we met.??? I don't dodge, but it is difficult to follow your reasoning about God, since you view Him as very humanized in thought pattern.

I have no idea why you keep harping on about Darwin and about “humanization”, except that these are convenient ways to dodge the issue, which in case you have forgotten is the question why an all-powerful God would deliberately design life forms that had no connection with the life forms he wanted to design. One day you tell us he did so because all evolutions must contain mistakes. The next day you blame me for pointing out that you are saying your God – who you believed designed the whole of evolution - made mistakes.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 10, 2022, 17:17 (474 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What you complain about is actual evolutionary history. I say God created it in order to produce humans. You accept descent with modification, the same evolution in question here. So when I say God did it with purpose, suddenly evolution is filled with all sorts of mistakes. What a crazy complaint! OK with Darwin, but not if God had a hand in it.

dhw: The actual history of evolution is that single cells evolved into countless life forms, vast numbers of which disappeared, while others developed into new species leading to all the life forms we know today, including humans. For the sake of our discussions, I am accepting that God exists, in order to probe his possible purpose, methods and nature. Of course I agree God must have had a purpose. But why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God design life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? Your answer for the last couple of weeks has been that mistakes must happen in all evolutions, “all evolutions advance from failed experiments”, and God has to make his earlier failed experiments disappear in order to make room for his successful ones. It is YOU who make the dead ends into “mistakes”, by insisting that your God’s only purpose was us and our food. The dead ends would not be “mistakes” if he did not design them - for instance, if his purpose was a free-for-all (and he could dabble if he felt like it). You have no answer to the bolded question above. Your earlier answers have also included the proposal that I should ask God, because you can’t be expected to know his reasons.

I've inserted a bold into your comment. It is the same false approach. Evolution is a result of God's actions, all the successes and all the dead ends. He chose to evolve us, and you complain about His method. Evolution requires dead ends. Not all approaches will work but many will advance. Your complaint still boils down to "why evolve us when direct creation is so much more efficient". But that isn't what happened and evolving toward a desired goal is what God did. Our appearance is Adler's proof of God, a highly logical argument.


https://massivesci.com/articles/evolving-toward-extinction/
QUOTE: ""But nature does not always make the right choices. Sometimes those choices lead to evolutionary dead ends."

dhw: There you go again! According to you he designed all the forms. Your all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately designed them knowing that chance would turn them into “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong choices” – because they would not lead to what he intended. As for bad luck, by definition that is chance taking over – pretty odd for a God who “totally controlled” evolution.

A God in full control produced the known history of evolution. You are simply picking apart what seems wrong to you about the process. Take God out of the picture and suddenly the process worked correctly??? Just as I commented at the start of this entry .


DAVID: Whatever appears is God's intent. We appeared at the end of evolution. Ergo, we were His final intent. Again you turn Adler's argument on its head.[…]

dhw: Our discussion is not about what Adler said or didn’t say, or about proving God’s existence. Our disagreement is about the theory that your God designed every single extinct life form, lifestyle, strategy etc., including all those that had no connection with us and our food, as necessary preparations for us and our food. Please stop dodging.

No dodge: my position is God evolved us, starting from the presumption God is in charge of creating our reality. Evolution occurred, God did it.


DAVID: I don't dodge. You have completely distorted the discussion by accepting Darwin evolution as is (with a qualification about chance mutation) but discovering all sorts of errors if God did it with purpose. So, God's purpose makes evolution suddenly all wrong?

dhw: It’s not evolution or God that is made wrong! Your theory is that an all-powerful God has to make mistakes because all evolutions are full of mistakes, and in this case he actually designs them knowing that they are mistakes. It makes no sense to me or to you, as you admit when you say it “makes sense only to God”!

All evolution has a goal and will have dead ends along the way.


DAVID: Where were the errors when you were a happy Darwinist, before we met.??? I don't dodge, but it is difficult to follow your reasoning about God, since you view Him as very humanized in thought pattern.

dhw: I have no idea why you keep harping on about Darwin and about “humanization”, except that these are convenient ways to dodge the issue, which in case you have forgotten is the question why an all-powerful God would deliberately design life forms that had no connection with the life forms he wanted to design. One day you tell us he did so because all evolutions must contain mistakes. The next day you blame me for pointing out that you are saying your God – who you believed designed the whole of evolution - made mistakes.

No, you are wrong. Once I insert a purposeful God into the standard history of evolution all sorts of mistakes in evolution turn up. Take God out and what do you think of evolution now. Mistakes, yes or no?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, December 11, 2022, 14:25 (473 days ago) @ David Turell

As you have missed or ignored the point of all my answers, I will quote your comment and answer it again. But first my two “bolds” that summarize the problem of dead ends and the possible solutions.

dhw: But why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God design life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? […] It is YOU who make the dead ends into “mistakes”, by insisting that your God’s only purpose was us and our food. The dead ends would not be “mistakes” if he did not design them..

DAVID: Evolution is a result of God's actions, all the successes and all the dead ends. He chose to evolve us, and you complain about His method. Evolution requires dead ends. Not all approaches will work but many will advance. Your complaint still boils down to "why evolve us when direct creation is so much more efficient". But that isn't what happened and evolving toward a desired goal is what God did. […]

Evolution does not “require” dead ends. It produces them. All your other “evolutions” refer to human activities – political, economic, educational, architectural, technological etc. And yes, things go wrong. According to you, your all-powerful God set out with a single goal – us and our food. Not all his individually designed approaches worked towards achieving his goal. That is why you call them mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, thus putting your “all-powerful” God in exactly the same bracket as us humans, though you kid yourself that you don’t “humanize” him! I have suggested two (theistic) ways in which you can remove the whole concept of a fallible God who makes countless “mistakes” on the way to achieving his goal. 1) He did not have one particular goal in mind when he created life, but – in your own words – he “enjoyed” creating (why else would he have done it?), and the enjoyment was enhanced - my contribution – by the pleasure of coming up with new ideas as he went along. By removing the starting point of a single goal, you remove the whole concept of “mistakes”. Humans would have been the last of his new ideas so far, and he would have tinkered with different sorts before deciding which ones he liked best. This also solves the problem of why he designed different humans before designing sapiens directly. 2) He did not design what you call the mistakes, because from the very beginning his goal was to design a free-for-all, the results of which – in your own words – he could watch with interest. And so he designed an entity (the cell) which could reproduce itself and which had the intelligence and plasticity to combine with other cells and – in response to a variety of environments – create the vast variety of forms which have come and gone throughout history. There are no "mistakes". But he left himself the option of dabbling if he felt like it. (That is a point at which we might say 2) links up with 1). My third proposal is that he did set out with the goal of producing a life form that would – in your own words – recognize his work and maybe form a relationship with him, but he needed to experiment in order to create such a being (plus its food). This fits in perfectly with your own proposal, right down to the wording that the dead ends were “failed experiments”. But I don’t see this as in any way demeaning or degrading. An inventor who tries different approaches on the way to achieving a goal commands my total respect, and I'd hesitate to call targeted experiments "mistakes" – but you don’t think so, and you reject this option although you have put it forward yourself.

We can skip the rest of the post, apart from your final comment:

DAVID: Once I insert a purposeful God into the standard history of evolution all sorts of mistakes in evolution turn up. Take God out and what do you think of evolution now. Mistakes, yes or no?

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Once you lumber your God with one specific goal and you argue that he individually designed every dead end, and that every dead end was a mistake, you reduce your God to the level of a human bumbler (another of your expressions). None of my proposals “take God out”. And none of them reduce him to the level of a bumbling human being. Mistakes? Not in my first two options. Yes in the third option, if that’s what you like to call them. If you take God out altogether, there are no mistakes because obviously there is no ultimate goal. Organisms survive or fail to survive. Of course if, in the history of my personal evolution, I accidentally step in front of a moving bus, you can I say I made a mistake, but I don’t think that’s quite what you had in mind!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 11, 2022, 17:27 (473 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God design life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? […] It is YOU who make the dead ends into “mistakes”, by insisting that your God’s only purpose was us and our food. The dead ends would not be “mistakes” if he did not design them..

DAVID: Evolution is a result of God's actions, all the successes and all the dead ends. He chose to evolve us, and you complain about His method. Evolution requires dead ends. Not all approaches will work but many will advance. Your complaint still boils down to "why evolve us when direct creation is so much more efficient". But that isn't what happened and evolving toward a desired goal is what God did. […]

dhw: Evolution does not “require” dead ends. It produces them.

Exactly!!! To have any advance, organisms must fail!! That is the exact sense of my use of the word 'required'.

dhw: All your other “evolutions” refer to human activities – political, economic, educational, architectural, technological etc. And yes, things go wrong. According to you, your all-powerful God set out with a single goal – us and our food. Not all his individually designed approaches worked towards achieving his goal. That is why you call them mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, thus putting your “all-powerful” God in exactly the same bracket as us humans, though you kid yourself that you don’t “humanize” him! I have suggested two (theistic) ways in which you can remove the whole concept of a fallible God who makes countless “mistakes” on the way to achieving his goal. 1) He did not have one particular goal in mind when he created life, but – in your own words – he “enjoyed” creating (why else would he have done it?), and the enjoyment was enhanced - my contribution – by the pleasure of coming up with new ideas as he went along. By removing the starting point of a single goal, you remove the whole concept of “mistakes”. Humans would have been the last of his new ideas so far, and he would have tinkered with different sorts before deciding which ones he liked best. This also solves the problem of why he designed different humans before designing sapiens directly. 2) He did not design what you call the mistakes, because from the very beginning his goal was to design a free-for-all, the results of which – in your own words – he could watch with interest. And so he designed an entity (the cell) which could reproduce itself and which had the intelligence and plasticity to combine with other cells and – in response to a variety of environments – create the vast variety of forms which have come and gone throughout history. There are no "mistakes". But he left himself the option of dabbling if he felt like it. (That is a point at which we might say 2) links up with 1). My third proposal is that he did set out with the goal of producing a life form that would – in your own words – recognize his work and maybe form a relationship with him, but he needed to experiment in order to create such a being (plus its food). This fits in perfectly with your own proposal, right down to the wording that the dead ends were “failed experiments”. But I don’t see this as in any way demeaning or degrading. An inventor who tries different approaches on the way to achieving a goal commands my total respect, and I'd hesitate to call targeted experiments "mistakes" – but you don’t think so, and you reject this option although you have put it forward yourself.

Again, you have produced your humanized God version of how evolution happened. He bumbles along, experimenting, changing His mind, suddenly thinking of new goals.


dhw: We can skip the rest of the post, apart from your final comment:

DAVID: Once I insert a purposeful God into the standard history of evolution all sorts of mistakes in evolution turn up. Take God out and what do you think of evolution now. Mistakes, yes or no?

dhw: You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Once you lumber your God with one specific goal and you argue that he individually designed every dead end, and that every dead end was a mistake, you reduce your God to the level of a human bumbler (another of your expressions). None of my proposals “take God out”. And none of them reduce him to the level of a bumbling human being. Mistakes? Not in my first two options. Yes in the third option, if that’s what you like to call them. If you take God out altogether, there are no mistakes because obviously there is no ultimate goal. Organisms survive or fail to survive. Of course if, in the history of my personal evolution, I accidentally step in front of a moving bus, you can I say I made a mistake, but I don’t think that’s quite what you had in mind!

I have to use God, the 'mind' in action. I don't see any possibility of natural evolution producing anything. In that case, everything produced by evolution represents God's doing. We both look at the same facts. Without God evolution is OK by your views. Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result. Used by Adler and noted prominently by Paul Davies, giving us a theist and an atheist in concert!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, December 12, 2022, 13:53 (472 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God design life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? […] It is YOU who make the dead ends into “mistakes”, by insisting that your God’s only purpose was us and our food. The dead ends would not be “mistakes” if he did not design them..

DAVID: Evolution is a result of God's actions, all the successes and all the dead ends. He chose to evolve us, and you complain about His method. Evolution requires dead ends. Not all approaches will work but many will advance. Your complaint still boils down to "why evolve us when direct creation is so much more efficient". But that isn't what happened and evolving toward a desired goal is what God did. […]

dhw: Evolution does not “require” dead ends. It produces them.

DAVID: Exactly!!! To have any advance, organisms must fail!! That is the exact sense of my use of the word 'required'.

It is the organisms that succeed in adapting themselves or in producing successful innovations that “advance”. The dead ends are the ones that die off without any successors. In your theory, they are your God’s failures or “mistakes”, because he produced them although they were never “required” for the strands of evolution that led to us and our food. But according to you, they were required because your all-powerful, all-knowing God had to design things that were not required because otherwise he couldn't design things that were required.

There is no need for me to repeat my description of your illogical theory and my own logical alternatives, as your responses tell their own story:

DAVID: Again, you have produced your humanized God version of how evolution happened. He bumbles along, experimenting, changing His mind, suddenly thinking of new goals.

Now consider your own account:

DAVID: Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result.

My God (if he exists), who systematically experiments, or enjoys creating new things as new ideas come to him, or who has created an autonomous mechanism which will constantly produce “unexpected” results (far more interesting than results already known beforehand) is called bumblingly human. Whereas your God starts out with only one purpose, creates a total mess, and after he has made mistake after mistake with his “failures” and wrong choices, the one thing he had in mind unexpectedly emerges from the mess. But apparently he is all-powerful, always in control, and there is nothing bumbling about his mess of failures and successes, which are just like all human-made evolutions although you do not humanize him.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, December 12, 2022, 17:36 (472 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God design life forms that had no connection with the only life forms he wanted to design? […] It is YOU who make the dead ends into “mistakes”, by insisting that your God’s only purpose was us and our food. The dead ends would not be “mistakes” if he did not design them..

DAVID: Evolution is a result of God's actions, all the successes and all the dead ends. He chose to evolve us, and you complain about His method. Evolution requires dead ends. Not all approaches will work but many will advance. Your complaint still boils down to "why evolve us when direct creation is so much more efficient". But that isn't what happened and evolving toward a desired goal is what God did. […]

dhw: Evolution does not “require” dead ends. It produces them.

DAVID: Exactly!!! To have any advance, organisms must fail!! That is the exact sense of my use of the word 'required'.

dhw: It is the organisms that succeed in adapting themselves or in producing successful innovations that “advance”. The dead ends are the ones that die off without any successors. In your theory, they are your God’s failures or “mistakes”, because he produced them although they were never “required” for the strands of evolution that led to us and our food. But according to you, they were required because your all-powerful, all-knowing God had to design things that were not required because otherwise he couldn't design things that were required.

If God designed them, He felt they were required, because that is what is present. What you are really saying is evolution is an inefficient, messy, cumbersome way to reach a goal. When
God does it, it is all wrong. But, when it is seen as occurring naturally, it suddenly is all OK. You can't have it both ways. Your argument against God-designed evolution is completely wrong.


DAVID: Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result.

dhw: My God (if he exists), who systematically experiments, or enjoys creating new things as new ideas come to him, or who has created an autonomous mechanism which will constantly produce “unexpected” results (far more interesting than results already known beforehand) is called bumblingly human. Whereas your God starts out with only one purpose, creates a total mess, and after he has made mistake after mistake with his “failures” and wrong choices, the one thing he had in mind unexpectedly emerges from the mess. But apparently he is all-powerful, always in control, and there is nothing bumbling about his mess of failures and successes, which are just like all human-made evolutions although you do not humanize him.

You've just repeated your distortion. See above

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, December 13, 2022, 08:42 (472 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Evolution does not “require” dead ends. It produces them.

DAVID: Exactly!!! To have any advance, organisms must fail!! That is the exact sense of my use of the word 'required'.

dhw: It is the organisms that succeed in adapting themselves or in producing successful innovations that “advance”. The dead ends are the ones that die off without any successors. In your theory, they are your God’s failures or “mistakes”, because he produced them although they were never “required” for the strands of evolution that led to us and our food. But according to you, they were required because your all-powerful, all-knowing God had to design things that were not required because otherwise he couldn't design things that were required.

DAVID: If God designed them, He felt they were required, because that is what is present.

Required for WHAT? They were not required for what you claim was your God’s one and only goal! You have said so. You have said they were mistakes!

DAVID: What you are really saying is evolution is an inefficient, messy, cumbersome way to reach a goal. When God does it, it is all wrong. But, when it is seen as occurring naturally, it suddenly is all OK. You can't have it both ways. Your argument against God-designed evolution is completely wrong.

It is YOU who say your God-designed evolution is a mess! Read your own words: “Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result.” By “naturally” you usually mean without God, but all three of my alternatives include God, and it is only when you make God do it your way that you end with a mess of mistakes, failures and wrong choices! There is no mess if you drop your insistence that his only goal was us and our food; or if he designed all the different life forms, moving from new idea to new idea because he enjoyed creating and was interested in what he created (your own “humanisation” of him in earlier posts); or if instead of designing them himself, he created a mechanism to provide the same ever changing variety, which was even more interesting because the results could be unexpected. No mistakes, no mess, no wrong choices. Only you insist on a mess of mistakes. Our theories do blend in with each other if we regard the dead ends as experiments undertaken in the quest to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own (another of your agreements later rescinded). We just have a different way of looking at this alternative: you see it negatively as a succession of failures and mistakes (you actually call them “failed experiments”, which is pejorative), whereas I find the concept of experimentation in the quest for some special creation exciting and admirable. But you prefer to stick to your all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control version of a God whose power, knowledge and control lead him to countless mistakes, failures, wrong choices and total mess before he finally comes up with the unexpected result he tried so incompetently to achieve from the very beginning.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 13, 2022, 16:26 (471 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What you are really saying is evolution is an inefficient, messy, cumbersome way to reach a goal. When God does it, it is all wrong. But, when it is seen as occurring naturally, it suddenly is all OK. You can't have it both ways. Your argument against God-designed evolution is completely wrong.

dhw: It is YOU who say your God-designed evolution is a mess! Read your own words: “Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result.” By “naturally” you usually mean without God, but all three of my alternatives include God, and it is only when you make God do it your way that you end with a mess of mistakes, failures and wrong choices! There is no mess if you drop your insistence that his only goal was us and our food; or if he designed all the different life forms, moving from new idea to new idea because he enjoyed creating and was interested in what he created (your own “humanisation” of him in earlier posts); or if instead of designing them himself, he created a mechanism to provide the same ever changing variety, which was even more interesting because the results could be unexpected. No mistakes, no mess, no wrong choices. Only you insist on a mess of mistakes. Our theories do blend in with each other if we regard the dead ends as experiments undertaken in the quest to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own (another of your agreements later rescinded). We just have a different way of looking at this alternative: you see it negatively as a succession of failures and mistakes (you actually call them “failed experiments”, which is pejorative), whereas I find the concept of experimentation in the quest for some special creation exciting and admirable. But you prefer to stick to your all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control version of a God whose power, knowledge and control lead him to countless mistakes, failures, wrong choices and total mess before he finally comes up with the unexpected result he tried so incompetently to achieve from the very beginning.

You have backed into your usual corner, favoring a God who is just ss human as we are.
We both agree evolving a goal is a messy way to get there. But your approach is to forget the goal and then a wandering evolution is OK.

we obviously have two very different perceptions of how to think about God. I point out a marvelously fine-tuned universe for life, and you complain the universe is too big. I point out God evolved the universe from the Big Bang, evolved the Earth, started life and evolved it. It all reeks of purposeful action. Purposeful actions have goals. Why doesn't your God?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, December 14, 2022, 12:54 (470 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you are really saying is evolution is an inefficient, messy, cumbersome way to reach a goal. When God does it, it is all wrong. But, when it is seen as occurring naturally, it suddenly is all OK. You can't have it both ways. Your argument against God-designed evolution is completely wrong.

dhw: It is YOU who say your God-designed evolution is a mess! Read your own words: “Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result.” By “naturally” you usually mean without God, but all three of my alternatives include God, and it is only when you make God do it your way that you end with a mess of mistakes, failures and wrong choices! There is no mess if you drop your insistence that his only goal was us and our food; or if he designed all the different life forms, moving from new idea to new idea because he enjoyed creating and was interested in what he created (your own “humanisation” of him in earlier posts); or if instead of designing them himself, he created a mechanism to provide the same ever changing variety, which was even more interesting because the results could be unexpected. No mistakes, no mess, no wrong choices. Only you insist on a mess of mistakes. Our theories do blend in with each other if we regard the dead ends as experiments undertaken in the quest to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own (another of your agreements later rescinded). We just have a different way of looking at this alternative: you see it negatively as a succession of failures and mistakes (you actually call them “failed experiments”, which is pejorative), whereas I find the concept of experimentation in the quest for some special creation exciting and admirable. But you prefer to stick to your all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control version of a God whose power, knowledge and control lead him to countless mistakes, failures, wrong choices and total mess before he finally comes up with the unexpected result he tried so incompetently to achieve from the very beginning.

DAVID: You have backed into your usual corner, favoring a God who is just ss human as we are. We both agree evolving a goal is a messy way to get there. But your approach is to forget the goal and then a wandering evolution is OK.

You have backed into your usual corner, ignoring absolutely everything you yourself have written and my entire response to it. It is you who equate your God’s form of evolution with human “evolutions” – full of mistakes, messy etc. In two of my alternatives to your mess, I have your God either initially pursuing the goal you want (humans plus food) through the experiments you call failures, or only hitting on the goal you want late on in the process (new ideas). In the third theory, his goal is the free-for-all that explains all the dead ends but still allows for him to dabble. There is no human-style mess (I don’t regard targeted experimentation as messy), and all the dead ends are accounted for without the bumbling, messy, fallible (he makes mistakes), “humanized” God you depict. Read your own bolded words above.

DAVID: we obviously have two very different perceptions of how to think about God. I point out a marvelously fine-tuned universe for life, and you complain the universe is too big. I point out God evolved the universe from the Big Bang, evolved the Earth, started life and evolved it. It all reeks of purposeful action. Purposeful actions have goals. Why doesn't your God?

I do not complain about the fine-tuned universe. As with the evolution of life, I only challenge the assumption that all the billions of extinct and existing stars and solar systems served/serve the one and only purpose of designing and feeding us. If God exists, I have no problem with the theory that he evolved the Earth, started life and evolved it. I only complain about the illogicality of your theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God had to keep designing a great mess of mistakes and wrong choices and failures in order to design the only life forms he actually wanted to design.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 14, 2022, 14:33 (470 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What you are really saying is evolution is an inefficient, messy, cumbersome way to reach a goal. When God does it, it is all wrong. But, when it is seen as occurring naturally, it suddenly is all OK. You can't have it both ways. Your argument against God-designed evolution is completely wrong.

dhw: It is YOU who say your God-designed evolution is a mess! Read your own words: “Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result.” By “naturally” you usually mean without God, but all three of my alternatives include God, and it is only when you make God do it your way that you end with a mess of mistakes, failures and wrong choices! There is no mess if you drop your insistence that his only goal was us and our food; or if he designed all the different life forms, moving from new idea to new idea because he enjoyed creating and was interested in what he created (your own “humanisation” of him in earlier posts); or if instead of designing them himself, he created a mechanism to provide the same ever changing variety, which was even more interesting because the results could be unexpected. No mistakes, no mess, no wrong choices. Only you insist on a mess of mistakes. Our theories do blend in with each other if we regard the dead ends as experiments undertaken in the quest to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own (another of your agreements later rescinded). We just have a different way of looking at this alternative: you see it negatively as a succession of failures and mistakes (you actually call them “failed experiments”, which is pejorative), whereas I find the concept of experimentation in the quest for some special creation exciting and admirable. But you prefer to stick to your all-powerful, all-knowing, always-in-control version of a God whose power, knowledge and control lead him to countless mistakes, failures, wrong choices and total mess before he finally comes up with the unexpected result he tried so incompetently to achieve from the very beginning.

DAVID: You have backed into your usual corner, favoring a God who is just ss human as we are. We both agree evolving a goal is a messy way to get there. But your approach is to forget the goal and then a wandering evolution is OK.

dhw: You have backed into your usual corner, ignoring absolutely everything you yourself have written and my entire response to it. It is you who equate your God’s form of evolution with human “evolutions” – full of mistakes, messy etc. In two of my alternatives to your mess, I have your God either initially pursuing the goal you want (humans plus food) through the experiments you call failures, or only hitting on the goal you want late on in the process (new ideas). In the third theory, his goal is the free-for-all that explains all the dead ends but still allows for him to dabble. There is no human-style mess (I don’t regard targeted experimentation as messy), and all the dead ends are accounted for without the bumbling, messy, fallible (he makes mistakes), “humanized” God you depict. Read your own bolded words above.

Everything you and I have written depends on which version of God you choose. Adler and I see Gpd with definite purpose to produce humans. Your imagined God is all over the place, notv sure where He is actually going with an endpoint up for grabs.


DAVID: we obviously have two very different perceptions of how to think about God. I point out a marvelously fine-tuned universe for life, and you complain the universe is too big. I point out God evolved the universe from the Big Bang, evolved the Earth, started life and evolved it. It all reeks of purposeful action. Purposeful actions have goals. Why doesn't your God?

dhw: I do not complain about the fine-tuned universe. As with the evolution of life, I only challenge the assumption that all the billions of extinct and existing stars and solar systems served/serve the one and only purpose of designing and feeding us. If God exists, I have no problem with the theory that he evolved the Earth, started life and evolved it. I only complain about the illogicality of your theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God had to keep designing a great mess of mistakes and wrong choices and failures in order to design the only life forms he actually wanted to design.

I'll repeat, evolving toward any goal is messy, by definition.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, December 15, 2022, 08:54 (470 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Everything you and I have written depends on which version of God you choose. Adler and I see God with definite purpose to produce humans. Your imagined God is all over the place, not sure where He is actually going with an endpoint up for grabs.

You specify over and over again that your imagined God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus food. In pursuing this goal, YOU say: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result.” That = going all over the place. “Endpoint” is not identical to “purpose”, and with a few hundred (thousand?) million years to go, it’s still up for grabs.

I present three imaginings: 1) is your own version: God’s purpose is to produce humans plus food, and to achieve this, he conducts experiments. You agree, but describe his experiments as mistakes, failures, wrong choices, and incomprehensibly insist that his experiments are not experiments. 2) a compromise: God enjoys creating (you were once certain that this was true), and has new ideas as he proceeds. Humans plus food therefore become a purpose late on in the process. No mistakes, failures, mess etc. 3) God’s enjoyment is enhanced by creating a free-for-all which provides unexpected results (though he may dabble). There are no mistakes, failures, wrong choices in any of my versions apart from the first if that is how you wish to regard targeted experimentation. Each version is purposeful, and the only messy one is yours.

DAVID: I'll repeat, evolving toward any goal is messy, by definition.

Evolution: “the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms.” Yes or no? Extinction (“dead ends”) is an historical fact, but it only becomes “messy” if you try to define evolution as a messy process in which an all-powerful God designs every organism with one single goal in mind, although 99% of his designs are mistakes.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 15, 2022, 16:49 (469 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Everything you and I have written depends on which version of God you choose. Adler and I see God with definite purpose to produce humans. Your imagined God is all over the place, not sure where He is actually going with an endpoint up for grabs.

dhw: You specify over and over again that your imagined God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus food. In pursuing this goal, YOU say: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result.” That = going all over the place. “Endpoint” is not identical to “purpose”, and with a few hundred (thousand?) million years to go, it’s still up for grabs.

A continuing evolution, ad lib, is over. We are the end point and control the Earth. 'New' species are still found, but they were always there. An endpoint of evolution can certainly be the underlying purpose.


dhw: I present three imaginings: 1) is your own version: God’s purpose is to produce humans plus food, and to achieve this, he conducts experiments. You agree, but describe his experiments as mistakes, failures, wrong choices, and incomprehensibly insist that his experiments are not experiments. 2) a compromise: God enjoys creating (you were once certain that this was true), and has new ideas as he proceeds. Humans plus food therefore become a purpose late on in the process. No mistakes, failures, mess etc. 3) God’s enjoyment is enhanced by creating a free-for-all which provides unexpected results (though he may dabble). There are no mistakes, failures, wrong choices in any of my versions apart from the first if that is how you wish to regard targeted experimentation. Each version is purposeful, and the only messy one is yours.

I'll stick with (1) but interpret your distortions differently: any evolution, biological or otherwise is messy. In the biological form, everyone must eat, so there is competition and Darwin's survival of the fittest, creating dead ends of less fit.


DAVID: I'll repeat, evolving toward any goal is messy, by definition.

dhw: Evolution: “the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms.” Yes or no?

Yes, by God's design.

dhw: Extinction (“dead ends”) is an historical fact, but it only becomes “messy” if you try to define evolution as a messy process in which an all-powerful God designs every organism with one single goal in mind, although 99% of his designs are mistakes.

Yes, 99% are gone, not to be mourned or called mistakes of design. They had to be someone's lunch What defines real evolution is all the loss. Momentary errors as the process continues to advance,

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, December 16, 2022, 08:07 (469 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Everything you and I have written depends on which version of God you choose. Adler and I see God with definite purpose to produce humans. Your imagined God is all over the place, not sure where He is actually going with an endpoint up for grabs. (dhw's bold)

dhw: You specify over and over again that your imagined God’s one and only purpose was to produce humans plus food. In pursuing this goal, YOU say: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. And the result, us, is a most unexpected result.” That = going all over the place. “Endpoint” is not identical to “purpose”, and with a few hundred (thousand?) million years to go, it’s still up for grabs.

DAVID: A continuing evolution, ad lib, is over. We are the end point and control the Earth. 'New' species are still found, but they were always there. An endpoint of evolution can certainly be the underlying purpose.

It can be, but why don’t you just stick to purpose, as you have done in the first (now bolded) statement above, which is unambiguous, though you have left out your belief that we plus food were his ONLY purpose? If your God’s ONLY purpose was us plus food, according to YOU, his form of evolution is a total mess.

dhw: I present three imaginings: 1) is your own version: God’s purpose is to produce humans plus food, and to achieve this, he conducts experiments. You agree, but describe his experiments as mistakes, failures, wrong choices, and incomprehensibly insist that his experiments are not experiments. 2) a compromise: God enjoys creating (you were once certain that this was true), and has new ideas as he proceeds. Humans plus food therefore become a purpose late on in the process. No mistakes, failures, mess etc. 3) God’s enjoyment is enhanced by creating a free-for-all which provides unexpected results (though he may dabble). There are no mistakes, failures, wrong choices in any of my versions apart from the first if that is how you wish to regard targeted experimentation. Each version is purposeful, and the only messy one is yours.

DAVID: I'll stick with (1) but interpret your distortions differently: any evolution, biological or otherwise is messy. In the biological form, everyone must eat, so there is competition and Darwin's survival of the fittest, creating dead ends of less fit.

What “distortions”? I’m pleased to see you supporting Darwin, and even more pleased that you are now supporting my proposal of experimentation, which you have vehemently excluded in the past. So we now have your God wanting to create a being like himself, not knowing initially how to do it and therefore designing all kinds of creatures to see whether they will eventually become what he’s aiming for. I wouldn’t use your vocabulary (messy, mistakes, wrong choices, failures) but I understand your doing so, and this very humanized vision you now have of your God offers you a clear explanation for the history of evolution as we know it.

DAVID: I'll repeat, evolving toward any goal is messy, by definition.

dhw: Evolution: “the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms.” Yes or no?

DAVID: Yes, by God's design.

That is not part of the definition (and nor is "messy"), but since we are discussing a possible God’s purposes and methods, not his existence, then by all means tack it on as the believer’s version, and I will add the parenthesis “if he exists” as the agnostic’s version.

dhw: Extinction (“dead ends”) is an historical fact, but it only becomes “messy” if you try to define evolution as a messy process in which an all-powerful God designs every organism with one single goal in mind, although 99% of his designs are mistakes.

DAVID: Yes, 99% are gone, not to be mourned or called mistakes of design. They had to be someone's lunch What defines real evolution is all the loss. Momentary errors as the process continues to advance.

It’s YOU who call them mistakes, failures, wrong choices! “Momentary errors” are mistakes, and extinction is permanent, not momentary! And it is not just the fact that they were someone’s lunch that caused extinction. Predators as well as prey disappeared, and they did so when conditions changed: climate, environment, imbalance in the ecosystem, no lunch available, no breathable air, extreme heat, extreme cold etc. What defines evolution is the species that are NOT lost, i.e. which survive and develop into new species!

Thank you again for accepting my theory of experimentation. Perhaps that will enable us to put an end to this long-drawn-out discussion, except that the “more miscellany thread” threatens to prolong it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, December 16, 2022, 15:30 (468 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A continuing evolution, ad lib, is over. We are the end point and control the Earth. 'New' species are still found, but they were always there. An endpoint of evolution can certainly be the underlying purpose.

dhw: It can be, but why don’t you just stick to purpose, as you have done in the first (now bolded) statement above, which is unambiguous, though you have left out your belief that we plus food were his ONLY purpose? If your God’s ONLY purpose was us plus food, according to YOU, his form of evolution is a total mess.

Your definition of God's evolution is the hole in the doughnut. Evolution must destroy to advance to more adapted, more complex forms. 99% of forms are gone, and have to be.


dhw: I present three imaginings: 1) is your own version: God’s purpose is to produce humans plus food, and to achieve this, he conducts experiments. You agree, but describe his experiments as mistakes, failures, wrong choices, and incomprehensibly insist that his experiments are not experiments. 2) a compromise: God enjoys creating (you were once certain that this was true), and has new ideas as he proceeds. Humans plus food therefore become a purpose late on in the process. No mistakes, failures, mess etc. 3) God’s enjoyment is enhanced by creating a free-for-all which provides unexpected results (though he may dabble). There are no mistakes, failures, wrong choices in any of my versions apart from the first if that is how you wish to regard targeted experimentation. Each version is purposeful, and the only messy one is yours.

DAVID: I'll stick with (1) but interpret your distortions differently: any evolution, biological or otherwise is messy. In the biological form, everyone must eat, so there is competition and Darwin's survival of the fittest, creating dead ends of less fit.

dhw: What “distortions”? I’m pleased to see you supporting Darwin, and even more pleased that you are now supporting my proposal of experimentation, which you have vehemently excluded in the past. So we now have your God wanting to create a being like himself, not knowing initially how to do it and therefore designing all kinds of creatures to see whether they will eventually become what he’s aiming for. I wouldn’t use your vocabulary (messy, mistakes, wrong choices, failures) but I understand your doing so, and this very humanized vision you now have of your God offers you a clear explanation for the history of evolution as we know it.

God may produce variations as He designed evolution, but many were destined for failure which is the way evolution works. But these variations always on the same road to humans. The goal never changed. Some of Darwin is worth using. Real expeirmentation never was a process.


DAVID: I'll repeat, evolving toward any goal is messy, by definition.

dhw: Evolution: “the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms.” Yes or no?

DAVID: Yes, by God's design.

That is not part of the definition (and nor is "messy"), but since we are discussing a possible God’s purposes and methods, not his existence, then by all means tack it on as the believer’s version, and I will add the parenthesis “if he exists” as the agnostic’s version.

dhw: Extinction (“dead ends”) is an historical fact, but it only becomes “messy” if you try to define evolution as a messy process in which an all-powerful God designs every organism with one single goal in mind, although 99% of his designs are mistakes.

DAVID: Yes, 99% are gone, not to be mourned or called mistakes of design. They had to be someone's lunch What defines real evolution is all the loss. Momentary errors as the process continues to advance.

dhw: It’s YOU who call them mistakes, failures, wrong choices! “Momentary errors” are mistakes, and extinction is permanent, not momentary! And it is not just the fact that they were someone’s lunch that caused extinction. Predators as well as prey disappeared, and they did so when conditions changed: climate, environment, imbalance in the ecosystem, no lunch available, no breathable air, extreme heat, extreme cold etc. What defines evolution is the species that are NOT lost, i.e. which survive and develop into new species!

Yes, along defininte road to a purpose.


dhw: Thank you again for accepting my theory of experimentation. Perhaps that will enable us to put an end to this long-drawn-out discussion, except that the “more miscellany thread” threatens to prolong it.

Don't thank me. God does not experiment for the sake of finding a new way. He knows exactly where He is going and how to get there. There must be a food-supplying ecosystem at all times and hen no long necessary those organisms fade away along with the top predators.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, December 17, 2022, 09:47 (468 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If your God’s ONLY purpose was us plus food, according to YOU, his form of evolution is a total mess.

DAVID: Your definition of God's evolution is the hole in the doughnut. Evolution must destroy to advance to more adapted, more complex forms. 99% of forms are gone, and have to be.

All of a sudden, evolution is running evolution. I thought your God was in charge. Anyway, 99% of the forms he has deliberately designed must be destroyed, so that he can design the more adapted, more complex forms which he will create out of those that have NOT been destroyed. And this leaves you, as usual, with the problem of why your God bothered to specially design those that he would NOT need in order to design the more adapted, more complex forms. Your explanation is that they were your God’s mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, as a result of which “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. “ If he is responsible for the mess, then he is responsible for the mess!

DAVID: I'll stick with (1) but interpret your distortions differently: any evolution, biological or otherwise is messy. In the biological form, everyone must eat, so there is competition and Darwin's survival of the fittest, creating dead ends of less fit.

dhw: What “distortions”? I’m pleased to see you supporting Darwin, and even more pleased that you are now supporting my proposal of experimentation, which you have vehemently excluded in the past. So we now have your God wanting to create a being like himself, not knowing initially how to do it and therefore designing all kinds of creatures to see whether they will eventually become what he’s aiming for. I wouldn’t use your vocabulary (messy, mistakes, wrong choices, failures) but I understand your doing so, and this very humanized vision you now have of your God offers you a clear explanation for the history of evolution as we know it.

DAVID: God may produce variations as He designed evolution, but many were destined for failure which is the way evolution works. But these variations always on the same road to humans. The goal never changed. Some of Darwin is worth using. Real expeirmentation never was a process.

Again, why do you keep talking about the way evolution works? According to you, God controls evolution, so this is the way God works! So once again, according to you he specially designed all the “variations” which were NOT “on the road” to his unchanging goal (us and our food). They were his “mistakes”. I have no idea what your last sentence means. According to your previous post, God experimented in order to achieve his goal, and on the way he made lots of mistakes. What’s the problem?

dhw: Thank you again for accepting my theory of experimentation. Perhaps that will enable us to put an end to this long-drawn-out discussion, except that the “more miscellany thread” threatens to prolong it.

DAVID: Don't thank me. God does not experiment for the sake of finding a new way. He knows exactly where He is going and how to get there. There must be a food-supplying ecosystem at all times and when no long necessary those organisms fade away along with the top predators.

You don’t need to experiment if you already know exactly where you are going and how to get there! You are making nonsense of language. And you know it, because you tell us that your God’s evolution is a mess of mistakes, wrong choices, and FAILED EXPERIMENTS!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 17, 2022, 16:18 (467 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If your God’s ONLY purpose was us plus food, according to YOU, his form of evolution is a total mess.

DAVID: Your definition of God's evolution is the hole in the doughnut. Evolution must destroy to advance to more adapted, more complex forms. 99% of forms are gone, and have to be.

dhw: All of a sudden, evolution is running evolution. I thought your God was in charge. Anyway, 99% of the forms he has deliberately designed must be destroyed, so that he can design the more adapted, more complex forms which he will create out of those that have NOT been destroyed.

We have agreed 99% disappeared in evolution. It is a messy process compared to direct creation. We agree on that also.

dhw: And this leaves you, as usual, with the problem of why your God bothered to specially design those that he would NOT need in order to design the more adapted, more complex forms. Your explanation is that they were your God’s mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, as a result of which “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. “ If he is responsible for the mess, then he is responsible for the mess!

Given a God-created history of evolution, we must conclude God chose to evolve us.

So once again, according to you he specially designed all the “variations” which were NOT “on the road” to his unchanging goal (us and our food). They were his “mistakes”. According to your previous post, God experimented in order to achieve his goal, and on the way he made lots of mistakes. What’s the problem?

You keep forgetting the 'mistakes' were part of ecosystems no longer needed for food. The need for constant food supply gets lost in all your distorted objections. Evolution can be
characterized as new forms and their food supply. The now bolded is right on and then you complain about it.


dhw: Thank you again for accepting my theory of experimentation. Perhaps that will enable us to put an end to this long-drawn-out discussion, except that the “more miscellany thread” threatens to prolong it.

DAVID: Don't thank me. God does not experiment for the sake of finding a new way. He knows exactly where He is going and how to get there. There must be a food-supplying ecosystem at all times and when no long necessary those organisms fade away along with the top predators.

dhw: You don’t need to experiment if you already know exactly where you are going and how to get there! You are making nonsense of language. And you know it, because you tell us that your God’s evolution is a mess of mistakes, wrong choices, and FAILED EXPERIMENTS!

Evolution must involve failed experiments, or evolution does not evolve!!! Please go back to your words:

"dhw: Again, why do you keep talking about the way evolution works? According to you, God controls evolution, so this is the way God works!"

God controls evolution!!! He produced what you complain about. And He did it with the exact purpose of producing humans. That is the nub of Adler's proof of God. I'm not objecting to God's choice when I admit evolution is a messy way to create. As you havee agreed, an all-powerful God can do whatever He wishes.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, December 18, 2022, 13:25 (466 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If your God’s ONLY purpose was us plus food, according to YOU, his form of evolution is a total mess.

DAVID: Your definition of God's evolution is the hole in the doughnut. Evolution must destroy to advance to more adapted, more complex forms. 99% of forms are gone, and have to be.

dhw: All of a sudden, evolution is running evolution. I thought your God was in charge. Anyway, 99% of the forms he has deliberately designed must be destroyed, so that he can design the more adapted, more complex forms which he will create out of those that have NOT been destroyed.

DAVID: We have agreed 99% disappeared in evolution. It is a messy process compared to direct creation. We agree on that also.

And your God is responsible for the mess. You have agreed that if his one and only aim was to design us plus food, the mess can be explained by the theory that he was experimenting and specially designing mistakes, wrong choices and failures as he did so. Why are you prolonging the agony?

dhw: [quoting David] “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. “ If he is responsible for the mess, then he is responsible for the mess!

DAVID: Given a God-created history of evolution, we must conclude God chose to evolve us.

According to you, he also chose to evolve (by which you mean design) every other creature as well, including the 99% of dead ends, which were his failed experiments, leading to the mess he created. What’s the problem?

DAVID: You keep forgetting the 'mistakes' were part of ecosystems no longer needed for food. The need for constant food supply gets lost in all your distorted objections. Evolution can be characterized as new forms and their food supply.

He designed the 99% of dead ends including their food, and they were all “failed experiments” which had nothing to do with the aim of his experiments, which was to design us and our food. Hence the mess for which you make him responsible. What’s the problem?

DAVID: God does not experiment for the sake of finding a new way. He knows exactly where He is going and how to get there. There must be a food-supplying ecosystem at all times and when no long necessary those organisms fade away along with the top predators.

dhw: You don’t need to experiment if you already know exactly where you are going and how to get there! You are making nonsense of language. And you know it, because you tell us that your God’s evolution is a mess of mistakes, wrong choices, and FAILED EXPERIMENTS!

DAVID: Evolution must involve failed experiments, or evolution does not evolve!!! Please go back to your words:
"dhw: Again, why do you keep talking about the way evolution works? According to you, God controls evolution, so this is the way God works!"

DAVID: God controls evolution!!! He produced what you complain about. And He did it with the exact purpose of producing humans. That is the nub of Adler's proof of God. I'm not objecting to God's choice when I admit evolution is a messy way to create. As you have agreed, an all-powerful God can do whatever He wishes.

If your all-powerful God exists, and if – as you believe (it is not an historical fact) – his one and only purpose was to produce humans, and if, as you believe, he designed all species and 99% of the species he designed (including the foods they ate) were “failed experiments” (your term), then his method of achieving his goal was a mess. You are not objecting to the experimentation theory, which in your view makes God’s work a mess, so what’s the problem?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 18, 2022, 15:24 (466 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We have agreed 99% disappeared in evolution. It is a messy process compared to direct creation. We agree on that also.

dhw: And your God is responsible for the mess. You have agreed that if his one and only aim was to design us plus food, the mess can be explained by the theory that he was experimenting and specially designing mistakes, wrong choices and failures as he did so. Why are you prolonging the agony?

The agony is yours. Evolution is filled with mistakes and successes. However, it always advances forward to new more complex forms. Therefore, it is a successful process. My belief is God chose this process for His own reasons. God always knows best.


dhw: According to you, he also chose to evolve (by which you mean design) every other creature as well, including the 99% of dead ends, which were his failed experiments, leading to the mess he created. What’s the problem?

Is there a problem? A messy process led to us with our unexpected brain, the most complex functioning organ in the universe.


DAVID: Evolution must involve failed experiments, or evolution does not evolve!!! Please go back to your words:

"dhw: Again, why do you keep talking about the way evolution works? According to you, God controls evolution, so this is the way God works!"[/i]

DAVID: God controls evolution!!! He produced what you complain about. And He did it with the exact purpose of producing humans. That is the nub of Adler's proof of God. I'm not objecting to God's choice when I admit evolution is a messy way to create. As you have agreed, an all-powerful God can do whatever He wishes.

dhw: If your all-powerful God exists, and if – as you believe (it is not an historical fact) – his one and only purpose was to produce humans, and if, as you believe, he designed all species and 99% of the species he designed (including the foods they ate) were “failed experiments” (your term), then his method of achieving his goal was a mess. You are not objecting to the experimentation theory, which in your view makes God’s work a mess, so what’s the problem?

It is your concerned human view God used a messy process to produce us. You've agreed God can do it any way He wishes, and His reasoning powers are far in advance over yours. I am content with that. I've explained God's actions as far as I can.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, December 19, 2022, 08:26 (466 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We have agreed 99% disappeared in evolution. It is a messy process compared to direct creation. We agree on that also.

dhw: And your God is responsible for the mess. You have agreed that if his one and only aim was to design us plus food, the mess can be explained by the theory that he was experimenting and specially designing mistakes, wrong choices and failures as he did so. Why are you prolonging the agony?

DAVID: The agony is yours. Evolution is filled with mistakes and successes. However, it always advances forward to new more complex forms. Therefore, it is a successful process. My belief is God chose this process for His own reasons. God always knows best.

By prolonging the agony, I mean continuing a discussion which is already settled. You have informed us of your latest theory: that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food; he proceeded to conduct countless experiments in order to do this, 99% of which were mistakes, failures, wrong choices, and this made the whole process a mess, but he finally succeeded in achieving what he wanted to achieve. What more is there to say?

DAVID: It is your concerned human view God used a messy process to produce us.

It’s YOUR human view. How many more times? Read your own words: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. “ I have no objection to your humanising your God in this manner. You are simply accepting the first alternative I offered you, but adding terms of your own like “mistakes”, failed experiments” and “mess”, which I never used. I don't mind. Honestly. Your theory explains all the dead ends, and it keeps intact your fixed belief that we and our food were your God's one and only purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, December 19, 2022, 15:57 (465 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We have agreed 99% disappeared in evolution. It is a messy process compared to direct creation. We agree on that also.

dhw: And your God is responsible for the mess. You have agreed that if his one and only aim was to design us plus food, the mess can be explained by the theory that he was experimenting and specially designing mistakes, wrong choices and failures as he did so. Why are you prolonging the agony?

DAVID: The agony is yours. Evolution is filled with mistakes and successes. However, it always advances forward to new more complex forms. Therefore, it is a successful process. My belief is God chose this process for His own reasons. God always knows best.

dhw: By prolonging the agony, I mean continuing a discussion which is already settled. You have informed us of your latest theory: that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food; he proceeded to conduct countless experiments in order to do this, 99% of which were mistakes, failures, wrong choices, and this made the whole process a mess, but he finally succeeded in achieving what he wanted to achieve. What more is there to say?

DAVID: It is your concerned human view God used a messy process to produce us.

dhw: It’s YOUR human view. How many more times? Read your own words: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. “ I have no objection to your humanising your God in this manner. You are simply accepting the first alternative I offered you, but adding terms of your own like “mistakes”, failed experiments” and “mess”, which I never used. I don't mind. Honestly. Your theory explains all the dead ends, and it keeps intact your fixed belief that we and our food were your God's one and only purpose.

Call it a final purpose and we are done with this issue. Thank you for recognizing I still believe in God despite His choice of creation methods.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 08:33 (465 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is your concerned human view God used a messy process to produce us.

dhw: It’s YOUR human view. How many more times? Read your own words: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures." I have no objection to your humanising your God in this manner. You are simply accepting the first alternative I offered you, but adding terms of your own like “mistakes”, failed experiments” and “mess”, which I never used. I don't mind. Honestly. Your theory explains all the dead ends, and it keeps intact your fixed belief that we and our food were your God's one and only purpose.

DAVID: Call it a final purpose and we are done with this issue. Thank you for recognizing I still believe in God despite His choice of creation methods.

Of course you still believe in God if you believe that his final purpose was us, and that in designing us he kept messing things up, making made lots of mistakes while experimenting to achieve his final purpose.

Transferred from “More miscellany, Part One”:

DAVID: Local climates run by their own systems.

dhw: You have agreed that your God does not control local climates, and I am pointing out that local climates change environments.

DAVID: Local environment from local climate is simply local geography's weather. In that sense a very local organism will respond to it.

dhw: I see no reason to suppose that every new species suddenly appeared globally.

DAVID: I'm sure, agreeing with you, species are local. Lions in Africa, tigers in Asia.

Thank you. That is why your belief that your God did not control local climate changes (which would have changed local environments) constitutes one crucial factor in evolution which was beyond his control.

dhw: You keep insisting that your God was in full control, but local environments could change independently of him, and the survival of species for him to work on was also outside his control. It all ties in quite neatly with your theory that many of his experiments failed – the chances of his messy failures would be vastly increased by the interference of circumstances beyond his control. But, still sticking to your theory, fortunately for us, he used his luck to continue experimenting until finally he achieved what you think was his goal.

As you have not commented on this, I feel we have reached agreement, although I must admit in all honesty that of my three theistic alternatives to your original theory of evolution (the others being a God who had new ideas as he went along, and a God who wanted and designed a free-for-all, allowing for possible dabbles), experimentation is the one I like least, precisely because it lays emphasis on your God’s humanized fallibility. The third is my own favourite. But we’ve covered all the ground year after year, so I think we can leave it at that.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 20, 2022, 15:30 (464 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Call it a final purpose and we are done with this issue. Thank you for recognizing I still believe in God despite His choice of creation methods.

dw: Of course you still believe in God if you believe that his final purpose was us, and that in designing us he kept messing things up, making made lots of mistakes while experimenting to achieve his final purpose.

Evolution wasn't as messy as you describe, and we are here so it worked.


Transferred from “More miscellany, Part One”:

DAVID: Local climates run by their own systems.

dhw: You have agreed that your God does not control local climates, and I am pointing out that local climates change environments.

DAVID: Local environment from local climate is simply local geography's weather. In that sense a very local organism will respond to it.

dhw: I see no reason to suppose that every new species suddenly appeared globally.

DAVID: I'm sure, agreeing with you, species are local. Lions in Africa, tigers in Asia.

dhw: Thank you. That is why your belief that your God did not control local climate changes (which would have changed local environments) constitutes one crucial factor in evolution which was beyond his control.

Only God speciates, so He took local weather into account when necessary.


dhw: You keep insisting that your God was in full control, but local environments could change independently of him, and the survival of species for him to work on was also outside his control. It all ties in quite neatly with your theory that many of his experiments failed – the chances of his messy failures would be vastly increased by the interference of circumstances beyond his control. But, still sticking to your theory, fortunately for us, he used his luck to continue experimenting until finally he achieved what you think was his goal.

As you have not commented on this, I feel we have reached agreement, although I must admit in all honesty that of my three theistic alternatives to your original theory of evolution (the others being a God who had new ideas as he went along, and a God who wanted and designed a free-for-all, allowing for possible dabbles), experimentation is the one I like least, precisely because it lays emphasis on your God’s humanized fallibility. The third is my own favourite. But we’ve covered all the ground year after year, so I think we can leave it at that.

God never needs luck, and in this scenario responded appropriately when necessary.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 11:06 (463 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Call it a final purpose and we are done with this issue. Thank you for recognizing I still believe in God despite His choice of creation methods.

dhw: Of course you still believe in God if you believe that his final purpose was us, and that in designing us he kept messing things up, making made lots of mistakes while experimenting to achieve his final purpose.

DAVID: Evolution wasn't as messy as you describe, and we are here so it worked.

It is you who have used the terms “mistakes”, “failed experiments” and “messy”. I simply proposed that experimentation would account for the dead ends.

Transferred from “More miscellany, Part One”:

dhw: I see no reason to suppose that every new species suddenly appeared globally.

DAVID: I'm sure, agreeing with you, species are local. Lions in Africa, tigers in Asia.

dhw: Thank you. That is why your belief that your God did not control local climate changes (which would have changed local environments) constitutes one crucial factor in evolution which was beyond his control.

DAVID: Only God speciates, so He took local weather into account when necessary.

You still have him reacting to conditions beyond his control, as opposed to his being “in tight control”.

dhw: You keep insisting that your God was in full control, but local environments could change independently of him, and the survival of species for him to work on was also outside his control. It all ties in quite neatly with your theory that many of his experiments failed – the chances of his messy failures would be vastly increased by the interference of circumstances beyond his control. But, still sticking to your theory, fortunately for us, he used his luck to continue experimenting until finally he achieved what you think was his goal.

As you have not commented on this, I feel we have reached agreement, although I must admit in all honesty that of my three theistic alternatives to your original theory of evolution (the others being a God who had new ideas as he went along, and a God who wanted and designed a free-for-all, allowing for possible dabbles), experimentation is the one I like least, precisely because it lays emphasis on your God’s humanized fallibility. The third is my own favourite. But we’ve covered all the ground year after year, so I think we can leave it at that.

DAVID: God never needs luck, and in this scenario responded appropriately when necessary.

If suitable conditions had never arisen for humans to exist, he could never have “responded appropriately” by designing humans! Responding is reactive, and if his achievement of his goal depended on something outside his control, then clearly he was depending on chance to provide what he needed.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 21, 2022, 18:13 (463 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Evolution wasn't as messy as you describe, and we are here so it worked.

dhw: It is you who have used the terms “mistakes”, “failed experiments” and “messy”. I simply proposed that experimentation would account for the dead ends.

I do not assume God ever experimented in the sense He did not have a definite goal in sight, us. Dead ends were for former necessary ecosystems, no longer needed as evolution advanced to new forms requiring new ecosystems for food.


Transferred from “More miscellany, Part One”:

dhw: I see no reason to suppose that every new species suddenly appeared globally.

DAVID: I'm sure, agreeing with you, species are local. Lions in Africa, tigers in Asia.

dhw: Thank you. That is why your belief that your God did not control local climate changes (which would have changed local environments) constitutes one crucial factor in evolution which was beyond his control.

DAVID: Only God speciates, so He took local weather into account when necessary.

dhw: You still have him reacting to conditions beyond his control, as opposed to his being “in tight control”.

God is in tight control of continuing speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.


dhw: You keep insisting that your God was in full control, but local environments could change independently of him, and the survival of species for him to work on was also outside his control. It all ties in quite neatly with your theory that many of his experiments failed – the chances of his messy failures would be vastly increased by the interference of circumstances beyond his control. But, still sticking to your theory, fortunately for us, he used his luck to continue experimenting until finally he achieved what you think was his goal.

As you have not commented on this, I feel we have reached agreement, although I must admit in all honesty that of my three theistic alternatives to your original theory of evolution (the others being a God who had new ideas as he went along, and a God who wanted and designed a free-for-all, allowing for possible dabbles), experimentation is the one I like least, precisely because it lays emphasis on your God’s humanized fallibility. The third is my own favourite. But we’ve covered all the ground year after year, so I think we can leave it at that.

DAVID: God never needs luck, and in this scenario responded appropriately when necessary.

dhw: If suitable conditions had never arisen for humans to exist, he could never have “responded appropriately” by designing humans! Responding is reactive, and if his achievement of his goal depended on something outside his control, then clearly he was depending on chance to provide what he needed.

It is generally accepted that the Earth is fine-tuned for life to appear. In your wild suppositions that fine tuning didn't happen is a distortion of the real history, in which God provided fine tuning. He speciated to fit changing environmental requirements, chance never involved. Earth's relatively fixed climate controlling previous previously discussed.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, December 22, 2022, 09:24 (463 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution wasn't as messy as you describe, and we are here so it worked.

dhw: It is you who have used the terms “mistakes”, “failed experiments” and “messy”. I simply proposed that experimentation would account for the dead ends.

DAVID: I do not assume God ever experimented in the sense He did not have a definite goal in sight, us. Dead ends were for former necessary ecosystems, no longer needed as evolution advanced to new forms requiring new ecosystems for food.

The whole point of the experiment theory is to fit in with your theory that your God started out with the intention of designing us and our food. All the dead ends (species and ecosystems) were what you have called his “failed experiments”, “mistakes”, “wrong choices” and “mess”. Why are you starting this discussion all over again?

Transferred from “More miscellany, Part One”:
dhw: I see no reason to suppose that every new species suddenly appeared globally.

DAVID: I'm sure, agreeing with you, species are local. Lions in Africa, tigers in Asia.

dhw: Thank you. That is why your belief that your God did not control local climate changes (which would have changed local environments) constitutes one crucial factor in evolution which was beyond his control.

DAVID: Only God speciates, so He took local weather into account when necessary.

dhw: You still have him reacting to conditions beyond his control, as opposed to his being “in tight control”.

DAVID: God is in tight control of continuing speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.

The God you are presenting is in tight control of his own responses to conditions which are not of his making. If he started out with the intention of designing us, but conditions outside his control were not suitable for us, he would have had to wait until chance provided him with the conditions that were suitable for us. This fits in nicely with your theory that evolution as he designed it was full of “mistakes” and “failed experiments” and thoroughly messy, but none of it fits in with your theory that he was in tight control of evolution. Luckily – according to your new theory – suitable conditions eventually arrived, and he was able to achieve the goal he started out with.

DAVID: It is generally accepted that the Earth is fine-tuned for life to appear. In your wild suppositions that fine tuning didn't happen is a distortion of the real history, in which God provided fine tuning. He speciated to fit changing environmental requirements, chance never involved. Earth's relatively fixed climate controlling previous previously discussed.

Since life appeared, no-one is going to argue that conditions were not suitable for life to appear. If God exists, then it’s fair enough to say he fine-tuned the conditions. But according to you, he set up a system whereby he did NOT control local climate changes, which led to environmental changes, and environmental changes are an essential factor in speciation: your God could hardly design species that would not survive in the environment he did not create. See above for the rest of the non-argument.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 22, 2022, 19:09 (462 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Evolution wasn't as messy as you describe, and we are here so it worked.

dhw: It is you who have used the terms “mistakes”, “failed experiments” and “messy”. I simply proposed that experimentation would account for the dead ends.

DAVID: I do not assume God ever experimented in the sense He did not have a definite goal in sight, us. Dead ends were for former necessary ecosystems, no longer needed as evolution advanced to new forms requiring new ecosystems for food.

dhw: The whole point of the experiment theory is to fit in with your theory that your God started out with the intention of designing us and our food. All the dead ends (species and ecosystems) were what you have called his “failed experiments”, “mistakes”, “wrong choices” and “mess”. Why are you starting this discussion all over again?

I haven't. I simply answered you.


Transferred from “More miscellany, Part One”:

dhw: Thank you. That is why your belief that your God did not control local climate changes (which would have changed local environments) constitutes one crucial factor in evolution which was beyond his control.

DAVID: Only God speciates, so He took local weather into account when necessary.

dhw: You still have him reacting to conditions beyond his control, as opposed to his being “in tight control”.

DAVID: God is in tight control of continuing speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.

dhw: The God you are presenting is in tight control of his own responses to conditions which are not of his making. If he started out with the intention of designing us, but conditions outside his control were not suitable for us, he would have had to wait until chance provided him with the conditions that were suitable for us. This fits in nicely with your theory that evolution as he designed it was full of “mistakes” and “failed experiments” and thoroughly messy, but none of it fits in with your theory that he was in tight control of evolution. Luckily – according to your new theory – suitable conditions eventually arrived, and he was able to achieve the goal he started out with.

It fits in with today's weather report. Locally it is the result of Earth's general weather systems at the larger scale.


DAVID: It is generally accepted that the Earth is fine-tuned for life to appear. In your wild suppositions that fine tuning didn't happen is a distortion of the real history, in which God provided fine tuning. He speciated to fit changing environmental requirements, chance never involved. Earth's relatively fixed climate controlling previous previously discussed.

dhw: Since life appeared, no-one is going to argue that conditions were not suitable for life to appear. If God exists, then it’s fair enough to say he fine-tuned the conditions. But according to you, he set up a system whereby he did NOT control local climate changes, which led to environmental changes, and environmental changes are an essential factor in speciation: your God could hardly design species that would not survive in the environment he did not create. See above for the rest of the non-argument.

The bold is totally incorrect based on current studies of Earth's overall patterns of activity. Ocean currents, prevailing wind patterns, etc. Too complex to fully explain here, but El Nino and La Nina were presented. Local weather does not make general patterns of climate.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, December 23, 2022, 12:27 (461 days ago) @ David Turell

We now have a dispute over a theoretical God’s theoretical control of evolution, centring on local climates and environments. My point is that David’s belief that God is in tight control of evolution is contradicted by his belief that God does not control local climates, which in turn may determine local environments, which in turn require or allow the changes that lead to speciation. (The wider context for this particular dispute is the various theistic proposals that might account for the history of evolution.)

DAVID: He creates environments, but climate patterns are free to react, change etc.

dhw: So if a tropical forest turns into a desert because of an uncontrolled change in climate patterns, what role did he play in changing the tropical forest environment into a desert environment?

DAVID: None. The Earth runs its own weather patterns.
And:
DAVID: I believe local climate is not something God dabbles with.

It seems pretty clear to me that forest changing to desert, or desert to forest, would be precisely the kind of local environmental change created by a local climate change that would require or allow the adaptations and innovations which lead to new species. Your God therefore has to respond to changes that are beyond his control.

dhw: I see no reason to suppose that every new species suddenly appeared globally.

DAVID: I’m sure, agreeing with you, species are local. Lions in Africa, tigers in Asia.

You have now agreed that your God does not control local climates, that local climates may lead to environmental changes, and that speciation is local.

DAVID: God is in tight control of continuing speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.

In your theory it is not speciation which responds but your God who responds, since you make him responsible for speciation. Therefore your God speciates in response to new conditions which he does not control. Agreed? A simple yes or no will settle the argument.

Transferred from “The immensity of the universe”:

dhw: […] We’ll simply stick to your belief that your God messed up the evolution of humans with all his failed experiments, although eventually he got there in spite of all his mistakes.

DAVID: Never His mistakes. Ecosystems for food disappear when needs are over and evolution moves to another next stage. You consantly ignore everyone eats, so you can denigrate God's actions.

I can’t believe you really want to start this discussion all over again. It is YOU who called the dead ends your God’s “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “messy”. You summed it all up: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures.” His successes in your theory were those lines of evolution that led to us and our food, and the failures were all the dead ends.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, December 23, 2022, 16:21 (461 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We now have a dispute over a theoretical God’s theoretical control of evolution, centring on local climates and environments. My point is that David’s belief that God is in tight control of evolution is contradicted by his belief that God does not control local climates, which in turn may determine local environments, which in turn require or allow the changes that lead to speciation. (The wider context for this particular dispute is the various theistic proposals that might account for the history of evolution.)

DAVID: He creates environments, but climate patterns are free to react, change etc.

dhw: So if a tropical forest turns into a desert because of an uncontrolled change in climate patterns, what role did he play in changing the tropical forest environment into a desert environment?

DAVID: None. The Earth runs its own weather patterns.
And:
DAVID: I believe local climate is not something God dabbles with.

dhw: It seems pretty clear to me that forest changing to desert, or desert to forest, would be precisely the kind of local environmental change created by a local climate change that would require or allow the adaptations and innovations which lead to new species. Your God therefore has to respond to changes that are beyond his control.

Now you have jumped to permanent local changes of such a magnitude God might have had a role in creating. I thought we were discussing local weather and local climate. I can point to ice ages where God may have had a role.


dhw: I see no reason to suppose that every new species suddenly appeared globally.

DAVID: I’m sure, agreeing with you, species are local. Lions in Africa, tigers in Asia.

dhw: You have now agreed that your God does not control local climates, that local climates may lead to environmental changes, and that speciation is local.

As above, the discussion has levels. Daily or over decades.


DAVID: God is in tight control of continuing speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.

dhw: In your theory it is not speciation which responds but your God who responds, since you make him responsible for speciation. Therefore your God speciates in response to new conditions which he does not control. Agreed? A simple yes or no will settle the argument.

God will create new species to fit new conditions. Take Chixculub as an example


Transferred from “The immensity of the universe”:

dhw: […] We’ll simply stick to your belief that your God messed up the evolution of humans with all his failed experiments, although eventually he got there in spite of all his mistakes.

DAVID: Never His mistakes. Ecosystems for food disappear when needs are over and evolution moves to another next stage. You consantly ignore everyone eats, so you can denigrate God's actions.

dhw: I can’t believe you really want to start this discussion all over again. It is YOU who called the dead ends your God’s “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “messy”. You summed it all up: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures.” His successes in your theory were those lines of evolution that led to us and our food, and the failures were all the dead ends.

Dead ends no longer required to help in feeding. It is your observation God took a cumbersome way to produced us, by evolution rather than directly. The entire discussion supports that observation. And it can now end. God does it His way.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, December 24, 2022, 09:38 (461 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] if a tropical forest turns into a desert because of an uncontrolled change in climate patterns, what role did he play in changing the tropical forest environment into a desert environment?

DAVID: None. The Earth runs its own weather patterns.
And:
DAVID: I believe local climate is not something God dabbles with.

dhw: It seems pretty clear to me that forest changing to desert, or desert to forest, would be precisely the kind of local environmental change created by a local climate change that would require or allow the adaptations and innovations which lead to new species. Your God therefore has to respond to changes that are beyond his control.

DAVID: Now you have jumped to permanent local changes of such a magnitude God might have had a role in creating. I thought we were discussing local weather and local climate. I can point to ice ages where God may have had a role.

I have not jumped. I gave you the example of desert to forest right from the start, you agreed that your God would have played no role in the change, and you agreed that species appear locally and that your God continued “speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.”(My bold). If your God responds to new conditions which he did not control, he can hardly be said to have been in tight control of evolution.

dhw: You have now agreed that your God does not control local climates, that local climates may lead to environmental changes, and that speciation is local.

DAVID: As above, the discussion has levels. Daily or over decades.

Do you really think that forests turn to deserts or vice versa because of one sunny/rainy day?

DAVID: God will create new species to fit new conditions. Take Chixculub as an example.

That is what I keep telling you! You agree that species may be local (e.g. when forests turn into deserts or vice versa), and he has no control over such local changes.(You gave the example of tigers in Asia, not Africa, and lions in Africa, not Asia – though actually that’s not strictly the case.) Of course there are also global changes, but I am following your own belief that some speciation took place locally as his response to conditions which he did not control. Chixculub could fit in with your theory that the experiment with dinosaurs was a "failure", so he got rid of them. Or it could be another example of chance environmental changes beyond his control.

The immensity of the universe

dhw: […] We’ll simply stick to your belief that your God messed up the evolution of humans with all his failed experiments, although eventually he got there in spite of all his mistakes.

DAVID: Never His mistakes. Ecosystems for food disappear when needs are over and evolution moves to another next stage. You consantly ignore everyone eats, so you can denigrate God's actions.

dhw: I can’t believe you really want to start this discussion all over again. It is YOU who called the dead ends your God’s “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “messy”. You summed it all up: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures.” His successes in your theory were those lines of evolution that led to us and our food, and the failures were all the dead ends.

DAVID: Dead ends no longer required to help in feeding. It is your observation God took a cumbersome way to produced us, by evolution rather than directly. The entire discussion supports that observation. And it can now end. God does it His way.

Let’s use your vocabulary. The entire discussion supports your observation that your God is responsible for all the “mistakes, “failed experiments”, and “messy aspects” of evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 24, 2022, 16:56 (460 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Now you have jumped to permanent local changes of such a magnitude God might have had a role in creating. I thought we were discussing local weather and local climate. I can point to ice ages where God may have had a role.

dhw: I have not jumped. I gave you the example of desert to forest right from the start, you agreed that your God would have played no role in the change, and you agreed that species appear locally and that your God continued “speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.”(My bold). If your God responds to new conditions which he did not control, he can hardly be said to have been in tight control of evolution.

Even if limited to creating new evolved forms, a designing God is in tight control. It doesn't matter how conditions change, God, with his powers of design, can design the required new forms.

dhw: That is what I keep telling you! You agree that species may be local (e.g. when forests turn into deserts or vice versa), and he has no control over such local changes.(You gave the example of tigers in Asia, not Africa, and lions in Africa, not Asia – though actually that’s not strictly the case.) Of course there are also global changes, but I am following your own belief that some speciation took place locally as his response to conditions which he did not control. Chixculub could fit in with your theory that the experiment with dinosaurs was a "failure", so he got rid of them. Or it could be another example of chance environmental changes beyond his control.

It still comes down to God can deign any living form to fit the requirements.


The immensity of the universe

dhw: […] We’ll simply stick to your belief that your God messed up the evolution of humans with all his failed experiments, although eventually he got there in spite of all his mistakes.

DAVID: Never His mistakes. Ecosystems for food disappear when needs are over and evolution moves to another next stage. You consantly ignore everyone eats, so you can denigrate God's actions.

dhw: I can’t believe you really want to start this discussion all over again. It is YOU who called the dead ends your God’s “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “messy”. You summed it all up: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures.” His successes in your theory were those lines of evolution that led to us and our food, and the failures were all the dead ends.

DAVID: Dead ends no longer required to help in feeding. It is your observation God took a cumbersome way to produced us, by evolution rather than directly. The entire discussion supports that observation. And it can now end. God does it His way.

dhw: Let’s use your vocabulary. The entire discussion supports your observation that your God is responsible for all the “mistakes, “failed experiments”, and “messy aspects” of evolution.

Yes, God chose to evolve us through that messy process.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, December 27, 2022, 08:38 (458 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Now you have jumped to permanent local changes of such a magnitude God might have had a role in creating. I thought we were discussing local weather and local climate. I can point to ice ages where God may have had a role.

dhw: I have not jumped. I gave you the example of desert to forest right from the start, you agreed that your God would have played no role in the change, and you agreed that species appear locally and that your God continued “speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.”(My bold). If your God responds to new conditions which he did not control, he can hardly be said to have been in tight control of evolution.

DAVID: Even if limited to creating new evolved forms, a designing God is in tight control. It doesn't matter how conditions change, God, with his powers of design, can design the required new forms.

I think I’ve understood your new theory. He started out with the desire to create a being like himself, couldn’t control the environment, and so kept on experimenting with different life forms, the vast majority of which were mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, until at last luck created the conditions under which he was able to start experimenting with whatever life forms had been lucky enough to survive. Then eventually, even though he continued to mess things up with further failed experiments, he was able to put all the bits and pieces together to claim success.

DAVID: It is your observation God took a cumbersome way to produced us, by evolution rather than directly. The entire discussion supports that observation. And it can now end. God does it His way.

dhw: Let’s use your vocabulary. The entire discussion supports your observation that your God is responsible for all the “mistakes, “failed experiments”, and “messy aspects” of evolution.

DAVID: Yes, God chose to evolve us through that messy process.

Thank you for confirming your faith in the experimentation theory. As I have explained before, it is my least favoured of the three I’ve proposed, because it makes him rather weak and messy, but we needn’t go into the details again.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 27, 2022, 16:00 (457 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Now you have jumped to permanent local changes of such a magnitude God might have had a role in creating. I thought we were discussing local weather and local climate. I can point to ice ages where God may have had a role.

dhw: I have not jumped. I gave you the example of desert to forest right from the start, you agreed that your God would have played no role in the change, and you agreed that species appear locally and that your God continued “speciation which responds with forms adapted to new conditions.”(My bold). If your God responds to new conditions which he did not control, he can hardly be said to have been in tight control of evolution.

DAVID: Even if limited to creating new evolved forms, a designing God is in tight control. It doesn't matter how conditions change, God, with his powers of design, can design the required new forms.

dhw: I think I’ve understood your new theory. He started out with the desire to create a being like himself, couldn’t control the environment, and so kept on experimenting with different life forms, the vast majority of which were mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, until at last luck created the conditions under which he was able to start experimenting with whatever life forms had been lucky enough to survive. Then eventually, even though he continued to mess things up with further failed experiments, he was able to put all the bits and pieces together to claim success.

You keep twisting my view of evolution into a total distortion and wasteland. I view God as having a clear vison of where He was going and how to get there. You are distracted by my comment that local weather, daily, yearly, is not under God's tight control. But not to matter, God designed for whatever was needed immediately or in the future. In considering the very necessary ecosystems, which are always minimized in your mind, as organisms came and went, the ecosystems were always there for food support, and also came and went. That is the nature of evolution. Messy, but very efficient in reaching fully functional surviving complex organisms like us.


DAVID: It is your observation God took a cumbersome way to produced us, by evolution rather than directly. The entire discussion supports that observation. And it can now end. God does it His way.

dhw: Let’s use your vocabulary. The entire discussion supports your observation that your God is responsible for all the “mistakes, “failed experiments”, and “messy aspects” of evolution.

DAVID: Yes, God chose to evolve us through that messy process.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your faith in the experimentation theory. As I have explained before, it is my least favoured of the three I’ve proposed, because it makes him rather weak and messy, but we needn’t go into the details again.

Let's not. Evolution is always designing and testing. However, God was not experimenting. He had precise goals.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, December 28, 2022, 11:59 (456 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I think I’ve understood your new theory. He started out with the desire to create a being like himself, couldn’t control the environment, and so kept on experimenting with different life forms, the vast majority of which were mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, until at last luck created the conditions under which he was able to start experimenting with whatever life forms had been lucky enough to survive. Then eventually, even though he continued to mess things up with further failed experiments, he was able to put all the bits and pieces together to claim success.

DAVID: You keep twisting my view of evolution into a total distortion and wasteland. I view God as having a clear vison of where He was going and how to get there. You are distracted by my comment that local weather, daily, yearly, is not under God's tight control. But not to matter, God designed for whatever was needed immediately or in the future. In considering the very necessary ecosystems, which are always minimized in your mind, as organisms came and went, the ecosystems were always there for food support, and also came and went. That is the nature of evolution. Messy, but very efficient in reaching fully functional surviving complex organisms like us.

Once more you are editing your theory. You have agreed that 99% of your God’s special designs (organisms and ecosystems) were NOT necessary for the design of his one and only goal: humans and our food. I have called them "dead ends", and you have called them “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong choices” and part of the mess for which he is responsible. You have stated that your God does not control local climate and environmental changes such as those that lead to forests turning into deserts (hardly "daily" or "yearly"), which means that he was relying on luck to provide him with an environment that would be suitable for us and our food. I don’t know why you are now claiming that all this is a distortion.

DAVID: It is your observation God took a cumbersome way to produced us, by evolution rather than directly. The entire discussion supports that observation. And it can now end. God does it His way.

dhw: Let’s use your vocabulary. The entire discussion supports your observation that your God is responsible for all the “mistakes, “failed experiments”, and “messy aspects” of evolution.

DAVID: Yes, God chose to evolve us through that messy process.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your faith in the experimentation theory. As I have explained before, it is my least favoured of the three I’ve proposed, because it makes him rather weak and messy, but we needn’t go into the details again.

DAVID: Let's not. Evolution is always designing and testing. However, God was not experimenting. He had precise goals.

It is YOU who explicitly used the term “failed experiments”, and it is perfectly normal to conduct experiments in order to achieve a precise goal. Again it was you who used human forms of “evolution” to illustrate the point (our various political, economic, educational, technological “evolutions” are all riddled with “failed experiments” despite their precise goals.) Why are you now going back over old ground when you have already left it behind? You wrote: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures.” It is because you give him a precise goal that you have to call his failed experiments “mistakes”. That is the essence of the experimentation theory you have embraced, and it offers one logical explanation of life’s messy history.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 28, 2022, 16:32 (456 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You keep twisting my view of evolution into a total distortion and wasteland. I view God as having a clear vison of where He was going and how to get there. You are distracted by my comment that local weather, daily, yearly, is not under God's tight control. But not to matter, God designed for whatever was needed immediately or in the future. In considering the very necessary ecosystems, which are always minimized in your mind, as organisms came and went, the ecosystems were always there for food support, and also came and went. That is the nature of evolution. Messy, but very efficient in reaching fully functional surviving complex organisms like us.

dhw: Once more you are editing your theory. You have agreed that 99% of your God’s special designs (organisms and ecosystems) were NOT necessary for the design of his one and only goal: humans and our food. I have called them "dead ends", and you have called them “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong choices” and part of the mess for which he is responsible. You have stated that your God does not control local climate and environmental changes such as those that lead to forests turning into deserts (hardly "daily" or "yearly"), which means that he was relying on luck to provide him with an environment that would be suitable for us and our food. I don’t know why you are now claiming that all this is a distortion.

My discussion of daily weather not in God's control has now morphed in your fertile mind to mean major changes as forests into deserts!! God may or may not have done these events. But they are off the point now bolded above. God, as a master designer, outfitted all new species with the abilities to handle whatever they needed to as conditions changed. When they fell to Raup's 'bad luck' they were failures, in the sense they do not act as a stage to advance complexity. What I am doing is agreeing with you God chose a round-about way to produce humans. And it worked! It seems God knows/knew what He was doing, and never gave a
thought to what you see as problems.


dhw: Thank you for confirming your faith in the experimentation theory. As I have explained before, it is my least favoured of the three I’ve proposed, because it makes him rather weak and messy, but we needn’t go into the details again.

DAVID: Let's not. Evolution is always designing and testing. However, God was not experimenting. He had precise goals.

dhw: It is YOU who explicitly used the term “failed experiments”, and it is perfectly normal to conduct experiments in order to achieve a precise goal. Again it was you who used human forms of “evolution” to illustrate the point (our various political, economic, educational, technological “evolutions” are all riddled with “failed experiments” despite their precise goals.) Why are you now going back over old ground when you have already left it behind? You wrote: “He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution. Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures.” It is because you give him a precise goal that you have to call his failed experiments “mistakes”. That is the essence of the experimentation theory you have embraced, and it offers one logical explanation of life’s messy history.

We have your picture of a bumbling God because He used the very messy process called evolution. Evolution, as a precise definition consists of moving from one failed experiment to another until a successful one moves to a new level of complexity. Evolution of life is moving from simple to complex. The most complex result, the human brain is here, despite the messy arrangement. God chose to do it this way, despite your objections. I am sure He knew what He was doing. Many years ago, there was an admonition: "keep it simple, stupid". I guess you live by it. God doesn't. He evolves all His different levels of creation, universe from Big Bang, Milky Way gobbling up little galaxies, the Earth from rocks to life, life from Asgard Archaea to us. A definite pattern!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, December 29, 2022, 11:10 (455 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have agreed that 99% of your God’s special designs (organisms and ecosystems) were NOT necessary for the design of his one and only goal: humans and our food. I have called them "dead ends", and you have called them “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong choices” and part of the mess for which he is responsible. You have stated that your God does not control local climate and environmental changes such as those that lead to forests turning into deserts (hardly "daily" or "yearly"), which means that he was relying on luck to provide him with an environment that would be suitable for us and our food. I don’t know why you are now claiming that all this is a distortion. (David’s bold)

DAVID: My discussion of daily weather not in God's control has now morphed in your fertile mind to mean major changes as forests into deserts!!

You constantly accuse me of distortion when all I do is repeat your exact words!
23 December:
dhw: So if a tropical forest turns into a desert because of an uncontrolled change in climate patterns, what role did he play in changing the tropical forest environment into a desert environment?

DAVID: None. The Earth runs its own weather patterns.
And:
DAVID: I believe local climate is not something God dabbles with.

We had finally sorted out the messy illogicalities of your original theory, and now you want to start all over again!

DAVID: God may or may not have done these events. But they are off the point now bolded above. God, as a master designer, outfitted all new species with the abilities to handle whatever they needed to as conditions changed. When they fell to Raup's 'bad luck' they were failures, in the sense they do not act as a stage to advance complexity.

According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to produce sapiens and our food. In your theory, the dead ends were only failures because they did not act as stages on the way to achieving the goal you insist on. If he had not started out with that goal (as in the other two theories I have offered you), they would not have been “failures” (see below)! And if they failed because of “bad luck”, those which survived must have failed because they were lucky, so God depended on luck (a) for conditions that would suit his purpose, and (b) for the survival of life forms that he could work on under the new conditions in order to achieve his purpose.

DAVID: What I am doing is agreeing with you God chose a round-about way to produce humans. And it worked! It seems God knows/knew what He was doing, and never gave thought to what you see as problems.

I have no idea what he thought, but according to you, his method involved countless mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices and a thoroughly messy way of achieving his aim. Those were all your terms, not mine!

DAVID: We have your picture of a bumbling God because He used the very messy process called evolution.

If he exists, he didn’t just use it – he invented it, and was responsible (your word) for what you believe to have been the whole mess.

DAVID: Evolution, as a precise definition consists of moving from one failed experiment to another until a successful one moves to a new level of complexity.

It’s not a matter of complexity, but of a fixed goal! The experiments are only failures if there is a goal. If he experiments in order to find out what might happen if he does xyz, there is no failure. If he creates a free-for-all, again there is no failure. And the definition of evolution consists of life forms descending from earlier life forms. Please note: two days ago you told us “God was not experimenting”, and in this post you tell us once again that the evolution he designed entails failed experiments.

DAVID: Evolution of life is moving from simple to complex. The most complex result, the human brain is here, despite the messy arrangement. God chose to do it this way, despite your objections. I am sure He knew what He was doing. Many years ago, there was an admonition: "keep it simple, stupid". I guess you live by it. God doesn't. He evolves all His different levels of creation, universe from Big Bang, Milky Way gobbling up little galaxies, the Earth from rocks to life, life from Asgard Archaea to us. A definite pattern!

I am not denying evolution! You have just accepted the theory that your God experimented in order to achieve his one and only goal (us and our food), the vast majority of his experiments were failures, mistakes, wrong choices etc., and he invented the whole system which you regard as messy. What are you complaining about? I have accepted your experimentation theory as one possible, logical explanation of the mess.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 09, 2023, 17:44 (444 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So if a tropical forest turns into a desert because of an uncontrolled change in climate patterns, what role did he play in changing the tropical forest environment into a desert environment?

DAVID: None. The Earth runs its own weather patterns.
And:
DAVID: I believe local climate is not something God dabbles with.

dhw: We had finally sorted out the messy illogicalities of your original theory, and now you want to start all over again!

You do not recognize how you stretch my points. For example, the Saraha desert appeared naturally under Earth's own climate patterns. God provided the Camal design to fit.


DAVID: God, as a master designer, outfitted all new species with the abilities to handle whatever they needed to as conditions changed. When they fell to Raup's 'bad luck' they were failures, in the sense they do not act as a stage to advance complexity.

dhw: According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to produce sapiens and our food. In your theory, the dead ends were only failures because they did not act as stages on the way to achieving the goal you insist on. If he had not started out with that goal (as in the other two theories I have offered you), they would not have been “failures” (see below)! And if they failed because of “bad luck”, those which survived must have failed because they were lucky, so God depended on luck (a) for conditions that would suit his purpose, and (b) for the survival of life forms that he could work on under the new conditions in order to achieve his purpose.

DAVID: What I am doing is agreeing with you God chose a round-about way to produce humans. And it worked! It seems God knows/knew what He was doing, and never gave thought to what you see as problems.

Today, I will add: Bad luck for animals or plants is never bad luck for God. He will design to fit all needs, as necessary.


dhw: I have no idea what he thought, but according to you, his method involved countless mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices and a thoroughly messy way of achieving his aim. Those were all your terms, not mine!

Just leave the point alone. We agreed He used a messy method, but He achieved His goal, us.

DAVID: Evolution, as a precise definition consists of moving from one failed experiment to another until a successful one moves to a new level of complexity.

dhw: It’s not a matter of complexity, but of a fixed goal! The experiments are only failures if there is a goal.

All evolution involved failures on the way to a goal. Even Darwin agrees: Survival of the fittest simply means the unfit fail.

dhw:If he experiments in order to find out what might happen if he does xyz, there is no failure. If he creates a free-for-all, again there is no failure. And the definition of evolution consists of life forms descending from earlier life forms. Please note: two days ago you told us “God was not experimenting”, and in this post you tell us once again that the evolution he designed entails failed experiments.

DAVID: Evolution of life is moving from simple to complex. The most complex result, the human brain is here, despite the messy arrangement. God chose to do it this way, despite your objections. I am sure He knew what He was doing. Many years ago, there was an admonition: "keep it simple, stupid". I guess you live by it. God doesn't. He evolves all His different levels of creation, universe from Big Bang, Milky Way gobbling up little galaxies, the Earth from rocks to life, life from Asgard Archaea to us. A definite pattern!

dhw: I am not denying evolution! You have just accepted the theory that your God experimented in order to achieve his one and only goal (us and our food), the vast majority of his experiments were failures, mistakes, wrong choices etc., and he invented the whole system which you regard as messy. What are you complaining about? I have accepted your experimentation theory as one possible, logical explanation of the mess.

Yes, the failed branches are experiments in survival, and many were good designs in Raup's view, succumbing only to 'bad luck' events. God does not control every little event in reality, only those that need to be controlled. And I'll repeat, God can design around or past any seeming obstacle.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, January 10, 2023, 11:34 (443 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So if a tropical forest turns into a desert because of an uncontrolled change in climate patterns, what role did he play in changing the tropical forest environment into a desert environment?

DAVID: None. The Earth runs its own weather patterns.
And:
DAVID: I believe local climate is not something God dabbles with.

dhw: We had finally sorted out the messy illogicalities of your original theory, and now you want to start all over again!

DAVID: You do not recognize how you stretch my points. For example, the Saraha desert appeared naturally under Earth's own climate patterns. God provided the Camal design to fit.

I was replying to your accusation: “My discussion of daily weather not in God’s control has now morphed in your fertile mind to mean major changes as forests into deserts.” Now once again, you agree that your God did NOT control the morphing of forests into deserts. And so once more you have your God responding to environmental changes over which he had no control. Some websites suggest that the modern camel (I presume that’s what you’re referring to) evolved about 5 million years ago from ancestors going back 40-50 million years. According to your original theory, they were specially designed as absolute requirements for H. sapiens and our food – presumably while he waited for a stroke of luck that would provide him with an environment in which he could design our ancestors and eventually us (plus our food). You are absolutely right to describe this method as a mess.

DAVID: God, as a master designer, outfitted all new species with the abilities to handle whatever they needed to as conditions changed. When they fell to Raup's 'bad luck' they were failures, in the sense they do not act as a stage to advance complexity.

dhw: According to you, your God’s one and only purpose was to produce sapiens and our food. In your theory, the dead ends were only failures because they did not act as stages on the way to achieving the goal you insist on. If he had not started out with that goal (as in the other two theories I have offered you), they would not have been “failures” (see below)! And if they failed because of “bad luck”, those which survived must have failed because they were lucky, so God depended on luck (a) for conditions that would suit his purpose, and (b) for the survival of life forms that he could work on under the new conditions in order to achieve his purpose.

DAVID: What I am doing is agreeing with you God chose a round-about way to produce humans. And it worked! It seems God knows/knew what He was doing, and never gave thought to what you see as problems.

DAVID: Today, I will add: Bad luck for animals or plants is never bad luck for God. He will design to fit all needs, as necessary.

Usual question: necessary for what? You now have your God entirely dependent on chance to provide him with the various environments and the various survivors which he dabbles with in order to enable them to survive or exploit the new environments. And all these environments and species come and go independently of his control, in order for him eventually to produce us and our food. Yes, it is a total mess. But a God who relies on luck, and keeps messing things up, is consistent with the history of life as we know it, and your theory makes sense.

dhw: You have just accepted the theory that your God experimented in order to achieve his one and only goal (us and our food), the vast majority of his experiments were failures, mistakes, wrong choices etc., and he invented the whole system which you regard as messy. What are you complaining about? I have accepted your experimentation theory as one possible, logical explanation of the mess.

DAVID: Yes, the failed branches are experiments in survival, and many were good designs in Raup's view, succumbing only to 'bad luck' events. God does not control every little event in reality, only those that need to be controlled. And I'll repeat, God can design around or past any seeming obstacle.

Fine. You are confirming your belief in the “messy” God I have described above, who relies on luck to provide him with the environments and surviving species he can work on in order to continue his succession of failed experiments until he finally creates the only species he set out to create at the very beginning. It fits in with the history of life as we know it. It just doesn’t fit in with the all-powerful, totally-in-control God you envisaged at the start of these discussions, but you are perfectly entitled to change your mind. Why is this discussion continuing?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 10, 2023, 17:35 (443 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You do not recognize how you stretch my points. For example, the Saraha desert appeared naturally under Earth's own climate patterns. God provided the Camal design to fit.

dhw: I was replying to your accusation: “My discussion of daily weather not in God’s control has now morphed in your fertile mind to mean major changes as forests into deserts.” Now once again, you agree that your God did NOT control the morphing of forests into deserts. And so once more you have your God responding to environmental changes over which he had no control. Some websites suggest that the modern camel (I presume that’s what you’re referring to) evolved about 5 million years ago from ancestors going back 40-50 million years. According to your original theory, they were specially designed as absolute requirements for H. sapiens and our food – presumably while he waited for a stroke of luck that would provide him with an environment in which he could design our ancestors and eventually us (plus our food). You are absolutely right to describe this method as a mess.

Years ago, you brought up the obvious point that direct creation is a more efficient way to create humans. But that is not what happened. Just humans without the bush of life for food simply can't work. Evolution is a messy way to proceed, but that is what God produced. As a designer God can handle any environmental problem, so He doesn't require tight control of every facet of an evolutionary advance.


DAVID: Bad luck for animals or plants is never bad luck for God. He will design to fit all needs, as necessary.

dhw: Usual question: necessary for what? You now have your God entirely dependent on chance to provide him with the various environments and the various survivors which he dabbles with in order to enable them to survive or exploit the new environments. And all these environments and species come and go independently of his control, in order for him eventually to produce us and our food. Yes, it is a total mess. But a God who relies on luck, and keeps messing things up, is consistent with the history of life as we know it, and your theory makes sense.

Agreement in a roundabout way. God knows exactly what He is doing, what He intends to do and how to finally evolve us. You morph Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler. He is a precise designer who got the result He wanted, a totally unexpected human brain, if produced naturally, the most complex creation in the universe.


dhw: You have just accepted the theory that your God experimented in order to achieve his one and only goal (us and our food), the vast majority of his experiments were failures, mistakes, wrong choices etc., and he invented the whole system which you regard as messy. What are you complaining about? I have accepted your experimentation theory as one possible, logical explanation of the mess.

DAVID: Yes, the failed branches are experiments in survival, and many were good designs in Raup's view, succumbing only to 'bad luck' events. God does not control every little event in reality, only those that need to be controlled. And I'll repeat, God can design around or past any seeming obstacle.

dhw: Fine. You are confirming your belief in the “messy” God I have described above, who relies on luck to provide him with the environments and surviving species he can work on in order to continue his succession of failed experiments until he finally creates the only species he set out to create at the very beginning. It fits in with the history of life as we know it. It just doesn’t fit in with the all-powerful, totally-in-control God you envisaged at the start of these discussions, but you are perfectly entitled to change your mind. Why is this discussion continuing?

Of course, it fits my view of God, who doesn't need control of every molecule in the universe to design as necessary to fit the current requirements. God created self-controlling systems that don't need His constant hands-on attention. The current universe, Earth's climate, human life, animal life, all run smoothly on His DNA coded instructions. My view of God is not your
tortured version. We can end this discussion now.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, January 11, 2023, 11:50 (442 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Now once again, you agree that your God did NOT control the morphing of forests into deserts. And so once more you have your God responding to environmental changes over which he had no control. […] According to your original theory, they [camels] were specially designed as absolute requirements for H. sapiens and our food – presumably while he waited for a stroke of luck that would provide him with an environment in which he could design our ancestors and eventually us (plus our food). You are absolutely right to describe this method as a mess.

DAVID: Years ago, you brought up the obvious point that direct creation is a more efficient way to create humans. But that is not what happened. Just humans without the bush of life for food simply can't work.

I never said it could. I always add the food (see the bold above), and the “mess” your God created refers to the 99% of life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: Evolution is a messy way to proceed, but that is what God produced. As a designer God can handle any environmental problem, so He doesn't require tight control of every facet of an evolutionary advance.

Yes, in your new theory, God’s method of achieving his goal was a mess, and he had no control over the environment but simply responded to whatever changes arose, thereby designing countless life forms which had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose: us and our food. You have called all of them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

dhw: […] a God who relies on luck, and keeps messing things up, is consistent with the history of life as we know it, and your theory makes sense.

DAVID: Agreement in a roundabout way. God knows exactly what He is doing, what He intends to do and how to finally evolve us. You morph Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler. He is a precise designer who got the result He wanted, a totally unexpected human brain, if produced naturally, the most complex creation in the universe.

It is you who have made him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler! You say we and our food were his only purpose (= tunnel vision), and in order to achieve his only purpose he made countless mistakes, conducted countless failed experiments (bumbling along), and relied on luck to provide him with the conditions required for the achievement of his only purpose. And he obviously didn’t know how to finally evolve us until he had conducted countless failed experiments! I accept that this tunnel-visioned bumbling God of yours provides a logical explanation for the history of evolution as we know it. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

dhw: It fits in with the history of life as we know it. It just doesn’t fit in with the all-powerful, totally-in-control God you envisaged at the start of these discussions, but you are perfectly entitled to change your mind. Why is this discussion continuing?

DAVID: Of course, it fits my view of God, who doesn't need control of every molecule in the universe to design as necessary to fit the current requirements. God created self-controlling systems that don't need His constant hands-on attention. The current universe, Earth's climate, human life, animal life, all run smoothly on His DNA coded instructions. My view of God is not your tortured version. We can end this discussion now.

What “tortured version”? I have merely repeated all the points you have been making, and have agreed that the mess you have described fits in with the history of evolution. You used to insist that your God was in complete control, individually designed every species, and all life forms were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, but now as explained above you see him as a tunnel-visioned bumbler who made countless mistakes! However, your comment that “God created self-controlling systems that don’t need his constant hands-on attention” opens the door to a very different theistic interpretation of how evolution might work:

dhw (transferred from “More miscellany”): In your new theory, his firsthand experiments have a 99% failure rate, so I would suggest that “secondhand” design would be far less damaging to his reputation for efficiency.

DAVID: Stop beating a dead horse. 99% of all evolving forms disappeared.

dhw: Precisely. And so instead of a firsthand designing God making mistake after mistake, we have him giving organisms the means to do their own ("secondhand") designing. The failures then become theirs and not his. It’s an alternative to the weak, bumbling God you have advocated in your new theory.

DAVID: Your twisted invention of my God to fit your purposes ignores all my description as to how I see God.

Then stick to the weak bumbling God of your new theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 11, 2023, 18:03 (442 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Evolution is a messy way to proceed, but that is what God produced. As a designer God can handle any environmental problem, so He doesn't require tight control of every facet of an evolutionary advance.

dhw: Yes, in your new theory, God’s method of achieving his goal was a mess, and he had no control over the environment but simply responded to whatever changes arose, thereby designing countless life forms which had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose: us and our food. You have called all of them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

Prolonged because of your twisted interpretation in bold, as one ooint. The countless life forms are our food!!! The bush of life is a requirement for humans to exist. The process of evolution is messy, but it succeeded in producing humans under God's guidance. It happened from God's own choice of method. Why would God choice a method He couldn't handle easily?


dhw: […] a God who relies on luck, and keeps messing things up, is consistent with the history of life as we know it, and your theory makes sense.

DAVID: Agreement in a roundabout way. God knows exactly what He is doing, what He intends to do and how to finally evolve us. You morph Him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler. He is a precise designer who got the result He wanted, a totally unexpected human brain, if produced naturally, the most complex creation in the universe.

dhw: It is you who have made him into a tunnel-visioned bumbler! You say we and our food were his only purpose (= tunnel vision), and in order to achieve his only purpose he made countless mistakes, conducted countless failed experiments (bumbling along), and relied on luck to provide him with the conditions required for the achievement of his only purpose. And he obviously didn’t know how to finally evolve us until he had conducted countless failed experiments! I accept that this tunnel-visioned bumbling God of yours provides a logical explanation for the history of evolution as we know it. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

You have described our human view of evolution. But how did God view it? Obviously not as we do. He chose it and it achieved His obvious endpoint, humans, under His control. The bold is another form of your distortions. He knew exactly how to achieve His endpoint goals.


dhw: It fits in with the history of life as we know it. It just doesn’t fit in with the all-powerful, totally-in-control God you envisaged at the start of these discussions, but you are perfectly entitled to change your mind. Why is this discussion continuing?

DAVID: Of course, it fits my view of God, who doesn't need control of every molecule in the universe to design as necessary to fit the current requirements. God created self-controlling systems that don't need His constant hands-on attention. The current universe, Earth's climate, human life, animal life, all run smoothly on His DNA coded instructions. My view of God is not your tortured version. We can end this discussion now.

dhw: What “tortured version”? I have merely repeated all the points you have been making, and have agreed that the mess you have described fits in with the history of evolution. You used to insist that your God was in complete control, individually designed every species, and all life forms were an “absolute requirement” for us and our food, but now as explained above you see him as a tunnel-visioned bumbler who made countless mistakes! However, your comment that “God created self-controlling systems that don’t need his constant hands-on attention” opens the door to a very different theistic interpretation of how evolution might work:

dhw (transferred from “More miscellany”): In your new theory, his firsthand experiments have a 99% failure rate, so I would suggest that “secondhand” design would be far less damaging to his reputation for efficiency.

DAVID: Stop beating a dead horse. 99% of all evolving forms disappeared.

dhw: Precisely. And so instead of a firsthand designing God making mistake after mistake, we have him giving organisms the means to do their own ("secondhand") designing. The failures then become theirs and not his. It’s an alternative to the weak, bumbling God you have advocated in your new theory.

DAVID: Your twisted invention of my God to fit your purposes ignores all my description as to how I see God.

dhw: Then stick to the weak bumbling God of your new theory.

I have presented a clear theory of how God used s messy process of evolution to create us, a God that was in total control of what had to be controlled, new DNA designs in new species. Subsequent species became more increasingly complex until we arrived, took control of the Earth resulting in the end of major evolutionary changes. Any evolutionary process requires failure in order to require new advances. I know you work at denigrating God as I present Him. The discussion will continue as I answer your distortions off my theory. This does not set out a God-the-bumbler, does it??? But you will try to, so discussion continues.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, January 12, 2023, 11:30 (441 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Yes, in your new theory, God’s method of achieving his goal was a mess, and he had no control over the environment but simply responded to whatever changes arose, thereby designing countless life forms which had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose: us and our food. You have called all of them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

DAVID: Prolonged because of your twisted interpretation in bold, as one ooint. The countless life forms are our food!! The bush of life is a requirement for humans to exist.

You have informed us that 99% of past life forms were dead ends, “mistakes”, “failed experiments” which did NOT lead to us and our food. We do not eat brontosauruses, and the “mistakes” and “failed experiments” were not a requirement for humans to exist. Please stop editing your own theory.

DAVID: The process of evolution is messy, but it succeeded in producing humans under God's guidance. It happened from God's own choice of method. Why would God choice a method He couldn't handle easily?

An excellent question. It suggests that if God exists, either he did NOT start out with the goal you impose on him, or if he did, he had to experiment – make “mistakes”, design “failures” – in order to achieve his goal. You have chosen the latter theory, and have thereby made him “weak” and “bumbling”, though you don’t seem to have realized it.

dhw: […] And he obviously didn’t know how to finally evolve us until he had conducted countless failed experiments! I accept that this tunnel-visioned bumbling God of yours provides a logical explanation for the history of evolution as we know it. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

DAVID: […]He knew exactly how to achieve His endpoint goals.

Then why were 99% of his experiments “failures”?

dhw [..] : In your new theory, his firsthand experiments have a 99% failure rate, so I would suggest that “secondhand” design would be far less damaging to his reputation for efficiency.

DAVID: Stop beating a dead horse. 99% of all evolving forms disappeared.

dhw: Precisely. And so instead of a firsthand designing God making mistake after mistake, we have him giving organisms the means to do their own ("secondhand") designing. The failures then become theirs and not his. It’s an alternative to the weak, bumbling God you have advocated in your new theory.

DAVID: Your twisted invention of my God to fit your purposes ignores all my description as to how I see God.

dhw: Then stick to the weak bumbling God of your new theory.

DAVID: I have presented a clear theory of how God used s messy process of evolution to create us, a God that was in total control of what had to be controlled, new DNA designs in new species.

In your clear theory, he could not control the conditions necessary to fulfil his one and only purpose, and 99% of the new species were “mistakes” or “failed experiments”. Why do you keep leaving out your own explanation of the “mess”?

DAVID: Subsequent species became more increasingly complex until we arrived, took control of the Earth resulting in the end of major evolutionary changes. Any evolutionary process requires failure in order to require new advances. I know you work at denigrating God as I present Him. The discussion will continue as I answer your distortions off my theory. This does not set out a God-the-bumbler, does it??? But you will try to, so discussion continues.

I am not denying our arrival! I am merely repeating your own theory: (a)your God had one goal (us and our food); (b) he specially designed countless life forms in response to changing environments which were not under his control; (c) 99% of the life forms he designed were “mistakes” or “failed experiments” because they did not lead to us and our food; (d) evolution as you present it is a mess, for which your God is responsible. Please tell me what I have distorted.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, January 13, 2023, 00:09 (441 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Prolonged because of your twisted interpretation in bold, as one point. The countless life forms are our food!! The bush of life is a requirement for humans to exist.

Dhw: You have informed us that 99% of past life forms were dead ends, “mistakes”, “failed experiments” which did NOT lead to us and our food. We do not eat brontosauruses, and the “mistakes” and “failed experiments” were not a requirement for humans to exist. Please stop editing your own theory.

Don't you realize my statement above is specifically for the present, not the past? The bush for food exists now from past evolution.

DAVID: The process of evolution is messy, but it succeeded in producing humans under God's guidance. It happened from God's own choice of method. Why would God choice a method He couldn't handle easily?

dhw: An excellent question. It suggests that if God exists, either he did NOT start out with the goal you impose on him, or if he did, he had to experiment – make “mistakes”, design “failures” – in order to achieve his goal. You have chosen the latter theory, and have thereby made him “weak” and “bumbling”, though you don’t seem to have realized it.

Your 'weak and bumbling' is your messy interpretation of the facts. All/any evolution, by definition is messy with dead ends and extinctions. An all-powerful God created a universe and thinking life (us), but in your view, He had no idea what He was doing. Irrational thinking to put it politely.

dhw [..] : In your new theory, his firsthand experiments have a 99% failure rate, so I would suggest that “secondhand” design would be far less damaging to his reputation for efficiency.

DAVID: Stop beating a dead horse. 99% of all evolving forms disappeared.

dhw: Precisely. And so instead of a firsthand designing God making mistake after mistake, we have him giving organisms the means to do their own ("secondhand") designing. The failures then become theirs and not his. It’s an alternative to the weak, bumbling God you have advocated in your new theory.

DAVID: Your twisted invention of my God to fit your purposes ignores all my description as to how I see God.

dhw: Then stick to the weak bumbling God of your new theory.

DAVID: I have presented a clear theory of how God used a messy process of evolution to create us, a God that was in total control of what had to be controlled, new DNA designs in new species.

dhw: In your clear theory, he could not control the conditions necessary to fulfil his one and only purpose, and 99% of the new species were “mistakes” or “failed experiments”. Why do you keep leaving out your own explanation of the “mess”?

Simply steps along the way to humans. God chose His method and handled it well. Any evolution is messy in the asepct of lost species along the way.

DAVID: Subsequent species became more increasingly complex until we arrived, took control of the Earth resulting in the end of major evolutionary changes. Any evolutionary process requires failure in order to require new advances. I know you work at denigrating God as I present Him. The discussion will continue as I answer your distortions off my theory. This does not set out a God-the-bumbler, does it??? But you will try to, so discussion continues.

dhw: I am not denying our arrival! I am merely repeating your own theory: (a)your God had one goal (us and our food); (b) he specially designed countless life forms in response to changing environments which were not under his control; (c) 99% of the life forms he designed were “mistakes” or “failed experiments” because they did not lead to us and our food; (d) evolution as you present it is a mess, for which your God is responsible. Please tell me what I have distorted.

Nothing. Now don't add God was a bumbling fool to do it that way. His way was controlled evolution of more and more complexity until our brain arrived. Nothing but a powerful designer could create our brain!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, January 13, 2023, 09:22 (441 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Prolonged because of your twisted interpretation in bold, as one point. The countless life forms are our food!! The bush of life is a requirement for humans to exist.

dhw: You have informed us that 99% of past life forms were dead ends, “mistakes”, “failed experiments” which did NOT lead to us and our food. We do not eat brontosauruses, and the “mistakes” and “failed experiments” were not a requirement for humans to exist. Please stop editing your own theory.

DAVID: Don't you realize my statement above is specifically for the present, not the past? The bush for food exists now from past evolution.

Don’t you realize that according to you the PRESENT bush of life descended from only 1% of the PAST life forms you say your God specially designed, and the rest were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”? What have I “twisted”?

DAVID: The process of evolution is messy, but it succeeded in producing humans under God's guidance. It happened from God's own choice of method. Why would God choice a method He couldn't handle easily?

dhw: An excellent question. It suggests that if God exists, either he did NOT start out with the goal you impose on him, or if he did, he had to experiment – make “mistakes”, design “failures” – in order to achieve his goal. You have chosen the latter theory, and have thereby made him “weak” and “bumbling”, though you don’t seem to have realized it.

DAVID: Your 'weak and bumbling' is your messy interpretation of the facts. All/any evolution, by definition is messy with dead ends and extinctions. An all-powerful God created a universe and thinking life (us), but in your view, He had no idea what He was doing. Irrational thinking to put it politely.

It is YOUR messy interpretation of the facts! It’s YOUR all-powerful God who invented the process of evolution, which led to what you call his “mistakes” and “failed experiments” in his attempts to fulfil what YOU say was his one and only purpose!

DAVID: I have presented a clear theory of how God used a messy process of evolution to create us, a God that was in total control of what had to be controlled, new DNA designs in new species.

dhw: In your clear theory, he could not control the conditions necessary to fulfil his one and only purpose, and 99% of the new species were “mistakes” or “failed experiments”. Why do you keep leaving out your own explanation of the “mess”?

DAVID: Simply steps along the way to humans. God chose His method and handled it well. Any evolution is messy in the asepct of lost species along the way.

According to you, 99% of his experiments were NOT steps on the way to us and our food. Hence the mess. What other evolutions of species are you referring to? If God is the all-powerful creator of life, then according to you he designed a method full of mistakes. What are you arguing about?

DAVID: The discussion will continue as I answer your distortions of my theory.

dhw: I am not denying our arrival! I am merely repeating your own theory: (a)your God had one goal (us and our food); (b) he specially designed countless life forms in response to changing environments which were not under his control; (c) 99% of the life forms he designed were “mistakes” or “failed experiments” because they did not lead to us and our food; (d) evolution as you present it is a mess, for which your God is responsible. Please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: Nothing. Now don't add God was a bumbling fool to do it that way. His way was controlled evolution of more and more complexity until our brain arrived. Nothing but a powerful designer could create our brain!!!

Thank you for admitting that I have distorted nothing. It is your theory that turns him into a bumbler. The argument that the complexities of life are evidence of design has nothing whatsoever to do with your theory that your all-powerful God had only one purpose and invented a method which caused him to make countless mistakes and conduct countless failed experiments. Alternative theories which fit in with all the comings and goings are (a) that he enjoyed creating different life forms, and had new ideas as he went along, or (b) that he invented a free-for-all. Neither of these theistic theories has him making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments, but do by all means stick to your bumbler theory. Only don’t blame me for your beliefs.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, January 13, 2023, 18:53 (440 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The process of evolution is messy, but it succeeded in producing humans under God's guidance. It happened from God's own choice of method. Why would God choice a method He couldn't handle easily?

dhw: An excellent question. It suggests that if God exists, either he did NOT start out with the goal you impose on him, or if he did, he had to experiment – make “mistakes”, design “failures” – in order to achieve his goal. You have chosen the latter theory, and have thereby made him “weak” and “bumbling”, though you don’t seem to have realized it.

DAVID: Your 'weak and bumbling' is your messy interpretation of the facts. All/any evolution, by definition is messy with dead ends and extinctions. An all-powerful God created a universe and thinking life (us), but in your view, He had no idea what He was doing. Irrational thinking to put it politely.

dhw: It is YOUR messy interpretation of the facts! It’s YOUR all-powerful God who invented the process of evolution, which led to what you call his “mistakes” and “failed experiments” in his attempts to fulfil what YOU say was his one and only purpose!

Yes, God chose to use a messy system.


DAVID: I have presented a clear theory of how God used a messy process of evolution to create us, a God that was in total control of what had to be controlled, new DNA designs in new species.

dhw: In your clear theory, he could not control the conditions necessary to fulfil his one and only purpose, and 99% of the new species were “mistakes” or “failed experiments”. Why do you keep leaving out your own explanation of the “mess”?

DAVID: Simply steps along the way to humans. God chose His method and handled it well. Any evolution is messy in the asepct of lost species along the way.

dhw: According to you, 99% of his experiments were NOT steps on the way to us and our food. Hence the mess. What other evolutions of species are you referring to? If God is the all-powerful creator of life, then according to you he designed a method full of mistakes. What are you arguing about?

I'm trying to make you see an all-powerful God can act any way He wishes, and His powers of design overcomes all obstacles that might appear from any system He does not tightly control.


DAVID: The discussion will continue as I answer your distortions of my theory.

dhw: I am not denying our arrival! I am merely repeating your own theory: (a)your God had one goal (us and our food); (b) he specially designed countless life forms in response to changing environments which were not under his control; (c) 99% of the life forms he designed were “mistakes” or “failed experiments” because they did not lead to us and our food; (d) evolution as you present it is a mess, for which your God is responsible. Please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: Nothing. Now don't add God was a bumbling fool to do it that way. His way was controlled evolution of more and more complexity until our brain arrived. Nothing but a powerful designer could create our brain!!!

dhw: Thank you for admitting that I have distorted nothing. It is your theory that turns him into a bumbler. The argument that the complexities of life are evidence of design has nothing whatsoever to do with your theory that your all-powerful God had only one purpose and invented a method which caused him to make countless mistakes and conduct countless failed experiments. Alternative theories which fit in with all the comings and goings are (a) that he enjoyed creating different life forms, and had new ideas as he went along, or (b) that he invented a free-for-all. Neither of these theistic theories has him making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments, but do by all means stick to your bumbler theory. Only don’t blame me for your beliefs.

Denigrate the God I envision all you wish. For me it shows how rigid your underlying agnostic prejudices about God skew your analysis. AS usual you bring up your humanistic God as an alternative. My God knows exactly what He is doing and does it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, January 14, 2023, 08:02 (440 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your 'weak and bumbling' is your messy interpretation of the facts. All/any evolution, by definition is messy with dead ends and extinctions. An all-powerful God created a universe and thinking life (us), but in your view, He had no idea what He was doing. Irrational thinking to put it politely.

dhw: It is YOUR messy interpretation of the facts! It’s YOUR all-powerful God who invented the process of evolution, which led to what you call his “mistakes” and “failed experiments” in his attempts to fulfil what YOU say was his one and only purpose!

DAVID: Yes, God chose to use a messy system.

I thought he invented it. And since you agree that this is your theory, I have no idea why you continue to tell me that this bumbling process full of mistakes and failed experiments is MY messy interpretation. It’s yours!

DAVID: God chose His method and handled it well. Any evolution is messy in the asepct of lost species along the way.

dhw: According to you, 99% of his experiments were NOT steps on the way to us and our food. Hence the mess. What other evolutions of species are you referring to? If God is the all-powerful creator of life, then according to you he designed a method full of mistakes. What are you arguing about?

DAVID: I'm trying to make you see an all-powerful God can act any way He wishes, and His powers of design overcomes all obstacles that might appear from any system He does not tightly control.

He can hardly act any way he wishes if his actions depend on conditions that are outside his control. This is the reason why, according to you, he keeps designing countless life forms which fit in with new conditions but which in 99% of cases have nothing to do with his one and only purpose (us and our food) and therefore, according to you, are “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. You have agreed that this is your theory, and I accept that it fits the history of life as we know it, but I also point out that this bumbling (your word) designer can hardly be said to correspond to your original vision of an all-powerful God who knew exactly what he wanted from the start, knew how to achieve it, and was always in tight control.

dhw: Alternative theories which fit in with all the comings and goings are (a) that he enjoyed creating different life forms, and had new ideas as he went along, or (b) that he invented a free-for-all. Neither of these theistic theories has him making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments, but do by all means stick to your bumbler theory. Only don’t blame me for your beliefs.

DAVID: Denigrate the God I envision all you wish. For me it shows how rigid your underlying agnostic prejudices about God skew your analysis.

It is YOU who tell us that he can only respond to environmental conditions which he does not control, makes countless mistakes, conducts countless “failed experiments”, and is responsible for what you call the “mess”. If that isn’t denigration, I don’t know what is – so why do you say YOUR theory shows my prejudices???

DAVID: As usual you bring up your humanistic God as an alternative. My God knows exactly what He is doing and does it.

I have no idea what humanism has to do with the discussion. Nor do I understand why you consider that a God who bumbles along making blunder after blunder as he responds to conditions beyond his control is less “human” than a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along, or who deliberately creates a free-for-all and watches the outcome with interest (though allowing himself to dabble if he feels like it). Even with my own theory of experimentation, I never denigrated him as you have done with words like “mess”, “mistakes”, “failure”. I have the utmost respect for any scientist or inventor who tries out different ways of creating something new. And I’ll go even further. Even if the brontosaurus didn’t turn out to be a human or to be suitable for humans to eat, I’d say it was a huge success!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 14, 2023, 18:56 (439 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm trying to make you see an all-powerful God can act any way He wishes, and His powers of design overcomes all obstacles that might appear from any system He does not tightly control.

dhw: He can hardly act any way he wishes if his actions depend on conditions that are outside his control. This is the reason why, according to you, he keeps designing countless life forms which fit in with new conditions but which in 99% of cases have nothing to do with his one and only purpose (us and our food) and therefore, according to you, are “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. You have agreed that this is your theory, and I accept that it fits the history of life as we know it, but I also point out that this bumbling (your word) designer can hardly be said to correspond to your original vision of an all-powerful God who knew exactly what he wanted from the start, knew how to achieve it, and was always in tight control.

Still blind to the interpretation I see. An all-powerful God chose this method and was not afraid of its messiness, because as you note, it fits history, and He had full control of necessary designs. You described my God in such a way, I used the word 'bumbling' to fit your tortured description


dhw: Alternative theories which fit in with all the comings and goings are (a) that he enjoyed creating different life forms, and had new ideas as he went along, or (b) that he invented a free-for-all. Neither of these theistic theories has him making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments, but do by all means stick to your bumbler theory. Only don’t blame me for your beliefs.

DAVID: Denigrate the God I envision all you wish. For me it shows how rigid your underlying agnostic prejudices about God skew your analysis.

dhw: It is YOU who tell us that he can only respond to environmental conditions which he does not control, makes countless mistakes, conducts countless “failed experiments”, and is responsible for what you call the “mess”. If that isn’t denigration, I don’t know what is – so why do you say YOUR theory shows my prejudices???

What I said was your responses show your undrerlying rigid prejudices.


DAVID: As usual you bring up your humanistic God as an alternative. My God knows exactly what He is doing and does it.

dhw: I have no idea what humanism has to do with the discussion. Nor do I understand why you consider that a God who bumbles along making blunder after blunder as he responds to conditions beyond his control is less “human” than a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along, or who deliberately creates a free-for-all and watches the outcome with interest (though allowing himself to dabble if he feels like it). Even with my own theory of experimentation, I never denigrated him as you have done with words like “mess”, “mistakes”, “failure”. I have the utmost respect for any scientist or inventor who tries out different ways of creating something new. And I’ll go even further. Even if the brontosaurus didn’t turn out to be a human or to be suitable for humans to eat, I’d say it was a huge success!

All of God's designs in evolution are brilliant. our brain superb!! My theory does not denigrate God but shows His power over the system He chose. All of this discussion from my side is an answer to your very early observation as to why God would choose to use such an indirect way to create humans. I thought your point should be fully explored. And I've exposed that this indirect method is essentially very messy. God is not messy. God is not confused. He chose this and kept tight control. We were His goal, and we are here, in our full glory and in control of the future of the Earth and hopefully from what the universe might try to do to us.

The 'humanism' is your constant repetition describing your humanistic God's way of preceding with an evolutionary process that theoretically might never reach humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, January 15, 2023, 09:15 (439 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Still blind to the interpretation I see. An all-powerful God chose this method and was not afraid of its messiness, because as you note, it fits history, and He had full control of necessary designs. You described my God in such a way, I used the word 'bumbling' to fit your tortured description.

Once more: according to you, your God invented a method whereby achieving his one and only goal depended on conditions beyond his control, and so he designed countless life forms that could cope with those conditions, although 99% of them were “mistakes” and “failed experiments” which had nothing to do with his one and only goal. And according to you and Raup, extinction and survival were due to luck, not control. In your terms, the “necessary” designs – i.e. those that led to his goal – amounted to 1% of his designs. If this is not a “bumbling” version of God, I don’t know what is.

DAVID: Denigrate the God I envision all you wish. For me it shows how rigid your underlying agnostic prejudices about God skew your analysis.

dhw: It is YOU who tell us that he can only respond to environmental conditions which he does not control, makes countless mistakes, conducts countless “failed experiments”, and is responsible for what you call the “mess”. If that isn’t denigration, I don’t know what is – so why do you say YOUR theory shows my prejudices???

DAVID: What I said was your responses show your undrerlying rigid prejudices.

I have reproduced your theory, which shows your God making countless mistakes. How does that reveal prejudice on my part?

DAVID: As usual you bring up your humanistic God as an alternative. My God knows exactly what He is doing and does it.

dhw: I have no idea what humanism has to do with the discussion. Nor do I understand why you consider that a God who bumbles along making blunder after blunder as he responds to conditions beyond his control is less “human” than a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along, or who deliberately creates a free-for-all and watches the outcome with interest (though allowing himself to dabble if he feels like it). Even with my own theory of experimentation, I never denigrated him as you have done with words like “mess”, “mistakes”, “failure”. I have the utmost respect for any scientist or inventor who tries out different ways of creating something new. And I’ll go even further. Even if the brontosaurus didn’t turn out to be a human or to be suitable for humans to eat, I’d say it was a huge success!

DAVID: All of God's designs in evolution are brilliant. our brain superb!! My theory does not denigrate God but shows His power over the system He chose.

It shows him depending on luck to provide the conditions necessary for what you believe to have been his one and only goal, and to provide him with survivors which he can eventually develop into us and our food. It also shows him having to design countless life forms, 99% of which are mistakes, failed experiments etc. How does this show his power over the system he invented?

DAVID: All of this discussion from my side is an answer to your very early observation as to why God would choose to use such an indirect way to create humans. I thought your point should be fully explored. And I've exposed that this indirect method is essentially very messy. God is not messy. God is not confused. He chose this and kept tight control.

According to you, your God invented a messy method which resulted in countless mistakes and failed experiments, precisely because he did not have tight control. 99% failure does not indicate tight control.

DAVID: We were His goal, and we are here, in our full glory and in control of the future of the Earth and hopefully from what the universe might try to do to us.

I am not denying that we are here.

DAVID: The 'humanism' is your constant repetition describing your humanistic God's way of preceding with an evolutionary process that theoretically might never reach humans.

I have offered three different theistic theories to explain how we got here. Two of them (experimentation – the one you favour, though in terms that denigrate your God - and having new ideas as he went along) have him designing us deliberately. The third is a free-for-all which indeed might theoretically not lead to us, although it leaves him the option of dabbling if he wants to. Once more, please tell us why your bumbling God with his 1% success rate and 99%failure rate is less human than a God who makes no mistakes, but enjoys creating and getting new ideas, or creates a system of autonomous life forms that do their own designing.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 15, 2023, 18:10 (438 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Still blind to the interpretation I see. An all-powerful God chose this method and was not afraid of its messiness, because as you note, it fits history, and He had full control of necessary designs. You described my God in such a way, I used the word 'bumbling' to fit your tortured description.

dhw: Once more: according to you, your God invented a method whereby achieving his one and only goal depended on conditions beyond his control, and so he designed countless life forms that could cope with those conditions, although 99% of them were “mistakes” and “failed experiments” which had nothing to do with his one and only goal. And according to you and Raup, extinction and survival were due to luck, not control. In your terms, the “necessary” designs – i.e. those that led to his goal – amounted to 1% of his designs. If this is not a “bumbling” version of God, I don’t know what is.

Same blinkered view. God chose His method, exactly the one you describe above, and achieved His goal. us. God did not thin k of it as too messy to use.

dhw: I have reproduced your theory, which shows your God making countless mistakes. How does that reveal prejudice on my part?

The 'mistakes' achieved us. All a normal part of evolution.

f God's designs in evolution are brilliant. our brain superb!! My theory does not denigrate God but shows His power over the system He chose. [/i]


dhw: It shows him depending on luck to provide the conditions necessary for what you believe to have been his one and only goal, and to provide him with survivors which he can eventually develop into us and our food. It also shows him having to design countless life forms, 99% of which are mistakes, failed experiments etc. How does this show his power over the system he invented?

Still a shortsighted complaint. GOD CHOSE TO DO IT THIS WAY!!


DAVID: All of this discussion from my side is an answer to your very early observation as to why God would choose to use such an indirect way to create humans. I thought your point should be fully explored. And I've exposed that this indirect method is essentially very messy. God is not messy. God is not confused. He chose this and kept tight control.

dhw: According to you, your God invented a messy method which resulted in countless mistakes and failed experiments, precisely because he did not have tight control. 99% failure does not indicate tight control.

99% failure describes our evolution!! Assuming God is in charge of reality, your complaint is directed against Him.


DAVID: The 'humanism' is your constant repetition describing your humanistic God's way of preceding with an evolutionary process that theoretically might never reach humans.

dhw: I have offered three different theistic theories to explain how we got here. Two of them (experimentation – the one you favour, though in terms that denigrate your God - and having new ideas as he went along) have him designing us deliberately. The third is a free-for-all which indeed might theoretically not lead to us, although it leaves him the option of dabbling if he wants to. Once more, please tell us why your bumbling God with his 1% success rate and 99%failure rate is less human than a God who makes no mistakes, but enjoys creating and getting new ideas, or creates a system of autonomous life forms that do their own designing.

In thinking about God, one must decide on a clear view of the form God takes. Mine is in full control of what He feels needs control. He has a clear view of what His goals are, and exactly how to achieve them. Your three theistic theories create three different images of God, not one! Who is your God? Do you have one God in mind when you put on our theistic cap? The answer is your version of God is amorphous. God is one non-human personage, no more.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, January 16, 2023, 11:14 (437 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Still blind to the interpretation I see. An all-powerful God chose this method and was not afraid of its messiness, because as you note, it fits history, and He had full control of necessary designs. You described my God in such a way, I used the word 'bumbling' to fit your tortured description.

dhw: Once more: according to you, your God invented a method whereby achieving his one and only goal depended on conditions beyond his control, and so he designed countless life forms that could cope with those conditions, although 99% of them were “mistakes” and “failed experiments” which had nothing to do with his one and only goal. And according to you and Raup, extinction and survival were due to luck, not control. In your terms, the “necessary” designs – i.e. those that led to his goal – amounted to 1% of his designs. If this is not a “bumbling” version of God, I don’t know what is.

DAVID: Same blinkered view. God chose His method, exactly the one you describe above, and achieved His goal. us. God did not thin k of it as too messy to use.

I’m always amazed at your knowledge of what your God thinks and doesn’t think. Meanwhile, thank you for acknowledging the accuracy of my description of your theory. You think this method is messy and full of mistakes, and so do I. We are in agreement, except that you refuse to acknowledge that this theory makes your God into a “bumbler”.

DAVID: Denigrate the God I envision all you wish. For me it shows how rigid your underlying agnostic prejudices about God skew your analysis.

dhw: I have reproduced your theory, which shows your God making countless mistakes. How does that reveal prejudice on my part?

DAVID: The 'mistakes' achieved us. All a normal part of evolution.

How does my account of your theory reveal prejudice on my part? The ‘mistakes” did NOT achieve us. That’s why they were ‘mistakes’ and ‘failures’. It was the 1% of successes that achieved us! How do you know what is normal and abnormal in the evolution of humans?

DAVID: God's designs in evolution are brilliant. our brain superb!! My theory does not denigrate God but shows His power over the system He chose.

I agree that the designs are brilliant, no matter how they originated. But how do your God’s lack of control over conditions and survival, and his mistakes and 99% of failures, show his power over the system he invented?

DAVID: 99% failure describes our evolution!! Assuming God is in charge of reality, your complaint is directed against Him.

YOUR description of evolution presents a God who is not in control, relies on chance, and conducts experiments of which 99% are mistakes and failures. I have my doubts about this theory, but I’m not complaining. Just pointing out that these characteristics are a far cry from the all-powerful, always-in-control God you keep talking about.

DAVID: The 'humanism' is your constant repetition describing your humanistic God's way of preceding with an evolutionary process that theoretically might never reach humans.

dhw: I have offered three different theistic theories to explain how we got here. Two of them (experimentation – the one you favour, though in terms that denigrate your God - and having new ideas as he went along) have him designing us deliberately. The third is a free-for-all which indeed might theoretically not lead to us, although it leaves him the option of dabbling if he wants to. Once more, please tell us why your bumbling God with his 1% success rate and 99%failure rate is less human than a God who makes no mistakes, but enjoys creating and getting new ideas, or creates a system of autonomous life forms that do their own designing.

DAVID: In thinking about God, one must decide on a clear view of the form God takes.

Why “must” we? Nobody can possibly know “clearly” what “form” God takes.

DAVID: Mine is in full control of what He feels needs control. He has a clear view of what His goals are, and exactly how to achieve them.

And so he doesn’t need to control the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of his goal, and he knows exactly how to achieve his goal, which is to keep making mistakes and conducting failed experiment after failed experiment, until at last luck comes his way, conditions are right, and his experiment succeeds. An unusual description of full control and exactitude.

DAVID: Your three theistic theories create three different images of God, not one! Who is your God? Do you have one God in mind when you put on our theistic cap? The answer is your version of God is amorphous. God is one non-human personage, no more.

Nobody knows what God is like (if he exists). We can only theorize, and in doing so we should try to make our theories fit in with the history of life as we know it. Of course I don’t have one image in mind. I don’t even know if he exists. None of my alternatives are “amorphous”, but you agree that all of them fit the history of life as we know it. But if you believe in a God who does not control environmental changes, blunders along making mistakes and conducting failed experiments, and is responsible for what you consider to be a mess, that’s fine. Just don’t accuse me of proposing such a denigrating version of his non-human personage.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 16, 2023, 17:47 (437 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same blinkered view. God chose His method, exactly the one you describe above, and achieved His goal. us. God did not thin k of it as too messy to use.

dhw: I’m always amazed at your knowledge of what your God thinks and doesn’t think. Meanwhile, thank you for acknowledging the accuracy of my description of your theory. You think this method is messy and full of mistakes, and so do I. We are in agreement, except that you refuse to acknowledge that this theory makes your God into a “bumbler”.

Still blinkered. If God chose a messy system, it was because He knew it was necessary to use and He had the power to control it. See today's entry about how life evolved the early Earth to what is present today and required for us to exist. God is no bumbler, nor does He relate in any way to your imagined God's.


DAVID: God's designs in evolution are brilliant. our brain superb!! My theory does not denigrate God but shows His power over the system He chose.

dhw: I agree that the designs are brilliant, no matter how they originated. But how do your God’s lack of control over conditions and survival, and his mistakes and 99% of failures, show his power over the system he invented?

DAVID: 99% failure describes our evolution!! Assuming God is in charge of reality, your complaint is directed against Him.

dhw: YOUR description of evolution presents a God who is not in control, relies on chance, and conducts experiments of which 99% are mistakes and failures. I have my doubts about this theory, but I’m not complaining. Just pointing out that these characteristics are a far cry from the all-powerful, always-in-control God you keep talking about.

The result of humans arriving means His system worked under His control. It is clear an all-powerful God does not mean He has to have, or does have, tight control over every molecule or active system. He can design whatever is required by the circumstances.


DAVID: The 'humanism' is your constant repetition describing your humanistic God's way of preceding with an evolutionary process that theoretically might never reach humans.

dhw: I have offered three different theistic theories to explain how we got here. Two of them (experimentation – the one you favour, though in terms that denigrate your God - and having new ideas as he went along) have him designing us deliberately. The third is a free-for-all which indeed might theoretically not lead to us, although it leaves him the option of dabbling if he wants to. Once more, please tell us why your bumbling God with his 1% success rate and 99%failure rate is less human than a God who makes no mistakes, but enjoys creating and getting new ideas, or creates a system of autonomous life forms that do their own designing.

DAVID: In thinking about God, one must decide on a clear view of the form God takes.

dhw: Why “must” we? Nobody can possibly know “clearly” what “form” God takes.

Any theistic theory most start with an all-powerful God the Bible presents.


DAVID: Mine is in full control of what He feels needs control. He has a clear view of what His goals are, and exactly how to achieve them.

dhw: And so he doesn’t need to control the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of his goal, and he knows exactly how to achieve his goal, which is to keep making mistakes and conducting failed experiment after failed experiment, until at last luck comes his way, conditions are right, and his experiment succeeds. An unusual description of full control and exactitude.

Exactly!!! Except God can design for any problem environment. Extremophiles show that.


DAVID: Your three theistic theories create three different images of God, not one! Who is your God? Do you have one God in mind when you put on your theistic cap? The answer is your version of God is amorphous. God is one non-human personage, no more.

dhw: Nobody knows what God is like (if he exists). We can only theorize, and in doing so we should try to make our theories fit in with the history of life as we know it. Of course I don’t have one image in mind. I don’t even know if he exists. None of my alternatives are “amorphous”, but you agree that all of them fit the history of life as we know it. But if you believe in a God who does not control environmental changes, blunders along making mistakes and conducting failed experiments, and is responsible for what you consider to be a mess, that’s fine. Just don’t accuse me of proposing such a denigrating version of his non-human personage.

Back to your distortions of what I present. God chose to evolve us, was in total control of the results, even if using an evolutionary system that lost 99% of all organ isms along the way. For good reason, as the giant bush of life shaped the Earth we need for our survival as humans. Swee new entry.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, January 17, 2023, 10:58 (436 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […]If God chose a messy system, it was because He knew it was necessary to use and He had the power to control it. See today's entry about how life evolved the early Earth to what is present today and required for us to exist. God is no bumbler, nor does He relate in any way to your imagined God's.

So your God knew it was necessary to make countless mistakes and conduct countless failed experiments in order to design the 1% of organisms which would lead to us and our food, and that means he was all powerful. (See below on today’s entry.)

DAVID: […] It is clear an all-powerful God does not mean He has to have, or does have, tight control over every molecule or active system. He can design whatever is required by the circumstances.

If circumstances dictate what he designs, and in order to fulfil his purpose he has to make lots of mistakes, how can you say he is all-powerful?

DAVID: In thinking about God, one must decide on a clear view of the form God takes.

dhw: Why “must” we? Nobody can possibly know “clearly” what “form” God takes.

DAVID: Any theistic theory most start with an all-powerful God the Bible presents.

I'm inclined to agree. That is why my three alternatives present an all-powerful God. Once again: I cannot see how a God who depends on luck and makes countless mistakes and conducts countless failed experiments can be regarded as all-powerful.

DAVID: Mine is in full control of what He feels needs control. He has a clear view of what His goals are, and exactly how to achieve them.

dhw: And so he doesn’t need to control the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of his goal, and he knows exactly how to achieve his goal, which is to keep making mistakes and conducting failed experiment after failed experiment, until at last luck comes his way, conditions are right, and his experiment succeeds. An unusual description of full control and exactitude.

DAVID: Exactly!!! Except God can design for any problem environment. Extremophiles show that.

Thank you for confirming the above theory. God’s talent for adapting his designs to whatever conditions chance imposes on him does not fit in with an all-powerful God having only one purpose and knowing exactly how to achieve it. However, it does fit in perfectly with the concept of a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along.

Life transformed early Earth

QUOTES: "Earth’s current aeon, the Phanerozoic, began only around 541 million years ago with the Cambrian explosion – a period of time when life rapidly diversified. […] It is only within this aeon that our atmosphere became one that we can actually breathe....From the point of view of our planet, the changes leading to these mass extinctions are relatively minor. However, for lifeforms at the time, such changes shattered their world and very often led to their complete extinction.

Present-day Earth is our life-support system, and we cannot live without it." (David’s bold)

DAVID: this supports my statement that the Earth had to evolve to allow our appearance. So dhw's 'humans plus food' derisive comment is an incomplete assessment of God's work. The evolution of a giant bush of life evolved the Earth to a point that humans could be supported. I've known this all along. I should have presented this view earlier and there would have been less misunderstood discussion.

Do you honestly think I believe humans could exist under conditions in which humans could not exist? Your “new” theory was that your God designed new life forms to cope with new conditions over which he had no control (e.g. forests turning into deserts). Your new “new” theory includes the fact that life forms change as well as depend on conditions (which of course I accept). But until the Cambrian, even the new life forms failed to come up with conditions that WE could breathe. So you’re still stuck with an all-powerful God who can’t produce the necessary conditions without countless failed experiments. I’m not “derisive” about the obvious facts that (a) humans need food, and (b) humans could not exist unless conditions enabled them to exist. I’m derisive about a theory which has an all-powerful God who depends on chance to provide suitable conditions, and who does not have the power to fulfil his sole purpose without countless mistakes and failed experiments.

Meanwhile you continue to dodge a question of the utmost importance to our discussion:
dhw: why do you think a God who makes countless mistakes, conducts countless failed experiments, makes wrong choices and is responsible for a complete mess before at last he is lucky enough to be offered the right conditions and survivors to fulfil his one and only purpose, is less “human” than a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes at all – as in my three alternative theories?

DAVID: To see my refutation, see today's privileged planet entry. […] The bush of life is much more than food. It also evolved the current Earth we need!!!

The current entry only exacerbates the problems raised by the missing powers of your all-powerful God. Now please answer my question.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 17, 2023, 17:02 (436 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] It is clear an all-powerful God does not mean He has to have, or does have, tight control over every molecule or active system. He can design whatever is required by the circumstances.

dhw: If circumstances dictate what he designs, and in order to fulfil his purpose he has to make lots of mistakes, how can you say he is all-powerful?

We are here aren't we? In His all-powerful state He chose to evolve us, without full control of environments (snowball Earths!!!).

DAVID: Any theistic theory most start with an all-powerful God the Bible presents.

dhw: I'm inclined to agree. That is why my three alternatives present an all-powerful God. Once again: I cannot see how a God who depends on luck and makes countless mistakes and conducts countless failed experiments can be regarded as all-powerful.

So powerful He doesn't need full control of all elements.


DAVID: Mine is in full control of what He feels needs control. He has a clear view of what His goals are, and exactly how to achieve them.

dhw: And so he doesn’t need to control the conditions necessary for the fulfilment of his goal, and he knows exactly how to achieve his goal, which is to keep making mistakes and conducting failed experiment after failed experiment, until at last luck comes his way, conditions are right, and his experiment succeeds. An unusual description of full control and exactitude.

DAVID: Exactly!!! Except God can design for any problem environment. Extremophiles show that.

dhw: Thank you for confirming the above theory. God’s talent for adapting his designs to whatever conditions chance imposes on him does not fit in with an all-powerful God having only one purpose and knowing exactly how to achieve it. However, it does fit in perfectly with the concept of a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along.

That invented 'God' does not fit this debate. Totally humanized, not knowing He can do as He wishes to achieve set goals. Only humans change their minds' goals.


Life transformed early Earth

QUOTES: "Earth’s current aeon, the Phanerozoic, began only around 541 million years ago with the Cambrian explosion – a period of time when life rapidly diversified. […] It is only within this aeon that our atmosphere became one that we can actually breathe....From the point of view of our planet, the changes leading to these mass extinctions are relatively minor. However, for lifeforms at the time, such changes shattered their world and very often led to their complete extinction.

Present-day Earth is our life-support system, and we cannot live without it." (David’s bold)

DAVID: this supports my statement that the Earth had to evolve to allow our appearance. So dhw's 'humans plus food' derisive comment is an incomplete assessment of God's work. The evolution of a giant bush of life evolved the Earth to a point that humans could be supported. I've known this all along. I should have presented this view earlier and there would have been less misunderstood discussion.

dhw: Do you honestly think I believe humans could exist under conditions in which humans could not exist? Your “new” theory was that your God designed new life forms to cope with new conditions over which he had no control (e.g. forests turning into deserts). Your new “new” theory includes the fact that life forms change as well as depend on conditions (which of course I accept). But until the Cambrian, even the new life forms failed to come up with conditions that WE could breathe. So you’re still stuck with an all-powerful God who can’t produce the necessary conditions without countless failed experiments. I’m not “derisive” about the obvious facts that (a) humans need food, and (b) humans could not exist unless conditions enabled them to exist. I’m derisive about a theory which has an all-powerful God who depends on chance to provide suitable conditions, and who does not have the power to fulfil his sole purpose without countless mistakes and failed experiments.

Still the same failure to see God is so powerful, He can achieve a goal without total controls in place.


dhw: Meanwhile you continue to dodge a question of the utmost importance to our discussion:
dhw: why do you think a God who makes countless mistakes, conducts countless failed experiments, makes wrong choices and is responsible for a complete mess before at last he is lucky enough to be offered the right conditions and survivors to fulfil his one and only purpose, is less “human” than a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes at all – as in my three alternative theories?

Not DODGED!!! See above: "Still the same failure to see God is so powerful, He can achieve a goal without total controls in place."


DAVID: To see my refutation, see today's privileged planet entry. […] The bush of life is much more than food. It also evolved the current Earth we need!!!

dhw: The current entry only exacerbates the problems raised by the missing powers of your all-powerful God. Now please answer my question.

Answered above. God chose to evolve us, not worried about lack of total control.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, January 18, 2023, 12:19 (435 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] It is clear an all-powerful God does not mean He has to have, or does have, tight control over every molecule or active system. He can design whatever is required by the circumstances.

dhw: If circumstances dictate what he designs, and in order to fulfil his purpose he has to make lots of mistakes, how can you say he is all-powerful?

DAVID: We are here aren't we? In His all-powerful state He chose to evolve us, without full control of environments (snowball Earths!!!).

How can your God be all-powerful if he depends on chance to provide the correct environment, and keeps making mistakes and conducting experiments that fail? None of my alternative versions deny that we are here, and none of them involve a 99% failure rate. Even my experimentation theory, which you have now adopted, avoids such denigration of his powers.

dhw: […] God’s talent for adapting his designs to whatever conditions chance imposes on him does not fit in with an all-powerful God having only one purpose and knowing exactly how to achieve it. However, it does fit in perfectly with the concept of a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along.

DAVID: That invented 'God' does not fit this debate. Totally humanized, not knowing He can do as He wishes to achieve set goals. Only humans change their minds' goals.

No change of goal here, which is enjoyment of creation and discovery. It fits the history of life as we know it, and as for “totally humanized”, here once again is the question you keep dodging:

dhw: why do you think a God who makes countless mistakes, conducts countless failed experiments, makes wrong choices and is responsible for a complete mess before at last he is lucky enough to be offered the right conditions and survivors to fulfil his one and only purpose, is less “human” than a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes at all – as in my three alternative theories?

DAVID: Not DODGED!!! See above: "Still the same failure to see God is so powerful, He can achieve a goal without total controls in place."

Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

Life transformed early Earth

dhw: I’m not “derisive” about the obvious facts that (a) humans need food, and (b) humans could not exist unless conditions enabled them to exist. I’m derisive about a theory which has an all-powerful God who depends on chance to provide suitable conditions, and who does not have the power to fulfil his sole purpose without countless mistakes and failed experiments.

DAVID: Still the same failure to see God is so powerful, He can achieve a goal without total controls in place.
And:
DAVID: God chose to evolve us, not worried about lack of total control.

What a wonderful temperament your God has: he’s not worried about his inability to provide the right environment for his one and only goal, and he’s not worried about all his mistakes and failed experiments. And David Turell has reassured him that he is all-powerful, but he doesn’t need to be all-powerful, and making mistakes is god-like, whereas not making mistakes is unacceptably human. (NB to forestall one of your stock replies: this is not a criticism of God but of your increasingly “human” and fallible version of God.)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 18, 2023, 16:42 (435 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We are here aren't we? In His all-powerful state He chose to evolve us, without full control of environments (snowball Earths!!!).

dhw: How can your God be all-powerful if he depends on chance to provide the correct environment, and keeps making mistakes and conducting experiments that fail? None of my alternative versions deny that we are here, and none of them involve a 99% failure rate. Even my experimentation theory, which you have now adopted, avoids such denigration of his powers.

dhw: […] God’s talent for adapting his designs to whatever conditions chance imposes on him does not fit in with an all-powerful God having only one purpose and knowing exactly how to achieve it. However, it does fit in perfectly with the concept of a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along.

If God is really a human


DAVID: That invented 'God' does not fit this debate. Totally humanized, not knowing He can do as He wishes to achieve set goals. Only humans change their minds' goals.

dhw: No change of goal here, which is enjoyment of creation and discovery. It fits the history of life as we know it, and as for “totally humanized”, here once again is the question you keep dodging:

dhw: why do you think a God who makes countless mistakes, conducts countless failed experiments, makes wrong choices and is responsible for a complete mess before at last he is lucky enough to be offered the right conditions and survivors to fulfil his one and only purpose, is less “human” than a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes at all – as in my three alternative theories?

DAVID: Not DODGED!!! See above: "Still the same failure to see God is so powerful, He can achieve a goal without total controls in place."

dhw: Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

But that is not what happened, is it? An all-powerful God chose to use evolution with its messiness and 99% failure rate to successfully produce humans.


Life transformed early Earth

dhw: I’m not “derisive” about the obvious facts that (a) humans need food, and (b) humans could not exist unless conditions enabled them to exist. I’m derisive about a theory which has an all-powerful God who depends on chance to provide suitable conditions, and who does not have the power to fulfil his sole purpose without countless mistakes and failed experiments.

DAVID: Still the same failure to see God is so powerful, He can achieve a goal without total controls in place.
And:
DAVID: God chose to evolve us, not worried about lack of total control.

dhw: What a wonderful temperament your God has: he’s not worried about his inability to provide the right environment for his one and only goal, and he’s not worried about all his mistakes and failed experiments. And David Turell has reassured him that he is all-powerful, but he doesn’t need to be all-powerful, and making mistakes is god-like, whereas not making mistakes is unacceptably human. (NB to forestall one of your stock replies: this is not a criticism of God but of your increasingly “human” and fallible version of God.)

The fact that God chose to evolve us, does not make Him as messy as the process itself. 99% failure is expected as lesser forms are discarded.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, January 19, 2023, 12:28 (434 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] God’s talent for adapting his designs to whatever conditions chance imposes on him does not fit in with an all-powerful God having only one purpose and knowing exactly how to achieve it. However, it does fit in perfectly with the concept of a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along.

DAVID: If God is really a human.

How can a God who creates universes be a human? If he exists, there is no reason at all why – as you agreed in the past – he should not have certain thought patterns and emotions and logic in common with the being you believe he created (us). You yourself endow him with human qualities (e.g. kindness, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations) and frailties (making mistakes, conducting failed experiments).

dhw: Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

DAVID: But that is not what happened, is it? An all-powerful God chose to use evolution with its messiness and 99% failure rate to successfully produce humans.

That is your derogatory interpretation of your God’s form of evolution, as opposed to: 1) a God who conducted successful experiments (all his designs lived – some of them for hundreds of millions of years) but still wasn’t entirely satisfied and went on experimenting, or 2) a God who experimented and had new ideas as he went along, before finally hitting on the idea of us humans. In both theories, he did not make mistakes and did not conduct failed experiments, but still produced us. Both theories would also fit in nicely with your belief that he did not control the environment. A free-for-all could also have produced humans, and if I adopt the same attitude as you (but still theistic), I can say: “Look, God’s free-for-all produced humans, so why are you opposing my theory?” This covers the rest of your post, apart from your amazing insight into God’s mind (he’s “not worried about lack of total control”). He has nothing to worry about in any of my alternative theories, since he does and gets exactly what he wants without making any mistakes at all.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 19, 2023, 19:34 (434 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] God’s talent for adapting his designs to whatever conditions chance imposes on him does not fit in with an all-powerful God having only one purpose and knowing exactly how to achieve it. However, it does fit in perfectly with the concept of a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along.

DAVID: If God is really a human.

dhw: How can a God who creates universes be a human? If he exists, there is no reason at all why – as you agreed in the past – he should not have certain thought patterns and emotions and logic in common with the being you believe he created (us). You yourself endow him with human qualities (e.g. kindness, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations) and frailties (making mistakes, conducting failed experiments).

I won't accept that necessary endpoints, which you call, and I agree are failures, are terrible results. 99% of all species have failed in the past. God ran the system successfully. We are here and God is not weak, bumbling, or stupid: He chose the system warts and all and made it achieve His goals. Perhaps it is the only system that would work.


dhw: Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

DAVID: But that is not what happened, is it? An all-powerful God chose to use evolution with its messiness and 99% failure rate to successfully produce humans.

dhw: That is your derogatory interpretation of your God’s form of evolution, as opposed to: 1) a God who conducted successful experiments (all his designs lived – some of them for hundreds of millions of years) but still wasn’t entirely satisfied and went on experimenting, or 2) a God who experimented and had new ideas as he went along, before finally hitting on the idea of us humans. In both theories, he did not make mistakes and did not conduct failed experiments, but still produced us. Both theories would also fit in nicely with your belief that he did not control the environment. A free-for-all could also have produced humans, and if I adopt the same attitude as you (but still theistic), I can say: “Look, God’s free-for-all produced humans, so why are you opposing my theory?” This covers the rest of your post, apart from your amazing insight into God’s mind (he’s “not worried about lack of total control”). He has nothing to worry about in any of my alternative theories, since he does and gets exactly what he wants without making any mistakes at all.

Stil pursuing a humanistic God who experiments with no goal in mind. If we assume God is totally in charge, we have to accept the history of evolution in an honest way. It is not a direct approach. It takes time and 99% of all forms disappear. That God chose this way does not make any lesser of a God. IMHO your twisted theories of God produce a God very few religious folk would accept.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, January 20, 2023, 11:14 (433 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] God’s talent for adapting his designs to whatever conditions chance imposes on him does not fit in with an all-powerful God having only one purpose and knowing exactly how to achieve it. However, it does fit in perfectly with the concept of a God who enjoys creating and has new ideas as he goes along.

DAVID: If God is really a human.

dhw: How can a God who creates universes be a human? If he exists, there is no reason at all why – as you agreed in the past – he should not have certain thought patterns and emotions and logic in common with the being you believe he created (us). You yourself endow him with human qualities (e.g. kindness, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations) and frailties (making mistakes, conducting failed experiments).

DAVID: I won't accept that necessary endpoints, which you call, and I agree are failures, are terrible results. 99% of all species have failed in the past. God ran the system successfully. We are here and God is not weak, bumbling, or stupid: He chose the system warts and all and made it achieve His goals. Perhaps it is the only system that would work.

You attacked my alternative theories on the grounds that they made God human. I have answered that criticism above. Your response changes the subject, and is full of inaccuracies. It is you who call the 99% of experiments failures. I have never mentioned “necessary endpoints”, and I don’t know what you are referring to. Anything necessary is not a failure or mistake. It is you who insist that your God set out to create us and our food, and proceeded to specially design all the life forms, 99% of which had no connection with his goal. That makes him weak and bumbling. In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him. Hence my first comment above and my next question:

dhw: Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

DAVID: Stil pursuing a humanistic God who experiments with no goal in mind. If we assume God is totally in charge, we have to accept the history of evolution in an honest way. It is not a direct approach. It takes time and 99% of all forms disappear. That God chose this way does not make any lesser of a God. IMHO your twisted theories of God produce a God very few religious folk would accept.

And so you continue to dodge the question. In my first theory, his goal is the same as yours – to create a being with thought patterns, emotions etc. like his own (though you refuse to accept any thought patterns if they differ from your rigid preconceptions); in the second he experiments on a journey of discovery – he invents life to see what he can do with it. There are many human equivalents of this process, and it is a goal in itself. A free-for-all is similar – to see what will happen if he invents a mechanism that can do its own designing. In none of these alternatives does your God make mistakes, make a mess, fail, make wrong decisions. IMHO your twisted theory of a bumbling God who makes mistake after mistake is one that “very few religious folk would accept.”

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, January 20, 2023, 16:05 (433 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I won't accept that necessary endpoints, which you call, and I agree are failures, are terrible results. 99% of all species have failed in the past. God ran the system successfully. We are here and God is not weak, bumbling, or stupid: He chose the system warts and all and made it achieve His goals. Perhaps it is the only system that would work.

dhw: You attacked my alternative theories on the grounds that they made God human. I have answered that criticism above. Your response changes the subject, and is full of inaccuracies. It is you who call the 99% of experiments failures. I have never mentioned “necessary endpoints”, and I don’t know what you are referring to. Anything necessary is not a failure or mistake.

You need a clear view of living evolution. It is in a progressive evolution the past gives way to the future. Failure becomes a new success, therefore necessary endpoints.

dhw: It is you who insist that your God set out to create us and our food, and proceeded to specially design all the life forms, 99% of which had no connection with his goal. That makes him weak and bumbling. In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him.

A process with all success is not seen in our evolutionary history. A real God does not get
new ideas like the average human does. Still humanizing God to fit your prejudices.

dhw: Hence my first comment above and my next question:

dhw: Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

Not the history we are discussing. Please come back from la-la land. I view God in charge, ran evolution, and we must analyze the history of that factual event.

DAVID: Stil pursuing a humanistic God who experiments with no goal in mind. If we assume God is totally in charge, we have to accept the history of evolution in an honest way. It is not a direct approach. It takes time and 99% of all forms disappear. That God chose this way does not make any lesser of a God. IMHO your twisted theories of God produce a God very few religious folk would accept.

dhw: And so you continue to dodge the question. In my first theory, his goal is the same as yours – to create a being with thought patterns, emotions etc. like his own (though you refuse to accept any thought patterns if they differ from your rigid preconceptions); in the second he experiments on a journey of discovery – he invents life to see what he can do with it. There are many human equivalents of this process, and it is a goal in itself. A free-for-all is similar – to see what will happen if he invents a mechanism that can do its own designing. In none of these alternatives does your God make mistakes, make a mess, fail, make wrong decisions. IMHO your twisted theory of a bumbling God who makes mistake after mistake is one that “very few religious folk would accept.”

Once again, a totally humanized God. What is dodged? I reject your views of God. My view is simple, God chose to evolve humans and made that messy system work. That the system is messy doesn't reduce God in any way. We are on this subject because you raised it years ago and I decided to revisit it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, January 21, 2023, 08:47 (433 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I won't accept that necessary endpoints, which you call, and I agree are failures, are terrible results. 99% of all species have failed in the past. God ran the system successfully. We are here and God is not weak, bumbling, or stupid: He chose the system warts and all and made it achieve His goals. Perhaps it is the only system that would work.

dhw: It is you who call the 99% of experiments failures. I have never mentioned “necessary endpoints”, and I don’t know what you are referring to. Anything necessary is not a failure or mistake.

DAVID: You need a clear view of living evolution. It is in a progressive evolution the past gives way to the future. Failure becomes a new success, therefore necessary endpoints.

I don’t suppose many of us would disagree that the past becomes the future. However, failures are the dead ends which do not become a success. In your theory, 99% of your God’s designs had nothing to do with his one and only purpose. Only the 1% evolved into us and our food. The rest are only “failures” because you insist that his one and only intention from the very beginning was to design us and our food! But even then, as in my first experimentation theory (see below), they and he do not need to be classified in this derogatory manner.

dhw: […]In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him.

DAVID: A process with all success is not seen in our evolutionary history. A real God does not get new ideas like the average human does. Still humanizing God to fit your prejudices.

You keep trotting out the same mantras. Our evolutionary history shows vast numbers of organisms that have come and gone and did not lead to us or our food. Your theory is that 99% of these were failed experiments by your God. You refuse to accept that “failure” denotes human-like incompetence. One of my alternatives is that your God had new ideas as he went along. That would explain the comings and goings without calling them failures. Hence the next question which you constantly refuse to answer

dhw: Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

DAVID: Not the history we are discussing. Please come back from la-la land. I view God in charge, ran evolution, and we must analyze the history of that factual event.

The above theory has God in charge and running evolution, and it explains the history of the 99% of designs which did not lead to us and our food without calling them “mistakes” or “failures”. So why is it more godlike to make mistakes and to design failures than to have new ideas, none of which are failures?

DAVID: A real God does not get new ideas like the average human does. Still humanizing God to fit your prejudices.

So a real God just makes mistakes and conducts failed experiments as he struggles to fulfil his one and only purpose.

dhw (after repeating three alternative theories): In none of these alternatives does your God make mistakes, make a mess, fail, make wrong decisions. IMHO your twisted theory of a bumbling God who makes mistake after mistake is one that “very few religious folk would accept.”

DAVID: Once again, a totally humanized God.

How can these versions be more human than a God who needs to make 99 mistakes for every 1 success? And who depends on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs to achieve his aim?

DAVID: What is dodged?

The above questions.

DAVID: I reject your views of God. My view is simple, God chose to evolve humans and made that messy system work. That the system is messy doesn't reduce God in any way. We are on this subject because you raised it years ago and I decided to revisit it.

This subject is your theory of evolution, which I have been questioning for years. Originally, you claimed that all your God’s designs were “absolute requirements” for us and our food. Eventually you agreed that 99% were not, and so your new theory is that they were mistakes. He was responsible for what you now call the “mess”. This has nothing to do with my alternative explanations of evolution. You are trying to defend your new theory, which makes your God a weak bumbler (the description you apply to my alternatives, in all of which he is in charge and gets what he wants without any mistakes or failures). And to add insult to injury, you stick to your own derogatory and illogical theory (an all-powerful blundering God who depends on luck), and then accuse me of prejudice when I offer different logical alternatives. :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 21, 2023, 17:07 (432 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You need a clear view of living evolution. It is in a progressive evolution the past gives way to the future. Failure becomes a new success, therefore necessary endpoints.

dhw: I don’t suppose many of us would disagree that the past becomes the future. However, failures are the dead ends which do not become a success. In your theory, 99% of your God’s designs had nothing to do with his one and only purpose. Only the 1% evolved into us and our food. The rest are only “failures” because you insist that his one and only intention from the very beginning was to design us and our food! But even then, as in my first experimentation theory (see below), they and he do not need to be classified in this derogatory manner.

I have purposely taken this view, because you raised it initially when you noted direct creation made more sense to you. Evolution is a messy way to do it. God chose to use it to eventually produce H. sapiens. The use of a messy system does not make God messy.


dhw: […]In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him.

DAVID: A process with all success is not seen in our evolutionary history. A real God does not get new ideas like the average human does. Still humanizing God to fit your prejudices.

dhw: You keep trotting out the same mantras. Our evolutionary history shows vast numbers of organisms that have come and gone and did not lead to us or our food. Your theory is that 99% of these were failed experiments by your God. You refuse to accept that “failure” denotes human-like incompetence. One of my alternatives is that your God had new ideas as he went along. That would explain the comings and goings without calling them failures. Hence the next question which you constantly refuse to answer

dhw: Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

Your supposed evolution doesn't exist. True evolution has a 99% failure rate. I am confused as to why you split that out of your considerations and try to hide them. As for humanizing, my God created life, and designed complex forms like our brain and didn't require total control of all elements, because of the power of His design capabilities. He was fully goal-oriented from the moment He created the BB. Your human-like God loves free-for-alls for entertainment while losing control of the direction of evolution, or experiments because He doesn't know what to do next. Question is answered!!!

dhw (after repeating three alternative theories): In none of these alternatives does your God make mistakes, make a mess, fail, make wrong decisions. IMHO your twisted theory of a bumbling God who makes mistake after mistake is one that “very few religious folk would accept.”

DAVID: Once again, a totally humanized God.

dhw: How can these versions be more human than a God who needs to make 99 mistakes for every 1 success? And who depends on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs to achieve his aim?

Luck is your version of a God who is not in control of climate. My God is such a masterful designer, He can handle any possibilities.


DAVID: What is dodged?

The above questions.

DAVID: I reject your views of God. My view is simple, God chose to evolve humans and made that messy system work. That the system is messy doesn't reduce God in any way. We are on this subject because you raised it years ago and I decided to revisit it.

dhw: This subject is your theory of evolution, which I have been questioning for years. Originally, you claimed that all your God’s designs were “absolute requirements” for us and our food. Eventually you agreed that 99% were not, and so your new theory is that they were mistakes. He was responsible for what you now call the “mess”. This has nothing to do with my alternative explanations of evolution. You are trying to defend your new theory, which makes your God a weak bumbler (the description you apply to my alternatives, in all of which he is in charge and gets what he wants without any mistakes or failures). And to add insult to injury, you stick to your own derogatory and illogical theory (an all-powerful blundering God who depends on luck), and then accuse me of prejudice when I offer different logical alternatives. :-(

Is evolution a messy system to achieve a purpose? YES. Were we evolved? YES. In this discussion is God in charge? YES. Conclusion: an all-powerful God chose to use this system. We don't know His reasons, but probably it is the best system available, in His judgement.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, January 22, 2023, 12:31 (431 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In your theory, 99% of your God’s designs had nothing to do with his one and only purpose. Only the 1% evolved into us and our food. The rest are only “failures” because you insist that his one and only intention from the very beginning was to design us and our food! But even then, as in my first experimentation theory (see below), they and he do not need to be classified in this derogatory manner.

DAVID: I have purposely taken this view, because you raised it initially when you noted direct creation made more sense to you. Evolution is a messy way to do it. God chose to use it to eventually produce H. sapiens. The use of a messy system does not make God messy.

You have purposely taken the view that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he chose to design every life form, 99% of which were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. I agree with you that such a method is “messy”, and I would say it creates an image of an incompetent, weak and bumbling God.

dhw: [...]In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him. […] Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

DAVID: Your supposed evolution doesn't exist. True evolution has a 99% failure rate.

My “supposed” evolution is the same as yours: 99% of life forms had no connection with us and our food. But it is YOUR theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore the 99% were “mistakes” and “failures”. I offer alternative interpretations of the SAME history that show God in a different light – no mistakes, no failures.

DAVID: I am confused as to why you split that out of your considerations and try to hide them.

I have hidden nothing. I have interpreted what you call “mistakes” as purposeful, ongoing and successful experiments of three different kinds (two repeated above, and the other a free-for-all – though he can intervene if he wishes to).

DAVID: As for humanizing, my God created life, and designed complex forms like our brain and didn't require total control of all elements, because of the power of His design capabilities. He was fully goal-oriented from the moment He created the BB.

This defence of your theory conveniently leaves out your all-important belief that although he designed all the complex forms, and his only goal was to design us and our food, his method of achieving his goal resulted in a 99% failure rate. How can this possibly justify your view of him as being all-powerful and in tight control? Failure = incompetence.

DAVID: Your human-like God loves free-for-alls for entertainment while losing control of the direction of evolution, or experiments because He doesn't know what to do next. Question is answered!!!

You like to couch my theistic alternatives in terms as negative as you can find. “Entertainment” is one of them. I prefer your other terminology, e.g. when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. And if he exists, I would regard his experiments or his free-for-all as a continuous and admirable mode of discovery, with success after success. (Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for about 160 million years - not bad for a bunch of “failures” – apart from the birds!) And so I ask: why are mistakes and failures more godlike than enjoyment of creating – whether directly or indirectly – the history of life as we know it, without any mess, mistakes or failures?

DAVID: Is evolution a messy system to achieve a purpose? YES.

No. It is only messy if you insist that your God, if he exists, started out with the single purpose of creating us and our food, and did so by designing 99% of mistakes and failures.

DAVID: Were we evolved? YES.

Yes. And so were the 99% of what your regard as failures and mistakes, because you insist that your God designed them all individually for the sole purpose of designing us and our food.

DAVID: In this discussion is God in charge? YES.

Yes, in all three of my theistic theories, he does what he wants to do. In your theory, no, he depends on conditions outside his control, which force him to design life forms that have nothing to do with his purpose.

DAVID: Conclusion: an all-powerful God chose to use this system. We don't know His reasons, but probably it is the best system available, in His judgement.

You are saying that an all-powerful God chose to invent a system part of which he could not control, and which led him to design 99% of life forms that were mistakes and failures. And this is more godlike than a God who does exactly what he wants to do.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 22, 2023, 16:20 (431 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have purposely taken the view that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he chose to design every life form, 99% of which were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. I agree with you that such a method is “messy”, and I would say it creates an image of an incompetent, weak and bumbling God.

God chose a difficult system and made it work. If He simply had us and our ecosystems appear in a flash, you would accept that as better? I am trying to interpret the history we have to work with. I'm honestly describing the problems with living evolution as a creative process, and you get all bent out of shape, because you think it makes God look stupid. God successfully used a tough to handle system and made it work. I'd say God is brilliant used that way.


dhw: [...]In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him. […] Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?

DAVID: Your supposed evolution doesn't exist. True evolution has a 99% failure rate.

dhw: My “supposed” evolution is the same as yours: 99% of life forms had no connection with us and our food. But it is YOUR theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore the 99% were “mistakes” and “failures”. I offer alternative interpretations of the SAME history that show God in a different light – no mistakes, no failures.

So the dead ends simply were not dead ends?


DAVID: I am confused as to why you split that out of your considerations and try to hide them.

dhw: I have hidden nothing. I have interpreted what you call “mistakes” as purposeful, ongoing and successful experiments of three different kinds (two repeated above, and the other a free-for-all – though he can intervene if he wishes to).

Purposeful free-for-alls??? Who keeps a purposeful direction in the process? Having new ideas as He goes along is a great description of bumbling!


DAVID: As for humanizing, my God created life, and designed complex forms like our brain and didn't require total control of all elements, because of the power of His design capabilities. He was fully goal-oriented from the moment He created the BB.

dhw: This defence of your theory conveniently leaves out your all-important belief that although he designed all the complex forms, and his only goal was to design us and our food, his method of achieving his goal resulted in a 99% failure rate. How can this possibly justify your view of him as being all-powerful and in tight control? Failure = incompetence.

God successfully created us and our necessary ecosystems using a messy system and not in full control of environment.


DAVID: Your human-like God loves free-for-alls for entertainment while losing control of the direction of evolution, or experiments because He doesn't know what to do next. Question is answered!!!

dhw: You like to couch my theistic alternatives in terms as negative as you can find. “Entertainment” is one of them. I prefer your other terminology, e.g. when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. And if he exists, I would regard his experiments or his free-for-all as a continuous and admirable mode of discovery, with success after success. (Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for about 160 million years - not bad for a bunch of “failures” – apart from the birds!) And so I ask: why are mistakes and failures more godlike than enjoyment of creating – whether directly or indirectly – the history of life as we know it, without any mess, mistakes or failures?

You are still blind to the real history of evolution with a 99% failure rate.


DAVID: Were we evolved? YES.

dhw: Yes. And so were the 99% of what your regard as failures and mistakes, because you insist that your God designed them all individually for the sole purpose of designing us and our food.

In so doing God created a huge bush of life a our food supply.


DAVID: In this discussion is God in charge? YES.

dhw: Yes, in all three of my theistic theories, he does what he wants to do. In your theory, no, he depends on conditions outside his control, which force him to design life forms that have nothing to do with his purpose.

Again, forgetting humans need food, a definite purpose.


DAVID: Conclusion: an all-powerful God chose to use this system. We don't know His reasons, but probably it is the best system available, in His judgement.

dhw: You are saying that an all-powerful God chose to invent a system part of which he could not control, and which led him to design 99% of life forms that were mistakes and failures. And this is more godlike than a God who does exactly what he wants to do.

God did exactly what He wanted to do, using the method He wanted to use, all decided before He made the universe.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, January 23, 2023, 12:29 (430 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God chose a difficult system and made it work. If He simply had us and our ecosystems appear in a flash, you would accept that as better? I am trying to interpret the history we have to work with. I'm honestly describing the problems with living evolution as a creative process, and you get all bent out of shape, because you think it makes God look stupid. God successfully used a tough to handle system and made it work. I'd say God is brilliant used that way.

According to you, your God as first cause CREATED (why “chose”?) a system which forced him into 99% mistakes and failures before achieving his one and only goal (us and our food). And that apparently is “brilliant”. Your interpretation of the history we both have to work with is an insult to a God who, in the same breath, you tell us is all-powerful.

dhw: [...]In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him. […] Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments? […]

DAVID: […] So the dead ends simply were not dead ends?
And:
DAVID: God successfully created us and our necessary ecosystems using a messy system and not in full control of environment.

Once again you dodge my question. But I will answer yours. It depends which of my theories you are talking about. If his purpose was to create a being like himself, the 99% were dead ends, but they were successes in themselves. God’s attitude would have been: “Yep, I love them thar brontosauruses, but I reckon I can do even better…” New ideas have no dead ends, just an onward flow of inspiration, and they need not be inhibited by a rigidly fixed ending (see below on the creative process). In a free-for-all, there are no dead ends either, because there is no fixed purpose other than the joy of discovery: what amazing things his invention can come up with. Now please answer my bolded question!

DAVID: Purposeful free-for-alls??? Who keeps a purposeful direction in the process? Having new ideas as He goes along is a great description of bumbling!

See above re free-for-alls. Re new ideas, you have no understanding of the creative process. Many artists, composers, writers begin simply with one idea and it is part of the fascinating process to see what this will lead to. (I speak from experience.) Even in your own theory, you have your eternal God suddenly creating this universe and life. Wasn’t that in itself a new idea? You have him then making mistake after mistake. Was every mistake and failure meticulously planned, even though according to you he even had to adjust his creativity to conditions over which he had no control? Now please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: Were we evolved? YES.

dhw: Yes. And so were the 99% of what your regard as failures and mistakes, because you insist that your God designed them all individually for the sole purpose of designing us and our food.

DAVID: In so doing God created a huge bush of life a our food supply.

But 99% of the “bushes” he created had no connection with our food supply, and you call them mistakes/failed experiments.

DAVID: In this discussion is God in charge? YES.

dhw: Yes, in all three of my theistic theories, he does what he wants to do. In your theory, no, he depends on conditions outside his control, which force him to design life forms that have nothing to do with his purpose.

DAVID: Again, forgetting humans need food, a definite purpose.

Again trying to dodge the fact that 99% of his bushes were mistakes.

DAVID: Conclusion: an all-powerful God chose to use this system. We don't know His reasons, but probably it is the best system available, in His judgement.

dhw: You are saying that an all-powerful God chose to invent a system part of which he could not control, and which led him to design 99% of life forms that were mistakes and failures. And this is more godlike than a God who does exactly what he wants to do.

DAVID: God did exactly what He wanted to do, using the method He wanted to use, all decided before He made the universe.

GOD: “I only wanna create David Turell and his breakfast, so I’m gonna deliberately create millions of useless critters that ain’t got nothin’ to do with him an’ his breakfast, so he can tell the world that all my mistakes an’ failed experiments prove how clever I was ter create him an’ his breakfast.”

(Apologies if that makes him sound like the bumbling fool you take him for.)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 23, 2023, 16:40 (430 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, January 23, 2023, 16:49

dhw: According to you, your God as first cause CREATED (why “chose”?) a system which forced him into 99% mistakes and failures before achieving his one and only goal (us and our food). And that apparently is “brilliant”. Your interpretation of the history we both have to work with is an insult to a God who, in the same breath, you tell us is all-powerful.

I'll accept God 'created' evolution as His system to eventually produce humans. It is a system with dead ends. It is also the true history we have. Considering God as all-powerful, He had reasons we do not understand. Best way, only way? Doesn't matter. God's powers of design solved all problems for survival. Opposite view to yours


dhw: [...]In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him. […] Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments?[/[/color]b][/color] […]

The red bold makes no sense because it skips over the true history of evolution. My non-human God is exactly opposite your human God who suddenly changes course with 'new ideas'. Please discuss a God who fits history.


DAVID: […] So the dead ends simply were not dead ends?
And:
DAVID: God successfully created us and our necessary ecosystems using a messy system and not in full control of environment.

dhw: Once again you dodge my question. But I will answer yours. It depends which of my theories you are talking about. If his purpose was to create a being like himself, the 99% were dead ends, but they were successes in themselves. God’s attitude would have been: “Yep, I love them thar brontosauruses, but I reckon I can do even better…” New ideas have no dead ends, just an onward flow of inspiration, and they need not be inhibited by a rigidly fixed ending (see below on the creative process). In a free-for-all, there are no dead ends either, because there is no fixed purpose other than the joy of discovery: what amazing things his invention can come up with. Now please answer my bolded question!

Answered above. Now we have your non-purposeful God, just drifting along having fun with no purpose, just creating whatever idea comes along!!!! What God of what religion is that?


DAVID: Purposeful free-for-alls??? Who keeps a purposeful direction in the process? Having new ideas as He goes along is a great description of bumbling!

See above re free-for-alls. Re new ideas, you have no understanding of the creative process. Many artists, composers, writers begin simply with one idea and it is part of the fascinating process to see what this will lead to. (I speak from experience.) Even in your own theory, you have your eternal God suddenly creating this universe and life. Wasn’t that in itself a new idea? You have him then making mistake after mistake. Was every mistake and failure meticulously planned, even though according to you he even had to adjust his creativity to conditions over which he had no control? Now please answer my bolded question.

Answered above. Before the BB God was planning on humans. You don't understand my concept of God.


DAVID: In so doing God created a huge bush of life a our food supply.

dhw: But 99% of the “bushes” he created had no connection with our food supply, and you call them mistakes/failed experiments.

In evolution the past 99% becomes the present food supply.


DAVID: Conclusion: an all-powerful God chose to use this system. We don't know His reasons, but probably it is the best system available, in His judgement.

dhw: You are saying that an all-powerful God chose to invent a system part of which he could not control, and which led him to design 99% of life forms that were mistakes and failures. And this is more godlike than a God who does exactly what he wants to do.

DAVID: God did exactly what He wanted to do, using the method He wanted to use, all decided before He made the universe.

dhw: GOD: “I only wanna create David Turell and his breakfast, so I’m gonna deliberately create millions of useless critters that ain’t got nothin’ to do with him an’ his breakfast, so he can tell the world that all my mistakes an’ failed experiments prove how clever I was ter create him an’ his breakfast.”

(Apologies if that makes him sound like the bumbling fool you take him for.)

Ignored. The past 99% plus the survivors resulted in me and my food. Evolution is a continuous invented process of increasing complexity. Without the 99%, I would still be an amoeba

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 23, 2023, 16:51 (430 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Monday, January 23, 2023, 17:33

dhw: According to you, your God as first cause CREATED (why “chose”?) a system which forced him into 99% mistakes and failures before achieving his one and only goal (us and our food). And that apparently is “brilliant”. Your interpretation of the history we both have to work with is an insult to a God who, in the same breath, you tell us is all-powerful.

I'll accept God 'created' evolution as His system to eventually produce humans. It is a system with dead ends. It is also the true history we have. Considering God as all-powerful, He had reasons we do not understand. Best way, only way? Doesn't matter. God's powers of design solved all problems for survival. Opposite view to yours


dhw: [...]In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him. […] Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments? […][/color]


The red bold makes no sense because it skips over the true history of evolution. My non-human God is exactly opposite your human God who suddenly changes course with 'new ideas'. Please discuss a God who fits history.


DAVID: […] So the dead ends simply were not dead ends?
And:
DAVID: God successfully created us and our necessary ecosystems using a messy system and not in full control of environment.

dhw: Once again you dodge my question. But I will answer yours. It depends which of my theories you are talking about. If his purpose was to create a being like himself, the 99% were dead ends, but they were successes in themselves. God’s attitude would have been: “Yep, I love them thar brontosauruses, but I reckon I can do even better…” New ideas have no dead ends, just an onward flow of inspiration, and they need not be inhibited by a rigidly fixed ending (see below on the creative process). In a free-for-all, there are no dead ends either, because there is no fixed purpose other than the joy of discovery: what amazing things his invention can come up with. Now please answer my bolded question!

Answered above. Now we have your non-purposeful God, just drifting along having fun with no purpose, just creating whatever idea comes along!!!! What God of what religion is that?


DAVID: Purposeful free-for-alls??? Who keeps a purposeful direction in the process? Having new ideas as He goes along is a great description of bumbling!

See above re free-for-alls. Re new ideas, you have no understanding of the creative process. Many artists, composers, writers begin simply with one idea and it is part of the fascinating process to see what this will lead to. (I speak from experience.) Even in your own theory, you have your eternal God suddenly creating this universe and life. Wasn’t that in itself a new idea? You have him then making mistake after mistake. Was every mistake and failure meticulously planned, even though according to you he even had to adjust his creativity to conditions over which he had no control? Now please answer my bolded question.

Answered above. Before the BB God was planning on humans. You don't understand my concept of God.


DAVID: In so doing God created a huge bush of life a our food supply.

dhw: But 99% of the “bushes” he created had no connection with our food supply, and you call them mistakes/failed experiments.


In evolution the past 99% becomes the present food supply.


DAVID: Conclusion: an all-powerful God chose to use this system. We don't know His reasons, but probably it is the best system available, in His judgement.

dhw: You are saying that an all-powerful God chose to invent a system part of which he could not control, and which led him to design 99% of life forms that were mistakes and failures. And this is more godlike than a God who does exactly what he wants to do.

DAVID: God did exactly what He wanted to do, using the method He wanted to use, all decided before He made the universe.

dhw: GOD: “I only wanna create David Turell and his breakfast, so I’m gonna deliberately create millions of useless critters that ain’t got nothin’ to do with him an’ his breakfast, so he can tell the world that all my mistakes an’ failed experiments prove how clever I was ter create him an’ his breakfast.”

(Apologies if that makes him sound like the bumbling fool you take him for.)


Ignored. The past 99% plus the survivors resulted in me and my food. Evolution is a continuous invented process of increasing complexity. Without the 99%, I would still be an amoeba

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, January 24, 2023, 08:09 (430 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'll accept God 'created' evolution as His system to eventually produce humans. It is a system with dead ends. It is also the true history we have. Considering God as all-powerful, He had reasons we do not understand. Best way, only way? Doesn't matter. God's powers of design solved all problems for survival. Opposite view to yours.

Please stop waffling away from your theory. The “true history” is that we and our food are here after vast numbers of life forms have come and gone. Your theory is that your all-powerful God designed them all, in accordance with conditions he did not control, solely in order to create us and our food, but 99% were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. This interpretation of evolution is not based on God’s reasons which we do not understand, but on parts of your theory which are illogical and indefensible unless your aim is to prove your designer God’s bumbling incompetence.

dhw: [...]In two of my alternatives, a) his experiments are successful and he continues to develop them in his quest to create a being like himself (plus food), or (b) he gets new ideas as he goes along. No failures, no bumbling. You dismiss them because you say they humanise him. […] Why is it less “human” to achieve a goal despite lack of control of conditions, and despite countless mess-ups, mistakes and failed experiments, than it is to achieve a goal without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments […]

DAVID: The red bold makes no sense because it skips over the true history of evolution. My non-human God is exactly opposite your human God who suddenly changes course with 'new ideas'. Please discuss a God who fits history.

Experiments that improve the original invention are not failures, and new ideas can grow out of preceding ideas, e.g. legs can be transformed into flippers or arms – precisely as happens in evolution. That is not “failure”. If your version of your God’s evolution was not restricted to a single purpose and “course” (us and our food), then his experiments would not have to be classed as failures!

DAVID: Now we have your non-purposeful God, just drifting along having fun with no purpose, just creating whatever idea comes along!!!! What God of what religion is that?

Theory 1 = experimenting with the purpose of creating a being like himself (plus food). Theory 2 has the purpose of “enjoyment” of creating and “interest” (two human patterns of thought you have suggested yourself) in finding out the potential of a remarkable invention. Theory 3 is the same, but the purpose (and interest) lies in finding out what the remarkable invention can achieve by itself. What religion depicts God as an experimenter with a 99% failure rate, who depends on luck to fulfil his only purpose?

DAVID: Having new ideas as He goes along is a great description of bumbling!

dhw: you have no understanding of the creative process. Many artists, composers, writers begin simply with one idea and it is part of the fascinating process to see what this will lead to. (I speak from experience.) Even in your own theory, you have your eternal God suddenly creating this universe and life. Wasn’t that in itself a new idea?[…] Now please answer my bolded question.

DAVID: Answered above. Before the BB God was planning on humans. You don't understand my concept of God.

No, I don’t. Are you now telling me that planning humans was all he had been thinking about for the whole of eternity before the BB? So what made him suddenly think of the BB? Was that the new idea? This whole argument is becoming farcical. A God who has new ideas is apparently a human bungler, but a God whose work has a 99% failure rate is divinely all-powerful.

DAVID: In so doing God created a huge bush of life a our food supply.

dhw: But 99% of the “bushes” he created had no connection with our food supply, and you call them mistakes/failed experiments.

DAVID: In evolution the past 99% becomes the present food supply.

The past 99% were the dead ends that did NOT lead to us and our food supply. This is the most egregious of all your U-turns! You have argued all along that “true evolution has a 99% failure rate”!

DAVID: God did exactly what He wanted to do, using the method He wanted to use, all decided before He made the universe.

dhw: GOD: “I only wanna create David Turell and his breakfast, so I’m gonna deliberately create millions of useless critters that ain’t got nothin’ to do with him an’ his breakfast, so he can tell the world that all my mistakes an’ failed experiments prove how clever I was ter create him an’ his breakfast.

DAVID: Ignored. The past 99% plus the survivors resulted in me and my food. Evolution is a continuous invented process of increasing complexity. Without the 99%, I would still be an amoeba.

You have turned your "99% failure rate" into a 99% success rate. It’s without the 1% that you would still be an amoeba with nothing but bacteria and nematodes for your breakfast.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 24, 2023, 16:57 (429 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'll accept God 'created' evolution as His system to eventually produce humans. It is a system with dead ends. It is also the true history we have. Considering God as all-powerful, He had reasons we do not understand. Best way, only way? Doesn't matter. God's powers of design solved all problems for survival. Opposite view to yours.

dhw: Please stop waffling away from your theory. The “true history” is that we and our food are here after vast numbers of life forms have come and gone. Your theory is that your all-powerful God designed them all, in accordance with conditions he did not control, solely in order to create us and our food, but 99% were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. This interpretation of evolution is not based on God’s reasons which we do not understand, but on parts of your theory which are illogical and indefensible unless your aim is to prove your designer God’s bumbling incompetence.

My comment above stands. Evolution is a system that produces failures to survive at a 99% rate. Yet the result is success. We are here to argue about it. It is not incompetent to use a system that by definition requires a high failure rate and succeed with it.


dhw: Experiments that improve the original invention are not failures, and new ideas can grow out of preceding ideas, e.g. legs can be transformed into flippers or arms – precisely as happens in evolution. That is not “failure”. If your version of your God’s evolution was not restricted to a single purpose and “course” (us and our food), then his experiments would not have to be classed as failures!

The bold makes no sense. Putting aside your discussion of appendages, since the discussion is survival and failure not adaptations, evolution requires failure to survive so more complex, more competent to survive forms appear.


DAVID: Now we have your non-purposeful God, just drifting along having fun with no purpose, just creating whatever idea comes along!!!! What God of what religion is that?

dhw: Theory 1 = experimenting with the purpose of creating a being like himself (plus food). Theory 2 has the purpose of “enjoyment” of creating and “interest” (two human patterns of thought you have suggested yourself) in finding out the potential of a remarkable invention. Theory 3 is the same, but the purpose (and interest) lies in finding out what the remarkable invention can achieve by itself. What religion depicts God as an experimenter with a 99% failure rate, who depends on luck to fulfil his only purpose?

The religion David uses is his own creation.


DAVID: Before the BB God was planning on humans. You don't understand my concept of God.

dhw: No, I don’t. Are you now telling me that planning humans was all he had been thinking about for the whole of eternity before the BB? So what made him suddenly think of the BB? Was that the new idea? This whole argument is becoming farcical. A God who has new ideas is apparently a human bungler, but a God whose work has a 99% failure rate is divinely all-powerful.

God does not need new ideas!!! We have discussed multiple BB's in the past.


DAVID: God did exactly what He wanted to do, using the method He wanted to use, all decided before He made the universe.

dhw: GOD: “I only wanna create David Turell and his breakfast, so I’m gonna deliberately create millions of useless critters that ain’t got nothin’ to do with him an’ his breakfast, so he can tell the world that all my mistakes an’ failed experiments prove how clever I was ter create him an’ his breakfast.

DAVID: Ignored. The past 99% plus the survivors resulted in me and my food. Evolution is a continuous invented process of increasing complexity. Without the 99%, I would still be an amoeba.

dhw: You have turned your "99% failure rate" into a 99% success rate. It’s without the 1% that you would still be an amoeba with nothing but bacteria and nematodes for your breakfast.

Exactly. We are a result of the 1%.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 12:21 (428 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I'll accept God 'created' evolution as His system to eventually produce humans. It is a system with dead ends. It is also the true history we have. Considering God as all-powerful, He had reasons we do not understand. […]

dhw: Please stop waffling away from your theory. The “true history” is that we and our food are here after vast numbers of life forms have come and gone. Your theory is that your all-powerful God designed them all, in accordance with conditions he did not control, solely in order to create us and our food, but 99% were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. This interpretation of evolution is not based on God’s reasons which we do not understand, but on parts of your theory which are illogical and indefensible unless your aim is to prove your designer God’s bumbling incompetence.

DAVID: My comment above stands. Evolution is a system that produces failures to survive at a 99% rate. Yet the result is success. We are here to argue about it. It is not incompetent to use a system that by definition requires a high failure rate and succeed with it.

Where did you find a definition of evolution that says 99% of its products must be failures? Stop making things up! According to you, your all-powerful God invented a system which forced him into 99% mistakes and failed experiments before coming up with the only thing he wanted to create (us plus our food). And you don’t know his reasons for inventing such a system. But in your view, your all-powerful God could not possibly have invented this same system because he actually wanted to design or provide a mechanism to design all the life forms that you call “mistakes”.

dhw: Experiments that improve the original invention are not failures, and new ideas can grow out of preceding ideas, e.g. legs can be transformed into flippers or arms – precisely as happens in evolution. That is not “failure”. If your version of your God’s evolution was not restricted to a single purpose and “course” (us and our food), then his experiments would not have to be classed as failures!

DAVID: The bold makes no sense. Putting aside your discussion of appendages, since the discussion is survival and failure not adaptations, evolution requires failure to survive so more complex, more competent to survive forms appear.

The “appendages” are examples of new ideas, which you pooh-pooh. If your all-powerful, first-cause God exists, it is he, not evolution that decides he needs to make mistakes – or rather it is you who decide that he decides he needs to make mistakes. And understandably, you cannot think of a single reason why he should take the daft decision you insist he took.

DAVID (re my alternative theories without "mistakes":) What God of what religion is that?

dhw: What religion depicts God as an experimenter with a 99% failure rate, who depends on luck to fulfil his only purpose?

DAVID: The religion David uses is his own creation.

So what was the point of your question to me? Religion is clearly irrelevant.

DAVID: Before the BB God was planning on humans. You don't understand my concept of God.

dhw: No, I don’t. Are you now telling me that planning humans was all he had been thinking about for the whole of eternity before the BB? So what made him suddenly think of the BB? Was that the new idea? This whole argument is becoming farcical. A God who has new ideas is apparently a human bungler, but a God whose work has a 99% failure rate is divinely all-powerful.

DAVID: God does not need new ideas!!! We have discussed multiple BB's in the past.

Why do you say “need”? No matter how many BBs or life forms he may have designed, are you saying he had every single one planned throughout the past eternity of his existence (if he exists)? Why are you so afraid of the idea that your God might enjoy thinking up new things, and this enjoyment might be one of the thought patterns and emotions he has handed down to us?

DAVID: God did exactly what He wanted to do, using the method He wanted to use, all decided before He made the universe.

dhw: GOD: “I only wanna create David Turell and his breakfast, so I’m gonna deliberately create millions of useless critters that ain’t got nothin’ to do with him an’ his breakfast, so he can tell the world that all my mistakes an’ failed experiments prove how clever I was ter create him an’ his breakfast.

DAVID: Ignored. The past 99% plus the survivors resulted in me and my food. Evolution is a continuous invented process of increasing complexity. Without the 99%, I would still be an amoeba.

dhw: You have turned your "99% failure rate" into a 99% success rate. It’s without the 1% that you would still be an amoeba with nothing but bacteria and nematodes for your breakfast.

DAVID: Exactly. We are a result of the 1%.

So why did you say the 99% plus the survivors resulted in you and your food? Ah well, at least you are now back with your bumbler, who forces himself to make mistake after mistake, though you have no idea why.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 25, 2023, 19:06 (428 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My comment above stands. Evolution is a system that produces failures to survive at a 99% rate. Yet the result is success. We are here to argue about it. It is not incompetent to use a system that by definition requires a high failure rate and succeed with it.

dhw: Where did you find a definition of evolution that says 99% of its products must be failures? Stop making things up!

From the only evolution example we have, Raup's comment in his book: page 4, "99.9% failure rate". Make up? Never!

dhw: According to you, your all-powerful God invented a system which forced him into 99% mistakes and failed experiments before coming up with the only thing he wanted to create (us plus our food). And you don’t know his reasons for inventing such a system. But in your view, your all-powerful God could not possibly have invented this same system because he actually wanted to design or provide a mechanism to design all the life forms that you call “mistakes”.

dhw: Experiments that improve the original invention are not failures, and new ideas can grow out of preceding ideas, e.g. legs can be transformed into flippers or arms – precisely as happens in evolution. That is not “failure”. If your version of your God’s evolution was not restricted to a single purpose and “course” (us and our food), then his experiments would not have to be classed as failures!

DAVID: The bold makes no sense. Putting aside your discussion of appendages, since the discussion is survival and failure not adaptations, evolution requires failure to survive so more complex, more competent to survive forms appear.

dhw: The “appendages” are examples of new ideas, which you pooh-pooh. If your all-powerful, first-cause God exists, it is he, not evolution that decides he needs to make mistakes – or rather it is you who decide that he decides he needs to make mistakes. And understandably, you cannot think of a single reason why he should take the daft decision you insist he took.

'Daft' is your tiny human brain at work. Assuming God in change, evolution is what He created. Live with it.


DAVID (re my alternative theories without "mistakes":) What God of what religion is that?

dhw: What religion depicts God as an experimenter with a 99% failure rate, who depends on luck to fulfil his only purpose?

DAVID: The religion David uses is his own creation.

dhw: So what was the point of your question to me? Religion is clearly irrelevant.

DAVID: Before the BB God was planning on humans. You don't understand my concept of God.

dhw: No, I don’t. Are you now telling me that planning humans was all he had been thinking about for the whole of eternity before the BB? So what made him suddenly think of the BB? Was that the new idea? This whole argument is becoming farcical. A God who has new ideas is apparently a human bungler, but a God whose work has a 99% failure rate is divinely all-powerful.

DAVID: God does not need new ideas!!! We have discussed multiple BB's in the past.

dhw: Why do you say “need”? No matter how many BBs or life forms he may have designed, are you saying he had every single one planned throughout the past eternity of his existence (if he exists)?

Yes!!!

dhw: Why are you so afraid of the idea that your God might enjoy thinking up new things, and this enjoyment might be one of the thought patterns and emotions he has handed down to us?

He handed our emotions down to us. He does not necessarily have them in our form.


DAVID: God did exactly what He wanted to do, using the method He wanted to use, all decided before He made the universe.

dhw: GOD: “I only wanna create David Turell and his breakfast, so I’m gonna deliberately create millions of useless critters that ain’t got nothin’ to do with him an’ his breakfast, so he can tell the world that all my mistakes an’ failed experiments prove how clever I was ter create him an’ his breakfast.

DAVID: Ignored. The past 99% plus the survivors resulted in me and my food. Evolution is a continuous invented process of increasing complexity. Without the 99%, I would still be an amoeba.

dhw: You have turned your "99% failure rate" into a 99% success rate. It’s without the 1% that you would still be an amoeba with nothing but bacteria and nematodes for your breakfast.

DAVID: Exactly. We are a result of the 1%.

dhw: So why did you say the 99% plus the survivors resulted in you and your food? Ah well, at least you are now back with your bumbler, who forces himself to make mistake after mistake, though you have no idea why.

How can I know God's reasoning?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, January 26, 2023, 10:59 (427 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My comment above stands. Evolution is a system that produces failures to survive at a 99% rate. Yet the result is success. We are here to argue about it. It is not incompetent to use a system that by definition requires a high failure rate and succeed with it.

dhw: Where did you find a definition of evolution that says 99% of its products must be failures? Stop making things up!

DAVID: From the only evolution example we have, Raup's comment in his book: page 4, "99.9% failure rate". Make up? Never!

That is not a definition of evolution! It’s an interpretation! Just like Dawkins saying God is a delusion. Do you see that as a definition of God?

dhw: If your version of your God’s evolution was not restricted to a single purpose and “course” (us and our food), then his experiments would not have to be classed as failures!

DAVID: The bold makes no sense. […] evolution requires failure to survive so more complex, more competent to survive forms appear.

dhw: […] If your all-powerful, first-cause God exists, it is he, not evolution that decides he needs to make mistakes – or rather it is you who decide that he decides he needs to make mistakes. And understandably, you cannot think of a single reason why he should take the daft decision you insist he took.

DAVID: 'Daft' is your tiny human brain at work. Assuming God in change, evolution is what He created. Live with it.

Assuming God exists, of course he created evolution. What is daft is the idea that despite being all-powerful, he forced himself into making mistake after mistake, and failure after failure before he could achieve his one and only goal.

DAVID: Before the BB God was planning on humans. You don't understand my concept of God.

dhw: No, I don’t. Are you now telling me that planning humans was all he had been thinking about for the whole of eternity before the BB? So what made him suddenly think of the BB? Was that the new idea? This whole argument is becoming farcical. A God who has new ideas is apparently a human bungler, but a God whose work has a 99% failure rate is divinely all-powerful.

DAVID: God does not need new ideas!!! We have discussed multiple BB's in the past.

dhw: Why do you say “need”? No matter how many BBs or life forms he may have designed, are you saying he had every single one planned throughout the past eternity of his existence (if he exists)?

DAVID: Yes!!!

So throughout past eternity he knew all about the nematode-killing fungus, the weaverbird’s nest, the opossum’s feigned death, every species that ever lived, all the mistakes he was going to make, all the environmental conditions over which he would have no control – never a single new idea. They were all there in his mind, but for past eternity he did nothing about them until eventually – as he already knew he would – he decided to stage a Big Bang and get it all started, performed his mistakes and failed experiments etc. etc. I wonder if anyone else “understands your concept of God”.

dhw: Why are you so afraid of the idea that your God might enjoy thinking up new things, and this enjoyment might be one of the thought patterns and emotions he has handed down to us?

DAVID: He handed our emotions down to us. He does not necessarily have them in our form.

Why should enjoyment not mean the same to him as it does to us? Why are you so afraid of the idea that it might give him pleasure to create all the wonders that you and I find so fascinating and enriching? (See Nature’s Wonders on the “More miscellany thread”.)

DAVID: The past 99% plus the survivors resulted in me and my food. Evolution is a continuous invented process of increasing complexity. Without the 99%, I would still be an amoeba.

dhw: You have turned your "99% failure rate" into a 99% success rate. It’s without the 1% that you would still be an amoeba with nothing but bacteria and nematodes for your breakfast.

DAVID: Exactly. We are a result of the 1%.

dhw: So why did you say the 99% plus the survivors resulted in you and your food? Ah well, at least you are now back with your bumbler, who forces himself to make mistake after mistake, though you have no idea why.

DAVID: How can I know God's reasoning?

So why do you pretend that you do? Why are you so sure that he reasoned to himself: “In order to create what I wanner create, I gotta make millions of mistakes and conduct millions of failed experiments”? Why is this more “reasonable” than him thinking: “I sure do like the idea of creating lots of different living things, and it’ll be mighty interesting to see how my idea develops”?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 26, 2023, 16:32 (427 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Where did you find a definition of evolution that says 99% of its products must be failures? Stop making things up!

DAVID: From the only evolution example we have, Raup's comment in his book: page 4, "99.9% failure rate". Make up? Never!

dhw: That is not a definition of evolution! It’s an interpretation! Just like Dawkins saying God is a delusion. Do you see that as a definition of God?

It is an honest analysis of the only example we have.


dhw: If your version of your God’s evolution was not restricted to a single purpose and “course” (us and our food), then his experiments would not have to be classed as failures!

DAVID: The bold makes no sense. […] evolution requires failure to survive so more complex, more competent to survive forms appear.

dhw: […] If your all-powerful, first-cause God exists, it is he, not evolution that decides he needs to make mistakes – or rather it is you who decide that he decides he needs to make mistakes. And understandably, you cannot think of a single reason why he should take the daft decision you insist he took.

DAVID: 'Daft' is your tiny human brain at work. Assuming God in change, evolution is what He created. Live with it.

dhw: Assuming God exists, of course he created evolution. What is daft is the idea that despite being all-powerful, he forced himself into making mistake after mistake, and failure after failure before he could achieve his one and only goal.

DAVID: God does not need new ideas!!! We have discussed multiple BB's in the past.

dhw: Why do you say “need”? No matter how many BBs or life forms he may have designed, are you saying he had every single one planned throughout the past eternity of his existence (if he exists)?

DAVID: Yes!!!

dhw: So throughout past eternity he knew all about the nematode-killing fungus, the weaverbird’s nest, the opossum’s feigned death, every species that ever lived, all the mistakes he was going to make, all the environmental conditions over which he would have no control – never a single new idea. They were all there in his mind, but for past eternity he did nothing about them until eventually – as he already knew he would – he decided to stage a Big Bang and get it all started, performed his mistakes and failed experiments etc. etc. I wonder if anyone else “understands your concept of God”.

More of your humanizing concepts of God. God is God and does what He wants when He wants.


dhw: Why are you so afraid of the idea that your God might enjoy thinking up new things, and this enjoyment might be one of the thought patterns and emotions he has handed down to us?

DAVID: He handed our emotions down to us. He does not necessarily have them in our form.

dhw: Why should enjoyment not mean the same to him as it does to us? Why are you so afraid of the idea that it might give him pleasure to create all the wonders that you and I find so fascinating and enriching? (See Nature’s Wonders on the “More miscellany thread”.)

Adler warns any thoughts about God should be presented allegorically.

dhw: So why did you say the 99% plus the survivors resulted in you and your food? Ah well, at least you are now back with your bumbler, who forces himself to make mistake after mistake, though you have no idea why.

DAVID: How can I know God's reasoning?

dhw: So why do you pretend that you do? Why are you so sure that he reasoned to himself: “In order to create what I wanner create, I gotta make millions of mistakes and conduct millions of failed experiments”? Why is this more “reasonable” than him thinking: “I sure do like the idea of creating lots of different living things, and it’ll be mighty interesting to see how my idea develops”?

Again, you want God to be a playwright like you have been, creating life by letting His imagination drift along. I know of no theist who would accept this view.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, January 27, 2023, 12:33 (426 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution is a system that produces failures to survive at a 99% rate. […]. It is not incompetent to use a system that by definition requires a high failure rate and succeed with it.

dhw: Where did you find a definition of evolution that says 99% of its products must be failures? Stop making things up!

DAVID: From the only evolution example we have, Raup's comment in his book: page 4, "99.9% failure rate". Make up? Never!

dhw: That is not a definition of evolution! It’s an interpretation! Just like Dawkins saying God is a delusion. Do you see that as a definition of God?

DAVID: It is an honest analysis of the only example we have.

It is not a definition. I have no doubt that Dawkins’ analysis is also honest, so do you accept it? I don’t have a problem with Raup’s interpretation, though. You are the one who should have a problem, since it directly contradicts your belief that your God is all-powerful and in full control, and instead leaves him depending on chance to provide him with survivors he can develop into humans plus our food.

dhw: No matter how many BBs or life forms he may have designed, are you saying he had every single one planned throughout the past eternity of his existence (if he exists)?

DAVID: Yes!!!

dhw: So throughout past eternity he knew all about the nematode-killing fungus, the weaverbird’s nest, the opossum’s feigned death, every species that ever lived, all the mistakes he was going to make, all the environmental conditions over which he would have no control – never a single new idea. They were all there in his mind, but for past eternity he did nothing about them until eventually – as he already knew he would – he decided to stage a Big Bang and get it all started, performed his mistakes and failed experiments etc. etc. I wonder if anyone else “understands your concept of God”.

DAVID: More of your humanizing concepts of God. God is God and does what He wants when He wants.

In the above I have dealt solely with YOUR concept of God! If he exists, then of course he does what he wants. That is why it makes perfect sense to assume that he WANTED the history of life with its vast variety of comings and goings, and it makes no sense at all to assume that he wanted to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments.

dhw: Why are you so afraid of the idea that your God might enjoy thinking up new things, and this enjoyment might be one of the thought patterns and emotions he has handed down to us?

DAVID: He handed our emotions down to us. He does not necessarily have them in our form.

dhw: Why should enjoyment not mean the same to him as it does to us? Why are you so afraid of the idea that it might give him pleasure to create all the wonders that you and I find so fascinating and enriching? (See Nature’s Wonders on the “More miscellany thread”.)

DAVID: Adler warns any thoughts about God should be presented allegorically.
And taken from the “poop” thread:
DAVID: Of course, He can be imagined allegorically to have enjoyment as we do.

You’ve used the term “allegorically” before, and I have no idea what “allegorical enjoyment” means. Nor do I care what Adler warns against. Why are you so afraid of the idea that God might enjoy creating all his wonders just as we enjoy creating our own wonders as well as admiring his?

dhw: Why are you so sure that he reasoned to himself: “In order to create what I wanner create, I gotta make millions of mistakes and conduct millions of failed experiments”? Why is this more “reasonable” than him thinking: “I sure do like the idea of creating lots of different living things, and it’ll be mighty interesting to see how my idea develops”?

DAVID: Again, you want God to be a playwright like you have been, creating life by letting His imagination drift along. I know of no theist who would accept this view.

It’s akin to Whitehead’s process theology: “God is in the process of becoming…God in his consequent nature prehends the temporal world…and in this growing and changing nature, experiences the process, knowing and loving it. […] God works like an artist attempting to win order and beauty out of opportunity.” (Oxford Dictionary of World Religions) A couple of days ago, you asked what God of what religion I was talking about. I asked you the same question, and you replied that your religion (in which your God makes mistake after mistake) was your own creation. I’m not surprised.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, January 27, 2023, 23:20 (426 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: From the only evolution example we have, Raup's comment in his book: page 4, "99.9% failure rate". Make up? Never!

dhw: That is not a definition of evolution! It’s an interpretation! Just like Dawkins saying God is a delusion. Do you see that as a definition of God?

DAVID: It is an honest analysis of the only example we have.

dhw: It is not a definition. I have no doubt that Dawkins’ analysis is also honest, so do you accept it? I don’t have a problem with Raup’s interpretation, though. You are the one who should have a problem, since it directly contradicts your belief that your God is all-powerful and in full control, and instead leaves him depending on chance to provide him with survivors he can develop into humans plus our food.

There is no chance or luck involved. No matter what the climate or the competition, God can design survivors who will fit ecosystems of food and provide steps to the next stage of complexity.

dhw: No matter how many BBs or life forms he may have designed, are you saying he had every single one planned throughout the past eternity of his existence (if he exists)?

DAVID: Yes!!!

dhw: So throughout past eternity he knew all about the nematode-killing fungus, the weaverbird’s nest, the opossum’s feigned death, every species that ever lived, all the mistakes he was going to make, all the environmental conditions over which he would have no control – never a single new idea. They were all there in his mind, but for past eternity he did nothing about them until eventually – as he already knew he would – he decided to stage a Big Bang and get it all started, performed his mistakes and failed experiments etc. etc. I wonder if anyone else “understands your concept of God”.

You are using the mess system of evolution to denigrate God. God succeeded to produce us anyway, a success.


DAVID: More of your humanizing concepts of God. God is God and does what He wants when He wants.

dhw: In the above I have dealt solely with YOUR concept of God! If he exists, then of course he does what he wants. That is why it makes perfect sense to assume that he WANTED the history of life with its vast variety of comings and goings, and it makes no sense at all to assume that he wanted to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments.'

What is evolution but steps of success following steps of failure (or serious bad luck).

[/i]


DAVID: Adler warns any thoughts about God should be presented allegorically.
And taken from the “poop” thread:
DAVID: Of course, He can be imagined allegorically to have enjoyment as we do.

dhw: You’ve used the term “allegorically” before, and I have no idea what “allegorical enjoyment” means. Nor do I care what Adler warns against. Why are you so afraid of the idea that God might enjoy creating all his wonders just as we enjoy creating our own wonders as well as admiring his?

It is a term Adler insisted upon. His enjoyment is His, never ours, but in some way similar.


dhw: Why are you so sure that he reasoned to himself: “In order to create what I wanner create, I gotta make millions of mistakes and conduct millions of failed experiments”? Why is this more “reasonable” than him thinking: “I sure do like the idea of creating lots of different living things, and it’ll be mighty interesting to see how my idea develops”?

DAVID: Again, you want God to be a playwright like you have been, creating life by letting His imagination drift along. I know of no theist who would accept this view.

dhw: It’s akin to Whitehead’s process theology: “God is in the process of becoming…God in his consequent nature prehends the temporal world…and in this growing and changing nature, experiences the process, knowing and loving it. […] God works like an artist attempting to win order and beauty out of opportunity.” (Oxford Dictionary of World Religions) A couple of days ago, you asked what God of what religion I was talking about. I asked you the same question, and you replied that your religion (in which your God makes mistake after mistake) was your own creation. I’m not surprised.

God ended with an Earth full of successful organisms. Despite mistaken starts and stops. Success by a method that is not straight forward. Only God could do it that way.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, January 28, 2023, 08:27 (426 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is no chance or luck involved. No matter what the climate or the competition, God can design survivors who will fit ecosystems of food and provide steps to the next stage of complexity.

Under “body heat” you wrote:

DAVID: Your distortions of the ideas I present result in denigrations of my point of view. Survival depends on luck is Raup's point. So Raup is telling us God designs well, and God surpasses the bad luck, because in my view, He can design around it.

If survival depends on luck, and God surpasses the bad luck, how can you say there is no luck involved? You have also told us your God did not control such environmental changes as forest to desert. Your belief that he is always able to design species that will survive under conditions he has not created still leaves him dependent on luck to provide the conditions under which he can design humans plus food, which you claim were his one and only aim from the beginning. And it still leaves you with your belief that 99% of the species that he designed were mistakes.

DAVID: You are using the mess system of evolution to denigrate God. God succeeded to produce us anyway, a success.

How can you accuse me of denigrating God when it is you who insist that his work was messy and 99% of his creations were mistakes and failed experiments?

DAVID: More of your humanizing concepts of God. God is God and does what He wants when He wants.

dhw: In the above I have dealt solely with YOUR concept of God! If he exists, then of course he does what he wants. That is why it makes perfect sense to assume that he WANTED the history of life with its vast variety of comings and goings, and it makes no sense at all to assume that he wanted to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments.'

DAVID: What is evolution but steps of success following steps of failure (or serious bad luck).

Thank you for acknowledging the bad luck you refused to acknowledge above. Why have you suddenly left your all-powerful God and his one and only purpose out of your argument? I keep offering you logical theistic explanations - such as a succession of new ideas, or a free for all - for the comings and goings, and also experimentation. You initially rejected the latter, but in your new theory you now support experimentation, and have added your own variation by insisting that 99% of your God’s experiments were mistakes and failures.

dhw: Why are you so afraid of the idea that God might enjoy creating all his wonders just as we enjoy creating our own wonders as well as admiring his?

DAVID: It [“allegorical”] is a term Adler insisted upon. His enjoyment is His, never ours, but in some way similar.

Pointless. Let’s rephrase the question: why are you so afraid of the idea that your God might in his own way enjoy creating his wonders?

dhw: Why are you so sure that he reasoned to himself: “In order to create what I wanner create, I gotta make millions of mistakes and conduct millions of failed experiments”? Why is this more “reasonable” than him thinking: “I sure do like the idea of creating lots of different living things, and it’ll be mighty interesting to see how my idea develops”?

DAVID: Again, you want God to be a playwright like you have been, creating life by letting His imagination drift along. I know of no theist who would accept this view.

dhw: It’s akin to Whitehead’s process theology: “God is in the process of becoming…God in his consequent nature prehends the temporal world…and in this growing and changing nature, experiences the process, knowing and loving it. […] God works like an artist attempting to win order and beauty out of opportunity.” (Oxford Dictionary of World Religions)

All ignored. I wonder how many theists believe 99% of God’s work consisted of mistakes and failed experiments, and his success depended on luck providing him with survivors and conditions that he could use to achieve is one and only purpose.

DAVID: God ended with an Earth full of successful organisms. Despite mistaken starts and stops. Success by a method that is not straight forward. Only God could do it that way.

Dinosaurs ruled the world for about 150 million years, but apparently 99% of them (only birds survived) were a mistake and a failed experiment. We’ve ruled the world for a few thousand years (and what a mess we’re making of it), so let’s wait a few more million years before we say it all “ended” with successful organisms.

Meanwhile, thank you for confirming yet again that you believe your God made mistakes. And I suggest you rephrase your last sentence: you believe that your God could only do it that way. And you prefer to ignore the possibility that what you call your God’s mistakes were in fact precisely what he wanted to design. (Discussion prolonged on “more miscellany thread”.)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 28, 2023, 18:27 (425 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your distortions of the ideas I present result in denigrations of my point of view. Survival depends on luck is Raup's point. So Raup is telling us God designs well, and God surpasses the bad luck, because in my view, He can design around it.

If survival depends on luck, and God surpasses the bad luck, how can you say there is no luck involved? You have also told us your God did not control such environmental changes as forest to desert. Your belief that he is always able to design species that will survive under conditions he has not created still leaves him dependent on luck to provide the conditions under which he can design humans plus food, which you claim were his one and only aim from the beginning. And it still leaves you with your belief that 99% of the species that he designed were mistakes.

99% failure is part of our evolutionary system, as Raup states. Your statement about luck is totally inconsistent. No luck is involved if God can design for any set of requirements.


dhw: In the above I have dealt solely with YOUR concept of God! If he exists, then of course he does what he wants. That is why it makes perfect sense to assume that he WANTED the history of life with its vast variety of comings and goings, and it makes no sense at all to assume that he wanted to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments.'

I fully agree. God knew exactly what He was doing and what He wanted to do. He knew and expected species would disappear allowing Him to design the next steps in evolution.


DAVID: What is evolution but steps of success following steps of failure (or serious bad luck).

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging the bad luck you refused to acknowledge above. Why have you suddenly left your all-powerful God and his one and only purpose out of your argument? I keep offering you logical theistic explanations - such as a succession of new ideas, or a free for all - for the comings and goings, and also experimentation. You initially rejected the latter, but in your new theory you now support experimentation, and have added your own variation by insisting that 99% of your God’s experiments were mistakes and failures.

Explained above. Failure equals non-survival, which is neccessary for evolution to advance under God's designs.

dhw: Let’s rephrase the question: why are you so afraid of the idea that your God might in his own way enjoy creating his wonders? He does!!! In His own way, allegorically per Adler.

dhw: Why are you so sure that he reasoned to himself: “In order to create what I wanner create, I gotta make millions of mistakes and conduct millions of failed experiments”? Why is this more “reasonable” than him thinking: “I sure do like the idea of creating lots of different living things, and it’ll be mighty interesting to see how my idea develops”?

DAVID: Again, you want God to be a playwright like you have been, creating life by letting His imagination drift along. I know of no theist who would accept this view.

dhw: It’s akin to Whitehead’s process theology: “God is in the process of becoming…God in his consequent nature prehends the temporal world…and in this growing and changing nature, experiences the process, knowing and loving it. […] God works like an artist attempting to win order and beauty out of opportunity.” (Oxford Dictionary of World Religions)

dhw: All ignored. I wonder how many theists believe 99% of God’s work consisted of mistakes and failed experiments, and his success depended on luck providing him with survivors and conditions that he could use to achieve is one and only purpose.

I know from the past you had a favorable view of Whitehead. I'm not impressed with his theory and haven't noted much support. Once again you cannot accept the idea, clearly presented previously, an all-powerful designer doesn't need special circumstances/conditions to provide a suitable design.


DAVID: God ended with an Earth full of successful organisms. Despite mistaken starts and stops. Success by a method that is not straight forward. Only God could do it that way.

dhw: Dinosaurs ruled the world for about 150 million years, but apparently 99% of them (only birds survived) were a mistake and a failed experiment. We’ve ruled the world for a few thousand years (and what a mess we’re making of it), so let’s wait a few more million years before we say it all “ended” with successful organisms.

Meanwhile, thank you for confirming yet again that you believe your God made mistakes. And I suggest you rephrase your last sentence: you believe that your God could only do it that way. And you prefer to ignore the possibility that what you call your God’s mistakes were in fact precisely what he wanted to design. (Discussion prolonged on “more miscellany thread”.)

I've previously made the point that perhaps evolution was the only available method that would work. And another rephrase is necessary: God used a system that produced mistakes. God did not make any mistakes, Himself.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, January 29, 2023, 08:26 (425 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 99% failure is part of our evolutionary system, as Raup states. Your statement about luck is totally inconsistent. No luck is involved if God can design for any set of requirements.

And under “body heat

DAVID: An all-powerful God does not need any 'lucky' circumstances. He can design for/around any conditions present.

Something is a failure if it doesn’t achieve its purpose. In your theory, your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and so because 99% of his experiments had nothing to do with us and our food, you say his experiments were mistakes/failures. However, if his purpose was to enjoy creating an ever changing world, and an ever changing world is what he created, then none of what he created was a mistake or a failure. As for luck, if he did not control environmental conditions but could only design what those conditions required, he had to wait for luck to provide him with the right conditions. And if luck determined which organisms survived or didn’t survive, he needed luck to provide him with organisms which he could develop into us and our food. In both cases, according to you, he kept on designing organisms which did not lead to us and our food, and these 99% of his creations were what you call his mistakes and failed experiments. That does not make him all-powerful.

dhw: If he exists, then of course he does what he wants. That is why it makes perfect sense to assume that he WANTED the history of life with its vast variety of comings and goings, and it makes no sense at all to assume that he wanted to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments.'

DAVID: I fully agree. God knew exactly what He was doing and what He wanted to do. He knew and expected species would disappear allowing Him to design the next steps in evolution.

The species which disappeared did not “allow” him to design the next steps. You can’t develop a life form that doesn’t exist! As you have agreed, it is the 1% of life forms that evolved into us and our food. And it is you who tell us that the other 99% were mistakes/failures.

DAVID: Failure equals non-survival, which is necessary for evolution to advance under God's designs.

Failure does not equal non-survival! Failure = not achieving one’s purpose! If your God WANTED an ever changing world in which species came and went (went = failed to survive), there were no mistakes or failures by God.

DAVID: Again, you want God to be a playwright like you have been, creating life by letting His imagination drift along. I know of no theist who would accept this view.

dhw: It’s akin to Whitehead’s process theology: “God is in the process of becoming…God in his consequent nature prehends the temporal world…and in this growing and changing nature, experiences the process, knowing and loving it. […] God works like an artist attempting to win order and beauty out of opportunity.” (Oxford Dictionary of World Religions)

dhw: All ignored. I wonder how many theists believe 99% of God’s work consisted of mistakes and failed experiments, and his success depended on luck providing him with survivors and conditions that he could use to achieve is one and only purpose.

DAVID: I know from the past you had a favorable view of Whitehead. I'm not impressed with his theory and haven't noted much support. Once again you cannot accept the idea, clearly presented previously, an all-powerful designer doesn't need special circumstances/conditions to provide a suitable design.

You doubted if there was any support for my theory. There is. How much support is there for your theory that your God kept making mistakes and conducting failed experiments in pursuit of his one and only goal? But you are absolutely right that an all-powerful God would not need special conditions, which is why your version of God, who has no control over conditions and depends on luck to provide the right ones, cannot be called all-powerful. Your theory makes nonsense of the term all-powerful, as does your belief that 99% of his work comprised failures and mistakes, no matter how hard you try to wriggle round your God’s acknowledged “responsibility for the mess”.

DAVID: I've previously made the point that perhaps evolution was the only available method that would work. And another rephrase is necessary: God used a system that produced mistakes. God did not make any mistakes, Himself.

Your all-powerful God apparently did not have the power to invent a system that would work without mistakes and failures. You have acknowledged that he was “responsible” for the mess, but now you are saying that a God who designed a system that makes mistakes is not responsible for the mistakes. If the house that you designed fell down because the design was faulty, you would blame the design and not yourself.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 29, 2023, 17:48 (424 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 99% failure is part of our evolutionary system, as Raup states. Your statement about luck is totally inconsistent. No luck is involved if God can design for any set of requirements.

And under “body heat

DAVID: An all-powerful God does not need any 'lucky' circumstances. He can design for/around any conditions present.

dhw: Something is a failure if it doesn’t achieve its purpose. In your theory, your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and so because 99% of his experiments had nothing to do with us and our food, you say his experiments were mistakes/failures. However, if his purpose was to enjoy creating an ever changing world, and an ever changing world is what he created, then none of what he created was a mistake or a failure. As for luck, if he did not control environmental conditions but could only design what those conditions required, he had to wait for luck to provide him with the right conditions. And if luck determined which organisms survived or didn’t survive, he needed luck to provide him with organisms which he could develop into us and our food. In both cases, according to you, he kept on designing organisms which did not lead to us and our food, and these 99% of his creations were what you call his mistakes and failed experiments. That does not make him all-powerful.

You totally dismiss the concept that God does whatever He wants and can design to fit exactly how He wishes to proceed, in this issue, to a final human species. History shows that happened despite your confusion in how to think about it. Just look at extremophiles to make the point. Life is everywhere in every set of conditions.

dhw: The species which disappeared did not “allow” him to design the next steps. You can’t develop a life form that doesn’t exist! As you have agreed, it is the 1% of life forms that evolved into us and our food. And it is you who tell us that the other 99% were mistakes/failures.

I have used the terms 'mistakes/failures' to make the same point you made years ago that evolution is an inefficient way to create humans. God used it and succeeded. This doesn't reduce God's powers as you try to imply.


DAVID: Failure equals non-survival, which is necessary for evolution to advance under God's designs.

dhw: Failure does not equal non-survival! Failure = not achieving one’s purpose! If your God WANTED an ever changing world in which species came and went (went = failed to survive), there were no mistakes or failures by God.

Again you bring us a weak God without purpose to create humans, as the driving force.

dhw: You doubted if there was any support for my theory. There is. How much support is there for your theory that your God kept making mistakes and conducting failed experiments in pursuit of his one and only goal? But you are absolutely right that an all-powerful God would not need special conditions, which is why your version of God, who has no control over conditions and depends on luck to provide the right ones, cannot be called all-powerful. Your theory makes nonsense of the term all-powerful, as does your belief that 99% of his work comprised failures and mistakes, no matter how hard you try to wriggle round your God’s acknowledged “responsibility for the mess”.

As you describe my theory, by emphasizing the failed dead ends, how did God manage to achieve our appearance on the scene? Again, you bring up 'luck'. No luck required. I'll repeat: God can design organisms for any set of conditions, because He is all-powerful.


DAVID: I've previously made the point that perhaps evolution was the only available method that would work. And another rephrase is necessary: God used a system that produced mistakes. God did not make any mistakes, Himself.

dhw: Your all-powerful God apparently did not have the power to invent a system that would work without mistakes and failures. You have acknowledged that he was “responsible” for the mess, but now you are saying that a God who designed a system that makes mistakes is not responsible for the mistakes. If the house that you designed fell down because the design was faulty, you would blame the design and not yourself.

Back to the issue of why use evolution as the method of creation? That is what God did. He had success with it. Our brain, the most complex mechanism in the universe. The possible answers: a choice among methods, the only method that works. Take your choice. God chose His way for His unknown reasons.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, January 30, 2023, 09:13 (424 days ago) @ David Turell

In order to avoid masses of repetition, I have edited out all my original comments and will start again by responding to David’s.

DAVID: You totally dismiss the concept that God does whatever He wants and can design to fit exactly how He wishes to proceed, in this issue, to a final human species. History shows that happened despite your confusion in how to think about it. Just look at extremophiles to make the point. Life is everywhere in every set of conditions.

All my theories are based fairly and squarely on your God doing what he wants. I therefore assume that whether he designed them or not, he wanted the 99% of species that had no connection with us and our food – in contrast to you, who insist that they were all mistakes/failed experiments. Why have you left that out? I also assume that if he is all-powerful, he will not have to rely on chance to produce the conditions suitable for what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (us and our food). Why have you also left that out? Extremophiles do not make the point that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food. Do you count them as being among the 99% of failed experiments or as part of the 1% that led to us and our food? They certainly fit in with any of my three alternative theories, which entail no mistakes/failed experiments but have him creating precisely what he wanted to create. See below for yet another repetition of my alternatives – and please don’t tell me that your God of mistakes is more godlike and less human than my alternatives without mistakes.

DAVID: I have used the terms 'mistakes/failures' to make the same point you made years ago that evolution is an inefficient way to create humans. God used it and succeeded. This doesn't reduce God's powers as you try to imply.

This is not quite correct. I have no problem with evolution as a way to create humans and our food. The problem that I had “years ago” was your insistence that he designed every individual life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. as an “absolute requirement”, necessary for his achievement of his one and only purpose (us and our food), although you also agreed that 99% had no connection with us and our food, and that your theory made sense only to God. One of my alternatives was experimentation, which initially you rejected and have now embraced, but with a new interpretation: you tell us that the 99% were mistakes or failed experiments and your God was “responsible” for what you call the “mess”. In my view, mistakes and failed experiments do not fit in with the concept of an all-powerful God, and I don’t see why you should regard him as being so incompetent when there are other explanations which have him doing precisely what he wanted to do.

DAVID: Again you bring us a weak God without purpose to create humans, as the driving force.
And:
DAVID: As you describe my theory, by emphasizing the failed dead ends, how did God manage to achieve our appearance on the scene?

If his initial purpose was to create a being like himself, he could have done so by continuously experimenting with different life forms which were successful in themselves (they lived and survived for long periods) but which he felt he could improve on. Alternatively, he could have started out on a voyage of discovery, getting new ideas as he went along, and humans were the latest of his ideas. Or he could have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) leading to a free-for-all, in which case either humans evolved naturally from cell communities constantly creating new forms as conditions changed, or (as I always specify) your God could have dabbled if he wished to. No weakness, no mistakes, no failures.

DAVID: Again, you bring up 'luck'. No luck required. I'll repeat: God can design organisms for any set of conditions, because He is all-powerful.

You can repeat it as often as you like, and I will repeat that if he wants to design humans but you say he does not control the conditions necessary for humans to survive, he depends on luck to provide those conditions. The theory that he can and does design species which survive under the conditions at any given time is what leads him to designing what you call his 99% of mistakes and failures, since they have nothing to do with us and our food.

DAVID: Back to the issue of why use evolution as the method of creation? That is what God did. He had success with it. Our brain, the most complex mechanism in the universe. The possible answers: a choice among methods, the only method that works. Take your choice. God chose His way for His unknown reasons.

All my alternatives have him using evolution successfully (including the evolution of our brain). Only yours has him using it with 99% failures, which once again you have left out of your comment! Your last sentence should read: David Turell insists that God chose his (David’s) interpretation of evolution, and David chose this interpretation but cannot find a single reason to justify it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 30, 2023, 18:18 (423 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You totally dismiss the concept that God does whatever He wants and can design to fit exactly how He wishes to proceed, in this issue, to a final human species. History shows that happened despite your confusion in how to think about it. Just look at extremophiles to make the point. Life is everywhere in every set of conditions.

dhw: All my theories are based fairly and squarely on your God doing what he wants. I therefore assume that whether he designed them or not, he wanted the 99% of species that had no connection with us and our food – in contrast to you, who insist that they were all mistakes/failed experiments. Why have you left that out? I also assume that if he is all-powerful, he will not have to rely on chance to produce the conditions suitable for what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (us and our food). Why have you also left that out? Extremophiles do not make the point that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food. Do you count them as being among the 99% of failed experiments or as part of the 1% that led to us and our food? They certainly fit in with any of my three alternative theories, which entail no mistakes/failed experiments but have him creating precisely what he wanted to create.

We know that over 99% of all previous species are gone. They failed to survive, so evolution produces failed species. God designed evolution and therefore produced failures as part and parcel of the system. The failures allow progression to surviving forms that are improvements over the past. You miss my extremophile point which is God can design for any set of extreme circumstances, and therefore doesn't need to control conditions. The bolded point above doesn't recognize, if God created our known evolutionary history, He created the 99+% failure rate, to repeat my point.


dhw: This is not quite correct. I have no problem with evolution as a way to create humans and our food. The problem that I had “years ago” was your insistence that he designed every individual life form, lifestyle,...and that your theory made sense only to God. One of my alternatives was experimentation, which initially you rejected and have now embraced, but with a new interpretation: you tell us that the 99% were mistakes or failed experiments and your God was “responsible” for what you call the “mess”. In my view, mistakes and failed experiments do not fit in with the concept of an all-powerful God, and I don’t see why you should regard him as being so incompetent when there are other explanations which have him doing precisely what he wanted to do.

Did God produce our known evolutionary history is the point. I claim He did,


DAVID: Again you bring us a weak God without purpose to create humans, as the driving force.
And:
DAVID: As you describe my theory, by emphasizing the failed dead ends, how did God manage to achieve our appearance on the scene?

dhw: If his initial purpose was to create a being like himself, he could have done so by continuously experimenting with different life forms which were successful in themselves (they lived and survived for long periods) but which he felt he could improve on. Alternatively, he could have started out on a voyage of discovery, getting new ideas as he went along, and humans were the latest of his ideas. Or he could have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) leading to a free-for-all, in which case either humans evolved naturally from cell communities constantly creating new forms as conditions changed, or (as I always specify) your God could have dabbled if he wished to. No weakness, no mistakes, no failures.

Back to humanizing a God who has no preconceived goals.


DAVID: Again, you bring up 'luck'. No luck required. I'll repeat: God can design organisms for any set of conditions, because He is all-powerful.

dhw: You can repeat it as often as you like, and I will repeat that if he wants to design humans but you say he does not control the conditions necessary for humans to survive, he depends on luck to provide those conditions. The theory that he can and does design species which survive under the conditions at any given time is what leads him to designing what you call his 99% of mistakes and failures, since they have nothing to do with us and our food.

Extremophiles show He can produce for any condition. Yes? No luck needed.


DAVID: Back to the issue of why use evolution as the method of creation? That is what God did. He had success with it. Our brain, the most complex mechanism in the universe. The possible answers: a choice among methods, the only method that works. Take your choice. God chose His way for His unknown reasons.

dhw: All my alternatives have him using evolution successfully (including the evolution of our brain). Only yours has him using it with 99% failures, which once again you have left out of your comment! Your last sentence should read: David Turell insists that God chose his (David’s) interpretation of evolution, and David chose this interpretation but cannot find a single reason to justify it.

If you can accept the point that God is in charge and God produced our evolutionary history, God then produced a 99+% failure rate. And successfully produced us wiih our giant complex brain.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, January 31, 2023, 08:10 (423 days ago) @ David Turell

Once again, in order to avoid repetition I will only reproduce and reply to David’s comments, apart from one earlier exchange.

DAVID: We know that over 99% of all previous species are gone. They failed to survive, so evolution produces failed species.

Since you insist that your God specially designed all those species, it is your God who produces “failed species”. However, failure to survive is not synonymous with “failed species”. See the next exchange.

DAVID: God designed evolution and therefore produced failures as part and parcel of the system. The failures allow progression to surviving forms that are improvements over the past.

You have left out the all-important part of your theory, which is that your God had only one purpose in designing them all: us and our food. And that is why you label 99% of his “experiments” as mistakes and failures. These do not “allow” progression! They are dead ends. They cannot be “improved”! It is the one per cent of survivors that allow progression and improvement. And you continue to ignore the argument that if it was God’s intention that different life forms should come and go, then their “failure to survive” does not make them “failed species” or mistakes or failed experiments. See yet again my alternative theories below.

DAVID: You miss my extremophile point which is God can design for any set of extreme circumstances, and therefore doesn't need to control conditions. The bolded point above doesn't recognize, if God created our known evolutionary history, He created the 99+% failure rate, to repeat my point.

If he only wanted to design us and our food, he needed conditions which would allow us and our food to survive. You have him being forced by conditions outside his control into designing vast numbers of life forms which had nothing to do with us and our food, which is why you call them mistakes and failed experiments. His ability to design species unconnected with his purpose, and your repeated belief that he created his own 99% failure rate, do not fit in with your image of him as all-powerful, all-purposeful and always in tight control. As regards extremophiles, I asked you last time if you thought they were among the 99% of his mistakes or among the 1% that he developed into us or our food. You haven’t responded.

DAVID: Did God produce our known evolutionary history is the point. I claim He did.

If he exists, then of course he did. But that does not mean he produced it for the one and only purpose you impose on him, or that he was so incompetent that 99% of his designs were mistakes.

DAVID: […] how did God manage to achieve our appearance on the scene?

dhw: If his initial purpose was to create a being like himself, he could have done so by continuously experimenting with different life forms which were successful in themselves (they lived and survived for long periods) but which he felt he could improve on. Alternatively, he could have started out on a voyage of discovery, getting new ideas as he went along, and humans were the latest of his ideas. Or he could have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) leading to a free-for-all, in which case either humans evolved naturally from cell communities constantly creating new forms as conditions changed, or (as I always specify) your God could have dabbled if he wished to. No weakness, no mistakes, no failures.

DAVID: Back to humanizing a God who has no preconceived goals.

I have bolded his goals (the “voyage of discovery” also applies to the free-for-all). See below for your absurd comment on “humanizing”.

DAVID: If you can accept the point that God is in charge and God produced our evolutionary history, God then produced a 99+% failure rate. And successfully produced us with our giant complex brain.

If God exists, I accept that he produced our evolutionary history. I also accept that our brain is one of the products of the process of evolution. But I don’t understand why you keep repeating that your God was responsible for a 99% failure rate, as if somehow that makes him more powerful, more in control, more competent, less "human" and more godlike than a God who achieves precisely what he wants to achieve, without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 01, 2023, 00:03 (422 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We know that over 99% of all previous species are gone. They failed to survive, so evolution produces failed species.

dhw: Since you insist that your God specially designed all those species, it is your God who produces “failed species”. However, failure to survive is not synonymous with “failed species”.

I agree with the last point: failure to survive teaches how to avoid failure from the examples given.


DAVID: God designed evolution and therefore produced failures as part and parcel of the system. The failures allow progression to surviving forms that are improvements over the past.

dhw: You have left out the all-important part of your theory, which is that your God had only one purpose in designing them all: us and our food. And that is why you label 99% of his “experiments” as mistakes and failures.

=
Remember Raup said 99+% failed to survive. I simply use his point. Stop criticizing my God. God can have a goal!!! And He can choose to evolve us, as history says He did, under the rule of mine, God is in charge of all events.

dhw: These do not “allow” progression! They are dead ends. They cannot be “improved”! It is the on e per cent of survivors that allow progression and improvement. And you continue to ignore the argument that if it was God’s intention that different life forms should come and go, then their “failure to survive” does not make them “failed species” or mistakes or failed experiments. See yet again my alternative theories below.

I think you vaguely understand evolution succeeds through a succession of failures. The bold is correct,


DAVID: You miss my extremophile point which is God can design for any set of extreme circumstances, and therefore doesn't need to control conditions. The bolded point above doesn't recognize, if God created our known evolutionary history, He created the 99+% failure rate, to repeat my point.

dhw: If he only wanted to design us and our food, he needed conditions which would allow us and our food to survive. You have him being forced by conditions outside his control into designing vast numbers of life forms which had nothing to do with us and our food, which is why you call them mistakes and failed experiments. His ability to design species unconnected with his purpose, and your repeated belief that he created his own 99% failure rate, do not fit in with your image of him as all-powerful, all-purposeful and always in tight control. As regards extremophiles, I asked you last time if you thought they were among the 99% of his mistakes or among the 1% that he developed into us or our food. You haven’t responded.

The usual distortion. An all-powerful God can design for any condition or around any condition, as extremophiles show in their obvious success rate. And they are part of the ecosystem that supplies our food.


DAVID: […] how did God manage to achieve our appearance on the scene?

dhw: If his initial purpose was to create a being like himself, he could have done so by continuously experimenting with different life forms which were successful in themselves (they lived and survived for long periods) but which he felt he could improve on. Alternatively, he could have started out on a voyage of discovery, getting new ideas as he went along, and humans were the latest of his ideas. Or he could have invented a mechanism (cellular intelligence) leading to a free-for-all, in which case either humans evolved naturally from cell communities constantly creating new forms as conditions changed, or (as I always specify) your God could have dabbled if he wished to. No weakness, no mistakes, no failures.

DAVID: Back to humanizing a God who has no preconceived goals.

dhw: have bolded his goals (the “voyage of discovery” also applies to the free-for-all). See below for your absurd comment on “humanizing”.

DAVID: If you can accept the point that God is in charge and God produced our evolutionary history, God then produced a 99+% failure rate. And successfully produced us with our giant complex brain.

dhw; If God exists, I accept that he produced our evolutionary history. I also accept that our brain is one of the products of the process of evolution. But I don’t understand why you keep repeating that your God was responsible for a 99% failure rate, as if somehow that makes him more powerful, more in control, more competent, less "human" and more godlike than a God who achieves precisely what he wants to achieve, without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments.

Thank you for finally admitting to us that you do not understand my God and His goal-setting approach. Your human-God above is an absurd example of a divine power.

Return to David's theory of evolution: Raup's failure rate

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 01, 2023, 00:42 (422 days ago) @ David Turell

From today:

Remember Raup said 99+% failed to survive. I simply use his point. Stop criticizing my God. God can have a goal!!! And He can choose to evolve us, as history says He did, under the rule of mine, God is in charge of all events. For current failure problems see:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-metric-extinction-risk-speciesy:


"In shallow coastal waters of the Indian and Pacific oceans, a seagrass-scrounging cousin of the manatee is in trouble. Environmental strains like pollution and habitat loss pose a major threat to dugong (Dugong dugon) survival, so much so that in December, the International Union for Conservation of Nature upgraded the species’ extinction risk status to vulnerable. Some populations are now classified as endangered or critically endangered.

"If that weren’t bad enough, the sea cows are at risk of losing the protection of a group who has long looked after them: the Torres Strait Islanders. These Indigenous people off the coast of Australia historically have been stewards of the dugong populations there, sustainably hunting the animals and monitoring their numbers. But the Torres Strait Islanders are also threatened, in part because sea levels are rising and encroaching on their communities, and warmer air and sea temperatures are making it difficult for people to live in the region.

"This situation isn’t unique to dugongs. A global analysis of 385 culturally important plant and animal species found that 68 percent were both biologically vulnerable and at risk of losing their cultural protections, researchers report January 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"The findings clearly illustrate that biology shouldn’t be the primary factor in shaping conservation policy, says cultural anthropologist Victoria Reyes-García. When a culture dwindles, the species that are important to that culture are also under threat. To be effective, more conservation efforts need to consider the vulnerability of both the species and the people that have historically cared for them, she says.

“'A lot of the people in the conservation arena think we need to separate people from nature,” says Reyes-García, of the Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies and the Autonomous University of Barcelona. But that tactic overlooks the caring relationship many cultural groups – like the Torres Strait Islanders – have with nature, she says.

***

“'Indigenous people, local communities, also other ethnic groups – they are good stewards of their biodiversity,” says Ina Vandebroek, an ethnobotanist at the University of the West Indies at Mona in Kingston, Jamaica, who was not involved in the work. “They have knowledge, deep knowledge, about their environments that we really cannot overlook.'”

Comment: all of this article is around the truth of Raup's rule about survival. It is a constant.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, February 01, 2023, 14:21 (421 days ago) @ David Turell

Raup’s failure rate

dhw: Since you insist that your God specially designed all those species, it is your God who produces “failed species”. However, failure to survive is not synonymous with “failed species”.

DAVID: I agree with the last point: failure to survive teaches how to avoid failure from the examples given.

How nice to know that your all-powerful God learns from his mistakes, even though you insist he knew exactly what to do right from the start. Since your God is now able to learn, perhaps in due course you may agree that he might get new ideas as he learns.

DAVID: Remember Raup said 99+% failed to survive. I simply use his point. Stop criticizing my God. God can have a goal!!! And He can choose to evolve us, as history says He did, under the rule of mine, God is in charge of all events.

I keep reminding YOU that 99% fail to survive, and it is because you insist that your God’s only goal was to design us and our food that you say their non-survival = failure! If he is in charge of all events, every “failure” must have been due entirely to his mistakes! I’m not criticizing your God. You are! Unless you consider mistakes and failed experiments to be a compliment!

dhw: [The failures] do not “allow” progression! They are dead ends. They cannot be “improved”! It is the one per cent of survivors that allow progression and improvement. And you continue to ignore the argument that if it was God’s intention that different life forms should come and go,then their “failure to survive” does not make them “failed species” or mistakes or failed experiments. See yet again my alternative theories below.

No need to repeat them here, but well worth repeating the question you dodge over and over again: why do you consider a God whose work consists of 99% mistakes and failures to be less human and more godlike than a God who achieves precisely what he wants to achieve, without any mistakes or failures?

DAVID: I think you vaguely understand evolution succeeds through a succession of failures. The bold is correct…

The exact opposite. Evolution does not succeed through a succession of failures. What you call failures are dead ends, but if it was your God’s INTENTION to create a vast variety of life forms that came and went (e.g. in a free-for-all), you cannot call them failures! Evolution does not progress through its dead ends but through the 1% of life forms that survive.

DAVID: An all-powerful God can design for any condition or around any condition, as extremophiles show in their obvious success rate. And they are part of the ecosystem that supplies our food.

As usual, you have left out the fact that (a) you believe your God did not control the conditions but responded to them, and (b) his dependence on conditions resulted in his designing countless species which you regard as “failed experiments” and “mistakes”, because they were irrelevant to what you insist was his only purpose: to produce us and our food. I do not regard a God whose pursuit of his goal results in a 99% failure rate as “all-powerful”. And I would question whether our food supply is dependent on microorganisms that survive in extreme conditions from which we do not acquire our foods. But that is a minor issue, since you are still left with your God’s responsibility for what you call the “mess” caused by his mistakes.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 01, 2023, 15:23 (421 days ago) @ dhw

Raup’s failure rate

dhw: Since you insist that your God specially designed all those species, it is your God who produces “failed species”. However, failure to survive is not synonymous with “failed species”.

DAVID: I agree with the last point: failure to survive teaches how to avoid failure from the examples given.

dhw: How nice to know that your all-powerful God learns from his mistakes, even though you insist he knew exactly what to do right from the start. Since your God is now able to learn, perhaps in due course you may agree that he might get new ideas as he learns.

I was commenting at the human level. God always knows what will work and what will fail.


DAVID: Remember Raup said 99+% failed to survive. I simply use his point. Stop criticizing my God. God can have a goal!!! And He can choose to evolve us, as history says He did, under the rule of mine, God is in charge of all events.

dhw: I keep reminding YOU that 99% fail to survive, and it is because you insist that your God’s only goal was to design us and our food that you say their non-survival = failure! If he is in charge of all events, every “failure” must have been due entirely to his mistakes! I’m not criticizing your God. You are! Unless you consider mistakes and failed experiments to be a compliment!

The terms annoy you. I view God as knowing who will succeed and who will fail in advance. Failure makes room for more advanced steps in any evolutionary process.


dhw: [The failures] do not “allow” progression! They are dead ends. They cannot be “improved”! It is the one per cent of survivors that allow progression and improvement. And you continue to ignore the argument that if it was God’s intention that different life forms should come and go,then their “failure to survive” does not make them “failed species” or mistakes or failed experiments. See yet again my alternative theories below.

No need to repeat them here, but well worth repeating the question you dodge over and over again: why do you consider a God whose work consists of 99% mistakes and failures to be less human and more godlike than a God who achieves precisely what he wants to achieve, without any mistakes or failures?

The difference is clear. My very purposeful God knows exactly where He is going in evolution of life and plans it all, including all dead ends which equals failures. You don't know my God but constantly present distorted pictures of Him.


DAVID: I think you vaguely understand evolution succeeds through a succession of failures. The bold is correct…

dhw: The exact opposite. Evolution does not succeed through a succession of failures. What you call failures are dead ends, but if it was your God’s INTENTION to create a vast variety of life forms that came and went (e.g. in a free-for-all), you cannot call them failures! Evolution does not progress through its dead ends but through the 1% of life forms that survive.

Exactly my point!! Thank you, except for your weird idea that a purposeful God would allow a loss of complete control with an aimless free-for-all. Remember it was your idea years ago God should not have evolved us. It is as messy system.


DAVID: An all-powerful God can design for any condition or around any condition, as extremophiles show in their obvious success rate. And they are part of the ecosystem that supplies our food.

dhw: As usual, you have left out the fact that (a) you believe your God did not control the conditions but responded to them, and (b) his dependence on conditions resulted in his designing countless species which you regard as “failed experiments” and “mistakes”, because they were irrelevant to what you insist was his only purpose: to produce us and our food. I do not regard a God whose pursuit of his goal results in a 99% failure rate as “all-powerful”. And I would question whether our food supply is dependent on microorganisms that survive in extreme conditions from which we do not acquire our foods. But that is a minor issue, since you are still left with your God’s responsibility for what you call the “mess” caused by his mistakes.

Proper interpretations made above. God designs for all conditions. See Permian extinction presented today.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, February 02, 2023, 11:29 (420 days ago) @ David Turell

Raup’s failure rate

dhw: Since you insist that your God specially designed all those species, it is your God who produces “failed species”. However, failure to survive is not synonymous with “failed species”.

DAVID: I agree with the last point: failure to survive teaches how to avoid failure from the examples given.

dhw: How nice to know that your all-powerful God learns from his mistakes […] perhaps in due course you may agree that he might get new ideas as he learns.

DAVID: I was commenting at the human level. God always knows what will work and what will fail.

You were replying to a comment on your God’s failures. I didn’t know humans had learned how to design species! And why he would design species after species, knowing that 99% of them would be mistakes? Any ideas?

DAVID: Remember Raup said 99+% failed to survive. I simply use his point. Stop criticizing my God. God can have a goal!!! And He can choose to evolve us, as history says He did, under the rule of mine, God is in charge of all events. (dhw’s bold. See later.)

dhw: […] it is because you insist that your God’s only goal was to design us and our food that you say their non-survival = failure! If he is in charge of all events, every “failure” must have been due entirely to his mistakes! I’m not criticizing your God. You are! Unless you consider mistakes and failed experiments to be a compliment!

DAVID: The terms annoy you. I view God as knowing who will succeed and who will fail in advance. Failure makes room for more advanced steps in any evolutionary process.

Sorry, but I just can’t believe your God knew he’d be making mistake after mistake but still went ahead, which suggests he is stupid as well as incompetent. Failure does not “make room” for any advances. There’d have been plenty of room if he hadn’t knowingly designed all his “failures”! Only the surviving 1 per cent produce advances.

DAVID: My very purposeful God knows exactly where He is going in evolution of life and plans it all, including all dead ends which equals failures. […]

He has one purpose (us plus food) and plans 99% of mistakes that have no connection with his purpose. Curiouser and curiouser. You once said his purpose for creating us might have been to have us admire his work. Perhaps you should write a hymn in praise of his 99% failure rate. And now, yet again, please tell me why your blundering God is less human and more godlike than a God who – as in my alternatives - knows exactly what he wants and creates it without any mistakes or failures.

DAVID: I think you vaguely understand evolution succeeds through a succession of failures. […]

dhw: The exact opposite. […] What you call failures are dead ends, but if it was your God’s INTENTION to create a vast variety of life forms that came and went (e.g. in a free-for-all), you cannot call them failures! Evolution does not progress through its dead ends but through the 1% of life forms that survive.

DAVID: Exactly my point!!

So why did you say evolution succeeds through a succession of failures???

DAVID: Thank you, except for your weird idea that a purposeful God would allow a loss of complete control with an aimless free-for-all. Remember it was your idea years ago God should not have evolved us. […]

I have never said he should not have evolved us! I have said it made no sense for him to design countless life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with what you say was his only purpose (us plus food). It would have made more sense to create us directly, but I believe in evolution, and so I propose different theistic reasons for the evolution that actually happened. One is experimentation, which you rejected but now embrace, adding your view that your God messed it up with his 99% “failures”. You reject the voyage of discovery, which is the purpose behind the “new ideas” theory and the “free-for-all” theory. Nothing weird, no mistakes, no failures.

DAVID: God designs for all conditions. See Permian extinction presented today.

Permian mass extinction

DAVID: I'm going to stick with my theory that these events were natural, not under God's control, and He was powerful enough to work around them. Remember He knew they were coming.

So these huge events were not under your God’s control, although in the bold above, “God is in charge of all events”. However, yet again, you repeat your belief that he was forced by conditions not of his making to design mistake after mistake (species etc. irrelevant to his sole purpose). If he knew what conditions were coming, why did he bother? He might as well have waited until chance provided him with the conditions he wanted, as you have actually suggested, since you say we and our food are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors. Ugh, 3.X billion years wasting his time on mistakes he knew he was going to make, when he could just have waited for the Cambrian, which he knew was coming! Why are you making a fool of your God?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 02, 2023, 15:03 (420 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, February 02, 2023, 15:31

Raup’s failure rate

DAVID: I was commenting at the human level. God always knows what will work and what will fail.

dhw: You were replying to a comment on your God’s failures. I didn’t know humans had learned how to design species! And why he would design species after species, knowing that 99% of them would be mistakes? Any ideas?

You keep divorcing yourself from the discussion point that God chose to evolve us. Of course, He would know how evolution worked with its 99% loss rate.


DAVID: The terms annoy you. I view God as knowing who will succeed and who will fail in advance. Failure makes room for more advanced steps in any evolutionary process.

dhw: Sorry, but I just can’t believe your God knew he’d be making mistake after mistake but still went ahead, which suggests he is stupid as well as incompetent. Failure does not “make room” for any advances. There’d have been plenty of room if he hadn’t knowingly designed all his “failures”! Only the surviving 1 per cent produce advances.

You are thinking of a human God who doesn't know the future. A real God understands completely what and why he is doing it. He knows 99% won't survive.


DAVID: My very purposeful God knows exactly where He is going in evolution of life and plans it all, including all dead ends which equals failures. […]

dhw: He has one purpose (us plus food) and plans 99% of mistakes that have no connection with his purpose. Curiouser and curiouser. You once said his purpose for creating us might have been to have us admire his work. Perhaps you should write a hymn in praise of his 99% failure rate. And now, yet again, please tell me why your blundering God is less human and more godlike than a God who – as in my alternatives - knows exactly what he wants and creates it without any mistakes or failures.

I don't see your 'no-failure' evolution in our history, do you???


DAVID: I think you vaguely understand evolution succeeds through a succession of failures. […]

dhw: The exact opposite. […] What you call failures are dead ends, but if it was your God’s INTENTION to create a vast variety of life forms that came and went (e.g. in a free-for-all), you cannot call them failures! Evolution does not progress through its dead ends but through the 1% of life forms that survive.

DAVID: Exactly my point!!

dhw: So why did you say evolution succeeds through a succession of failures???

Because that is the flip side way of looking at it.


DAVID: Thank you, except for your weird idea that a purposeful God would allow a loss of complete control with an aimless free-for-all. Remember it was your idea years ago God should not have evolved us. […]

dhw: I have never said he should not have evolved us! I have said it made no sense for him to design countless life forms, natural wonders etc. that had no connection with what you say was his only purpose (us plus food). It would have made more sense to create us directly, but I believe in evolution, and so I propose different theistic reasons for the evolution that actually happened. One is experimentation, which you rejected but now embrace, adding your view that your God messed it up with his 99% “failures”. You reject the voyage of discovery, which is the purpose behind the “new ideas” theory and the “free-for-all” theory. Nothing weird, no mistakes, no failures.

A wooly view of our evolution from a humanistic standpoint. My simple approach is to assume God is in charge and the standard history of evolution is His Work. He knows exactly what will happen. From our human standpoint, the dead ends are failures of design, and guide the way to design the 1% success rate.


DAVID: God designs for all conditions. See Permian extinction presented today.

Permian mass extinction

DAVID: I'm going to stick with my theory that these events were natural, not under God's control, and He was powerful enough to work around them. Remember He knew they were coming.

dhw: So these huge events were not under your God’s control, although in the bold above, “God is in charge of all events”. However, yet again, you repeat your belief that he was forced by conditions not of his making to design mistake after mistake (species etc. irrelevant to his sole purpose). If he knew what conditions were coming, why did he bother? He might as well have waited until chance provided him with the conditions he wanted, as you have actually suggested, since you say we and our food are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors. Ugh, 3.X billion years wasting his time on mistakes he knew he was going to make, when he could just have waited for the Cambrian, which he knew was coming! Why are you making a fool of your God?

I am not distorting God. That is your job in this discussion, and you have done a marvelous job of distortion. I'm simply taking the known history of evolution and stating God created it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, February 03, 2023, 12:10 (419 days ago) @ David Turell

Raup’s failure rate

DAVID: I was commenting at the human level. God always knows what will work and what will fail.

dhw: You were replying to a comment on your God’s failures. I didn’t know humans had learned how to design species! And why would he [misprint corrected] design species after species, knowing that 99% of them would be mistakes? Any ideas?

DAVID: You keep divorcing yourself from the discussion point that God chose to evolve us. Of course, He would know how evolution worked with its 99% loss rate.
And:
DAVID: You are thinking of a human God who doesn't know the future. A real God understands completely what and why he is doing it. He knows 99% won't survive.

You “keep divorcing yourself” from every question I ask. WHY would he design species after species if he already knew that 99% of them would be mistakes - failed experiments, dead ends that would NOT lead to the fulfilment of what you believe to have been his one and only purpose? (As you agreed earlier, "not surviving" is not synonymous with mistakes and failed experiments.) You make him look a fool, and it’s no answer to say that he knows what he’s doing. That makes him even more of a fool. You just cannot accept the possibility that your interpretation of his motives and methods might be wrong!

dhw: […] yet again, please tell me why your blundering God is less human and more godlike than a God who – as in my alternatives - knows exactly what he wants and creates it without any mistakes or failures.

DAVID: I don't see your 'no-failure' evolution in our history, do you???

Yet again you refuse to answer a straight question. I have already answered yours over and over again, as follows:

dhw: What you call failures are dead ends, but if it was your God’s INTENTION to create a vast variety of life forms that came and went (e.g. in a free-for-all), you cannot call them failures!

In all three of my alternative theistic explanations of evolution, there are no failures. Now please answer my question.

dhw: Evolution does not progress through its dead ends but through the 1% of life forms that survive.

DAVID: Exactly my point!!

dhw: So why did you say evolution succeeds through a succession of failures???

DAVID: Because that is the flip side way of looking at it.

That is the basis of your new theory! Yet again: you keep telling us that your God is responsible for the mess because 99% of his designs were mistakes/failed experiments, but he knew that they would be mistakes because he foresaw the future. So knowing that he was going to create a mess apparently makes him more godlike than a God who (in my alternatives) achieves his purpose without any mess/mistakes/failed experiments, as follows:

dhw: I propose different theistic reasons for the evolution that actually happened. One is experimentation, which you rejected but now embrace, adding your view that your God messed it up with his 99% “failures”. (Addition: in this proposal, I allow for your goal of a being like himself, but his experiments are highly successful - e.g. the dinosaurs, who ruled the world for 150 million years - but he continued to investigate further possibilities in his ongoing quest.) You reject the voyage of discovery, which is the purpose behind the “new ideas” theory and the “free-for-all” theory. Nothing weird, no mistakes, no failures.

DAVID: A wooly view of our evolution from a humanistic standpoint. My simple approach is to assume God is in charge and the standard history of evolution is His Work. He knows exactly what will happen. From our human standpoint, the dead ends are failures of design, and guide the way to design the 1% success rate.

If God exists, of course the “standard history” is his work. But yet again: you think your interpretation of standard history as being 99% God’s messy mistakes and failures make him more godlike than my interpretation, with no messy mistakes or failures. And for the nth time, dead ends do not guide anything anywhere. It’s the 1% that have led to the current world of humans plus our food.

DAVID: God designs for all conditions. See Permian extinction presented today.

Permian mass extinction

DAVID: I'm going to stick with my theory that these events were natural, not under God's control, and He was powerful enough to work around them. Remember He knew they were coming.

dhw: So these huge events were not under your God’s control, although in the bold above, “God is in charge of all events […] 3.X billion years wasting his time on mistakes he knew he was going to make, when he could just have waited for the Cambrian, which he knew was coming! Why are you making a fool of your God?

DAVID: I am not distorting God. That is your job in this discussion, and you have done a marvelous job of distortion. I'm simply taking the known history of evolution and stating God created it.

As above, you are interpreting the known history in a way that makes your God look like an incompetent fool (as you continue to do under “Finding first stars” on the other thread).

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, February 03, 2023, 17:17 (419 days ago) @ dhw

Raup’s failure rate

DAVID: You keep divorcing yourself from the discussion point that God chose to evolve us. Of course, He would know how evolution worked with its 99% loss rate.
And:
DAVID: You are thinking of a human God who doesn't know the future. A real God understands completely what and why he is doing it. He knows 99% won't survive.

dhw: You “keep divorcing yourself” from every question I ask. WHY would he design species after species if he already knew that 99% of them would be mistakes - failed experiments, dead ends that would NOT lead to the fulfilment of what you believe to have been his one and only purpose? (As you agreed earlier, "not surviving" is not synonymous with mistakes and failed experiments.) You make him look a fool, and it’s no answer to say that he knows what he’s doing. That makes him even more of a fool. You just cannot accept the possibility that your interpretation of his motives and methods might be wrong!

When will you accept a discussion that recognized my point that God created the history of evolution and therefore, He knew there would be Raup's 99.9% failure rate? His goal of humans happened, so He was successful. This is a view of a perfectly competent God. Evolution is messy, God is not, so there is no reason to stain him with the mess as you do.


dhw: […] yet again, please tell me why your blundering God is less human and more godlike than a God who – as in my alternatives - knows exactly what he wants and creates it without any mistakes or failures.

DAVID: I don't see your 'no-failure' evolution in our history, do you???

Yet again you refuse to answer a straight question. I have already answered yours over and over again, as follows:

dhw: What you call failures are dead ends, but if it was your God’s INTENTION to create a vast variety of life forms that came and went (e.g. in a free-for-all), you cannot call them failures!

In all three of my alternative theistic explanations of evolution, there are no failures. Now please answer my question.

dhw: Evolution does not progress through its dead ends but through the 1% of life forms that survive.

DAVID: Exactly my point!!

dhw: So why did you say evolution succeeds through a succession of failures???

DAVID: Because that is the flip side way of looking at it.

dhw: I propose different theistic reasons for the evolution that actually happened. One is experimentation, which you rejected but now embrace, adding your view that your God messed it up with his 99% “failures”. (Addition: in this proposal, I allow for your goal of a being like himself, but his experiments are highly successful - e.g. the dinosaurs, who ruled the world for 150 million years - but he continued to investigate further possibilities in his ongoing quest.) You reject the voyage of discovery, which is the purpose behind the “new ideas” theory and the “free-for-all” theory. Nothing weird, no mistakes, no failures.


DAVID: A wooly view of our evolution from a humanistic standpoint. My simple approach is to assume God is in charge and the standard history of evolution is His Work. He knows exactly what will happen. From our human standpoint, the dead ends are failures of design, and guide the way to design the 1% success rate.

dhw: If God exists, of course the “standard history” is his work. But yet again: you think your interpretation of standard history as being 99% God’s messy mistakes and failures make him more godlike than my interpretation, with no messy mistakes or failures. And for the nth time, dead ends do not guide anything anywhere. It’s the 1% that have led to the current world of humans plus our food.

Yes, 1% survived and led to us. 99% failed to survive and lead anywhere. My view accounts for the 99%. In any discussion 'survival' is a crucial consideration. I view it as surviving long enough to create an improved modification for survival.


DAVID: God designs for all conditions. See Permian extinction presented today.

Permian mass extinction

DAVID: I'm going to stick with my theory that these events were natural, not under God's control, and He was powerful enough to work around them. Remember He knew they were coming.

dhw: So these huge events were not under your God’s control, although in the bold above, “God is in charge of all events […] 3.X billion years wasting his time on mistakes he knew he was going to make, when he could just have waited for the Cambrian, which he knew was coming! Why are you making a fool of your God?

DAVID: I am not distorting God. That is your job in this discussion, and you have done a marvelous job of distortion. I'm simply taking the known history of evolution and stating God created it.

dhw: As above, you are interpreting the known history in a way that makes your God look like an incompetent fool (as you continue to do under “Finding first stars” on the other thread).

God chose the method of creation you criticize.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, February 04, 2023, 07:58 (419 days ago) @ David Turell

Raup’s failure rate

DAVID: You keep divorcing yourself from the discussion point that God chose to evolve us. Of course, He would know how evolution worked with its 99% loss rate.
And:
DAVID: You are thinking of a human God who doesn't know the future. A real God understands completely what and why he is doing it. He knows 99% won't survive.

dhw: You “keep divorcing yourself” from every question I ask. WHY would he design species after species if he already knew that 99% of them would be mistakes /failed experiments/dead ends that would NOT lead to the fulfilment of what you believe to have been his one and only purpose? (As you agreed earlier, "not surviving" is not synonymous with mistakes and failed experiments.) You make him look a fool, and it’s no answer to say that he knows what he’s doing. That makes him even more of a fool. You just cannot accept the possibility that your interpretation of his motives and methods might be wrong!

DAVID: When will you accept a discussion that recognized my point that God created the history of evolution and therefore, He knew there would be Raup's 99.9% failure rate? His goal of humans happened, so He was successful. This is a view of a perfectly competent God. Evolution is messy, God is not, so there is no reason to stain him with the mess as you do.

If God exists, he would certainly have created life and a method for evolution. That does not mean that he individually created every single life form, problem, solution, development, strategy, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., for the whole future of life, or that his only aim was to design us and our food, or that he would make mistake after mistake in pursuit of his goal, or that knew in advance that he would make mistake after mistake, or that he would be forced by conditions beyond his control to go on making mistakes until luck provided the right conditions for him to fulfil his goal. You have previously tried to compare yourself to God with your vast knowledge of design, telling us that firsthand design is the only reliable way to fulfil one’s purpose. So if your first 99 efforts to design your house had resulted in it falling down, but you finally succeeded, would you rate yourself a competent designer? And if you knew in advance that your house would fall down, would you praise yourself for knowing you would mess things up? If evolution is messy, and your God invented evolution, then he is responsible for the mess! You said so yourself less than two months ago:

DAVID: Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution.Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures.”

However, if you really want to believe that he invented the system but did NOT create 99% worth of mistakes, you need look no further than my third explanation: he wanted and therefore designed a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). No mistakes, no failed experiments. Total and endlessly fascinating success, as befits an all-powerful God.

DAVID: My simple approach is to assume God is in charge and the standard history of evolution is His Work. He knows exactly what will happen. From our human standpoint, the dead ends are failures of design, and guide the way to design the 1% success rate.

dhw: If God exists, of course the “standard history” is his work. But yet again: you think your interpretation of standard history as being 99% God’s messy mistakes and failures makes him more godlike than my interpretation, with no messy mistakes or failures. And for the nth time, dead ends do not guide anything anywhere. It’s the 1% that have led to the current world of humans plus our food.

DAVID: Yes, 1% survived and led to us. 99% failed to survive and lead anywhere. My view accounts for the 99%. In any discussion 'survival' is a crucial consideration. I view it as surviving long enough to create an improved modification for survival.

Your view accounts for the 99% by telling us that God knew he would make mistakes, and that means he is all-powerful and more godlike than a God who makes no mistakes. Yes, survival is crucial, and according to you, the 1% that survived and were “improved” survived by luck. The 99% of dead ends did NOT survive long enough to be “improved”. That is why they were dead ends!

Permian mass extinction

DAVID: I'm simply taking the known history of evolution and stating God created it.

dhw: As above, you are interpreting the known history in a way that makes your God look like an incompetent fool […]

DAVID: God chose the method of creation you criticize.

You claim that God chose the goal and method you have imposed on him: to create us by first making countless mistakes and conducting experiments, 99% of which were failures, as he knew they would be. And, unsurprisingly, you have no idea why he would have chosen such a method. Maybe he didn’t.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 04, 2023, 19:30 (418 days ago) @ dhw

Raup’s failure rate

DAVID: When will you accept a discussion that recognized my point that God created the history of evolution and therefore, He knew there would be Raup's 99.9% failure rate? His goal of humans happened, so He was successful. This is a view of a perfectly competent God. Evolution is messy, God is not, so there is no reason to stain him with the mess as you do.

dhw: If God exists, he would certainly have created life and a method for evolution. That does not mean that he individually created every single life form, problem, solution, development, strategy, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., for the whole future of life, or that his only aim was to design us and our food, or that he would make mistake after mistake in pursuit of his goal, or that knew in advance that he would make mistake after mistake, or that he would be forced by conditions beyond his control to go on making mistakes until luck provided the right conditions for him to fulfil his goal.

Once again you have immediately veered off my track by accepting a God who made evolution happen and then denying He did it in the now bolded sentence. Let's not have it both ways. If God produced evolution (as you agree), then we must look at the true history of evolution, which is a history of 99.9% failure to survive (Raup). Next logical step: God knew exactly the system He was using would create that failure rate. But!!!, He succedsdsfully had us appear.

dhw: If evolution is messy, and your God invented evolution, then he is responsible for the mess! You said so yourself less than two months ago.

Of course!!!


DAVID: Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution.Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures.”

dhw: However, if you really want to believe that he invented the system but did NOT create 99% worth of mistakes, you need look no further than my third explanation: he wanted and therefore designed a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). No mistakes, no failed experiments. Total and endlessly fascinating success, as befits an all-powerful God.

Back you go to a humanized God who gives up full control so He can go blameless for the known failures. A real God is always in full control.


Permian mass extinction

DAVID: I'm simply taking the known history of evolution and stating God created it.

dhw: As above, you are interpreting the known history in a way that makes your God look like an incompetent fool […]

DAVID: God chose the method of creation you criticize.

dhw: You claim that God chose the goal and method you have imposed on him: to create us by first making countless mistakes and conducting experiments, 99% of which were failures, as he knew they would be. And, unsurprisingly, you have no idea why he would have chosen such a method. Maybe he didn’t.

So now you are a mind reader for God. God made the history we are debating. Stop trying to change it to fit your preconceived prejudices for God's thinking. Why 'preconceived'? Constantly repeated as if engraved in stone. Reminds me of your objections to free will as you cannot shake loose of previous prejudices.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, February 05, 2023, 11:06 (417 days ago) @ David Turell

Raup’s failure rate

DAVID: When will you accept a discussion that recognized my point that God created the history of evolution and therefore, He knew there would be Raup's 99.9% failure rate? His goal of humans happened, so He was successful. This is a view of a perfectly competent God. Evolution is messy, God is not, so there is no reason to stain him with the mess as you do.[/b] (dhw's bold. See later.)

dhw: If God exists, he would certainly have created life and a method for evolution. That does not mean that he individually created every single life form, problem, solution, development, strategy, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., for the whole future of life, or that his only aim was to design us and our food, or that he would make mistake after mistake in pursuit of his goal, or that he knew in advance that he would make mistake after mistake, or that he would be forced by conditions beyond his control to go on making mistakes until luck provided the right conditions for him to fulfil his goal.

DAVID: Once again you have immediately veered off my track by accepting a God who made evolution happen and then denying He did it in the now bolded sentence.

It is perfectly reasonable to accept that if God exists, he made evolution happen. It is not perfectly reasonable to assume any of your other beliefs as listed above - including his individual design of every life form etc. – when their combination leads to the conclusion that an all-powerful God made mistake after mistake, and even knew in advance that he would make a “mess” of evolution, as below, and yet still went ahead.

DAVID: Let's not have it both ways. If God produced evolution (as you agree), then we must look at the true history of evolution, which is a history of 99.9% failure to survive (Raup). Next logical step: God knew exactly the system He was using would create that failure rate. But!!!, He successfully had us appear.

Stop editing your own theory! The 99% failure of species to survive is a fact, but your theory now is that every failure to survive was the result of your God’s mistakes/failed experiments, because his only aim was to produce us, and the 99% turned out to be dead ends that did NOT lead to us. This makes him an incompetent designer. You also tell us that he knew in advance that his designs would prove to be mistakes on his part. This make him look pretty darn stupid as well as incompetent.

dhw: If evolution is messy, and your God invented evolution, then he is responsible for the mess! You said so yourself less than two months ago.

DAVID: Of course!!!

So why did you claim earlier (bolded above) that “there is no reason to stain him with the mess”?

dhw: However, if you really want to believe that he invented the system but did NOT create 99% worth of mistakes, you need look no further than my third explanation: he wanted and therefore designed a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). No mistakes, no failed experiments. Total and endlessly fascinating success, as befits an all-powerful God.

DAVID: Back you go to a humanized God who gives up full control so He can go blameless for the known failures. A real God is always in full control.

Thank you for acknowledging that you are now blaming God for all his mistakes. I can only suggest to you that a REAL and all-powerful God would not make mistakes, and I would point out that none of my alternative theories involve any criticism at all of your God. And I keep asking you why you regard a fallible, incompetent designer, whom you blame for his mistakes, as being less human and more godlike than a designer who produces exactly what he wants to produce without making any mistakes. You have never answered.

Permian mass extinction

dhw: […] unsurprisingly, you have no idea why he would have chosen such a method. Maybe he didn’t.

DAVID: So now you are a mind reader for God. God made the history we are debating. Stop trying to change it to fit your preconceived prejudices for God's thinking. Why 'preconceived'? Constantly repeated as if engraved in stone. Reminds me of your objections to free will as you cannot shake loose of previous prejudices.

We are looking at the SAME history: 99% of species etc. had no connection with us and our food. Our dispute is over the interpretation of that history. Your objections to my alternative theistic interpretations do not change the fact that you have no idea why your God would have chosen a method ("constantly repeated as if engraved in stone") which entails him making mistakes for which you blame him and which make him look incompetent and stupid. “Preconceived prejudice” means fixed beliefs like yours, not a variety of possible explanations. As for free will, I have presented the case for and against without voting for either. You simply refuse to consider the case against. That is prejudice.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 05, 2023, 18:11 (417 days ago) @ dhw

Raup’s failure rate

DAVID: Once again you have immediately veered off my track by accepting a God who made evolution happen and then denying He did it in the now bolded sentence.

dhw: It is perfectly reasonable to accept that if God exists, he made evolution happen. It is not perfectly reasonable to assume any of your other beliefs as listed above - including his individual design of every life form etc. – when their combination leads to the conclusion that an all-powerful God made mistake after mistake, and even knew in advance that he would make a “mess” of evolution, as below, and yet still went ahead.

DAVID: Let's not have it both ways. If God produced evolution (as you agree), then we must look at the true history of evolution, which is a history of 99.9% failure to survive (Raup). Next logical step: God knew exactly the system He was using would create that failure rate. But!!!, He successfully had us appear.

dhw: Stop editing your own theory! The 99% failure of species to survive is a fact, but your theory now is that every failure to survive was the result of your God’s mistakes/failed experiments, because his only aim was to produce us, and the 99% turned out to be dead ends that did NOT lead to us. This makes him an incompetent designer. You also tell us that he knew in advance that his designs would prove to be mistakes on his part. This make him look pretty darn stupid as well as incompetent.

I now have an agnostic trying to rehabilitate God's reputation. It again reveals your underlying prejudices regarding theism. Your negative view has no basis in the facts. If we accept God as creating life's evolution, then He is logically responsible for all of its dead ends, failed experiments, etc. I, as a firm theist view God as a marvelous designer who successfully produced humans with their complex brains using the system He chose to use.


dhw: If evolution is messy, and your God invented evolution, then he is responsible for the mess! You said so yourself less than two months ago.

DAVID: Of course!!!

dhw: So why did you claim earlier (bolded above) that “there is no reason to stain him with the mess”?

Again, He used the messy system to sucessfully produce us.


dhw: However, if you really want to believe that he invented the system but did NOT create 99% worth of mistakes, you need look no further than my third explanation: he wanted and therefore designed a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). No mistakes, no failed experiments. Total and endlessly fascinating success, as befits an all-powerful God.

DAVID: Back you go to a humanized God who gives up full control so He can go blameless for the known failures. A real God is always in full control.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that you are now blaming God for all his mistakes. I can only suggest to you that a REAL and all-powerful God would not make mistakes, and I would point out that none of my alternative theories involve any criticism at all of your God. And I keep asking you why you regard a fallible, incompetent designer, whom you blame for his mistakes, as being less human and more godlike than a designer who produces exactly what he wants to produce without making any mistakes. You have never answered.

My answer is still what you ignore. The dead ends and failures exist. You can't get rid of them. I've described my powerful, purposeful, all controlling God, ad nauseum. Your wimp of a God comes from your artistic proclivities, I am sure.


Permian mass extinction

dhw: […] unsurprisingly, you have no idea why he would have chosen such a method. Maybe he didn’t.

DAVID: So now you are a mind reader for God. God made the history we are debating. Stop trying to change it to fit your preconceived prejudices for God's thinking. Why 'preconceived'? Constantly repeated as if engraved in stone. Reminds me of your objections to free will as you cannot shake loose of previous prejudices.

dhw: We are looking at the SAME history: 99% of species etc. had no connection with us and our food.

Of course not, they are dead, but they produced our edibles of today.

dhw: Our dispute is over the interpretation of that history. Your objections to my alternative theistic interpretations do not change the fact that you have no idea why your God would have chosen a method ("constantly repeated as if engraved in stone") which entails him making mistakes for which you blame him and which make him look incompetent and stupid.

If God controlled inventing our reality, He made the evolutionary history we have. He chose to evolve us.

dhw: “Preconceived prejudice” means fixed beliefs like yours, not a variety of possible explanations. As for free will, I have presented the case for and against without voting for either. You simply refuse to consider the case against. That is prejudice.

Get off your fence. Make some intelligent decisions. They are possible to achieve.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, February 06, 2023, 08:49 (417 days ago) @ David Turell

Raup’s failure rate

DAVID:. If God produced evolution (as you agree), then we must look at the true history of evolution, which is a history of 99.9% failure to survive (Raup). Next logical step: God knew exactly the system He was using would create that failure rate. But!!!, He successfully had us appear.

dhw: Stop editing your own theory! The 99% failure of species to survive is a fact, but your theory now is that every failure to survive was the result of your God’s mistakes/failed experiments, because his only aim was to produce us, and the 99% turned out to be dead ends that did NOT lead to us. This makes him an incompetent designer. You also tell us that he knew in advance that his designs would prove to be mistakes on his part. This make him look pretty darn stupid as well as incompetent.

DAVID: I now have an agnostic trying to rehabilitate God's reputation. It again reveals your underlying prejudices regarding theism. Your negative view has no basis in the facts. If we accept God as creating life's evolution, then He is logically responsible for all of its dead ends, failed experiments, etc. I, as a firm theist view God as a marvelous designer who successfully produced humans with their complex brains using the system He chose to use.

Your all-powerful God is apparently responsible for 99% of failed experiments and mistakes in his messy efforts to achieve what you think was his one and only purpose. This is supposed to make him a marvellous designer, whereas my proposal that he creates precisely what he wants to create without making any mistakes is apparently a negative view! I am not denying that humans are here, and if God exists, my three theistic theories all fit in with our existence, but none of them paint him as incompetent (mistake after mistake) or stupid (knowing he will make mistake after mistake, but still going ahead with his blunders).

dhw: […] if you really want to believe that he invented the system but did NOT create 99% worth of mistakes, you need look no further than my third explanation: he wanted and therefore designed a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). No mistakes, no failed experiments. […]

DAVID: Back you go to a humanized God who gives up full control so He can go blameless for the known failures. A real God is always in full control.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that you are now blaming God for all his mistakes. I can only suggest to you that a REAL and all-powerful God would not make mistakes […]. And I keep asking you why you regard a fallible, incompetent designer, whom you blame for his mistakes, as being less human and more godlike than a designer who produces exactly what he wants without making any mistakes. You never answer.

DAVID: My answer is still what you ignore. The dead ends and failures exist. You can't get rid of them.

Of course the dead ends exist! But I have explained to you why you needn't ridicule your God by calling them failures and mistakes. Now please answer the bolded question.

DAVID: I've described my powerful, purposeful, all controlling God, ad nauseum. Your wimp of a God comes from your artistic proclivities, I am sure.

It's you who blame your "wimpish" God for conducting failed experiments and making mistake after mistake in pursuit of his only goal! Furthermore, apparently he does not control the conditions which determine what species he can or cannot design – a major factor in his repeated failures to achieve that goal. Now please answer the bolded question.

Permian mass extinction

dhw: […] unsurprisingly, you have no idea why he would have chosen such a method. Maybe he didn’t.

DAVID: So now you are a mind reader for God. God made the history we are debating. Stop trying to change it to fit your preconceived prejudices for God's thinking. Why 'preconceived'? Constantly repeated as if engraved in stone. Reminds me of your objections to free will as you cannot shake loose of previous prejudices.

dhw: We are looking at the SAME history […] Our dispute is over the interpretation of that history. […]“Preconceived prejudice” means fixed beliefs like yours, not a variety of possible explanations. As for free will, I have presented the case for and against without voting for either. You simply refuse to consider the case against. That is prejudice.

DAVID: Get off your fence. Make some intelligent decisions. They are possible to achieve.

I remain open-minded, which apparently means I am prejudiced. You stick to one rigid opinion, determined to ignore any view that is different from yours. That is not a bad definition of “prejudice”. But I don’t have a problem with many of your decisions when they are based on sound reasoning (e.g. the case for design, and the case for free will). I only object if you cannot provide a single reason for your illogical theories but still insist that they are correct, or if you dismiss arguments that are just as soundly based as your own, simply because you have already made up your mind (e.g. cellular intelligence, and the case against free will).

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, February 06, 2023, 20:41 (416 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I now have an agnostic trying to rehabilitate God's reputation. It again reveals your underlying prejudices regarding theism. Your negative view has no basis in the facts. If we accept God as creating life's evolution, then He is logically responsible for all of its dead ends, failed experiments, etc. I, as a firm theist view God as a marvelous designer who successfully produced humans with their complex brains using the system He chose to use.

dhw: Your all-powerful God is apparently responsible for 99% of failed experiments and mistakes in his messy efforts to achieve what you think was his one and only purpose. This is supposed to make him a marvellous designer, whereas my proposal that he creates precisely what he wants to create without making any mistakes is apparently a negative view! I am not denying that humans are here, and if God exists, my three theistic theories all fit in with our existence, but none of them paint him as incompetent (mistake after mistake) or stupid (knowing he will make mistake after mistake, but still going ahead with his blunders).

If God is in charge, He is directly related to the history of evolution which has a failure rate of 99.9%. Your theories are simply inventions to disconnect God from a direct connection, and in so doing present a weakened form of God, not in total control but allowing secondhand design.


dhw: […] if you really want to believe that he invented the system but did NOT create 99% worth of mistakes, you need look no further than my third explanation: he wanted and therefore designed a free-for-all (with the option of dabbling if he felt like it). No mistakes, no failed experiments. […]

DAVID: Back you go to a humanized God who gives up full control so He can go blameless for the known failures. A real God is always in full control.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that you are now blaming God for all his mistakes. I can only suggest to you that a REAL and all-powerful God would not make mistakes […]. And I keep asking you why you regard a fallible, incompetent designer, whom you blame for his mistakes, as being less human and more godlike than a designer who produces exactly what he wants without making any mistakes. You never answer.

DAVID: My answer is still what you ignore. The dead ends and failures exist. You can't get rid of them.

Of course the dead ends exist! But I have explained to you why you needn't ridicule your God by calling them failures and mistakes. Now please answer the bolded question.

DAVID: I've described my powerful, purposeful, all controlling God, ad nauseum. Your wimp of a God comes from your artistic proclivities, I am sure.

dhw: It's you who blame your "wimpish" God for conducting failed experiments and making mistake after mistake in pursuit of his only goal! Furthermore, apparently he does not control the conditions which determine what species he can or cannot design – a major factor in his repeated failures to achieve that goal. Now please answer the bolded question.

Simple answer now repeated: My view of a real God is all-powerful, all-purposeful, all designer who does His designs with a full notice of where He is going without coming up suddenly with a new idea, which is the way humans work, a system you have implanted on your preferred view of a humanized God.


Permian mass extinction

dhw: We are looking at the SAME history […] Our dispute is over the interpretation of that history. […]“Preconceived prejudice” means fixed beliefs like yours, not a variety of possible explanations. As for free will, I have presented the case for and against without voting for either. You simply refuse to consider the case against. That is prejudice.

DAVID: Get off your fence. Make some intelligent decisions. They are possible to achieve.

dhw: I remain open-minded, which apparently means I am prejudiced. You stick to one rigid opinion, determined to ignore any view that is different from yours. That is not a bad definition of “prejudice”. But I don’t have a problem with many of your decisions when they are based on sound reasoning (e.g. the case for design, and the case for free will). I only object if you cannot provide a single reason for your illogical theories but still insist that they are correct, or if you dismiss arguments that are just as soundly based as your own, simply because you have already made up your mind (e.g. cellular intelligence, and the case against free will).

The bold is impossible to answer. God doesn't reveal his reasons for his actions. God fully controlled evolution with its dead ends. Therefore, He knew in advance dead ends appear, but it didn't matter, as with His designing powers He cold achieve humans. No added contrived form of God needed. God remains all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, February 07, 2023, 11:40 (415 days ago) @ David Turell

There is no point in repeating all the exchanges, as they lead to two questions which David never answers: 1) why would his God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, design every single life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., knowing that 99% of his designs would be mistakes/failed experiments? 2) How do his mistakes and failures make him less human and more godlike than a God who – in my theistic alternatives - achieves his purpose without making any mistakes? I'll repeat David's comments and respond accordingly:

DAVID: If God is in charge, He is directly related to the history of evolution which has a failure rate of 99.9%. Your theories are simply inventions to disconnect God from a direct connection, and in so doing present a weakened form of God, not in total control but allowing secondhand design.

If he exists, then of course he is the inventor of evolution, and we agree that 99% of life forms failed to survive. But your theory blames him for his mistakes and failed experiments, partly caused by his being restricted to designing species that can fit in with conditions over which he has no control. My alternatives are: 1) All his experiments are successful, in so far as they create living organisms (e.g.dinosaurs, who ruled the Earth for 150 million years), but he continues to experiment in his quest to create a being like himself (the purpose you give him). No mistakes or disconnection. 2) New ideas: he learns as he goes along, and eventually comes up with us. No mistakes or disconnection. 3) A free-for-all (though he can dabble if he wishes to), for which he has designed the mechanism that leads to all the different species that have come and gone in the constant battle for survival, with ourselves as the latest product. No mistakes or disconnection. (See “extremophiles” for more on this.)

DAVID: My view of a real God is all-powerful, all-purposeful, all designer who does His designs with a full notice of where He is going without coming up suddenly with a new idea, which is the way humans work, a system you have implanted on your preferred view of a humanized God.

Why is a God whose designs are 99% failures and mistakes, and who knows he’s going to make all these blunders, less human and more real and more godlike than a God who, as in all three of my alternative theories, achieves his purpose without any failures or mistakes?

DAVID: God doesn't reveal his reasons for his actions. God fully controlled evolution with its dead ends. Therefore, He knew in advance dead ends appear, but it didn't matter, as with His designing powers He cold achieve humans. No added contrived form of God needed. God remains all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.

If God exists, it is of course true that he doesn’t reveal his reasons. So why do you assume that your God had the purpose you impose on him and chose to make blunder after blunder although, being all-powerful, he was perfectly capable of achieving that purpose without a single mistake? And why is a God whose designs are 99% failures and mistakes, and who knows he’s going to make all these blunders, less human and more godlike than a God who, as in all three of my alternative theories, achieves his purpose without any failures or mistakes?

Extremophiles

DAVID: Living organisms can find many different ways to live. Adverse climates can be conqured by living organisms. It explains why God does not have to control all climates as dhw worries. God's supreme design of living organisms takes care of it.

But that does not explain why, if your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, he designed 99% of organisms which had no connection with us and our food. Apply your comment to "cellular intelligence" instead of "living organisms", as means of finding their own “different ways to live” or to “conquer adverse climates”, and you will see how perfectly it fits. This theory removes all the nonsense about an all-powerful God who makes mistake after mistake in his tunnel-visioned pursuit of a single purpose. Extremophiles would be a shining example of your God’s “supreme design” leading to the history of evolution as a gigantic free-for-all, in which the autonomous mechanism lives on (either by adapting or by innovating), or perishes in the constant struggle for survival. No humiliating mistakes or failed experiments.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 07, 2023, 18:05 (415 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: There is no point in repeating all the exchanges, as they lead to two questions which David never answers: 1) why would his God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, design every single life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., knowing that 99% of his designs would be mistakes/failed experiments?

Have answered all: 1) God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We cannot fathom them.

dhw: 2) How do his mistakes and failures make him less human and more godlike than a God who – in my theistic alternatives - achieves his purpose without making any mistakes? I'll repeat David's comments and respond accordingly:

My God is a totally different person than dhw proposes in his 'weak' God proposals. Mine is very purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing always. He needs no excuses for the messy way to evolve, because he considered that the required/best way.


DAVID: If God is in charge, He is directly related to the history of evolution which has a failure rate of 99.9%. Your theories are simply inventions to disconnect God from a direct connection, and in so doing present a weakened form of God, not in total control but allowing secondhand design.

dhw: If he exists, then of course he is the inventor of evolution, and we agree that 99% of life forms failed to survive. .... My alternatives are: 1) All his experiments are successful, in so far as they create living organisms (e.g.dinosaurs, who ruled the Earth for 150 million years), but he continues to experiment in his quest to create a being like himself (the purpose you give him). No mistakes or disconnection. 2) New ideas: he learns as he goes along, and eventually comes up with us. No mistakes or disconnection. 3) A free-for-all (though he can dabble if he wishes to), for which he has designed the mechanism that leads to all the different species that have come and gone in the constant battle for survival, with ourselves as the latest product. No mistakes or disconnection. (See “extremophiles” for more on this.)

A tortured distortion of the straightforward approach. God produced the evolutionary process we see.


DAVID: My view of a real God is all-powerful, all-purposeful, all designer who does His designs with a full notice of where He is going without coming up suddenly with a new idea, which is the way humans work, a system you have implanted on your preferred view of a humanized God.

dhw: Why is a God whose designs are 99% failures and mistakes, and who knows he’s going to make all these blunders, less human and more real and more godlike than a God who, as in all three of my alternative theories, achieves his purpose without any failures or mistakes?

Two totally different Gods. Take your pick. I have mine.


DAVID: God doesn't reveal his reasons for his actions. God fully controlled evolution with its dead ends. Therefore, He knew in advance dead ends appear, but it didn't matter, as with His designing powers He cold achieve humans. No added contrived form of God needed. God remains all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.

dhw: If God exists, it is of course true that he doesn’t reveal his reasons. So why do you assume that your God had the purpose you impose on him and chose to make blunder after blunder although, being all-powerful, he was perfectly capable of achieving that purpose without a single mistake? And why is a God whose designs are 99% failures and mistakes, and who knows he’s going to make all these blunders, less human and more godlike than a God who, as in all three of my alternative theories, achieves his purpose without any failures or mistakes?

'
For example, my God never needs to discover new ideas. He has A full plan from the beginning,
and carries it out despite full control over environment.


Extremophiles

DAVID: Living organisms can find many different ways to live. Adverse climates can be conqured by living organisms. It explains why God does not have to control all climates as dhw worries. God's supreme design of living organisms takes care of it.

dhw: But that does not explain why, if your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, he designed 99% of organisms which had no connection with us and our food.

The 99% failures evolved our existing food!!! That is the blank spot in your thinking.

dhw: Apply your comment to "cellular intelligence" instead of "living organisms", as means of finding their own “different ways to live” or to “conquer adverse climates”, and you will see how perfectly it fits. This theory removes all the nonsense about an all-powerful God who makes mistake after mistake in his tunnel-visioned pursuit of a single purpose. Extremophiles would be a shining example of your God’s “supreme design” leading to the history of evolution as a gigantic free-for-all, in which the autonomous mechanism lives on (either by adapting or by innovating), or perishes in the constant struggle for survival. No humiliating mistakes or failed experiments.

Cells which manufacture products intelligently at high speed do not have the design intelligence to create new forms. You have an invented theory of no substance. Except for Shapiro's unsupported conjecture there has been no other response to him. Bacterial ability to edit DNA is not seen in more developed organisms.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, February 08, 2023, 10:59 (414 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There is no point in repeating all the exchanges, as they lead to two questions which David never answers: 1) why would his God, whose only purpose was to design humans plus food, design every single life form, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc., knowing that 99% of his designs would be mistakes/failed experiments?

DAVID: Have answered all: 1) God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We cannot fathom them.

It is your theory that your God chose to make mistake after mistake, and it is you who cannot fathom a single reason why he would have done so. Maybe your theory is wrong!

dhw: 2) How do his mistakes and failures make him less human and more godlike than a God who – in my theistic alternatives - achieves his purpose without making any mistakes?

DAVID: My God is a totally different person than dhw proposes in his 'weak' God proposals. Mine is very purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing always. He needs no excuses for the messy way to evolve, because he considered that the required/best way.

We cannot read your God’s thoughts, but you happen to know he thought (considered) the best way to achieve his purpose was to make mistake after mistake, failed experiment after failed experiment. This makes him strong, whereas in my proposals he knows exactly what he wants and designs it without any mistakes, and that apparently makes him weak.

I shan’t repeat my three alternatives. Your comment on them is:

DAVID: A tortured distortion of the straightforward approach. God produced the evolutionary process we see.

All of my proposals produce the evolutionary process we see. I have no idea why you consider a process entailing your God’s producing a 99% failure rate to be more straightforward than your God using processes which entail no failures.

DAVID: For example, my God never needs to discover new ideas. He has A full plan from the beginning, and carries it out despite full control over environment.

According to you, his full plan consists of 99% mistakes, and he does NOT have full control over the environment, which is why he can only design species that fit in with conditions at the time – a major reason for his mistakes.

Extremophiles

DAVID: Living organisms can find many different ways to live. Adverse climates can be conquered by living organisms. It explains why God does not have to control all climates as dhw worries. God's supreme design of living organisms takes care of it.

dhw: But that does not explain why, if your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, he designed 99% of organisms which had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: The 99% failures evolved our existing food!!! That is the blank spot in your thinking.

This is getting ridiculous. You have agreed over and over again that the 99% did not evolve into anything – they were dead ends! If they had evolved into our current food, they would not have been mistakes/ failures!

DAVID: Living organisms can find many different ways to live. Adverse climates can be conqured by living organisms. It explains why God does not have to control all climates as dhw worries. God's supreme design of living organisms takes care of it.

dhw: Apply your comment to "cellular intelligence" instead of "living organisms", as means of finding their own “different ways to live” or to “conquer adverse climates”, and you will see how perfectly it fits

DAVID: Cells which manufacture products intelligently at high speed do not have the design intelligence to create new forms. You have an invented theory of no substance. Except for Shapiro's unsupported conjecture there has been no other response to him. Bacterial ability to edit DNA is not seen in more developed organisms.

Please stop pretending that Shapiro is the only scientist to believe that cells are intelligent. You have said that “adverse climates can be conquered by living organisms”. Extremophiles prove your point. Yes, they find different ways to live. Why must your God find their ways for them? Is every extremophile an absolute requirement for us and our food? Or one of your God's 99% mistakes?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 08, 2023, 16:55 (414 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 1) God chose to evolve us for His own reasons. We cannot fathom them.

dhw: It is your theory that your God chose to make mistake after mistake, and it is you who cannot fathom a single reason why he would have done so. Maybe your theory is wrong!

Don't you understand 'for His own reasons'?


dhw: 2) How do his mistakes and failures make him less human and more godlike than a God who – in my theistic alternatives - achieves his purpose without making any mistakes?

DAVID: My God is a totally different person than dhw proposes in his 'weak' God proposals. Mine is very purposeful, knows exactly what He is doing always. He needs no excuses for the messy way to evolve, because he considered that the required/best way.

dhw: We cannot read your God’s thoughts, but you happen to know he thought (considered) the best way to achieve his purpose was to make mistake after mistake, failed experiment after failed experiment. This makes him strong, whereas in my proposals he knows exactly what he wants and designs it without any mistakes, and that apparently makes him weak.

Your God is given surrogate ways of producing evolution as if His hands don't touch the process.


I shan’t repeat my three alternatives. Your comment on them is:

DAVID: A tortured distortion of the straightforward approach. God produced the evolutionary process we see.

dhw: All of my proposals produce the evolutionary process we see. I have no idea why you consider a process entailing your God’s producing a 99% failure rate to be more straightforward than your God using processes which entail no failures.

Suddenly a 99.9% failure rate disappears into a concocted theory that God has hands off.

p
DAVID: For example, my God never needs to discover new ideas. He has A full plan from the beginning, and carries it out despite full control over environment.

dhw: According to you, his full plan consists of 99% mistakes, and he does NOT have full control over the environment, which is why he can only design species that fit in with conditions at the time – a major reason for his mistakes.

What don't you understand about a God who can design for any conditions? Severe environments don't stop God from working designs as below:


Extremophiles

DAVID: Living organisms can find many different ways to live. Adverse climates can be conquered by living organisms. It explains why God does not have to control all climates as dhw worries. God's supreme design of living organisms takes care of it.

dhw: But that does not explain why, if your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, he designed 99% of organisms which had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: The 99% failures evolved our existing food!!! That is the blank spot in your thinking.

dhw:This is getting ridiculous. You have agreed over and over again that the 99% did not evolve into anything – they were dead ends! If they had evolved into our current food, they would not have been mistakes/ failures!

You have lost the concept of evolution completely. What cannot continue to survive sets the conditions necessary for new attempts. Evolution is a progression of simple forms to more complexity of forms. Failoure drives the process, per Raup.


DAVID: Living organisms can find many different ways to live. Adverse climates can be conqured by living organisms. It explains why God does not have to control all climates as dhw worries. God's supreme design of living organisms takes care of it.

dhw: Apply your comment to "cellular intelligence" instead of "living organisms", as means of finding their own “different ways to live” or to “conquer adverse climates”, and you will see how perfectly it fits

DAVID: Cells which manufacture products intelligently at high speed do not have the design intelligence to create new forms. You have an invented theory of no substance. Except for Shapiro's unsupported conjecture there has been no other response to him. Bacterial ability to edit DNA is not seen in more developed organisms.

dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro is the only scientist to believe that cells are intelligent. You have said that “adverse climates can be conquered by living organisms”. Extremophiles prove your point. Yes, they find different ways to live. Why must your God find their ways for them? Is every extremophile an absolute requirement for us and our food? Or one of your God's 99% mistakes?

Please remember evolution works from a failure to survive, so the next stage overcomes the past deficiencies. Most dinosaurs disappeared but are still here as birds!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution: paper on conflict

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 08, 2023, 19:58 (414 days ago) @ David Turell

It is distructive:

https://phys.org/news/2023-02-geometric-yields-insights-dynamics-evolutionary.html

Geometric model yields insights into the dynamics of evolutionary conflict

"The divergent goals of two opponents—whether they are individual people or entire nations—can be thought of as two points in a multi-dimensional space of possibilities, and the ensuing battle of wills can be described in terms of a ball bouncing around in this same space. When one party gains temporary control of the ball, they move it closer to where they want to to be, but their opponent is then liable to seize control and move the ball in the opposite direction.

"A new paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences focuses on conflicts that are of interest to evolutionary biologists—including those occurring between genes, between individuals, between the sexes, and between the generations.

"The geometric approach reveals that not only are these conflicts liable to continue indefinitely through evolutionary time, but that they are also able to spill out from the initial battleground and cause extensive collateral damage in areas where there is no actual disagreement. The damage is particularly devastating to complex organisms and social structures, and so conflict places an important barrier to the evolution of complexity.

"The geometric analysis finds that such collateral damage is greatly reduced if organisms and their societies embody the principle of modular design, which constrains the bouncing ball to move only in certain directions at any given time.

"This suggests that modularity is a crucial—and previously unappreciated—enabler of complex adaptation and transformative changes in social organization, from the evolution of multicellular life to the emergence of superorganismal insect societies."

Comment: the paper recognizes the propensity of any form of evolution to evoke conflict. God's form was/is dog-eat-dog at a fight for survival level. God's form resulted in a 0.1% survival rate, yet it achieved its goals. What's to make of it? I view it as God knowing what He was doing. dhw is bent all out of shape because he thinks it makes God look bad. I am happy with my God-view. That is because of the way I picture God' personality. dhw's view of God is his own personal invention that never approaches any way I think about God and His personaity.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, February 09, 2023, 08:15 (414 days ago) @ David Turell

More repetition, so I’ll try to avoid some of it.

DAVID: Your God is given surrogate ways of producing evolution as if His hands don't touch the process.
And:
DAVID: Suddenly a 99.9% failure rate disappears into a concocted theory that God has hands off.

In two of my theistic alternatives (experimentation and new ideas) his figurative hands are on, but the non-survival of 99% of his designs is neither a mistake nor a failure. Only the free-for-all is hands off, unless he wants to dabble. Now please tell us why a God who makes mistake after mistake is more godlike than a God who makes no mistakes.

DAVID: What don't you understand about a God who can design for any conditions? Severe environments don't stop God from working designs […]

You call his experiments failures and mistakes because they had no connection with his sole purpose: us and our food. Your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s inability to control the environment meant that he could only design species that suited the conditions, as opposed to species that would lead to us and our food – hence the pathetic “new attempts” mentioned below. Hurray for his ability to adapt his designs to whatever conditions chanced to arrive, but boo for his failure after failure – not to mention his lack of control – in his messy attempts to achieve his sole purpose.

Extremophiles

DAVID: The 99% failures evolved our existing food!!! That is the blank spot in your thinking.

dhw: This is getting ridiculous. You have agreed over and over again that the 99% did not evolve into anything – they were dead ends! If they had evolved into our current food, they would not have been mistakes/ failures!

DAVID: You have lost the concept of evolution completely. What cannot continue to survive sets the conditions necessary for new attempts. Evolution is a progression of simple forms to more complexity of forms. Failure drives the process, per Raup.

Species go extinct because they cannot survive new conditions. They don’t “set” the new conditions! Nor, according to you, does your God. And extinct forms do not evolve into new forms. Only the one per cent of survivors can evolve into new forms. See birds below.

DAVID: Living organisms can find many different ways to live. Adverse climates can be conquered by living organisms. It explains why God does not have to control all climates as dhw worries. God's supreme design of living organisms takes care of it.

dhw: Apply your comment to "cellular intelligence" instead of "living organisms", as means of finding their own “different ways to live” or to “conquer adverse climates”, and you will see how perfectly it fits

DAVID: Cells which manufacture products intelligently at high speed do not have the design intelligence to create new forms. You have an invented theory of no substance. Except for Shapiro's unsupported conjecture there has been no other response to him. […]

dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro is the only scientist to believe that cells are intelligent. You have said that “adverse climates can be conquered by living organisms”. Extremophiles prove your point. Yes, they find different ways to live. Why must your God find their ways for them? Is every extremophile an absolute requirement for us and our food? Or one of your God's 99% mistakes?

Not answered.

DAVID: Please remember evolution works from a failure to survive, so the next stage overcomes the past deficiencies. Most dinosaurs disappeared but are still here as birds!!!

As usual, you avoid my question. Evolution does NOT work from a failure to survive! Evolution can only work through those organisms that do survive! Most dinosaurs are NOT still here as birds. We’ve been through this before. Wikipedia: Coelurosauria is a subgroup of theropod dinosaurs that includes compsognathids, tyrannosaurs, ornithomimosaurs, and maniraptorans; Maniraptora includes birds, the only known dinosaur group alive today.

In other words, the evolution of birds took place through the only surviving subgroup of a subgroup of dinosaurs. In any case, common sense should tell you that the dead do not produce the living.

Conflict

DAVID: the paper recognizes the propensity of any form of evolution to evoke conflict. God's form was/is dog-eat-dog at a fight for survival level. God's form resulted in a 0.1% survival rate, yet it achieved its goals.

There’s no doubt that evolution is a fight for survival, whether through conflict or cooperation (see Margulis’s emphasis on symbiotic relationships. She also believed in cellular intelligence). Unless your God fixed every fight, you are still left with his dependence not only on conditions beyond his control, but also on the luck which determined which dog survived to enable him to keep blundering on in his efforts to achieve his one and only goal.

DAVID: […] I view it as God knowing what He was doing. dhw is bent all out of shape because he thinks it makes God look bad. I am happy with my God-view. That is because of the way I picture God' personality. dhw's view of God is his own personal invention that never approaches any way I think about God and His personaity.

I do indeed think that mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. make your God look bad, but that is your “personal invention”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 09, 2023, 17:01 (413 days ago) @ dhw

More repetition, so I’ll try to avoid some of it.

DAVID: Your God is given surrogate ways of producing evolution as if His hands don't touch the process.
And:
DAVID: Suddenly a 99.9% failure rate disappears into a concocted theory that God has hands off.

dhw: In two of my theistic alternatives (experimentation and new ideas) his figurative hands are on, but the non-survival of 99% of his designs is neither a mistake nor a failure. Only the free-for-all is hands off, unless he wants to dabble. Now please tell us why a God who makes mistake after mistake is more godlike than a God who makes no mistakes.

Our disagreement is over definitions. If God designed all of evolution with a 99.9% of non-survival, whose responsibility is it? You just wave it away above (bolded)


DAVID: What don't you understand about a God who can design for any conditions? Severe environments don't stop God from working designs […]

dhw: You call his experiments failures and mistakes because they had no connection with his sole purpose: us and our food.

They had every connection an evolutionary system provides, as you now a tempt to ignore. The failures led to our current ecosystem for food.

dhw: Your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s inability to control the environment meant that he could only design species that suited the conditions, as opposed to species that would lead to us and our food.

Wrong again: our giant bush of food supply is the result of that exact requirement to suit environments.

Extremophiles

DAVID: You have lost the concept of evolution completely. What cannot continue to survive sets the conditions necessary for new attempts. Evolution is a progression of simple forms to more complexity of forms. Failure drives the process, per Raup.

dhw: Species go extinct because they cannot survive new conditions. They don’t “set” the new conditions! Nor, according to you, does your God. And extinct forms do not evolve into new forms. Only the one per cent of survivors can evolve into new forms. See birds below.

By 'setting' I mean show the deficiencies that need correction.


DAVID: Cells which manufacture products intelligently at high speed do not have the design intelligence to create new forms. You have an invented theory of no substance. Except for Shapiro's unsupported conjecture there has been no other response to him. […]

dhw: Please stop pretending that Shapiro is the only scientist to believe that cells are intelligent. You have said that “adverse climates can be conquered by living organisms”. Extremophiles prove your point. Yes, they find different ways to live. Why must your God find their ways for them? Is every extremophile an absolute requirement for us and our food? Or one of your God's 99% mistakes?

Not answered.

Not worth answering, but as you know I think all animals and plants fit into very important ecosystems that provide our food.


DAVID: Please remember evolution works from a failure to survive, so the next stage overcomes the past deficiencies. Most dinosaurs disappeared but are still here as birds!!!

As usual, you avoid my question. Evolution does NOT work from a failure to survive! Evolution can only work through those organisms that do survive! Most dinosaurs are NOT still here as birds. We’ve been through this before. Wikipedia: Coelurosauria is a subgroup of theropod dinosaurs that includes compsognathids, tyrannosaurs, ornithomimosaurs, and maniraptorans; Maniraptora includes birds, the only known dinosaur group alive today.

dhw: In other words, the evolution of birds took place through the only surviving subgroup of a subgroup of dinosaurs. In any case, common sense should tell you that the dead do not produce the living.

You just proved the point. I won't repeat your list of now extinct ancestors of birds.


Conflict

DAVID: the paper recognizes the propensity of any form of evolution to evoke conflict. God's form was/is dog-eat-dog at a fight for survival level. God's form resulted in a 0.1% survival rate, yet it achieved its goals.

dhw: There’s no doubt that evolution is a fight for survival, whether through conflict or cooperation .... Unless your God fixed every fight, you are still left with his dependence not only on conditions beyond his control, but also on the luck which determined which dog survived to enable him to keep blundering on in his efforts to achieve his one and only goal.

Never luck as I have shown God can handle any design problem presented.


DAVID: […] I view it as God knowing what He was doing. dhw is bent all out of shape because he thinks it makes God look bad. I am happy with my God-view. That is because of the way I picture God' personality. dhw's view of God is his own personal invention that never approaches any way I think about God and His personaity.

dhw: I do indeed think that mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. make your God look bad, but that is your “personal invention”.

I'm just presenting evolution in a different factual light as it relates to God the designer.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, February 10, 2023, 11:51 (412 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Suddenly a 99.9% failure rate disappears into a concocted theory that God has hands off.

dhw: In two of my theistic alternatives (experimentation and new ideas) his figurative hands are on, but the non-survival of 99% of his designs is neither a mistake nor a failure. (David’s bold) Only the free-for-all is hands off, unless he wants to dabble. Now please tell us why a God who makes mistake after mistake is more godlike than a God who makes no mistakes.(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Our disagreement is over definitions. If God designed all of evolution with a 99.9% of non-survival, whose responsibility is it? You just wave it away above (bolded).

Of course it’s his responsibility. But you have agreed that non-survival is not synonymous with “mistakes” and “failed experiments”! In two of my theistic alternatives, he designed all the species “hands on”, but the 99% were successes, not mistakes or failed experiments. You make him look like a blundering fool. Now please tell us...request bolded above

DAVID: What don't you understand about a God who can design for any conditions? Severe environments don't stop God from working designs […]

dhw: You call his experiments failures and mistakes because they had no connection with his sole purpose: us and our food.

DAVID: They had every connection an evolutionary system provides, as you now a tempt to ignore. The failures led to our current ecosystem for food.

When will you stop contradicting yourself? You call the 99% failures because they did NOT lead to our current system. Only the surviving 1% led to our current system!

dhw: Your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s inability to control the environment meant that he could only design species that suited the conditions, as opposed to species that would lead to us and our food.

DAVID: Wrong again: our giant bush of food supply is the result of that exact requirement to suit environments.

Our bush suits OUR environment. You call the 99% “mistakes” because the organisms and their environment had no connection with us and our environment. Only the 1% bridged the gaps.

Extremophiles

DAVID: […] What cannot continue to survive sets the conditions necessary for new attempts. Evolution is a progression of simple forms to more complexity of forms. Failure drives the process, per Raup.

dhw: Species go extinct because they cannot survive new conditions. They don’t “set” the new conditions! Nor, according to you, does your God. And extinct forms do not evolve into new forms. Only the one per cent of survivors can evolve into new forms. See birds below.

DAVID: By 'setting' I mean show the deficiencies that need correction.

Back you go to your blundering God, correcting his mistakes by making the next set of mistakes. He never learns, does he? Though you think he knew in advance that he’d make all these blunders, which apparently means he is all-powerful, and always in control.

dhw: Is every extremophile an absolute requirement for us and our food? Or one of your God's 99% mistakes?

DAVID: Not worth answering, but as you know I think all animals and plants fit into very important ecosystems that provide our food.

The usual slithery non-answer.

DAVID: Please remember evolution works from a failure to survive, so the next stage overcomes the past deficiencies. Most dinosaurs disappeared but are still here as birds!!!

dhw: Evolution does NOT work from a failure to survive! Evolution can only work through those organisms that do survive! […] , the evolution of birds took place through the only surviving subgroup of a subgroup of dinosaurs. In any case, common sense should tell you that the dead do not produce the living.

DAVID: You just proved the point. I won't repeat your list of now extinct ancestors of birds.

The bird example proves that evolution proceeds through survivors not failures, though you thought it meant the opposite. Most dinosaurs are NOT still here as birds.

Conflict

dhw: .... Unless your God fixed every fight, you are still left with his dependence not only on conditions beyond his control, but also on the luck which determined which dog survived to enable him to keep blundering on in his efforts to achieve his one and only goal.

DAVID: Never luck as I have shown God can handle any design problem presented.

dhw: […] if he does not control environmental changes and which species will survive, he can only adapt his designs to whatever conditions and survivors he is presented with. This means he can’t design us and our food until luck provides him with the right conditions and survivors. Hence what you call his mistakes and failures.

DAVID: […] I view it as God knowing what He was doing. dhw is bent all out of shape because he thinks it makes God look bad. […] dhw's view of God is his own personal invention that never approaches any way I think about God and His personaity.

dhw: I do indeed think that mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. make your God look bad, but that is your “personal invention”.

DAVID: I'm just presenting evolution in a different factual light as it relates to God the designer.

I’m surprised that you see your all-powerful God and his designs in such a bad light.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, February 10, 2023, 17:55 (412 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Suddenly a 99.9% failure rate disappears into a concocted theory that God has hands off.

dhw: In two of my theistic alternatives (experimentation and new ideas) his figurative hands are on, but the non-survival of 99% of his designs is neither a mistake nor a failure. (David’s bold) Only the free-for-all is hands off, unless he wants to dabble. Now please tell us why a God who makes mistake after mistake is more godlike than a God who makes no mistakes.(dhw’s bold)

God's 'mistakes' actually progress in any evolutionary system


DAVID: Our disagreement is over definitions. If God designed all of evolution with a 99.9% of non-survival, whose responsibility is it? You just wave it away above (bolded).

DAVID: What don't you understand about a God who can design for any conditions? Severe environments don't stop God from working designs […]

dhw: Your all-powerful, always-in-control God’s inability to control the environment meant that he could only design species that suited the conditions, as opposed to species that would lead to us and our food.

DAVID: Wrong again: our giant bush of food supply is the result of that exact requirement to suit environments.

dhw: Our bush suits OUR environment. You call the 99% “mistakes” because the organisms and their environment had no connection with us and our environment. Only the 1% bridged the gaps.

The dead ends demonstrated what ware necessary were adaptations to evolve onward. They led to the improved 1%


Extremophiles

DAVID: […] What cannot continue to survive sets the conditions necessary for new attempts. Evolution is a progression of simple forms to more complexity of forms. Failure drives the process, per Raup.

dhw: Species go extinct because they cannot survive new conditions. They don’t “set” the new conditions! Nor, according to you, does your God. And extinct forms do not evolve into new forms. Only the one per cent of survivors can evolve into new forms. See birds below.

DAVID: By 'setting' I mean show the deficiencies that need correction.

dhw: Back you go to your blundering God, correcting his mistakes by making the next set of mistakes. He never learns, does he? Though you think he knew in advance that he’d make all these blunders, which apparently means he is all-powerful, and always in control.

You need to stop and review how anything evolves, Dead ends a normal part of it.


dhw: Is every extremophile an absolute requirement for us and our food? Or one of your God's 99% mistakes?

DAVID: Not worth answering, but as you know I think all animals and plants fit into very important ecosystems that provide our food.

dhw: The usual slithery non-answer.


Once again you deny the importance of our major ecosystems. After all, its just food.

Conflict

dhw: I do indeed think that mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. make your God look bad, but that is your “personal invention”.

DAVID: I'm just presenting evolution in a different factual light as it relates to God the designer.

dhw: I’m surprised that you see your all-powerful God and his designs in such a bad light.

It is your 'bad light' interpretation, but then again you like wimpy Gods.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, February 11, 2023, 07:48 (412 days ago) @ David Turell

I’m tempted to edit this post to a single paragraph, and even to the single request/question at the beginning and end, but perhaps the repetitions will eventually bear fruit.

DAVID: Suddenly a 99.9% failure rate disappears into a concocted theory that God has hands off.

dhw: In two of my theistic alternatives (experimentation and new ideas) his figurative hands are on, but the non-survival of 99% of his designs is neither a mistake nor a failure. (David’s bold) Only the free-for-all is hands off, unless he wants to dabble. Now please tell us why a God who makes mistake after mistake is more godlike than a God who makes no mistakes.(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: God's 'mistakes' actually progress in any evolutionary system. (dhw's bold)

Once again you dodge my bolded request, which lies at the very heart of our disagreement. Meanwhile, how many of God’s evolutionary systems do you know? The evolutionary system we know tells us that 99% per cent of his designs came to a dead end, i.e. made no further progress, and that is why you call them mistakes and failures. Please stop contradicting yourself.

dhw: Your supposedly all-powerful, always-in-control God’s inability to control the environment meant that he could only design species that suited the conditions, as opposed to species that would lead to us and our food.

DAVID: Wrong again: our giant bush of food supply is the result of that exact requirement to suit environments.

dhw: Our bush, derived from the 1% of successes, suits OUR environment. You call the other 99% “mistakes” because the organisms and their environments had no connection with us and our environment. Only the 1% bridged the gaps.

DAVID: The dead ends demonstrated what ware necessary were adaptations to evolve onward. They led to the improved 1%.

The dead ends became dead because of new conditions – they did not demonstrate what conditions were necessary for their survival! Only the 1% of survivors showed the necessary adaptations, which you believe your God then worked on, but even them the process repeated itself, with him designing another 99% of blunders.

Extremophiles

DAVID: […] What cannot continue to survive sets the conditions necessary for new attempts. Evolution is a progression of simple forms to more complexity of forms. Failure drives the process, per Raup.

dhw: Species go extinct because they cannot survive new conditions. They don’t “set” the new conditions! Nor, according to you, does your God. And extinct forms do not evolve into new forms. Only the one per cent of survivors can evolve into new forms. See birds below.

DAVID: By 'setting' I mean show the deficiencies that need correction.

dhw: Back you go to your blundering God, correcting his mistakes by making the next set of mistakes. He never learns, does he? Though you think he knew in advance that he’d make all these blunders, which apparently means he is all-powerful, and always in control.

DAVID: You need to stop and review how anything evolves, Dead ends a normal part of it.

We agree that 99% of life’s evolution produced dead ends. But the dead ends did not lead to sapiens plus food, and since you say your God designed them although his only purpose was to produce us plus our food, you blame him for making mistakes and conducting failed experiments. Yes or no?

dhw: Is every extremophile an absolute requirement for us and our food? Or one of your God's 99% mistakes?

DAVID: Not worth answering, but as you know I think all animals and plants fit into very important ecosystems that provide our food.

dhw: The usual slithery non-answer.

DAVID: Once again you deny the importance of our major ecosystems. After all, its just food.

Please stop slithering and stop putting words into my mouth. Of course our major ecosystems are important to us. Have I ever denied that we need food or that our food is derived from current ecosystems? Extremophiles demonstrate that organisms find all kinds of ways to survive. You also tell us that your God designed them, and that God designed every organism in order to produce us and our food, but 99% were mistakes. So do you think your God designed every extremophile to be part of our food supply, or are they his mistakes?

Conflict

dhw: I do indeed think that mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. make your God look bad, but that is your “personal invention”.

DAVID: I'm just presenting evolution in a different factual light as it relates to God the designer.

dhw: I’m surprised that you see your all-powerful God and his designs in such a bad light.

DAVID: It is your 'bad light' interpretation, but then again you like wimpy Gods.

Why do think countless mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. are the attributes of an all-powerful, strong, always-in-control God, whereas a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is to be considered “wimpy”? This post has now come full circle. Please stop dodging the question.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 12, 2023, 01:51 (411 days ago) @ dhw

I’m tempted to edit this post to a single paragraph, and even to the single request/question at the beginning and end, but perhaps the repetitions will eventually bear fruit.
DAVID: God's 'mistakes' actually progress in any evolutionary system. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Once again you dodge my bolded request, which lies at the very heart of our disagreement. Meanwhile, how many of God’s evolutionary systems do you know? The evolutionary system we know tells us that 99% per cent of his designs came to a dead end, i.e. made no further progress, and that is why you call them mistakes and failures. Please stop contradicting yourself.

You keep ignoring: BB, evolve universe, evolve Milky Way, start life on Earth which evolves Earth, evolves life!!!


dhw: Your supposedly all-powerful, always-in-control God’s inability to control the environment meant that he could only design species that suited the conditions, as opposed to species that would lead to us and our food.

DAVID: Wrong again: our giant bush of food supply is the result of that exact requirement to suit environments.

dhw: Our bush, derived from the 1% of successes, suits OUR environment. You call the other 99% “mistakes” because the organisms and their environments had no connection with us and our environment. Only the 1% bridged the gaps.

DAVID: The dead ends demonstrated what were necessary adaptations to evolve onward. They led to the improved 1%.

dhw: The dead ends became dead because of new conditions – they did not demonstrate what conditions were necessary for their survival! Only the 1% of survivors showed the necessary adaptations, which you believe your God then worked on, but even them the process repeated itself, with him designing another 99% of blunders.

Why do you ignore Raup? He described evolution as 99.0% failure to survive, didn't he?

Extremophiles[/b

DAVID: […] What cannot continue to survive sets the conditions necessary for new attempts. Evolution is a progression of simple forms to more complexity of forms. Failure drives the process, per Raup.

DAVID: You need to stop and review how anything evolves, Dead ends a normal part of it.

dhw: We agree that 99% of life’s evolution produced dead ends. But the dead ends did not lead to sapiens plus food, and since you say your God designed them although his only purpose was to produce us plus our food, you blame him for making mistakes and conducting failed experiments. Yes or no?

No blame. Failure to survive is part and parcel of the system He chose to and was successful with.


DAVID: Once again you deny the importance of our major ecosystems. After all, its just food.

dhw: Please stop slithering and stop putting words into my mouth. Of course our major ecosystems are important to us. Have I ever denied that we need food or that our food is derived from current ecosystems? Extremophiles demonstrate that organisms find all kinds of ways to survive. You also tell us that your God designed them, and that God designed every organism in order to produce us and our food, but 99% were mistakes. So do you think your God designed every extremophile to be part of our food supply, or are they his mistakes?

Of course, they survived and weren't mistakes!!! But part of our ecosystems


Conflict

dhw: I do indeed think that mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. make your God look bad, but that is your “personal invention”.

DAVID: I'm just presenting evolution in a different factual light as it relates to God the designer.

dhw: I’m surprised that you see your all-powerful God and his designs in such a bad light.

DAVID: It is your 'bad light' interpretation, but then again you like wimpy Gods.

dhw: Why do think countless mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. are the attributes of an all-powerful, strong, always-in-control God, whereas a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is to be considered “wimpy”? This post has now come full circle. Please stop dodging the question.

Never dodged. My all-powerful, all-knowing, al purposeful God stays on course and produces everything He wishes to produce. Compared to your mind-changing wimp of a deity .

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, February 12, 2023, 11:51 (410 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolving a universe for life

DAVID: dhw appears to have little recognition God evolves everything; here is how the universe it was done:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-reason-neutral-atoms/?utm_campaign=swab...

DAVID: ALL OF IT IS EVOLUTION!!! GOD EVOLVES EVERYTHING. It is ALWAYS His pattern of creation. dhw take notice!! Complex quantum rules are skipped so dhw is comfortable.

Of course the universe evolved! Just as we evolved and every other life form evolved. I doubt if there is a single atheist who does not believe that the universe and life evolved. What I object to is the theory that your all-powerful, all-purposeful, all-knowing God would deliberately design 200 billion trillion stars plus all the dead ones, and millions of now extinct organisms, knowing in advance that 99% of his designs would be mistakes and failed experiments, because all he wanted to produce was one species (homo sapiens) and its food.

DAVID: God's 'mistakes' actually progress in any evolutionary system. (dhw's bold)

dhw: […] how many of God’s evolutionary systems do you know? The evolutionary system we know tells us that 99% per cent of his designs came to a dead end, i.e. made no further progress, and that is why you call them mistakes and failures. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: You keep ignoring: BB, evolve universe, evolve Milky Way, start life on Earth which evolves Earth, evolves life!!!

Answered above, but in any case your comment is not an answer to mine.

DAVID: The dead ends demonstrated what were necessary adaptations to evolve onward. They led to the improved 1%.

dhw: The dead ends became dead because of new conditions – they did not demonstrate what conditions were necessary for their survival! Only the 1% of survivors showed the necessary adaptations, which you believe your God then worked on, but even then the process repeated itself, with him designing another 99% of blunders.

DAVID: Why do you ignore Raup? He described evolution as 99.0% failure to survive, didn't he?

How many more times? We agree that 99% failed to survive! But you say their failure to survive was due to your God making mistakes, conducting failed experiments, because none of them led to his only goal, which was to design us and our food. And you blame him for the messy history of evolution.

DAVID: No blame. Failure to survive is part and parcel of the system He chose to and was successful with.

How many more times? “Failure to survive” is not synonymous with your God making mistakes! According to your theory, his system produced 99% mistakes and 1% success. And you have said explicitly: “Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution, Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. [...].” (11 December 2022) Unless you consider mistakes and failures and mess to be praiseworthy, I would suggest that responsibility = blame.

Permian mass extinction – not so widespread (transferred from “More miscellany)

DAVID: this fits my approach that God was not fully in charge of all factors. He took advantage of these changes to advance evolution.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your God’s lack of control. An opportunistic God who takes advantage of conditions outside his control in order to evolve new life forms, 99% of which are mistakes, clearly depends on luck to provide him with the conditions that will allow him to design the only life forms he wants to design.

DAVID: God never needed opportunity!!! He easily handled all conditions that appeared.

But unfortunately, because these conditions were unsuitable for the purpose you impose on him, 99% of his easy handling apparently produced mistakes and failed experiments. And what is even more degrading is that according to you, he actually knew that he was going to make mistakes but still went ahead! And so we come back to the question you dodge, and dodge, and dodge again:

dhw: Why do think countless mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. are the attributes of an all-powerful, strong, always-in-control God, whereas a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is to be considered “wimpy”? .

DAVID: Never dodged. My all-powerful, all-knowing, all purposeful God stays on course and produces everything He wishes to produce. Compared to your mind-changing wimp of a deity.

He stays on course by designing 99% of life forms that are off course, but he wishes to produce his mistakes and to conduct experiments he knows will fail. That apparently makes him all-powerful and all-knowing. My three alternative theistic explanations of evolution (successful experimentation, new ideas, or a free-for-all) offer us a God who remains all-powerful and all-purposeful (but not all-knowing, as he wants to try out new things – which does not “mean mind-changing” if his purpose is to learn something new), and who produces everything he wishes to produce without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments. Why is your mistake-making blunderer more godlike than my faultless alternatives?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 12, 2023, 17:26 (410 days ago) @ dhw

Evolving a universe for life

DAVID: dhw appears to have little recognition God evolves everything; here is how the universe it was done:
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-reason-neutral-atoms/?utm_campaign=swab...

DAVID: ALL OF IT IS EVOLUTION!!! GOD EVOLVES EVERYTHING. It is ALWAYS His pattern of creation. dhw take notice!! Complex quantum rules are skipped so dhw is comfortable.

dhw: Of course the universe evolved! Just as we evolved and every other life form evolved. I doubt if there is a single atheist who does not believe that the universe and life evolved. What I object to is the theory that your all-powerful, all-purposeful, all-knowing God would deliberately design 200 billion trillion stars plus all the dead ones, and millions of now extinct organisms, knowing in advance that 99% of his designs would be mistakes and failed experiments, because all he wanted to produce was one species (homo sapiens) and its food.

Let's stay with the multiple stars comment first: Supernovas supply all heavier elements beyond hydrogen, a fact in cosmologic science. God had the stars make the necessary elements. Secondly, we are here. God achieved making the most complex item in the universe, our brain. God evolved it.


DAVID: God's 'mistakes' actually progress in any evolutionary system. (dhw's bold)

dhw: […] how many of God’s evolutionary systems do you know? The evolutionary system we know tells us that 99% per cent of his designs came to a dead end, i.e. made no further progress, and that is why you call them mistakes and failures. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: You keep ignoring: BB, evolve universe, evolve Milky Way, start life on Earth which evolves Earth, evolves life!!!

dhw: Answered above, but in any case your comment is not an answer to mine.

The answer is all evolutionary processes have dead ends, and all you do is concentrate on them as if they stifle advances.


DAVID: Why do you ignore Raup? He described evolution as 99.0% failure to survive, didn't he?

dhw: How many more times? We agree that 99% failed to survive! But you say their failure to survive was due to your God making mistakes, conducting failed experiments, because none of them led to his only goal, which was to design us and our food. And you blame him for the messy history of evolution.

Raup says it was not mistakes in design but bad luck! The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in a lack of adaptability.


DAVID: No blame. Failure to survive is part and parcel of the system He chose to and was successful with.

dhw: How many more times? “Failure to survive” is not synonymous with your God making mistakes! According to your theory, his system produced 99% mistakes and 1% success. And you have said explicitly: “Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution, Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. [...].” (11 December 2022) Unless you consider mistakes and failures and mess to be praiseworthy, I would suggest that responsibility = blame.

God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.


Permian mass extinction – not so widespread (transferred from “More miscellany)

DAVID: this fits my approach that God was not fully in charge of all factors. He took advantage of these changes to advance evolution.

dhw: But unfortunately, because these conditions were unsuitable for the purpose you impose on him, 99% of his easy handling apparently produced mistakes and failed experiments. And what is even more degrading is that according to you, he actually knew that he was going to make mistakes but still went ahead! And so we come back to the question you dodge, and dodge, and dodge again:

dhw: Why do think countless mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. are the attributes of an all-powerful, strong, always-in-control God, whereas a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is to be considered “wimpy”? .

Not ever dodged. Purposely distorted by you. My all-powerful, all-knowing all-purposeful God used a method of his choice to produce us!! Your play by free-for-all God not=in-full- control, changes course with new suddenly developed ideas, and is not a wimp??!! And under His control your God did not have a 99.9% Raup failure rate? They magically disappeared?

dhw: He stays on course by designing 99% of life forms that are off course, but he wishes to produce his mistakes and to conduct experiments he knows will fail. That apparently makes him all-powerful and all-knowing. My three alternative theistic explanations of evolution (successful experimentation, new ideas, or a free-for-all) offer us a God who remains all-powerful and all-purposeful (but not all-knowing, as he wants to try out new things – which does not “mean mind-changing” if his purpose is to learn something new), and who produces everything he wishes to produce without making any mistakes or conducting any failed experiments. Why is your mistake-making blunderer more godlike than my faultless alternatives?

You have totally left the God from the Bible we should be discussing. Did your fuzzy God have any idea from the beginning he would produce humans??

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, February 13, 2023, 08:41 (410 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolving a universe for life

DAVID: dhw appears to have little recognition God evolves everything; […]

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/quantum-reason-neutral-atoms/?utm_campaign=swab...

DAVID: ALL OF IT IS EVOLUTION!!! GOD EVOLVES EVERYTHING. It is ALWAYS His pattern of creation. dhw take notice!! […]

dhw: Of course the universe evolved! Just as we evolved and every other life form evolved. I doubt if there is a single atheist who does not believe that the universe and life evolved. What I object to is the theory that your all-powerful, all-purposeful, all-knowing God would deliberately design 200 billion trillion stars plus all the dead ones, and millions of now extinct organisms, knowing in advance that 99% of his designs would be mistakes and failed experiments, because all he wanted to produce was one species (homo sapiens) and our food.

DAVID: Let's stay with the multiple stars comment first: Supernovas supply all heavier elements beyond hydrogen, a fact in cosmologic science. God had the stars make the necessary elements.

I’m not disputing the fact that stars produced the elements. I’m disputing the bolded theory above.

DAVID: Secondly, we are here. God achieved making the most complex item in the universe, our brain. God evolved it.

I’m not disputing the fact that we are here. I’m disputing the bolded theory above.

DAVID: God's 'mistakes' actually progress in any evolutionary system. (dhw's bold)

dhw: […] how many of God’s evolutionary systems do you know? The evolutionary system we know tells us that 99% per cent of his designs came to a dead end, i.e. made no further progress, and that is why you call them mistakes and failures. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: The answer is all evolutionary processes have dead ends, and all you do is concentrate on them as if they stifle advances.

We know of only one evolution of life, and I have never said dead ends stifle advances. Dead ends are dead ends because they do not advance. Only the 1% advance, as you have agreed. And you call the 99% mistakes and blame God for making a mess of evolution.

DAVID: Raup says it was not mistakes in design but bad luck! The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in a lack of adaptability.

The 99% failed to survive because they were unlucky enough to be badly designed, but apparently bad design is not a fault or a mistake, although you blame God for his mistakes. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: No blame. Failure to survive is part and parcel of the system He chose to and was successful with.
And:
DAVID: under His control your God did not have a 99.9% Raup failure rate? They magically disappeared?

dhw: How many more times? Raup’s “failure to survive” is not synonymous with your God making mistakes! […] And you have said explicitly:“Once God appears, He is responsible for all the messy aspects of evolution, Yes, He is. The whole of evolution is a messy process of successes and failures. [...].” (11 December 2022) Unless you consider mistakes and failures and mess to be praiseworthy, I would suggest that responsibility = blame.

DAVID: God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.

So why did you say he was not to blame? Please stop contradicting yourself!

dhw: Why do think countless mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. are the attributes of an all-powerful, strong, always-in-control God, whereas a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is to be considered “wimpy”? .

DAVID: Not ever dodged. Purposely distorted by you. My all-powerful, all-knowing all-purposeful God used a method of his choice to produce us!!

If he exists, then I agree that he must have used a method of his choice, since we are here. But why would he have chosen the messy, fault-ridden, method you have chosen for him when there are at least three alternative methods which lead to the same result without the mistakes and mess you blame him for?

DAVID: Your play by free-for-all God not=in-full- control, changes course with new suddenly developed ideas, and is not a wimp??!!

None of my versions have him changing course. Why is it “wimpy” to try different methods or to set out to discover/invent new things, but not “wimpy” to make countless blunders and rely on luck to help you reach your goal?

DAVID: You have totally left the God from the Bible we should be discussing. Did your fuzzy God have any idea from the beginning he would produce humans??

Why must you bring the Bible into it? The Bible doesn’t even mention evolution, let alone a God who makes mistake after mistake, failed experiment after failed experiment, faulty design, and countless messy attempts to design Adam & Eve and their food, because he could only design organisms that would fit in with the different conditions thrown up by chance on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth days. Your God is an incompetent bungler, but apparently that makes him more godlike that my alternatives, which see him as achieving what he wants without making any mistakes.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, February 13, 2023, 17:19 (409 days ago) @ dhw

Evolving a universe for life

dhw: Of course the universe evolved! Just as we evolved and every other life form evolved. I doubt if there is a single atheist who does not believe that the universe and life evolved. What I object to is the theory that your all-powerful, all-purposeful, all-knowing God would deliberately design 200 billion trillion stars plus all the dead ones, and millions of now extinct organisms, knowing in advance that 99% of his designs would be mistakes and failed experiments, because all he wanted to produce was one species (homo sapiens) and our food.

DAVID: Let's stay with the multiple stars comment first: Supernovas supply all heavier elements beyond hydrogen, a fact in cosmologic science. God had the stars make the necessary elements.

dhw: I’m not disputing the fact that stars produced the elements. I’m disputing the bolded theory above.

And in doing so distorted the factual story of element production requiring trillions of stars

dhw: We know of only one evolution of life, and I have never said dead ends stifle advances. Dead ends are dead ends because they do not advance. Only the 1% advance, as you have agreed. And you call the 99% mistakes and blame God for making a mess of evolution.

DAVID: Raup says it was not mistakes in design but bad luck! The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in a lack of adaptability.

dhw: The 99% failed to survive because they were unlucky enough to be badly designed, but apparently bad design is not a fault or a mistake, although you blame God for his mistakes. Please stop contradicting yourself.

You are emphasizing an ethereal design fault which comes down to an inability to adapt to an unlucky event. Your view or Raup's view?


DAVID: God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.

dhw: So why did you say he was not to blame? Please stop contradicting yourself!

No blame. He produced us by His system.


dhw: Why do think countless mistakes, failed experiments, mess, lack of control, dependence on luck etc. are the attributes of an all-powerful, strong, always-in-control God, whereas a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is to be considered “wimpy”? .

DAVID: Not ever dodged. Purposely distorted by you. My all-powerful, all-knowing all-purposeful God used a method of his choice to produce us!!

dhw: If he exists, then I agree that he must have used a method of his choice, since we are here. But why would he have chosen the messy, fault-ridden, method you have chosen for him when there are at least three alternative methods which lead to the same result without the mistakes and mess you blame him for?

Your not-by-God theories have free-for-alls in evolutionary advances, sudden new ideas of purpose, and experimentation as an advance. A real God knows exactly where He is headed and does it directly.

dhw: None of my versions have him changing course. Why is it “wimpy” to try different methods or to set out to discover/invent new things, but not “wimpy” to make countless blunders and rely on luck to help you reach your goal?

I've told you God does not need luck to make designs for changed environment. Another of your distortions


DAVID: You have totally left the God from the Bible we should be discussing. Did your fuzzy God have any idea from the beginning he would produce humans??

dhw: Why must you bring the Bible into it? The Bible doesn’t even mention evolution, let alone a God who makes mistake after mistake, failed experiment after failed experiment, faulty design, and countless messy attempts to design Adam & Eve and their food, because he could only design organisms that would fit in with the different conditions thrown up by chance on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth days. Your God is an incompetent bungler, but apparently that makes him more godlike that my alternatives, which see him as achieving what he wants without making any mistakes.

I'm referring to the powerful God of the OT. He is my God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, February 14, 2023, 11:14 (408 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolving a universe for life

dhw: Of course the universe evolved! Just as we evolved and every other life form evolved. I doubt if there is a single atheist who does not believe that the universe and life evolved. What I object to is the theory that your all-powerful, all-purposeful, all-knowing God would deliberately design 200 billion trillion stars plus all the dead ones, and millions of now extinct organisms, knowing in advance that 99% of his designs would be mistakes and failed experiments, because all he wanted to produce was one species (homo sapiens) and our food.

DAVID: Let's stay with the multiple stars comment first: Supernovas supply all heavier elements beyond hydrogen, a fact in cosmologic science. God had the stars make the necessary elements.

dhw: I’m not disputing the fact that stars produced the elements. I’m disputing the bolded theory above.

DAVID: And in doing so distorted the factual story of element production requiring trillions of stars.

Element production is a factual story. Requiring trillions of stars is as airy-fairy a theory as your belief that the evolution of sapiens plus food required millions of now extinct life forms which had no connection with sapiens plus food, and that 99% of an all-powerful God's deliberate designs were mistakes.

dhw: We know of only one evolution of life, and I have never said dead ends stifle advances. Dead ends are dead ends because they do not advance. Only the 1% advance, as you have agreed. And you call the 99% mistakes and blame God for making a mess of evolution.

DAVID: Raup says it was not mistakes in design but bad luck! The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in a lack of adaptability.

dhw: The 99% failed to survive because they were unlucky enough to be badly designed, but apparently bad design is not a fault or a mistake, although you blame God for his mistakes. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: You are emphasizing an ethereal design fault which comes down to an inability to adapt to an unlucky event. Your view or Raup's view?

Why do you call it “ethereal”? Your belief is that your God’s designs, in response to conditions over which he had no control, were faulty in 99% of cases. I’m not discussing Raup’s beliefs but yours.

DAVID: God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.

dhw: So why did you say he was not to blame? Please stop contradicting yourself!

DAVID: No blame. He produced us by His system.

The “warts” are the 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices for which he is responsible, but you do not blame him for the 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices for which he is responsible! If he exists, then his “system” produced us and everything else that exists and existed, but I have offered you three interpretations of evolution’s history which remove your humiliating view of your God as an incompetent blunderer.

DAVID: Your not-by-God theories have free-for-alls in evolutionary advances, sudden new ideas of purpose, and experimentation as an advance. A real God knows exactly where He is headed and does it directly.

A God who blunders along, with 99% of his work consisting of mistakes which have no connection with his one and only purpose, does not fit in with the image of a God who knows where he is headed and does it directly. As we are discussing the nature, purpose and methods of a possible God, all my theories are "by God", but none of them depict him as an incompetent blunderer.

dhw: None of my versions have him changing course. Why is it “wimpy” to try different methods or to set out to discover/invent new things, but not “wimpy” to make countless blunders and rely on luck to help you reach your goal?

DAVID: I've told you God does not need luck to make designs for changed environment. Another of your distortions.

I’ve told you that your God’s inability to control environmental changes forces him into designing the life forms which you call mistakes. No, he does not need luck to make his faulty designs. He needs luck to provide him with conditions that will enable him to design the only life forms he wants to design. Another of your distortions.

DAVID: You have totally left the God from the Bible we should be discussing. Did your fuzzy God have any idea from the beginning he would produce humans??

dhw: Why must you bring the Bible into it? The Bible doesn't even mention evolution, let alone a God who makes mistake after mistake, failed experiment after failed experiment ...[etc.] Your God is an incompetent bungler, but apparently that makes him more godlike that my alternatives, which see him as achieving what he wants without making any mistakes.

DAVID: I'm referring to the powerful God of the OT. He is my God.

The OT does not present us with a powerful God who has no control over the environment, and makes millions of mistakes on his way to evolving multiple homos and hominins which eventually lead to Adam and Eve.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 14, 2023, 19:28 (408 days ago) @ dhw

Evolving a universe for life

DAVID: God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.

dhw: So why did you say he was not to blame? Please stop contradicting yourself!

DAVID: No blame. He produced us by His system.

dhw; The “warts” are the 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices for which he is responsible, but you do not blame him for the 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices for which he is responsible! If he exists, then his “system” produced us and everything else that exists and existed, but I have offered you three interpretations of evolution’s history which remove your humiliating view of your God as an incompetent blunderer.

Isn't it obvious evolution is a convoluted series of experimental forms? Your three theories result in God being a wimp, a secondhand designer who experiments and changes His mind or course as belowe frpm prevously:


DAVID: Your not-by-God theories have free-for-alls in evolutionary advances, sudden new ideas of purpose, and experimentation as an advance. A real God knows exactly where He is headed and does it directly.

dhw: A God who blunders along, with 99% of his work consisting of mistakes which have no connection with his one and only purpose, does not fit in with the image of a God who knows where he is headed and does it directly. As we are discussing the nature, purpose and methods of a possible God, all my theories are "by God", but none of them depict him as an incompetent blunderer.

You have a totally blundering idea of my God, twisted by your preconceptions of how to think about God as theistic philosophers do. Why don't you investigate their thinking?


dhw: None of my versions have him changing course. Why is it “wimpy” to try different methods or to set out to discover/invent new things, but not “wimpy” to make countless blunders and rely on luck to help you reach your goal?

DAVID: I've told you God does not need luck to make designs for changed environment. Another of your distortions.

dhw: I’ve told you that your God’s inability to control environmental changes forces him into designing the life forms which you call mistakes. No, he does not need luck to make his faulty designs. He needs luck to provide him with conditions that will enable him to design the only life forms he wants to design. Another of your distortions.

No luck. God can design for any set of conditions as necessary. How can you contradict
His success, us?

DAVID: I'm referring to the powerful God of the OT. He is my God.

dhw: The OT does not present us with a powerful God who has no control over the environment, and makes millions of mistakes on his way to evolving multiple homos and hominins which eventually lead to Adam and Eve.

No, it has a very powerful God who can do anything He wants. I've brought Him into modern knowledge and applied Him to it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, February 15, 2023, 11:32 (407 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolving a universe for life

DAVID: God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.

dhw: So why did you say he was not to blame? Please stop contradicting yourself!

DAVID: No blame. He produced us by His system.

Your God is responsible for all the warts, but he is not to blame?

dhw: If he exists, then his “system” produced us and everything else that exists and existed, but I have offered you three interpretations of evolution’s history which remove your humiliating view of your God as an incompetent blunderer.

DAVID: Isn't it obvious evolution is a convoluted series of experimental forms? Your three theories result in God being a wimp, a secondhand designer who experiments and changes His mind or course as belowe frpm prevously:

If God exists, I have myself suggested that evolution is a convoluted series of experimental forms, but none of my three theories have him changing his mind or his course: 1) his intention is to design a being like himself, and he experiments with different approaches; 2) his intention is to explore all the possibilities of his invention (the living cell) by trying out new ideas; 3) the same as 2), but he gives his invention free rein, although retaining the option to dabble. Contrast this with your own theory: a blundering God whose work consists of 99% mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, responsible for what you regard as a mess, and reliant on luck to provide him with the conditions that will enable him to design the only life forms he actually wants to design.

DAVID: You have a totally blundering idea of my God, twisted by your preconceptions of how to think about God as theistic philosophers do. Why don't you investigate their thinking?

Please tell us which parts of my bolded summary above are not applicable to your idea of your God. And I’d be interested to know which theistic philosophers support it.

dhw: […] your God’s inability to control environmental changes forces him into designing the life forms which you call mistakes. No, he does not need luck to make his faulty designs. He needs luck to provide him with conditions that will enable him to design the only life forms he wants to design. Another of your distortions.

DAVID: No luck. God can design for any set of conditions as necessary. How can you contradict His success, us?

You just go on ignoring my responses, so I have to repeat them. If he has no control over conditions, he can ONLY design life forms that fit in with those conditions. But since those conditions are not suitable for us and our food, he is forced to design life forms that have no connection with us and our food, and that is why you call them mistakes and failed experiments. I am not “contradicting” his success, us! We are the product of the 1% success rate, made possible when your version of God was finally presented by Lady Luck with the conditions he needed to design us.

DAVID: I'm referring to the powerful God of the OT. He is my God.

dhw: The OT does not present us with a powerful God who has no control over the environment, and makes millions of mistakes on his way to evolving multiple homos and hominins which eventually lead to Adam and Eve.

DAVID: No, it has a very powerful God who can do anything He wants. I've brought Him into modern knowledge and applied Him to it.

I’m all in favour of a God who can do anything he wants. I had no idea that modern knowledge had proved that the all-powerful OT God was forced by his lack of control into a messy process of evolution which caused him to conduct 99% of failed experiments, mistakes, wrong choices etc. before he was at last able to design Adam and Eve and their breakfast.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 15, 2023, 17:23 (407 days ago) @ dhw

Evolving a universe for life

DAVID: Isn't it obvious evolution is a convoluted series of experimental forms? Your three theories result in God being a wimp, a secondhand designer who experiments and changes His mind or course as belowe frpm prevously:

dhw: If God exists, I have myself suggested that evolution is a convoluted series of experimental forms, but none of my three theories have him changing his mind or his course: 1) his intention is to design a being like himself, and he experiments with different approaches; 2) his intention is to explore all the possibilities of his invention (the living cell) by trying out new ideas; 3) the same as 2), but he gives his invention free rein, although retaining the option to dabble. Contrast this with your own theory: a blundering God whose work consists of 99% mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, responsible for what you regard as a mess, and reliant on luck to provide him with the conditions that will enable him to design the only life forms he actually wants to design.

All three versions of your progressing God simply accept God learns. What happened to the all-knowing God who knew exactly what He is doing? Did He experiment in making the universe? Our knowledge of it shows that the process of that evolution was quite direct. When God started life, it functioned at basic levels without problems, quickly evolving. Your magic brilliant cell reappears, all extrapolated theory, no support in current research onautomatic cell functions at the molecular level.


DAVID: You have a totally blundering idea of my God, twisted by your preconceptions of how to think about God as theistic philosophers do. Why don't you investigate their thinking?

dhw: Please tell us which parts of my bolded summary above are not applicable to your idea of your God. And I’d be interested to know which theistic philosophers support it.

Those in ID!!


dhw: […] your God’s inability to control environmental changes forces him into designing the life forms which you call mistakes. No, he does not need luck to make his faulty designs. He needs luck to provide him with conditions that will enable him to design the only life forms he wants to design. Another of your distortions.

DAVID: No luck. God can design for any set of conditions as necessary. How can you contradict His success, us?

dhw: You just go on ignoring my responses, so I have to repeat them. If he has no control over conditions, he can ONLY design life forms that fit in with those conditions. But since those conditions are not suitable for us and our food, he is forced to design life forms that have no connection with us and our food, and that is why you call them mistakes and failed experiments.

How do you know what God designs in response to environmental conditions do not feed us??? You are off on a weird tangent. Don't be stuck on extremophiles in your thinking. Teh misaksv are failure to survive by bad luck, per Raup.

dhw: I am not “contradicting” his success, us! We are the product of the 1% success rate, made possible when your version of God was finally presented by Lady Luck with the conditions he needed to design us. My God never needed luck.

DAVID: I'm referring to the powerful God of the OT. He is my God.

dhw: The OT does not present us with a powerful God who has no control over the environment, and makes millions of mistakes on his way to evolving multiple homos and hominins which eventually lead to Adam and Eve.

DAVID: No, it has a very powerful God who can do anything He wants. I've brought Him into modern knowledge and applied Him to it.

dhw: I’m all in favour of a God who can do anything he wants. I had no idea that modern knowledge had proved that the all-powerful OT God was forced by his lack of control into a messy process of evolution which caused him to conduct 99% of failed experiments, mistakes, wrong choices etc. before he was at last able to design Adam and Eve and their breakfast.

If your God can do anything He wants why do you present Him as a progressive wimp?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, February 16, 2023, 08:17 (407 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolving a universe for life

DAVID: Isn't it obvious evolution is a convoluted series of experimental forms? Your three theories result in God being a wimp, a secondhand designer who experiments and changes His mind or course as belowe frpm prevously:

dhw: If God exists, I have myself suggested that evolution is a convoluted series of experimental forms, but none of my three theories [summarized again below] have him changing his mind or his course. […] Contrast this with your own theory: a blundering God whose work consists of 99% mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, responsible for what you regard as a mess, and reliant on luck to provide him with the conditions that will enable him to design the only life forms he actually wants to design.

DAVID: All three versions of your progressing God simply accept God learns. What happened to the all-knowing God who knew exactly what He is doing?

Your disapproval of my theories provides no defence for your own almost blasphemous theory bolded above. God experimenting in order to design a being in his own image (as the OT puts it), or exploring different uses of his invention of life directly (through experiments) or indirectly (through a free-for-all), does not in my view make him a wimp and does not have him changing his mind or course. I see no reason why – if we are in his image (OT term) – he should not WANT to occupy himself by inventing and discovering new things. In all three cases, he knows exactly what he is doing – experimenting and discovering and learning. This means he is not all-knowing, but I don't know why you think this makes him a wimp. More to the point, he is not the great blunderer of your theory, who in his all-knowingness knows he's making blunders but still goes ahead, as bolded above.

DAVID: Did He experiment in making the universe? Our knowledge of it shows that the process of that evolution was quite direct. When God started life, it functioned at basic levels without problems, quickly evolving. Your magic brilliant cell reappears, all extrapolated theory, no support in current research onautomatic cell functions at the molecular level.

If his sole aim was to produce us and our food, I don’t know how you can say the process was “direct”, and why are you ignoring your own fixed belief that 99% of the unproblematic products were mistakes/failed experiments/wrong choices? None of this ties in with your blundering, mistake-ridden, luck-dependent theory as bolded above.

DAVID: You have a totally blundering idea of my God, twisted by your preconceptions of how to think about God as theistic philosophers do. Why don't you investigate their thinking?

dhw: Please tell us which parts of my bolded summary above are not applicable to your idea of your God. And I’d be interested to know which theistic philosophers support it.

DAVID: Those in ID!!

Again: Please tell me which parts of my bolded summary are inaccurate. And please tell me which ID-ers have proposed the view of a blundering God bolded above.

DAVID: No luck. God can design for any set of conditions as necessary. How can you contradict His success, us?

dhw:[…]. If he has no control over conditions, he can ONLY design life forms that fit in with those conditions. But since those conditions are not suitable for us and our food, he is forced to design life forms that have no connection with us and our food, and that is why you call them mistakes and failed experiments.

DAVID: How do you know what God designs in response to environmental conditions do not feed us??? You are off on a weird tangent. Don't be stuck on extremophiles in your thinking. Teh misaksv are failure to survive by bad luck, per Raup.

How can the 99% of past dead ends feed us? Failure to survive does not mean mistakes or failed experiments. In your theory, non-survival is bad luck for the 99% because your God’s designs were faulty, but they are failures/mistakes because they did not lead to your God’s one and only purpose - us and our food.

DAVID: I'm referring to the powerful God of the OT. He is my God.

dhw: The OT does not present us with a powerful God who has no control over the environment, and makes millions of mistakes on his way to evolving multiple homos and hominins which eventually lead to Adam and Eve.

DAVID: No, it has a very powerful God who can do anything He wants. I've brought Him into modern knowledge and applied Him to it.

dhw: I’m all in favour of a God who can do anything he wants. I had no idea that modern knowledge had proved that the all-powerful OT God was forced by his lack of control into a messy process of evolution which caused him to conduct 99% of failed experiments, mistakes, wrong choices etc. before he was at last able to design Adam and Eve and their breakfast.

DAVID: If your God can do anything He wants why do you present Him as a progressive wimp?

I do not regard wanting to create or learn something new as wimpish. If he could do anything he wanted, why did your God make 99% of mistakes and failed experiments and wrong choices etc. in trying to produce the only thing he wanted (us and our food)?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 16, 2023, 16:47 (406 days ago) @ dhw

Evolving a universe for life

DAVID: All three versions of your progressing God simply accept God learns. What happened to the all-knowing God who knew exactly what He is doing?

dhw: Your disapproval of my theories provides no defence for your own almost blasphemous theory bolded above. God experimenting in order to design a being in his own image (as the OT puts it), or exploring different uses of his invention of life directly (through experiments) or indirectly (through a free-for-all), does not in my view make him a wimp and does not have him changing his mind or course. I see no reason why – if we are in his image (OT term) – he should not WANT to occupy himself by inventing and discovering new things. In all three cases, he knows exactly what he is doing – experimenting and discovering and learning. This means he is not all-knowing, but I don't know why you think this makes him a wimp. More to the point, he is not the great blunderer of your theory, who in his all-knowingness knows he's making blunders but still goes ahead, as bolded above.

Simple logic assuming God is in charge of creation. History tells us we evolved; therefore, God chose to evolve us, since the other alternative, direct creation didn't occur. Evolution is obviously a messy process with 99.9% of all not surviving. Your version is God is stuck with it, but viewed another way, God knew He could handle it beautifully since He had perfect powers of design for any condition that occurred. He could take evolution in any direction He wished, no precursors needed! Dhw's now bolded wandering God characteristics doesn't fit the real God concept I present.


DAVID: Did He experiment in making the universe? Our knowledge of it shows that the process of that evolution was quite direct. When God started life, it functioned at basic levels without problems, quickly evolving. Your magic brilliant cell reappears, all extrapolated theory, no support in current research onautomatic cell functions at the molecular level.

dhw: If his sole aim was to produce us and our food, I don’t know how you can say the process was “direct”, and why are you ignoring your own fixed belief that 99% of the unproblematic products were mistakes/failed experiments/wrong choices? None of this ties in with your blundering, mistake-ridden, luck-dependent theory as bolded above.

Your illogical distorted, twisted version, not mine.


dhw: Again: Please tell me which parts of my bolded summary are inaccurate. And please tell me which ID-ers have proposed the view of a blundering God bolded above.

ID sees God as the great designer, as I do.


DAVID: No luck. God can design for any set of conditions as necessary. How can you contradict His success, us?

DAVID: I'm referring to the powerful God of the OT. He is my God.

dhw: I’m all in favour of a God who can do anything he wants. I had no idea that modern knowledge had proved that the all-powerful OT God was forced by his lack of control into a messy process of evolution which caused him to conduct 99% of failed experiments, mistakes, wrong choices etc. before he was at last able to design Adam and Eve and their breakfast.

DAVID: If your God can do anything He wants why do you present Him as a progressive wimp?

dhw: I do not regard wanting to create or learn something new as wimpish.

It simply makes God humanized, thinking just like you.

dhw: If he could do anything he wanted, why did your God make 99% of mistakes and failed experiments and wrong choices etc. in trying to produce the only thing he wanted (us and our food)?

God handled evolution under full design control producing organisms without predecessors and new cells with new functions in the same way, no predecessors, no Darwin theory of evolution, requiring predecessors involved. God did not 'try to produce'. He had no problem producing, compared to your experimenting, mind changing, mental wandering sort of a God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, February 17, 2023, 13:52 (405 days ago) @ David Turell

As usual, David chooses to ignore the illogicalities of his theory, and so I can only repeat my responses to each of his comments.


DAVID: Simple logic assuming God is in charge of creation. History tells us we evolved; therefore, God chose to evolve us, since the other alternative, direct creation didn't occur.

All these discussions assume that God exists, because we are focusing on your theistic theory of evolution (which directly leads to speculation on your God’s purpose, method and nature) and on my theistic alternatives. Agreed so far, though bearing in mind that for you "evolve" = design.

DAVID: Evolution is obviously a messy process with 99.9% of all not surviving. Your version is God is stuck with it, but viewed another way, God knew He could handle it beautifully since He had perfect powers of design for any condition that occurred.

We agree that 99% of organisms have not survived. Your explanation: “The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in lack of adaptability.” How can a fault in your God’s design which causes 99% of his designs to “fail” be described as “perfect powers of design”? But in any case, non-survival is not synonymous with “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, because these terms refer to the fact that they failed to contribute towards the purpose you impose on your God: to create us and our food.

DAVID: He could take evolution in any direction He wished, no precursors needed!

No, he couldn’t. You have told us that he was not in control of the environmental changes which caused the massive failure rate, and so any new designs had to fit in with the new conditions, regardless of the purpose you impose on him. If no precursors were needed, what was the point in his designing the 99% of life forms that had no connection with that purpose?

DAVID: Dhw's [...] wandering God characteristics doesn't fit the real God concept I present.

The “real” God you present had no control over environmental conditions, as described above, and designed species after species which had no link with his only purpose, which is why you class them as mistakes, failed experiments, wrong decisions, and why you blame him for what you call the “mess” of evolution. My three alternatives have him 1) successfully experimenting and gradually improving his designs (like all the human evolutions you list in Part Two of “More Miscellany”) in his quest to create a being like himself; 2) successfully experimenting as he explores the almost infinite potential of his invention (life); 3) allowing his invention free rein to develop its own potential. All of these options have him complying with your own belief that he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest. None of them entail the above list of the bolded faults and weaknesses of which you accuse him.

dhw: Again: Please tell me which parts of my bolded summary are inaccurate. And please tell me which ID-ers have proposed the view of a blundering God bolded above.

DAVID: ID sees God as the great designer, as I do.

Why don’t you answer my questions? Do ID-ers see God as a blunderer whose lack of control causes him to design 99% of mistakes and failures – and do they also share your belief that he is fully aware that he is making and going to make all these blunders but still goes ahead?

DAVID: If your God can do anything He wants why do you present Him as a progressive wimp?

dhw: I do not regard wanting to create or learn something new as wimpish.

DAVID: It simply makes God humanized, thinking just like you.

You have agreed that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Yet again: Why is your 99% blundering God less human and more godlike than my version, who does precisely what he wants to do without making any mistakes?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, February 17, 2023, 22:01 (405 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Evolution is obviously a messy process with 99.9% of all not surviving. Your version is God is stuck with it, but viewed another way, God knew He could handle it beautifully since He had perfect powers of design for any condition that occurred.

dhw; We agree that 99% of organisms have not survived. Your explanation: “The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in lack of adaptability.” How can a fault in your God’s design which causes 99% of his designs to “fail” be described as “perfect powers of design”? But in any case, non-survival is not synonymous with “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, because these terms refer to the fact that they failed to contribute towards the purpose you impose on your God: to create us and our food.

Since God is not controlling every environmental change precisely, the adaptive mechanisms He designed may not cover some fatal events. Raup's bad luck again.


DAVID: He could take evolution in any direction He wished, no precursors needed!

dhw: No, he couldn’t. You have told us that he was not in control of the environmental changes which caused the massive failure rate, and so any new designs had to fit in with the new conditions, regardless of the purpose you impose on him. If no precursors were needed, what was the point in his designing the 99% of life forms that had no connection with that purpose?

Yes, It didn't matter which environment came along; He could design for it and continue evolution in the direction He desired. 99% loss is a characteristic description of evolution. God used evolution. The point of your weird question is?


DAVID: Dhw's [...] wandering God characteristics doesn't fit the real God concept I present.

dhw: The “real” God you present had no control over environmental conditions, as described above, and designed species after species which had no link with his only purpose, which is why you class them as mistakes, failed experiments, wrong decisions, and why you blame him for what you call the “mess” of evolution. My three alternatives have him 1) successfully experimenting and gradually improving his designs (like all the human evolutions you list in Part Two of “More Miscellany”) in his quest to create a being like himself; 2) successfully experimenting as he explores the almost infinite potential of his invention (life); 3) allowing his invention free rein to develop its own potential. All of these options have him complying with your own belief that he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest. None of them entail the above list of the bolded faults and weaknesses of which you accuse him.

All your God lack-of-control theories describe a God who is progressing along, not sure of where He is going. That doesn't fit any God I've heard described by theists, except Whitehead's.


dhw: Again: Please tell me which parts of my bolded summary are inaccurate. And please tell me which ID-ers have proposed the view of a blundering God bolded above.

DAVID: ID sees God as the great designer, as I do.

dhw: Why don’t you answer my questions? Do ID-ers see God as a blunderer whose lack of control causes him to design 99% of mistakes and failures – and do they also share your belief that he is fully aware that he is making and going to make all these blunders but still goes ahead?

Why answer when it is obviously a rhetorical question making its own erroneous point? We are supposedly discussing an evolutionary process with a 99% failure rate due to bad luck in surviving changes. My point is God chose to do it that way, and yes, that makes Him responsible or the messiness. So everything is topsy-turvy. You are fighting to preserve your agnostic version of a proper God. And I'm not at all troubled by my honest theistic version, based on known fact..

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, February 18, 2023, 08:00 (405 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution is obviously a messy process with 99.9% of all not surviving. Your version is God is stuck with it, but viewed another way, God knew He could handle it beautifully since He had perfect powers of design for any condition that occurred.

dhw; We agree that 99% of organisms have not survived. Your explanation: bbb“The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in lack of adaptability.” How can a fault in your God’s design which causes 99% of his designs to “fail” be described as “perfect powers of design”? But in any case, non-survival is not synonymous with “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, because these terms refer to the fact that they failed to contribute towards the purpose you impose on your God: to create us and our food.

DAVID: Since God is not controlling every environmental change precisely, the adaptive mechanisms He designed may not cover some fatal events. Raup's bad luck again.

As usual, you ignore my response, and now you are even changing your own terms! Previously he had no control over such environmental changes as forest to desert, but now it’s not always “precisely”. Previously, his faulty design killed off 99”% of his creations, but now it “may not cover some non-survivals”. It is bad luck for the 99% that your God’s faulty design meant they could not cope with the new conditions he himself could not control. And you regard their non-survival as your God’s mistakes and faulty experiments, because they did not lead to the one purpose you impose on him: H. sapiens and our food. PLEASE STOP DODGING!

DAVID: He could take evolution in any direction He wished, no precursors needed!

dhw: No, he couldn’t. You have told us that he was not in control of the environmental changes which caused the massive failure rate, and so any new designs had to fit in with the new conditions, regardless of the purpose you impose on him. If no precursors were needed, what was the point in his designing the 99% of life forms that had no connection with that purpose?

DAVID: […] The point of your weird question is?

The point of my question is that I can see no sense in an all-powerful God with a single purpose, which you believe he could achieve directly (no predecessors), deliberately choosing a method that forces him into designing 99% faulty experiments, and relying on luck to provide him with conditions suitable for his one and only purpose. Nor can you, which is why you keep dodging or telling us that your theory “makes sense only to God”. And now you’ve dodged again.

DAVID: All your God lack-of-control theories describe a God who is progressing along, not sure of where He is going. That doesn't fit any God I've heard described by theists, except Whitehead's.

Still dodging. Oh well, please tell us which theists advocate the lack-of-control God (he can’t control the environmental changes necessary for his purpose) described in the bold above. My first theory does have him knowing where he is going, and the other two have him deliberately creating something interesting to develop or to watch developing. No mistakes anywhere.

dhw: Again: Please tell me which parts of my bolded summary are inaccurate.

No answer.

dhw: And please tell me which ID-ers have proposed the view of a blundering God bolded above.

DAVID: ID sees God as the great designer, as I do.

Do they see him as the incompetent blunderer you describe?

DAVID: Why answer when it is obviously a rhetorical question making its own erroneous point?

Your answer was a silly dodge, and you have failed to come up with any erroneous points in my summary of your theory.

DAVID: We are supposedly discussing an evolutionary process with a 99% failure rate due to bad luck in surviving changes. My point is God chose to do it that way, and yes, that makes Him responsible for the messiness.

Once more: According to you the 99% failure rate was due to your God’s faulty design, which was bad luck for the organisms he had faultily designed. Thank you for agreeing he is responsible for the mess you accuse him of making.

DAVID: So everything is topsy-turvy. You are fighting to preserve your agnostic version of a proper God. And I'm not at all troubled by my honest theistic version, based on known fact.

An all-powerful God who makes a mess of evolution with all his mistakes is certainly topsy-turvy. And you think theists regard your blunderer as “a proper God”. No, your version – honest though it may be with all its absurd contradictions – is not based on fact but on a topsy-turvy interpretation of fact.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 18, 2023, 20:15 (404 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, February 18, 2023, 20:22

DAVID: Since God is not controlling every environmental change precisely, the adaptive mechanisms He designed may not cover some fatal events. Raup's bad luck again.

dhw: As usual, you ignore my response, and now you are even changing your own terms! Previously he had no control over such environmental changes as forest to desert, but now it’s not always “precisely”.

God's non-control means exactly that: he doesn't use any precise controls over environment comparable to his precise controls over evolution direction and design.

dhw: Previously, his faulty design killed off 99”% of his creations, but now it “may not cover some non-survivals”. It is bad luck for the 99% that your God’s faulty design meant they could not cope with the new conditions he himself could not control. And you regard their non-survival as your God’s mistakes and faulty experiments, because they did not lead to the one purpose you impose on him: H. sapiens and our food. PLEASE STOP DODGING!

Total distortion as usual. Every organism survived until it died. Every species survived until it went extinct. However, during their presence advanced biochemical processes were developed and were present in the next forms. I don't ignore your flights of imagination about God as I see him and His works. You fail to understand my view of God.


DAVID: He could take evolution in any direction He wished, no precursors needed!

dhw: No, he couldn’t. You have told us that he was not in control of the environmental changes which caused the massive failure rate, and so any new designs had to fit in with the new conditions, regardless of the purpose you impose on him. If no precursors were needed, what was the point in his designing the 99% of life forms that had no connection with that purpose?

DAVID: […] The point of your weird question is?

dhw: The point of my question is that I can see no sense in an all-powerful God with a single purpose, which you believe he could achieve directly (no predecessors), deliberately choosing a method that forces him into designing 99% faulty experiments, and relying on luck to provide him with conditions suitable for his one and only purpose. Nor can you, which is why you keep dodging or telling us that your theory “makes sense only to God”. And now you’ve dodged again.

Yes, your same point which is God makes no sense to you and you do not like my approach to it. I've given God a purpose of creating us, following Adler's thinking which produced his proof of God. In this discussion we see God as using evolution to create all organisms and us. Therefore, it must be seen as God's choice of method,.


DAVID: All your God lack-of-control theories describe a God who is progressing along, not sure of where He is going. That doesn't fit any God I've heard described by theists, except Whitehead's.

dhw: Oh well, please tell us which theists advocate the lack-of-control God (he can’t control the environmental changes necessary for his purpose) described in the bold above. My first theory does have him knowing where he is going, and the other two have him deliberately creating something interesting to develop or to watch developing. No mistakes anywhere.

A totally misconception of God as I see Him, fully using the controls He feels he must have. So your are back to your God who must create entertainment for himself.


dhw: Again: Please tell me which parts of my bolded summary are inaccurate.

dhw: No answer.

I've answered, but it is difficult to keep up with your imagined distortions of my God's abilities to create whatever is necessary by His design actions. The stumbling blocks from your fertile mind are derogatory inventions because you do not understand my approach to Gods personality, or are unwilling to.


dhw: Once more: According to you the 99% failure rate was due to your God’s faulty design, which was bad luck for the organisms he had faultily designed. Thank you for agreeing he is responsible for the mess you accuse him of making.

God always designed organism which survived. Not faulty but succumbing to bad luck. To repeat:
"However, during their presence advanced biochemical processes were developed and were present in the next forms. I don't ignore your flights of imagination about God as I see him and His works. You fail to understand my view of God."


DAVID: So everything is topsy-turvy. You are fighting to preserve your agnostic version of a proper God. And I'm not at all troubled by my honest theistic version, based on known fact.

dhw: An all-powerful God who makes a mess of evolution with all his mistakes is certainly topsy-turvy. And you think theists regard your blunderer as “a proper God”. No, your version – honest though it may be with all its absurd contradictions – is not based on fact but on a topsy-turvy interpretation of fact.

Did evolution have a 99.9% extinction rate?? Yes!!! We are discussing a God who produced the known history of evolution. He owns it. He must be seen as responsible for it with its success rate of 0.1% through which He put us here. As the end point, we are the purpose. He created everything on Earth and put us in charge.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, February 19, 2023, 12:03 (403 days ago) @ David Turell

David is constantly accusing me of distorting his theory, and so I will go through it point by point. David, please tell us which of these points is a distortion:

1) Your God does not control changes in the environment, such as forest turning into desert.
2) This means that he can only design organisms which will be able to survive under those conditions.
3) When conditions change again, 99% of his designs again fail to survive. This is due to his faulty design.
4) It is bad luck for the non-survivors that they are victims of your God’s faulty design.
5) You believe your God’s only purpose for creating life was to design H. sapiens and our food.
6) 99% of your God’s designs had no connection with his only purpose, which is why you call them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, and hold him responsible for what you call the “mess “ of evolution.
7) Your God was perfectly capable of designing any species he wanted to without predecessors, but instead of designing his one and only purpose directly, he deliberately invented a method which he knew would force him into designing 99% of mistakes.

Meanwhile, in answer to points you have raised today:

DAVID: Every species survived until it went extinct. However, during their presence advanced biochemical processes were developed and were present in the next forms.

Any advances could only have been passed on by the 1% of survivors. The other 99% were dead ends, which you regard as being your God’s “mistakes”, resulting from his faulty designs.

DAVID: You fail to understand my view of God.

Correct. I do not understand why an all-powerful God, who could design anything he wanted to whenever he wanted to, would choose to fulfil his one and only purpose by deliberately designing life forms which he knew were mistakes that had no connection with his purpose. You have told us that your theory “makes sense only to God”, which means you don’t understand it yourself.

The discussion continues under “More Miscellany”, as many of the articles lead straight back to your theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 19, 2023, 16:56 (403 days ago) @ dhw

David is constantly accusing me of distorting his theory, and so I will go through it point by point. David, please tell us which of these points is a distortion:

dhw: 1) Your God does not control changes in the environment, such as forest turning into desert.


Yes

dhw: 2) This means that he can only design organisms which will be able to survive under those conditions.

Yes.

dhw: 3) When conditions change again, 99% of his designs again fail to survive. This is due to his faulty design.

Absolutely not. His designs at a given stage are perfectly adequate for those conditions, but when the requirement for new species appear, He designs them. His designs for adaptation do not carry over into outright speciation.

dhw: 4) It is bad luck for the non-survivors that they are victims of your God’s faulty design.

No. See above for the answer.

dhw: 5) You believe your God’s only purpose for creating life was to design H. sapiens and our food.

Yes. Ancillary purposes are how we relate to God having recognized His existance.

dhw: 6) 99% of your God’s designs had no connection with his only purpose, which is why you call them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, and hold him responsible for what you call the “mess “ of evolution.

Absolutely no. Life started by God's action at the Archaea bacterial level. The evolution we know lasted over 3.8 billion years, constantly modifying forms until humans were achieved. Without the 99.9% loss, evolution could not have happened. Do you want to just theow out the process?? As for so-called mistakes and failed experiments, it is my way of bringing up this discussion and recognizing God chose a messy process to create us. It is you who first mentioned direct creation is a much better method for an all-powerful God. But God didn't do it.

dhw: 7) Your God was perfectly capable of designing any species he wanted to without predecessors, but instead of designing his one and only purpose directly, he deliberately invented a method which he knew would force him into designing 99% of mistakes.

Not mistakes, just failure to survive. From above: " His designs at a given stage are perfectly adequate for those conditions, but when the requirement for new species appear, He designs them. His designs for adaptation do not carry over into outright speciation."


Meanwhile, in answer to points you have raised today:

DAVID: Every species survived until it went extinct. However, during their presence advanced biochemical processes were developed and were present in the next forms.

dhw: Any advances could only have been passed on by the 1% of survivors. The other 99% were dead ends, which you regard as being your God’s “mistakes”, resulting from his faulty designs.

Not faulty. Repeat: "Not mistakes, just failure to survive. From above: " His designs at a given stage are perfectly adequate for those conditions, but when the requirement for new species appear, He designs them. His designs for adaptation do not carry over into outright speciation."


DAVID: You fail to understand my view of God.

dhw: Correct. I do not understand why an all-powerful God, who could design anything he wanted to whenever he wanted to, would choose to fulfil his one and only purpose by deliberately designing life forms which he knew were mistakes that had no connection with his purpose. You have told us that your theory “makes sense only to God”, which means you don’t understand it yourself.

Trust in God removes all of your problems with God. It is obvious God chose this method for His own reasons. Trust means I don't need to know them as I accept God knows exactly what He is doing. Never second guess God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, February 20, 2023, 14:16 (402 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: David is constantly accusing me of distorting his theory, and so I will go through it point by point. David, please tell us which of these points is a distortion:

dhw: 1) Your God does not control changes in the environment, such as forest turning into desert.

DAVID: Yes

dhw: 2) This means that he can only design organisms which will be able to survive under those conditions.

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: 3) When conditions change again, 99% of his designs again fail to survive. This is due to his faulty design.

DAVID: Absolutely not. His designs at a given stage are perfectly adequate for those conditions, but when the requirement for new species appear, He designs them. His designs for adaptation do not carry over into outright speciation.

The given stage = when conditions change. He then designs new life forms (= species), but when conditions change again, 99% of his designs fail again. The reason, according to you, is: “The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in a lack of adaptability”. God is your faulty designer, and you call his failures “messy”, “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions” etc. because they do not lead to his sole purpose (us and our food).

dhw: 4) It is bad luck for the non-survivors that they are victims of your God’s faulty design.

DAVID: No. See above for the answer.

You have agreed that their failure to adapt is due to a fault in God’s design. That is their bad luck. What else could it be?

dhw: 5) You believe your God’s only purpose for creating life was to design H. sapiens and our food.

DAVID: Yes. Ancillary purposes are how we relate to God having recognized His existance.

Presumably like worshipping him and recognizing his wondrous powers. Very human of him.

dhw: 6) 99% of your God’s designs had no connection with his only purpose, which is why you call them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, and hold him responsible for what you call the “mess “ of evolution.

DAVID: Absolutely no. Life started by God's action at the Archaea bacterial level. The evolution we know lasted over 3.8 billion years, constantly modifying forms until humans were achieved.

The 99% failed because they were not “modified” (modification = adaptation). You say that outright speciation (see 3) led to us and our food, and these life forms were produced without predecessors. So why bother with the 99%?

DAVID: Without the 99.9% loss, evolution could not have happened. Do you want to just throw out the process?? As for so-called mistakes and failed experiments, it is my way of bringing up this discussion and recognizing God chose a messy process to create us. It is you who first mentioned direct creation is a much better method for an all-powerful God. But God didn't do it.

I’m not questioning the 99% loss, and it’s you who would like to throw it out in order to justify your topsy-turvy argument. Evolution could not have happened without the 1% successes. The failures were dead ends that did not evolve into anything! You call them “mistakes” and “failed experiments” and “faulty designs”, all of which is a direct criticism of your God. But you cannot bear the thought of our not being his prime purpose, and so you blame your God for incompetence, and refuse to consider the possibility that his purpose in designing, for example, the 99% of dinosaurs which had no connection with us and our food (the other 1% was birds) may NOT have been to act as what you used to call “absolute requirements” for designing us and our food.

dhw: 7) Your God was perfectly capable of designing any species he wanted to without predecessors, but instead of designing his one and only purpose directly, he deliberately invented a method which he knew would force him into designing 99% of mistakes.

DAVID: Not mistakes, just failure to survive.

See 3).

Meanwhile, in answer to points you have raised today:

DAVID: Every species survived until it went extinct. However, during their presence advanced biochemical processes were developed and were present in the next forms.

dhw: Any advances could only have been passed on by the 1% of survivors. The other 99% were dead ends, which you regard as being your God’s ”mistakes”, resulting from his faulty designs.

DAVID: You fail to understand my view of God.

dhw: Correct. I do not understand why an all-powerful God, who could design anything he wanted to whenever he wanted to, would choose to fulfil his one and only purpose by deliberately designing life forms which he knew were mistakes that had no connection with his purpose. You have told us that your theory “makes sense only to God”, which means you don’t understand it yourself.

DAVID: Trust in God removes all of your problems with God. It is obvious God chose this method for His own reasons. Trust means I don't need to know them as I accept God knows exactly what He is doing. Never second guess God.

All the above problems are not with God but with your rigid belief in an all-powerful God who blunders for reasons you cannot understand. You refuse to consider the possibility that an all-powerful God would not make blunders.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, February 20, 2023, 16:17 (402 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 3) When conditions change again, 99% of his designs again fail to survive. This is due to his faulty design.

DAVID: Absolutely not. His designs at a given stage are perfectly adequate for those conditions, but when the requirement for new species appear, He designs them. His designs for adaptation do not carry over into outright speciation.

dhw: The given stage = when conditions change. He then designs new life forms (= species), but when conditions change again, 99% of his designs fail again. The reason, according to you, is: “The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes.

God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design.

dhw: 6) 99% of your God’s designs had no connection with his only purpose, which is why you call them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, and hold him responsible for what you call the “mess “ of evolution.

DAVID: Absolutely no. Life started by God's action at the Archaea bacterial level. The evolution we know lasted over 3.8 billion years, constantly modifying forms until humans were achieved.

dhw: The 99% failed because they were not “modified” (modification = adaptation). You say that outright speciation (see 3) led to us and our food, and these life forms were produced without predecessors. So why bother with the 99%?

Please remember 99.9% form the working steps of evolution. Direct creation was not used. God's choice by His unknown reasons. So?


DAVID: Without the 99.9% loss, evolution could not have happened. Do you want to just throw out the process?? As for so-called mistakes and failed experiments, it is my way of bringing up this discussion and recognizing God chose a messy process to create us. It is you who first mentioned direct creation is a much better method for an all-powerful God. But God didn't do it.

dhw: I’m not questioning the 99% loss, and it’s you who would like to throw it out in order to justify your topsy-turvy argument.

I have reason to want to throw it out. It is history. Stop trying to mind read me.

dhw: Evolution could not have happened without the 1% successes.

Right.

dhw: The failures were dead ends that did not evolve into anything! You call them “mistakes” and “failed experiments” and “faulty designs”, all of which is a direct criticism of your God. But you cannot bear the thought of our not being his prime purpose, and so you blame your God for incompetence, and refuse to consider the possibility that his purpose in designing, for example, the 99% of dinosaurs which had no connection with us and our food (the other 1% was birds) may NOT have been to act as what you used to call “absolute requirements” for designing us and our food.

Do we eat chicken? Refused to answer. Lots of other birds for food. God's proper design pattern for evolution fully described above. Usual distortion will be ignored.


Meanwhile, in answer to points you have raised today:

DAVID: You fail to understand my view of God.

dhw: Correct. I do not understand why an all-powerful God, who could design anything he wanted to whenever he wanted to, would choose to fulfil his one and only purpose by deliberately designing life forms which he knew were mistakes that had no connection with his purpose. You have told us that your theory “makes sense only to God”, which means you don’t understand it yourself.

DAVID: Trust in God removes all of your problems with God. It is obvious God chose this method for His own reasons. Trust means I don't need to know them as I accept God knows exactly what He is doing. Never second guess God.

dhw: All the above problems are not with God but with your rigid belief in an all-powerful God who blunders for reasons you cannot understand. You refuse to consider the possibility that an all-powerful God would not make blunders.

That He does not blunder is described above: "God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. Speciation is His job. No failure, good design." As a result 99.9% of species fail to survive.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, February 21, 2023, 09:13 (402 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 3) When conditions change again, 99% of his designs again fail to survive. This is due to his faulty design.

DAVID: Absolutely not. His designs at a given stage are perfectly adequate for those conditions, but when the requirement for new species appear, He designs them. His designs for adaptation do not carry over into outright speciation.

dhw: The given stage = when conditions change. He then designs new life forms (= species), but when conditions change again, 99% of his designs fail again. The reason, according to you, is: “The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes.”

DAVID: God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design.

Your God’s only purpose is to design us and our food. He deliberately designs 100 forms of organism so that 99 of them will fail to survive new conditions. They are all dead ends that do not lead to us and our food. You call them his “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions” caused by the faults in his design, but there are no failures and it’s good design, but you never contradict yourself.

dhw: The 99% failed because they were not “modified” (modification = adaptation). You say that outright speciation (see 3) led to us and our food, and these life forms were produced without predecessors. So why bother with the 99%?

DAVID: Please remember 99.9% form the working steps of evolution. Direct creation was not used. God's choice by His unknown reasons. So?

Please remember that the 99% were dead ends that did not form any working steps at all towards what you claim was your God’s only purpose – us and our food. Only the 1% of survivors were successful.

dhw: I’m not questioning the 99% loss, and it’s you who would like to throw it out in order to justify your topsy-turvy argument.

DAVID: I have reason to want to throw it out. It is history. Stop trying to mind read me.

Thank you for confirming my reading of your mind. The history (99% failure as a result of your God’s design) contradicts your theory of “no failure. Good design”, although this contradicts your theory that your God’s form of evolution was full of mistakes. You simply cannot find any way of reconciling the history with your messy theories, and so you want to throw out the history.

dhw: Evolution could not have happened without the 1% successes.

DAVID: Right.

Thank you. We'll keep this in mind.

dhw: But you cannot bear the thought of our not being his prime purpose, and so you blame your God for incompetence, and refuse to consider the possibility that his purpose in designing, for example, the 99% of dinosaurs which had no connection with us and our food (the other 1% was birds) may NOT have been to act as what you used to call “absolute requirements” for designing us and our food.

DAVID: Do we eat chicken? Refused to answer. Lots of other birds for food. God's proper design pattern for evolution fully described above. Usual distortion will be ignored.

I have just answered the chicken question for about the tenth time. Chickens are birds, and birds descended from the 1% of dinosaur successes. There is no distortion. However, you eventually agreed that the other 99% were also successes, even though they did not lead to us and our food, and so clearly if they were successful, their purpose could not have been to act as requirements for us and our food. But you won’t even consider the possibility that your God may have had a different purpose for designing the 99%.

DAVID: Trust in God removes all of your problems with God. It is obvious God chose this method for His own reasons. Trust means I don't need to know them as I accept God knows exactly what He is doing. Never second guess God.

dhw: All the above problems are not with God but with your rigid belief in an all-powerful God who blunders for reasons you cannot understand. You refuse to consider the possibility that an all-powerful God would not make blunders.

DAVID: That He does not blunder is described above: "God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. Speciation is His job. No failure, good design." As a result 99.9% of species fail to survive.

Why do you keep editing out your constant references to your God’s “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong choices”, “messy evolution”, all because “it is a design fault in a lack of adaptability”. And in any case, you insist that he separately designed all the new species (as opposed to adaptations), which means that he didn’t need any of his previous failed experiments anyway!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 21, 2023, 16:22 (401 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design.

dhw: Your God’s only purpose is to design us and our food. He deliberately designs 100 forms of organism so that 99 of them will fail to survive new conditions. They are all dead ends that do not lead to us and our food. You call them his “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions” caused by the faults in his design, but there are no failures and it’s good design, but you never contradict yourself.

I've used those terms in the past to open up an answer your question as to why God evolved us. Yes, itis messy. Please accept my current statement without referring to past complete discussions.


dhw: I’m not questioning the 99% loss, and it’s you who would like to throw it out in order to justify your topsy-turvy argument.

DAVID: I have reason to want to throw it out. It is history. Stop trying to mind read me.

dhw: Thank you for confirming my reading of your mind. The history (99% failure as a result of your God’s design) contradicts your theory of “no failure. Good design”, although this contradicts your theory that your God’s form of evolution was full of mistakes. You simply cannot find any way of reconciling the history with your messy theories, and so you want to throw out the history.

I've not thrown out the history. Again: "God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design".[/i]


dhw: But you cannot bear the thought of our not being his prime purpose, and so you blame your God for incompetence, and refuse to consider the possibility that his purpose in designing, for example, the 99% of dinosaurs which had no connection with us and our food (the other 1% was birds) may NOT have been to act as what you used to call “absolute requirements” for designing us and our food.

DAVID: Do we eat chicken? Refused to answer. Lots of other birds for food. God's proper design pattern for evolution fully described above. Usual distortion will be ignored.

dhw: I have just answered the chicken question for about the tenth time. Chickens are birds, and birds descended from the 1% of dinosaur successes. There is no distortion. However, you eventually agreed that the other 99% were also successes, even though they did not lead to us and our food, and so clearly if they were successful, their purpose could not have been to act as requirements for us and our food. But you won’t even consider the possibility that your God may have had a different purpose for designing the 99%.

God designed the great bush of life to be under our control and provide our food.


DAVID: Trust in God removes all of your problems with God. It is obvious God chose this method for His own reasons. Trust means I don't need to know them as I accept God knows exactly what He is doing. Never second guess God.

dhw: All the above problems are not with God but with your rigid belief in an all-powerful God who blunders for reasons you cannot understand. You refuse to consider the possibility that an all-powerful God would not make blunders.

DAVID: That He does not blunder is described above: "God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. Speciation is His job. No failure, good design." As a result 99.9% of species fail to survive.

dhw: Why do you keep editing out your constant references to your God’s “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong choices”, “messy evolution”, all because “it is a design fault in a lack of adaptability”. And in any case, you insist that he separately designed all the new species (as opposed to adaptations), which means that he didn’t need any of his previous failed experiments anyway!

Failure to survive allows God to evolve the 1% that became what exists today as a set of huge and small ecosystems, most of which supplies our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, February 22, 2023, 10:54 (400 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design.

dhw: Your God’s only purpose is to design us and our food. He deliberately designs 100 forms of organism so that 99 of them will fail to survive new conditions. They are all dead ends that do not lead to us and our food. You call them his “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions” caused by the faults in his design, but there are no failures and it’s good design, but you never contradict yourself.

DAVID: I've used those terms in the past to open up an answer your question as to why God evolved us. Yes, itis messy. Please accept my current statement without referring to past complete discussions.

What do you mean? I am referring to the theory you are currently promoting and defending. Or do you now wish to withdraw your theory that your God’s good design included deliberately designing 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices etc. in his messy attempt to design us and our food? If you now think this is a load of nonsense, then please say so, and we can draw a line under it.

dhw: I’m not questioning the 99% loss, and it’s you who would like to throw it out in order to justify your topsy-turvy argument.

DAVID: I have reason to want to throw it out. It is history. Stop trying to mind read me.

dhw: Thank you for confirming my reading of your mind. The history (99% failure as a result of your God’s design) contradicts your theory of “no failure. Good design”, although this contradicts your theory that your God’s form of evolution was full of mistakes. You simply cannot find any way of reconciling the history with your messy theories, and so you want to throw out the history.

DAVID: I've not thrown out the history. Again: "God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design".

“Limited adaptation abilities” are the faults in his design that led to the extinction of the 99% of life forms which were dead ends that did not lead to what you believe to have been his only purpose: us and our food. I have no idea what you mean by “short of requiring a new species”, but since you are adamant that the species which led to his only purpose (us and our food) were designed without predecessors, you have made even the 100% of his previous designs redundant to his purpose. What do you mean by his “job”? Who employs him? How can the 99% of what you call failures mean “no failure, good design”?

dhw: But you cannot bear the thought of our not being his prime purpose, and so you blame your God for incompetence, and refuse to consider the possibility that his purpose in designing, for example, the 99% of dinosaurs which had no connection with us and our food (the other 1% was birds) may NOT have been to act as what you used to call “absolute requirements” for designing us and our food.

DAVID: God designed the great bush of life to be under our control and provide our food.

The great bush of life grew and changed for 3.X billion years before we came on the scene, and you have told us that 99% of its twigs and branches were mistakes and failures. Only 1% survived to evolve into us and the bush that provides our food. […]

DAVID: Failure to survive allows God to evolve the 1% that became what exists today as a set of huge and small ecosystems, most of which supplies our food.

Now what are you saying? That your God could not have designed the 1% of survivors if he hadn’t designed the 99% per cent that didn’t survive? To use your own analogy, in order to design your house, did you have to build and then knock down 99 other houses that you knew you didn’t want to build?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 22, 2023, 18:36 (400 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've used those terms in the past to open up an answer your question as to why God evolved us. Yes, itis messy. Please accept my current statement without referring to past complete discussions.

dhw: What do you mean? I am referring to the theory you are currently promoting and defending. Or do you now wish to withdraw your theory that your God’s good design included deliberately designing 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices etc. in his messy attempt to design us and our food? If you now think this is a load of nonsense, then please say so, and we can draw a line under it.

The load of nonsense is your tortured view of my attempt to discuss God's choice of creation. It is indirect and takes lots of time. Logically a strange choice using human reasoning. You have asked me to tell you why God chose that method. I replied at the same level of silliness, ask God. Conclusion, God does as He wants, but we can try to analyze what He has done for a purpose or purposes.


dhw: I’m not questioning the 99% loss, and it’s you who would like to throw it out in order to justify your topsy-turvy argument.

DAVID: I've not thrown out the history. Again: "God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design".

dhw: “Limited adaptation abilities” are the faults in his design that led to the extinction of the 99% of life forms which were dead ends that did not lead to what you believe to have been his only purpose: us and our food.

God did not design anyone for living into perpetuity. It is not a fault in His designed evolution. It is a necessary attribute.

dhw: I have no idea what you mean by “short of requiring a new species”, simply means that adaptation always falls sort of actual speciation.

dhw: But you cannot bear the thought of our not being his prime purpose, and so you blame your God for incompetence, and refuse to consider the possibility that his purpose in designing, for example, the 99% of dinosaurs which had no connection with us and our food (the other 1% was birds) may NOT have been to act as what you used to call “absolute requirements” for designing us and our food.

DAVID: God designed the great bush of life to be under our control and provide our food.

dhw: The great bush of life grew and changed for 3.X billion years before we came on the scene, and you have told us that 99% of its twigs and branches were mistakes and failures. Only 1% survived to evolve into us and the bush that provides our food. […]

By God's cumbersome method, yes.


DAVID: Failure to survive allows God to evolve the 1% that became what exists today as a set of huge and small ecosystems, most of which supplies our food.

dhw: Now what are you saying? That your God could not have designed the 1% of survivors if he hadn’t designed the 99% per cent that didn’t survive? To use your own analogy, in order to design your house, did you have to build and then knock down 99 other houses that you knew you didn’t want to build?

Weird misunderstanding of evolution. To step into your silly analogy, my house can evolve into another house only by adding on some new structure. Every new form evolves directly from a past form, except when God creates gap.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, February 23, 2023, 10:41 (400 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've used those terms in the past to open up an answer your question as to why God evolved us. Yes, itis messy. Please accept my current statement without referring to past complete discussions.

dhw: What do you mean? I am referring to the theory you are currently promoting and defending. Or do you now wish to withdraw your theory that your God’s good design included deliberately designing 99% of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices etc. in his messy attempt to design us and our food? If you now think this is a load of nonsense, then please say so, and we can draw a line under it.

DAVID: The load of nonsense is your tortured view of my attempt to discuss God's choice of creation. It is indirect and takes lots of time. Logically a strange choice using human reasoning. You have asked me to tell you why God chose that method. I replied at the same level of silliness, ask God. Conclusion, God does as He wants, but we can try to analyze what He has done for a purpose or purposes.

If God exists, there is very little in your response that I would disagree with. You have simply ignored the fact that you have described your God’s method as inefficient, full of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, faulty designs etc., and you have asked me not to refer to these terms. What level of “silliness” are you thinking of? You have proposed a theory that makes your God into an inefficient blunderer, and told me to ask him why he chose to be an inefficient blunderer, thereby admitting that you can find no justification for your theory. And then you ask me not to use the derogatory terms you have used to describe your vision of him.

DAVID:"God purposely designs limited adaptation abilities, short of requiring a new species. That is His job. No failure, good design".

dhw: “Limited adaptation abilities” are the faults in his design that led to the extinction of the 99% of life forms which were dead ends that did not lead to what you believe to have been his only purpose: us and our food.

DAVID: God did not design anyone for living into perpetuity. It is not a fault in His designed evolution. It is a necessary attribute.

We are not talking about the death of individuals, but about the extinction of species. The faulty design you criticize him for is that which results in 99% of life forms being specially created although they have no connection with what you say is your God’s only purpose: us and our food. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: God designed the great bush of life to be under our control and provide our food.

dhw: The great bush of life grew and changed for 3.X billion years before we came on the scene, and you have told us that 99% of its twigs and branches were mistakes and failures. Only 1% survived to evolve into us and the bush that provides our food. […]

DAVID: By God's cumbersome method, yes.

The cumbersome method being his design of 99% mistakes, failed experiments etc., which your cumbersome, inefficient God personally designed, knowing that they were going to be mistakes, and you haven’t a clue why he would choose such a daft method, so I should ask him why. Thank you for agreeing.

DAVID: Failure to survive allows God to evolve the 1% that became what exists today as a set of huge and small ecosystems, most of which supplies our food.

dhw: Now what are you saying? That your God could not have designed the 1% of survivors if he hadn’t designed the 99% per cent that didn’t survive? To use your own analogy, in order to design your house, did you have to build and then knock down 99 other houses that you knew you didn’t want to build?

DAVID: Weird misunderstanding of evolution. To step into your silly analogy, my house can evolve into another house only by adding on some new structure. Every new form evolves directly from a past form, except when God creates gap.

It was your own analogy, but this is an excellent variation if one accepts the existence of your God. Much better than mine. Thank you. You now have him building a house, and adding new structures, 99% of which fall down because they are all wrong for the house he wants to build. Some designer!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 23, 2023, 15:56 (399 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The load of nonsense is your tortured view of my attempt to discuss God's choice of creation. It is indirect and takes lots of time. Logically a strange choice using human reasoning. You have asked me to tell you why God chose that method. I replied at the same level of silliness, ask God. Conclusion, God does as He wants, but we can try to analyze what He has done for a purpose or purposes.

dhw: If God exists, there is very little in your response that I would disagree with. You have simply ignored the fact that you have described your God’s method as inefficient, full of mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, faulty designs etc., and you have asked me not to refer to these terms. What level of “silliness” are you thinking of? You have proposed a theory that makes your God into an inefficient blunderer, and told me to ask him why he chose to be an inefficient blunderer, thereby admitting that you can find no justification for your theory. And then you ask me not to use the derogatory terms you have used to describe your vision of him.

God is not a blunderer. Your conclusion has no basis since God used a messy system to produce humans successfully. Try this view: God was able to overcome the imperfections of living evolution through His design abilities.


DAVID: God did not design anyone for living into perpetuity. It is not a fault in His designed evolution. It is a necessary attribute.

dhw: We are not talking about the death of individuals, but about the extinction of species. The faulty design you criticize him for is that which results in 99% of life forms being specially created although they have no connection with what you say is your God’s only purpose: us and our food. When will you stop dodging?

I cannot try to dodge your faulty reasoning. Dead ends are natural parts of an evolutionary process.


DAVID: God designed the great bush of life to be under our control and provide our food.

dhw: The great bush of life grew and changed for 3.X billion years before we came on the scene, and you have told us that 99% of its twigs and branches were mistakes and failures. Only 1% survived to evolve into us and the bush that provides our food. […]

DAVID: By God's cumbersome method, yes.

dhw: The cumbersome method being his design of 99% mistakes, failed experiments etc., which your cumbersome, inefficient God personally designed, knowing that they were going to be mistakes, and you haven’t a clue why he would choose such a daft method, so I should ask him why. Thank you for agreeing.

Same answer: "God is not a blunderer. Your conclusion has no basis since God used a messy system to produce humans successfully. Try this view: God was able to overcome the imperfections of living evolution through His design abilities."


DAVID: Failure to survive allows God to evolve the 1% that became what exists today as a set of huge and small ecosystems, most of which supplies our food.

dhw: Now what are you saying? That your God could not have designed the 1% of survivors if he hadn’t designed the 99% per cent that didn’t survive? To use your own analogy, in order to design your house, did you have to build and then knock down 99 other houses that you knew you didn’t want to build?

DAVID: Weird misunderstanding of evolution. To step into your silly analogy, my house can evolve into another house only by adding on some new structure. Every new form evolves directly from a past form, except when God creates a gap.

dhw: It was your own analogy, but this is an excellent variation if one accepts the existence of your God. Much better than mine. Thank you. You now have him building a house, and adding new structures, 99% of which fall down because they are all wrong for the house he wants to build. Some designer!

Still weird analogy. I tried to use your house analogy to show descent with modification. Houses are material and we are discussing life and progressive speciation. Descent with modification, ignoring the known gaps (4) is what evolution is!!! The 99.9% loss is the way room is made for the best new forms.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, February 24, 2023, 09:22 (399 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have proposed a theory that makes your God into an inefficient blunderer, and told me to ask him why he chose to be an inefficient blunderer, thereby admitting that you can find no justification for your theory. And then you ask me not to use the derogatory terms you have used to describe your vision of him.

DAVID: God is not a blunderer. Your conclusion has no basis since God used a messy system to produce humans successfully. Try this view: God was able to overcome the imperfections of living evolution through His design abilities.

This is getting more and more absurd. According to you, the imperfections of living evolution were all of your God’s making! “God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.” It is you who insist that 99% of his designs were mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, and his method of achieving his goal was “inefficient” and “cumbersome”. I’m quoting you! If he really designed every life form individually (as in my first two alternatives, and as opposed to the free-for-all), your version has him succeeding in spite of his inefficiency, not because of it!

DAVID: Dead ends are natural parts of an evolutionary process.

You have told us that dead ends occurred in our evolutionary process because of your God’s faulty designs. The human examples you gave, like language, telescopes and successful companies, were all built on successes, not on dead ends! A successful company does not evolve from a company that has gone bankrupt. Humans (and our food) did not evolve from the brontosaurus. Please stop pretending that what you call your God’s mistakes were natural. He created them!

DAVID: Failure to survive allows God to evolve the 1% that became what exists today as a set of huge and small ecosystems, most of which supplies our food.

dhw: Now what are you saying? That your God could not have designed the 1% of survivors if he hadn’t designed the 99% per cent that didn’t survive? [We’ll skip the lovely house analogy, since it illustrates the point you now make:)

DAVID: The 99.9% loss is the way room is made for the best new forms.

So your God specially designed all his mistakes and failed experiments in order to get rid of them, because he knew even before he designed them that they were no use and would simply clutter up the place. Crazier and crazier!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, February 24, 2023, 16:52 (398 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God is not a blunderer. Your conclusion has no basis since God used a messy system to produce humans successfully. Try this view: God was able to overcome the imperfections of living evolution through His design abilities.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. According to you, the imperfections of living evolution were all of your God’s making! “God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.” It is you who insist that 99% of his designs were mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, and his method of achieving his goal was “inefficient” and “cumbersome”. I’m quoting you! If he really designed every life form individually (as in my first two alternatives, and as opposed to the free-for-all), your version has him succeeding in spite of his inefficiency, not because of it!

You are more absurd. Raad and understand my current dialog and quit dwelling in past. It described a messy system He was using. His designs were not mistakes but a failure of organisms to adapt to survive as conditions changed. At this point a new species must be designed. He succeeded because He could design around problems the system He chose presented.
That He could use this system to reach the present with humans in charge, shows just how powerful and competent He is.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, February 25, 2023, 07:19 (398 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God is not a blunderer. Your conclusion has no basis since God used a messy system to produce humans successfully. Try this view: God was able to overcome the imperfections of living evolution through His design abilities.

dhw: This is getting more and more absurd. According to you, the imperfections of living evolution were all of your God’s making! “God ran evolution. He is responsible for all its warts.” It is you who insist that 99% of his designs were mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, and his method of achieving his goal was “inefficient” and “cumbersome”. I’m quoting you! If he really designed every life form individually (as in my first two alternatives, and as opposed to the free-for-all), your version has him succeeding in spite of his inefficiency, not because of it!

DAVID: You are more absurd. Raad and understand my current dialog and quit dwelling in past.

Your current dialogue is simply an attempt to edit out all the derogatory implications of the theory you are still trying to defend!

DAVID: It described a messy system He was using.

It describes a messy system you believe he invented.

DAVID: His designs were not mistakes but a failure of organisms to adapt to survive as conditions changed.

According to you, they failed to adapt because of faults in his design! Why are you trying to erase your own terminology: they were “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions”. Why? Because according to you, his only aim was to design us and our food, but 99% of them were dead ends which did not lead to us and our food.

DAVID: At this point a new species must be designed. He succeeded because He could design around problems the system He chose presented.

Once more: the system he INVENTED presented problems: according to you, he did not control the environmental conditions which 99% of his designs were unable to survive because of his faulty design, which could not allow for adaptation. So you have him designing new species to cope with the new conditions. But then 99% of those also failed to survive – more mistakes and failed experiments!

DAVID: That He could use this system to reach the present with humans in charge, shows just how powerful and competent He is.

He was so powerful and competent that he was able to make one mistake/failed experiment after another, by a ratio of 99 to 1 even though, according to you, he was perfectly capable of designing species without precursors, and so he never even needed to design any of his failures anyway. And to make it even worse, he KNEW he was going to make mistakes, but still went ahead. Which parts of this theory are you now trying to disown in your “current dialogue”?

Chlamydia (transferred from “More miscellany”)

DAVID: either Chlamydia invented the protective molecule or it appeared by luck. Would God have been involved? I don't know. All unknowns.

dhw: Although this is one special case, you have provided an excellent summary of all our discussions on evolutionary innovation:
Shapiro: the cells did it. Darwin: random mutations did it. Turell: God did it. Dhw: I don’t know what did it.

DAVID: Great summary.

A nice note on which to close this post!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 25, 2023, 19:09 (397 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are more absurd. Raad and understand my current dialog and quit dwelling in past.

dhw: Your current dialogue is simply an attempt to edit out all the derogatory implications of the theory you are still trying to defend!

DAVID: It described a messy system He was using.

dhw: It describes a messy system you believe he invented.

Exactly. I've pointed it out to follow up on your original observation that evolution seems odd from a God who should be able to do direct a creation of living forms. After all He stated life at the bacterial level


DAVID: His designs were not mistakes but a failure of organisms to adapt to survive as conditions changed.

dhw: According to you, they failed to adapt because of faults in his design!

No, they reached the limits of their designed ability to adapt.

> DAVID: At this point a new species must be designed. He succeeded because He could design around problems the system He chose presented.


dhw: Once more: the system he INVENTED presented problems: according to you, he did not control the environmental conditions which 99% of his designs were unable to survive because of his faulty design, which could not allow for adaptation. So you have him designing new species to cope with the new conditions. But then 99% of those also failed to survive – more mistakes and failed experiments!

Not failures but reaching their designed limit to adapt. Then new species appear, more complex forms. Doesn't evolution seem to work toward more complexity? Note today's entry on magnetic field awareness showing how the development of biochemical complexity must precede new animal forms which can use it for new activities like migration.


DAVID: That He could use this system to reach the present with humans in charge, shows just how powerful and competent He is.

dhw: He was so powerful and competent that he was able to make one mistake/failed experiment after another, by a ratio of 99 to 1 even though, according to you, he was perfectly capable of designing species without precursors, and so he never even needed to design any of his failures anyway. And to make it even worse, he KNEW he was going to make mistakes, but still went ahead. Which parts of this theory are you now trying to disown in your “current dialogue”?

Your analysis is great and does my job. God chose this messy system to successfully produce us, the most complex organism in the universe. And for His unknown reasons. Conclusion, as we think of God as I've been taught, I must conclude this is the way to do it as God analyzed it.


Chlamydia (transferred from “More miscellany”)

DAVID: either Chlamydia invented the protective molecule or it appeared by luck. Would God have been involved? I don't know. All unknowns.

dhw: Although this is one special case, you have provided an excellent summary of all our discussions on evolutionary innovation:
Shapiro: the cells did it. Darwin: random mutations did it. Turell: God did it. Dhw: I don’t know what did it.

DAVID: Great summary.

dhw: A nice note on which to close this post!

Yes

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, February 26, 2023, 10:43 (396 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are more absurd. Raad and understand my current dialog and quit dwelling in past.

dhw: Your current dialogue is simply an attempt to edit out all the derogatory implications of the theory you are still trying to defend!

DAVID: It described a messy system He was using.

dhw: It describes a messy system you believe he invented.

DAVID: Exactly. I've pointed it out to follow up on your original observation that evolution seems odd from a God who should be able to do direct a creation of living forms. After all He started life at the bacterial level.

You’ve completely missed the point, and continue to edit out those parts of your theory which make a mockery of your God! I believe in evolution, and if God exists, I have no doubt that he would have designed what he wanted to design. Here once again are the details of what YOU think he wanted to and did design: 1) his only goal was to design one species (us) and its food, and 2) he therefore decided to design countless species (99%) that had no connection with us! 3) he deliberately designed these species knowing that that 99% would not survive and would, in your words, be “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, precisely because they would not lead to us and our food. 4) He invented this system of 99% failures even though he was perfectly capable of designing species from scratch, i.e. with no predecessors. 5) After every 99% extinction, caused by his faulty design which failed to adapt to new conditions, he designed another lot of species with adaptations and innovations to fit the new conditions, either from the 1% of survivors or de novo, and these too would consist of 99% failures. 6) Eventually (during the Cambrian) he designed all our ancestors plus their foods from scratch (no predecessors), which meant that every preceding creation was unnecessary anyway. 7) All of the above factors explain why you call your version of evolution a “mess” for which he is responsible. The rest of your post is one long dodge, so I will repeat your comments and refer you back to this paragraph.

DAVID: they reached the limits of their designed ability to adapt.

Of course if the design cannot adapt, it will not be able to adapt – and that, you have stated categorically, is the fault of the design. See 2) and 3).

DAVID: Not failures but reaching their designed limit to adapt.

See 1), 2) and 3).

DAVID: Then new species appear, more complex forms.

In your theory they do not "appear". They are deliberately designed. See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Doesn't evolution seem to work toward more complexity?

Yes. Through the 1% of survivors plus your de novo creations. Not through the 99% of failures. See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Note today's entry on magnetic field awareness showing how the development of biochemical complexity must precede new animal forms which can use it for new activities like migration.

ANY innovation has to be invented before new animals can use it! See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Your analysis is great and does my job. God chose this messy system to successfully produce us, the most complex organism in the universe. And for His unknown reasons. Conclusion, as we think of God as I've been taught, I must conclude this is the way to do it as God analyzed it.

I don’t know who taught you that your God’s only purpose was to create us and our food and therefore he deliberately designed every species, knowing that 99% of them would have no connection with us or our food. But I’m not surprised that your teacher said your God’s reasons were unknown. See 1) – 7).

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 26, 2023, 17:41 (396 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It described a messy system He was using.

dhw: It describes a messy system you believe he invented.

DAVID: Exactly. I've pointed it out to follow up on your original observation that evolution seems odd from a God who should be able to do direct a creation of living forms. After all He started life at the bacterial level.

dhw:You’ve completely missed the point, and continue to edit out those parts of your theory which make a mockery of your God! I believe in evolution, and if God exists, I have no doubt that he would have designed what he wanted to design. Here once again are the details of what YOU think he wanted to and did design: 1) his only goal was to design one species (us) and its food, and 2) he therefore decided to design countless species (99%) that had no connection with us! 3) he deliberately designed these species knowing that that 99% would not survive and would, in your words, be “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, precisely because they would not lead to us and our food. 4) He invented this system of 99% failures even though he was perfectly capable of designing species from scratch, i.e. with no predecessors. 5) After every 99% extinction, caused by his faulty design which failed to adapt to new conditions, he designed another lot of species with adaptations and innovations to fit the new conditions, either from the 1% of survivors or de novo, and these too would consist of 99% failures. 6) Eventually (during the Cambrian) he designed all our ancestors plus their foods from scratch (no predecessors), which meant that every preceding creation was unnecessary anyway. 7) All of the above factors explain why you call your version of evolution a “mess” for which he is responsible. The rest of your post is one long dodge, so I will repeat your comments and refer you back to this paragraph.

DAVID: they reached the limits of their designed ability to adapt.

Of course if the design cannot adapt, it will not be able to adapt – and that, you have stated categorically, is the fault of the design. See 2) and 3).

DAVID: Not failures but reaching their designed limit to adapt.

dhw: See 1), 2) and 3).

DAVID: Then new species appear, more complex forms.

dhw: In your theory they do not "appear". They are deliberately designed. See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Doesn't evolution seem to work toward more complexity?

dhw: Yes. Through the 1% of survivors plus your de novo creations. Not through the 99% of failures. See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Note today's entry on magnetic field awareness showing how the development of biochemical complexity must precede new animal forms which can use it for new activities like migration.

dhw: ANY innovation has to be invented before new animals can use it! See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Your analysis is great and does my job. God chose this messy system to successfully produce us, the most complex organism in the universe. And for His unknown reasons. Conclusion, as we think of God as I've been taught, I must conclude this is the way to do it as God analyzed it.

dhw: I don’t know who taught you that your God’s only purpose was to create us and our food and therefore he deliberately designed every species, knowing that 99% of them would have no connection with us or our food. But I’m not surprised that your teacher said your God’s reasons were unknown. See 1) – 7).

My teacher's books (by Adler) specifically told me God's goal was humans. And Adler discussed at great length the known facts of Darwinian evolution in the 1940's, accepting that God ran that form of evolution. Therefore, Adler assumed design before the concept appeared in a formed ID group (Discovery Institute). Adler did not bring up my point that the system is a messy way to create what is desired. However, Adler used the system to prove God!!!

Your criticisms prove it is messy!! Thank you. Even though you attempt to read my mind, I do not make a mockery of my God. That is your job, and you do it beautifully from a non-belief standpoint.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, February 27, 2023, 11:07 (395 days ago) @ dhw

I have left yesterday’s post intact, as it provides a full summary of your theory (which you do not deny).

DAVID: It described a messy system He was using.

dhw: It describes a messy system you believe he invented.

DAVID: Exactly. I've pointed it out to follow up on your original observation that evolution seems odd from a God who should be able to do direct a creation of living forms. After all He started life at the bacterial level.

dhw: You’ve completely missed the point, and continue to edit out those parts of your theory which make a mockery of your God! I believe in evolution, and if God exists, I have no doubt that he would have designed what he wanted to design. Here once again are the details of what YOU think he wanted to and did design: 1) his only goal was to design one species (us) and its food, and 2) he therefore decided to design countless species (99%) that had no connection with us! 3) he deliberately designed these species knowing that that 99% would not survive and would, in your words, be “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, precisely because they would not lead to us and our food. 4) He invented this system of 99% failures even though he was perfectly capable of designing species from scratch, i.e. with no predecessors. 5) After every 99% extinction, caused by his faulty design which failed to adapt to new conditions, he designed another lot of species with adaptations and innovations to fit the new conditions, either from the 1% of survivors or de novo, and these too would consist of 99% failures. 6) Eventually (during the Cambrian) he designed all our ancestors plus their foods from scratch (no predecessors), which meant that every preceding creation was unnecessary anyway. 7) All of the above factors explain why you call your version of evolution a “mess” for which he is responsible. The rest of your post is one long dodge, so I will repeat your comments and refer you back to this paragraph.

DAVID: they reached the limits of their designed ability to adapt.

dhw: Of course if the design cannot adapt, it will not be able to adapt – and that, you have stated categorically, is the fault of the design. See 2) and 3).

DAVID: Not failures but reaching their designed limit to adapt.

dhw: See 1), 2) and 3).

DAVID: Then new species appear, more complex forms.

dhw: In your theory they do not "appear". They are deliberately designed. See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Doesn't evolution seem to work toward more complexity?

dhw: Yes. Through the 1% of survivors plus your de novo creations. Not through the 99% of failures. See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Note today's entry on magnetic field awareness showing how the development of biochemical complexity must precede new animal forms which can use it for new activities like migration.

dhw: ANY innovation has to be invented before new animals can use it! See 5) and 6).

DAVID: Your analysis is great and does my job. God chose this messy system to successfully produce us, the most complex organism in the universe. And for His unknown reasons. Conclusion, as we think of God as I've been taught, I must conclude this is the way to do it as God analyzed it.

dhw: I don’t know who taught you that your God’s only purpose was to create us and our food and therefore he deliberately designed every species, knowing that 99% of them would have no connection with us or our food. But I’m not surprised that your teacher said your God’s reasons were unknown. See 1) – 7).

DAVID: My teacher's books (by Adler) specifically told me God's goal was humans. And Adler discussed at great length the known facts of Darwinian evolution in the 1940's, accepting that God ran that form of evolution. Therefore, Adler assumed design before the concept appeared in a formed ID group (Discovery Institute). Adler did not bring up my point that the system is a messy way to create what is desired. However, Adler used the system to prove God!!!

You always fall back on Adler’s evidence for God’s existence – a theory and argument which I find perfectly reasonable. Our dispute is over the theories listed above, in which you make your inefficient and cumbersome designer God responsible for countless mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, faulty designs – all carried out in full knowledge that 99% of his work would not lead to his one and only goal, and was not even necessary, since you say he could have designed us and our food from scratch if he'd wanted to.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, February 27, 2023, 17:30 (395 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don’t know who taught you that your God’s only purpose was to create us and our food and therefore he deliberately designed every species, knowing that 99% of them would have no connection with us or our food. But I’m not surprised that your teacher said your God’s reasons were unknown. See 1) – 7).

DAVID: My teacher's books (by Adler) specifically told me God's goal was humans. And Adler discussed at great length the known facts of Darwinian evolution in the 1940's, accepting that God ran that form of evolution. Therefore, Adler assumed design before the concept appeared in a formed ID group (Discovery Institute). Adler did not bring up my point that the system is a messy way to create what is desired. However, Adler used the system to prove God!!!

dhw: You always fall back on Adler’s evidence for God’s existence – a theory and argument which I find perfectly reasonable. Our dispute is over the theories listed above, in which you make your inefficient and cumbersome designer God responsible for countless mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, faulty designs – all carried out in full knowledge that 99% of his work would not lead to his one and only goal, and was not even necessary, since you say he could have designed us and our food from scratch if he'd wanted to.

We assume He could create us outright since He made direct creation of life. But His history is quite clear: Big Bang, then evolve the universe; start life, then evolve humans; start the Earth, add life and have them evolve the Earth. The conclusion is God prefers to evolve His creations. I've described evolution as a messy process. Since we are here God managed it successfully. I do not end up with your description of a bumbling God as a result. I see him as a brilliant designer handling a cumbersome method. My previous comments have driven you to defend a 'pure' faultless God, a strange position for an agnostic. I understand your invention of brilliant-designer cells who do the work for Him placing Him at a position of secondhand blame so His dainty fingers are clean. Evolution is a methodology of creation we and God both use. Its use in advancing lifeform's complexity is cumbersome and must require
death. In one sense this is a failure, but with a sense of purpose, death is really a step into the future. When I apply purpose to God's form of evolution the point is no longer an issue of survival. Survival is secondary and viewed as lasting long enough to get into a situation requiring speciation. At that point God steps in and does it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, February 28, 2023, 08:55 (395 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You always fall back on Adler’s evidence for God’s existence – a theory and argument which I find perfectly reasonable. Our dispute is over the theories listed above, in which you make your inefficient and cumbersome designer God responsible for countless mistakes, failed experiments, wrong choices, faulty designs – all carried out in full knowledge that 99% of his work would not lead to his one and only goal, and was not even necessary, since you say he could have designed us and our food from scratch if he'd wanted to.

DAVID: We assume He could create us outright since He made direct creation of life.

You have omitted your belief that we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors. This leads you to the absurd theory that your God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was us and our food, and therefore he designed countless species that did not lead to us or our food.

DAVID: But His history is quite clear: Big Bang, then evolve the universe; start life, then evolve humans; start the Earth, add life and have them evolve the Earth. The conclusion is God prefers to evolve His creations.

I have never questioned that all these things evolved, including us and our food, and if God exists, then of course he created the process by which the universe, Earth and life evolved. But evolution does not mean your God’s only purpose was us and our food, and it does not mean he directly created all species, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc., let alone that he created them as absolute requirements for us and our food although 99% did not lead to us or our food, or that he created them all, knowing that 99% of them would be “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong choices” caused by his faulty designs.

DAVID: I've described evolution as a messy process. Since we are here God managed it successfully. I do not end up with your description of a bumbling God as a result. I see him as a brilliant designer handling a cumbersome method.

But your “brilliant” designer designed the cumbersome method and you have acknowledged that he is responsible for the mess! You make a mockery of language as well as of your God. In my language, a brilliant designer is not one who invents a method which results in his designing 99% of mistakes and failed experiments in his messy attempts to produce a species he could have produced directly if he’d wanted to.

DAVID: My previous comments have driven you to defend a 'pure' faultless God, a strange position for an agnostic.

Your comments are so full of contradictions that you are forced to acknowledge that you have no idea why your God would have invented such a faulty method, and I should go and ask him why he did it. My agnosticism has nothing to do with any of this. I doubt if many of your fellow believers would accept your version of a cumbersome, inefficient blunderer, and even you are trying desperately to pretend that what you see as his blunders do not make him a blunderer.

DAVID: I understand your invention of brilliant-designer cells who do the work for Him placing Him at a position of secondhand blame so His dainty fingers are clean. Evolution is a methodology of creation we and God both use. Its use in advancing lifeform's complexity is cumbersome and must require death.

Why the “dainty fingers” sarcasm? Once again you are smearing your God with dirty fingers. I have given you three possible interpretations of evolution which show him doing precisely what he wants to do, without mistakes, failed experiments etc., and your only reason for rejecting them is that you believe your blunderer is less human and more godlike than my fault-free versions. Why have you brought in death? We know that every individual organism dies, but that has never been our subject (though we can discuss it if you want to). Individual deaths have nothing to do with the creation or extinction of species.

DAVID: In one sense this is a failure, but with a sense of purpose, death is really a step into the future. When I apply purpose to God's form of evolution the point is no longer an issue of survival. Survival is secondary and viewed as lasting long enough to get into a situation requiring speciation. At that point God steps in and does it.

Individual death will only be a step into the future if there is an afterlife for the individual. The extinction of a species means it has no future. Only survivors can pass on the cells which will eventually undergo the changes that will lead to new species. Call survival secondary if you like, but without it, your God (who remember does not control the new conditions that cause extinction and limit his scope for design) can only continue his work by designing organisms de novo. So yes, according to you he steps in and designs another 100 organisms of which 99 fail to survive because of his faulty design and inefficient method. But in your language, faulty design and inefficient method earn the accolade of “brilliant”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 28, 2023, 18:25 (394 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We assume He could create us outright since He made direct creation of life.

dhw: You have omitted your belief that we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors. This leads you to the absurd theory that your God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was us and our food, and therefore he designed countless species that did not lead to us or our food.

Did God evolve us or not? We are discussing my belief in God a designer. I view evolution as showing purpose. You are stuck with Darwin's random process wher e everything is survival.


DAVID: But His history is quite clear: Big Bang, then evolve the universe; start life, then evolve humans; start the Earth, add life and have them evolve the Earth. The conclusion is God prefers to evolve His creations.

dhw: I have never questioned that all these things evolved, including us and our food, and if God exists, then of course he created the process by which the universe, Earth and life evolved. But evolution does not mean your God’s only purpose was us and our food,

The only way to interpret God's intent is to evaluate His works. You give lip service to how unusual and special we are. Pual Davies doesn't view that way, recorded here in the past. And of course, Adler's well known proof of God.


DAVID: I've described evolution as a messy process. Since we are here God managed it successfully. I do not end up with your description of a bumbling God as a result. I see him as a brilliant designer handling a cumbersome method.

dhw: But your “brilliant” designer designed the cumbersome method and you have acknowledged that he is responsible for the mess! You make a mockery of language as well as of your God. In my language, a brilliant designer is not one who invents a method which results in his designing 99% of mistakes and failed experiments in his messy attempts to produce a species he could have produced directly if he’d wanted to.

I've purposely overstated how messy evolution of life actually is. But God used it. Successfully, we are here.


DAVID: My previous comments have driven you to defend a 'pure' faultless God, a strange position for an agnostic.

dhw: Your comments are so full of contradictions that you are forced to acknowledge that you have no idea why your God would have invented such a faulty method, and I should go and ask him why he did it.

How can I know God's reasoning? I am not His righthand assistant. I cannot interpret beyond assigning importance to aspects of His works. Humans are enormously important.

DAVID: I understand your invention of brilliant-designer cells who do the work for Him placing Him at a position of secondhand blame so His dainty fingers are clean. Evolution is a methodology of creation we and God both use. Its use in advancing lifeform's complexity is cumbersome and must require death.

dhw: Why the “dainty fingers” sarcasm? Once again you are smearing your God with dirty fingers. I have given you three possible interpretations of evolution which show him doing precisely what he wants to do, without mistakes, failed experiments etc., and your only reason for rejecting them is that you believe your blunderer is less human and more godlike than my fault-free versions. Why have you brought in death? We know that every individual organism dies, but that has never been our subject (though we can discuss it if you want to). Individual deaths have nothing to do with the creation or extinction of species.

Once again going to your usual extremes only to defend my God!! I love it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, March 01, 2023, 10:40 (394 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We assume He could create us outright since He made direct creation of life.

dhw: You have omitted your belief that we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors. This leads you to the absurd theory that your God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was us and our food, and therefore he designed countless species that did not lead to us or our food.

DAVID: Did God evolve us or not? We are discussing my belief in God a designer. I view evolution as showing purpose. You are stuck with Darwin's random process where everything is survival.

Once again you completely ignore the issue I raise, but I will answer you. If God exists, he would have created the process of evolution, of which we are the latest product. We are not discussing your belief in God the designer, but the purpose, methods and nature of your God, assuming he exists. I have no doubt that if God created the world, life and the process of evolution, he would have had a purpose. I do not see evolution as a random process, because I see that every adaptation and innovation is tightly geared to the purpose of survival. However, in my various theistic proposals, I offer two which place special focus on humans as a possible purpose. See your next dodge:

dhw: […] evolution does not mean your God’s only purpose was us and our food.

DAVID: The only way to interpret God's intent is to evaluate His works. You give lip service to how unusual and special we are. Pual Davies doesn't view that way, recorded here in the past. And of course, Adler's well known proof of God.

I have never denied that we are special, but as usual you attempt to gloss over the main bulk of your absurd theory that your God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed countless life forms which had no connection with us and our food, and which you label “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions”, and a mess, while at the same time telling us how brilliant your designer God is. You also believe he could have designed us de novo if he’d wanted to, and did in fact design our ancestors and those of our food de novo, although even then he went on making mistakes on the way. What’s more he knew he was making mistakes. In two of my alternatives, I give special prominence to us humans, but your God manages to design them without any mistakes.

DAVID: I've purposely overstated how messy evolution of life actually is. But God used it. Successfully, we are here.

What was your purpose? Are you now saying that when you called his efforts “mistakes” and “failed experiments” etc, you didn’t actually mean they were mistakes and failed experiments?

dhw: Your comments are so full of contradictions that you are forced to acknowledge that you have no idea why your God would have invented such a faulty method, and I should go and ask him why he did it.

DAVID: How can I know God's reasoning? I am not His righthand assistant. I cannot interpret beyond assigning importance to aspects of His works. Humans are enormously important.

We are certainly enormously important to ourselves, and in two of my alternatives I have actually allowed for our enormous importance, offering perfectly logical reasons for your God’s methods, even including your own belief that he was experimenting. Meanwhile, how can you know that your God reasoned that he must make 99 mistakes for every 100 of his designs?

DAVID: Once again going to your usual extremes only to defend my God!! I love it.

Then maybe you should take my proposals more seriously before you opt for an inefficient, cumbersome bumbler who invents a method that forces him into making the mess you have criticized him for.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 01, 2023, 17:38 (393 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We assume He could create us outright since He made direct creation of life.

dhw: You have omitted your belief that we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors.

The Cambrian gap has existed since its discovery before Darwin moaned about it. It is not belief but fact that every animal here descended from it.

DAVID: Did God evolve us or not? We are discussing my belief in God a designer. I view evolution as showing purpose. You are stuck with Darwin's random process where everything is survival.

dhw: If God exists, he would have created the process of evolution, of which we are the latest product. We are not discussing your belief in God the designer, but the purpose, methods and nature of your God, assuming he exists. I have no doubt that if God created the world, life and the process of evolution, he would have had a purpose. I do not see evolution as a random process, because I see that every adaptation and innovation is tightly geared to the purpose of survival. However, in my various theistic proposals, I offer two which place special focus on humans as a possible purpose. See your next dodge:

Survival is your emphasis, because you haven't recovered from your worship of Darwin. Raup says survival depends on luck, which means it is a random process. God designs species so they will survive facing current tests with some adaptability.


dhw: […] evolution does not mean your God’s only purpose was us and our food.

DAVID: The only way to interpret God's intent is to evaluate His works. You give lip service to how unusual and special we are. Pual Davies doesn't view that way, recorded here in the past. And of course, Adler's well-known proof of God.

dhw: I have never denied that we are special, but as usual you attempt to gloss over the main bulk of your absurd theory that your God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed countless life forms which had no connection with us and our food, and which you label “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions”, and a mess, while at the same time telling us how brilliant your designer God is. You also believe he could have designed us de novo if he’d wanted to, and did in fact design our ancestors and those of our food de novo, although even then he went on making mistakes on the way. What’s more he knew he was making mistakes. In two of my alternatives, I give special prominence to us humans, but your God manages to design them without any mistakes.

DAVID: I've purposely overstated how messy evolution of life actually is. But God used it. Successfully, we are here.

dhw: What was your purpose? Are you now saying that when you called his efforts “mistakes” and “failed experiments” etc, you didn’t actually mean they were mistakes and failed experiments?

I've certainly got your attention. You initially raised the question of the indirect way evolution produced what God wanted to produce. We have now investigated the issue and I've got you defending my God with your extrapolations of pure initial theory. based on looking at cells and noting they operate intelligently. At the biochemical level current research shows how automatic their actions are.


dhw: Your comments are so full of contradictions that you are forced to acknowledge that you have no idea why your God would have invented such a faulty method, and I should go and ask him why he did it.

DAVID: How can I know God's reasoning? I am not His righthand assistant. I cannot interpret beyond assigning importance to aspects of His works. Humans are enormously important.

dhw: We are certainly enormously important to ourselves, and in two of my alternatives I have actually allowed for our enormous importance, offering perfectly logical reasons for your God’s methods, even including your own belief that he was experimenting. Meanwhile, how can you know that your God reasoned that he must make 99 mistakes for every 100 of his designs?

God knew in any evolutionary process each step to the present would depend on past performances. Raup analyzed the system. I assume God invented it. He knew how it would work.

DAVID: Once again going to your usual extremes only to defend my God!! I love it.

dhw: Then maybe you should take my proposals more seriously before you opt for an inefficient, cumbersome bumbler who invents a method that forces him into making the mess you have criticized him for.

Your theories are totally unreasonable based on current biochemical reasearch on living organisms.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, March 02, 2023, 10:42 (392 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We assume He could create us outright since He made direct creation of life.

dhw: You have omitted your belief that we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors.

DAVID: The Cambrian gap has existed since its discovery before Darwin moaned about it. It is not belief but fact that every animal here descended from it.

As usual, you dodge the issue. You claim that your God’s sole purpose right from the start was to create us and our food, but that he created our ancestors and our foods de novo during the Cambrian. Therefore all the life forms which preceded the Cambrian, and which you call his “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions”, were totally unnecessary. Your explanation? God invented a system he knew would result in his designing all the “mistakes” etc. (including most of the forms he designed even after the Cambrian), but we are here, and so he’s a brilliant designer.

DAVID: […] I view evolution as showing purpose. You are stuck with Darwin's random process where everything is survival.

dhw: I do not see evolution as a random process, because I see that every adaptation and innovation is tightly geared to the purpose of survival. bbbbHowever, in my various theistic proposals, I offer two which place special focus on humans as a possible purpose.bbb See your next dodge:

DAVID: Survival is your emphasis, because you haven't recovered from your worship of Darwin. Raup says survival depends on luck, which means it is a random process. God designs species so they will survive facing current tests with some adaptability.

According to you, your blundering God designed species so that 99% would NOT survive! If survival is a random process, your God depends on luck to provide him not only with the conditions he needs in order to design us and our food, but also with survivors he can “evolve” in his next series of failed experiments – except that he didn’t need any of them prior to the Cambrian, when he started the whole process all over again de novo. You blame God for this mess, whereas it is your theory which provides the mess. You have totally ignored my two theories which allow for your purpose, but have him experimenting without the mistakes you accuse him of.

DAVID: I've purposely overstated how messy evolution of life actually is. But God used it. Successfully, we are here.

dhw: What was your purpose? Are you now saying that when you called his efforts “mistakes” and “failed experiments” etc, you didn’t actually mean they were mistakes and failed experiments?

DAVID: I've certainly got your attention. You initially raised the question of the indirect way evolution produced what God wanted to produce.

Correction: The question concerns the indirect and error-strewn way in which your God produced what he wanted to produce.

DAVID: […] I've got you defending my God with your extrapolations of pure initial theory. based on looking at cells and noting they operate intelligently. At the biochemical level current research shows how automatic their actions are.

More dodging! The intelligent cell theory only concerns the mechanisms by which evolution advances - nothing to do with your God’s blunders in pursuit of his only goal! Once more: are you now telling us that when you accused him of mistakes etc., you didn’t mean to accuse him of mistakes etc., and when you tell us he knew he was making mistakes, you didn’t mean he knew he was making mistakes?

DAVID: God knew in any evolutionary process each step to the present would depend on past performances.

And so he kept making mistakes until the Cambrian, when he started all over again de novo, and then carried on making mistakes, but finally succeeded in designing us and our food although he could have done it without all the mess if he had wanted to.

DAVID: Raup analyzed the system.

Well done, Raup.

DAVID: I assume God invented it. He knew how it would work.

If God exists, of course he would have invented it. And thank you for confirming your belief that he knew the system he invented would lead to all his blunders.

DAVID: Once again going to your usual extremes only to defend my God!! I love it.

dhw: Then maybe you should take my proposals more seriously before you opt for an inefficient, cumbersome bumbler who invents a method that forces him into making the mess you have criticized him for.

DAVID: Your theories are totally unreasonable based on current biochemical reasearch on living organisms.

The theories that 1) your God experimented in his quest to create a being like himself – and did so by means of countless successful experiments until he hit on the best formula – and 2) that his successful experiments resulted in more and more new ideas on what to do with his invention of life, both fit in with the history of life, have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of cellular intelligence or current biochemical research, and mercifully free your God from the image you present of an inefficient, incompetent, cumbersome bungler, who depends on luck to allow him the chance to do what he wants to do.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 02, 2023, 16:49 (392 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, March 02, 2023, 16:59

DAVID: We assume He could create us outright since He made direct creation of life.

dhw: You have omitted your belief that we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors.

DAVID: The Cambrian gap has existed since its discovery before Darwin moaned about it. It is not belief but fact that every animal here descended from it.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue. You claim that your God’s sole purpose right from the start was to create us and our food, but that he created our ancestors and our foods de novo during the Cambrian. Therefore all the life forms which preceded the Cambrian, and which you call his “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions”, were totally unnecessary. Your explanation?

You don't understand evolution at the biochemical level. That biochemistry developed until the Cambrian and afterward. Biochemistry underlies, and therefore allows all phenotypical changes. If it ain't there, you can't do it is the rule. And you've forgotten all those lovely bacteria, started life, still here helping.

DAVID: I've purposely overstated how messy evolution of life actually is. But God used it. Successfully, we are here.

dhw: What was your purpose? Are you now saying that when you called his efforts “mistakes” and “failed experiments” etc, you didn’t actually mean they were mistakes and failed experiments?

DAVID: I've certainly got your attention. You initially raised the question of the indirect way evolution produced what God wanted to produce.

dhw: Correction: The question concerns the indirect and error-strewn way in which your God produced what he wanted to produce.

DAVID: […] I've got you defending my God with your extrapolations of pure initial theory. based on looking at cells and noting they operate intelligently. At the biochemical level current research shows how automatic their actions are.

dhw: More dodging! The intelligent cell theory only concerns the mechanisms by which evolution advances - nothing to do with your God’s blunders in pursuit of his only goal! Once more: are you now telling us that when you accused him of mistakes etc., you didn’t mean to accuse him of mistakes etc., and when you tell us he knew he was making mistakes, you didn’t mean he knew he was making mistakes?

DAVID: God knew in any evolutionary process each step to the present would depend on past performances.

dhw: And so he kept making mistakes until the Cambrian, when he started all over again de novo, and then carried on making mistakes, but finally succeeded in designing us and our food although he could have done it without all the mess if he had wanted to.

This disaster of mistaken and muddled misunderstanding of how pre-Cambrian forms contributed to the Cambrian handled above.


DAVID: Raup analyzed the system.

dhw: Well done, Raup.

You know nothing of Raup's short, brilliant book. Remember, no failures but bad luck when circumstances changed. See below: God never needed to experiment as all-knowing brilliant mind. Designed limited adaptability required later designed speciation.


DAVID: I assume God invented it. He knew how it would work.

dhw: If God exists, of course he would have invented it. And thank you for confirming your belief that he knew the system he invented would lead to all his blunders.

Blunders is your perverted view of God handling evolution with all its loss of forms that ended up with us.


DAVID: Once again going to your usual extremes only to defend my God!! I love it.

dhw: Then maybe you should take my proposals more seriously before you opt for an inefficient, cumbersome bumbler who invents a method that forces him into making the mess you have criticized him for.

DAVID: Your theories are totally unreasonable based on current biochemical research on living organisms.

dhw: The theories that 1) your God experimented in his quest to create a being like himself – and did so by means of countless successful experiments until he hit on the best formula – and 2) that his successful experiments resulted in more and more new ideas on what to do with his invention of life, both fit in with the history of life, have nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of cellular intelligence or current biochemical research, and mercifully free your God from the image you present of an inefficient, incompetent, cumbersome bungler, who depends on luck to allow him the chance to do what he wants to do.

I love it. Back to defending a God you don't believe in, my God, any God. God never needed to experiment as all-knowing brilliant mind. Designed limited adaptability required later designed speciation.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, March 03, 2023, 12:40 (391 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You claim that your God’s sole purpose right from the start was to create us and our food, but that he created our ancestors and our foods de novo during the Cambrian. Therefore all the life forms which preceded the Cambrian, and which you call his “mistakes”, “failed experiments”, “wrong decisions”, were totally unnecessary. Your explanation?

DAVID: You don't understand evolution at the biochemical level. That biochemistry developed until the Cambrian and afterward. Biochemistry underlies, and therefore allows all phenotypical changes. If it ain't there, you can't do it is the rule. And you've forgotten all those lovely bacteria, started life, still here helping.

More dodging! ALL life is biochemical! And you omit to mention that you have your God using biochemistry to design phenotypical changes, 99% of which had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose. And you omit to mention that all the biochemical phenotypical changes prior to the Cambrian were unnecessary because he created our ancestors and foods de novo during the Cambrian! It’s you have forgotten the lovely bacteria from which we have descended. How can we have descended from them if your God designed our ancestors without any predecessors?

DAVID: I've purposely overstated how messy evolution of life actually is. But God used it. Successfully, we are here.

dhw: are you now telling us that when you accused him of mistakes etc., you didn’t mean to accuse him of mistakes etc., and when you tell us he knew he was making mistakes, you didn’t mean he knew he was making mistakes?

Not answered.

DAVID: God knew in any evolutionary process each step to the present would depend on past performances.

dhw: And so he kept making mistakes until the Cambrian, when he started all over again de novo, and then carried on making mistakes, but finally succeeded in designing us and our food although he could have done it without all the mess if he had wanted to.

DAVID: This disaster of mistaken and muddled misunderstanding of how pre-Cambrian forms contributed to the Cambrian handled above.

Not handled at all. The fact that all life is biochemical has nothing to do with your theory that your God designed all life forms, 99% of them were mistakes, failed experiments, wrong decisions etc., and he designed our ancestors and food without any predecessors, and he was responsible for what you call the mess of evolution. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Raup analyzed the system.

dhw: Well done, Raup.

DAVID: You know nothing of Raup's short, brilliant book. Remember, no failures but bad luck when circumstances changed.

It is you who keep using the word "failure"! The “bad luck” was caused by the fact that your God’s designs "failed" to cope with changing circumstances, and so the 99% perished. You regard non-survival as a mistake or "failed experiment" because the 99% did not lead to what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging.

DAVID: See below: God never needed to experiment as all-knowing brilliant mind. Designed limited adaptability required later designed speciation.

It was you who used the expression “failed experiments”. An all-knowing brilliant mind according to you knew that it was making mistakes and conducting experiments that would fail. The limitations of his designs required new designs when organisms were exposed to conditions over which you say your all-powerful God had no control. Why do you continue to gloss over all your criticisms of your God?

DAVID: I assume God invented it. He knew how it would work.

dhw: If God exists, of course he would have invented it. And thank you for confirming your belief that he knew the system he invented would lead to all his blunders.

DAVID: Blunders is your perverted view of God handling evolution with all its loss of forms that ended up with us.

Blunder is another word for mistake. The loss of forms did not end up with us. It was the survival of forms that ended up with us. The loss of forms, according to you, was the result of your God’s faulty designs, mistakes, failed experiments – “failed” because they did NOT lead to us plus food.

dhw: The theories that 1) your God experimented in his quest to create a being like himself – and did so by means of countless successful experiments until he hit on the best formula – and 2) that his successful experiments resulted in more and more new ideas on what to do with his invention of life, both fit in with the history of life, […] and mercifully free your God from the image you present of an inefficient, incompetent, cumbersome bungler, who depends on luck to allow him the chance to do what he wants to do.

DAVID: I love it. Back to defending a God you don't believe in, my God, any God. God never needed to experiment as all-knowing brilliant mind. Designed limited adaptability required later designed speciation.

As above – why would an all-knowing brilliant mind with a single purpose design 99% of life forms which have no connection with his one and only purpose and which he knows are mistakes and failed experiments? Why do you keep describing your blunderer as brilliant, and sneering at interpretations which have him doing precisely what he wants to do?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, March 03, 2023, 17:30 (391 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You don't understand evolution at the biochemical level. That biochemistry developed until the Cambrian and afterward. Biochemistry underlies, and therefore allows all phenotypical changes. If it ain't there, you can't do it is the rule. And you've forgotten all those lovely bacteria, started life, still here helping.


dhw: More dodging! ALL life is biochemical! And you omit to mention that you have your God using biochemistry to design phenotypical changes, 99% of which had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose. And you omit to mention that all the biochemical phenotypical changes prior to the Cambrian were unnecessary because he created our ancestors and foods de novo during the Cambrian! It’s you have forgotten the lovely bacteria from which we have descended. How can we have descended from them if your God designed our ancestors without any predecessors?

The bold is pure nonsense. The biochemistry developed in the Ediacaran is the same biochemistry that is the basis of the biochemistry used in the Cambrian. And surprise! We are still using much of the same bacterial biochemistry started in them. Predecessors is a word that requires an analysis of phenotype. All phenotypes are dependent upon the underlying biochemistry available to them. Please try to see evolution at two distinct levels!


DAVID: I've purposely overstated how messy evolution of life actually is. But God used it. Successfully, we are here.

dhw: are you now telling us that when you accused him of mistakes etc., you didn’t mean to accuse him of mistakes etc., and when you tell us he knew he was making mistakes, you didn’t mean he knew he was making mistakes?

Not answered.

God knew completely organisms would fail. To repeat for the nth time: He designed limited adaptability and designed new species as needed.

DAVID: This disaster of mistaken and muddled misunderstanding of how pre-Cambrian forms contributed to the Cambrian handled above.

dhw: Not handled at all. The fact that all life is biochemical has nothing to do with your theory that your God designed all life forms, 99% of them were mistakes, failed experiments, wrong decisions etc., and he designed our ancestors and food without any predecessors, and he was responsible for what you call the mess of evolution. Stop dodging!

Have you forgotten, I believe in God the designer?


DAVID: Raup analyzed the system.

dhw: Well done, Raup.

DAVID: You know nothing of Raup's short, brilliant book. Remember, no failures but bad luck when circumstances changed.

dhw: It is you who keep using the word "failure"! The “bad luck” was caused by the fact that your God’s designs "failed" to cope with changing circumstances, and so the 99% perished. You regard non-survival as a mistake or "failed experiment" because the 99% did not lead to what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging.

99.9% perished by God's purposeful design. Living evolution shows us 99.9% must die!!!! The dead precursors became our living food!!!


DAVID: See below: God never needed to experiment as all-knowing brilliant mind. Designed limited adaptability required later designed speciation.

dhw: It was you who used the expression “failed experiments”. An all-knowing brilliant mind according to you knew that it was making mistakes and conducting experiments that would fail. The limitations of his designs required new designs when organisms were exposed to conditions over which you say your all-powerful God had no control. Why do you continue to gloss over all your criticisms of your God?

Failure to survive by brilliant designs making room for new designed species.


DAVID: Blunders is your perverted view of God handling evolution with all its loss of forms that ended up with us.

dhw: Blunder is another word for mistake. The loss of forms did not end up with us. It was the survival of forms that ended up with us.

Back to pure Darwin. Survival did not drive evolution. The creator of speciation did.

dhw: The theories that 1) your God experimented in his quest to create a being like himself – and did so by means of countless successful experiments until he hit on the best formula – and 2) that his successful experiments resulted in more and more new ideas on what to do with his invention of life, both fit in with the history of life, […] and mercifully free your God from the image you present of an inefficient, incompetent, cumbersome bungler, who depends on luck to allow him the chance to do what he wants to do.

DAVID: I love it. Back to defending a God you don't believe in, my God, any God. God never needed to experiment as all-knowing brilliant mind. Designed limited adaptability required later designed speciation.

dhw:As above – why would an all-knowing brilliant mind with a single purpose design 99% of life forms which have no connection with his one and only purpose and which he knows are mistakes and failed experiments? Why do you keep describing your blunderer as brilliant, and sneering at interpretations which have him doing precisely what he wants to do?

When will you realize living evolution requires a 99.9% failure rate to survive???

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, March 04, 2023, 08:16 (391 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You don't understand evolution at the biochemical level. That biochemistry developed until the Cambrian and afterward. Biochemistry underlies, and therefore allows all phenotypical changes. If it ain't there, you can't do it is the rule. And you've forgotten all those lovely bacteria, started life, still here helping.

dhw: More dodging! ALL life is biochemical! And you omit to mention that you have your God using biochemistry to design phenotypical changes, 99% of which had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose. And you omit to mention that all the biochemical phenotypical changes prior to the Cambrian were unnecessary because he created our ancestors and foods de novo during the Cambrian! It’s you have forgotten the lovely bacteria from which we have descended. How can we have descended from them if your God designed our ancestors without any predecessors?

DAVID: The bold is pure nonsense. The biochemistry developed in the Ediacaran is the same biochemistry that is the basis of the biochemistry used in the Cambrian. And surprise! We are still using much of the same bacterial biochemistry started in them. Predecessors is a word that requires an analysis of phenotype. All phenotypes are dependent upon the underlying biochemistry available to them. Please try to see evolution at two distinct levels!

Of course all phenotypes depend on biochemistry! That’s why I said all life is biochemical. Your theory that he designed our ancestors – his only purpose - from scratch (the Cambrian gap) makes “pure nonsense” of your theory that first he had to design earlier life forms (“mistakes”, “failures”) which had no connection with us, regardless of the fact that they all use the same biochemistry.

DAVID: I've purposely overstated how messy evolution of life actually is..

dhw: are you now telling us that when you accused him of mistakes etc., you didn’t mean to accuse him of mistakes etc., and when you tell us he knew he was making mistakes, you didn’t mean he knew he was making mistakes?

DAVID: God knew completely organisms would fail. To repeat for the nth time: He designed limited adaptability and designed new species as needed.

Thank you for confirming your belief that he knew his design would lead to 99% mistakes/failures, and that the reason they died was his faulty design which prevented them from adapting to new conditions outside his control. This process was repeated until the Cambrian allowed him to design new species which were not even based on the 1% of survivors since he designed them from scratch. Some of these survived the great “mess”, and evolved (through his dabbling) into us and our food. Please indicate any points you wish to reject.

DAVID: You know nothing of Raup's short, brilliant book. Remember, no failures but bad luck when circumstances changed.

dhw: It is you who keep using the word "failure"! The “bad luck” was caused by the fact that your God’s designs "failed" to cope with changing circumstances, and so the 99% perished. You regard non-survival as a mistake or "failed experiment" because the 99% did not lead to what you believe to have been your God’s one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging.

DAVID: 99.9% perished by God's purposeful design. Living evolution shows us 99.9% must die!!!! The dead precursors became our living food!!!

How can dead precursors become anything? Living evolution shows us that 99% became extinct. If 100% had become extinct, there would have been no more life and no more evolution! It’s the 1% of survivors that evolved into us and our food!

DAVID: Failure to survive by brilliant designs making room for new designed species.

So now your God clutters up the planet with 99% of life forms he designed so that chance changes in conditions would get rid of them and make room for another 99% of mistakes until the right conditions happened to arrive etc., as bolded above. And this is brilliant.

DAVID: Blunders is your perverted view of God handling evolution with all its loss of forms that ended up with us.

dhw: Blunder is another word for mistake. The loss of forms did not end up with us. It was the survival of forms that ended up with us.

DAVID: Back to pure Darwin. Survival did not drive evolution. The creator of speciation did.

You have misunderstood. “Lost” forms do not evolve into anything. Only survivors can evolve.

dhw: ][…] why would an all-knowing brilliant mind with a single purpose design 99% of life forms which have no connection with his one and only purpose and which he knows are mistakes and failed experiments? Why do you keep describing your blunderer as brilliant, and sneering at interpretations which have him doing precisely what he wants to do?

DAVID: When will you realize living evolution requires a 99.9% failure rate to survive???

Never. When will you realize that evolution, like life itself, requires survivors if it is to survive? And when will you stop dodging my questions?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 04, 2023, 17:36 (390 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: More dodging! ALL life is biochemical! And you omit to mention that you have your God using biochemistry to design phenotypical changes, 99% of which had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose. And you omit to mention that all the biochemical phenotypical changes prior to the Cambrian were unnecessary because he created our ancestors and foods de novo during the Cambrian! It’s you have forgotten the lovely bacteria from which we have descended. How can we have descended from them if your God designed our ancestors without any predecessors?

DAVID: The bold is pure nonsense. The biochemistry developed in the Ediacaran is the same biochemistry that is the basis of the biochemistry used in the Cambrian. And surprise! We are still using much of the same bacterial biochemistry started in them. Predecessors is a word that requires an analysis of phenotype. All phenotypes are dependent upon the underlying biochemistry available to them. Please try to see evolution at two distinct levels!

dhw: Of course all phenotypes depend on biochemistry! That’s why I said all life is biochemical. Your theory that he designed our ancestors – his only purpose - from scratch (the Cambrian gap) makes “pure nonsense” of your theory that first he had to design earlier life forms (“mistakes”, “failures”) which had no connection with us, regardless of the fact that they all use the same biochemistry.

Not nonsense. Early forms required less complex biochemistry. As biochemistry advanced, forms advanced. The final form is our brain which is based upon the highly complex biochemistry of neurons. Pre-Cambrian forms developed the necessary complex biochemistry to allow the Cambrian animals with brains!


DAVID: God knew completely organisms would fail. To repeat for the nth time: He designed limited adaptability and designed new species as needed.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your belief that he knew his design would lead to 99% mistakes/failures, and that the reason they died was his faulty design which prevented them from adapting to new conditions outside his control. This process was repeated until the Cambrian allowed him to design new species which were not even based on the 1% of survivors since he designed them from scratch. Some of these survived the great “mess”, and evolved (through his dabbling) into us and our food. Please indicate any points you wish to reject.

Not stated as I would but it fits my thinking.


DAVID: Failure to survive by brilliant designs making room for new designed species.

dhw: So now your God clutters up the planet with 99% of life forms he designed so that chance changes in conditions would get rid of them and make room for another 99% of mistakes until the right conditions happened to arrive etc., as bolded above. And this is brilliant.

It is evolution not based on the struggle for survival. As for conditions, not adversely acting, the increase in oxygen allowed the Cambrian. Are we here or not? Is our creation brilliant or not? Darwin theory of survival driving evolution tells us we shouldn't be here. Our somewhat equivalent ape cousins have done just fine for six million years with simple brains.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, March 05, 2023, 11:23 (389 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your theory that he designed our ancestors – his only purpose - from scratch (the Cambrian gap) makes “pure nonsense” of your theory that first he had to design earlier life forms (“mistakes”, “failures”) which had no connection with us, regardless of the fact that they all use the same biochemistry.

DAVID: Not nonsense. Early forms required less complex biochemistry. As biochemistry advanced, forms advanced. The final form is our brain which is based upon the highly complex biochemistry of neurons. Pre-Cambrian forms developed the necessary complex biochemistry to allow the Cambrian animals with brains!

What you’ve written is exactly right as a description of evolution. And you have completely forgotten about your God! Not one mention of him. Because you know that it makes no sense to argue that your God knew all along what biochemistry was needed, and therefore he designed all the preceding forms that did not have the complexity he knew he needed, because he believed it was essential to create 99% of mistakes and failed experiments if he wanted to produce the life forms he finally produced without any predecessors.

DAVID: God knew completely organisms would fail. To repeat for the nth time: He designed limited adaptability and designed new species as needed.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your belief that he knew his design would lead to 99% mistakes/failures, and that the reason they died was his faulty design which prevented them from adapting to new conditions outside his control. This process was repeated until the Cambrian allowed him to design new species which were not even based on the 1% of survivors since he designed them from scratch. Some of these survived the great “mess”, and evolved (through his dabbling) into us and our food. Please indicate any points you wish to reject.

DAVID: Not stated as I would but it fits my thinking.

And you regard this as brilliant design, whereas you think a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is a blunderer.

DAVID: Failure to survive by brilliant designs making room for new designed species.

dhw: So now your God clutters up the planet with 99% of life forms he designed so that chance changes in conditions would get rid of them and make room for another 99% of mistakes until the right conditions happened to arrive etc., as bolded above. And this is brilliant.

DAVID: It is evolution not based on the struggle for survival.

Agreed. Your form of evolution is based on your God making countless mistakes and depending on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs in order to fulfil his one and only purpose.

DAVID: As for conditions, not adversely acting, the increase in oxygen allowed the Cambrian. Are we here or not? Is our creation brilliant or not?

Yes, sheer luck provided your God with the necessary conditions for his one and only purpose, and then he created our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the preceding mistakes and failed experiments. Yes, we are here, and all forms of life are/were brilliant, and there is no need at all for you to denigrate your God with your accusations of mistakes and failed experiments.

DAVID: Darwin theory of survival driving evolution tells us we shouldn't be here. Our somewhat equivalent ape cousins have done just fine for six million years with simple brains.

And bacteria have been here for billions of years with their form of intelligence. By that reckoning, nothing else “should be” here. But single cells joined up with one another to create new ways of surviving, and our ancestors followed the same pattern. We don’t know origins, but it makes perfect sense to suppose that a particular colony of anthropoids was forced by conditions (or possibly even by curiosity) to explore life out of the trees, and since this proved to be advantageous (maybe parallel to pre-whales exploring life in the water), the cells gradually changed their bodies to adapt to the new conditions. Meanwhile, elsewhere, other colonies survived perfectly happily as they were. For what purpose other than improving their chances of survival do you think our ancestors might have decided to stay on the ground?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 05, 2023, 16:10 (389 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not nonsense. Early forms required less complex biochemistry. As biochemistry advanced, forms advanced. The final form is our brain which is based upon the highly complex biochemistry of neurons. Pre-Cambrian forms developed the necessary complex biochemistry to allow the Cambrian animals with brains!

dhw: What you’ve written is exactly right as a description of evolution. And you have completely forgotten about your God! Not one mention of him. Because you know that it makes no sense to argue that your God knew all along what biochemistry was needed, and therefore he designed all the preceding forms that did not have the complexity he knew he needed, because he believed it was essential to create 99% of mistakes and failed experiments if he wanted to produce the life forms he finally produced without any predecessors.

God chose to do it stepwise fully recognizing in advance the necessary failure to survive rate:


DAVID: God knew completely organisms would fail. To repeat for the nth time: He designed limited adaptability and designed new species as needed.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your belief that he knew his design would lead to 99% mistakes/failures, and that the reason they died was his faulty design which prevented them from adapting to new conditions outside his control. This process was repeated until the Cambrian allowed him to design new species which were not even based on the 1% of survivors since he designed them from scratch. Some of these survived the great “mess”, and evolved (through his dabbling) into us and our food. Please indicate any points you wish to reject.

DAVID: Not stated as I would but it fits my thinking.

dhw: And you regard this as brilliant design, whereas you think a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is a blunderer.

You've reversed our views. Your God is a simple humanized form while you consider mine a blunderer.


DAVID: Failure to survive by brilliant designs making room for new designed species.

dhw: So now your God clutters up the planet with 99% of life forms he designed so that chance changes in conditions would get rid of them and make room for another 99% of mistakes until the right conditions happened to arrive etc., as bolded above. And this is brilliant.

DAVID: It is evolution not based on the struggle for survival.

dhw: Agreed. Your form of evolution is based on your God making countless mistakes and depending on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs in order to fulfil his one and only purpose.

God does not need luck. He can design for any conditions available. Extremophiles are the proof.


DAVID: As for conditions, not adversely acting, the increase in oxygen allowed the Cambrian. Are we here or not? Is our creation brilliant or not?

dhw: Yes, sheer luck provided your God with the necessary conditions for his one and only purpose, and then he created our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the preceding mistakes and failed experiments. Yes, we are here, and all forms of life are/were brilliant, and there is no need at all for you to denigrate your God with your accusations of mistakes and failed experiments. (my bold)

When will you stop dwelling in long past entries? God knew fully the type of method He was dealing with that required failure to survive.


DAVID: Darwin theory of survival driving evolution tells us we shouldn't be here. Our somewhat equivalent ape cousins have done just fine for six million years with simple brains.

dhw: And bacteria have been here for billions of years with their form of intelligence. By that reckoning, nothing else “should be” here. But single cells joined up with one another to create new ways of surviving, and our ancestors followed the same pattern.

Exactly my thinking. Successful bacteria had no need to become more complex. They are still here in original forms as magnificent survivors. Darwin's need for survival did not drive them to complexify. In my view God was the agent of further evolution.

dhw: We don’t know origins, but it makes perfect sense to suppose that a particular colony of anthropoids was forced by conditions (or possibly even by curiosity) to explore life out of the trees, and since this proved to be advantageous (maybe parallel to pre-whales exploring life in the water), the cells gradually changed their bodies to adapt to the new conditions. Meanwhile, elsewhere, other colonies survived perfectly happily as they were. For what purpose other than improving their chances of survival do you think our ancestors might have decided to stay on the ground?

Transitional forms like Lucy had climbing shoulders and full bipedalism. I don't know how much she did distinct planning for her future. She simply took advantage of the body she had. Designed by God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, March 06, 2023, 08:57 (389 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] it makes no sense to argue that your God knew all along what biochemistry was needed, and therefore he designed all the preceding forms that did not have the complexity he knew he needed, because he believed it was essential to create 99% of mistakes and failed experiments if he wanted to produce the life forms he finally produced without any predecessors.

DAVID: God chose to do it stepwise fully recognizing in advance the necessary failure to survive rate:

Why do you keep omitting your belief that the 99% were your God’s mistakes and failed experiments? You make it sound as if your God, the creator of all things, was confronted by an immutable law: “thou must make 99 mistakes before thou createst the one thing thou wishest to create.” If God exists, yes, he created the system of evolution. And if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, it is absurd to argue that he had no choice but to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments.

DAVID: God knew completely organisms would fail. To repeat for the nth time: He designed limited adaptability and designed new species as needed.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your belief that he knew his design would lead to 99% mistakes/failures, and that the reason they died was his faulty design which prevented them from adapting to new conditions outside his control. This process was repeated until the Cambrian allowed him to design new species which were not even based on the 1% of survivors since he designed them from scratch. Some of these survived the great “mess”, and evolved (through his dabbling) into us and our food. Please indicate any points you wish to reject.

DAVID: Not stated as I would but it fits my thinking.

dhw: And you regard this as brilliant design, whereas you think a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is a blunderer.

DAVID: You've reversed our views. Your God is a simple humanized form while you consider mine a blunderer.

You have just agreed that yours makes mistakes, his designs are faulty etc. That = a blunderer. Mine does not make mistakes but creates successes. Apparently that turns him into a simple human being.

dhw: Your form of evolution is based on your God making countless mistakes and depending on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs in order to fulfil his one and only purpose.

DAVID: God does not need luck. He can design for any conditions available. Extremophiles are the proof.

Yes, he can design for any conditions, and extremophiles are the proof. But you have forgotten that in your theory the only species he wants to design are H. sapiens and our food, and he is unable to design them until conditions are suitable – but he does not control conditions. Extremophiles prove that he can REACT to any conditions. But if he does not control conditions, he needs luck to provide those that will enable him to fulfil his only purpose.

DAVID: Darwin theory of survival driving evolution tells us we shouldn't be here. Our somewhat equivalent ape cousins have done just fine for six million years with simple brains.

dhw: And bacteria have been here for billions of years with their form of intelligence. By that reckoning, nothing else “should be” here. But single cells joined up with one another to create new ways of surviving, and our ancestors followed the same pattern.

DAVID: Exactly my thinking. Successful bacteria had no need to become more complex. They are still here in original forms as magnificent survivors. Darwin's need for survival did not drive them to complexify. In my view God was the agent of further evolution.

So your God complexified them in order to create 99 life forms that had no connection with his only purpose, plus one that did (except that it didn’t, because he started again from scratch in the Cambrian). In any case, your God’s first consideration would have to be that each new design survived under the new conditions, so there is no contradiction here between your theory and Darwin’s: every design/complexification was geared to survival. You simply add that their purpose was to qualify as one of the 99% of mistakes God had to make in order to achieve his purpose.

dhw: We don’t know origins, but it makes perfect sense to suppose that a particular colony of anthropoids was forced by conditions (or possibly even by curiosity) to explore life out of the trees, and since this proved to be advantageous (maybe parallel to pre-whales exploring life in the water), the cells gradually changed their bodies to adapt to the new conditions. […]

DAVID: Transitional forms like Lucy had climbing shoulders and full bipedalism. I don't know how much she did distinct planning for her future. She simply took advantage of the body she had. Designed by God.

My suggestion is that her body had evolved from earlier “transitional” bodies, as our ancestors’ bodies adapted to their new surroundings. Now please tell us why you think our ancestors might have decided to stay on the ground if it wasn’t for the purpose of improving their chances of survival.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, March 06, 2023, 16:42 (388 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God chose to do it stepwise fully recognizing in advance the necessary failure to survive rate:

dhw: Why do you keep omitting your belief that the 99% were your God’s mistakes and failed experiments? You make it sound as if your God, the creator of all things, was confronted by an immutable law: “thou must make 99 mistakes before thou createst the one thing thou wishest to create.” If God exists, yes, he created the system of evolution. And if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, it is absurd to argue that he had no choice but to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments.

Failure to survive at a 99.9% rate is historical fact. I believe God used evolution to create His desired endpoint, us.


dhw: And you regard this as brilliant design, whereas you think a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is a blunderer.

DAVID: You've reversed our views. Your God is a simple humanized form while you consider mine a blunderer.

dhw: You have just agreed that yours makes mistakes, his designs are faulty etc. That = a blunderer. Mine does not make mistakes but creates successes. Apparently that turns him into a simple human being.

Does your God speciate by Himself?


dhw: Your form of evolution is based on your God making countless mistakes and depending on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs in order to fulfil his one and only purpose.

DAVID: God does not need luck. He can design for any conditions available. Extremophiles are the proof.

dhw: Yes, he can design for any conditions, and extremophiles are the proof. But you have forgotten that in your theory the only species he wants to design are H. sapiens and our food, and he is unable to design them until conditions are suitable – but he does not control conditions. Extremophiles prove that he can REACT to any conditions. But if he does not control conditions, he needs luck to provide those that will enable him to fulfil his only purpose.

Please accept God can design for all conditions. You have forgotten that the climate on Earth is regulated to a narrow temperature range ever since snowball Earth disappeared? Your cry of "luck" is a ghost of any logic. Life under God's design evolved steadily.


DAVID: Darwin theory of survival driving evolution tells us we shouldn't be here. Our somewhat equivalent ape cousins have done just fine for six million years with simple brains.

dhw: And bacteria have been here for billions of years with their form of intelligence. By that reckoning, nothing else “should be” here. But single cells joined up with one another to create new ways of surviving, and our ancestors followed the same pattern.

DAVID: Exactly my thinking. Successful bacteria had no need to become more complex. They are still here in original forms as magnificent survivors. Darwin's need for survival did not drive them to complexify. In my view God was the agent of further evolution.

dhw: So your God complexified them in order to create 99 life forms that had no connection with his only purpose, plus one that did (except that it didn’t, because he started again from scratch in the Cambrian).

Cambrian is phenotypic change, not biochemical change. All based on Edicaran biochemistry.

dhw: In any case, your God’s first consideration would have to be that each new design survived under the new conditions, so there is no contradiction here between your theory and Darwin’s: every design/complexification was geared to survival. You simply add that their purpose was to qualify as one of the 99% of mistakes God had to make in order to achieve his purpose.

Darwin's evolution is the same, a 99.9% failure to survive rate, a different way to think about his theory.


dhw: We don’t know origins, but it makes perfect sense to suppose that a particular colony of anthropoids was forced by conditions (or possibly even by curiosity) to explore life out of the trees, and since this proved to be advantageous (maybe parallel to pre-whales exploring life in the water), the cells gradually changed their bodies to adapt to the new conditions. […]

DAVID: Transitional forms like Lucy had climbing shoulders and full bipedalism. I don't know how much she did distinct planning for her future. She simply took advantage of the body she had. Designed by God.

dhw: My suggestion is that her body had evolved from earlier “transitional” bodies, as our ancestors’ bodies adapted to their new surroundings. Now please tell us why you think our ancestors might have decided to stay on the ground if it wasn’t for the purpose of improving their chances of survival.

I doubt they thought as we do. The bipedal body is not fit to stay in trees. They were forced by their new design to be terrestrial.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, March 07, 2023, 11:09 (387 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God chose to do it stepwise fully recognizing in advance the necessary failure to survive rate:

dhw: Why do you keep omitting your belief that the 99% were your God’s mistakes and failed experiments? You make it sound as if your God, the creator of all things, was confronted by an immutable law: “thou must make 99 mistakes before thou createst the one thing thou wishest to create.” If God exists, yes, he created the system of evolution. And if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, it is absurd to argue that he had no choice but to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments.

DAVID: Failure to survive at a 99.9% rate is historical fact. I believe God used evolution to create His desired endpoint, us.

Of course it’s historical fact, and that is why it is so absurd to argue that your all-powerful God deliberately designed every single life form in order to design us and our food, although 99% of the life forms he designed were irrelevant to us and our food!

dhw: And you regard this as brilliant design, whereas you think a God who gets what he wants without making any mistakes is a blunderer.

DAVID: You've reversed our views. Your God is a simple humanized form while you consider mine a blunderer.

dhw: You have just agreed that yours makes mistakes, his designs are faulty etc. That = a blunderer. Mine does not make mistakes but creates successes. Apparently that turns him into a simple human being.

DAVID: Does your God speciate by Himself?

In my first two alternatives, yes. But he does not make mistakes and his experiments are not failures. In my third, he leaves it to the cells themselves. Now please stop dodging, and tell me why your God’s mistakes do not make him a blunderer, and why my God’s faultless creation of what he wants to create makes him a simple human being.

dhw: Your form of evolution is based on your God making countless mistakes and depending on luck to provide him with the conditions he needs in order to fulfil his one and only purpose.

DAVID: God does not need luck. He can design for any conditions available. Extremophiles are the proof.

dhw: […]. Extremophiles prove that he can REACT to any conditions. But if he does not control conditions, he needs luck to provide those that will enable him to fulfil his only purpose.

DAVID: Please accept God can design for all conditions.

I have just accepted that. Now please accept that if your God does not control conditions, he is limited to designing new species which can cope with those conditions, even though they have no connection with his one and only purpose, which you say is us and our food.

DAVID: [..] Your cry of "luck" is a ghost of any logic. Life under God's design evolved steadily.

It is you who keep harping on about Raup’s theory that survival is a matter of luck, and it is you who claim that God REACTS to conditions he cannot control (as above), thereby needing luck to provide the conditions which will enable him to design us and our food. I don’t know about life evolving steadily. It seems to have evolved in bursts, following long periods of stasis (“punctuated equilibrium”).

The Cambrian

DAVID: Cambrian is phenotypic change, not biochemical change. All based on Edicaran biochemistry.

All life is based on biochemistry. Humans are distinct species, and you claim that your God created our ancestors without predecessors, i.e. our ancestors did not descend from previous species. For you the creation of species de novo is crucial evidence for God’s very existence and for your constant attacks on Darwin, but of course it makes nonsense of your theory that we (plus food) were your all-powerful God’s purpose from the very beginning, and so he had to create countless life forms that had nothing to do with us (plus food).

DAVID: Darwin's evolution is the same, a 99.9% failure to survive rate, a different way to think about his theory.

We all accept that 99% of species became extinct. How does that change the fact that all adaptations and innovations are geared to the struggle for survival? Even your God has to ensure that his new designs will survive in the new conditions.

Bipedalism

dhw: My suggestion is that[Lucy’s] body had evolved from earlier “transitional” bodies, as our ancestors’ bodies adapted to their new surroundings. Now please tell us why you think our ancestors might have decided to stay on the ground if it wasn’t for the purpose of improving their chances of survival.

DAVID: I doubt they thought as we do. The bipedal body is not fit to stay in trees. They were forced by their new design to be terrestrial.

So one morning a group of anthropoids woke up to find themselves with straightened backs and legs, which forced them out of the trees and onto the ground. But even then your God knew he’d have to keep popping in to operate on hominins and hominids and homos till he could get what he wanted (us plus food), though he needn’t have bothered with any of them because he could have created us de novo if he’d wanted to. I'm surprised that you think even God can understand your theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 07, 2023, 16:57 (387 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Failure to survive at a 99.9% rate is historical fact. I believe God used evolution to create His desired endpoint, us.

dhw: Of course it’s historical fact, and that is why it is so absurd to argue that your all-powerful God deliberately designed every single life form in order to design us and our food, although 99% of the life forms he designed were irrelevant to us and our food!

The 99.9% were part of the necessary mechanics of living evolution. So in your view we simply go from bacteria to us without loss of life? 99.9% were not irrelevant, they formed the process of evolution.


dhw: You have just agreed that yours makes mistakes, his designs are faulty etc. That = a blunderer. Mine does not make mistakes but creates successes. Apparently that turns him into a simple human being.

DAVID: Does your God speciate by Himself?

dhw: In my first two alternatives, yes. But he does not make mistakes and his experiments are not failures. In my third, he leaves it to the cells themselves. Now please stop dodging, and tell me why your God’s mistakes do not make him a blunderer, and why my God’s faultless creation of what he wants to create makes him a simple human being.

God knew when He used an evolutionary creation method, there would be a 99.9 % loss rate. No mistakes, no blundering. Your God uses free-for-all for entertainment and experiments in a directionless manner. Purely human.


dhw: […]. Extremophiles prove that he can REACT to any conditions. But if he does not control conditions, he needs luck to provide those that will enable him to fulfil his only purpose.

DAVID: Please accept God can design for all conditions.

dhw: I have just accepted that. Now please accept that if your God does not control conditions, he is limited to designing new species which can cope with those conditions, even though they have no connection with his one and only purpose, which you say is us and our food.

History proves we arrived despite all your artful distortions. God was never limited by environment since the Earth's temperature has always been in a narrow life-supporting range since snowball Earth disappeared.


DAVID: [..] Your cry of "luck" is a ghost of any logic. Life under God's design evolved steadily.

dhw: It is you who keep harping on about Raup’s theory that survival is a matter of luck, and it is you who claim that God REACTS to conditions he cannot control (as above), thereby needing luck to provide the conditions which will enable him to design us and our food. I don’t know about life evolving steadily. It seems to have evolved in bursts, following long periods of stasis (“punctuated equilibrium”).

Answered above. Raup's point was all organism's adaptability were limited. Organism's bad luck, not God's.


The Cambrian

DAVID: Cambrian is phenotypic change, not biochemical change. All based on Edicaran biochemistry.

dhw: All life is based on biochemistry. Humans are distinct species, and you claim that your God created our ancestors without predecessors, i.e. our ancestors did not descend from previous species. For you the creation of species de novo is crucial evidence for God’s very existence and for your constant attacks on Darwin, but of course it makes nonsense of your theory that we (plus food) were your all-powerful God’s purpose from the very beginning, and so he had to create countless life forms that had nothing to do with us (plus food).

You just can't help yourself. In my belief God chose to evolve us creating 'countless lifeforms' on the way, which surprise, created our food supply.


DAVID: Darwin's evolution is the same, a 99.9% failure to survive rate, a different way to think about his theory.

dhw: We all accept that 99% of species became extinct. How does that change the fact that all adaptations and innovations are geared to the struggle for survival? Even your God has to ensure that his new designs will survive in the new conditions.

Thank you. 99% is required.


Bipedalism

]


DAVID: The bipedal body is not fit to stay in trees. They were forced by their new design to be terrestrial.

dhw: So one morning a group of anthropoids woke up to find themselves with straightened backs and legs, which forced them out of the trees and onto the ground. But even then your God knew he’d have to keep popping in to operate on hominins and hominids and homos till he could get what he wanted (us plus food), though he needn’t have bothered with any of them because he could have created us de novo if he’d wanted to. I'm surprised that you think even God can understand your theories.

God and I know He speciates. You don't know how to think about God as I do.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, March 08, 2023, 09:24 (387 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Failure to survive at a 99.9% rate is historical fact. I believe God used evolution to create His desired endpoint, us.

dhw: Of course it’s historical fact, and that is why it is so absurd to argue that your all-powerful God deliberately designed every single life form in order to design us and our food, although 99% of the life forms he designed were irrelevant to us and our food!

DAVID: The 99.9% were part of the necessary mechanics of living evolution. So in your view we simply go from bacteria to us without loss of life? 99.9% were not irrelevant, they formed the process of evolution.

Necessary for what? You never stop dodging. Your God’s one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus our food, but 99% of his creations did not lead to us or our food, so you call them his “mistakes” and “failed experiments”.

DAVID: God knew when He used an evolutionary creation method, there would be a 99.9 % loss rate. No mistakes, no blundering.

It is YOU who have called them mistakes and failed experiments! That is what we’re arguing about!

DAVID: Your God uses free-for-all for entertainment and experiments in a directionless manner. Purely human.

Your dismissal of my alternatives does not make your theory any the less nonsensical. However, none of my alternatives are directionless, and I do not use the word “entertainment” but your own word “enjoy”, as when you tell us you are certain that he enjoys creating or he wouldn’t do it.

dhw: if your God does not control conditions, he is limited to designing new species which can cope with those conditions, even though they have no connection with his one and only purpose, which you say is us and our food.

DAVID: […] God was never limited by environment since the Earth's temperature has always been in a narrow life-supporting range since snowball Earth disappeared.

You said your God was not in control of such environmental changes as forests turning into deserts, and you don’t even know if he controlled Chixculub. You praise his brilliance in being able to design new species to cope with every change, but he can only design what is allowed by the new environment! For example, he couldn’t design us until the necessary oxygen was available.

DAVID: [..] Your cry of "luck" is a ghost of any logic. […].

dhw: It is you who keep harping on about Raup’s theory that survival is a matter of luck.

DAVID: Answered above. Raup's point was all organism's adaptability were limited. Organism's bad luck, not God's.

Of course it’s bad luck for the organisms that they couldn’t adapt to the new conditions because of your God’s faulty design! But LUCKILY 1% survived, so he could work on them to provide the continuity of evolution, until LUCK provided him with the conditions (the Cambrian) needed to fulfil his sole purpose. But see the next item:

The Cambrian

dhw: […] For you the creation of species de novo is crucial evidence for God’s very existence and for your constant attacks on Darwin, but of course it makes nonsense of your theory that we (plus food) were your all-powerful God’s purpose from the very beginning, and so he had to create countless life forms that had nothing to do with us (plus food).

DAVID: You just can't help yourself. In my belief God chose to evolve us creating 'countless lifeforms' on the way, which surprise, created our food supply.

Only the 1% evolved into our food supplies. The 99% were dead ends that did not lead to us or our food. That’s why you call them “mistakes”.

Bipedalism

DAVID: The bipedal body is not fit to stay in trees. They were forced by their new design to be terrestrial.

dhw: So one morning a group of anthropoids woke up to find themselves with straightened backs and legs, which forced them out of the trees and onto the ground. But even then your God knew he’d have to keep popping in to operate on hominins and hominids and homos till he could get what he wanted (us plus food), though he needn’t have bothered with any of them because he could have created us de novo if he’d wanted to. I'm surprised that you think even God can understand your theories.

DAVID: God and I know He speciates. You don't know how to think about God as I do.

And I very much doubt if God knows how to think about himself as you do, with all the blunders you attribute to him. Now please tell us if the account I have given above corresponds to your theory. I don’t want to be accused of distorting it.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 08, 2023, 16:40 (386 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The 99.9% were part of the necessary mechanics of living evolution. So in your view we simply go from bacteria to us without loss of life? 99.9% were not irrelevant, they formed the process of evolution.

dhw: Necessary for what? You never stop dodging. Your God’s one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus our food, but 99% of his creations did not lead to us or our food, so you call them his “mistakes” and “failed experiments”.

I never dodge from my beliefs. God chose to evolve us, which historically required a 99.9% loss of organisms along the way. Very necessary or evoluton stops.


DAVID: Your God uses free-for-all for entertainment and experiments in a directionless manner. Purely human.

dhw: Your dismissal of my alternatives does not make your theory any the less nonsensical. However, none of my alternatives are directionless, and I do not use the word “entertainment” but your own word “enjoy”, as when you tell us you are certain that he enjoys creating or he wouldn’t do it.

Yes, I'm sure He wants to create, because He did!!


dhw: if your God does not control conditions, he is limited to designing new species which can cope with those conditions, even though they have no connection with his one and only purpose, which you say is us and our food.

DAVID: […] God was never limited by environment since the Earth's temperature has always been in a narrow life-supporting range since snowball Earth disappeared.

dhw: You said your God was not in control of such environmental changes as forests turning into deserts, and you don’t even know if he controlled Chixculub. You praise his brilliance in being able to design new species to cope with every change, but he can only design what is allowed by the new environment! For example, he couldn’t design us until the necessary oxygen was available.

Opposite view: He created photosynthesis in cyanobacteria and algae to make enough oxygen to then create the Cambrian guys. All to plan. remember God creates by evolving in planned designed stages. You don't know how to criticize a designer.


DAVID: Answered above. Raup's point was all organism's adaptability were limited. Organism's bad luck, not God's.

dhw: Of course it’s bad luck for the organisms that they couldn’t adapt to the new conditions because of your God’s faulty design! But LUCKILY 1% survived, so he could work on them to provide the continuity of evolution, until LUCK provided him with the conditions (the Cambrian) needed to fulfil his sole purpose.

Not faulty but purposely limited adaptability since only God can speciate.


The Cambrian

dhw: Only the 1% evolved into our food supplies. The 99% were dead ends that did not lead to us or our food. That’s why you call them “mistakes”.

Usual distortion. 99.9% loss is a requirement of evolving from bacteria. from bacteria.


Bipedalism

DAVID: The bipedal body is not fit to stay in trees. They were forced by their new design to be terrestrial.

dhw: So one morning a group of anthropoids woke up to find themselves with straightened backs and legs, which forced them out of the trees and onto the ground. But even then your God knew he’d have to keep popping in to operate on hominins and hominids and homos till he could get what he wanted (us plus food), though he needn’t have bothered with any of them because he could have created us de novo if he’d wanted to. I'm surprised that you think even God can understand your theories.

DAVID: God and I know He speciates. You don't know how to think about God as I do.

dhw: And I very much doubt if God knows how to think about himself as you do, with all the blunders you attribute to him. Now please tell us if the account I have given above corresponds to your theory. I don’t want to be accused of distorting it.

Your fanciful just-so story fills a gap in my theory. I have no idea how God does any speciation.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, March 09, 2023, 11:26 (385 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The 99.9% were part of the necessary mechanics of living evolution. So in your view we simply go from bacteria to us without loss of life? 99.9% were not irrelevant, they formed the process of evolution.

dhw: Necessary for what? You never stop dodging. Your God’s one and only purpose was to create H. sapiens plus our food, but 99% of his creations did not lead to us or our food, so you call them his “mistakes” and “failed experiments”.

DAVID: I never dodge from my beliefs. God chose to evolve us, which historically required a 99.9% loss of organisms along the way. Very necessary or evolution stops.

Evolution would stop if there was a 100% loss of organisms. It is the 1% of survivors that enable evolution to continue. However, you say your God can create new organisms from scratch, and so if he only wanted to create us and our food, he didn’t even need the 100% of designs that preceded our ancestors plus food. But whether you believe in common descent or not, you still call the 99.9% “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, because they were NOT necessary for what you believe was your God’s sole purpose.

DAVID: Your God uses free-for-all for entertainment and experiments in a directionless manner. Purely human.

dhw: Your dismissal of my alternatives does not make your theory any the less nonsensical. However, none of my alternatives are directionless, and I do not use the word “entertainment” but your own word “enjoy”, as when you tell us you are certain that he enjoys creating or he wouldn’t do it.

DAVID: Yes, I'm sure He wants to create, because He did!!

You used the word “enjoy”. So why do you think it’s not possible for him to have created all these 99.9% per cent of what you call “mistakes” because he enjoyed creating them, which means they were not “mistakes”?

dhw: You said your God was not in control of such environmental changes as forests turning into deserts, and you don’t even know if he controlled Chixculub. You praise his brilliance in being able to design new species to cope with every change, but he can only design what is allowed by the new environment! For example, he couldn’t design us until the necessary oxygen was available.

DAVID: Opposite view: He created photosynthesis in cyanobacteria and algae to make enough oxygen to then create the Cambrian guys. All to plan. remember God creates by evolving in planned designed stages. You don't know how to criticize a designer.

You simply can’t make up your mind whether your God did or did not control the environmental changes that dictate which species survive. You’re sure he didn’t control forests turning into deserts, one day you believe he did not control Chixculub, and the next day you don’t know, and now you have him deliberately guiding cyanobacteria and algae to change the degree of oxygen in the environment. After which he starts creating our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the preceding organisms anyway.

DAVID: Answered above. Raup's point was all organism's adaptability were limited. Organism's bad luck, not God's.

dhw: Of course it’s bad luck for the organisms that they couldn’t adapt to the new conditions because of your God’s faulty design!

DAVID: Not faulty but purposely limited adaptability since only God can speciate.

QUOTE: “The design failed a necessary adaptation to changes. It is a design fault in a lack of adaptability” (David, February 12 2023)

Under The Cambrian

dhw: Only the 1% evolved into our food supplies. The 99% were dead ends that did not lead to us or our food. That’s why you call them “mistakes”.

DAVID: Usual distortion. 99.9% loss is a requirement of evolving from bacteria.

A requirement for what??? You keep omitting your God’s one and only purpose! So now he says: “In order to create David and his food, I must first create 99.9% of life forms that have no connection with David and his food, i.e. make 99 mistakes per 100 designs.” And then comes the Cambrian, when he creates our ancestors from scratch anyway!

Bipedalism
DAVID: bbbThe bipedal body is not fit to stay in trees. They were forced by their new design to be terrestrial.bbb (dhw’s bold)

dhw: So one morning a group of anthropoids woke up to find themselves with straightened backs and legs, which forced them out of the trees and onto the ground. But even then your God knew he’d have to keep popping in to operate on hominins and hominids and homos till he could get what he wanted (us plus food), though he needn’t have bothered with any of them because he could have created us de novo if he’d wanted to. I'm surprised that you think even God can understand your theories.

DAVID: Your fanciful just-so story fills a gap in my theory. I have no idea how God does any speciation.

I’m glad you now consider your design-in-advance theory to be a just-so story. And you seem to have forgotten your two theories concerning your God’s method of speciation: 1) a 3.8-billion-year-old compendium of instructions for every evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. for the whole history of life, and/or 2) ad hoc dabbling. Darwin proposes random mutations and natural selection. Shapiro proposes cellular intelligence.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 09, 2023, 17:36 (385 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Evolution would stop if there was a 100% loss of organisms. It is the 1% of survivors that enable evolution to continue. However, you say your God can create new organisms from scratch, and so if he only wanted to create us and our food, he didn’t even need the 100% of designs that preceded our ancestors plus food. But whether you believe in common descent or not, you still call the 99.9% “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, because they were NOT necessary for what you believe was your God’s sole purpose.

Without failure to survive, how does evolution advance under Darwin theory? Your ridiculous
God comment ignores the point that He can choose any mechanism of creation He wishes to use. Have you forgotten your former agreement?


DAVID: Yes, I'm sure He wants to create, because He did!!

dhw: You used the word “enjoy”. So why do you think it’s not possible for him to have created all these 99.9% per cent of what you call “mistakes” because he enjoyed creating them, which means they were not “mistakes”?

Again envisioning God from a totally human standpoint. God is too purposeful to create just to create. Each step is purposeful.


dhw: You said your God was not in control of such environmental changes as forests turning into deserts, and you don’t even know if he controlled Chixculub. You praise his brilliance in being able to design new species to cope with every change, but he can only design what is allowed by the new environment! For example, he couldn’t design us until the necessary oxygen was available.

DAVID: Opposite view: He created photosynthesis in cyanobacteria and algae to make enough oxygen to then create the Cambrian guys. All to plan. Remember God creates by evolving in planned designed stages. You don't know how to criticize a designer.

dhw: You simply can’t make up your mind whether your God did or did not control the environmental changes that dictate which species survive.

More attempts at mind reading. Environmental changes are uncontrolled.

dhw: You’re sure he didn’t control forests turning into deserts, one day you believe he did not control Chixculub, and the next day you don’t know, and now you have him deliberately guiding cyanobacteria and algae to change the degree of oxygen in the environment. After which he starts creating our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the preceding organisms anyway.

If God hadn't 'bothered' where would evolution go? GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US IN STAGES!!!!

Under The Cambrian

dhw: Only the 1% evolved into our food supplies. The 99% were dead ends that did not lead to us or our food. That’s why you call them “mistakes”.

DAVID: Usual distortion. 99.9% loss is a requirement of evolving from bacteria.

DHW: A requirement for what??? You keep omitting your God’s one and only purpose! So now he says: “In order to create David and his food, I must first create 99.9% of life forms that have no connection with David and his food, i.e. make 99 mistakes per 100 designs.” And then comes the Cambrian, when he creates our ancestors from scratch anyway!

GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US IN STAGES!!!! The Cambrian shows God's phenotypic design ability. Most of the biochemistry already existed in the Ediacaran.


Bipedalism
DAVID: bbbThe bipedal body is not fit to stay in trees. They were forced by their new design to be terrestrial.bbb (dhw’s bold)

dhw: So one morning a group of anthropoids woke up to find themselves with straightened backs and legs, which forced them out of the trees and onto the ground. But even then your God knew he’d have to keep popping in to operate on hominins and hominids and homos till he could get what he wanted (us plus food), though he needn’t have bothered with any of them because he could have created us de novo if he’d wanted to. I'm surprised that you think even God can understand your theories.

DAVID: Your fanciful just-so story fills a gap in my theory. I have no idea how God does any speciation.

dhw: I’m glad you now consider your design-in-advance theory to be a just-so story. And you seem to have forgotten your two theories concerning your God’s method of speciation: 1) a 3.8-billion-year-old compendium of instructions for every evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. for the whole history of life, and/or 2) ad hoc dabbling. Darwin proposes random mutations and natural selection. Shapiro proposes cellular intelligence.

And I propose God. Not just-so!! I never forget anything. God speciates by editing the genome. Darwin's ancient propositions are not based in current facts.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, March 10, 2023, 12:45 (384 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Evolution would stop if there was a 100% loss of organisms. It is the 1% of survivors that enable evolution to continue. [...[

But see below for the "mistakes" that preceded the Cambrian.

DAVID: Without failure to survive, how does evolution advance under Darwin theory?

You agreed to the answer under “slime mold”:

dhw: 1% of the past evolved into the present.99% consisted of dead ends (your God’s “mistakes” and “failed experiments”) that did NOT evolve into the present!

DAVID: We agree!! 0.1% survival advanced evolution!!

So will you please stop all this nonsense about evolution advancing through failure to survive!

DAVID: Your ridiculous God comment ignores the point that He can choose any mechanism of creation He wishes to use. Have you forgotten your former agreement?

Of course he can. And that is what makes your theory ridiculous: if your all-powerful God had only wished to create us (plus food), he could have done so directly. He didn’t – according to you he deliberately created 99% mistakes and failed experiments. Daft! So if he deliberately created all the life forms that did not lead to us and our food, HE MUST HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT GOAL, or…No need to repeat my alternatives.

DAVID: Yes, I'm sure He wants to create, because He did!!

dhw: You used the word “enjoy”. So why do you think it’s not possible for him to have created all these 99.9% per cent of what you call “mistakes” because he enjoyed creating them, which means they were not “mistakes”?

DAVID: Again envisioning God from a totally human standpoint. God is too purposeful to create just to create. Each step is purposeful.

Not “just to create”. To enjoy creating is a possible purpose in itself. What is the purpose of creating 99% mistakes that have nothing to do with what you say is your God’s purpose? Don’t forget your agreement that only the 1% advanced evolution.

dhw: You simply can’t make up your mind whether your God did or did not control the environmental changes that dictate which species survive.

DAVID: […] Environmental changes are uncontrolled.

Thank you. And this means he could only design species that could survive under the new conditions, which explains why in your theory 99% were “mistakes” that were irrelevant to his purpose.

dhw: […] now you have him deliberately guiding cyanobacteria and algae to change the degree of oxygen in the environment. After which he starts creating our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the preceding organisms anyway.

DAVID: If God hadn't 'bothered' where would evolution go? GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US IN STAGES!!!!

But according to you, he did not start evolving us in all our stages until the Cambrian, when he created our ancestors (plus food) de novo, from scratch, without any predecessors! So all previous organisms were unnecessary.

Bipedalism

DAVID: The bipedal body is not fit to stay in trees. They were forced by their new design to be terrestrial. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: So one morning a group of anthropoids woke up to find themselves with straightened backs and legs […]

DAVID: Your fanciful just-so story fills a gap in my theory. I have no idea how God does any speciation.

dhw: I’m glad you now consider your design-in-advance theory to be a just-so story. And you seem to have forgotten your two theories concerning your God’s method of speciation: 1) a 3.8-billion-year-old compendium of instructions for every evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. for the whole history of life, and/or 2) ad hoc dabbling. Darwin proposes random mutations and natural selection. Shapiro proposes cellular intelligence.

DAVID: And I propose God. Not just-so!! I never forget anything. God speciates by editing the genome. Darwin's ancient propositions are not based in current facts.

The just-so story was your God operating on our ancestors’ back and legs BEFORE they left the trees. You have no idea how God does any speciation, but you have two ideas (see 1) and 2) above). We both reject Darwin’s random mutations. You refuse to consider Shapiro’s intelligent cells.

Transferred from “More miscellany”:
Bacterial controls in horizontal transfer

DAVID: an advance in Shapiro's work on how bacteria handle additions to their DNA.

dhw: And he sees their “immune system”, which enables them constantly to outwit human attempts to destroy them, as evidence of their autonomous intelligence. And if they can be intelligent, why can’t other types of cell be intelligent too, and also – like bacteria – form intelligent communities?

DAVID: When evolution advanced into multicellular forms the bacterial abilities disappeared. Humans do not transfer DNA like they do.

So single-cell bacteria – our first ancestors – had and presumably still have autonomous intelligence, enabling them to make changes to themselves. But when their descendants combined to form different multicellular structures, which evolved into us and our fellow animals, somehow these lost their intelligence (i.e. couldn’t make changes to themselves). They only seem to be intelligent, but you can tell the difference.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, March 10, 2023, 18:05 (384 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 1% of the past evolved into the present.99% consisted of dead ends (your God’s “mistakes” and “failed experiments”) that did NOT evolve into the present!

DAVID: We agree!! 0.1% survival advanced evolution!!

dhw: So will you please stop all this nonsense about evolution advancing through failure to survive!

But failure induces the need for improvement with God's new designs.


dhw: Not “just to create”. To enjoy creating is a possible purpose in itself. What is the purpose of creating 99% mistakes that have nothing to do with what you say is your God’s purpose? Don’t forget your agreement that only the 1% advanced evolution.

You forget my position is God chose to evolve us.


dhw: You simply can’t make up your mind whether your God did or did not control the environmental changes that dictate which species survive.

DAVID: […] Environmental changes are uncontrolled.

dhw: Thank you. And this means he could only design species that could survive under the new conditions, which explains why in your theory 99% were “mistakes” that were irrelevant to his purpose.

Daft conclusion. Climate change stressed species with limited adaptability. God limited adaptability as He could step in when new advanced species were required. We are here despite all your objections to the method..


dhw: […] now you have him deliberately guiding cyanobacteria and algae to change the degree of oxygen in the environment. After which he starts creating our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the preceding organisms anyway.

DAVID: If God hadn't 'bothered' where would evolution go? GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US IN STAGES!!!!

dhw: But according to you, he did not start evolving us in all our stages until the Cambrian, when he created our ancestors (plus food) de novo, from scratch, without any predecessors! So all previous organisms were unnecessary.

But the advanced biochemistry in the Edicaran had to be accomplished. You always forget two interlocked levels of evolution: biochemical and phenotypical.


Bipedalism

DAVID: . God speciates by editing the genome. Darwin's ancient propositions are not based in current facts.

dhw: The just-so story was your God operating on our ancestors’ back and legs BEFORE they left the trees. You have no idea how God does any speciation, but you have two ideas (see 1) and 2) above). We both reject Darwin’s random mutations. You refuse to consider Shapiro’s intelligent cells.

Yep! Free living bacteria are not the same as multicellular cells!!! Evolution evolved away from that ability.


Transferred from “More miscellany”:
Bacterial controls in horizontal transfer

DAVID: an advance in Shapiro's work on how bacteria handle additions to their DNA.

dhw: And he sees their “immune system”, which enables them constantly to outwit human attempts to destroy them, as evidence of their autonomous intelligence. And if they can be intelligent, why can’t other types of cell be intelligent too, and also – like bacteria – form intelligent communities?

DAVID: When evolution advanced into multicellular forms the bacterial abilities disappeared. Humans do not transfer DNA like they do.

dhw: So single-cell bacteria – our first ancestors – had and presumably still have autonomous intelligence, enabling them to make changes to themselves. But when their descendants combined to form different multicellular structures, which evolved into us and our fellow animals, somehow these lost their intelligence (i.e. couldn’t make changes to themselves). They only seem to be intelligent, but you can tell the difference.

Sure can!! The automaticity of cellular biochemistry is obvious.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, March 11, 2023, 07:29 (384 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 1% of the past evolved into the present.99% consisted of dead ends (your God’s “mistakes” and “failed experiments”) that did NOT evolve into the present!

DAVID: We agree!! 0.1% survival advanced evolution!!

dhw: So will you please stop all this nonsense about evolution advancing through failure to survive!

DAVID: But failure induces the need for improvement with God's new designs.

So does your God create 99% brand new species from scratch? It is the 1% of survivors that he can improve on! Or do you think the mistakes teach him what needs to be improved? No, your God never learns anything, does he? He knows it all in advance, including the fact that he is going to make 99 mistakes for every one success!

dhw: Not “just to create”. To enjoy creating is a possible purpose in itself. What is the purpose of creating 99% mistakes that have nothing to do with what you say is your God’s purpose? Don’t forget your agreement that only the 1% advanced evolution.

DAVID: You forget my position is God chose to evolve us.

You forget that according to you he chose to “evolve” (= design) every organism that ever lived, including the irrelevant 99%. How does this invalidate the possibility that he chose to “evolve” (design) the 99% because he enjoyed creating a vast variety (as opposed to having to make mistakes in order to get what he wanted)?

DAVID: […] Environmental changes are uncontrolled.

dhw: Thank you. And this means he could only design species that could survive under the new conditions, which explains why in your theory 99% were “mistakes” that were irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: Daft conclusion. Climate change stressed species with limited adaptability. God limited adaptability as He could step in when new advanced species were required. We are here despite all your objections to the method.

You have stated that their limited adaptability was due to your God’s faulty design. New species then had to fit in with (were limited by) the new conditions which he did not control. This process kept repeating itself: 99% victims of his faulty designs, and 1% survivors. On and on, until he reached the Cambrian.

DAVID: […] GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US IN STAGES!!!!

dhw: [According to you] he did not start evolving us in our stages until the Cambrian, when he created our ancestors (plus food) de novo, from scratch, without any predecessors! So all previous organisms were unnecessary.

DAVID: But the advanced biochemistry in the Edicaran had to be accomplished. You always forget two interlocked levels of evolution: biochemical and phenotypical.

There is no logical reason why an all-powerful God should have to create countless species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, when he could simply have waited for the right conditions to develop the species – biochemical and phenotypical – he wanted to develop. So maybe he had a different purpose in creating the irrelevant species. (Why do you keep avoiding the word species?)

Bipedalism

DAVID: Your fanciful just-so story fills a gap in my theory. I have no idea how God does any speciation.

dhw: I’m glad you now consider your design-in-advance theory to be a just-so story. And you seem to have forgotten your two theories concerning your God’s method of speciation: 1) a 3.8-billion-year-old compendium of instructions for every evolutionary change, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. for the whole history of life, and/or 2) ad hoc dabbling. Darwin proposes random mutations and natural selection. Shapiro proposes cellular intelligence.

DAVID: God speciates by editing the genome. Darwin's ancient propositions are not based in current facts.

dhw: The just-so story was your God operating on our ancestors’ backs and legs BEFORE they left the trees. You have no idea how God does any speciation, but you have two ideas (see 1) and 2) above). We both reject Darwin’s random mutations. You refuse to consider Shapiro’s intelligent cells.

DAVID: Yep! Free living bacteria are not the same as multicellular cells!!! Evolution evolved away from that ability.

dhw: You have agreed that multicellular cells seem to act intelligently. How do you know they don’t?

DAVID: The automaticity of cellular biochemistry is obvious.

Many actions are automatic, but you leave out those that precede and direct the automatic ones:
Shapiro: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and
interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory,
communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities
.” No need for me to quote the rest of his list, since you quoted it all in your book The Atheist Delusion. His description is supported by numerous scientists in the field – both past and present.

How B-cells recognize antigens

DAVID: The B cell membrane will decode the foreign molecule which is attached to it and either recognize it is an antigen it knows from its library, or it will activate a new antibody all automatically.

All these actions confirm Shapiro’s observations. But it’s still a theory, as is your “automatically”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 11, 2023, 18:46 (383 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: But failure induces the need for improvement with God's new designs.

dhw: So does your God create 99% brand new species from scratch? It is the 1% of survivors that he can improve on! Or do you think the mistakes teach him what needs to be improved? No, your God never learns anything, does he? He knows it all in advance, including the fact that he is going to make 99 mistakes for every one success!

Weird interpretation as usual. Yes, God builds on past biochemistry and forms. Repeat: limited adaptability means God steps in to provide better adapted species by speciation.


DAVID: […] Environmental changes are uncontrolled.>

DAVID: […] GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US IN STAGES!!!!

dhw: [According to you] he did not start evolving us in our stages until the Cambrian, when he created our ancestors (plus food) de novo, from scratch, without any predecessors! So all previous organisms were unnecessary.

DAVID: But the advanced biochemistry in the Edicaran had to be accomplished. You always forget two interlocked levels of evolution: biochemical and phenotypical.

dhw: here is no logical reason why an all-powerful God should have to create countless species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, when he could simply have waited for the right conditions to develop the species – biochemical and phenotypical – he wanted to develop. So maybe he had a different purpose in creating the irrelevant species. (Why do you keep avoiding the word species?)

So, God is illogical in your view. But evolution is what God created! In my view that God created all of reality we cannot know why He chose to use living evolution. Is your view that the illogical creation form means no God can have caused it?

Bipedalism

dhw: The just-so story was your God operating on our ancestors’ backs and legs BEFORE they left the trees. You have no idea how God does any speciation, but you have two ideas (see 1) and 2) above). We both reject Darwin’s random mutations. You refuse to consider Shapiro’s intelligent cells.

DAVID: Yep! Free living bacteria are not the same as multicellular cells!!! Evolution evolved away from that ability.

dhw: You have agreed that multicellular cells seem to act intelligently. How do you know they don’t?

DAVID: The automaticity of cellular biochemistry is obvious.

dhw: Many actions are automatic, but you leave out those that precede and direct the automatic ones:
Shapiro: “Living cells and organisms are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and
interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory,
communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities
.” No need for me to quote the rest of his list, since you quoted it all in your book The Atheist Delusion. His description is supported by numerous scientists in the field – both past and present.

I know Shapiro's theory. Pure extrapolation from his marvelous bacterial studies.


How B-cells recognize antigens

DAVID: The B cell membrane will decode the foreign molecule which is attached to it and either recognize it is an antigen it knows from its library, or it will activate a new antibody all automatically.

dhw: All these actions confirm Shapiro’s observations. But it’s still a theory, as is your “automatically”.

Shapiro found bacteria can edit their own DNA. Not the same as the superficial level of recognizing foreign antigens on B cells membrane!!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, March 12, 2023, 11:42 (382 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: But failure induces the need for improvement with God's new designs.

dhw: So does your God create 99% brand new species from scratch? It is the 1% of survivors that he can improve on! Or do you think the mistakes teach him what needs to be improved? No, your God never learns anything, does he? He knows it all in advance, including the fact that he is going to make 99 mistakes for every one success!

DAVID: Weird interpretation as usual. Yes, God builds on past biochemistry and forms. Repeat: limited adaptability means God steps in to provide better adapted species by speciation.

More obfuscation. Limited adaptability according to you is caused by your all-powerful God’s faulty design, which results in 99% of his species being labelled “mistakes” by you, because they do not lead to his one and only goal (us plus food). He steps in after every extinction, and fiddles with the 1% of survivors to create more species that can cope with the new environment (over which he had no control). But then along comes another change of environment causing another lot of 99% mistakes. And so on until the Cambrian, when your all-powerful God doesn’t even work on the 1% but starts all over again by designing our ancestors (plus food) from scratch. All totally illogical.

DAVID: So, God is illogical in your view.

No! YOU are illogical! And you try to make him illogical with your illogicalities!

DAVID: But evolution is what God created! In my view that God created all of reality we cannot know why He chose to use living evolution. Is your view that the illogical creation form means no God can have caused it?

This is becoming sillier and sillier. If God exists, then he chose to use evolution in order to fulfil whatever may have been his purpose. I have offered you three logical THEISTIC interpretations of the history of evolution, none of which present the blundering, inefficient, cumbersome God you insist on.

(Transferred from “More miscellany”:

DAVID: You keep forgetting, you agreed God can chose any method He wishes. God choses for His own reasons. I simply accept it.

dhw: That is the whole point. Your all-powerful version of God chose a method which involved making 99% mistakes and failed experiments in pursuit of a goal which he could have designed directly. Why didn’t he “wish” to do so? Your theory: he had no choice, because the system he invented forced him to make all these mistakes, and he knew it would. Daft! I’ve offered three alternative explanations for the history we know […]

DAVID: Your God who experiments, has no real goal, as shown by His love of free-for-alls for entertainment, and who relies on cell committees for hands-off speciation, is a theistic joke of a humanization of God. Wow, an agnostic defending God!

Your attack on my theories does not provide any defence of your own absurd theory. There is no point in repeating my three alternatives, except to say they all have “real goals”, and I cannot see why a God who designs precisely what he wants to design, without making mistakes, is a “joke of a humanization” compared to your all-powerful God, who deliberately designs 99 mistakes for every one success, and relies on luck to provide him with the environment he needs in order to achieve his goal.

The rest of your post is devoted to your prejudice against the theory of cellular intelligence, as proposed by Shapiro, continuing the work of McClintock and Margulis, and supported by many other scientists in the field.

dhw’s obsession with ‘humans plus food’

DAVID: dhw does not understand how my form of God views this. He foresaw our burgeoning population but provided us with the means of solving the problems. He needn't step in. Evolution is over.

This must be one of the daftest attacks you have made on me. The whole article concerns the threat we humans pose to all the ecosystems we depend on, and of which I am just as aware as you and the author. The “obsession” with humans plus food is yours, because you insist that humans plus food were your God’s one and only purpose for creating life – a theory which leads to all the absurdities dealt with above.

As for your final comment, your God’s clairvoyance and deistic detachment do not explain any of the above illogicalities. Yet another attempt by you to divert attention from your absurd theory of evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 12, 2023, 16:01 (382 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: But failure induces the need for improvement with God's new designs.

dhw: So does your God create 99% brand new species from scratch? It is the 1% of survivors that he can improve on! Or do you think the mistakes teach him what needs to be improved? No, your God never learns anything, does he? He knows it all in advance, including the fact that he is going to make 99 mistakes for every one success!

DAVID: Weird interpretation as usual. Yes, God builds on past biochemistry and forms. Repeat: limited adaptability means God steps in to provide better adapted species by speciation.

dhw: More obfuscation. Limited adaptability according to you is caused by your all-powerful God’s faulty design, which results in 99% of his species being labelled “mistakes” by you, because they do not lead to his one and only goal (us plus food).

Not obfuscation!! I'm trying to educate you. God provides only limited adaptability, because only He can speciate. It is a purposeful limit.

dhw: He steps in after every extinction, and fiddles with the 1% of survivors to create more species that can cope with the new environment (over which he had no control). But then along comes another change of environment causing another lot of 99% mistakes. And so on until the Cambrian, when your all-powerful God doesn’t even work on the 1% but starts all over again by designing our ancestors (plus food) from scratch. All totally illogical.

Thank you for describing how messy a mechanism evolution is. Yet God used it, and we are here.

DAVID: But evolution is what God created! In my view that God created all of reality we cannot know why He chose to use living evolution. Is your view that the illogical creation form means no God can have caused it?

dhw: This is becoming sillier and sillier. If God exists, then he chose to use evolution in order to fulfil whatever may have been his purpose. I have offered you three logical THEISTIC interpretations of the history of evolution, none of which present the blundering, inefficient, cumbersome God you insist on.

You transform God into a humanized form who relies on cell committees to speciate, experiments because He is not sure of how to go forward, allows free-for-alls as another evidence of purposeless action, and likes free-for-alls as entertainment. Compare: my truly theistic God is fully purposeful, knows what He wishes to create and does it. He uses an evolutionary method at each step: Big Bang, a universe evolves; the Earth is formed and evolves for life; life is created and evolves into us!


(Transferred from “More miscellany”:

dhw: Your attack on my theories does not provide any defence of your own absurd theory. There is no point in repeating my three alternatives, except to say they all have “real goals”, and I cannot see why a God who designs precisely what he wants to design, without making mistakes, is a “joke of a humanization” compared to your all-powerful God, who deliberately designs 99 mistakes for every one success, and relies on luck to provide him with the environment he needs in order to achieve his goal.

"Luck" is your invention related to uncontrolled by God, environmental change. My powerful God can design for any environment that appears. It is your tunneled view of God that twists your thinking into inventing a powerless God to denigrate my theory of God.

dhw’s obsession with ‘humans plus food’


DAVID: dhw does not understand how my form of God views this. He foresaw our burgeoning population but provided us with the means of solving the problems. He needn't step in. Evolution is over.

dhw: This must be one of the daftest attacks you have made on me. The whole article concerns the threat we humans pose to all the ecosystems we depend on, and of which I am just as aware as you and the author. The “obsession” with humans plus food is yours, because you insist that humans plus food were your God’s one and only purpose for creating life – a theory which leads to all the absurdities dealt with above.

As for your final comment, your God’s clairvoyance and deistic detachment do not explain any of the above illogicalities. Yet another attempt by you to divert attention from your absurd theory of evolution.

My clear description of a purposeful God who makes nonsense of your weird God is above. My obsession is my belief in God and how I think He created our reality. You lack an ability to properly think about God. Adler, a philosopher of religion, used our evolution as a proof of God. Any followers of Adler or similar theists would laugh at your approach.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, March 13, 2023, 12:59 (381 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID […] God builds on past biochemistry and forms. Repeat: limited adaptability means God steps in to provide better adapted species by speciation. […]

dhw: He steps in after every extinction, and fiddles with the 1% of survivors to create more species that can cope with the new environment (over which he had no control). But then along comes another change of environment causing another lot of 99% mistakes. And so on until the Cambrian, when your all-powerful God doesn’t even work on the 1% but starts all over again by designing our ancestors (plus food) from scratch. All totally illogical.

DAVID: Thank you for describing how messy a mechanism evolution is. Yet God used it, and we are here.

Thank you for acknowledging that this is indeed your theory of your God’s messy, error-strewn, illogical and inefficient evolution. I have offered you three alternatives that are not messy etc., but you dismiss them all because your blunderer is apparently more godlike than my version, who does what he wants to do without any blunders
.
DAVID: You transform God into a humanized form who relies on cell committees to speciate, experiments because He is not sure of how to go forward, allows free-for-alls as another evidence of purposeless action, and likes free-for-alls as entertainment.

The free-for-all theory: He doesn’t rely on them to speciate - he designs them so that they can speciate. “Entertainment” is your choice of trivialising terminology. Our own love/enjoyment of creation, curiosity concerning what might happen if we explore the potential of our inventions, learning as we go along, finding different methods to achieve the optimum version of our goals, might all mirror what you have called his own “patterns of thought and emotions” and indeed logic.

DAVID: Compare: my truly theistic God is fully purposeful, knows what He wishes to create and does it. He uses an evolutionary method at each step: Big Bang, a universe evolves; the Earth is formed and evolves for life; life is created and evolves into us!

You know perfectly well that I accept the evolution you describe, and it is your theory of LIFE’S purpose and evolution that is so illogical that even you can’t understand it (it “makes sense only to God”). Stop dodging.

(Transferred from “More miscellany”:

dhw: Your attack on my theories does not provide any defence of your own absurd theory. […]I cannot see why a God who designs precisely what he wants to design, without making mistakes, is a “joke of a humanization” compared to your all-powerful God, who deliberately designs 99 mistakes for every one success, and relies on luck to provide him with the environment he needs in order to achieve his goal.

DAVID: "Luck" is your invention related to uncontrolled by God, environmental change. My powerful God can design for any environment that appears. It is your tunneled view of God that twists your thinking into inventing a powerless God to denigrate my theory of God.

It is you who have stated categorically that he does not control environmental changes. The theory that he can design species to survive any environment does not alter the fact that whatever species he designs at any given time must be able to live in the current conditions! He could not, in your theory, have designed humans when there was not enough oxygen for humans to breathe. (See the miscellany thread.)

dhw’s – corrected to David Turell’s obsession with ‘humans plus food’

DAVID: dhw does not understand how my form of God views this. He foresaw our burgeoning population but provided us with the means of solving the problems. He needn't step in. Evolution is over.

dhw: […] The whole article concerns the threat we humans pose to all the ecosystems we depend on, and of which I am just as aware as you and the author. The “obsession” with humans plus food is yours, because you insist that humans plus food were your God’s one and only purpose for creating life – a theory which leads to all the absurdities dealt with above.
As for your final comment, your God’s clairvoyance and deistic detachment do not explain any of the above illogicalities. Yet another attempt by you to divert attention from your absurd theory of evolution.

DAVID: My clear description of a purposeful God who makes nonsense of your weird God is above. My obsession is my belief in God and how I think He created our reality.

Your clear description of your God’s purpose is that it was to create us and our food, and his method is “inefficient”, “cumbersome”, “messy”, and riddled with “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. These are all your terms. Meanwhile, please answer the following question: if evolution is over, and God needn’t step in, what do you think he is doing now? (I have a special reason for asking this question, so please don't dodge it.)

DAVID: You lack an ability to properly think about God. Adler, a philosopher of religion, used our evolution as a proof of God. Any followers of Adler or similar theists would laugh at your approach.

For the thousandth time, “proof of God” is not the issue here. And anyone who claims to have the ability to “properly think about God” is frankly….No, I shan’t finish this sentence, because I have too much respect and affection for you to do so!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, March 13, 2023, 15:49 (381 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Thank you for describing how messy a mechanism evolution is. Yet God used it, and we are here.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that this is indeed your theory of your God’s messy, error-strewn, illogical and inefficient evolution. I have offered you three alternatives that are not messy etc., but you dismiss them all because your blunderer is apparently more godlike than my version, who does what he wants to do without any blunders
.
DAVID: You transform God into a humanized form who relies on cell committees to speciate, experiments because He is not sure of how to go forward, allows free-for-alls as another evidence of purposeless action, and likes free-for-alls as entertainment.

dhw: The free-for-all theory: He doesn’t rely on them to speciate - he designs them so that they can speciate. “Entertainment” is your choice of trivialising terminology. Our own love/enjoyment of creation, curiosity concerning what might happen if we explore the potential of our inventions, learning as we go along, finding different methods to achieve the optimum version of our goals, might all mirror what you have called his own “patterns of thought and emotions” and indeed logic.

Once again you apply human thought to God's possible thinking pattern. I view it as trivializing God.


(Transferred from “More miscellany”:

dhw: Your attack on my theories does not provide any defence of your own absurd theory. […]I cannot see why a God who designs precisely what he wants to design, without making mistakes, is a “joke of a humanization” compared to your all-powerful God, who deliberately designs 99 mistakes for every one success, and relies on luck to provide him with the environment he needs in order to achieve his goal.

DAVID: "Luck" is your invention related to uncontrolled by God, environmental change. My powerful God can design for any environment that appears. It is your tunneled view of God that twists your thinking into inventing a powerless God to denigrate my theory of God.

dhw: It is you who have stated categorically that he does not control environmental changes. The theory that he can design species to survive any environment does not alter the fact that whatever species he designs at any given time must be able to live in the current conditions! He could not, in your theory, have designed humans when there was not enough oxygen for humans to breathe. (See the miscellany thread.)

Of course I agree God must drsign for existing environments. And of course He saw to it oxygen reached the proper level for the evolution of complex animals in the Cambrian. God provides everything necessary to advance evolution. He is in control of the factors that require control.


dhw’s – corrected to David Turell’s obsession with ‘humans plus food’

DAVID: My clear description of a purposeful God who makes nonsense of your weird God is above. My obsession is my belief in God and how I think He created our reality.

dhw: Your clear description of your God’s purpose is that it was to create us and our food, and his method is “inefficient”, “cumbersome”, “messy”, and riddled with “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. These are all your terms. Meanwhile, please answer the following question: if evolution is over, and God needn’t step in, what do you think he is doing now? (I have a special reason for asking this question, so please don't dodge it.)

Watching. The Catholic church thinks He is still performing miracles.


DAVID: You lack an ability to properly think about God. Adler, a philosopher of religion, used our evolution as a proof of God. Any followers of Adler or similar theists would laugh at your approach.

dhw: For the thousandth time, “proof of God” is not the issue here. And anyone who claims to have the ability to “properly think about God” is frankly….No, I shan’t finish this sentence, because I have too much respect and affection for you to do so!

Proof of God is an issue here in an agnostic website.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, March 15, 2023, 10:20 (380 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Thank you for describing how messy a mechanism evolution is. Yet God used it, and we are here.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that this is indeed your theory of your God’s messy, error-strewn, illogical and inefficient evolution. I have offered you three alternatives that are not messy etc., but you dismiss them all because your blunderer is apparently more godlike than my version, who does what he wants to do without any blunders.
.
DAVID: You transform God into a humanized form who relies on cell committees to speciate, experiments because He is not sure of how to go forward, allows free-for-alls as another evidence of purposeless action, and likes free-for-alls as entertainment.

dhw: The free-for-all theory: He doesn’t rely on them to speciate - he designs them so that they can speciate. “Entertainment” is your choice of trivialising terminology. Our own love/enjoyment of creation, curiosity concerning what might happen if we explore the potential of our inventions, learning as we go along, finding different methods to achieve the optimum version of our goals, might all mirror what you have called his own “patterns of thought and emotions” and indeed logic.

DAVID: Once again you apply human thought to God's possible thinking pattern. I view it as trivializing God.

In your topsy-turvy theory, you humanize God to such an extent that you compare his evolution to that of our own inventions, claiming that ours consist of 99% errors, so it’s natural that his should do the same. Crazy! And you are quick enough to agree that humans would not have invented love all by themselves, so why are you so set against the possibility of other human thought patterns and emotions reflecting your creator’s nature? And why do your God’s countless “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, plus his reliance on luck, render him less human and more godlike than my versions, all of which have him creating precisely what he wants to create without any such blunders?

DAVID: "Luck" is your invention related to uncontrolled by God, environmental change. My powerful God can design for any environment that appears. It is your tunneled view of God that twists your thinking into inventing a powerless God to denigrate my theory of God.

dhw: It is you who have stated categorically that he does not control environmental changes. The theory that he can design species to survive any environment does not alter the fact that whatever species he designs at any given time must be able to live in the current conditions! He could not, in your theory, have designed humans when there was not enough oxygen for humans to breathe.

DAVID: Of course I agree God must drsign for existing environments. And of course He saw to it oxygen reached the proper level for the evolution of complex animals in the Cambrian. God provides everything necessary to advance evolution. He is in control of the factors that require control.

If he must design for existing environments over which he has no control, his scope for design is limited, and he relies on luck to provide the environmental conditions necessary for what you claim is his sole purpose – us and our food. If he “saw to it that oxygen reached the required level”, he did exercise control over the environment – unless you believe that the air we breathe is not part of the environment!!! Note the following exchange on 9th March:
dhw: You simply can’t make up your mind whether your God did or did not control the environmental changes that dictate which species survive.

DAVID: More attempts at mind reading. Environmental changes are uncontrolled.

And finally, as usual, you have glaringly omitted the fact that according to you, his lack of control over the environment led him to design 99% of organisms that were mistakes!

dhw’s – corrected to David Turell’s - obsession with ‘humans plus food’

dhw: […] please answer the following question: if evolution is over, and God needn’t step in, what do you think he is doing now? […]

DAVID: Watching. The Catholic church thinks He is still performing miracles.

Thank you. You have said evolution is over and he does not need to intervene. Why would he watch if he was not interested in what is happening? And if he is interested in what is happening, why do you find it impossible to believe that he might have created life because he wanted to watch something interesting?


DAVID: You lack an ability to properly think about God. Adler, a philosopher of religion, used our evolution as a proof of God. Any followers of Adler or similar theists would laugh at your approach.
And:
DAVID: Proof of God is an issue here in an agnostic website.

Of course it is. And so is the possible nature, purpose and method of a possible God, as illustrated by evolution, which is our subject here. You defend your illogical theistic theory against my logical (you agree) theistic alternatives on the grounds that you know how to think about God and I don’t. If he exists, only God knows how to think about God, so please don’t be so presumptuous and stick to the arguments.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 15, 2023, 17:31 (379 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The free-for-all theory: He doesn’t rely on them to speciate - he designs them so that they can speciate. “Entertainment” is your choice of trivialising terminology. Our own love/enjoyment of creation, curiosity concerning what might happen if we explore the potential of our inventions, learning as we go along, finding different methods to achieve the optimum version of our goals, might all mirror what you have called his own “patterns of thought and emotions” and indeed logic.

DAVID: Once again you apply human thought to God's possible thinking pattern. I view it as trivializing God.

dhw: In your topsy-turvy theory, you humanize God to such an extent that you compare his evolution to that of our own inventions, claiming that ours consist of 99% errors,

I have never said human evolutions of inventions have a 99% error rate. Yes, there is a trial and error rate, but much lower generally.

dhw: Crazy! And you are quick enough to agree that humans would not have invented love all by themselves, so why are you so set against the possibility of other human thought patterns and emotions reflecting your creator’s nature?

What!!! God taught us how to love??? Pure religiosity from an agnostic.

dhw: You have said evolution is over and he does not need to intervene. Why would he watch if he was not interested in what is happening? And if he is interested in what is happening, why do you find it impossible to believe that he might have created life because he wanted to watch something interesting?

Pure humanizing God again. God does not need interesting or entertaining events.>


DAVID: You lack an ability to properly think about God. Adler, a philosopher of religion, used our evolution as a proof of God. Any followers of Adler or similar theists would laugh at your approach.
And:
DAVID: Proof of God is an issue here in an agnostic website.

dhw: Of course it is. And so is the possible nature, purpose and method of a possible God, as illustrated by evolution, which is our subject here. You defend your illogical theistic theory against my logical (you agree) theistic alternatives on the grounds that you know how to think about God and I don’t. If he exists, only God knows how to think about God, so please don’t be so presumptuous and stick to the arguments.

Again you have artfully distorted my agreement that your logical theistic alternatives are logical. What I said was they are logical only in the sense a highly humanized form of God. Your version of God. As for theistic thinking at least I have been taught by a philosopher of religion. Who taught you?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, March 16, 2023, 11:58 (378 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The free-for-all theory: He doesn’t rely on them [cells] to speciate - he designs them so that they can speciate. “Entertainment” is your choice of trivialising terminology. Our own love/enjoyment of creation, curiosity concerning what might happen if we explore the potential of our inventions, learning as we go along, finding different methods to achieve the optimum version of our goals, might all mirror what you have called his own “patterns of thought and emotions” and indeed logic.

DAVID: Once again you apply human thought to God's possible thinking pattern. I view it as trivializing God.

dhw: In your topsy-turvy theory, you humanize God to such an extent that you compare his evolution to that of our own inventions, claiming that ours consist of 99% errors,

DAVID: I have never said human evolutions of inventions have a 99% error rate. Yes, there is a trial and error rate, but much lower generally.

I’ll take your word on the 99% as I haven’t recorded a quote on the figure. Your response is even more humiliating: our failure rate is now much lower than his! What a triumph for your all-powerful, all-knowing God!

dhw: […] you are quick enough to agree that humans would not have invented love all by themselves, so why are you so set against the possibility of other human thought patterns and emotions reflecting your creator’s nature?

DAVID: What!!! God taught us how to love??? Pure religiosity from an agnostic.

I didn’t record this quote either, but it stuck in my mind: you were happy with the idea that your God knew what love was, but you don’t like the idea that he might have created life because he enjoys creating and having interesting things to watch, even though you are sure he enjoys creating and watches with interest.

dhw: What do you think he is doing now?

DAVID: Watching.

dhw: You have said evolution is over and he does not need to intervene. Why would he watch if he was not interested in what is happening? And if he is interested in what is happening, why do you find it impossible to believe that he might have created life because he wanted to watch something interesting?

DAVID: Pure humanizing God again. God does not need interesting or entertaining events.

You believe he is watching. Why would he watch if he is not interested in what he is watching?

DAVID: You lack an ability to properly think about God. Adler, a philosopher of religion, used our evolution as a proof of God. Any followers of Adler or similar theists would laugh at your approach.
And:
DAVID: Proof of God is an issue here in an agnostic website.

dhw: Of course it is. And so is the possible nature, purpose and method of a possible God, as illustrated by evolution, which is our subject here. You defend your illogical theistic theory against my logical (you agree) theistic alternatives on the grounds that you know how to think about God and I don’t. If he exists, only God knows how to think about God, so please don’t be so presumptuous and stick to the arguments.

DAVID: Again you have artfully distorted my agreement that your logical theistic alternatives are logical. What I said was they are logical only in the sense a highly humanized form of God.

There is no reason at all to assume that the supposed creator of all things has not endowed his creations with some of his own “thought patterns and emotions” – as you agreed long ago. I don’t know why you think a God who enjoys creating is “highly humanized”, whereas a God who blunders into making 99% of mistakes in his designs, and relies on luck to provide the conditions necessary for his one and only purpose, counts as more godlike than one who only creates what he wants to create.

DAVID: Your version of God. As for theistic thinking at least I have been taught by a philosopher of religion. Who taught you?

I rejected what I was taught at synagogue and at school, and I wonder which philosopher of religion taught you that your all-powerful, all-knowing God was an inefficient designer who blundered into a 99% failure rate etc. as bolded above. And why do you believe such a theory when you can’t even understand it yourself?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 16, 2023, 16:35 (378 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What!!! God taught us how to love??? Pure religiosity from an agnostic.

dhw: I didn’t record this quote either, but it stuck in my mind: you were happy with the idea that your God knew what love was, but you don’t like the idea that he might have created life because he enjoys creating and having interesting things to watch, even though you are sure he enjoys creating and watches with interest.

To entertain Himself is a self-centered reason to create. God creates selflessly.


dhw: What do you think he is doing now?

DAVID: Watching.

dhw: You have said evolution is over and he does not need to intervene. Why would he watch if he was not interested in what is happening? And if he is interested in what is happening, why do you find it impossible to believe that he might have created life because he wanted to watch something interesting?

DAVID: Pure humanizing God again. God does not need interesting or entertaining events.

dhw: You believe he is watching. Why would he watch if he is not interested in what he is watching?

To entertain Himself is a self-centered reason to create. God creates selflessly. His watching is not the same as our watching. Remember our previous discussions about allegorically different.

DAVID: Proof of God is an issue here in an agnostic website.

dhw: Of course it is. And so is the possible nature, purpose and method of a possible God, as illustrated by evolution, which is our subject here. You defend your illogical theistic theory against my logical (you agree) theistic alternatives on the grounds that you know how to think about God and I don’t. If he exists, only God knows how to think about God, so please don’t be so presumptuous and stick to the arguments.

DAVID: Again you have artfully distorted my agreement that your logical theistic alternatives are logical. What I said was they are logical only in the sense a highly humanized form of God.

dhw: There is no reason at all to assume that the supposed creator of all things has not endowed his creations with some of his own “thought patterns and emotions” – as you agreed long ago. I don’t know why you think a God who enjoys creating is “highly humanized”, whereas a God who blunders into making 99% of mistakes in his designs, and relies on luck to provide the conditions necessary for his one and only purpose, counts as more godlike than one who only creates what he wants to create.

Your God and mine both create what they wish to create. God's use of an evolutionary process to advance life is history and it tells us 99.9% of all life failed to survive. That tells us such a survival rate is required in evolving life.


DAVID: Your version of God. As for theistic thinking at least I have been taught by a philosopher of religion. Who taught you?

dhw: I rejected what I was taught at synagogue and at school, and I wonder which philosopher of religion taught you that your all-powerful, all-knowing God was an inefficient designer who blundered into a 99% failure rate etc. as bolded above. And why do you believe such a theory when you can’t even understand it yourself?

I understand it perfectly. God chose to evolve us and I accept what He did. Adler accepted evolution as God's doing. He did not discuss survival rates.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, March 17, 2023, 11:10 (377 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What!!! God taught us how to love??? Pure religiosity from an agnostic.

dhw: I didn’t record this quote either, but it stuck in my mind: you were happy with the idea that your God knew what love was, but you don’t like the idea that he might have created life because he enjoys creating and having interesting things to watch, even though you are sure he enjoys creating and watches with interest.

DAVID: To entertain Himself is a self-centered reason to create. God creates selflessly.

So when you say he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, you actually mean he doesn’t enjoy creating and doesn’t watch with interest. And please tell me where you get your information from. Have you ever read the Old Testament? It’s riddled with your God’s focus on himself, to the extent that if anyone dares to believe in any other God, they should not only be killed, but whole cities should be destroyed. (Many humans have actually followed these instructions.) I have no objection at all if you reject the OT, as I did in my youth. I just thought you might like to be reminded of this self-centred, “official” version. But I must confess, I can find no logic whatsoever in your belief that an all-powerful, all-knowing God creates a system that forces him into making 99% of mistakes and failed experiments in his pursuit of a single purpose. And I find absolutely nothing wrong with the assumption that he would not create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and he would not watch with interest if he wasn’t interested.

DAVID: His watching is not the same as our watching. Remember our previous discussions about allegorically different.

The term “allegorically different” is meaningless. You are making a mockery of language. Please tell us what YOU mean by watching if you do not mean paying attention to what is happening.

dhw: There is no reason at all to assume that the supposed creator of all things has not endowed his creations with some of his own “thought patterns and emotions” – as you agreed long ago. I don’t know why you think a God who enjoys creating is “highly humanized”, whereas a God who blunders into making 99% of mistakes in his designs, and relies on luck to provide the conditions necessary for his one and only purpose, counts as more godlike than one who only creates what he wants to create.

DAVID: Your God and mine both create what they wish to create. God's use of an evolutionary process to advance life is history and it tells us 99.9% of all life failed to survive. That tells us such a survival rate is required in evolving life.

But it does not tell us that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, and therefore the 99% failure rate was the result of his faulty designs, mistakes, failed experiments, inefficient and cumbersome method. All of these are your own words. I have offered you three different theistic theories to explain the 99% of non-survivors without turning your God into an incompetent blunderer, but you firmly believe that the blunderer is more godlike than a designer who makes no mistakes.

DAVID: Your version of God. As for theistic thinking at least I have been taught by a philosopher of religion. Who taught you?

dhw: I rejected what I was taught at synagogue and at school, and I wonder which philosopher of religion taught you that your all-powerful, all-knowing God was an inefficient designer who blundered into a 99% failure rate etc. as bolded above. And why do you believe such a theory when you can’t even understand it yourself?

DAVID: I understand it perfectly. God chose to evolve us and I accept what He did. Adler accepted evolution as God's doing. He did not discuss survival rates.

You have stated explicitly that your theories make sense only to God. But if God exists, then of course evolution is his doing. It’s the rest of your theory that is so absurd, and you have told us before that Adler does not cover it, so I don’t know why you keep trying to hide behind him.

Stromatolites

QUOTE: "In fact, most of life as we know it would never have developed on earth without those tireless little cyanobacteria colonies.

DAVID: This shows how carefully God planned evolution. He had things worked out all in order of a necessary progression. Just as the survival rate of 0.01%b was necessary.

If God exists, then for those of us who believe in common descent, this is all perfectly and wonderfully logical (including the importance of stromatolites), except for your final comment, which omits virtually every illogical aspect of your theory of evolution! NECESSARY FOR WHAT? In brief, because this has become nauseatingly repetitive, why was it “necessary” for a God, whose one and only purpose was to design us and our food, to design 99% of life forms which you call “mistakes” and “failed experiments” because they had nothing to do with us and our food? And why would an all-powerful God create a system which forced him into these errors because he had no control over the environmental changes which restricted his scope for design?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, March 17, 2023, 19:03 (377 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: To entertain Himself is a self-centered reason to create. God creates selflessly.

dhw: So when you say he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, you actually mean he doesn’t enjoy creating and doesn’t watch with interest. And please tell me where you get your information from. Have you ever read the Old Testament?

OT?, yes I've read portions of it. As I've told you, I don't use it to form my thinking.

dhw: It’s riddled with your God’s focus on himself, to the extent that if anyone dares to believe in any other God, they should not only be killed, but whole cities should be destroyed. (Many humans have actually followed these instructions.) I have no objection at all if you reject the OT, as I did in my youth. I just thought you might like to be reminded of this self-centred, “official” version.

Modern rabbis ignore all of that.

dhw: But I must confess, I can find no logic whatsoever in your belief that an all-powerful, all-knowing God creates a system that forces him into making 99% of mistakes and failed experiments in his pursuit of a single purpose. And I find absolutely nothing wrong with the assumption that he would not create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and he would not watch with interest if he wasn’t interested.

Again forgetting the admonition God's [ersnal feelings are allegorically compared to ours.


DAVID: His watching is not the same as our watching. Remember our previous discussions about allegorically different.

dhw: The term “allegorically different” is meaningless. You are making a mockery of language. Please tell us what YOU mean by watching if you do not mean paying attention to what is happening.

In God it is different. (ADLER)


DAVID: Your God and mine both create what they wish to create. God's use of an evolutionary process to advance life is history and it tells us 99.9% of all life failed to survive. That tells us such a survival rate is required in evolving life.

dhw: But it does not tell us that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, and therefore the 99% failure rate was the result of his faulty designs, mistakes, failed experiments, inefficient and cumbersome method. All of these are your own words. I have offered you three different theistic theories to explain the 99% of non-survivors without turning your God into an incompetent blunderer, but you firmly believe that the blunderer is more godlike than a designer who makes no mistakes.

Your God is one not in complete control of evolution, since He uses it for enjoyment and spectacle.


dhw: I rejected what I was taught at synagogue and at school, and I wonder which philosopher of religion taught you that your all-powerful, all-knowing God was an inefficient designer who blundered into a 99% failure rate etc. as bolded above. And why do you believe such a theory when you can’t even understand it yourself?

DAVID: I understand it perfectly. God chose to evolve us and I accept what He did. Adler accepted evolution as God's doing. He did not discuss survival rates.

dhw: You have stated explicitly that your theories make sense only to God. But if God exists, then of course evolution is his doing. It’s the rest of your theory that is so absurd, and you have told us before that Adler does not cover it, so I don’t know why you keep trying to hide behind him.

It is his proof of God using the evolutionary process. Adler assumes God directed evolution as it presents in history and God created humans this way!!!


Stromatolites

QUOTE: "In fact, most of life as we know it would never have developed on earth without those tireless little cyanobacteria colonies.

DAVID: This shows how carefully God planned evolution. He had things worked out all in order of a necessary progression. Just as the survival rate of 0.01%b was necessary.

dhw: If God exists, then for those of us who believe in common descent, this is all perfectly and wonderfully logical (including the importance of stromatolites), except for your final comment, which omits virtually every illogical aspect of your theory of evolution! NECESSARY FOR WHAT? In brief, because this has become nauseatingly repetitive, why was it “necessary” for a God, whose one and only purpose was to design us and our food, to design 99% of life forms which you call “mistakes” and “failed experiments” because they had nothing to do with us and our food? And why would an all-powerful God create a system which forced him into these errors because he had no control over the environmental changes which restricted his scope for design?

What an amazing conclusion. God could design what He intended in any environment as history shows. We are her, unimpeded by you wacky analysis.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, March 18, 2023, 12:28 (376 days ago) @ David Turell

I shall juxtapose some exchanges for the sake of coherence.

DAVID: To entertain Himself is a self-centered reason to create. God creates selflessly.

dhw: […] please tell me where you get your information from. Have you ever read the Old Testament?

DAVID: OT?, yes I've read portions of it. As I've told you, I don't use it to form my thinking.

dhw: It’s riddled with your God’s focus on himself, to the extent that if anyone dares to believe in any other God, they should not only be killed, but whole cities should be destroyed. (Many humans have actually followed these instructions.) I have no objection at all if you reject the OT, as I did in my youth. I just thought you might like to be reminded of this self-centred, “official” version.

DAVID: Modern rabbis ignore all of that.

Apparently you and modern rabbis know more about God than Moses did. Do modern rabbis also believe your God’s designs were so faulty that 99% were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”?

dhw: So when you say he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, you actually mean he doesn’t enjoy creating and doesn’t watch with interest.
And:
dhw: I find absolutely nothing wrong with the assumption that he would not create if he didn’t enjoy creating, and he would not watch with interest if he wasn’t interested.

DAVID: His watching is not the same as our watching. Remember our previous discussions about allegorically different.

dhw: The term “allegorically different” is meaningless. You are making a mockery of language. Please tell us what YOU mean by watching if you do not mean paying attention to what is happening.

DAVID: In God it is different. (ADLER)

But it is YOU who use the terms! If YOU are sure he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, the words mean the same to you as they do to me! And enjoyment and interest provide a motive for creating and for watching.

DAVID: Your God and mine both create what they wish to create. God's use of an evolutionary process to advance life is history and it tells us 99.9% of all life failed to survive. That tells us such a survival rate is required in evolving life.

dhw: But it does not tell us that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to create us and our food, and therefore the 99% failure rate was the result of his faulty designs, mistakes, failed experiments, inefficient and cumbersome method. All of these are your own words. I have offered you three different theistic theories to explain the 99% of non-survivors without turning your God into an incompetent blunderer, but you firmly believe that the blunderer is more godlike than a designer who makes no mistakes.

DAVID: Your God is one not in complete control of evolution, since He uses it for enjoyment and spectacle.

A complete non sequitur! He COULD be in complete control and still enjoy what he has created. It’s only in my third alternative that he creates a free-for-all. In my other two, he creates, controls, learns and enjoys. Whereas your theory states that your all-powerful God is not in control of the environment, which means the environment dictates what he can and can’t design – hence all his “mistakes”.

dhw: […] why do you believe such a theory when you can’t even understand it yourself?

DAVID: I understand it perfectly. God chose to evolve us and I accept what He did. Adler accepted evolution as God's doing. He did not discuss survival rates.

dhw: You have stated explicitly that your theories make sense only to God. But if God exists, then of course evolution is his doing. It’s the rest of your theory that is so absurd, and you have told us before that Adler does not cover it, so I don’t know why you keep trying to hide behind him.

DAVID: It is his proof of God using the evolutionary process. Adler assumes God directed evolution as it presents in history and God created humans this way!!!

Yes, he “proves” God’s existence, but he does not subscribe to your “presentation” of God’s inefficient and cumbersome (your words) method of directing evolution, so please stop hiding behind him.

Stromatolites

QUOTE: "In fact, most of life as we know it would never have developed on earth without those tireless little cyanobacteria colonies.”

DAVID: This shows how carefully God planned evolution. He had things worked out all in order of a necessary progression. Just as the survival rate of 0.01%b was necessary.

dhw: […] why was it “necessary” for a God, whose one and only purpose was to design us and our food, to design 99% of life forms which you call “mistakes” and “failed experiments” because they had nothing to do with us and our food? And why would an all-powerful God create a system which forced him into these errors because he had no control over the environmental changes which restricted his scope for design?

DAVID: What an amazing conclusion. God could design what He intended in any environment as history shows. We are her, unimpeded by you wacky analysis.

But you say he only “intended” to design us and our food, which he could NOT design until chance provided the right environment. Please explain why you have called the 99% of irrelevant life forms “mistakes” and “failed experiments” if it’s not because they did not lead to us and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 18, 2023, 16:31 (376 days ago) @ dhw

I shall juxtapose some exchanges for the sake of coherence.

dhw: It’s [OT] riddled with your God’s focus on himself, to the extent that if anyone dares to believe in any other God, they should not only be killed, but whole cities should be destroyed. (Many humans have actually followed these instructions.) I have no objection at all if you reject the OT, as I did in my youth. I just thought you might like to be reminded of this self-centred, “official” version.

DAVID: Modern rabbis ignore all of that.

dhw" Apparently you and modern rabbis know more about God than Moses did. Do modern rabbis also believe your God’s designs were so faulty that 99% were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”?

Frivolous question. We are discussing the OT, not evolution as seen by Rabbis. But one exists: Judaism, Physics and God" by Rabbi David W. Nelson showing God's work as seen by science fits the Jewish religion. Raup's comment on evolution not discussed.


DAVID: His watching is not the same as our watching. Remember our previous discussions about allegorically different.

dhw: The term “allegorically different” is meaningless. You are making a mockery of language. Please tell us what YOU mean by watching if you do not mean paying attention to what is happening.

DAVID: In God it is different. (ADLER)

dhw: But it is YOU who use the terms! If YOU are sure he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, the words mean the same to you as they do to me! And enjoyment and interest provide a motive for creating and for watching.

I use the words knowing they are allegorical!! You are unaware of the concept Adler presents.

DAVID: Your God is one not in complete control of evolution, since He uses it for enjoyment and spectacle.

dhw: A complete non sequitur! He COULD be in complete control and still enjoy what he has created. It’s only in my third alternative that he creates a free-for-all. In my other two, he creates, controls, learns and enjoys. Whereas your theory states that your all-powerful God is not in control of the environment, which means the environment dictates what he can and can’t design – hence all his “mistakes”.

Can't design has been totally refuted!! God can design for any current environment and still advance evolution. Snowball Earth did not stop evolution.


dhw: You have stated explicitly that your theories make sense only to God. But if God exists, then of course evolution is his doing. It’s the rest of your theory that is so absurd, and you have told us before that Adler does not cover it, so I don’t know why you keep trying to hide behind him.

DAVID: It is his proof of God using the evolutionary process. Adler assumes God directed evolution as it presents in history and God created humans this way!!!

dhw: Yes, he “proves” God’s existence, but he does not subscribe to your “presentation” of God’s inefficient and cumbersome (your words) method of directing evolution, so please stop hiding behind him.

The fact that Raup is not discussed is off our point of discussion. Just snipping.


Stromatolites

QUOTE: "In fact, most of life as we know it would never have developed on earth without those tireless little cyanobacteria colonies.”

DAVID: This shows how carefully God planned evolution. He had things worked out all in order of a necessary progression. Just as the survival rate of 0.01%b was necessary.

dhw: […] why was it “necessary” for a God, whose one and only purpose was to design us and our food, to design 99% of life forms which you call “mistakes” and “failed experiments” because they had nothing to do with us and our food? And why would an all-powerful God create a system which forced him into these errors because he had no control over the environmental changes which restricted his scope for design?

DAVID: What an amazing conclusion. God could design what He intended in any environment as history shows. We are here, unimpeded by you wacky analysis.

dhw: But you say he only “intended” to design us and our food, which he could NOT design until chance provided the right environment. Please explain why you have called the 99% of irrelevant life forms “mistakes” and “failed experiments” if it’s not because they did not lead to us and our food.

All of evolution's successes and failures led to the 0.1% that survived and allowed us.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, March 19, 2023, 12:30 (375 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [...] God creates selflessly.

dhw: Have you ever read the Old Testament? [...] It’s riddled with your God’s focus on himself, to the extent that if anyone dares to believe in any other God, they should not only be killed, but whole cities should be destroyed. (Many humans have actually followed these instructions.) I have no objection at all if you reject the OT, as I did in my youth. I just thought you might like to be reminded of this self-centred, “official” version.

DAVID: Modern rabbis ignore all of that.

dhw: Apparently you and modern rabbis know more about God than Moses did. Do modern rabbis also believe your God’s designs were so faulty that 99% were “mistakes” and “failed experiments”?

DAVID: Frivolous question. We are discussing the OT, not evolution as seen by Rabbis. But one exists: Judaism, Physics and God" by Rabbi David W. Nelson showing God's work as seen by science fits the Jewish religion. Raup's comment on evolution not discussed.

Hardly frivolous, since this thread concerns your theory of evolution, and you keep telling me that my alternatives are invalid because I don’t know how to think about God. See the next item:

DAVID: His watching is not the same as our watching. Remember our previous discussions about allegorically different.

dhw: The term “allegorically different” is meaningless. You are making a mockery of language. Please tell us what YOU mean by watching if you do not mean paying attention to what is happening.

DAVID: In God it is different. (ADLER)

dhw: But it is YOU who use the terms! If YOU are sure he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, the words mean the same to you as they do to me! And enjoyment and interest provide a motive for creating and for watching.

DAVID: I use the words knowing they are allegorical!! You are unaware of the concept Adler presents.

So apparently when YOU say God enjoys, watches and is interested, you don’t mean what you and I understand by the words. And presumably when you say God is selfless and a marvellous designer and all-powerful, you don’t mean he’s selfless and a marvellous designer and all-powerful, and I should ignore everything you say about your God because it’s all “allegorical”, which means there is no point in any of our discussions about God because nothing you say means what you and I think it means.

DAVID: Your God is one not in complete control of evolution, since He uses it for enjoyment and spectacle.

dhw: A complete non sequitur! He COULD be in complete control and still enjoy what he has created. It’s only in my third alternative that he creates a free-for-all. In my other two, he creates, controls, learns and enjoys. Whereas your theory states that your all-powerful God is not in control of the environment, which means the environment dictates what he can and can’t design – hence all his “mistakes”.

DAVID: Can't design has been totally refuted!! God can design for any current environment and still advance evolution. Snowball Earth did not stop evolution.

He is limited to what can be designed in any current environment. And his limitations to what was possible in every current environment resulted in 99% of what you call mistakes and failed experiments. Only the 1% of survivors advanced evolution.

dhw: Please explain why you have called the 99% of irrelevant life forms “mistakes” and “failed experiments” if it’s not because they did not lead to us and our food.

DAVID: All of evolution's successes and failures led to the 0.1% that survived and allowed us.

The failures, which you have called “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, did not lead to the 1% that survived and evolved into us plus our food, and I suggest that is why you call them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”, which you also say were due to your God’s “faulty design”.

DAVID (transferred from “late Devonian extinction”): I presented God's evolution that way to show its messiness. That was then, this is now. God purposely limited adaptation, because only He could speciate. Move on.

If you now wish to withdraw your vehement criticism of what you call your God’s “messy”, “inefficient” and “cumbersome” method of achieving what you call his one and only goal (us plus our food), and depended on luck providing the right environment, then please say so, and I’ll be delighted to move on.

DAVID: Adler assumes God directed evolution as it presents in history and God created humans this way!!!

dhw: Yes, he “proves” God’s existence, but he does not subscribe to your “presentation” of God’s inefficient and cumbersome (your words) method of directing evolution, so please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: The fact that Raup is not discussed is off our point of discussion. Just snipping.

Nothing to do with Raup. The fact that Adler does not discuss YOUR theory of luck and blunders is why you should stop quoting him in defence of it. But perhaps you are now withdrawing your theory. Hope springs eternal...:-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 19, 2023, 16:02 (375 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: His watching is not the same as our watching. Remember our previous discussions about allegorically different.

dhw: The term “allegorically different” is meaningless. You are making a mockery of language. Please tell us what YOU mean by watching if you do not mean paying attention to what is happening.

DAVID: In God it is different. (ADLER)

dhw: But it is YOU who use the terms! If YOU are sure he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, the words mean the same to you as they do to me! And enjoyment and interest provide a motive for creating and for watching.

DAVID: I use the words knowing they are allegorical!! You are unaware of the concept Adler presents.

dhw: So apparently when YOU say God enjoys, watches and is interested, you don’t mean what you and I understand by the words. And presumably when you say God is selfless and a marvellous designer and all-powerful, you don’t mean he’s selfless and a marvellous designer and all-powerful, and I should ignore everything you say about your God because it’s all “allegorical”, which means there is no point in any of our discussions about God because nothing you say means what you and I think it means.

A silly twist to the argument. Allegorical applies only to God's personal emotions!!!


DAVID: Your God is one not in complete control of evolution, since He uses it for enjoyment and spectacle.

dhw: A complete non sequitur! He COULD be in complete control and still enjoy what he has created. It’s only in my third alternative that he creates a free-for-all. In my other two, he creates, controls, learns and enjoys. Whereas your theory states that your all-powerful God is not in control of the environment, which means the environment dictates what he can and can’t design – hence all his “mistakes”.

DAVID: Can't design has been totally refuted!! God can design for any current environment and still advance evolution. Snowball Earth did not stop evolution.

dhw: He is limited to what can be designed in any current environment. And his limitations to what was possible in every current environment resulted in 99% of what you call mistakes and failed experiments. Only the 1% of survivors advanced evolution.

Repeat: God limited adaptability as only He can speciate. My unchanged point is God used a cumbersome system to successfully produce us.


DAVID (transferred from “late Devonian extinction”): I presented God's evolution that way to show its messiness. That was then, this is now. God purposely limited adaptation, because only He could speciate. Move on.

dhw: If you now wish to withdraw your vehement criticism of what you call your God’s “messy”, “inefficient” and “cumbersome” method of achieving what you call his one and only goal (us plus our food), and depended on luck providing the right environment, then please say so, and I’ll be delighted to move on.

I'll withdraw nothing. I've successfully gotten you to try to defend a God you don't believe in. I cheerfully believe in a God who successfully used evolution as a messy process to produce our brain


DAVID: Adler assumes God directed evolution as it presents in history and God created humans this way!!!

dhw: Yes, he “proves” God’s existence, but he does not subscribe to your “presentation” of God’s inefficient and cumbersome (your words) method of directing evolution, so please stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: The fact that Raup is not discussed is off our point of discussion. Just snipping.

dhw: Nothing to do with Raup. The fact that Adler does not discuss YOUR theory of luck and blunders is why you should stop quoting him in defence of it. But perhaps you are now withdrawing your theory. Hope springs eternal...:-)

You still don't understand the nuance of Adler's proof. He tears Darwin's theory apart and demonstrates clearly natural evolution is a farce. Raup's view is never discussed and would be off point for Adler. ;-) :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, March 20, 2023, 07:24 (375 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: His watching is not the same as our watching. Remember our previous discussions about allegorically different.

dhw: The term “allegorically different” is meaningless. You are making a mockery of language. Please tell us what YOU mean by watching if you do not mean paying attention to what is happening.

DAVID: In God it is different. (ADLER)

dhw: So apparently when YOU say God enjoys, watches and is interested, you don’t mean what you and I understand by the words. [..]

DAVID: […] Allegorical applies only to God's personal emotions!!!

So what do YOU mean when you say you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest?

DAVID: […] God can design for any current environment and still advance evolution. Snowball Earth did not stop evolution.

dhw: He is limited to what can be designed in any current environment. And his limitations to what was possible in every current environment resulted in 99% of what you call mistakes and failed experiments. Only the 1% of survivors advanced evolution.

DAVID: Repeat: God limited adaptability as only He can speciate. My unchanged point is God used a cumbersome system to successfully produce us.

More nonsense talk. “Only he can speciate” does not explain why an all-powerful God would design 99% of organisms that had no connection with his only purpose! Or why he invented a “cumbersome system” which forced him to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments and come up with faulty designs!

DAVID (transferred from “late Devonian extinction”): I presented God's evolution that way to show its messiness. That was then, this is now. God purposely limited adaptation, because only He could speciate. Move on.

dhw: If you now wish to withdraw your vehement criticism of what you call your God’s “messy”, “inefficient” and “cumbersome” method of achieving what you call his one and only goal (us plus our food), and dependence [edited] on luck providing the right environment, then please say so, and I’ll be delighted to move on.

DAVID: I'll withdraw nothing. I've successfully gotten you to try to defend a God you don't believe in. I cheerfully believe in a God who successfully used evolution as a messy process to produce our brain.

My agnosticism is irrelevant, but of course you are welcome to believe cheerfully in an all-powerful, all-knowing God who has no power over the environment, deliberately designs 99% of organisms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and continues to make mistakes and failed experiments until luck provides him with the environment he needs (Cambrian), whereupon he starts afresh to produce our ancestors de novo, thereby rendering all his previous efforts irrelevant, although even after the Cambrian, he still continues to design life forms that do not lead to his goal. And with your newly discovered gift for language, you regard a messy, inefficient, cumbersome method of design as proof that your God is a marvellous designer.

dhw: The fact that Adler does not discuss YOUR theory of luck and blunders is why you should stop quoting him in defence of it. But perhaps you are now withdrawing your theory. Hope springs eternal... :-)

DAVID: You still don't understand the nuance of Adler's proof. He tears Darwin's theory apart and demonstrates clearly natural evolution is a farce. Raup's view is never discussed and would be off point for Adler. ;-) :-(

We are not discussing Adler or Raup, but your own illogical theory and denigration of your God.

Human gut biome controls health

DAVID: these bacteria play a vital role for us. It is not surprising they have such a degree of adaptability. Representing the first life, they have stayed around from the beginning to play an important role in evolution. They were designed for survival, not like the 99.9% loss described by Raup because of their usefulness, all neatly planned by purposeful God.

Since we are all descended from single cells, clearly bacteria are among the 1% of survivors, and their astonishingly adaptable intelligence may well have been a major factor in the whole history of evolution. How do the 99% of specially designed non-survivors which had nothing to do with your God’s only purpose but, on the contrary, have been described by you as his mistakes, failed experiments etc. constitute “neat planning” by an all-powerful God?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, March 20, 2023, 15:46 (374 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] Allegorical applies only to God's personal emotions!!!

dhw: So what do YOU mean when you say you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest?

We use our words with a meaning for us that is, in some sense, not an equal meaning for God


DAVID: Repeat: God limited adaptability as only He can speciate. My unchanged point is God used a cumbersome system to successfully produce us.

dhw: More nonsense talk. “Only he can speciate” does not explain why an all-powerful God would design 99% of organisms that had no connection with his only purpose! Or why he invented a “cumbersome system” which forced him to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments and come up with faulty designs!

Please attempt to absorb a clear point. Limited adaptability obviously results in poor survival rates. That only looks like design failure. Evolution produces a 0.1% survival rate which successfully produced us. I cannot explain why God chose this method. But that is of no matter to me, only to you

dhw: If you now wish to withdraw your vehement criticism of what you call your God’s “messy”, “inefficient” and “cumbersome” method of achieving what you call his one and only goal (us plus our food), and dependence [edited] on luck providing the right environment, then please say so, and I’ll be delighted to move on.

DAVID: I'll withdraw nothing. I've successfully gotten you to try to defend a God you don't believe in. I cheerfully believe in a God who successfully used evolution as a messy process to produce our brain.

dhw: My agnosticism is irrelevant, but of course you are welcome to believe cheerfully in an all-powerful, all-knowing God who has no power over the environment, deliberately designs 99% of organisms that have no connection with his one and only purpose, and continues to make mistakes and failed experiments until luck provides him with the environment he needs (Cambrian), whereupon he starts afresh to produce our ancestors de novo, thereby rendering all his previous efforts irrelevant, although even after the Cambrian, he still continues to design life forms that do not lead to his goal. And with your newly discovered gift for language, you regard a messy, inefficient, cumbersome method of design as proof that your God is a marvellous designer.

Oxygen in the Cambrian era isn't luck!! God earlier created cyanobacteria to make enough oxygen. You are back to slicing up evolution into disconnected eras. To have it your way, God makes all His own luck.


Human gut biome controls health

DAVID: these bacteria play a vital role for us. It is not surprising they have such a degree of adaptability. Representing the first life, they have stayed around from the beginning to play an important role in evolution. They were designed for survival, not like the 99.9% loss described by Raup because of their usefulness, all neatly planned by purposeful God.

dhw: Since we are all descended from single cells, clearly bacteria are among the 1% of survivors, and their astonishingly adaptable intelligence may well have been a major factor in the whole history of evolution. How do the 99% of specially designed non-survivors which had nothing to do with your God’s only purpose but, on the contrary, have been described by you as his mistakes, failed experiments etc. constitute “neat planning” by an all-powerful God?

Please note I have changed my descriptive approach. What, on the surface, looks like mistakes and failures is actually planned limited adaptability. Thus, neat planning.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, March 21, 2023, 09:02 (374 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] Allegorical applies only to God's personal emotions!!!

dhw: So what do YOU mean when you say you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest?

DAVID: We use our words with a meaning for us that is, in some sense, not an equal meaning for God.

“In some sense”? YOU used the words. Why did you say you were sure your God watched us with interest and enjoyed creating if YOU didn’t mean what the words mean to you? This is one of your silliest ever dodges.

DAVID: Repeat: God limited adaptability as only He can speciate. My unchanged point is God used a cumbersome system to successfully produce us.

dhw: More nonsense talk. “Only he can speciate” does not explain why an all-powerful God would design 99% of organisms that had no connection with his only purpose! Or why he invented a “cumbersome system” which forced him to make mistakes and conduct failed experiments and come up with faulty designs!

DAVID: Please attempt to absorb a clear point. Limited adaptability obviously results in poor survival rates. That only looks like design failure. Evolution produces a 0.1% survival rate which successfully produced us. I cannot explain why God chose this method. But that is of no matter to me, only to you.

Of course limited adaptability results in poor survival rates. No dispute. You expressly said that it was caused by faulty design. In your theory, it is not evolution but your God who produced a 0.1% survival rate and a 99% failure rate. However, I’m going to juxtapose an exchange which is of fundamental importance to this discussion:

dhw: If you now wish to withdraw your vehement criticism of what you call your God’s “messy”, “inefficient” and “cumbersome” method of achieving what you call his one and only goal (us plus our food), and dependence [edited] on luck providing the right environment, then please say so, and I’ll be delighted to move on.

DAVID: Please note I have changed my descriptive approach. What, on the surface, looks like mistakes and failures is actually planned limited adaptability. Thus, neat planning.

So you are indeed now withdrawing your vehement criticism of an inefficient God who blunders from one mistake to another. At last. We are therefore left with the theory that he deliberately designed the 99% of life forms which did not lead to his one and only purpose, and deliberately designed them in such a way that they would not survive. Why might he have done that? We agree that he would not have done anything he didn’t want to do, so he must have had a reason. And by your own admission, you can’t think of one. I have offered you three possible explanations which fit in with your new theory that your God did not after all blunder into one mistake after another. Perhaps you will take at least one of them more seriously. (See “More miscellany”, for your usual distortions.) Meanwhile, we are still left with your self-contradictory insistence that a supposedly all-powerful God had no control over the environment, and therefore depended on luck to provide the right conditions for him to fulfil what you insist was his only purpose:

dhw: […] luck provides him with the environment he needs (Cambrian), whereupon he starts afresh to produce our ancestors de novo, thereby rendering all his previous efforts irrelevant, although even after the Cambrian, he still continues to design life forms that do not lead to his goal […].

DAVID: Oxygen in the Cambrian era isn't luck!! God earlier created cyanobacteria to make enough oxygen. You are back to slicing up evolution into disconnected eras. To have it your way, God makes all His own luck.

One moment he has no control over the environment, and the next moment, he is designing the environment. One moment he blunders, and the next moment there are no mistakes. One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested. If your God was able to design the environment he needed for his one and only purpose, why did he bother with all the preceding environments and all the preceding 99% of irrelevant life forms, and all the post-Cambrian life forms that still had nothing to do with us and our food? You can’t explain it, so maybe at least one more of these theories might also be wrong. The discussion continues.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 21, 2023, 15:24 (373 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please note I have changed my descriptive approach. What, on the surface, looks like mistakes and failures is actually planned limited adaptability. Thus, neat planning.

dhw: So you are indeed now withdrawing your vehement criticism of an inefficient God who blunders from one mistake to another. At last. We are therefore left with the theory that he deliberately designed the 99% of life forms which did not lead to his one and only purpose, and deliberately designed them in such a way that they would not survive. Why might he have done that? We agree that he would not have done anything he didn’t want to do, so he must have had a reason. And by your own admission, you can’t think of one. I have offered you three possible explanations which fit in with your new theory that your God did not after all blunder into one mistake after another. Perhaps you will take at least one of them more seriously. (See “More miscellany”, for your usual distortions.) Meanwhile, we are still left with your self-contradictory insistence that a supposedly all-powerful God had no control over the environment, and therefore depended on luck to provide the right conditions for him to fulfil what you insist was his only purpose:

As for environment, hot. cold, or warm; wet or dry; forested or grassland; high or low altitude, all easily designed for, BUT as God advanced/evolved biochemistry He arranged for a necessar oxygen supply from cyanobacteria to provide it.


dhw: […] luck provides him with the environment he needs (Cambrian), whereupon he starts afresh to produce our ancestors de novo, thereby rendering all his previous efforts irrelevant, although even after the Cambrian, he still continues to design life forms that do not lead to his goal […].

DAVID: Oxygen in the Cambrian era isn't luck!! God earlier created cyanobacteria to make enough oxygen. You are back to slicing up evolution into disconnected eras. To have it your way, God makes all His own luck.

dhw: One moment he has no control over the environment, and the next moment, he is designing the environment. One moment he blunders, and the next moment there are no mistakes. One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested. If your God was able to design the environment he needed for his one and only purpose, why did he bother with all the preceding environments and all the preceding 99% of irrelevant life forms, and all the post-Cambrian life forms that still had nothing to do with us and our food? You can’t explain it, so maybe at least one more of these theories might also be wrong. The discussion continues.

My explanation above tells you God does not need luck. Adler describes at length how to think about God when our terms cannot be exactly applied to God, thus allegory.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, March 22, 2023, 09:20 (373 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Please note I have changed my descriptive approach. What, on the surface, looks like mistakes and failures is actually planned limited adaptability. Thus, neat planning.

dhw: So you are indeed now withdrawing your vehement criticism of an inefficient God who blunders from one mistake to another. At last. We are therefore left with the theory that he deliberately designed the 99% of life forms which did not lead to his one and only purpose, and deliberately designed them in such a way that they would not survive. Why might he have done that? We agree that he would not have done anything he didn’t want to do, so he must have had a reason. And by your own admission, you can’t think of one. I have offered you three possible explanations which fit in with your new theory that your God did not after all blunder into one mistake after another. Perhaps you will take at least one of them more seriously.

You prefer to ignore all of this, which is understandable because it doesn’t make sense to you and you have no answers. This part of the discussion does, however, continue on the "More miscellany" thread.

dhw: Meanwhile, we are still left with your self-contradictory insistence that a supposedly all-powerful God had no control over the environment, and therefore depended on luck to provide the right conditions for him to fulfil what you insist was his only purpose:

DAVID: As for environment, hot. cold, or warm; wet or dry; forested or grassland; high or low altitude, all easily designed for, BUT as God advanced/evolved biochemistry He arranged for a necessar oxygen supply from cyanobacteria to provide it.

So your theory now is that all 99% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose were easily designed in response to environmental conditions over which he had no control, but you simply don’t know why he bothered to design them, and then all of a sudden he realized that he needed more oxygen to fulfil his one and only purpose, so he did design this particular environment (the Cambrian), though he still carried on designing lots and lots of life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose).

dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: […] Adler describes at length how to think about God when our terms cannot be exactly applied to God, thus allegory.

Nobody can possibly know what terms can or can't be applied to God - that is why we have different theories. But we know what WE mean,so please tell us what YOU meant when you said you were sure he enjoys creating (otherwise he wouldn’t have done it) and watches us with interest if you didn't mean that he actually likes creating, and he actually observes us and wants to know what we're doing.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 22, 2023, 15:39 (372 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Please note I have changed my descriptive approach. What, on the surface, looks like mistakes and failures is actually planned limited adaptability. Thus, neat planning.

dhw: So you are indeed now withdrawing your vehement criticism of an inefficient God who blunders from one mistake to another. At last. We are therefore left with the theory that he deliberately designed the 99% of life forms which did not lead to his one and only purpose, and deliberately designed them in such a way that they would not survive. Why might he have done that? We agree that he would not have done anything he didn’t want to do, so he must have had a reason. And by your own admission, you can’t think of one. I have offered you three possible explanations which fit in with your new theory that your God did not after all blunder into one mistake after another. Perhaps you will take at least one of them more seriously.

dhw: You prefer to ignore all of this, which is understandable because it doesn’t make sense to you and you have no answers. This part of the discussion does, however, continue on the "More miscellany" thread.

I'm tired of giving essentially the same answer when you bring up your humanized God and His weak way of acting. God is highly purposeful and direct in action to reach His perceived goals. He never needs outside help.


dhw: Meanwhile, we are still left with your self-contradictory insistence that a supposedly all-powerful God had no control over the environment, and therefore depended on luck to provide the right conditions for him to fulfil what you insist was his only purpose:

DAVID: As for environment, hot. cold, or warm; wet or dry; forested or grassland; high or low altitude, all easily designed for, BUT as God advanced/evolved biochemistry He arranged for a necessar oxygen supply from cyanobacteria to provide it.

dhw: So your theory now is that all 99% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose were easily designed in response to environmental conditions over which he had no control, but you simply don’t know why he bothered to design them, and then all of a sudden he realized that he needed more oxygen to fulfil his one and only purpose, so he did design this particular environment (the Cambrian), though he still carried on designing lots and lots of life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose).

A perfect description of how messy evolution was. God chose this mechanism for His own reasons. Easy to understand, as His choice. As for your snide oxygen remark, God knew well in advance it would be needed.


dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: […] Adler describes at length how to think about God when our terms cannot be exactly applied to God, thus allegory.

dhw: Nobody can possibly know what terms can or can't be applied to God - that is why we have different theories. But we know what WE mean,so please tell us what YOU meant when you said you were sure he enjoys creating (otherwise he wouldn’t have done it) and watches us with interest if you didn't mean that he actually likes creating, and he actually observes us and wants to know what we're doing.

I allegorically meant exactly what I wrote.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 22, 2023, 20:13 (372 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw and I are in a discussion of God's actions in evolving advancing life forms. Our separate views of God are obvious. Mine is a purpose driven God wo knows exactly what to do and does it.
dhw has three humanized forms as previously described by him. In discussing evolution dhw has no concept of how I imagine my God in action. Tisi s shown in preparing for a necessary oxygen level by evolving cyanobacteria well in advance of the Cambrian era. Here is another example, nitroge n levels:

https://phys.org/news/2023-03-geoscientists-life-evolution-million-years.html

"Is nitrate responsible for algae, flowers, and even your neighbors? A team of Virginia Tech geoscientists have unearthed evidence that may indicate yes.

"The team's findings, recently published in Science Advances, reveal an increase in biologically available nitrogen during the time that marine eukaryotes—organisms whose cells have a nucleus—became dominate. Complex eukaryotic cells evolved into multicellular organisms and are credited for ushering in a whole new era for life on Earth, including animals, plants, and fungi.

"'Where we sit today, with life as it is on the planet, is the sum total of all the events that happened in the past," said Ben Gill, an associate professor of sedimentary geochemistry and co-author on the paper. "And this is a key event where we shift from dominantly prokaryotic ecosystems—cells that are much simpler than the ones in our bodies—to eukaryotes. If that did not happen, we would not be here today."

"Previous research focused on phosphorus' role in the rise of eukaryotes, but Junyao Kang, a doctoral student in the Department of Geosciences and lead author of the paper, was curious about the part nitrogen played in this event.

"This data is unique because nitrogen isotope data are virtually nonexistent from the early Neoproterozoic time period, or between a billion and 800 million years ago," said Kang.

"Collaborating with the Nanjing University in Najing, China, Kang has spent two years working to understand what drove the rise of eukaryotes through nitrogen isotope analysis of rock samples from the North China Craton. Home to rocks dating back 3.8 billion years ago, the region was once covered by an ocean.

"'We had some rough ideas of when eukaryotes became ecologically successful," said Shuhai Xiao, professor of geobiology and a paper co-author. "They had been there for a long time in a low-key status until about 820 million years ago, when they became abundant."

"Kang decided he wanted to learn why. He took the data from the rock samples, entered it into a larger database, and analyzed it across a longer time scale that spanned different geographic locations.

"'Once we did this kind of integration and put it into a big picture, we saw the rise of nitrates through time, which happened around 800 million years ago," said Kang."

Comment: in my view God is in total control of what has to be controlled for God to continue evolving more and more life. Snowball Earth is proof enough. dhw, because of his Darwinist training does not understand my approach. God's designed evolution mimics Darwin's common descent but is God's common descent. Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! How is that possible with a God in total control, described above. As before dhw is totally confused as to how to think about my God. In his thinking, dhw keeps trying to drag into the equation natural Darwinian evolution to challenge God's evolutionary designs. Darwin blew it. Natural selection is not a proven concept, and it is a passive mechanism. Darwin's contribution is shoving evolution down everyone's throat. Accepting that we evolved, my view is God CHOSE to evolve us from Archaea.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, March 23, 2023, 08:56 (372 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Please note I have changed my descriptive approach. What, on the surface, looks like mistakes and failures is actually planned limited adaptability. Thus, neat planning.

dhw: So you are indeed now withdrawing your vehement criticism of an inefficient God who blunders from one mistake to another. At last. We are therefore left with the theory that he deliberately designed the 99% of life forms which did not lead to his one and only purpose, and deliberately designed them in such a way that they would not survive. Why might he have done that? We agree that he would not have done anything he didn’t want to do, so he must have had a reason. And by your own admission, you can’t think of one. I have offered you three possible explanations which fit in with your new theory that your God did not after all blunder into one mistake after another. Perhaps you will take at least one of them more seriously.

dhw: You prefer to ignore all of this, which is understandable because it doesn’t make sense to you and you have no answers. [...]

DAVID: I'm tired of giving essentially the same answer when you bring up your humanized God and His weak way of acting. God is highly purposeful and direct in action to reach His perceived goals. He never needs outside help.

There is no disagreement between us. If God exists, of course he will be highly purposeful and direct in action to reach his perceived goals. Yet again, you have changed singular to plural goals, although you insist that his one and only goal was to design us and our food. You always revert to these vague generalizations as means of dodging the illogicality of your theories. You insist that he directly created 100% of species, 99% of which had no connection with the one goal you impose on him. And you insist that this theory is the only possible truth, although only God knows why he would use what you agree is a messy, inefficient and cumbersome method.

dhw: So your theory now is that all 99% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose were easily designed in response to environmental conditions over which he had no control, but you simply don’t know why he bothered to design them, and then all of a sudden he realized that he needed more oxygen to fulfil his one and only purpose, so he did design this particular environment (the Cambrian), though he still carried on designing lots and lots of life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose).

DAVID: A perfect description of how messy evolution was. God chose this mechanism for His own reasons. Easy to understand, as His choice.

What is easy to understand? You can’t explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would choose (= invent) such a messy method to achieve his goal! Maybe that wasn’t his goal, or maybe that wasn’t his method. There are other possible explanations for the 99% of extinct creations, but you just happen to know that your God thinks in the same muddled way as you do, and this makes him more godlike than a God who has perfectly understandable reasons for creating everything that he creates.

DAVID: As for your snide oxygen remark, God knew well in advance it would be needed.

The snide remark concerns your theory that your God did not control environmental changes, but when I point out that this means he relied on luck, suddenly he starts controlling the environment.

dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: […] Adler describes at length how to think about God when our terms cannot be exactly applied to God, thus allegory.

dhw: Nobody can possibly know what terms can or can't be applied to God - that is why we have different theories. But we know what WE mean, so please tell us what YOU meant when you said you were sure he enjoys creating (otherwise he wouldn’t have done it) and watches us with interest if you didn't mean that he actually likes creating, and he actually observes us and wants to know what we're doing.

DAVID: I allegorically meant exactly what I wrote.

What do the words “enjoy”, “watch” and “interest” symbolize? The word “allegorically” is meaningless in this context, and you know it. Yes, you meant what you said, just as you meant what you said when you wrote that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. And why wouldn’t he? Why should he NOT create beings which in certain ways will be in his own image – especially if, as you once suggested, he wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, March 23, 2023, 09:04 (372 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: dhw and I are in a discussion of God's actions in evolving advancing life forms. Our separate views of God are obvious. Mine is a purpose driven God wo knows exactly what to do and does it.

We have the SAME view! We disagree, however, on the possible nature of the purpose and on the way your God might have achieved his purpose.

DAVID: dhw has three humanized forms as previously described by him. In discussing evolution dhw has no concept of how I imagine my God in action. Tisi s shown in preparing for a necessary oxygen level by evolving cyanobacteria well in advance of the Cambrian era. Here is another example, nitrogen levels: […]

There is no need for me to comment on the article. If God exists, I’m perfectly happy to believe that he used scientific methods to change the course of evolution this way and that. It fits in with two of my three alternative theories. It is you who insisted that he had no control over the environment, and now you are going out of your way to show how he controlled the environment. I will skip to your extraordinary diatribe at the end of an article which does absolutely nothing to undermine any of the alternative theistic theories I have proposed.

DAVID: in my view God is in total control of what has to be controlled for God to continue evolving more and more life. Snowball Earth is proof enough.

So let’s forget about your theory that he did not control the environmental changes which limited his range of design and forced him to create new species, 99% of which were irrelevant to what you say was his purpose.

DAVID: dhw, because of his Darwinist training does not understand my approach. God's designed evolution mimics Darwin's common descent but is God's common descent.

They would be the same if your God used the 1% of survivors for his further experiments in creating new life forms. But if he created life forms with no predecessors, there is no common descent. You can’t make up your mind, and your insistence that our own ancestors were designed de novo makes nonsense of your theory that every preceding species was designed as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. (Or have you dropped that theory now?)

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! How is that possible with a God in total control, described above. Darwin's contribution is shoving evolution down everyone's throat.

It’s not possible, and that is why his lack of control over the environment (= reliance on luck) makes total nonsense of your theory that your God is in total control! It only makes sense if your God deliberately created a system which functioned independently of his control. That would fit in with the alternative theory of a free-for-all, but I have always qualified this by saying that he was free to dabble if he felt like it. This theory fits in perfectly with your own concerning environmental changes.

DAVID: As before dhw is totally confused as to how to think about my God. In his thinking, dhw keeps trying to drag into the equation natural Darwinian evolution to challenge God's evolutionary designs. Darwin blew it. Natural selection is not a proven concept, and it is a passive mechanism.

An astonishing misrepresentation of my proposals. It is always you who drag Darwin into it. All my theories allow for God the designer, as does Darwin’s theory. Hence his various references in later editions to the “Creator”. I have always agreed with you that natural selection is a passive mechanism, and I regard it as pure common sense: any change that is advantageous to the organism is likely to survive. I disagree with Darwin’s proposal that random mutations drive the changes. On the other hand, I find Shapiro’s proposal of cellular intelligence as the driving force – developing the findings of other prominent experts in the field – far more convincing, and of course I accept that such complexity could be used as an argument for the existence of a designer God.

DAVID: Accepting that we evolved, my view is God CHOSE to evolve us from Archaea.

Absolutely no problem for me. If he exists, he also CHOSE to evolve millions of other life forms from Archaea, and 99% of them had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose – us and our food. That is the starting point of our disagreement, which you have blatantly avoided even mentioning in your efforts to make out that your incomprehensible theory (only your God can understand it) is incomprehensible because I am confused. See PART ONE for details.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 23, 2023, 15:56 (371 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: dhw and I are in a discussion of God's actions in evolving advancing life forms. Our separate views of God are obvious. Mine is a purpose driven God wo knows exactly what to do and does it.

dhw: We have the SAME view! We disagree, however, on the possible nature of the purpose and on the way your God might have achieved his purpose.

DAVID: dhw has three humanized forms as previously described by him. In discussing evolution dhw has no concept of how I imagine my God in action. This is shown in preparing for a necessary oxygen level by evolving cyanobacteria well in advance of the Cambrian era. Here is another example, nitrogen levels: […]

There is no need for me to comment on the article. If God exists, I’m perfectly happy to believe that he used scientific methods to change the course of evolution this way and that. It fits in with two of my three alternative theories. It is you who insisted that he had no control over the environment, and now you are going out of your way to show how he controlled the environment. I will skip to your extraordinary diatribe at the end of an article which does absolutely nothing to undermine any of the alternative theistic theories I have proposed.

DAVID: in my view God is in total control of what has to be controlled for God to continue evolving more and more life. Snowball Earth is proof enough.

dhw: So let’s forget about your theory that he did not control the environmental changes which limited his range of design and forced him to create new species, 99% of which were irrelevant to what you say was his purpose.

DAVID: dhw, because of his Darwinist training does not understand my approach. God's designed evolution mimics Darwin's common descent but is God's common descent.

dhw: They would be the same if your God used the 1% of survivors for his further experiments in creating new life forms. But if he created life forms with no predecessors, there is no common descent. You can’t make up your mind, and your insistence that our own ancestors were designed de novo makes nonsense of your theory that every preceding species was designed as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. (Or have you dropped that theory now?)

The development of advanced biochemistry and phenotypes were designed using previous stages. The biochemistry in the Ediacaran was the basis of Cambrian biochemistry. Thus, the stages were 'required'. Darwin's 'common descent' had the same Cambrian gap!!! No predecessors!


DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! How is that possible with a God in total control, described above. Darwin's contribution is shoving evolution down everyone's throat.

dhw: It’s not possible, and that is why his lack of control over the environment (= reliance on luck) makes total nonsense of your theory that your God is in total control! It only makes sense if your God deliberately created a system which functioned independently of his control.

Exactly my point about Earth's weather and environment.

DAVID: As before dhw is totally confused as to how to think about my God. In his thinking, dhw keeps trying to drag into the equation natural Darwinian evolution to challenge God's evolutionary designs. Darwin blew it. Natural selection is not a proven concept, and it is a passive mechanism.

dhw: An astonishing misrepresentation of my proposals. It is always you who drag Darwin into it. All my theories allow for God the designer, as does Darwin’s theory. Hence his various references in later editions to the “Creator”. I have always agreed with you that natural selection is a passive mechanism, and I regard it as pure common sense: any change that is advantageous to the organism is likely to survive. I disagree with Darwin’s proposal that random mutations drive the changes. On the other hand, I find Shapiro’s proposal of cellular intelligence as the driving force – developing the findings of other prominent experts in the field – far more convincing, and of course I accept that such complexity could be used as an argument for the existence of a designer God.

DAVID: Accepting that we evolved, my view is God CHOSE to evolve us from Archaea.

dhw: Absolutely no problem for me. If he exists, he also CHOSE to evolve millions of other life forms from Archaea, and 99% of them had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose – us and our food. That is the starting point of our disagreement, which you have blatantly avoided even mentioning in your efforts to make out that your incomprehensible theory (only your God can understand it) is incomprehensible because I am confused. See PART ONE for details.

Your confusion is obvious. The giant bush of life for food is obvious. Eight million humans and growing. You usually grudgingly admit we must eat. When will you see that evolution produces that sort of survival rate as part of the process, as Raup shows?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 23, 2023, 15:35 (371 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: You prefer to ignore all of this, which is understandable because it doesn’t make sense to you and you have no answers. [...]

DAVID: I'm tired of giving essentially the same answer when you bring up your humanized God and His weak way of acting. God is highly purposeful and direct in action to reach His perceived goals. He never needs outside help.

dhw: There is no disagreement between us. If God exists, of course he will be highly purposeful and direct in action to reach his perceived goals. Yet again, you have changed singular to plural goals, although you insist that his one and only goal was to design us and our food. You always revert to these vague generalizations as means of dodging the illogicality of your theories. You insist that he directly created 100% of species, 99% of which had no connection with the one goal you impose on him. And you insist that this theory is the only possible truth, although only God knows why he would use what you agree is a messy, inefficient and cumbersome method.

Evolution with its low survival rate happened. So we must deal with its facts. Since I assume God created everything, it is obvious to conclude He chose to evolve us over time. Why do you struggle with this logic? Evolution, as a process, naturally produces a 99.9% loss rate. As for a goal or goals for God, humans are obvious. God may well have others not so obvious.


dhw: So your theory now is that all 99% of life forms irrelevant to his purpose were easily designed in response to environmental conditions over which he had no control, but you simply don’t know why he bothered to design them, and then all of a sudden he realized that he needed more oxygen to fulfil his one and only purpose, so he did design this particular environment (the Cambrian), though he still carried on designing lots and lots of life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose).

DAVID: A perfect description of how messy evolution was. God chose this mechanism for His own reasons. Easy to understand, as His choice.

dhw: What is easy to understand? You can’t explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would choose (= invent) such a messy method to achieve his goal! Maybe that wasn’t his goal, or maybe that wasn’t his method. There are other possible explanations for the 99% of extinct creations,

What universe do you live in??? You obviously can't think about God as I do. With God in charge, what history contains is what God did!! Why He did it is His choice, reasons unknown.


DAVID: As for your snide oxygen remark, God knew well in advance it would be needed.

dhw: The snide remark concerns your theory that your God did not control environmental changes, but when I point out that this means he relied on luck, suddenly he starts controlling the environment.

He only added oxygen when it was necessary, no control over day-to-day environmental changes.


dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: […] Adler describes at length how to think about God when our terms cannot be exactly applied to God, thus allegory.

dhw: Nobody can possibly know what terms can or can't be applied to God - that is why we have different theories. But we know what WE mean, so please tell us what YOU meant when you said you were sure he enjoys creating (otherwise he wouldn’t have done it) and watches us with interest if you didn't mean that he actually likes creating, and he actually observes us and wants to know what we're doing.

DAVID: I allegorically meant exactly what I wrote.

dhw: What do the words “enjoy”, “watch” and “interest” symbolize? The word “allegorically” is meaningless in this context, and you know it. Yes, you meant what you said, just as you meant what you said when you wrote that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. And why wouldn’t he? Why should he NOT create beings which in certain ways will be in his own image – especially if, as you once suggested, he wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him?

I'm following Adler's instructions on how to think about God. It is a whole short book.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Friday, March 24, 2023, 12:33 (370 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

I will again juxtapose exchanges to avoid excessive repetition

dhw: You insist that [God] directly created 100% of species, 99% of which had no connection with the one goal you impose on him. And you insist that this theory is the only possible truth, although only God knows why he would use what you agree is a messy, inefficient and cumbersome method.

DAVID: Evolution with its low survival rate happened. So we must deal with its facts. Since I assume God created everything, it is obvious to conclude He chose to evolve us over time. Why do you struggle with this logic?

No struggle. If he exists, however, he also chose to evolve (though by “evolve” you mean individually design) every other creature that ever existed, including 99% that did not lead to us or our food, although you say we and our food were his one and only goal. Why do you keep making vague generalizations which ignore the specific details that make your theory so illogical?

DAVID: Evolution, as a process, naturally produces a 99.9% loss rate.

But according to you, your God (not Nature) designed every species!!! So why did he design 99.9% which, according to you, had no connection with what according to you was his one and only goal?

DAVID: As for a goal or goals for God, humans are obvious. God may well have others not so obvious.

With this statement, you have opened a promising door. Please name what you think might have been his other goals. […]

DAVID: As for your snide oxygen remark, God knew well in advance it would be needed.

dhw: The snide remark concerns your theory that your God did not control environmental changes, but when I point out that this means he relied on luck, suddenly he starts controlling the environment.

DAVID: He only added oxygen when it was necessary, no control over day-to-day environmental changes.

We are not talking about day-to-day changes. For example, forests turning into deserts, and asteroids causing mass extinctions, are not day-to-day changes.

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]

dhw :[…] his lack of control over the environment (= reliance on luck) makes total nonsense of your theory that your God is in total control! It only makes sense if your God deliberately created a system which functioned independently of his control.

DAVID: Exactly my point about Earth's weather and environment.

I thought your point was that your God didn’t depend on luck. But his lack of control over weather and environment meant luck determined what he could and couldn’t design under current conditions. You also believe that luck determined which organisms failed to adapt when conditions changed, and so luck determined which 1% survived for him to work on at the next stage (until the Cambrian, when he started all over again).

dhw: […] If God exists, I’m perfectly happy to believe that he used scientific methods to change the course of evolution this way and that. It fits in with two of my three alternative theories. It is you who insisted that he had no control over the environment, and now you are going out of your way to show how he controlled the environment. […]

DAVID: in my view God is in total control of what has to be controlled for God to continue evolving more and more life. Snowball Earth is proof enough.

Another vague generalization which avoids the subject of our dispute: Why “more and more life”, if 99% of it was irrelevant to what you claim was his one and only purpose?

dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: I allegorically meant exactly what I wrote.

dhw: What do the words “enjoy”, “watch” and “interest” symbolize? The word “allegorically” is meaningless in this context, and you know it. Yes, you meant what you said, just as you meant what you said when you wrote that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. And why wouldn’t he? Why should he NOT create beings which in certain ways will be in his own image – especially if, as you once suggested, he wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him?

DAVID: I'm following Adler's instructions on how to think about God. It is a whole short book.

Please stop hiding behind Adler. You are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, and you know perfectly well what those words mean.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Friday, March 24, 2023, 12:42 (370 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Common descent

DAVID: dhw, because of his Darwinist training does not understand my approach. God's designed evolution mimics Darwin's common descent but is God's common descent.

dhw: They would be the same if your God used the 1% of survivors for his further experiments in creating new life forms. But if he created life forms with no predecessors, there is no common descent. You can’t make up your mind, and your insistence that our own ancestors were designed de novo makes nonsense of your theory that every preceding species was designed as an “absolute requirement” for us and our food. (Or have you dropped that theory now?)

DAVID: The development of advanced biochemistry and phenotypes were designed using previous stages. The biochemistry in the Ediacaran was the basis of Cambrian biochemistry. Thus, the stages were 'required'. Darwin's 'common descent' had the same Cambrian gap!!! No predecessors!

Darwin thought the gap might be explained by the lack of fossils. That is irrelevant to our discussion. Why would your all-powerful, all-knowing God, who apparently knew from the very beginning exactly what biochemistry and environment were required to fulfil his one and only goal (us and our food), have needed to “develop advanced biochemistry” and to subject himself to the limitations of environmental changes beyond his control? Could you possibly mean that he was learning more and more about how to use biochemistry as he “developed” it through his ongoing experiments? According to you, the Cambrian proved that he could create our ancestors from scratch. He didn’t need to design any of the species that preceded us. And why do you keep avoiding the word “species”?

Environment

DAVID: Accepting that we evolved, my view is God CHOSE to evolve us from Archaea.

dhw: Absolutely no problem for me. If he exists, he also CHOSE to evolve millions of other life forms from Archaea, and 99% of them had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose – us and our food. That is the starting point of our disagreement, which you have blatantly avoided even mentioning in your efforts to make out that your incomprehensible theory (only your God can understand it) is incomprehensible because I am confused. […]

DAVID: Your confusion is obvious. The giant bush of life for food is obvious. Eight million humans and growing. You usually grudgingly admit we must eat.

How many more times are you going to repeat this silly dodge? Every organism has to eat, and we humans need a giant bush. But that does not explain why your God created bushes in the past for organisms that had no connection with us and our food. You know this. As I keep reminding you, you wrote: “”The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” (The capitals were your own.)

DAVID: When will you see that evolution produces that sort of survival rate as part of the process, as Raup shows?

The basis of our disagreement is the very fact that 99% did not survive, but evolution according to you is not the agent of their non-survival, because according to you it is your God who deliberately designed them not to survive, and since they had no connection with his one and only goal, you have no idea why he designed them in the first place.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, March 24, 2023, 15:57 (370 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Common descent

DAVID: The development of advanced biochemistry and phenotypes were designed using previous stages. The biochemistry in the Ediacaran was the basis of Cambrian biochemistry. Thus, the stages were 'required'. Darwin's 'common descent' had the same Cambrian gap!!! No predecessors!

dhw: Darwin thought the gap might be explained by the lack of fossils. That is irrelevant to our discussion. Why would your all-powerful, all-knowing God, who apparently knew from the very beginning exactly what biochemistry and environment were required to fulfil his one and only goal (us and our food), have needed to “develop advanced biochemistry” and to subject himself to the limitations of environmental changes beyond his control? Could you possibly mean that he was learning more and more about how to use biochemistry as he “developed” it through his ongoing experiments? According to you, the Cambrian proved that he could create our ancestors from scratch. He didn’t need to design any of the species that preceded us. And why do you keep avoiding the word “species”?

Strange question. I have constantly discussed species and God's speciation. An all-knowing God does not need experimentation. More evidence you don't know how to think about God.

Environment

DAVID: Accepting that we evolved, my view is God CHOSE to evolve us from Archaea.

dhw: Absolutely no problem for me. If he exists, he also CHOSE to evolve millions of other life forms from Archaea, and 99% of them had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose – us and our food. That is the starting point of our disagreement, which you have blatantly avoided even mentioning in your efforts to make out that your incomprehensible theory (only your God can understand it) is incomprehensible because I am confused. […]

DAVID: Your confusion is obvious. The giant bush of life for food is obvious. Eight million humans and growing. You usually grudgingly admit we must eat.

dhw: How many more times are you going to repeat this silly dodge? Every organism has to eat, and we humans need a giant bush. But that does not explain why your God created bushes in the past for organisms that had no connection with us and our food. You know this. As I keep reminding you, you wrote: “”The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.” (The capitals were your own.)

Those observations are true facts. Please start to recognize evolution is a continuum in which the present is built upon past events!!!


DAVID: When will you see that evolution produces that sort of survival rate as part of the process, as Raup shows?

dhw: The basis of our disagreement is the very fact that 99% did not survive, but evolution according to you is not the agent of their non-survival, because according to you it is your God who deliberately designed them not to survive, and since they had no connection with his one and only goal, you have no idea why he designed them in the first place.

Your usual fatuous complaint. As above, evolution is a continuum in which the present forms are built from past discarded forms. How else does evolution work? Describe your invention.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Friday, March 24, 2023, 15:23 (370 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: Evolution with its low survival rate happened. So we must deal with its facts. Since I assume God created everything, it is obvious to conclude He chose to evolve us over time. Why do you struggle with this logic?

dhw: No struggle. If he exists, however, he also chose to evolve (though by “evolve” you mean individually design) every other creature that ever existed, including 99% that did not lead to us or our food, although you say we and our food were his one and only goal. Why do you keep making vague generalizations which ignore the specific details that make your theory so illogical?

The generalizations are very specific. The evolutionary process is a sorting process reaching toward more and more complex forms. The tiny survival rate is proven and not surprising. The huge resulting bush of life is purposeful as a necessary food supply for now eight million humans. Your details are spurious distortions of these facts.


DAVID: As for a goal or goals for God, humans are obvious. God may well have others not so obvious.

dhw: With this statement, you have opened a promising door. Please name what you think might have been his other goals. […]

I said 'may well have', a supposition. Recognize it for such.


DAVID: He only added oxygen when it was necessary, no control over day-to-day environmental changes.

dhw: We are not talking about day-to-day changes. For example, forests turning into deserts, and asteroids causing mass extinctions, are not day-to-day changes.

Agreed, much longer intervals.


DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]

dhw :[…] his lack of control over the environment (= reliance on luck) makes total nonsense of your theory that your God is in total control! It only makes sense if your God deliberately created a system which functioned independently of his control.

DAVID: Exactly my point about Earth's weather and environment.

dhw: I thought your point was that your God didn’t depend on luck. But his lack of control over weather and environment meant luck determined what he could and couldn’t design under current conditions. You also believe that luck determined which organisms failed to adapt when conditions changed, and so luck determined which 1% survived for him to work on at the next stage (until the Cambrian, when he started all over again).

Raup: organism's bad luck results in low survival.


dhw: […] If God exists, I’m perfectly happy to believe that he used scientific methods to change the course of evolution this way and that. It fits in with two of my three alternative theories. It is you who insisted that he had no control over the environment, and now you are going out of your way to show how he controlled the environment. […]

DAVID: in my view God is in total control of what has to be controlled for God to continue evolving more and more life. Snowball Earth is proof enough.

dhw: Another vague generalization which avoids the subject of our dispute: Why “more and more life”, if 99% of it was irrelevant to what you claim was his one and only purpose?

Again you refuse to accept evolution for the process it actually is. The losses are required in any screening process!!


dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: I allegorically meant exactly what I wrote.

dhw: What do the words “enjoy”, “watch” and “interest” symbolize? The word “allegorically” is meaningless in this context, and you know it. Yes, you meant what you said, just as you meant what you said when you wrote that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. And why wouldn’t he? Why should he NOT create beings which in certain ways will be in his own image – especially if, as you once suggested, he wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him?

DAVID: I'm following Adler's instructions on how to think about God. It is a whole short book.

dhw: Please stop hiding behind Adler. You are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, and you know perfectly well what those words mean.

I will not stop quoting Adler, my mentor in how to think about God. You exhibit no such guidence

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Saturday, March 25, 2023, 08:01 (370 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE
More juxtaposing by me, but there is still a lot of repetition as I feel obliged to tackle each of David’s dodges.

DAVID: Evolution with its low survival rate happened. So we must deal with its facts. Since I assume God created everything, it is obvious to conclude He chose to evolve us over time. Why do you struggle with this logic?

dhw: No struggle. If he exists, however, he also chose to evolve (though by “evolve” you mean individually design) every other creature that ever existed, including 99% that did not lead to us or our food, although you say we and our food were his one and only goal. Why do you keep making vague generalizations which ignore the specific details that make your theory so illogical?

DAVID: The generalizations are very specific. The evolutionary process is a sorting process reaching toward more and more complex forms.

Agreed. But that does not explain why your God, whose only purpose was to design us and our food, would deliberately design countless life forms, 99% of which had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: The tiny survival rate is proven and not surprising.

Yes, it is proven. What is not proven is your illogical combination of God’s purpose and what you call his messy, inefficient and cumbersome method of achieving it.

DAVID: The huge resulting bush of life is purposeful as a necessary food supply for now eight million humans. Your details are spurious distortions of these facts.

dhw: How many more times are you going to repeat this silly dodge? Every organism has to eat, and we humans need a giant bush. But that does not explain why your God created bushes in the past for organisms that had no connection with us and our food. You know this. As I keep reminding you, you wrote: “”The current bush of food is NOW for humans NOW. There were smaller bushes in the PAST for PAST forms.” And “Extinct life has no role in current time.”

DAVID: Those observations are true facts. Please start to recognize evolution is a continuum in which the present is built upon past events!!!

Of course they are true facts. But the present is built on 1% of past events, and 99% of past events had no connection with the present, as stated by you in the bold! Please stop dodging!

DAVID: As for a goal or goals for God, humans are obvious. God may well have others not so obvious.

dhw: With this statement, you have opened a promising door. Please name what you think might have been his other goals. […]

DAVID: I said 'may well have', a supposition. Recognize it for such.

Door closed! Every theory about God – including his very existence - is a supposition, since nobody knows him! Why should inexplicable suppositions – yours make sense only to God - be more likely than others which fit in with the history of life as we know it?

The environment

DAVID: He only added oxygen when it was necessary, no control over day-to-day environmental changes.

dhw: We are not talking about day-to-day changes. For example, forests turning into deserts, and asteroids causing mass extinctions, are not day-to-day changes.

DAVID: Agreed, much longer intervals.

See later for your volte face.

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]

dhw: […] his lack of control over weather and environment meant luck determined what he could and couldn’t design under current conditions. You also believe luck determined which organisms failed to adapt when conditions changed, and so luck determined which 1% survived for him to work on at the next stage (until the Cambrian, when he started all over again).
DAVID: Raup: organism's bad luck results in low survival.

Yes, in your theory it was their bad luck that your God had failed to give them adaptability to the new conditions, as above. And now for the volte face:

Supernovas and biodiversity

QUOTE: […] there’s a long history of Earth being affected by past cosmic events.[…] it’s possible that one effect of a supernova is a change in Earth’s climate. “A high number of supernovae leads to a cold climate with a large temperature difference between the equator and polar regions…

DAVID: This study says the cosmologic events change the Earth's environment. I stand by my theory that God does interfere with or control these events. They happen and whatever results pop up God designs for them, no luck ever needed. […]

Yesterday your God was NOT in control of such major environmental changes as forests turning into deserts (the result of changes in climate) and asteroids hitting the Earth, but today your theory is that he DOES control such events!!! And so instead of adapting to the vagaries of chance (no control over the environment), he now deliberately changes the environment, but is still limited to what is possible under the new conditions, and therefore still designs new species, 99% of which are irrelevant to his one and only purpose. Your beliefs change so rapidly that perhaps by next week you’ll be telling us that all this confirms the theory that your God experiments with different conditions and different life forms. :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Saturday, March 25, 2023, 08:09 (370 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: in my view God is in total control of what has to be controlled for God to continue evolving more and more life. Snowball Earth is proof enough.

dhw: Another vague generalization which avoids the subject of our dispute: Why “more and more life”, if 99% of it was irrelevant to what you claim was his one and only purpose?

DAVID: Again you refuse to accept evolution for the process it actually is. The losses are required in any screening process!!
And later:
DAVID: […] evolution is a continuum in which the present forms are built from past discarded forms. How else does evolution work? Describe your invention

How many other of your God’s evolutions of life do you know about? If he is the creator of all things, he invented the evolutionary process that resulted in every life form that ever existed on Earth. But why would an all-powerful God have invented a method that forced him to deliberately design species of which 99 out of 100 were irrelevant to what you say was his purpose? The answer should be that he would not have done so, and therefore your “suppositions” concerning either his purpose or his method could be wrong! How does evolution work? Present forms are built from the 1% of survivors from the past, e.g. one small group of dinosaurs evolved into the birds we know today, whereas all other dinosaurs were dead ends that did not lead to any of the life forms that exist today. “Screening” is the obvious process we call “natural selection”, which removes organs and organisms that cannot adapt to new conditions.

Abuse of language

dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: I allegorically meant exactly what I wrote.

dhw: What do the words “enjoy”, “watch” and “interest” symbolize? The word “allegorically” is meaningless in this context, and you know it. Yes, you meant what you said, just as you meant what you said when you wrote that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. And why wouldn’t he? Why should he NOT create beings which in certain ways will be in his own image – especially if, as you once suggested, he wants us to admire his work and have a relationship with him?

DAVID: I'm following Adler's instructions on how to think about God. It is a whole short book.

dhw: Please stop hiding behind Adler. You are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, and you know perfectly well what those words mean.

DAVID: I will not stop quoting Adler, my mentor in how to think about God. You exhibit no such guidance.

If you tell me you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, why on earth should I accept your claim that these words don’t mean what you and I think they mean because Adler tells you how to think about God? Why do you make such statements about God if the words don’t mean what you say? You are making a mockery of language. :-(

Common descent

dhw: Why would your all-powerful, all-knowing God, who apparently knew from the very beginning exactly what biochemistry and environment were required to fulfil his one and only goal (us and our food), have needed to “develop advanced biochemistry” and to subject himself to the limitations of environmental changes beyond his control? Could you possibly mean that he was learning more and more about how to use biochemistry as he “developed” it through his ongoing experiments? According to you, the Cambrian proved that he could create our ancestors from scratch. He didn’t need to design any of the species that preceded us. […]

DAVID: […] An all-knowing God does not need experimentation. More evidence you don't know how to think about God.

Of course an all-knowing God doesn’t need experimentation! But since experimentation would explain why he deliberately created the 99% of life forms which do not fit in with your suppositions about his purpose and his method, we are faced with the possibility that he is NOT all-knowing, and created those forms during a process of learning how to fulfil the purpose you impose on him, or of finding out the full potential of what he had invented. You yourself actually called the 99% “failed experiments” when you were promoting the theory that your marvellous designer blundered from one mistake to another with his faulty designs.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 25, 2023, 16:35 (369 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: How many other of your God’s evolutions of life do you know about? If he is the creator of all things, he invented the evolutionary process that resulted in every life form that ever existed on Earth. But why would an all-powerful God have invented a method that forced him to deliberately design species of which 99 out of 100 were irrelevant to what you say was his purpose? The answer should be that he would not have done so, and therefore your “suppositions” concerning either his purpose or his method could be wrong!

That is exactly the point you made years ago. Your doubts about why God did it that way do not negate my interpretation: He chose the method. We are an unexpected endpoint from you Darwinian point of view. Adler used my viewpoint to present his proof of God, treating evolution exactly as I do.

Abuse of language

dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: I allegorically meant exactly what I wrote.

dhw: Please stop hiding behind Adler. You are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, and you know perfectly well what those words mean.

DAVID: I will not stop quoting Adler, my mentor in how to think about God. You exhibit no such guidance.

dhw: If you tell me you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, why on earth should I accept your claim that these words don’t mean what you and I think they mean because Adler tells you how to think about God? Why do you make such statements about God if the words don’t mean what you say? You are making a mockery of language. :-(

The words mean the same to both of us. We can debate about God in our terms, but as they apply to God they are allegorical. Pure Adler teaching!! ;-) :-)


Common descent

dhw: Why would your all-powerful, all-knowing God, who apparently knew from the very beginning exactly what biochemistry and environment were required to fulfil his one and only goal (us and our food), have needed to “develop advanced biochemistry” and to subject himself to the limitations of environmental changes beyond his control? Could you possibly mean that he was learning more and more about how to use biochemistry as he “developed” it through his ongoing experiments? According to you, the Cambrian proved that he could create our ancestors from scratch. He didn’t need to design any of the species that preceded us. […]

DAVID: […] An all-knowing God does not need experimentation. More evidence you don't know how to think about God.

dhw: Of course an all-knowing God doesn’t need experimentation! But since experimentation would explain why he deliberately created the 99% of life forms which do not fit in with your suppositions about his purpose and his method, we are faced with the possibility that he is NOT all-knowing, and created those forms during a process of learning how to fulfil the purpose you impose on him, or of finding out the full potential of what he had invented. You yourself actually called the 99% “failed experiments” when you were promoting the theory that your marvellous designer blundered from one mistake to another with his faulty designs.

The bold shows you love to dredge up past comments, no longer applicable in this present debate. A God who invented our complex universe, developed a very special Earth, then invented life is no bumbling experimenter. You constantly ignore a precisely important point I have presented over and over. God prefers to start and then evolve!!! Big Bang, then evolution to the current form of the universe. Early Earth is not what it has presently evolved into. Started life, no mean feat, and then evolved it. Patent proof God prefers using evolutionary methods,

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 25, 2023, 15:53 (369 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, March 25, 2023, 16:00

PART ONE

DAVID: The generalizations are very specific. The evolutionary process is a sorting process reaching toward more and more complex forms.

dhw: Agreed. But that does not explain why your God, whose only purpose was to design us and our food, would deliberately design countless life forms, 99% of which had no connection with us and our food.

You agree to my definition and then immediately deny it. "Sorting" means eliminating forms! One line of eliminations became us, massive other lines become our food. We use every living form as aspects of our food.

DAVID: As for a goal or goals for God, humans are obvious. God may well have others not so obvious.

dhw: With this statement, you have opened a promising door. Please name what you think might have been his other goals. […]

DAVID: I said 'may well have', a supposition. Recognize it for such.

hw: Door closed! Every theory about God – including his very existence - is a supposition, since nobody knows him! Why should inexplicable suppositions – yours make sense only to God - be more likely than others which fit in with the history of life as we know it?

Of course God's actions make sense to Him!


The environment

DAVID: He only added oxygen when it was necessary, no control over day-to-day environmental changes.

dhw: We are not talking about day-to-day changes. For example, forests turning into deserts, and asteroids causing mass extinctions, are not day-to-day changes.

DAVID: Agreed, much longer intervals.

dhw: See later for your volte face.

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]

dhw: […] his lack of control over weather and environment meant luck determined what he could and couldn’t design under current conditions. You also believe luck determined which organisms failed to adapt when conditions changed, and so luck determined which 1% survived for him to work on at the next stage (until the Cambrian, when he started all over again).
DAVID: Raup: organism's bad luck results in low survival.

dhw: Yes, in your theory it was their bad luck that your God had failed to give them adaptability to the new conditions, as above. And now for the volte face:

Supernovas and biodiversity

QUOTE: […] there’s a long history of Earth being affected by past cosmic events.[…] it’s possible that one effect of a supernova is a change in Earth’s climate. “A high number of supernovae leads to a cold climate with a large temperature difference between the equator and polar regions…

DAVID: This study says the cosmologic events change the Earth's environment. I stand by my theory that God does[not]interfere with or control these events. They happen and whatever results pop up God designs for them, no luck ever needed. […]

dhw: Yesterday your God was NOT in control of such major environmental changes as forests turning into deserts (the result of changes in climate) and asteroids hitting the Earth, but today your theory is that he DOES control such events!!! And so instead of adapting to the vagaries of chance (no control over the environment), he now deliberately changes the environment, but is still limited to what is possible under the new conditions, and therefore still designs new species, 99% of which are irrelevant to his one and only purpose. Your beliefs change so rapidly that perhaps by next week you’ll be telling us that all this confirms the theory that your God experiments with different conditions and different life forms. :-)

Sorry for the typing error. Not is reinserted where it belongs. The next sentence fits the 'not'. My general views never change. And you can't change them by constantly producing gross distortions of interpretations of my entries.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Sunday, March 26, 2023, 12:49 (368 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: The generalizations are very specific. The evolutionary process is a sorting process reaching toward more and more complex forms.

dhw: Agreed. But that does not explain why your God, whose only purpose was to design us and our food, would deliberately design countless life forms, 99% of which had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: You agree to my definition and then immediately deny it. "Sorting" means eliminating forms! One line of eliminations became us, massive other lines become our food. We use every living form as aspects of our food.

More silly equivocations. The focal point of our disagreement is not on living forms but on the extinct forms which had no connection with us or our food. The living forms that contribute to our food supply or the ecosystems that give rise to it are descended from the 1% of past survivors, not from the 99% that had no connection with us or our food.

DAVID: As for a goal or goals for God, humans are obvious. God may well have others not so obvious.

dhw: With this statement, you have opened a promising door. Please name what you think might have been his other goals. […]

DAVID: I said 'may well have', a supposition. Recognize it for such.

dhw: Door closed! Every theory about God – including his very existence - is a supposition, since nobody knows him! Why should inexplicable suppositions – yours make sense only to God - be more likely than others which fit in with the history of life as we know it?

DAVID: Of course God's actions make sense to Him!

Another equivocation. You have left out the all-important “only”. If your theory makes sense only to God, it does not make sense to you. Meanwhile, do please tell us what suppositions you have concerning possible "other goals".

The environment

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]

dhw: […] his lack of control over weather and environment meant luck determined what he could and couldn’t design under current conditions. You also believe luck determined which organisms failed to adapt when conditions changed, and so luck determined which 1% survived for him to work on at the next stage (until the Cambrian, when he started all over again).

DAVID: Raup: organism's bad luck results in low survival.

dhw: Yes, in your theory it was their bad luck that your God had failed to give them adaptability to the new conditions, as above.

I have left this in, because you continue to deny that luck was involved, and so this section still stands in need of comment from you.

Supernovas and biodiversity

QUOTE: […] there’s a long history of Earth being affected by past cosmic events.[…] it’s possible that one effect of a supernova is a change in Earth’s climate. “A high number of supernovae leads to a cold climate with a large temperature difference between the equator and polar regions…

DAVID: This study says the cosmologic events change the Earth's environment. I stand by my theory that God does [not] interfere with or control these events. They happen and whatever results pop up God designs for them, no luck ever needed. […]

dhw: Yesterday your God was NOT in control of such major environmental changes as forests turning into deserts (the result of changes in climate) and asteroids hitting the Earth, but today your theory is that he DOES control such events!!!

DAVID: Sorry for the typing error. Not is reinserted where it belongs. The next sentence fits the 'not'. My general views never change. And you can't change them by constantly producing gross distortions of interpretations of my entries.

I really don’t think I should be blamed for your typing error, which totally reverses what you meant, and even emphasizes it! Back we go, then, to my above response to your denial of “luck”, which you ignored, although we should not forget the fact that you also believe your God did interfere with the environment by specially designing the oxygen supply which enabled him to design our ancestors without predecessors during the Cambrian. You constantly accuse me of gross distortions, but you have never given me an example. Please do so.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Sunday, March 26, 2023, 12:54 (368 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: How many other of your God’s evolutions of life do you know about? If he is the creator of all things, he invented the evolutionary process that resulted in every life form that ever existed on Earth. But why would an all-powerful God have invented a method that forced him to deliberately design species of which 99 out of 100 were irrelevant to what you say was his purpose? The answer should be that he would not have done so, and therefore your “suppositions” concerning either his purpose or his method could be wrong!

DAVID: That is exactly the point you made years ago. Your doubts about why God did it that way do not negate my interpretation: He chose the method. […]

They are not doubts about why God did it that way! The doubt is WHETHER he would have chosen a method which you call messy, inefficient and cumbersome to achieve what you say was his only purpose. I suggest that either your all-powerful God did not design life for the one and only purpose of producing us and our food, or if that was his purpose, he used a method which was not messy or inefficient or cumbersome. Your only objection to my three alternatives is that your messy, inefficient and cumbersome God is less human and more godlike than one who succeeds in doing precisely what he wants to do.

Abuse of language

dhw: […] One moment he watches with interest, and the next moment the words mean he’s not interested..

DAVID: I allegorically meant exactly what I wrote.

dhw: If you tell me you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, why on earth should I accept your claim that these words don’t mean what you and I think they mean because Adler tells you how to think about God? Why do you make such statements about God if the words don’t mean what you say? You are making a mockery of language. :-(

DAVID: The words mean the same to both of us. We can debate about God in our terms, but as they apply to God they are allegorical. Pure Adler teaching!! ;-) :-)

You specifically applied the words to God, and so long as the words mean the same to both of us, there is no point in pretending that YOU do not believe your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest. :-)

Common descent

DAVID: […] An all-knowing God does not need experimentation. More evidence you don't know how to think about God.

dhw: Of course an all-knowing God doesn’t need experimentation! But since experimentation would explain why he deliberately created the 99% of life forms which do not fit in with your suppositions about his purpose and his method, we are faced with the possibility that he is NOT all-knowing, and created those forms during a process of learning how to fulfil the purpose you impose on him, or of finding out the full potential of what he had invented. You yourself actually called the 99% “failed experiments” when you were promoting the theory that your marvellous designer blundered from one mistake to another with his faulty designs.

DAVID: The bold shows you love to dredge up past comments, no longer applicable in this present debate.

Contrast this with your statement “my general views never change”. I am of course delighted that you finally abandoned your derogatory theory about your God’s blunders, but why should I accept a word you say now if in a few weeks’ time you are going to tell me to ignore them. This is exactly what you have done with your statements about God having thought patterns and emotions like ours, and what you are trying to do with your nonsense about “allegorical” enjoyment and interest. Why are you so dead set against the idea that, instead of your God being forced by his own invented system to design 99% of species that were irrelevant to what he wanted to design, he deliberately and successfully experimented with different life forms, either in order to find the best formula for a being spiritually in his own image, or to find out the full potential of his invention (life)?

DAVID: A God who invented our complex universe, developed a very special Earth, then invented life is no bumbling experimenter. You constantly ignore a precisely important point I have presented over and over. God prefers to start and then evolve!!! Big Bang, then evolution to the current form of the universe. Early Earth is not what it has presently evolved into. Started life, no mean feat, and then evolved it. Patent proof God prefers using evolutionary methods.

The same old dodge. I am not denying that if he exists he used evolutionary methods! I believe evolution is historical fact! But none of this excludes the possibility that if he exists, the evolution of life – including the 99% of its non-survivors – is the history of a wonderfully successful, ongoing experiment, as opposed to the deliberate creation of an inefficient and cumbersome mess.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 26, 2023, 17:07 (368 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: That is exactly the point you made years ago. Your doubts about why God did it that way do not negate my interpretation: He chose the method. […]

dhw: They are not doubts about why God did it that way! The doubt is WHETHER he would have chosen a method which you call messy, inefficient and cumbersome to achieve what you say was his only purpose. I suggest that either your all-powerful God did not design life for the one and only purpose of producing us and our food, or if that was his purpose, he used a method which was not messy or inefficient or cumbersome. Your only objection to my three alternatives is that your messy, inefficient and cumbersome God is less human and more godlike than one who succeeds in doing precisely what he wants to do.

Only one evolution occurred. Whether neat or messy, we are here. That is/was God's obvious prime purpose. Our individual views of God are light-years apart. But as we each stick to our views their will b e little agreement.


Abuse of language

dhw: If you tell me you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, why on earth should I accept your claim that these words don’t mean what you and I think they mean because Adler tells you how to think about God? Why do you make such statements about God if the words don’t mean what you say? You are making a mockery of language. :-(

DAVID: The words mean the same to both of us. We can debate about God in our terms, but as they apply to God they are allegorical. Pure Adler teaching!! ;-) :-)

dhw: You specifically applied the words to God, and so long as the words mean the same to both of us, there is no point in pretending that YOU do not believe your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest. :-)

He may well. ;-)


Common descent

DAVID: […] An all-knowing God does not need experimentation. More evidence you don't know how to think about God.

dhw: Of course an all-knowing God doesn’t need experimentation! But since experimentation would explain why he deliberately created the 99% of life forms which do not fit in with your suppositions about his purpose and his method, we are faced with the possibility that he is NOT all-knowing, and created those forms during a process of learning how to fulfil the purpose you impose on him, or of finding out the full potential of what he had invented. You yourself actually called the 99% “failed experiments” when you were promoting the theory that your marvellous designer blundered from one mistake to another with his faulty designs.

DAVID: The bold shows you love to dredge up past comments, no longer applicable in this present debate.

dhw: Contrast this with your statement “my general views never change”. I am of course delighted that you finally abandoned your derogatory theory about your God’s blunders, but why should I accept a word you say now if in a few weeks’ time you are going to tell me to ignore them. This is exactly what you have done with your statements about God having thought patterns and emotions like ours, and what you are trying to do with your nonsense about “allegorical” enjoyment and interest. Why are you so dead set against the idea that, instead of your God being forced by his own invented system to design 99% of species that were irrelevant to what he wanted to design, he deliberately and successfully experimented with different life forms, either in order to find the best formula for a being spiritually in his own image, or to find out the full potential of his invention (life)?

The bold is one of the obvious distortions you constantly create. None of the 99% were irrelevant to God's purpose. Since God produced them, they were required in God's eyes. The red comment is the usual totally humanized God theory.


DAVID: A God who invented our complex universe, developed a very special Earth, then invented life is no bumbling experimenter. You constantly ignore a precisely important point I have presented over and over. God prefers to start and then evolve!!! Big Bang, then evolution to the current form of the universe. Early Earth is not what it has presently evolved into. Started life, no mean feat, and then evolved it. Patent proof God prefers using evolutionary methods.

dhw: The same old dodge. I am not denying that if he exists he used evolutionary methods! I believe evolution is historical fact! But none of this excludes the possibility that if he exists, the evolution of life – including the 99% of its non-survivors – is the history of a wonderfully successful, ongoing experiment, as opposed to the deliberate creation of an inefficient and cumbersome mess.

Thank you for defending God. God's handling of evolution was magniicent. He produced our brain!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 26, 2023, 16:31 (368 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, March 26, 2023, 16:43

PART ONE

DAVID: The generalizations are very specific. The evolutionary process is a sorting process reaching toward more and more complex forms.

dhw: Agreed. But that does not explain why your God, whose only purpose was to design us and our food, would deliberately design countless life forms, 99% of which had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: You agree to my definition and then immediately deny it. "Sorting" means eliminating forms! One line of eliminations became us, massive other lines become our food. We use every living form as aspects of our food.

dhw: More silly equivocations. The focal point of our disagreement is not on living forms but on the extinct forms which had no connection with us or our food. The living forms that contribute to our food supply or the ecosystems that give rise to it are descended from the 1% of past survivors, not from the 99% that had no connection with us or our food.

Elimination is what evolution does. What else does sorting mean? Of course the process arrives at a very small set of survivors. You are creating an argument against the process itself! The process is what happened, and I view it as God-created, while you stick to God shouldn't have done it that way. So you end up arguing against history.


dhw: Every theory about God – including his very existence - is a supposition, since nobody knows him! Why should inexplicable suppositions – yours make sense only to God - be more likely than others which fit in with the history of life as we know it?

DAVID: Of course God's actions make sense to Him!

dhw: Another equivocation. You have left out the all-important “only”. If your theory makes sense only to God, it does not make sense to you. Meanwhile, do please tell us what suppositions you have concerning possible "other goals".

More word play. I accept what God created as His intentions, for his own unknown reasons. I don't have suppositions about God's other goals, if any, as I have concentrated on the obvious one, producing humans just as Adler did.


The environment

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]

dhw: […] his lack of control over weather and environment meant luck determined what he could and couldn’t design under current conditions. You also believe luck determined which organisms failed to adapt when conditions changed, and so luck determined which 1% survived for him to work on at the next stage (until the Cambrian, when he started all over again).

DAVID: Raup: organism's bad luck results in low survival.

dhw: Yes, in your theory it was their bad luck that your God had failed to give them adaptability to the new conditions, as above.

I have left this in, because you continue to deny that luck was involved, and so this section still stands in need of comment from you.

Back to Raup. Organisms had bad luck in not surviving. God never had to deal with bad luck since whatever were the environmental conditions, He could design for it. Snowball Earth!!


Supernovas and biodiversity

QUOTE: […] there’s a long history of Earth being affected by past cosmic events.[…] it’s possible that one effect of a supernova is a change in Earth’s climate. “A high number of supernovae leads to a cold climate with a large temperature difference between the equator and polar regions…

DAVID: This study says the cosmologic events change the Earth's environment. I stand by my theory that God does [not] interfere with or control these events. They happen and whatever results pop up God designs for them, no luck ever needed. […]

dhw: Yesterday your God was NOT in control of such major environmental changes as forests turning into deserts (the result of changes in climate) and asteroids hitting the Earth, but today your theory is that he DOES control such events!!!

DAVID: Sorry for the typing error. Not is reinserted where it belongs. The next sentence fits the 'not'. My general views never change. And you can't change them by constantly producing gross distortions of interpretations of my entries.

dhw: I really don’t think I should be blamed for your typing error, which totally reverses what you meant, and even emphasizes it! Back we go, then, to my above response to your denial of “luck”, which you ignored, although we should not forget the fact that you also believe your God did interfere with the environment by specially designing the oxygen supply which enabled him to design our ancestors without predecessors during the Cambrian. You constantly accuse me of gross distortions, but you have never given me an example. Please do so.

You are not to be blamed if I mistype. You should never pounce on my startling change of theory. I've never done that and have been very consistent with sudden gross reversals. Please question the reversal. I declared distortions every time you produced them. The record is clear. The most famous one is I blithely accept your theological theories as 'logical'. My statement from years ago was they were consistently logical only with a highly humanized form of God, therefore not the God I accept .

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Monday, March 27, 2023, 08:59 (368 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: Elimination is what evolution does. What else does sorting mean? Of course the process arrives at a very small set of survivors. You are creating an argument against the process itself! The process is what happened, and I view it as God-created, while you stick to God shouldn't have done it that way. So you end up arguing against history.

I’m not arguing against the process! Yet again you dodge the issue: why if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, would he deliberately have designed 99% of non-survivors which had no connection with us and our food? It doesn’t make sense, and so I look for other reasons why your God might have created the 99%.

dhw: […] Why should inexplicable suppositions – yours make sense only to God - be more likely than others which fit in with the history of life as we know it?

DAVID: Of course God's actions make sense to Him!

dhw: Another equivocation. You have left out the all-important “only”. If your theory makes sense only to God, it does not make sense to you. Meanwhile, do please tell us what suppositions you have concerning possible "other goals".

DAVID: More word play. I accept what God created as His intentions, for his own unknown reasons.

If God exists, I have no doubt that he created what he intended to create. All three of my alternatives have him doing precisely that for perfectly logical reasons (see later).

DAVID: I don't have suppositions about God's other goals, if any, as I have concentrated on the obvious one, producing humans just as Adler did.

Then please stop using the word “goals”, which you know would open the door to alternative theories. You remain stuck with your one goal, and the illogicality of an all-powerful God who achieves it through a process you deride as an inefficient, cumbersome mess.

The environment

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]

dhw: […] his lack of control over weather and environment meant luck determined what he could and couldn’t design under current conditions. You also believe luck determined which organisms failed to adapt when conditions changed, and so luck determined which 1% survived for him to work on at the next stage (until the Cambrian, when he started all over again).

DAVID: Back to Raup. Organisms had bad luck in not surviving. God never had to deal with bad luck since whatever were the environmental conditions, He could design for it. Snowball Earth!!

You never stop dodging. The point is not that your God had bad luck! Organisms had bad luck because his design did not allow them to adapt to new conditions. Since he had no control over conditions, he relied on luck to provide him with the 1% that did survive, and this process was repeated with every change, each of which limited his scope for design. I also said he must have relied on luck to provide the conditions enabling him to design the only organisms he wanted to design, but at that point you modified your theory, because suddenly he did control the environment by organizing an extra supply of oxygen (the Cambrian).

Supernovas and biodiversity

DAVID: This study says the cosmologic events change the Earth's environment. I stand by my theory that God does [not] interfere with or control these events. They happen and whatever results pop up God designs for them, no luck ever needed. […]

dhw: Yesterday your God was NOT in control […] but today your theory is that he DOES control such events!!!

DAVID: Sorry for the typing error. Not is reinserted where it belongs. The next sentence fits the 'not'. My general views never change. And you can't change them by constantly producing gross distortions of interpretations of my entries.

dhw: I really don’t think I should be blamed for your typing error, which totally reverses what you meant, and even emphasizes it. […] You constantly accuse me of gross distortions, but you have never given me an example. Please do so.

DAVID: You are not to be blamed if I mistype. You should never pounce on my startling change of theory. I've never done that and have been very consistent with sudden gross reversals. Please question the reversal.

Is there a misprint here too? I have listed some of your sudden gross reversals, and they generally coincide with the fact that those particular theories actually support my own. Which reversal would you like me to question?

DAVID: I declared distortions every time you produced them. The record is clear. The most famous one is I blithely accept your theological theories as 'logical'. My statement from years ago was they were consistently logical only with a highly humanized form of God, therefore not the God I accept.

The theory that your God might have produced the 99% because he enjoyed creating them and was interested in watching them only becomes illogical if you know that he doesn’t enjoy/isn’t interested, but you are sure he does and is! No distortion. Your rejection of my other theories because you view God differently does not alter their logic, which you acknowledge fits in with the history of life! Please try again.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Monday, March 27, 2023, 09:08 (368 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID:[…] . Your doubts about why God did it that way do not negate my interpretation: He chose the method. […]

dhw: They are not doubts about why God did it that way! The doubt is WHETHER he would have chosen a method which you call messy, inefficient and cumbersome to achieve what you say was his only purpose. I suggest that either your all-powerful God did not design life for the one and only purpose of producing us and our food, or if that was his purpose, he used a method which was not messy or inefficient or cumbersome. […]

DAVID: Only one evolution occurred. Whether neat or messy, we are here. That is/was God's obvious prime purpose.

Why “prime” purpose? I’ve challenged you to tell us what other purposes you might “suppose”, and you say there are none. The fact that we are here is not obviously his one and only purpose, because it doesn’t explain why he designed 99% of life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: Our individual views of God are light-years apart. But as we each stick to our views their will be little agreement.

So we analyse our views to see how convincing they are. Yours is that your God’s use of evolution is inefficient, cumbersome and messy, whereas mine all have him doing precisely what he wanted, without any of these derogatory characteristics.

Abuse of language

dhw: If you tell me you are sure your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest, why on earth should I accept your claim that these words don’t mean what you and I think they mean? […]
And:
dhw: so long as the words mean the same to both of us, there is no point in pretending that YOU do not believe your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest.

DAVID: He may well.

Thank you. That means the theory may well be right.

Common descent

DAVID: […] An all-knowing God does not need experimentation. More evidence you don't know how to think about God.

dhw: […] You yourself actually called the 99% “failed experiments” when you were promoting the theory that your marvellous designer blundered from one mistake to another with his faulty designs.

DAVID: The bold shows you love to dredge up past comments, no longer applicable in this present debate.

dhw: Contrast this with your statement “my general views never change”. I am of course delighted that you finally abandoned your derogatory theory about your God’s blunders, but why should I accept a word you say now if in a few weeks’ time you are going to tell me to ignore them. This is exactly what you have done with your statements about God having thought patterns and emotions like ours, and what you are trying to do with your nonsense about “allegorical” enjoyment and interest.

All ignored.

dhw: Why are you so dead set against the idea that, instead of your God being forced by his own invented system to design 99% of species that were irrelevant to what he wanted to design, he deliberately and successfully experimented with different life forms, either in order to find the best formula for a being spiritually in his own image, or to find out the full potential of his invention (life)?

DAVID: The bold is one of the obvious distortions you constantly create. None of the 99% were irrelevant to God's purpose. Since God produced them, they were required in God's eyes.

Required for what??? How can extinct species which were dead ends that did not lead either to us or our food have been required for the design of us and our food? Please explain why your God could not have designed us and our food if he hadn’t first designed the brontosaurus (which did NOT belong to the species which evolved into birds).

DAVID: The red comment is the usual totally humanized God theory.

Your usual silly objection to your God having thought patterns and emotions like ours, although you believe he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: […] You constantly ignore a precisely important point I have presented over and over. God prefers to start and then evolve!!! Big Bang, then evolution to the current form of the universe. Early Earth is not what it has presently evolved into. Started life, no mean feat, and then evolved it. Patent proof God prefers using evolutionary methods.

dhw: The same old dodge. I am not denying that if he exists he used evolutionary methods! […] But none of this excludes the possibility that if he exists, the evolution of life – including the 99% of its non-survivors – is the history of a wonderfully successful, ongoing experiment, as opposed to the deliberate creation of an inefficient and cumbersome mess.

DAVID: Thank you for defending God. God's handling of evolution was magniicent. He produced our brain!!

More language games: a system which you describe as an inefficient and cumbersome mess is magnificent. The three alternatives I have offered you also resulted in the human brain, but two of them were efficient experiments that produced no mess at all.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, March 27, 2023, 18:19 (367 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: Only one evolution occurred. Whether neat or messy, we are here. That is/was God's obvious prime purpose.

dhw: Why “prime” purpose? I’ve challenged you to tell us what other purposes you might “suppose”, and you say there are none. The fact that we are here is not obviously his one and only purpose, because it doesn’t explain why he designed 99% of life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

If you believe God chose to evolve us, it makes perfect sense. God may have other ancillary goals. I've never said 'none'.


DAVID: Our individual views of God are light-years apart. But as we each stick to our views their will be little agreement.

dhw: So we analyse our views to see how convincing they are. Yours is that your God’s use of evolution is inefficient, cumbersome and messy, whereas mine all have him doing precisely what he wanted, without any of these derogatory characteristics.

Thank you for defending MY God.


Common descent

DAVID: […] An all-knowing God does not need experimentation. More evidence you don't know how to think about God.

dhw: […] You yourself actually called the 99% “failed experiments” when you were promoting the theory that your marvellous designer blundered from one mistake to another with his faulty designs.

DAVID: The bold shows you love to dredge up past comments, no longer applicable in this present debate.

dhw: Contrast this with your statement “my general views never change”. I am of course delighted that you finally abandoned your derogatory theory about your God’s blunders, but why should I accept a word you say now if in a few weeks’ time you are going to tell me to ignore them. This is exactly what you have done with your statements about God having thought patterns and emotions like ours, and what you are trying to do with your nonsense about “allegorical” enjoyment and interest.

I will stick to what Adler taught me. Any description of God must be allegorical.


dhw: Why are you so dead set against the idea that, instead of your God being forced by his own invented system to design 99% of species that were irrelevant to what he wanted to design, he deliberately and successfully experimented with different life forms, either in order to find the best formula for a being spiritually in his own image, or to find out the full potential of his invention (life)?

DAVID: The bold is one of the obvious distortions you constantly create. None of the 99% were irrelevant to God's purpose. Since God produced them, they were required in God's eyes.

dhw: Required for what??? How can extinct species which were dead ends that did not lead either to us or our food have been required for the design of us and our food? Please explain why your God could not have designed us and our food if he hadn’t first designed the brontosaurus (which did NOT belong to the species which evolved into birds).

All part of a required screening pattern as evolution requires.


DAVID: The red comment is the usual totally humanized God theory.

dhw: Your usual silly objection to your God having thought patterns and emotions like ours, although you believe he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

It is more of your humanizing God beyond belief.


DAVID: Thank you for defending God. God's handling of evolution was magniicent. He produced our brain!!

dhw: More language games: a system which you describe as an inefficient and cumbersome mess is magnificent. The three alternatives I have offered you also resulted in the human brain, but two of them were efficient experiments that produced no mess at all.

A real 'theistic' God does not need experimentation. He knows what He wants to produce and produces it directly.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Monday, March 27, 2023, 18:04 (367 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: I’m not arguing against the process! Yet again you dodge the issue: why if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, would he deliberately have designed 99% of non-survivors which had no connection with us and our food? It doesn’t make sense, and so I look for other reasons why your God might have created the 99%.

It is your dodge, not mine. The living evolutionary process is historical fact, and it produced us. It much require screening with a 99.9% loss of individual species. It makes perfect sense, as a believer in God, to assume God chose to create us this way. Adler assumed this approach in His proof of God. The problem is you don't like God's choice.

dhw: […] Why should inexplicable suppositions – yours make sense only to God - be more likely than others which fit in with the history of life as we know it?

DAVID: Of course God's actions make sense to Him!

dhw: If God exists, I have no doubt that he created what he intended to create. All three of my alternatives have him doing precisely that for perfectly logical reasons (see later).

DAVID: I don't have suppositions about God's other goals, if any, as I have concentrated on the obvious one, producing humans just as Adler did.

dhw: Then please stop using the word “goals”, which you know would open the door to alternative theories. You remain stuck with your one goal, and the illogicality of an all-powerful God who achieves it through a process you deride as an inefficient, cumbersome mess.

Illogical only to you as a non-believer. And don't throw agnosticism at me. It is non-belief with a caveat of slight possibility.


The environment

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]

dhw: […] his lack of control over weather and environment meant luck determined what he could and couldn’t design under current conditions. You also believe luck determined which organisms failed to adapt when conditions changed, and so luck determined which 1% survived for him to work on at the next stage (until the Cambrian, when he started all over again).

DAVID: Back to Raup. Organisms had bad luck in not surviving. God never had to deal with bad luck since whatever were the environmental conditions, He could design for it. Snowball Earth!!

dhw: You never stop dodging. The point is not that your God had bad luck! Organisms had bad luck because his design did not allow them to adapt to new conditions. Since he had no control over conditions, he relied on luck to provide him with the 1% that did survive, and this process was repeated with every change, each of which limited his scope for design. I also said he must have relied on luck to provide the conditions enabling him to design the only organisms he wanted to design, but at that point you modified your theory, because suddenly he did control the environment by organizing an extra supply of oxygen (the Cambrian).

Environment/climate is based on Earth's position from the sun, sunspots, Earth's tilt, moon's gravitational effects, general fixed repeated patterns like El Nino/ La Nina in the Pacific. Oxygen is a similar general fixed condition for the environment/climate. Of course, God made those adjustments when indicated. After all, He is the creator. Snowball Earth tells us God can design for any eventuality. Your usual dodge of a complaint is a molehill, not a mountain .

Supernovas and biodiversity

DAVID: I declared distortions every time you produced them. The record is clear. The most famous one is I blithely accept your theological theories as 'logical'. My statement from years ago was they were consistently logical only with a highly humanized form of God, therefore not the God I accept.

dhw: The theory that your God might have produced the 99% because he enjoyed creating them and was interested in watching them only becomes illogical if you know that he doesn’t enjoy/isn’t interested, but you are sure he does and is! No distortion. Your rejection of my other theories because you view God differently does not alter their logic, which you acknowledge fits in with the history of life! Please try again.

As far as I am concerned, your type of God does not fit any theistic theory I have read. Your personal God is an outlier.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Monday, March 27, 2023, 20:24 (367 days ago) @ David Turell

: dhw: You never stop dodging. The point is not that your God had bad luck! Organisms had bad luck because his design did not allow them to adapt to new conditions. Since he had no control over conditions, he relied on luck to provide him with the 1% that did survive, and this process was repeated with every change, each of which limited his scope for design. I also said he must have relied on luck to provide the conditions enabling him to design the only organisms he wanted to design, but at that point you modified your theory, because suddenly he did control the environment by organizing an extra supply of oxygen (the Cambrian).

DAVID: Environment/climate is based on Earth's position from the sun, sunspots, Earth's tilt, moon's gravitational effects, general fixed repeated patterns like El Nino/ La Nina in the Pacific. Oxygen is a similar general fixed condition for the environment/climate. Of course, God made those adjustments when indicated. After all, He is the creator. Snowball Earth tells us God can design for any eventuality. Your usual dodge of a complaint is a molehill, not a mountain.

A new study for this discussion:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/03/230322190942.htm

"Dr Pete Russell, of the University of Otago's Department of Marine Science, and Dr Christopher Horvat, of the University of Auckland's Department of Physics, have published a study on the oceanic biological effect of Cyclone Oma which passed near Vanuatu in 2019.

"'While Oma was a relatively benign cyclone, it produced a massive phytoplankton bloom in its wake -- the single most abnormal event in the history of South Pacific chlorophyll measurements," Dr Russell says.

"'Such an extreme event can produce a large amount of biomass in a part of the ocean that is typically a biological desert. We don't yet know about the fate of this biomass, but one possibility is that it could end up on the bottom of the ocean, sequestering carbon."

***

"'Cyclones are one of the mechanisms that dissipate heat from the tropics. Warming oceans mean more heat to dissipate. This means more intense storms and perhaps longer storm seasons resulting in more storms.

"'By examining sediment cores from the last inter-glacial period, we may get a heads up on what cyclone activity to expect with ocean temperatures 1+ degrees higher than today," Dr Russell says.

"The pair found if a storm hovers above a patch of ocean long enough, physical interactions between the cyclone winds and ocean will cause water to rise near its eye, bringing nutrient rich water to the surface which seeds a phytoplankton bloom.

***

"'These cyclones can do amazing things -- other than have strong winds, they can also dramatically affect the plants and animals living in the upper ocean and change the cycling of carbon by leading to blooms.

"'Along with these bloom events in the open ocean, cyclone activity results in both coastal upwelling and runoff from the land that also deliver nutrients into the photic zone, generating blooms. These blooms could be an integral part of the local marine ecosystems of our Pacific neighbours supporting higher food chains," he says."

These major events are not major enough for God to exert controls. They are built in to happen randomly. They do not create such a disturbance that it makes God have 'luck' in trying to design evolutionary advances. "Luck" is dhw's illogical invention. Snowball Earth destroys his point.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Tuesday, March 28, 2023, 12:38 (366 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

dhw: I’m not arguing against the process! Yet again you dodge the issue: why if his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, would he deliberately have designed 99% of non-survivors which had no connection with us and our food? It doesn’t make sense, and so I look for other reasons why your God might have created the 99%.

DAVID: It is your dodge, not mine. The living evolutionary process is historical fact, and it produced us.

Correct. It also produced countless life forms that had no connection with us or our food.

DAVID: It much require screening with a 99.9% loss of individual species.
And later:
dhw: Please explain why your God could not have designed us and our food if he hadn’t first designed the brontosaurus (which did NOT belong to the species which evolved into birds).

DAVID: All part of a required screening pattern as evolution requires.

You forget that evolution did not “require” anything. You insist that your God invented and directed the process of evolution, which means that he obliged himself to create 99% of individual species that were not required for what you believe to have been his one and only purpose.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense, as a believer in God, to assume God chose to create us this way. Adler assumed this approach in His proof of God. The problem is you don't like God's choice.

Our discussion is about your God’s purpose and method, not his existence. It does not make sense that an all-powerful God with one goal would choose to fulfil that goal in the messy, inefficient, cumbersome way (your description) you believe in. It’s your silly theory about God’s choice of purpose and method that I don’t like.

DAVID: I don't have suppositions about God's other goals, if any, as I have concentrated on the obvious one, producing humans just as Adler did.

dhw: Then please stop using the word “goals”, which you know would open the door to alternative theories. You remain stuck with your one goal, and the illogicality of an all-powerful God who achieves it through a process you deride as an inefficient, cumbersome mess.

DAVID: Illogical only to you as a non-believer. And don't throw agnosticism at me. It is non-belief with a caveat of slight possibility.

Stop pretending that my non-belief in your illogical theory of evolution and my proposal of three logical theistic alternatives has anything to do with my agnosticism (which means 50/50 belief/non-belief in God's existence).

The environment

DAVID: Because of varying climate and environmental conditions dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!! […]
And:
DAVID: Back to Raup. Organisms had bad luck in not surviving. God never had to deal with bad luck since whatever were the environmental conditions, He could design for it. Snowball Earth!!

dhw: You never stop dodging. The point is not that your God had bad luck! Organisms had bad luck because his design did not allow them to adapt to new conditions. Since he had no control over conditions, he relied on luck to provide him with the 1% that did survive, and this process was repeated with every change, each of which limited his scope for design. I also said he must have relied on luck to provide the conditions enabling him to design the only organisms he wanted to design, but at that point you modified your theory, because suddenly he did control the environment by organizing an extra supply of oxygen (the Cambrian).

DAVID: Environment/climate is based on Earth's position from the sun, sunspots, Earth's tilt, moon's gravitational effects, general fixed repeated patterns like El Nino/ La Nina in the Pacific. Oxygen is a similar general fixed condition for the environment/climate.

The question is not what environment/climate are based on, but how much control your God has over them.

DAVID: Of course, God made those adjustments when indicated. After all, He is the creator.

So now what are you saying? One moment your God has no control over environmental changes, and the next moment he adjusts them! Make up your mind.

DAVID: Snowball Earth tells us God can design for any eventuality. Your usual dodge of a complaint is a molehill, not a mountain.

Your usual dodge: if he does not control environmental changes, he can only RESPOND to them, which means his scope for design is limited to those life forms that can cope with the new environment. When this changes again, once more 99% of his new designs cannot adapt, and so they die out as dead ends that do not lead to us and our food. Only the 1% can do that. Hence what you call the inefficient, cumbersome mess that your theory leads you to.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, March 28, 2023, 12:57 (366 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Cyclones

QUOTE: "'These blooms could be an integral part of the local marine ecosystems of our Pacific neighbours supporting higher food chains."

DAVID: These major events are not major enough for God to exert controls. They are built in to happen randomly. They do not create such a disturbance that it makes God have 'luck' in trying to design evolutionary advances. "Luck" is dhw's illogical invention. Snowball Earth destroys his point.

So he leaves integral parts of some ecosytems to luck, does he? According to you, among other uncontrolled major events affecting speciation are forests turning into deserts and asteroids causing mass extinctions. All luck, but you can't understand why "dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!" “Trying to design evolutionary advances” sounds just like experimentation to me, and the destruction of 99% by forces beyond his control sounds very much like the cause of what you once called “failed experiments” – because those designs did not lead to us and our food. You disown the expression, but it continues to explain why you call his method messy, inefficient and cumbersome.

Supernovas and biodiversity

DAVID: I declared distortions every time you produced them. [...] The most famous one is I blithely accept your theological theories as 'logical'. My statement from years ago was they were consistently logical only with a highly humanized form of God, therefore not the God I accept.

dhw: The theory that your God might have produced the 99% because he enjoyed creating them and was interested in watching them only becomes illogical if you know that he doesn’t enjoy/isn’t interested, but you are sure he does and is! No distortion. Your rejection of my other theories because you view God differently does not alter their logic, which you acknowledge fits in with the history of life! Please try again.

DAVID: As far as I am concerned, your type of God does not fit any theistic theory I have read. Your personal God is an outlier.

You were accusing me of distortion. Please stop dodging, and stop pretending that your not having read any such theory invalidates the arguments I have put to you.

DAVID: Only one evolution occurred. Whether neat or messy, we are here. That is/was God's obvious prime purpose.

dhw: Why “prime” purpose? I’ve challenged you to tell us what other purposes you might “suppose”, and you say there are none. The fact that we are here [...] doesn’t explain why he designed 99% of life forms that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: If you believe God chose to evolve us, it makes perfect sense. God may have other ancillary goals. I've never said 'none'.

It does not make sense that an all-powerful God would choose to design 99 irrelevant life forms out of 100. So I have asked you what other purpose he might have had for designing them. You won’t tell us, because you know that they might turn out to support theories which are different from yours. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Our individual views of God are light-years apart. But as we each stick to our views their will be little agreement.

dhw: So we analyse our views to see how convincing they are. Yours is that your God’s use of evolution is inefficient, cumbersome and messy, whereas mine all have him doing precisely what he wanted, without any of these derogatory characteristics.

DAVID: Thank you for defending MY God.

I am not defending YOUR God. Yours is an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer. I am proposing a God who efficiently does precisely what he wants to do.

Common descent

DAVID: […] you love to dredge up past comments, no longer applicable in this present debate.

dhw: […] I am of course delighted that you finally abandoned your derogatory theory about your God’s blunders, but why should I accept a word you say now if in a few weeks’ time you are going to tell me to ignore them. This is exactly what you have done with your statements about God having thought patterns and emotions like ours, and what you are trying to do with your nonsense about “allegorical” enjoyment and interest.

DAVID: I will stick to what Adler taught me. Any description of God must be allegorical.

Meaningless. Yesterday, in reply to my saying “there is no point in pretending that YOU do not believe your God enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest”, your honest reply was “He may well”. In which case, one of my theories concerning his purpose may well be right.

DAVID: […] God's handling of evolution was magniicent. He produced our brain!!

dhw: More language games: a system which you describe as an inefficient and cumbersome mess is magnificent. The three alternatives I have offered you also resulted in the human brain, but two of them were efficient experiments that produced no mess at all.

DAVID: A real 'theistic' God does not need experimentation. He knows what He wants to produce and produces it directly.

Except that he did NOT directly produce what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. You never stop contradicting yourself.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 29, 2023, 01:50 (366 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Cyclones

QUOTE: "'These blooms could be an integral part of the local marine ecosystems of our Pacific neighbours supporting higher food chains."

DAVID: These major events are not major enough for God to exert controls. They are built in to happen randomly. They do not create such a disturbance that it makes God have 'luck' in trying to design evolutionary advances. "Luck" is dhw's illogical invention. Snowball Earth destroys his point.

So he leaves integral parts of some ecosytems to luck, does he? According to you, among other uncontrolled major events affecting speciation are forests turning into deserts and asteroids causing mass extinctions. All luck, but you can't understand why "dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!" “Trying to design evolutionary advances” sounds just like experimentation to me, and the destruction of 99% by forces beyond his control sounds very much like the cause of what you once called “failed experiments” – because those designs did not lead to us and our food. You disown the expression, but it continues to explain why you call his method messy, inefficient and cumbersome.

What you call experimentation, I see as purposeful designs. You are overwhelmed by your conceived beloved humanized weak God who must experiment to develop anything.


Supernovas and biodiversity

DAVID: If you believe God chose to evolve us, it makes perfect sense. God may have other ancillary goals. I've never said 'none'.

dhw: It does not make sense that an all-powerful God would choose to design 99 irrelevant life forms out of 100. So I have asked you what other purpose he might have had for designing them. You won’t tell us, because you know that they might turn out to support theories which are different from yours. Stop dodging.

Preposterous!! I'm not hiding behind God theories, other than cerating Humans because nothing else is obvious.
do.


Common descent

DAVID: […] God's handling of evolution was magnificent. He produced our brain!!

dhw: More language games: a system which you describe as an inefficient and cumbersome mess is magnificent. The three alternatives I have offered you also resulted in the human brain, but two of them were efficient experiments that produced no mess at all.

DAVID: A real 'theistic' God does not need experimentation. He knows what He wants to produce and produces it directly.

dhw: Except that he did NOT directly produce what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. You never stop contradicting yourself.

No contradiction. God's choice of evolution to produce us was purposeful.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 29, 2023, 01:40 (366 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: All part of a required screening pattern as evolution requires.

dhw: You forget that evolution did not “require” anything. You insist that your God invented and directed the process of evolution, which means that he obliged himself to create 99% of individual species that were not required for what you believe to have been his one and only purpose.

Again you think Darwin. God's evolution had a purpose!!


DAVID: I don't have suppositions about God's other goals, if any, as I have concentrated on the obvious one, producing humans just as Adler did.

dhw: Then please stop using the word “goals”, which you know would open the door to alternative theories. You remain stuck with your one goal, and the illogicality of an all-powerful God who achieves it through a process you deride as an inefficient, cumbersome mess.

DAVID: Illogical only to you as a non-believer. And don't throw agnosticism at me. It is non-belief with a caveat of slight possibility.

dhw: Stop pretending that my non-belief in your illogical theory of evolution and my proposal of three logical theistic alternatives has anything to do with my agnosticism (which means 50/50 belief/non-belief in God's existence).

You clain 50/50 but argue 95/5


The environment

dhw: You never stop dodging. The point is not that your God had bad luck! Organisms had bad luck because his design did not allow them to adapt to new conditions. Since he had no control over conditions, he relied on luck to provide him with the 1% that did survive, and this process was repeated with every change, each of which limited his scope for design. I also said he must have relied on luck to provide the conditions enabling him to design the only organisms he wanted to design, but at that point you modified your theory, because suddenly he did control the environment by organizing an extra supply of oxygen (the Cambrian).

DAVID: Environment/climate is based on Earth's position from the sun, sunspots, Earth's tilt, moon's gravitational effects, general fixed repeated patterns like El Nino/ La Nina in the Pacific. Oxygen is a similar general fixed condition for the environment/climate.

dhw: The question is not what environment/climate are based on, but how much control your God has over them.

Certain general conditions must be set by God. The rest are always variable.


DAVID: Of course, God made those adjustments when indicated. After all, He is the creator.

So now what are you saying? One moment your God has no control over environmental changes, and the next moment he adjusts them! Make up your mind.

DAVID: Snowball Earth tells us God can design for any eventuality. Your usual dodge of a complaint is a molehill, not a mountain.

dhw: Your usual dodge: if he does not control environmental changes, he can only RESPOND to them, which means his scope for design is limited to those life forms that can cope with the new environment. When this changes again, once more 99% of his new designs cannot adapt,

Nuts. Something adapted t hrough Snowball Earth. We are here!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Wednesday, March 29, 2023, 09:44 (366 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: All part of a required screening pattern as evolution requires.

dhw: You forget that evolution did not “require” anything. You insist that your God invented and directed the process of evolution, which means that he obliged himself to create 99% of individual species that were not required for what you believe to have been his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Again you think Darwin. God's evolution had a purpose!!

Of course if he exists he must have had a purpose in inventing the process of evolution! But that does not explain why, if his only purpose was to create us and our food, he proceeded to create 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his purpose. Stop dodging the issues. My alternative theistic theories offer three different, logical explanations for the 99% of life forms that had nothing to do with the evolution of us and our food.

dhw: You remain stuck with your one goal, and the illogicality of an all-powerful God who achieves it through a process you deride as an inefficient, cumbersome mess.

DAVID: Illogical only to you as a non-believer. And don't throw agnosticism at me. It is non-belief with a caveat of slight possibility.

dhw: Stop pretending that my non-belief in your illogical theory of evolution and my proposal of three logical theistic alternatives has anything to do with my agnosticism (which means 50/50 belief/non-belief in God's existence).

DAVID: You clain 50/50 but argue 95/5

This discussion of your illogical theory is based entirely on interpretations of a possible God’s purpose and method. I offer you three alternative, logical explanations for a possible God’s design of life’s history, and apparently that make me 95% atheist! Stop dodging the issues.

The environment

dhw: The question is not what environment/climate are based on, but how much control your God has over them.

DAVID: Certain general conditions must be set by God. The rest are always variable.

The randomly variable ones you accept include such major events as forests turning into deserts and asteroids hitting the Earth. You attribute the 99% “failure rate” to your God’s faulty design, have him then designing new organisms to cope with the new conditions, and then the same process repeats itself until finally he decides to take control of the environment (Cambrian) and design one which will enable him to design the only life forms he really wanted to design in the first place. He then designs our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the failures in the first place.

DAVID: Nuts. Something adapted t hrough Snowball Earth. We are here!!!

The something was the 1% of survivors for those of us who believe in common descent. You don’t, though, because you keep harping on about the gaps and arguing that only your God could have designed the new Cambrian species from scratch without any predecessors.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, March 29, 2023, 09:55 (366 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Cyclones

DAVID: These major events are not major enough for God to exert controls. They are built in to happen randomly. They do not create such a disturbance that it makes God have 'luck' in trying to design evolutionary advances. "Luck" is dhw's illogical invention. Snowball Earth destroys his point.

dhw: […] According to you, among other uncontrolled major events affecting speciation are forests turning into deserts and asteroids causing mass extinctions. All luck, but you can't understand why "dhw somehow thinks luck is involved!" “Trying to design evolutionary advances” sounds just like experimentation to me, and the destruction of 99% by forces beyond his control sounds very much like the cause of what you once called “failed experiments” – because those designs did not lead to us and our food. You disown the expression, but it continues to explain why you call his method messy, inefficient and cumbersome.

DAVID: What you call experimentation, I see as purposeful designs.

There is no contradiction. In one of my theories, your God experiments with the purpose of finding the best formula for creating a being in his own image (which eventually turns out to be us). But with your theory, you can’t find any reason why he would design 99 out of 100 life forms that have no connection with that purpose. You won’t even acknowledge that his lack of control over conditions restricts him to designing life forms that will cope with those conditions, and provides an obvious reason why the 99% would not lead to us and our food, since conditions keep randomly changing. “Trying to design evolutionary advances” is hardly commensurate with a God who knows exactly what he wants and exactly how to get it.

DAVID: You are overwhelmed by your conceived beloved humanized weak God who must experiment to develop anything.

I have offered three different theistic explanations for the history of evolution as we know it. In all of them, God acts perfectly logically. Only your theory makes him create an inefficient, cumbersome mess, and I have no idea why such a blunderer is stronger, less human and more godlike than a God who knows and creates precisely what he wants.

Supernovas and biodiversity

DAVID: If you believe God chose to evolve us, it makes perfect sense. God may have other ancillary goals. I've never said 'none'.

dhw: It does not make sense that an all-powerful God would choose to design 99 irrelevant life forms out of 100. So I have asked you what other purpose he might have had for designing them. You won’t tell us, because you know that they might turn out to support theories which are different from yours. Stop dodging.

A fine example of this is your certainty that your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest. This provides an obvious purpose for all his designs (not just us and our food), and so you try to wriggle out of it with your nonsense about your own beliefs not meaning what you mean!

DAVID: Preposterous!! I'm not hiding behind God theories, other than cerating Humans because nothing else is obvious.

The only obvious facts are that humans and lots of other life forms are here, and countless extinct life forms preceded us and did not evolve into us or our contemporary life forms. Evolutionists believe that we and our contemporaries evolved in a continuum through the 1% of survivors. It is the 99% of non-survivors that make nonsense of your theory of evolution, unless you genuinely believe that your God is an inefficient and cumbersome mess-maker.

Common descent

DAVID: A real 'theistic' God does not need experimentation. He knows what He wants to produce and produces it directly.

dhw: Except that he did NOT directly produce what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. You never stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: No contradiction. God's choice of evolution to produce us was purposeful.

A real ‘theistic’ God knows what he wants and “produces it directly”, but your God does not produce it directly – he produces it through what you call an inefficient, cumbersome, messy process of evolution which results in his producing 99 out of 100 species that have nothing to do with what you believe to have been his purpose. Even when he eventually gets round to producing anthropoids, he still doesn’t produce sapiens directly! You could hardly have made it clearer that your God is not a “real theistic God” at all.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 30, 2023, 00:16 (365 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Cyclones

DAVID: What you call experimentation, I see as purposeful designs.

dhw: There is no contradiction. In one of my theories, your God experiments with the purpose of finding the best formula for creating a being in his own image (which eventually turns out to be us). But with your theory, you can’t find any reason why he would design 99 out of 100 life forms that have no connection with that purpose.


There is no way for us to agree. God knew how to make our universe at the start. It is precisely fine-tuned for life. He invented life and then chose to evolve us from initial Archaea. An evolutionary process is a screening process which in our case involved a 99.9% loss of forms, but successfully produced us.

dhw: You won’t even acknowledge that his lack of control over conditions restricts him to designing life forms that will cope with those conditions, and provides an obvious reason why the 99% would not lead to us and our food, since conditions keep randomly changing. “Trying to design evolutionary advances” is hardly commensurate with a God who knows exactly what he wants and exactly how to get it.

My God knew exactly how to evolve us over time. You can criticise, but God made choices you disagree with. You create the problem with illogical analysis of God.

Supernovas and biodiversity

DAVID: If you believe God chose to evolve us, it makes perfect sense. God may have other ancillary goals. I've never said 'none'.

dhw: It does not make sense that an all-powerful God would choose to design 99 irrelevant life forms out of 100. So I have asked you what other purpose he might have had for designing them. You won’t tell us, because you know that they might turn out to support theories which are different from yours. Stop dodging.

A fine example of this is your certainty that your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest. This provides an obvious purpose for all his designs (not just us and our food), and so you try to wriggle out of it with your nonsense about your own beliefs not meaning what you mean!

I mean exactly this: my God is fully purposeful and knows what He wishes to create and creates it by evolving it.


DAVID: Preposterous!! I'm not hiding behind God theories, other than creating Humans because nothing else is obvious.

The only obvious facts are that humans and lots of other life forms are here, and countless extinct life forms preceded us and did not evolve into us or our contemporary life forms. Evolutionists believe that we and our contemporaries evolved in a continuum through the 1% of survivors. It is the 99% of non-survivors that make nonsense of your theory of evolution, unless you genuinely believe that your God is an inefficient and cumbersome mess-maker.

What is nonsense is your total misunderstanding of an evolutionary process. It screens and survival rates are very small. Point is proven.


Common descent

DAVID: A real 'theistic' God does not need experimentation. He knows what He wants to produce and produces it directly.

dhw: Except that he did NOT directly produce what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. You never stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: No contradiction. God's choice of evolution to produce us was purposeful.

dhw: A real ‘theistic’ God knows what he wants and “produces it directly”, but your God does not produce it directly – he produces it through what you call an inefficient, cumbersome, messy process of evolution which results in his producing 99 out of 100 species that have nothing to do with what you believe to have been his purpose. Even when he eventually gets round to producing anthropoids, he still doesn’t produce sapiens directly! You could hardly have made it clearer that your God is not a “real theistic God” at all.

He is fully theistic as described. If God made history, as I believe, God chose to evolve us!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 29, 2023, 23:34 (365 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: All part of a required screening pattern as evolution requires.

dhw: You forget that evolution did not “require” anything. You insist that your God invented and directed the process of evolution, which means that he obliged himself to create 99% of individual species that were not required for what you believe to have been his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Again you think Darwin. God's evolution had a purpose!!

dhw: Of course if he exists he must have had a purpose in inventing the process of evolution! But that does not explain why, if his only purpose was to create us and our food, he proceeded to create 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his purpose. Stop dodging the issues. My alternative theistic theories offer three different, logical explanations for the 99% of life forms that had nothing to do with the evolution of us and our food.

So you think God just stumbled into AN ending result of humans and their food supply. I'm not dodging from my point an authority like Adler used the end point of humans as proving God existed. Your theories create an unsure humanistic God.


dhw: Stop pretending that my non-belief in your illogical theory of evolution and my proposal of three logical theistic alternatives has anything to do with my agnosticism (which means 50/50 belief/non-belief in God's existence).

DAVID: You clain 50/50 but argue 95/5

dhw: This discussion of your illogical theory is based entirely on interpretations of a possible God’s purpose and method. I offer you three alternative, logical explanations for a possible God’s design of life’s history, and apparently that make me 95% atheist! Stop dodging the issues.

You do not see yourself as I do.


The environment

dhw: The question is not what environment/climate are based on, but how much control your God has over them.

DAVID: Certain general conditions must be set by God. The rest are always variable.

dhw: The randomly variable ones you accept include such major events as forests turning into deserts and asteroids hitting the Earth. You attribute the 99% “failure rate” to your God’s faulty design,

I've changed my terms on God's new species as " designed with limited adaptability".

dhw: have him then designing new organisms to cope with the new conditions, and then the same process repeats itself until finally he decides to take control of the environment (Cambrian) and design one which will enable him to design the only life forms he really wanted to design in the first place. He then designs our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the failures in the first place.

God designs de novo forms as He wishes.You make an interesting new interpretation of the Cambrian Gap.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Thursday, March 30, 2023, 11:51 (364 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: […] God's evolution had a purpose!!

dhw: Of course if he exists he must have had a purpose in inventing the process of evolution! But that does not explain why, if his only purpose was to create us and our food, he proceeded to create 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his purpose. Stop dodging the issues. My alternative theistic theories offer three different, logical explanations for the 99% of life forms that had nothing to do with the evolution of us and our food.

DAVID: So you think God just stumbled into AN ending result of humans and their food supply.

In my first two theories, he deliberately conducts experiments which finally lead to us and our food. There is no stumbling. You have him designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with the single purpose you impose on him, being forced to tailor his designs to environmental conditions over which he has no control, and then taking control of the conditions and starting our line of evolution with species that have no predecessors, and yet still producing other species that have no connection with his purpose. He can't help it, though, because he has to follow the rules he's made up for himself about "screening". You rightly call this method an inefficient, cumbersome mess. But apparently he's not stumbling. Elsewhere this method is described as "magnificent".

DAVID: I'm not dodging from my point an authority like Adler used the end point of humans as proving God existed. Your theories create an unsure humanistic God.

For the 100th time, our disagreement is not over the possible existence of God, but over your absurdly illogical theory concerning his inefficient, cumbersome, messy method of achieving what you believe to have been his purpose. In none of my theories is God “unsure”, and he is no more human than in your own theories.

DAVID (re agnosticism): You claim 50/50 but argue 95/5

dhw: This discussion of your illogical theory is based entirely on interpretations of a possible God’s purpose and method. I offer you three alternative, logical explanations for a possible God’s design of life’s history, and apparently that makes me 95% atheist! Stop dodging the issues.

DAVID: You do not see yourself as I do.

Your blinkered vision of my agnosticism is still no defence of your illogical theories, and it does not provide any grounds for rejecting my theories, which you agree fit in logically with the history of evolution. Stop dodging the issues.

The environment

dhw: The question is not what environment/climate are based on, but how much control your God has over them.

DAVID: Certain general conditions must be set by God. The rest are always variable.

dhw: The randomly variable ones you accept include such major events as forests turning into deserts and asteroids hitting the Earth. You attribute the 99% “failure rate” to your God’s faulty design,

DAVID: I've changed my terms on God's new species as "designed with limited adaptability".

If the limited adaptability which caused their non-survival was deliberate (as opposed to being a fault in the design), and they had no connection with his purpose, why would he have designed them in the first place? Stop dodging the issues.

dhw: ...you have him then designing new organisms to cope with the new conditions, and then the same process repeats itself until finally he decides to take control of the environment (Cambrian) and design one which will enable him to design the only life forms he really wanted to design in the first place. He then designs our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the failures in the first place.

DAVID: God designs de novo forms as He wishes. You make an interesting new interpretation of the Cambrian Gap.

Of course if he exists and is all-powerful he can design de novo forms whenever he wishes. Hence the unanswerable question why, if his only wish was to design us plus our food, he “wished” to design 99 out of a 100 species that had nothing to do with us. You can’t answer, and so you go on dodging, or you admit that only your God can explain such a silly theory. It is your interpretation of the Cambrian Gap that is new, since at one and the same time you inform us that we are descended from Archaea but that we are descended from species which your God designed de novo, i.e. with no predecessors. Waffling about biochemistry does not resolve this blatant contradiction.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Thursday, March 30, 2023, 12:01 (364 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Cyclones

DAVID: What you call experimentation, I see as purposeful designs.

dhw: There is no contradiction. In one of my theories, your God experiments with the purpose of finding the best formula for creating a being in his own image (which eventually turns out to be us). But with your theory, you can’t find any reason why he would design 99 out of 100 life forms that have no connection with that purpose.

DAVID: There is no way for us to agree. God knew how to make our universe at the start. It is precisely fine-tuned for life. He invented life and then chose to evolve us from initial Archaea. An evolutionary process is a screening process which in our case involved a 99.9% loss of forms, but successfully produced us.

Once more: Why would he invent a system that forces him deliberately to design 99 out of 100 forms that are irrelevant to his purpose, and to design the means of “screening” (killing them off), although he can “design de novo forms as he wishes” and he only wishes to design us and our food? See your definition of a “real” theistic God below.

dhw: You won’t even acknowledge that his lack of control over conditions restricts him to designing life forms that will cope with those conditions, and provides an obvious reason why the 99% would not lead to us and our food, since conditions keep randomly changing. “Trying to design evolutionary advances” is hardly commensurate with a God who knows exactly what he wants and exactly how to get it.

DAVID: My God knew exactly how to evolve us over time. You can criticise, but God made choices you disagree with. You create the problem with illogical analysis of God.

You know perfectly well that it is your theory about God’s choices that I disagree with, and I offer alternative choices which you agree are logical, but which you consider to be more “human” than the inefficient, cumbersome, messy choices you illogically inflict on him.

Supernovas and biodiversity

Dhw: […] I have asked you what other purpose he might have had for designing them. You won’t tell us, because you know that they might turn out to support theories which are different from yours. […] A fine example of this is your certainty that your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest. This provides an obvious purpose for all his designs (not just us and our food), and so you try to wriggle out of it with your nonsense about your own beliefs not meaning what you mean!

DAVID: I mean exactly this: my God is fully purposeful and knows what He wishes to create and creates it by evolving it.

As usual, you come up with a generalization which – if God exists – I don’t suppose anyone would reject, apart from people who don’t believe in evolution. The issue is what he wished to create, and how he used the process of evolution in order to fulfil his purpose. Once more you have dodged the issue of possible purposes other than your own version.

dhw: The only obvious facts are that humans and lots of other life forms are here, and countless extinct life forms preceded us and did not evolve into us or our contemporary life forms. Evolutionists believe that we and our contemporaries evolved in a continuum through the 1% of survivors. It is the 99% of non-survivors that make nonsense of your theory of evolution, unless you genuinely believe that your God is an inefficient and cumbersome mess-maker.

DAVID: What is nonsense is your total misunderstanding of an evolutionary process. It screens and survival rates are very small. Point is proven.

As above, if God exists, he invented the process! You don’t need to “prove” that 99% of species did not survive (and your “screening” is just another term for natural selection). What is nonsense is your insistence that your God subjected himself to an inexplicable obligation to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

Common descent

DAVID: A real 'theistic' God does not need experimentation. He knows what He wants to produce and produces it directly.

dhw: Except that he did NOT directly produce what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. You never stop contradicting yourself. […] You could hardly have made it clearer that your God is not a “real theistic God” at all.

DAVID: He is fully theistic as described. If God made history, as I believe, God chose to evolve us!!!

But a “real ‘theistic’ God produces what he wants directly, and your version of God chose to produce 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us plus food, and even when he eventually got round to designing anthropoids, he still didn’t produce us sapiens directly. I suppose this is another example of your revolutionary use of language: perhaps the word “directly” is allegorical, and actually means “indirectly”? ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 30, 2023, 16:55 (364 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Cyclones

DAVID: There is no way for us to agree. God knew how to make our universe at the start. It is precisely fine-tuned for life. He invented life and then chose to evolve us from initial Archaea. An evolutionary process is a screening process which in our case involved a 99.9% loss of forms, but successfully produced us.

dhw: Once more: Why would he invent a system that forces him deliberately to design 99 out of 100 forms that are irrelevant to his purpose, and to design the means of “screening” (killing them off), although he can “design de novo forms as he wishes” and he only wishes to design us and our food? See your definition of a “real” theistic God below.

It is your years-ago initial question. I still say God chose it. That is logical from the viewpoint of God the creator.


Supernovas and biodiversity

Dhw: […] I have asked you what other purpose he might have had for designing them. You won’t tell us, because you know that they might turn out to support theories which are different from yours. […] A fine example of this is your certainty that your God enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest. This provides an obvious purpose for all his designs (not just us and our food), and so you try to wriggle out of it with your nonsense about your own beliefs not meaning what you mean!

DAVID: I mean exactly this: my God is fully purposeful and knows what He wishes to create and creates it by evolving it.

dhw: As usual, you come up with a generalization which – if God exists – I don’t suppose anyone would reject, apart from people who don’t believe in evolution. The issue is what he wished to create, and how he used the process of evolution in order to fulfil his purpose. Once more you have dodged the issue of possible purposes other than your own version.

Give us your purposes for God. I know about limping experimentation and enjoying aimless free-for-alls


dhw: The only obvious facts are that humans and lots of other life forms are here, and countless extinct life forms preceded us and did not evolve into us or our contemporary life forms. Evolutionists believe that we and our contemporaries evolved in a continuum through the 1% of survivors. It is the 99% of non-survivors that make nonsense of your theory of evolution, unless you genuinely believe that your God is an inefficient and cumbersome mess-maker.

DAVID: What is nonsense is your total misunderstanding of an evolutionary process. It screens and survival rates are very small. Point is proven.

dhw: As above, if God exists, he invented the process! You don’t need to “prove” that 99% of species did not survive (and your “screening” is just another term for natural selection). What is nonsense is your insistence that your God subjected himself to an inexplicable obligation to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

It happened. As creator He must have chosen it. You are looking at the same history I am and cannot distort it into experimentation or-free-for-all for entertainment.


Common descent

DAVID: A real 'theistic' God does not need experimentation. He knows what He wants to produce and produces it directly.

dhw: Except that he did NOT directly produce what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. You never stop contradicting yourself. […] You could hardly have made it clearer that your God is not a “real theistic God” at all.

DAVID: He is fully theistic as described. If God made history, as I believe, God chose to evolve us!!!

dhw: But a “real ‘theistic’ God produces what he wants directly, and your version of God chose to produce 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us plus food, and even when he eventually got round to designing anthropoids, he still didn’t produce us sapiens directly. I suppose this is another example of your revolutionary use of language: perhaps the word “directly” is allegorical, and actually means “indirectly”? ;-)

How do you know "a “real ‘theistic’ God produces what he wants directly"? A Big Bang, a start of life, an early rocky Earth, all of which then spent eons of time for evolution to reach what He wants. God prefers to evolve His intended creations. you find it illogical, but He didn't. ;-) No allegory needed. :-|

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 30, 2023, 16:36 (364 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: So you think God just stumbled into AN ending result of humans and their food supply.

dhw: In my first two theories, he deliberately conducts experiments which finally lead to us and our food. There is no stumbling. You have him designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with the single purpose you impose on him, being forced to tailor his designs to environmental conditions over which he has no control, and then taking control of the conditions and starting our line of evolution with species that have no predecessors, and yet still producing other species that have no connection with his purpose. He can't help it, though, because he has to follow the rules he's made up for himself about "screening". You rightly call this method an inefficient, cumbersome mess. But apparently he's not stumbling. Elsewhere this method is described as "magnificent".

You stretch reality to think the history of evolution shows experimentation. Almost all advances are quite direct and the Cambrian directly refutes the theory. It shows God had no need to experiment.

The environment

dhw: The question is not what environment/climate are based on, but how much control your God has over them.

DAVID: Certain general conditions must be set by God. The rest are always variable.

dhw: The randomly variable ones you accept include such major events as forests turning into deserts and asteroids hitting the Earth. You attribute the 99% “failure rate” to your God’s faulty design,

DAVID: I've changed my terms on God's new species as "designed with limited adaptability".

dhw: If the limited adaptability which caused their non-survival was deliberate (as opposed to being a fault in the design), and they had no connection with his purpose, why would he have designed them in the first place? Stop dodging the issues.

If a stage has limited adaptability, it means they cannot speciate and God must do it.


dhw: ...you have him then designing new organisms to cope with the new conditions, and then the same process repeats itself until finally he decides to take control of the environment (Cambrian) and design one which will enable him to design the only life forms he really wanted to design in the first place. He then designs our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the failures in the first place.

DAVID: God designs de novo forms as He wishes. You make an interesting new interpretation of the Cambrian Gap.

dhw: Of course if he exists and is all-powerful he can design de novo forms whenever he wishes. Hence the unanswerable question why, if his only wish was to design us plus our food, he “wished” to design 99 out of a 100 species that had nothing to do with us. You can’t answer, and so you go on dodging, or you admit that only your God can explain such a silly theory. It is your interpretation of the Cambrian Gap that is new, since at one and the same time you inform us that we are descended from Archaea but that we are descended from species which your God designed de novo, i.e. with no predecessors. Waffling about biochemistry does not resolve this blatant contradiction.

My contention still is God chose to evolve us by the method history shows. No dodge. Basic biochemistry advances to allow more complex phenotypes. No waffle but your lack of understanding the relationship at two levels of evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Friday, March 31, 2023, 11:11 (364 days ago) @ David Turell

Yet more repetition, I'm afraid, but there seems to be no end to the ways in which the issues raised by David's theories can be dodged!

DAVID: So you think God just stumbled into AN ending result of humans and their food supply.

dhw: In my first two theories, he deliberately conducts experiments which finally lead to us and our food. There is no stumbling. You have him designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with the single purpose you impose on him, being forced to tailor his designs to environmental conditions over which he has no control, and then taking control of the conditions and starting our line of evolution with species that have no predecessors, and yet still producing other species that have no connection with his purpose. He can't help it, though, because he has to follow the rules he's made up for himself about "screening". You rightly call this method an inefficient, cumbersome mess. But apparently he's not stumbling. Elsewhere this method is described as "magnificent".

DAVID: You stretch reality to think the history of evolution shows experimentation. Almost all advances are quite direct and the Cambrian directly refutes the theory. It shows God had no need to experiment.

You have totally ignored the whole of my comment. Your version of the Cambrian is that he designed our ancestors from scratch. That theory does indeed show that there was no need to experiment. And there was no need for the 99 out of 100 irrelevant species you say he designed before and after the Cambrian. These 99 were not “direct advances” towards us and our food! So what is your explanation? The absurd idea that he invented an inefficient system which forced him to design 99 species out of 100 that he then had to get rid of! At least the experimentation theory doesn’t make him into the cumbersome mess-maker you want him to be.

The environment

dhw: You attribute the 99% “failure rate” to your God’s faulty design,

DAVID: I've changed my terms on God's new species as "designed with limited adaptability".

dhw: If the limited adaptability which caused their non-survival was deliberate (as opposed to being a fault in the design), and they had no connection with his purpose, why would he have designed them in the first place? Stop dodging the issues.

DAVID: If a stage has limited adaptability, it means they cannot speciate and God must do it.

According to you, it was your God who designed them with limited adaptability and then had to kill them off because they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose. Hence your description of his work as inefficient, cumbersome and messy.

DAVID: God designs de novo forms as He wishes. You make an interesting new interpretation of the Cambrian Gap.

dhw: Of course if he exists and is all-powerful he can design de novo forms whenever he wishes. Hence the unanswerable question why, if his only wish was to design us plus our food, he “wished” to design 99 out of a 100 species that had nothing to do with us. You can’t answer, and so you go on dodging, or you admit that only your God can explain such a silly theory. It is your interpretation of the Cambrian Gap that is new, since at one and the same time you inform us that we are descended from Archaea but that we are descended from species which your God designed de novo, i.e. with no predecessors. Waffling about biochemistry does not resolve this blatant contradiction.

DAVID: My contention still is God chose to evolve us by the method history shows. No dodge. Basic biochemistry advances to allow more complex phenotypes. No waffle but your lack of understanding the relationship at two levels of evolution.

History does not even show us that there is a God, but for the sake of argument, we are discussing a possible God’s motives and methods. For those of us who believe in evolution, history shows that we and every other multicellular organism evolved from single cells, and yes indeed, biochemistry advanced to allow more complex phenotypes, 99% of which did not lead to us our food. The 99% make nonsense of your claim that we and our food were your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose for creating life. Your only explanation for his creating them is that he invented an inefficient, cumbersome, messy system which forced him to create 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose. But you reject any alternative which obviates the need for such a derogatory view of your God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Friday, March 31, 2023, 11:21 (364 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Cyclones

DAVID: […] An evolutionary process is a screening process which in our case involved a 99.9% loss of forms, but successfully produced us.

dhw: Once more: Why would he invent a system that forces him deliberately to design 99 out of 100 forms that are irrelevant to his purpose, and to design the means of “screening” (killing them off), although he can “design de novo forms as he wishes” and he only wishes to design us and our food? See your definition of a “real” theistic God below.

DAVID: It is your years-ago initial question. I still say God chose it. That is logical from the viewpoint of God the creator.

How the heck are you able to tell us your God’s viewpoint? Has God really agreed with you that his method of fulfilling his one and only purpose was inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

Supernovas and biodiversity

DAVID: I mean exactly this: my God is fully purposeful and knows what He wishes to create and creates it by evolving it.

dhw: As usual, you come up with a generalization which – if God exists – I don’t suppose anyone would reject, apart from people who don’t believe in evolution. The issue is what he wished to create, and how he used the process of evolution in order to fulfil his purpose. Once more you have dodged the issue of possible purposes other than your own version.

DAVID: Give us your purposes for God. I know about limping experimentation and enjoying aimless free-for-alls.

Experimentation is not a purpose. In two of my versions I have him experimenting 1) in order to fulfil the purpose you have chosen: to design a being in his own image (mentally, not physically), perhaps to recognize his brilliance, to have a relationship with him etc. But he does not know from the beginning how to create such a being, and so he moves from one successful experiment (some of his creations lived for millions of years) to another; 2) he enjoys creating different forms of physical life, and experiments to see what interesting new ideas he can come up with; humans are the latest of them; 3) the same as 2), except that he finds it more interesting to design a mechanism that will enable life forms to come up with their own ideas. In all three scenarios, he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest – your very own words, and a perfectly understandable purpose, which also fits in perfectly with your belief that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

dhw; […] What is nonsense is your insistence that your God subjected himself to an inexplicable obligation to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

DAVID: It happened. As creator He must have chosen it. You are looking at the same history I am and cannot distort it into experimentation or-free-for-all for entertainment.

He must have chosen what? To force himself to design 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose?

Common descent

DAVID: A real 'theistic' God does not need experimentation. He knows what He wants to produce and produces it directly.[dhw's bold]

dhw: Except that he did NOT directly produce what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. You never stop contradicting yourself. […] You could hardly have made it clearer that your God is not a “real theistic God” at all.

DAVID: How do you know "a “real ‘theistic’ God produces what he wants directly"?

You have just said so. Now bolded.

DAVID: A Big Bang, a start of life, an early rocky Earth, all of which then spent eons of time for evolution to reach what He wants. God prefers to evolve His intended creations. you find it illogical, but He didn't. ;-) wink No allegory needed. :-|

You never stop dodging. I believe in evolution, and if God exists I believe he invented the process of evolution. It is not illogical. What IS illogical is your insistence that a) his one and only purpose was us and our food, b) he was perfectly capable of designing us de novo, but c) instead chose to design 99% of irrelevant life forms before even starting to design us in stages along with another lot of irrelevant life forms (e.g. all the dinosaurs except one small group). What I offer you is 3 alternative theories which logically explain the other 99% of non-survivors without making your God out to be a blundering mess-maker.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, March 31, 2023, 16:56 (363 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

Cyclones

DAVID: […] An evolutionary process is a screening process which in our case involved a 99.9% loss of forms, but successfully produced us.

dhw: Once more: Why would he invent a system that forces him deliberately to design 99 out of 100 forms that are irrelevant to his purpose, and to design the means of “screening” (killing them off), although he can “design de novo forms as he wishes” and he only wishes to design us and our food? See your definition of a “real” theistic God below.

DAVID: It is your years-ago initial question. I still say God chose it. That is logical from the viewpoint of God the creator.

dhw: How the heck are you able to tell us your God’s viewpoint? Has God really agreed with you that his method of fulfilling his one and only purpose was inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

I follow an expert opinion. Adler used God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.


Supernovas and biodiversity

DAVID: I mean exactly this: my God is fully purposeful and knows what He wishes to create and creates it by evolving it.

dhw: As usual, you come up with a generalization which – if God exists – I don’t suppose anyone would reject, apart from people who don’t believe in evolution. The issue is what he wished to create, and how he used the process of evolution in order to fulfil his purpose. Once more you have dodged the issue of possible purposes other than your own version.

DAVID: Give us your purposes for God. I know about limping experimentation and enjoying aimless free-for-alls.

dhw: Experimentation is not a purpose. In two of my versions I have him experimenting 1) in order to fulfil the purpose you have chosen: to design a being in his own image (mentally, not physically), perhaps to recognize his brilliance, to have a relationship with him etc. But he does not know from the beginning how to create such a being, and so he moves from one successful experiment (some of his creations lived for millions of years) to another; 2) he enjoys creating different forms of physical life, and experiments to see what interesting new ideas he can come up with; humans are the latest of them; 3) the same as 2), except that he finds it more interesting to design a mechanism that will enable life forms to come up with their own ideas. In all three scenarios, he enjoys creating and watches his creations with interest – your very own words, and a perfectly understandable purpose, which also fits in perfectly with your belief that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

How can you imagine such a totally human God? Amazingly new theology. In evolution I clearly see God's totally purposeful design.


dhw; […] What is nonsense is your insistence that your God subjected himself to an inexplicable obligation to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

DAVID: It happened. As creator He must have chosen it. You are looking at the same history I am and cannot distort it into experimentation or-free-for-all for entertainment.

dhw: He must have chosen what? To force himself to design 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose?

As usual, God chose to evolve us, giving us the history we know.


Common descent

DAVID: A Big Bang, a start of life, an early rocky Earth, all of which then spent eons of time for evolution to reach what He wants. God prefers to evolve His intended creations. You find it illogical, but He didn't. ;-) wink No allegory needed. :-|

dhw: You never stop dodging. I believe in evolution, and if God exists I believe he invented the process of evolution. It is not illogical. What IS illogical is your insistence that a) his one and only purpose was us and our food, b) he was perfectly capable of designing us de novo, but c) instead chose to design 99% of irrelevant life forms before even starting to design us in stages along with another lot of irrelevant life forms (e.g. all the dinosaurs except one small group). What I offer you is 3 alternative theories which logically explain the other 99% of non-survivors without making your God out to be a blundering mess-maker.

Evolution is a series of master designs ending with our brain, the most complex item in the universe. Your so=called God must bumble His way along by experimenting. Not a God I recognize.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Saturday, April 01, 2023, 12:43 (362 days ago) @ David Turell

Once more I shall juxtapose comments in order to avoid repetition.

DAVID: We seem to have two totally different views of evolution. Since I describe God designing it, stage by stage, you don't seem to recognize the resulting history. It starts with simple forms, Archaea, but their biochemistry is extremely complex.

Funnily enough, I do recognize this part of the history.

DAVID: In two streams the biochemistry advances allowing more advanced body forms, with the final result, the most complex item in the universe, our brain.

I don’t understand what you mean by “two streams”, but there is no question that the biochemistry advanced and body forms became more complex, and our brain is certainly far more complex than the brains from which it is descended. We don’t know whether this is the “final result”, but our subject of discussion is not what might happen in the next two or three thousand million years. Why have you skipped the 99% of body forms that did not lead to our brain (plus our food)?

DAVID: There was no experimentation, as my God knows exactly what to do at all times.
And later:
DAVID: Evolution is a series of master designs ending with our brain, the most complex item in the universe. Your so-called God must bumble His way along by experimenting. Not a God I recognize.

Oops, a sudden leap from the history to your ingrained and illogical beliefs. Your series of “master designs” includes 99% of designs that had nothing to do with his purpose, and resulted in what you call an inefficient, cumbersome mess. The answer to my question is on the More Miscellany thread: “[…] God chose to design them for His own unknown reasons.” You yourself can obviously find no logic whatsoever in your theory – hence your criticism of your inefficient God. On the other hand, experimentation is not “bumbling” if you stop assuming that it must be targeted at a purpose with which it has no connection.

DAVID: In a way evolution is a screening process, with organisms given limited a adaptability so that God must step in to create new species. Therefore 99.9% of historical forms disappear. It all advanced toward us!!!

But you say your God deliberately created the limited adaptability of the 99% - that’s why you changed your terminology from “faulty design”. Once more: Why would he invent a system that forces him deliberately to design them, kill them off, design another 99% of irrelevant forms etc., until he dabbles with the otherwise uncontrolled environment and starts all over again by designing our ancestors from scratch? Your answer: “for reasons unknown”.

DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

dhw: […] you reject any alternative which obviates the need for such a derogatory view of your God.

DAVID: Your weird form of God has no controls. He likes to watch free-for-alls (lacking any direction) and has to experiment because He doesn't know how to create the next step!!! Your guy could never invent our brain.

These distortions provide no defence for your view of God as an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer. Of my three alternatives, two have him in total control, conducting successful experiments, and the third has him sacrificing control, as it is more interesting for him to see what unexpected ideas his invention can produce by itself.

DAVID: How can you imagine such a totally human God? Amazingly new theology. In evolution I clearly see God's totally purposeful design.

All three of my alternatives entail a God with totally purposeful design, though in b) and c) his purpose is different from yours. All three entail thought patterns and emotions like ours (your original wording), none of them result in ridiculing God’s methods as inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and none of them are more “human” than your own God, who at different times shares such human thought patterns as enjoyment, interest, wanting recognition, kindness, wanting a relationship with us etc.

DAVID: I still say God chose it. That is logical from the viewpoint of God the creator.

dhw: How the heck are you able to tell us your God’s viewpoint? Has God really agreed with you that his method of fulfilling his one and only purpose was inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

DAVID: I follow an expert opinion. Adler used God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

For the thousandth time, the subject is not God’s existence. Have both your God and Adler told you that God’s designs were inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 01, 2023, 18:59 (362 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In two streams the biochemistry advances allowing more advanced body forms, with the final result, the most complex item in the universe, our brain.

dhw: I don’t understand what you mean by “two streams”, but there is no question that the biochemistry advanced and body forms became more complex, and our brain is certainly far more complex than the brains from which it is descended. We don’t know whether this is the “final result”, but our subject of discussion is not what might happen in the next two or three thousand million years. Why have you skipped the 99% of body forms that did not lead to our brain (plus our food)?

We've settled the 0.1% survivers are us.


DAVID: There was no experimentation, as my God knows exactly what to do at all times.
And later:
DAVID: Evolution is a series of master designs ending with our brain, the most complex item in the universe. Your so-called God must bumble His way along by experimenting. Not a God I recognize.

Oops, a sudden leap from the history to your ingrained and illogical beliefs. Your series of “master designs” includes 99% of designs that had nothing to do with his purpose, and resulted in what you call an inefficient, cumbersome mess. The answer to my question is on the More Miscellany thread: “[…] God chose to design them for His own unknown reasons.” You yourself can obviously find no logic whatsoever in your theory – hence your criticism of your inefficient God. On the other hand, experimentation is not “bumbling” if you stop assuming that it must be targeted at a purpose with which it has no connection.

Experimenting toward a goal means you don't have any idea how to get there. Not a recognizable God.


DAVID: In a way evolution is a screening process, with organisms given limited a adaptability so that God must step in to create new species. Therefore 99.9% of historical forms disappear. It all advanced toward us!!!

dhw: But you say your God deliberately created the limited adaptability of the 99% - that’s why you changed your terminology from “faulty design”. Once more: Why would he invent a system that forces him deliberately to design them, kill them off, design another 99% of irrelevant forms etc., until he dabbles with the otherwise uncontrolled environment and starts all over again by designing our ancestors from scratch? Your answer: “for reasons unknown”.

Remains your problem. A believer accepts God's choice of method.


DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

Pure historical fact.


DAVID: How can you imagine such a totally human God? Amazingly new theology. In evolution I clearly see God's totally purposeful design.

dhw: All three of my alternatives entail a God with totally purposeful design, though in b) and c) his purpose is different from yours. All three entail thought patterns and emotions like ours (your original wording), none of them result in ridiculing God’s methods as inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and none of them are more “human” than your own God, who at different times shares such human thought patterns as enjoyment, interest, wanting recognition, kindness, wanting a relationship with us etc.

Your limping comparisons to my God fail completely. Your highly human God does not compare to mine, who is purposeful, and alwasy knows exactly how to proceed.


DAVID: I still say God chose it. That is logical from the viewpoint of God the creator.

dhw: How the heck are you able to tell us your God’s viewpoint? Has God really agreed with you that his method of fulfilling his one and only purpose was inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

DAVID: I follow an expert opinion. Adler used God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: For the thousandth time, the subject is not God’s existence. Have both your God and Adler told you that God’s designs were inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

The fact that Adler proved God is not the point. The point is Adler used the Darwinian view of evolution for His proof. Adler discussed the failings of Darwin on the subject of evolution (our current subject).

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Sunday, April 02, 2023, 11:41 (361 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In two streams the biochemistry advances allowing more advanced body forms, with the final result, the most complex item in the universe, our brain.

dhw: I don’t understand what you mean by “two streams”, but there is no question that the biochemistry advanced and body forms became more complex, and our brain is certainly far more complex than the brains from which it is descended. We don’t know whether this is the “final result”, but our subject of discussion is not what might happen in the next two or three thousand million years. Why have you skipped the 99% of body forms that did not lead to our brain (plus our food)?

DAVID: We've settled the 0.1% survivers are us.

Us and our food. But so far you have only reproduced facts on which we agree, and you have left out the subject of our disagreement, which is your insistence that your magnificent designer came up with an inefficient, cumbersome, messy method of achieving his one and only goal by designing 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to it. Your “explanation” is as follows:

DAVID: God chose to design them for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: You yourself can obviously find no logic whatsoever in your theory – hence your criticism of your inefficient God. On the other hand, experimentation is not “bumbling” if you stop assuming that it must be targeted at a purpose with which it has no connection.

DAVID: Experimenting toward a goal means you don't have any idea how to get there. Not a recognizable God.

In my first theory, instead of your goal being H. sapiens, I take over some of your own concepts and have him wanting to create a life form with thought patterns and emotions like his own. He then proceeds to design countless successful life forms (some of them survived for millions of years) as he gradually comes closer to that goal. In other words, his experiments are targeted, but you are right, he does not know from the very beginning that the life form will have two legs, two arms, a nose, a penis or vagina, and a waggly thumb. In my other alternatives, his goal is to see what new things he can come up with, having invented the first life forms, or to see what they can come up with themselves – in your own words, he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

dhw: Once more: Why would he invent a system that forces him deliberately to design them, kill them off, design another 99% of irrelevant forms etc., until he dabbles with the otherwise uncontrolled environment and starts all over again by designing our ancestors from scratch? Your answer: “for reasons unknown”.

DAVID: Remains your problem. A believer accepts God's choice of method.
And transferred from “More Miscellany”:
DAVID: I am not responsible to know God's exact reasoning for His choice of method. You are using an unanswerable question to attack me spuriously. Worthless debating tool!!!

You don’t know that this inefficient method is your God’s choice! It’s only your theory, and why should a believer accept your illogical theory about God’s purpose and choice of method, when not even you can understand it?

DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

DAVID: Pure historical fact.

What is “pure historical fact” – that your God exists and that he deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species in order that they should not survive because that was the only way he could design the only species he wanted to design? You call that historical fact?

DAVID: I still say God chose it. That is logical from the viewpoint of God the creator.

dhw: How the heck are you able to tell us your God’s viewpoint? Has God really agreed with you that his method of fulfilling his one and only purpose was inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

DAVID: I follow an expert opinion. Adler used God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: For the thousandth time, the subject is not God’s existence. Have both your God and Adler told you that God’s designs were inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

DAVID: The fact that Adler proved God is not the point.

Thank you.

DAVID: The point is Adler used the Darwinian view of evolution for His proof. Adler discussed the failings of Darwin on the subject of evolution (our current subject).

Our current subject is not the “failings of Darwin” but your daft theories of evolution, which you yourself find incomprehensible. You also dismiss alternative theistic theories (which you admit fit in with the history of life) because although you believe your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, you don’t think he has thought patterns and emotions like ours (except for some, like enjoyment and interest, but you’d rather forget those).

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 02, 2023, 15:38 (361 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We've settled the 0.1% survivers are us.

dhw: Us and our food. But so far you have only reproduced facts on which we agree, and you have left out the subject of our disagreement, which is your insistence that your magnificent designer came up with an inefficient, cumbersome, messy method of achieving his one and only goal by designing 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to it. Your “explanation” is as follows:

DAVID: God chose to design them for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: You yourself can obviously find no logic whatsoever in your theory – hence your criticism of your inefficient God. On the other hand, experimentation is not “bumbling” if you stop assuming that it must be targeted at a purpose with which it has no connection.

DAVID: Experimenting toward a goal means you don't have any idea how to get there. Not a recognizable God.

dhw: In my first theory, instead of your goal being H. sapiens, I take over some of your own concepts and have him wanting to create a life form with thought patterns and emotions like his own. He then proceeds to design countless successful life forms (some of them survived for millions of years) as he gradually comes closer to that goal. In other words, his experiments are targeted, but you are right, he does not know from the very beginning that the life form will have two legs, two arms, a nose, a penis or vagina, and a waggly thumb. In my other alternatives, his goal is to see what new things he can come up with, having invented the first life forms, or to see what they can come up with themselves – in your own words, he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

Either way your process God has no idea where He is going. He can precisely produce a universe fine-tuned-for life, create early life which has highly complex biochemistry and then suddenly is muddled as to how to go forward? As usual you have imagined a highly humanized high inconsistent God. My God knows exactly wherev He is going and how to do it.


dhw: You don’t know that this inefficient method is your God’s choice! It’s only your theory, and why should a believer accept your illogical theory about God’s purpose and choice of method, when not even you can understand it?

I do know! I believe God created our reality. Currently you are operating with the same assumption. Evolution happened. Therefore, God chose it to happen with a 0.1% survival rate.


DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

DAVID: Pure historical fact.

dhw: What is “pure historical fact” – that your God exists and that he deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species in order that they should not survive because that was the only way he could design the only species he wanted to design? You call that historical fact?

DAVID: I still say God chose it. That is logical from the viewpoint of God the creator.

dhw: How the heck are you able to tell us your God’s viewpoint? Has God really agreed with you that his method of fulfilling his one and only purpose was inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

DAVID: I follow an expert opinion. Adler used God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: For the thousandth time, the subject is not God’s existence. Have both your God and Adler told you that God’s designs were inefficient, cumbersome and messy?

DAVID: The fact that Adler proved God is not the point.

dhw: Thank you.

DAVID: The point is Adler used the Darwinian view of evolution for His proof. Adler discussed the failings of Darwin on the subject of evolution (our current subject).

dhw: Our current subject is not the “failings of Darwin” but your daft theories of evolution, which you yourself find incomprehensible. You also dismiss alternative theistic theories (which you admit fit in with the history of life) because although you believe your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, you don’t think he has thought patterns and emotions like ours (except for some, like enjoyment and interest, but you’d rather forget those).

Adler's point was Darwin-style evolutionary theory does not explain the arrival of humans. God had to do it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Monday, April 03, 2023, 08:57 (361 days ago) @ David Turell

I shan’t repeat my earlier comments, as David’s latest entries call for exactly the same responses as before.

DAVID: Either way your process God has no idea where He is going.

In my first alternative theory he is “going” towards creating a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own – as in your own theory. But instead of incomprehensibly having to create 99 out of 100 irrelevant species in what you call an inefficient, cumbersome, messy process, he experiments successfully with different forms of life until he finds the best formula. In my other two theories he embarks on a voyage of discovery, learning as the process unfolds. That is part of what you call his “enjoyment” of creation, and it fosters what you call his “interest in watching” his creations or the creations of his initial invention. And in all three he knows precisely what he is doing and why he is doing it.

DAVID: He can precisely produce a universe fine-tuned-for life, create early life which has highly complex biochemistry and then suddenly is muddled as to how to go forward?

No muddle, as above. Only your theory is a muddle. As regards the universe, on Saturday you quoted Siegel: “We don’t know if our Universe is finite or infinite in extent; we only know that its physical size must be greater than the portion we can observe. We don’t know whether our Universe encompasses all that exists.” Nor do we know, then, that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life. I keep asking why you think your God had to design billions of galaxies in order to produce ours. Your answer is the same as when I ask you why he would have to create 99 irrelevant species out of 100: you have no idea. Only God knows.

DAVID: As usual you have imagined a highly humanized high inconsistent God. My God knows exactly where He is going and how to do it.

Your God apparently knows that in order to design the only species he wants to design, he must “FOR UNKNOWN REASONS” design 99 species out 100 that have nothing to do with the only species he wants to design. There is nothing inconsistent in any of my alternatives – he knows what he wants to do and does it. I have answered your “humanizing” complaint over and over again, the last time being yesterday: “You also dismiss alternative theistic theories (which you admit fit in with the history of life) because although you believe your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, you don’t think he has thought patterns and emotions like ours (except for some, like enjoyment and interest, but you’d rather forget those).”


DAVID: […] I believe God created our reality. Currently you are operating with the same assumption. Evolution happened. Therefore, God chose it to happen with a 0.1% survival rate.

As our discussion concerns a possible God’s nature, purposes and methods, our starting point has to be that he exists. As usual, you select those aspects of your theories that we agree on, and leave out the illogicalities: your God sets out wanting to design H. sapiens (plus food), but forces himself to design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose and has to ensure that they will not survive by specially designing them with “limited adaptability”. So why did he bother to design them in the first place? Your answer: “for unknown reasons”, and your theories “make sense only to God”. i.e. not even to you.

DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

I’ve left this in, as you gave no answer. You then yet again tried to hide behind Adler, with this new irrelevant reference:

DAVID: Adler's point was Darwin-style evolutionary theory does not explain the arrival of humans. God had to do it.

Our subject is not Adler’s attempt to prove God’s existence through us humans, but your illogical theories as outlined above. In addition to these, his powers of design were always limited by current conditions over which he had no control (hence the irrelevance of the 99%) – until he did decide to control them (Cambrian) and designed our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the life forms before the Cambrian (or with the irrelevant forms that followed). No wonder you condemn his method as being inefficient, cumbersome and messy. Please stop using Adler as a diversion from your illogical theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, April 03, 2023, 16:43 (360 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Either way your process God has no idea where He is going.

dhw: In my first alternative theory he is “going” towards creating a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own – as in your own theory. But instead of incomprehensibly having to create 99 out of 100 irrelevant species in what you call an inefficient, cumbersome, messy process, he experiments successfully with different forms of life until he finds the best formula. In my other two theories he embarks on a voyage of discovery, learning as the process unfolds. That is part of what you call his “enjoyment” of creation, and it fosters what you call his “interest in watching” his creations or the creations of his initial invention. And in all three he knows precisely what he is doing and why he is doing it.

Experimentation means at the beginning Giod didn't know how to reach His goals. Not like any all-knowing God as described. My God knows from the beginnng.


DAVID: He can precisely produce a universe fine-tuned-for life, create early life which has highly complex biochemistry and then suddenly is muddled as to how to go forward?

dhw: No muddle, as above. Only your theory is a muddle. As regards the universe, on Saturday you quoted Siegel: “We don’t know if our Universe is finite or infinite in extent; we only know that its physical size must be greater than the portion we can observe. We don’t know whether our Universe encompasses all that exists.” Nor do we know, then, that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life. I keep asking why you think your God had to design billions of galaxies in order to produce ours. Your answer is the same as when I ask you why he would have to create 99 irrelevant species out of 100: you have no idea. Only God knows.


Siegel is following the space research which will hopefully answer your skeptical questions about God's intentions for an enormous universe.


DAVID: As usual you have imagined a highly humanized high inconsistent God. My God knows exactly where He is going and how to do it.

dhw: Your God apparently knows that in order to design the only species he wants to design, he must “FOR UNKNOWN REASONS” design 99 species out 100 that have nothing to do with the only species he wants to design. There is nothing inconsistent in any of my alternatives – he knows what he wants to do and does it. I have answered your “humanizing” complaint over and over again, the last time being yesterday: “You also dismiss alternative theistic theories (which you admit fit in with the history of life) because although you believe your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, you don’t think he has thought patterns and emotions like ours (except for some, like enjoyment and interest, but you’d rather forget those).”

Long ago I agreed God has emotions, in His own way similar to ours.>


DAVID: […] I believe God created our reality. Currently you are operating with the same assumption. Evolution happened. Therefore, God chose it to happen with a 0.1% survival rate.

dhw: As our discussion concerns a possible God’s nature, purposes and methods, our starting point has to be that he exists. As usual, you select those aspects of your theories that we agree on, and leave out the illogicalities: your God sets out wanting to design H. sapiens (plus food), but forces himself to design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose and has to ensure that they will not survive by specially designing them with “limited adaptability”. So why did he bother to design them in the first place? Your answer: “for unknown reasons”, and your theories “make sense only to God”. i.e. not even to you.

As a believer I simply accept what God did without your skepticism.


DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

I’ve left this in, as you gave no answer. You then yet again tried to hide behind Adler, with this new irrelevant reference:

DAVID: Adler's point was Darwin-style evolutionary theory does not explain the arrival of humans. God had to do it.

dhw: Our subject is not Adler’s attempt to prove God’s existence through us humans, but your illogical theories as outlined above. In addition to these, his powers of design were always limited by current conditions over which he had no control (hence the irrelevance of the 99%) – until he did decide to control them (Cambrian) and designed our ancestors from scratch, so he needn’t have bothered with all the life forms before the Cambrian (or with the irrelevant forms that followed). No wonder you condemn his method as being inefficient, cumbersome and messy. Please stop using Adler as a diversion from your illogical theories.

You refuse to accept that Adler accepted evolution as God's choice of action. The fact that God didn't control every tiny or large element of the environment but was able to produce miraculous humans shows His innate powers

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, April 04, 2023, 12:15 (359 days ago) @ David Turell

We are still grappling with David’s belief that his God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, and designed them in such a way that they would not survive.

dhw: So why did he bother to design them in the first place? Your answer: “for unknown reasons”, and your theories “make sense only to God”. i.e. not even to you.

DAVID: As a believer I simply accept what God did without your skepticism.

No you don’t. You simply accept your own totally illogical theory about what your God did and why he did it.

DAVID: Experimentation means at the beginning God didn't know how to reach His goals. Not like any all-knowing God as described. My God knows from the beginning.

You’ve got it! Your God knows from the beginning, and so you have absolutely no idea why he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal. It doesn’t make sense. So according to you, your God is an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. Alternatively, his one and only goal was not us and our food, and there are logical reasons for the 99%, or if we were his goal, he is not all-knowing but is a learning God who experiments. Progress at last!:-)

DAVID: He can precisely produce a universe fine-tuned-for life, create early life which has highly complex biochemistry and then suddenly is muddled as to how to go forward?

dhw: No muddle, as above. Only your theory is a muddle. As regards the universe, on Saturday you quoted Siegel: “We don’t know if our Universe is finite or infinite in extent; we only know that its physical size must be greater than the portion we can observe. We don’t know whether our Universe encompasses all that exists.” Nor do we know, then, that the whole universe is fine-tuned for life. I keep asking why you think your God had to design billions of galaxies in order to produce ours. Your answer is the same as when I ask you why he would have to create 99 irrelevant species out of 100: you have no idea. Only God knows.

DAVID: Siegel is following the space research which will hopefully answer your skeptical questions about God's intentions for an enormous universe.

Yes, you can’t think of a single reason to justify your theory, but you hope that somehow someone will prove that it’s correct.

DAVID: As usual you have imagined a highly humanized high inconsistent God.

dhw:. I have answered your “humanizing” complaint over and over again, the last time being yesterday: “You also dismiss alternative theistic theories (which you admit fit in with the history of life) because although you believe your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, you don’t think he has thought patterns and emotions like ours (except for some, like enjoyment and interest, but you’d rather forget those).”

DAVID: Long ago I agreed God has emotions, in His own way similar to ours.

And thought patterns too. Thank you for confirming that this is your belief. So please stop complaining that my logical theories are wrong because they contain thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

dhw: I’ve left this in, as you gave no answer.

You then switch to your usual escape route of what Adler has to say on the subject, although in fact he has nothing to say on the subject.

DAVID: You refuse to accept that Adler accepted evolution as God's choice of action.

If God exists, you, Adler and I all accept that evolution would have been his choice of action, because we all believe evolution happened!

DAVID: The fact that God didn't control every tiny or large element of the environment but was able to produce miraculous humans shows His innate powers.

Nobody would deny that if your God exists, he has innate powers, which are evident from the existence of all life. This has absolutely nothing to do with your illogical theories about your God’s one and only purpose and the inefficient, cumbersome, messy image of him that you present.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 04, 2023, 16:24 (359 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As a believer I simply accept what God did without your skepticism.

dhw: No you don’t. You simply accept your own totally illogical theory about what your God did and why he did it.

No you don't. Simple logic. God as creator produced humans by evolution.


DAVID: Experimentation means at the beginning God didn't know how to reach His goals. Not like any all-knowing God as described. My God knows from the beginning.

dhw: You’ve got it! Your God knows from the beginning, and so you have absolutely no idea why he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal. It doesn’t make sense. So according to you, your God is an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. Alternatively, his one and only goal was not us and our food, and there are logical reasons for the 99%, or if we were his goal, he is not all-knowing but is a learning God who experiments. Progress at last!:-)

I understand your humanized God. My God needs no experimentation. He evolves us just as history shows. ;-)


DAVID: Siegel is following the space research which will hopefully answer your skeptical questions about God's intentions for an enormous universe.

Yes, you can’t think of a single reason to justify your theory, but you hope that somehow someone will prove that it’s correct.

DAVID: As usual you have imagined a highly humanized high inconsistent God.

dhw:. I have answered your “humanizing” complaint over and over again, the last time being yesterday: “You also dismiss alternative theistic theories (which you admit fit in with the history of life) because although you believe your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, you don’t think he has thought patterns and emotions like ours (except for some, like enjoyment and interest, but you’d rather forget those).”

DAVID: Long ago I agreed God has emotions, in His own way similar to ours.

dhw: And thought patterns too. Thank you for confirming that this is your belief. So please stop complaining that my logical theories are wrong because they contain thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

My complaint is your humanized God thinks and acts like a human, not in any way God-like.


DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

dhw: I’ve left this in, as you gave no answer.

No answer needed, I told you my view, God limited adaptability as God was speciating as necessary.


dhw: You then switch to your usual escape route of what Adler has to say on the subject, although in fact he has nothing to say on the subject.

Adler's view is my view. God evolved humans as an endpoint to evolution.


DAVID: You refuse to accept that Adler accepted evolution as God's choice of action.

dhw: If God exists, you, Adler and I all accept that evolution would have been his choice of action, because we all believe evolution happened!

DAVID: The fact that God didn't control every tiny or large element of the environment but was able to produce miraculous humans shows His innate powers.

dhw: Nobody would deny that if your God exists, he has innate powers, which are evident from the existence of all life. This has absolutely nothing to do with your illogical theories about your God’s one and only purpose and the inefficient, cumbersome, messy image of him that you present.

An all-powerful God produced us using that cumbersome system.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, April 05, 2023, 10:58 (359 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As a believer I simply accept what God did without your skepticism.

dhw: No you don’t. You simply accept your own totally illogical theory about what your God did and why he did it.

DAVID: No you don't. Simple logic. God as creator produced humans by evolution.

If God exists, then for those of us who believe in evolution, of course he produced humans and every other organism by evolution, either directly or indirectly. How does that explain your theory that we were his one and only goal, and therefore he designed 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his goal? Stop dodging!

DAVID: Experimentation means at the beginning God didn't know how to reach His goals. Not like any all-knowing God as described. My God knows from the beginning.

dhw: You’ve got it! Your God knows from the beginning, and so you have absolutely no idea why he would have designed countless life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal. It doesn’t make sense. So according to you, your God is an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. Alternatively, his one and only goal was not us and our food, and there are logical reasons for the 99%, or if we were his goal, he is not all-knowing but is a learning God who experiments. Progress at last! :-)

DAVID: I understand your humanized God. My God needs no experimentation. He evolves us just as history shows. ;-)

As above, history shows that we and ALL our fellow creatures evolved. What you can’t explain is why your God would have designed the irrelevant 99%, and you ignore the logic of my own explanations on the grounds of “humanization”, which inspires you to the next extraordinary self-contradiction:

DAVID: Long ago I agreed God has emotions, in His own way similar to ours.

dhw: And thought patterns too. Thank you for confirming that this is your belief. So please stop complaining that my logical theories are wrong because they contain thought patterns and emotions similar to ours.

DAVID: My complaint is your humanized God thinks and acts like a human, not in any way God-like.

Quite apart from the fact that you yourself once talked of “failed experiments”, and you yourself are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations (these are the three “human” features of my alternative theories), your complaint is that although you agree your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, he cannot possibly have acted in a manner which is based on thought patterns and emotions like ours!

DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

DAVID: No answer needed, I told you my view, God limited adaptability as God was speciating as necessary.

He deliberately designed 99 out of 100 in such a way that they would not survive when conditions changed (that’s how he “killed them off”), and when chance changed the conditions again, he designed 99 more species out of 100, ensuring that they too would not survive. Now please tell us what the 99 were “necessary” for. As for “bad luck”, it was the bad luck of the 99 that your God created them in order to kill them off. As for God’s dependence on luck, random conditions dictated what species he could design, and which one of the 100 would survive to enable him to pursue his only goal. And so you have to change your story when it comes to the Cambrian, when all of a sudden he does control conditions, and starts all over again by designing our ancestors from scratch – thereby rendering 100 out of 100 previous species unnecessary.

dhw: You then switch to your usual escape route of what Adler has to say on the subject, although in fact he has nothing to say on the subject.

DAVID: Adler's view is my view. God evolved humans as an endpoint to evolution.

And therefore God designed 99 species out 100 which had no connection with humans or our food? If Adler did not say so, then there is no point in mentioning Adler.

DAVID: The fact that God didn't control every tiny or large element of the environment but was able to produce miraculous humans shows His innate powers.

dhw: Nobody would deny that if your God exists, he has innate powers, which are evident from the existence of all life. This has absolutely nothing to do with your illogical theories about your God’s one and only purpose and the inefficient, cumbersome, messy image of him that you present.

DAVID: An all-powerful God produced us using that cumbersome system.

So now it has become a fact that your all-powerful God is an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer. If he exists, I hope he has a sense of humour.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, April 05, 2023, 18:16 (358 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If God exists, then for those of us who believe in evolution, of course he produced humans and every other organism by evolution, either directly or indirectly. How does that explain your theory that we were his one and only goal, and therefore he designed 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his goal? Stop dodging!

Logic: He produced us through evolution which REQUIRES that demonstrated historically that low survival. You again are asking why evolve? I can't know!!! As for goal our extraordinary brain, the most complex item in the universe makes US THAT GOAL. Exactly Adler's point.

DAVID: My complaint is your humanized God thinks and acts like a human, not in any way God-like.

dhw: Quite apart from the fact that you yourself once talked of “failed experiments”, and you yourself are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations (these are the three “human” features of my alternative theories), your complaint is that although you agree your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, he cannot possibly have acted in a manner which is based on thought patterns and emotions like ours!

As a highly purposeful, all-knowing God I imagine, His thought patterns fit that role!!


DAVID: God did not kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.

dhw: If your all-knowing God deliberately designed them with limited adaptability, then he obviously knew his design would result in their non-survival! That's why you wrote that he is responsible for the mess. And it was their bad luck that your God deliberately designed them so that they would go extinct.

DAVID: No answer needed, I told you my view, God limited adaptability as God was speciating as necessary.

dhw: He deliberately designed 99 out of 100 in such a way that they would not survive when conditions changed (that’s how he “killed them off”), and when chance changed the conditions again, he designed 99 more species out of 100, ensuring that they too would not survive. Now please tell us what the 99 were “necessary” for.

A necessary result of living evolution, per Raup. it is a screening, culling process.

dhw: As for “bad luck”, it was the bad luck of the 99 that your God created them in order to kill them off. As for God’s dependence on luck, random conditions dictated what species he could design, and which one of the 100 would survive to enable him to pursue his only goal. And so you have to change your story when it comes to the Cambrian, when all of a sudden he does control conditions, and starts all over again by designing our ancestors from scratch – thereby rendering 100 out of 100 previous species unnecessary.

Fully explained before: the advanced biochemistry developed in the Edicaran prepared for the new forms in the Cambrian. You have acknowledged this previously. Stop shifting your replies.


dhw: You then switch to your usual escape route of what Adler has to say on the subject, although in fact he has nothing to say on the subject.

DAVID: Adler's view is my view. God evolved humans as an endpoint to evolution.

dhw: And therefore God designed 99 species out 100 which had no connection with humans or our food? If Adler did not say so, then there is no point in mentioning Adler.

Adler accepted evolution with all its bells and whistles.


DAVID: The fact that God didn't control every tiny or large element of the environment but was able to produce miraculous humans shows His innate powers.

dhw: Nobody would deny that if your God exists, he has innate powers, which are evident from the existence of all life. This has absolutely nothing to do with your illogical theories about your God’s one and only purpose and the inefficient, cumbersome, messy image of him that you present.

DAVID: An all-powerful God produced us using that cumbersome system.

dhw: So now it has become a fact that your all-powerful God is an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer. If he exists, I hope he has a sense of humour.

God knows Himself. You don't.;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Thursday, April 06, 2023, 09:12 (358 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If God exists, then for those of us who believe in evolution, of course he produced humans and every other organism by evolution, either directly or indirectly. How does that explain your theory that we were his one and only goal, and therefore he designed 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his goal? Stop dodging!

DAVID: Logic: He produced us through evolution which REQUIRES that demonstrated historically that low survival. You again are asking why evolve? I can't know!!!
And:
DAVID: A necessary result of living evolution, per Raup. it is a screening, culling process.

If your God exists, he invented the system of evolution! And so you have him forcing himself to design 99 out 100 species that have no connection with the purpose you impose on him, and then to “screen” or “cull” them” (= Darwin’s “natural selection”), which means kill them off by designing them with limited adaptability, and you have no idea why! My alternative theistic theories offer logical explanations for the 99 species you can’t explain, and your only objection is that they entail human-type thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God must have human-type thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: As for goal our extraordinary brain, the most complex item in the universe makes US THAT GOAL. Exactly Adler's point.

So all the other less complex life forms, 99% of which had no connection with us and our food, were deliberately designed for no reason you can think of, as a result of which your God is to be mocked as an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer.

DAVID: My complaint is your humanized God thinks and acts like a human, not in any way God-like.

dhw: Quite apart from the fact that you yourself once talked of “failed experiments”, and you yourself are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations (these are the three “human” features of my alternative theories), your complaint is that although you agree your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours, he cannot possibly have acted in a manner which is based on thought patterns and emotions like ours!

DAVID: As a highly purposeful, all-knowing God I imagine, His thought patterns fit that role!!

The God you imagine is an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer, who enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but does not experiment because he has forced himself to design 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose. This apparently makes him less human and more godlike than the highly purposeful but not necessarily all-knowing God I imagine, who successfully experiments, enjoys creating, and is interested in his creations.

dhw: As for “bad luck”, it was the bad luck of the 99 that your God created them in order to kill them off. As for God’s dependence on luck, random conditions dictated what species he could design, and which one of the 100 would survive to enable him to pursue his only goal. And so you have to change your story when it comes to the Cambrian, when all of a sudden he does control conditions, and starts all over again by designing our ancestors from scratch – thereby rendering 100 out of 100 previous species unnecessary.

DAVID: Fully explained before: the advanced biochemistry developed in the Edicaran prepared for the new forms in the Cambrian. You have acknowledged this previously. Stop shifting your replies.

All speciation entails biochemical change, and this is totally irrelevant to the fact that you have your God specially designing every life form to fit in with changes in the environment which are beyond his control, but then suddenly taking control of the environment in order to design our ancestors from scratch, i.e. without predecessors. Do you really believe he could not have created the necessary biochemical make-up of our ancestors if he hadn’t first created it in species irrelevant to his purpose (if that is what he did)? Or is it possible that earlier forms were successful experiments, as he tested different ways of creating a being that would have thought patterns and emotions like his own?

dhw: You then switch to your usual escape route of what Adler has to say on the subject, although in fact he has nothing to say on the subject.

DAVID: Adler accepted evolution with all its bells and whistles.

So do we all. But you have told us Adler never even mentions the out-of-tune bells and whistles that you attach to evolution.

DAVID: An all-powerful God produced us using that cumbersome system.

dhw: So now it has become a fact that your all-powerful God is an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer. If he exists, I hope he has a sense of humour.

DAVID: God knows Himself. You don't. ;-)

And you do? :-D

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 06, 2023, 16:45 (357 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, April 06, 2023, 16:53

DAVID: Logic: He produced us through evolution which REQUIRES that demonstrated historically that low survival. You again are asking why evolve? I can't know!!!
And:
DAVID: A necessary result of living evolution, per Raup. it is a screening, culling process.

dhw: If your God exists, he invented the system of evolution! And so you have him forcing himself to design 99 out 100 species that have no connection with the purpose you impose on him, and then to “screen” or “cull” them” (= Darwin’s “natural selection”), which means kill them off by designing them with limited adaptability, and you have no idea why! My alternative theistic theories offer logical explanations for the 99 species you can’t explain, and your only objection is that they entail human-type thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God must have human-type thought patterns and emotions.

Same old discussion. The differences in us is each of our God's personalities. Mine is full of purpose, all-knowing, totally omniscient, and thus does everything exactly as He wishes.
Your guy is unrecognizable as a God. He HAS to experiment, allows free-for-alls to advance evolution uncontrollably, and as fun for Him to watch and enjoy, and, as you've described, He isnot sure to create as humans.


DAVID: As for goal our extraordinary brain, the most complex item in the universe makes US THAT GOAL. Exactly Adler's point.

dhw: So all the other less complex life forms, 99% of which had no connection with us and our food, were deliberately designed for no reason you can think of, as a result of which your God is to be mocked as an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer.

NO!!! They were designed as part of an evolutionary system that is historical and, in my view, created by God. They were absolutely necessary as part of screening and culling.

dhw: As for “bad luck”, it was the bad luck of the 99 that your God created them in order to kill them off. As for God’s dependence on luck, random conditions dictated what species he could design, and which one of the 100 would survive to enable him to pursue his only goal. And so you have to change your story when it comes to the Cambrian, when all of a sudden he does control conditions, and starts all over again by designing our ancestors from scratch – thereby rendering 100 out of 100 previous species unnecessary.

DAVID: Fully explained before: the advanced biochemistry developed in the Edicaran prepared for the new forms in the Cambrian. You have acknowledged this previously. Stop shifting your replies.

dhw: All speciation entails biochemical change, and this is totally irrelevant to the fact that you have your God specially designing every life form to fit in with changes in the environment which are beyond his control, but then suddenly taking control of the environment in order to design our ancestors from scratch, i.e. without predecessors. Do you really believe he could not have created the necessary biochemical make-up of our ancestors if he hadn’t first created it in species irrelevant to his purpose (if that is what he did)? Or is it possible that earlier forms were successful experiments, as he tested different ways of creating a being that would have thought patterns and emotions like his own?

Again, a so-called God who doesn't know how to make a human!!! God chose to evolve step-by= step so the biochemistry has to be developed that way.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Saturday, April 08, 2023, 07:36 (356 days ago) @ David Turell

HUGE APOLOGIES! I thought I'd posted this and the "More Miscellanies" responses yesterday, but I was actually interrupted by the arrival of an engineer who had come to investigate why my burglar alarm had suddenly gone off three times without cause, the last one having woken me up at 1.30 in the morning! Just after he left, my daughter arrived, and David's theory of evolution was well and truly off my mind!


DAVID:[…] The differences in us is each of our God's personalities. Mine is full of purpose, all-knowing, totally omniscient, and thus does everything exactly as He wishes.

Mine is full of purpose and does exactly as he wishes, but is not all-knowing. Yours wishes only to create us and our food and wishes to use a method which he knows is inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and you don’t know why he would choose to be such an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer.

DAVID: Your guy is unrecognizable as a God. He HAS to experiment, allows free-for-alls to advance evolution uncontrollably, and as fun for Him to watch and enjoy, and, as you've described, He is not sure to create as humans.

Yours HAS to use an inefficient, cumbersome, messy method to achieve his goal. Mine doesn’t HAVE to experiment – he WANTS to experiment, either in order to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own, or to discover the full potential of his wonderful invention. Alternatively, instead of experimenting directly, he WANTS to create and watch a free-for-all (though he can intervene if he wishes). And he enjoys creating, as YOU have described, and is interested in watching his creations, as YOU have described. A perfectly understandable purpose for creating life in the first place.

DAVID: As for goal our extraordinary brain, the most complex item in the universe makes US THAT GOAL. Exactly Adler's point.

dhw: So all the other less complex life forms, 99% of which had no connection with us and our food, were deliberately designed for no reason you can think of, as a result of which your God is to be mocked as an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer.

DAVID: NO!!! They were designed as part of an evolutionary system that is historical and, in my view, created by God. They were absolutely necessary as part of screening and culling.

Yes, your God – if he exists – created the historical system of evolution. But why was screening and culling (i.e. the creation and destruction of species irrelevant to his one and only purpose) necessary for your all-powerful, all-knowing God to create the only species he wanted to create? You have no idea. It makes no sense. Therefore there must have been another reason for his creation of the 99%. I have offered you three logical reasons, and two of them even incorporate your idea of his purpose (a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own).

DAVID: Again, a so-called God who doesn't know how to make a human!!! God chose to evolve step-by-step so the biochemistry has to be developed that way.

Again a so-called God who knows precisely how to make a human (plus food) and therefore designs 99 out of 100 species that have nothing to do with humans (plus food), thereby proving himself to be an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer who, being omniscient, knows just how inefficient and cumbersome and messy he is.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 08, 2023, 17:02 (355 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:[…] The differences in us is each of our God's personalities. Mine is full of purpose, all-knowing, totally omniscient, and thus does everything exactly as He wishes.

dhw: Mine is full of purpose and does exactly as he wishes, but is not all-knowing. Yours wishes only to create us and our food and wishes to use a method which he knows is inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and you don’t know why he would choose to be such an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer.

Since when is God conceived as not all-knowing? This is a distinct contradiction to what most religion believe. That version leads you to create your very humanized God.


DAVID: Your guy is unrecognizable as a God. He HAS to experiment, allows free-for-alls to advance evolution uncontrollably, and as fun for Him to watch and enjoy, and, as you've described, He is not sure to create as humans.

dhw: Yours HAS to use an inefficient, cumbersome, messy method to achieve his goal. Mine doesn’t HAVE to experiment – he WANTS to experiment, either in order to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own, or to discover the full potential of his wonderful invention. Alternatively, instead of experimenting directly, he WANTS to create and watch a free-for-all (though he can intervene if he wishes). And he enjoys creating, as YOU have described, and is interested in watching his creations, as YOU have described. A perfectly understandable purpose for creating life in the first place.

DAVID: As for goal our extraordinary brain, the most complex item in the universe makes US THAT GOAL. Exactly Adler's point.

dhw: So all the other less complex life forms, 99% of which had no connection with us and our food, were deliberately designed for no reason you can think of, as a result of which your God is to be mocked as an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer.

DAVID: NO!!! They were designed as part of an evolutionary system that is historical and, in my view, created by God. They were absolutely necessary as part of screening and culling.

dhw: Yes, your God – if he exists – created the historical system of evolution. But why was screening and culling (i.e. the creation and destruction of species irrelevant to his one and only purpose) necessary for your all-powerful, all-knowing God to create the only species he wanted to create? You have no idea. It makes no sense. Therefore there must have been another reason for his creation of the 99%. I have offered you three logical reasons, and two of them even incorporate your idea of his purpose (a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own).

You strain to make your imitation God really God-like, but the effort falls short, as I view God. Evolution as it is, makes perfect sense to me as I accept God as perfect in what He chooses to do.


DAVID: Again, a so-called God who doesn't know how to make a human!!! God chose to evolve step-by-step so the biochemistry has to be developed that way.

dhw: Again a so-called God who knows precisely how to make a human (plus food) and therefore designs 99 out of 100 species that have nothing to do with humans (plus food), thereby proving himself to be an inefficient, cumbersome, messy designer who, being omniscient, knows just how inefficient and cumbersome and messy he is.

Reply as above: Evolution as it is, makes perfect sense to me as I accept God as perfect in what He chooses to do.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Sunday, April 09, 2023, 09:18 (355 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] The differences in us is each of our God's personalities. Mine is full of purpose, all-knowing, totally omniscient, and thus does everything exactly as He wishes.

dhw: Mine is full of purpose and does exactly as he wishes, but is not all-knowing. Yours wishes only to create us and our food and wishes to use a method which he knows is inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and you don’t know why he would choose to be such an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer.

DAVID: Since when is God conceived as not all-knowing? This is a distinct contradiction to what most religion believe. That version leads you to create your very humanized God.

Since when did most religions inform us that your God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his sole purpose of creating us and our food, and had no control over the environment which dictated what life forms he could/could not design whenever conditions changed? And how many religions inform us that his method of achieving his one and only goal was inefficient, cumbersome and messy? Since when has your panentheism and your theory of evolution become the norm in most religions? As for omniscience, we have spent hours, and theologians (think of Augustine versus Pelagius) have spent centuries, debating the two great issues of free will (linked to predestination) and theodicy, both encapsulated by the story of Adam and Eve. If your God knows everything, why did he create the serpent and the tree of knowledge of good and evil - knowing perfectly well that Eve would be tempted - but then blame Eve and Adam for eating the fruit? It’s very generous of you to credit me with inventing a brand new approach to your God by challenging his omniscience, but Messrs Augustine and Pelagius started it all, and Whitehead and process theologians came up with the proposal that God is mutable (which implies learning, which contradicts omniscience).

DAVID (re the 99% of irrelevant species) : They were designed as part of an evolutionary system that is historical and, in my view, created by God. They were absolutely necessary as part of screening and culling.

dhw: Yes, your God – if he exists – created the historical system of evolution. But why was screening and culling (i.e. the creation and destruction of species irrelevant to his one and only purpose) necessary for your all-powerful, all-knowing God to create the only species he wanted to create? You have no idea. It makes no sense. Therefore there must have been another reason for his creation of the 99%. I have offered you three logical reasons, and two of them even incorporate your idea of his purpose (a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own).

DAVID: You strain to make your imitation God really God-like, but the effort falls short, as I view God. Evolution as it is, makes perfect sense to me as I accept God as perfect in what He chooses to do.

You keep admitting that your theory does NOT make perfect sense to you because it makes sense only to God, and he is certainly not perfect in what YOU choose for him to do. because his method of fulfilling what you think is his purpose is, according to you, inefficient, cumbersome and messy. Stop flapping around behind these vague general protestations.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 09, 2023, 15:23 (354 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Since when is God conceived as not all-knowing? This is a distinct contradiction to what most religion believe. That version leads you to create your very humanized God.

dhw: Since when did most religions inform us that your God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his sole purpose of creating us and our food, and had no control over the environment which dictated what life forms he could/could not design whenever conditions changed? And how many religions inform us that his method of achieving his one and only goal was inefficient, cumbersome and messy? Since when has your panentheism and your theory of evolution become the norm in most religions? As for omniscience, we have spent hours, and theologians (think of Augustine versus Pelagius) have spent centuries, debating the two great issues of free will (linked to predestination) and theodicy, both encapsulated by the story of Adam and Eve. If your God knows everything, why did he create the serpent and the tree of knowledge of good and evil - knowing perfectly well that Eve would be tempted - but then blame Eve and Adam for eating the fruit? It’s very generous of you to credit me with inventing a brand new approach to your God by challenging his omniscience, but Messrs Augustine and Pelagius started it all, and Whitehead and process theologians came up with the proposal that God is mutable (which implies learning, which contradicts omniscience).

I had to look up Augustine and Pelagius. Thank you for the education. I follow Thomist thinking within Catholicism. The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor Does Whitehead impress me. I follow the Catholic philosopher Ed Feser for some of his thinking. But I have my on brand of theism I follow.

Your bolded mantra above is a distortion of the fact that evolution occurred, Raup pointed out the necessary survival rate showing it was cumbersome. As the creator God ran the show because He wanted to.


DAVID (re the 99% of irrelevant species) : They were designed as part of an evolutionary system that is historical and, in my view, created by God. They were absolutely necessary as part of screening and culling.

dhw: Yes, your God – if he exists – created the historical system of evolution. But why was screening and culling (i.e. the creation and destruction of species irrelevant to his one and only purpose) necessary for your all-powerful, all-knowing God to create the only species he wanted to create? You have no idea. It makes no sense. Therefore there must have been another reason for his creation of the 99%. I have offered you three logical reasons, and two of them even incorporate your idea of his purpose (a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own).

DAVID: You strain to make your imitation God really God-like, but the effort falls short, as I view God. Evolution as it is, makes perfect sense to me as I accept God as perfect in what He chooses to do.

dhw: You keep admitting that your theory does NOT make perfect sense to you because it makes sense only to God, and he is certainly not perfect in what YOU choose for him to do. because his method of fulfilling what you think is his purpose is, according to you, inefficient, cumbersome and messy. Stop flapping around behind these vague general protestations.

I do not perceive the warts you apply to my God. God evolved us by the historical system we know. As you pointed out years ago, using evolution to create us does not make as much sense as direct creation. We are exploring that issue now.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Monday, April 10, 2023, 08:17 (354 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Since when is God conceived as not all-knowing? This is a distinct contradiction to what most religion believe. That version leads you to create your very humanized God.

dhw: Since when did most religions inform us that your God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his sole purpose of creating us and our food, and had no control over the environment which dictated what life forms he could/could not design whenever conditions changed?

DAVID: Your bolded mantra above is a distortion of the fact that evolution occurred, Raup pointed out the necessary survival rate showing it was cumbersome. As the creator God ran the show because He wanted to.

You challenged the theory that God is not all-knowing on the grounds that most religions believe he IS all-knowing. How does that distort the fact that evolution occurred? Do most religions ask you to worship God for his inefficient, cumbersome, messy handling of evolution as pointed out by you and Raup? Of course if God exists, he would have wanted to run the show the way he wanted to run the show. How does that prove that he ran the show the inefficient, cumbersome, messy way you and Raup say he did? I have pointed out that your insistence on God’s omniscience is highly controversial among religious thinkers, as it entails the massive problems of free will (linked to predestination) and theodicy (why would an omniscient God deliberately create evil, knowing all its terrible consequences?)

DAVID: I had to look up Augustine and Pelagius. Thank you for the education. I follow Thomist thinking within Catholicism. The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor Does Whitehead impress me. I follow the Catholic philosopher Ed Feser for some of his thinking. But I have my own brand of theism I follow.

A delightful confession from someone who criticizes my logical theistic explanations for evolution on the grounds that they contradict “what most religions believe”, and then proudly informs us that he has his own brand of theism, even to the extent of excluding the Bible and no doubt also the Koran, which form the basis of three major religions! (I used the Adam and Eve story as an illustration of the two problems, not as history.)

DAVID: Evolution as it is, makes perfect sense to me as I accept God as perfect in what He chooses to do.

dhw: You keep admitting that your theory does NOT make perfect sense to you because it makes sense only to God, and he is certainly not perfect in what YOU choose for him to do, because his method of fulfilling what you think is his purpose is, according to you, inefficient, cumbersome and messy. Stop flapping around behind these vague general protestations.

DAVID:I do not perceive the warts you apply to my God.

Please explain to us why you do not regard as a "wart" his inefficient, cumbersome and messy method of fulfilling his purpose by designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to that purpose.

DAVID: God evolved us by the historical system we know. As you pointed out years ago, using evolution to create us does not make as much sense as direct creation. We are exploring that issue now.

The issue is not simply why God chose the historical system of evolution that we know (I've offered you three logical explanations), but why, if he only had the one purpose you impose on him, he proceeded to create 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose. Stop dodging!

QUOTE: "Since most of the universe is beyond the Hubble radius, all those galaxies are forever out of reach. As time goes on, those galaxies will, one by one, disappear entirely from view. Not through any cheating of the laws of physics, but through simple (and inevitable) stretching."

DAVID: dhw wonders why God made it so big. Because that is what God wanted.

The usual edited version of what I “wonder”, leaving out the question why your God would have designed thousands of millions of galaxies if his sole purpose was to design our galaxy containing our planet containing us and our food. If he exists, maybe it would make more sense if he didn’t design every galaxy and every species, but set in motion all the processes of galaxy and species formation, and watched the results with interest.

Retina cells

QUOTE: “Our results indicate that living organisms' visual system has adapted to cope with natural constraints to improve the efficiency of their neuronal code.'"

The same comment might be made about the evolution of all organs and organisms: all “systems” adapt (or in some cases innovate) to cope with their environment in order to improve their efficiency in the struggle for survival.

DAVID: such complex organization requires design in my view. Our eyes don't mimic cameras, they mimic our eyes

Our eyes certainly came before cameras, so if anything, cameras imitate our eyes! I agree with the logic of the design argument, as does the theory that intelligent cells – possibly designed by your God – did the designing. (I don’t understand your last comment. Our eyes ARE our eyes!)

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, April 10, 2023, 16:31 (353 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your bolded mantra above is a distortion of the fact that evolution occurred, Raup pointed out the necessary survival rate showing it was cumbersome. As the creator God ran the show because He wanted to.

dhw: You challenged the theory that God is not all-knowing on the grounds that most religions believe he IS all-knowing. How does that distort the fact that evolution occurred? Do most religions ask you to worship God for his inefficient, cumbersome, messy handling of evolution as pointed out by you and Raup? Of course if God exists, he would have wanted to run the show the way he wanted to run the show. How does that prove that he ran the show the inefficient, cumbersome, messy way you and Raup say he did? I have pointed out that your insistence on God’s omniscience is highly controversial among religious thinkers, as it entails the massive problems of free will (linked to predestination) and theodicy (why would an omniscient God deliberately create evil, knowing all its terrible consequences?)

There are many opinions of God's personality, no better than the one I developed for myself with help from Adler, as important any 'experts' you presented. Evolution is a messy process and yes, religions don't dig into the problems, they just accept it at its surface. It worked.


DAVID: I had to look up Augustine and Pelagius. Thank you for the education. I follow Thomist thinking within Catholicism. The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor Does Whitehead impress me. I follow the Catholic philosopher Ed Feser for some of his thinking. But I have my own brand of theism I follow.

dhw: A delightful confession from someone who criticizes my logical theistic explanations for evolution on the grounds that they contradict “what most religions believe”, and then proudly informs us that he has his own brand of theism, even to the extent of excluding the Bible and no doubt also the Koran, which form the basis of three major religions! (I used the Adam and Eve story as an illustration of the two problems, not as history.)

My own manifesto is above.


DAVID:I do not perceive the warts you apply to my God.

dhw: Please explain to us why you do not regard as a "wart" his inefficient, cumbersome and messy method of fulfilling his purpose by designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to that purpose.

I accept what God did as His valid choice of method, for His own reasons. It worked, we are here.


DAVID: God evolved us by the historical system we know. As you pointed out years ago, using evolution to create us does not make as much sense as direct creation. We are exploring that issue now.

dhw: The issue is not simply why God chose the historical system of evolution that we know (I've offered you three logical explanations), but why, if he only had the one purpose you impose on him, he proceeded to create 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose. Stop dodging!

Repeat, no dodge. The method of evolution is just what you decry! The objection makes no sense. My God wishes to evolve us and did.


QUOTE: "Since most of the universe is beyond the Hubble radius, all those galaxies are forever out of reach. As time goes on, those galaxies will, one by one, disappear entirely from view. Not through any cheating of the laws of physics, but through simple (and inevitable) stretching."

DAVID: dhw wonders why God made it so big. Because that is what God wanted.

dhw: The usual edited version of what I “wonder”, leaving out the question why your God would have designed thousands of millions of galaxies if his sole purpose was to design our galaxy containing our planet containing us and our food. If he exists, maybe it would make more sense if he didn’t design every galaxy and every species, but set in motion all the processes of galaxy and species formation, and watched the results with interest.

More derision about our necessary food!! God doesn't make sense to you, as you hopelessly use human logic to understand God!! Yikes!! As God evolved the universe, He knew exactly what would happen. His favored Milky Way appeared about two billion years after the BB. Your human God would start it and watch. My God is hands on and His 'interest' is doing it.


Retina cells

QUOTE: “Our results indicate that living organisms' visual system has adapted to cope with natural constraints to improve the efficiency of their neuronal code.'"

The same comment might be made about the evolution of all organs and organisms: all “systems” adapt (or in some cases innovate) to cope with their environment in order to improve their efficiency in the struggle for survival.

DAVID: such complex organization requires design in my view. Our eyes don't mimic cameras, they mimic our eyes

dhw: Our eyes certainly came before cameras, so if anything, cameras imitate our eyes! I agree with the logic of the design argument, as does the theory that intelligent cells – possibly designed by your God – did the designing. (I don’t understand your last comment. Our eyes ARE our eyes!)

We have 'camera' eyes, but they don't work like the ones we invent.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, April 11, 2023, 08:38 (353 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Since when is God conceived as not all-knowing? This is a distinct contradiction to what most religions believe.

dhw: Since when did most religions inform us that your God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his sole purpose of creating us and our food etc. […]

DAVID: Your bolded mantra above is a distortion of the fact that evolution occurred, Raup pointed out the necessary survival rate showing it was cumbersome. As the creator God ran the show because He wanted to.

dhw: You challenged the theory that God is not all-knowing on the grounds that most religions believe he IS all-knowing. How does that distort the fact that evolution occurred? Do most religions ask you to worship God for his inefficient, cumbersome, messy handling of evolution as pointed out by you and Raup? Of course if God exists, he would have wanted to run the show the way he wanted to run the show. […] I have pointed out that your insistence on God’s omniscience is highly controversial among religious thinkers, as it entails the massive problems of free will (linked to predestination) and theodicy (why would an omniscient God deliberately create evil, knowing all its terrible consequences?)

DAVID: There are many opinions of God's personality, no better than the one I developed for myself with help from Adler, as important any 'experts' you presented.

The one you have developed is that of a God whose sole purpose is to design us and our food, and whose method of achieving his purpose is inefficient, cumbersome and messy. You reject my proposals on the grounds that most religions would reject them, and then proudly inform us: “The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor Does Whitehead impress me. I follow the Catholic philosopher Ed Feser for some of his thinking. But I have my own brand of theism I follow.” So your views of God do not conform to “most religions”, but that’s fine. It’s only if my proposals don’t conform to most religions that it’s not fine.

DAVID: Evolution is a messy process and yes, religions don't dig into the problems, they just accept it at its surface. It worked.

You have dug into the problems of your own theory of evolution, and have concluded that your God is an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. Since you can make no sense of your theory (it makes sense only to your God), why do you complain if I come up with alternatives that offer perfectly logical explanations of evolution’s history which remove such criticisms of your God?

DAVID:I do not perceive the warts you apply to my God.

dhw: Please explain to us why you do not regard as a "wart" his inefficient, cumbersome and messy method of fulfilling his purpose by designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to that purpose.

DAVID: I accept what God did as His valid choice of method, for His own reasons. It worked, we are here.

You accept your THEORY about what God did for unknown reasons, and it makes no sense to you. All my alternatives end up with us being here, and they all “worked”, according to whatever purpose we assign to him.

The universe

DAVID: dhw wonders why God made it so big. Because that is what God wanted.

dhw: The usual edited version of what I “wonder”, leaving out the question why your God would have designed thousands of millions of galaxies if his sole purpose was to design our galaxy containing our planet containing us and our food. If he exists, maybe it would make more sense if he didn’t design every galaxy and every species, but set in motion all the processes of galaxy and species formation, and watched the results with interest.

DAVID: More derision about our necessary food!! God doesn't make sense to you, as you hopelessly use human logic to understand God!! Yikes!! As God evolved the universe, He knew exactly what would happen. His favored Milky Way appeared about two billion years after the BB. Your human God would start it and watch. My God is hands on and His 'interest' is doing it.

What is derisory about our food? He could hardly want to create us without wanting to create the food which would keep us alive! In all my alternatives, God’s actions make perfect sense to both of us, your only objection being that they show him to have thought patterns and emotions like ours, although you believe he has thought patterns and emotions like ours. If he was hands on and “knew exactly what would happen”, he knew right from the start that he would spend 2 billion years specially designing countless millions of galaxies although he only wanted to design one, just as he knew he would design 100 life forms although he only wanted to design one (plus its food). And he knew he was inefficient, cumbersome and messy, but just like you, he found himself stuck with a ridiculous system/theory entirely of his own making.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 11, 2023, 15:00 (352 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There are many opinions of God's personality, no better than the one I developed for myself with help from Adler, as important any 'experts' you presented.

dhwHL The one you have developed is that of a God whose sole purpose is to design us and our food, and whose method of achieving his purpose is inefficient, cumbersome and messy. You reject my proposals on the grounds that most religions would reject them, and then proudly inform us: “The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor Does Whitehead impress me. I follow the Catholic philosopher Ed Feser for some of his thinking. But I have my own brand of theism I follow.” So your views of God do not conform to “most religions”, but that’s fine. It’s only if my proposals don’t conform to most religions that it’s not fine.

Your form creates a God who is very humanlike in His methods and desires for Himself. God is selfless


DAVID: Evolution is a messy process and yes, religions don't dig into the problems, they just accept it at its surface. It worked.

dhw: You have dug into the problems of your own theory of evolution, and have concluded that your God is an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. Since you can make no sense of your theory (it makes sense only to your God), why do you complain if I come up with alternatives that offer perfectly logical explanations of evolution’s history which remove such criticisms of your God?

What you create is not a God as I see it.


DAVID:I do not perceive the warts you apply to my God.

dhw: Please explain to us why you do not regard as a "wart" his inefficient, cumbersome and messy method of fulfilling his purpose by designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to that purpose.

DAVID: I accept what God did as His valid choice of method, for His own reasons. It worked, we are here.

dhw: You accept your THEORY about what God did for unknown reasons, and it makes no sense to you. All my alternatives end up with us being here, and they all “worked”, according to whatever purpose we assign to him.

Like most believers I accept what God does without question.


The universe

DAVID: dhw wonders why God made it so big. Because that is what God wanted.

dhw: The usual edited version of what I “wonder”, leaving out the question why your God would have designed thousands of millions of galaxies if his sole purpose was to design our galaxy containing our planet containing us and our food. If he exists, maybe it would make more sense if he didn’t design every galaxy and every species, but set in motion all the processes of galaxy and species formation, and watched the results with interest.

DAVID: More derision about our necessary food!! God doesn't make sense to you, as you hopelessly use human logic to understand God!! Yikes!! As God evolved the universe, He knew exactly what would happen. His favored Milky Way appeared about two billion years after the BB. Your human God would start it and watch. My God is hands on and His 'interest' is doing it.

dhw: What is derisory about our food? He could hardly want to create us without wanting to create the food which would keep us alive! In all my alternatives, God’s actions make perfect sense to both of us, your only objection being that they show him to have thought patterns and emotions like ours, although you believe he has thought patterns and emotions like ours. If he was hands on and “knew exactly what would happen”, he knew right from the start that he would spend 2 billion years specially designing countless millions of galaxies although he only wanted to design one, just as he knew he would design 100 life forms although he only wanted to design one (plus its food). And he knew he was inefficient, cumbersome and messy, but just like you, he found himself stuck with a ridiculous system/theory entirely of his own making.

I'll remind you. This is an issue you raised years ago. I'l stick with God chose His method of creation for His own, unknown to us, reasons. AS for His thought patterns and vemotions we have discussed they are allegorical. He may think as we do but His results might surprise us.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, April 12, 2023, 11:09 (352 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There are many opinions of God's personality, no better than the one I developed for myself with help from Adler, as important any 'experts' you presented.

dhw: The one you have developed is that of a God whose sole purpose is to design us and our food, and whose method of achieving his purpose is inefficient, cumbersome and messy. You reject my proposals on the grounds that most religions would reject them, and then proudly inform us: “The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor Does Whitehead impress me. I follow the Catholic philosopher Ed Feser for some of his thinking. But I have my own brand of theism I follow.” So your views of God do not conform to “most religions”, but that’s fine. It’s only if my proposals don’t conform to most religions that it’s not fine.

DAVID: Your form creates a God who is very humanlike in His methods and desires for Himself. God is selfless

You tried to dismiss my alternatives on the grounds that most religions would reject them, and then you proudly informed us that you reject the basis of most religions and have your own brand of theism! You call your God’s methods inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and apparently this makes him less humanlike and more godlike than a God who in my three alternatives does precisely what he wants to do. I have no idea why your certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations is more “selfless” than my alternatives, which have him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations.

DAVID: I accept what God did as His valid choice of method, for His own reasons. It worked, we are here.

dhw: You accept your THEORY about what God did for unknown reasons, and it makes no sense to you. All my alternatives end up with us being here, and they all “worked”, according to whatever purpose we assign to him.

DAVID: Like most believers I accept what God does without question.

I had no idea that most believers believe that God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and his method of design was inefficient, cumbersome and messy. I expect most believers would be quite surprised that this is what they are supposed to believe.

DAVID: I'll stick with God chose His method of creation for His own, unknown to us, reasons. As for His thought patterns and emotions we have discussed they are allegorical. He may think as we do but His results might surprise us.

I have no doubt that if God exists, he had his own purpose and method for creation. That does not mean his purpose and method were the ones which you have chosen for him, and which show him to be an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. As for thought patterns and emotions, YOU know what you mean when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; these words are not “allegories”, and if he may think as we do, then it may be that one or other of my logical alternative explanations of evolution’s history is correct. You certainly can’t dismiss them on the grounds that although he may think as we do, he doesn’t think as we do.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, May 05, 2023, 20:45 (328 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There are many opinions of God's personality, no better than the one I developed for myself with help from Adler, as important any 'experts' you presented.

dhw: The one you have developed is that of a God whose sole purpose is to design us and our food, and whose method of achieving his purpose is inefficient, cumbersome and messy. You reject my proposals on the grounds that most religions would reject them, and then proudly inform us: “The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor Does Whitehead impress me. I follow the Catholic philosopher Ed Feser for some of his thinking. But I have my own brand of theism I follow.” So your views of God do not conform to “most religions”, but that’s fine. It’s only if my proposals don’t conform to most religions that it’s not fine.

DAVID: Your form creates a God who is very humanlike in His methods and desires for Himself. God is selfless

dhw: You tried to dismiss my alternatives on the grounds that most religions would reject them, and then you proudly informed us that you reject the basis of most religions and have your own brand of theism! You call your God’s methods inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and apparently this makes him less humanlike and more godlike than a God who in my three alternatives does precisely what he wants to do. I have no idea why your certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations is more “selfless” than my alternatives, which have him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations.

It is amazing to me that you cannot see how human is your preferred form of God. I am simppy following the rules my instructor, Adler, gave to me in his book, "How to Think About God."


DAVID: I accept what God did as His valid choice of method, for His own reasons. It worked, we are here.

dhw: You accept your THEORY about what God did for unknown reasons, and it makes no sense to you. All my alternatives end up with us being here, and they all “worked”, according to whatever purpose we assign to him.

DAVID: Like most believers I accept what God does without question.

dhw: I had no idea that most believers believe that God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and his method of design was inefficient, cumbersome and messy. I expect most believers would be quite surprised that this is what they are supposed to believe.

I did not infer believers know my personal theories which have been presented here.


DAVID: I'll stick with God chose His method of creation for His own, unknown to us, reasons. As for His thought patterns and emotions we have discussed they are allegorical. He may think as we do but His results might surprise us.

dhw:I have no doubt that if God exists, he had his own purpose and method for creation. That does not mean his purpose and method were the ones which you have chosen for him, and which show him to be an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. As for thought patterns and emotions, YOU know what you mean when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; these words are not “allegories”, and if he may think as we do, then it may be that one or other of my logical alternative explanations of evolution’s history is correct. You certainly can’t dismiss them on the grounds that although he may think as we do, he doesn’t think as we do.

Exactly, God thinks in a similar fashion, but not precesely as we do.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Saturday, May 06, 2023, 12:06 (327 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is amazing to me that you cannot see how human is your preferred form of God. I am simppy following the rules my instructor, Adler, gave to me in his book, "How to Think About God."

It is amazing to me that first you try to reject my alternatives because most religions would reject them, and in the same breath you tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism. It is equally amazing to me that you call your God inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and regard this as being less human and more godlike than my alternatives, which show him doing precisely what he wants to do. And it is amazing to me that while you are certain your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, this somehow makes him more “selfless” than my alternatives, which have him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations. As for Adler, you keep telling us that he does NOT cover your illogical theories, so please stop blaming him for all the messy bits and pieces that don’t make any sense to anyone (except, apparently, God).

DAVID: I accept what God did as His valid choice of method, for His own reasons. It worked, we are here.

dhw: You accept your THEORY about what God did for unknown reasons, and it makes no sense to you. All my alternatives end up with us being here, and they all “worked”, according to whatever purpose we assign to him.

DAVID: Like most believers I accept what God does without question.

dhw: I had no idea that most believers believe that God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and his method of design was inefficient, cumbersome and messy. I expect most believers would be quite surprised that this is what they are supposed to believe.

DAVID: I did not infer believers know my personal theories which have been presented here.

So what is the point in your telling us that most believers accept what God does without question? Clearly, then, you are now telling us that most believers don’t even know your theories about what God does, let alone accept them. And yet you dismiss my alternatives on the grounds that most religions would reject them!

DAVID: I'll stick with God chose His method of creation for His own, unknown to us, reasons. As for His thought patterns and emotions we have discussed they are allegorical. He may think as we do but His results might surprise us.

dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he had his own purpose and method for creation. That does not mean his purpose and method were the ones which you have chosen for him, and which show him to be an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. As for thought patterns and emotions, YOU know what you mean when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; these words are not “allegories”, and if he may think as we do, then it may be that one or other of my logical alternative explanations of evolution’s history is correct. You certainly can’t dismiss them on the grounds that although he may think as we do, he doesn’t think as we do.

DAVID: Exactly, God thinks in a similar fashion, but not precisely as we do.

Nobody knows how God thinks (if he exists). If you believe he thinks in a similar fashion to us, how does that support your theories, which make no sense even to you (you can't think of any reasons why he would act the way you make him act), and how does it invalidate my theories, which make perfect sense to both of us but to which you object on the grounds that they make him more human than the cumbersome, inefficient blunderer you envisage?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 06, 2023, 21:22 (327 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is amazing to me that you cannot see how human is your preferred form of God. I am simppy following the rules my instructor, Adler, gave to me in his book, "How to Think About God."

dhw: It is amazing to me that first you try to reject my alternatives because most religions would reject them, and in the same breath you tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism. It is equally amazing to me that you call your God inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and regard this as being less human and more godlike than my alternatives, which show him doing precisely what he wants to do. And it is amazing to me that while you are certain your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, this somehow makes him more “selfless” than my alternatives, which have him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations. As for Adler, you keep telling us that he does NOT cover your illogical theories, so please stop blaming him for all the messy bits and pieces that don’t make any sense to anyone (except, apparently, God).

I accept that the OT presents an accurate account of ancient Jewish history. Recent rabbis have softened God's image as portrayed. That is my starting point in my approach to God. Then I use Adler, a very prominent philosopher of religion, to guide me as to "How To Think About God", his book. All the rest emanates from my own research and analysis. Therefore, Adler is a basis, so he would have no idea of what I present here, unless he were alive and following us. That applies to the rest of humanity, religious or not. As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons. You've told us direct creation is more sensible. God should have listened to you.

DAVID: Like most believers I accept what God does without question.

dhw: I had no idea that most believers believe that God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and his method of design was inefficient, cumbersome and messy. I expect most believers would be quite surprised that this is what they are supposed to believe.

DAVID: I did not infer believers know my personal theories which have been presented here.

dhw: So what is the point in your telling us that most believers accept what God does without question? Clearly, then, you are now telling us that most believers don’t even know your theories about what God does, let alone accept them. And yet you dismiss my alternatives on the grounds that most religions would reject them!

Based on Adler's instruction's, you have no concept of how to think about God.


DAVID: I'll stick with God chose His method of creation for His own, unknown to us, reasons. As for His thought patterns and emotions we have discussed they are allegorical. He may think as we do but His results might surprise us.

dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he had his own purpose and method for creation. That does not mean his purpose and method were the ones which you have chosen for him, and which show him to be an inefficient, cumbersome and messy designer. As for thought patterns and emotions, YOU know what you mean when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; these words are not “allegories”, and if he may think as we do, then it may be that one or other of my logical alternative explanations of evolution’s history is correct. You certainly can’t dismiss them on the grounds that although he may think as we do, he doesn’t think as we do.

DAVID: Exactly, God thinks in a similar fashion, but not precisely as we do.

dhw: Nobody knows how God thinks (if he exists). If you believe he thinks in a similar fashion to us, how does that support your theories, which make no sense even to you (you can't think of any reasons why he would act the way you make him act), and how does it invalidate my theories, which make perfect sense to both of us but to which you object on the grounds that they make him more human than the cumbersome, inefficient blunderer you envisage?

I do not see God as an inefficient blunderer. That is your distortion of my presentation to try to explain why He used evolution. That distortion includes the now red accusation above. I accept God's actions without question, while all you do is endless questioning, most of which have no answers but can be accepted on faith.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Sunday, May 07, 2023, 11:50 (326 days ago) @ David Turell

I shall divide our exchange into each of its sections.

dhw: It is amazing to me that first you try to reject my alternatives because most religions would reject them, and in the same breath you tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism.

DAVID: I accept that the OT presents an accurate account of ancient Jewish history. Recent rabbis have softened God's image as portrayed. That is my starting point in my approach to God.

I have offered alternative explanations for your God’s use of evolution, and you say that most religions would reject them. You then tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism. Your response totally ignores your double standards.

dhw: As for Adler, you keep telling us that he does NOT cover your illogical theories, so please stop blaming him for all the messy bits and pieces that don’t make any sense to anyone (except, apparently, God).

DAVID: Then I use Adler, a very prominent philosopher of religion, to guide me as to "How To Think About God", his book. All the rest emanates from my own research and analysis. Therefore, Adler is a basis, so he would have no idea of what I present here, unless he were alive and following us. That applies to the rest of humanity, religious or not.

Since Adler does not support your theory that your God deliberately created 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his alleged single purpose of designing sapiens and our food, his book is irrelevant to your defence of a theory which is so irrational that you describe your God as a “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” designer.

dhw: It is equally amazing to me that you call your God inefficient, cumbersome and messy, and regard this as being less human and more godlike than my alternatives, which show him doing precisely what he wants to do.

DAVID: As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons. You've told us direct creation is more sensible. God should have listened to you.

You have agreed that direct creation would be more sensible if God’s sole purpose was to design us plus food. Hence my alternative logical explanations. So why “must” we accept YOUR view of God as a cumbersome designer, when it is perfectly possible to find logical explanations for his design of ALL species?

DAVID: Based on Adler's instruction's, you have no concept of how to think about God.

You have agreed that Adler does not tell us to think of God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

dhw: And it is amazing to me that while you are certain your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, this somehow makes him more “selfless” than my alternatives, which have him enjoying creating and being interested in his creations.

DAVID: As for His thought patterns and emotions we have discussed they are allegorical. He may think as we do but His results might surprise us.

dhw: As for thought patterns and emotions, YOU know what you mean when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations; these words are not “allegories”, and if he may think as we do, then it may be that one or other of my logical alternative explanations of evolution’s history is correct. You certainly can’t dismiss them on the grounds that although he may think as we do, he doesn’t think as we do.

DAVID: Exactly, God thinks in a similar fashion, but not precisely as we do.

dhw: Nobody knows how God thinks (if he exists). If you believe he thinks in a similar fashion to us, how does that support your theories, which make no sense even to you (you can't think of any reasons why he would act the way you make him act), and how does it invalidate my theories, which make perfect sense to both of us but to which you object on the grounds that they make him more human than the cumbersome, inefficient blunderer you envisage?

DAVID: I do not see God as an inefficient blunderer. That is your distortion of my presentation to try to explain why He used evolution.

You have just repeated: “we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for his own reasons”, and you have repeatedly used the words “messy” and “inefficient”. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: That distortion includes the now red accusation above. I accept God's actions without question, while all you do is endless questioning, most of which have no answers but can be accepted on faith.

You accept your interpretation of God’s actions without question, and you can think of no possible reason why he should have acted that way if his sole purpose was the one you impose on him. I question your theory endlessly because you yourself find it incomprehensible. I offer various alternatives which you agree fit in with the history of life, but which you reject solely because you think your cumbersome designer is more godlike than a God who knows precisely what he is doing.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 00:03 (324 days ago) @ dhw

I shall divide our exchange into each of its sections.

DAVID: I accept that the OT presents an accurate account of ancient Jewish history. Recent rabbis have softened God's image as portrayed. That is my starting point in my approach to God.

dhw: I have offered alternative explanations for your God’s use of evolution, and you say that most religions would reject them. You then tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism. Your response totally ignores your double standards.

I have no double standard for your God-theories. I find them totally unacceptable as highly humanized. It is not a sleight of hands on my part to start with the OT as a basis for thought and then modify as I see fit from other studies. Your human God is your preferential approach.

dhw: Since Adler does not support your theory that your God deliberately created 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his alleged single purpose of designing sapiens and our food, his book is irrelevant to your defence of a theory which is so irrational that you describe your God as a “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” designer.

Adler's book instructing how to think about God has NOTHING to do with any evolutionary theories. His other book on the appearance of humans tears into Darwin theory as supporting the appearance of humans as highly unusual under that theory, therefore God did it.


DAVID: As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons. You've told us direct creation is more sensible. God should have listened to you.

dhw: You have agreed that direct creation would be more sensible if God’s sole purpose was to design us plus food. Hence my alternative logical explanations. So why “must” we accept YOUR view of God as a cumbersome designer, when it is perfectly possible to find logical explanations for his design of ALL species?

Because the history is one of a cumbersome evolution.


DAVID: Based on Adler's instruction's, you have no concept of how to think about God.

dhw: You have agreed that Adler does not tell us to think of God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

Adler makes no issue of how God conducts evolution. Stop inventing negatives.


DAVID: Exactly, God thinks in a similar fashion, but not precisely as we do.

dhw: Nobody knows how God thinks (if he exists). If you believe he thinks in a similar fashion to us, how does that support your theories, which make no sense even to you (you can't think of any reasons why he would act the way you make him act), and how does it invalidate my theories, which make perfect sense to both of us but to which you object on the grounds that they make him more human than the cumbersome, inefficient blunderer you envisage?

DAVID: I do not see God as an inefficient blunderer. That is your distortion of my presentation to try to explain why He used evolution.

dhw: You have just repeated: “we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for his own reasons”, and you have repeatedly used the words “messy” and “inefficient”. Please stop contradicting yourself.

An honest appraisal. I accept God warts and all.


DAVID: That distortion includes the now red accusation above. I accept God's actions without question, while all you do is endless questioning, most of which have no answers but can be accepted on faith.

dhw: You accept your interpretation of God’s actions without question, and you can think of no possible reason why he should have acted that way if his sole purpose was the one you impose on him. I question your theory endlessly because you yourself find it incomprehensible. I offer various alternatives which you agree fit in with the history of life, but which you reject solely because you think your cumbersome designer is more godlike than a God who knows precisely what he is doing.

Our difference is enormous. I accept God as I see Him. My approach to God is entirely comprehensible to me, if not to you. Stop demanding I give you God's reasoning. I can't!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 11:11 (324 days ago) @ David Turell

I have juggled with the order of comments in order to focus more clearly on David’s self-contradictions.

dhw: I have offered alternative explanations for your God’s use of evolution, and you say that most religions would reject them. You then tell us that you reject most religions and have your own brand of theism. Your response totally ignores your double standards.

DAVID: I have no double standard for your God-theories. I find them totally unacceptable as highly humanized. It is not a sleight of hands on my part to start with the OT as a basis for thought and then modify as I see fit from other studies. Your human God is your preferential approach.

The double standard applies to your rejection of my theories because most religions would reject them, and you then tell us that you reject the Bible, and I have assumed that you also reject the Koran – books which provide the foundations of three major religions - and have your own brand of theism! As for my “highly humanized” form of God, you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Of course he’s not human, but that does not invalidate the theory that the creator might endow his creations with thought patterns and emotions like his own. Nor does it mean that your messy, cumbersome, inefficient God is less human and more godlike than one who does precisely what he wants to do. (NB Of course all these discussions presuppose the existence of God, which itself is a moot question!)

DAVID: As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons.

dhw: why “must” we accept YOUR view of God as a cumbersome designer, when it is perfectly possible to find logical explanations for his design of ALL species?

DAVID: Because the history is one of a cumbersome evolution.

The history of evolution is one of an ever changing variety of life forms. Why do you assume that your God did not want to create an ever changing variety of life forms?

DAVID: I do not see God as an inefficient blunderer.

dhw: You have just repeated: “we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for his own reasons”, and you have repeatedly used the words “messy” and “inefficient”.

DAVID: An honest appraisal. I accept God warts and all.

You have just said you do not see God as an inefficient blunderer, and now you praise your own honesty in accepting that he is an inefficient blunderer.

dhw: Since Adler does not support your theory that your God deliberately created 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his alleged single purpose of designing sapiens and our food, his book is irrelevant to your defence of a theory which is so irrational that you describe your God as a “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” designer.

DAVID: Adler's book instructing how to think about God has NOTHING to do with any evolutionary theories.
And:
DAVID: Adler makes no issue of how God conducts evolution. Stop inventing negatives.

Thank you for confirming that Adler’s book is totally irrelevant to your theories about a messy, cumbersome and inefficient God, so will you please stop bringing him into a discussion about your theory that God is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID: […] I accept God's actions without question, while all you do is endless questioning, most of which have no answers but can be accepted on faith.

dhw: You accept your interpretation of God’s actions without question, and you can think of no possible reason why he should have acted that way if his sole purpose was the one you impose on him. I question your theory endlessly because you yourself find it incomprehensible. I offer various alternatives which you agree fit in with the history of life, but which you reject solely because you think your cumbersome designer is more godlike than a God who knows precisely what he is doing.

DAVID: Our difference is enormous. I accept God as I see Him.

Precisely. You accept a God whom you see as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and propose that this makes him a brilliant designer but you can’t explain why.

DAVID: My approach to God is entirely comprehensible to me, if not to you. Stop demanding I give you God's reasoning. I can't!!!

No you can’t. And you can’t offer me one single reason of your own to explain why your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-purposeful God would deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to what you see as his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. How can this theory be comprehensible to you if you can’t think of a single logical reason to support it?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 16:52 (323 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have no double standard for your God-theories. I find them totally unacceptable as highly humanized. It is not a sleight of hands on my part to start with the OT as a basis for thought and then modify as I see fit from other studies. Your human God is your preferential approach.

dhw: The double standard applies to your rejection of my theories because most religions would reject them, and you then tell us that you reject the Bible, and I have assumed that you also reject the Koran – books which provide the foundations of three major religions - and have your own brand of theism! As for my “highly humanized” form of God, you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Of course he’s not human, but that does not invalidate the theory that the creator might endow his creations with thought patterns and emotions like his own. Nor does it mean that your messy, cumbersome, inefficient God is less human and more godlike than one who does precisely what he wants to do. (NB Of course all these discussions presuppose the existence of God, which itself is a moot question!)

Since the presence or not of God depends on who is pontificating, your questioning approach is certainly not mine. My conclusions are an amalgam of my ideas from researching many authorities. With freedom by not being bound by specific theistic thoughts or theories. Adler defines a very specific God entity. That has become my God. I have no idea what guides your prefrences.


DAVID: As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons.

dhw: why “must” we accept YOUR view of God as a cumbersome designer, when it is perfectly possible to find logical explanations for his design of ALL species?

DAVID: Because the history is one of a cumbersome evolution.

dhw: The history of evolution is one of an ever changing variety of life forms. Why do you assume that your God did not want to create an ever changing variety of life forms?

God created exactly what He wished created. What is your point exactly?


DAVID: I do not see God as an inefficient blunderer.

dhw: You have just repeated: “we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for his own reasons”, and you have repeatedly used the words “messy” and “inefficient”.

DAVID: An honest appraisal. I accept God warts and all.

dhw: You have just said you do not see God as an inefficient blunderer, and now you praise your own honesty in accepting that he is an inefficient blunderer.

It is your interpretation that God is an inefficient blunderer. God easily controls a messy evolutionary system.


dhw: Thank you for confirming that Adler’s book is totally irrelevant to your theories about a messy, cumbersome and inefficient God, so will you please stop bringing him into a discussion about your theory that God is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

Adler gives me a specific description of who God is. How God operates is another different issue.

DAVID: Our difference is enormous. I accept God as I see Him.

dhw: Precisely. You accept a God whom you see as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and propose that this makes him a brilliant designer but you can’t explain why.

I have carefully explained God chose a messy system and makes it work beautifully.


DAVID: My approach to God is entirely comprehensible to me, if not to you. Stop demanding I give you God's reasoning. I can't!!!

dhw: No you can’t. And you can’t offer me one single reason of your own to explain why your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-purposeful God would deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to what you see as his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. How can this theory be comprehensible to you if you can’t think of a single logical reason to support it?

This is logical: GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US FOR hIS OWN REASONS.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Thursday, May 11, 2023, 12:45 (322 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: As for my “highly humanized” form of God, you agree that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Of course he’s not human, but that does not invalidate the theory that the creator might endow his creations with thought patterns and emotions like his own. Nor does it mean that your messy, cumbersome, inefficient God is less human and more godlike than one who does precisely what he wants to do. (NB Of course all these discussions presuppose the existence of God, which itself is a moot question!)

DAVID: Since the presence or not of God depends on who is pontificating, your questioning approach is certainly not mine. My conclusions are an amalgam of my ideas from researching many authorities. With freedom by not being bound by specific theistic thoughts or theories. Adler defines a very specific God entity. That has become my God. I have no idea what guides your prefrences.

You certainly do not question your approach or your conclusions, even though you can find no logical reasons why your God would choose a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way to achieve the purpose you impose on him, and you have admitted that Adler has nothing whatsoever to say about your theory. (“Adler gives me a specific description of who God is. How God operates is another different issue.”) My approach (I don’t know why you call them preferences) is to look for logical reasons why evolution took the course we agree it took: namely, producing a vast variety of life forms and ecosysytems, 99% of which have become extinct.

DAVID: As for your skewed view of God's evolution, we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for His own reasons.

dhw: why “must” we accept YOUR view of God as a cumbersome designer, when it is perfectly possible to find logical explanations for his design of ALL species?

DAVID: Because the history is one of a cumbersome evolution.

dhw: The history of evolution is one of an ever changing variety of life forms. Why do you assume that your God did not want to create an ever changing variety of life forms?

DAVID: God created exactly what He wished created. What is your point exactly?

I’m surprised you haven’t cottoned on yet. My point is that even if we assume your God exists, there is no conceivable logic in your theory that at one and the same time he is all-powerful and all-knowing, his one and only purpose was to create sapiens plus food, and he did so by deliberately designing 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with his one and only purpose, and this messy, cumbersome, inefficient method shows him to be a brilliant designer! (“I have carefully explained God chose a messy system and makes it work beautifully.”) Conversely, the three alternative theories I offer all make perfect sense, but you reject them on the grounds that they entail human thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God may well have human thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: It is your interpretation that God is an inefficient blunderer. God easily controls a messy evolutionary system.

You have explicitly stated: “we must accept that God chose a cumbersome prolonged process for his own reasons”, you describe his methods as messy and inefficient, and you "accept God warts and all.

DAVID: This is logical: GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US FOR hIS OWN REASONS.

Yes, it is logical that if he exists HE CHOSE TO EVOLVE ALL LIFE FORMS EXTANT AND EXTINCT FOR HIS OWN REASONS, and you cannot find a single reason why he would have chosen to evolve all the life forms that had no connection with us and our food, but you insist that we were his one and only purpose and that despite being all-powerful and all-knowing, he is/was a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 11, 2023, 18:03 (322 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Since the presence or not of God depends on who is pontificating, your questioning approach is certainly not mine. My conclusions are an amalgam of my ideas from researching many authorities. With freedom by not being bound by specific theistic thoughts or theories. Adler defines a very specific God entity. That has become my God. I have no idea what guides your prefrences.

dhw: You certainly do not question your approach or your conclusions, even though you can find no logical reasons why your God would choose a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way to achieve the purpose you impose on him, and you have admitted that Adler has nothing whatsoever to say about your theory. (“Adler gives me a specific description of who God is. How God operates is another different issue.”) My approach (I don’t know why you call them preferences) is to look for logical reasons why evolution took the course we agree it took: namely, producing a vast variety of life forms and ecosysytems, 99% of which have become extinct.

I am happy with my conclusions. The purpose I 'impose' on God is producing humans. That is Adler's point in his other book I quote. Adler uses Darwin evolution theory exactly as it is: natural events produced humans. Adler says, no way, and our arrival proves God exists and running evolution to produce us. GOD CHOSE EVOLUTION.

dhw: The history of evolution is one of an ever changing variety of life forms. Why do you assume that your God did not want to create an ever changing variety of life forms?

DAVID: God created exactly what He wished created. What is your point exactly?

dhw: I’m surprised you haven’t cottoned on yet. My point is that even if we assume your God exists, there is no conceivable logic in your theory that at one and the same time he is all-powerful and all-knowing, his one and only purpose was to create sapiens plus food, and he did so by deliberately designing 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with his one and only purpose, and this messy, cumbersome, inefficient method shows him to be a brilliant designer! (“I have carefully explained God chose a messy system and makes it work beautifully.”) Conversely, the three alternative theories I offer all make perfect sense, but you reject them on the grounds that they entail human thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God may well have human thought patterns and emotions.

I'll grant you our emotions may reflect God's in some allegorical way. Your statement is consistent with your view, God logically did it wrong. Your logic is better than God's, really???


DAVID: This is logical: GOD CHOSE TO EVOLVE US FOR hIS OWN REASONS.

dhw: Yes, it is logical that if he exists HE CHOSE TO EVOLVE ALL LIFE FORMS EXTANT AND EXTINCT FOR HIS OWN REASONS, and you cannot find a single reason why he would have chosen to evolve all the life forms that had no connection with us and our food, but you insist that we were his one and only purpose and that despite being all-powerful and all-knowing, he is/was a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

Any living form contains the massively complex biochemical system creating life. God did that !!! Yes, all knowing, all powerful and working in mysterious ways, per religions.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Friday, May 12, 2023, 12:00 (321 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I am happy with my conclusions. The purpose I 'impose' on God is producing humans. That is Adler's point in his other book I quote. Adler uses Darwin evolution theory exactly as it is: natural events produced humans. Adler says, no way, and our arrival proves God exists and running evolution to produce us. GOD CHOSE EVOLUTION.

1)I know you’re happy with your conclusions. I know you insist that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce us and our food. I know Adler uses us as evidence that God exists, and if God does exist, then of course he chose evolution. 2) I also know that you can’t understand why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him, and that you consider him to be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. And I know that you believe that his messy, cumbersome, inefficient design means that he is a brilliant designer.
For some reason, you have ignored everything I’ve listed under 2).

DAVID: Any living form contains the massively complex biochemical system creating life. God did that !!! Yes, all knowing, all powerful and working in mysterious ways, per religions.

If God exists, then of course he designed the biochemical system. That is common to all my theistic alternatives. It doesn’t explain 2), but I agree that your theory presents you with a mystery which you have manufactured but can’t even begin to make sense of.

dhw: Conversely, the three alternative theories I offer all make perfect sense, but you reject them on the grounds that they entail human thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God may well have human thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: I'll grant you our emotions may reflect God's in some allegorical way. Your statement is consistent with your view, God logically did it wrong. Your logic is better than God's, really???

No, it’s YOU who say he did it wrong – unless you believe that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method is “right”! In my alternatives, he does everything right – he either wants to create a species able to think as he does (plus its food), and successfully experiments with different life forms and ecosystems before finding the best formula, or he experiments to explore all the possibilities of different life forms, learning and getting new ideas as he goes along, or he sets up a free-for-all to see what his invention can produce. In all three, he conforms to your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. In none of them does he do anything wrong, messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, May 12, 2023, 19:18 (321 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am happy with my conclusions. The purpose I 'impose' on God is producing humans. That is Adler's point in his other book I quote. Adler uses Darwin evolution theory exactly as it is: natural events produced humans. Adler says, no way, and our arrival proves God exists and running evolution to produce us. GOD CHOSE EVOLUTION.

1)I know you’re happy with your conclusions. I know you insist that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce us and our food. I know Adler uses us as evidence that God exists, and if God does exist, then of course he chose evolution. 2) I also know that you can’t understand why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him, and that you consider him to be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. And I know that you believe that his messy, cumbersome, inefficient design means that he is a brilliant designer.
For some reason, you have ignored everything I’ve listed under 2).

I've not ignored your distortions in 2). God has not told me why He chose to evolve us in a cumbersome way over lots of time. God is a brilliant designer. He made life!!! There is a huge difference between a cumbersome method and a cumbersome designer God is a brilliant designer who chose to use a cumbersome method of creation. Surely you can see the difference in interpretation.

dhw: Conversely, the three alternative theories I offer all make perfect sense, but you reject them on the grounds that they entail human thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God may well have human thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: I'll grant you our emotions may reflect God's in some allegorical way. Your statement is consistent with your view, God logically did it wrong. Your logic is better than God's, really???

dhw: No, it’s YOU who say he did it wrong – unless you believe that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method is “right”! In my alternatives, he does everything right – he either wants to create a species able to think as he does (plus its food), and successfully experiments with different life forms and ecosystems before finding the best formula, or he experiments to explore all the possibilities of different life forms, learning and getting new ideas as he goes along, or he sets up a free-for-all to see what his invention can produce. In all three, he conforms to your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. In none of them does he do anything wrong, messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

Back we go to dhw's confused God who has no idea what He is doing without experimenting, testing, or letting living creations self-invent without His guidance and so surprise God with their inventiveness which produces whatever they feel like, no purpose or direction necessary. What a total disaster of a God in dhw's fertile but weak imagination. Like no God ever described.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Saturday, May 13, 2023, 07:25 (321 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: 1)I know you’re happy with your conclusions. I know you insist that your God’s one and only purpose was to produce us and our food. I know Adler uses us as evidence that God exists, and if God does exist, then of course he chose evolution. 2) I also know that you can’t understand why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him, and that you consider him to be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. And I know that you believe that his messy, cumbersome, inefficient design means that he is a brilliant designer.

For some reason, you have ignored everything I’ve listed under 2).

DAVID: I've not ignored your distortions in 2). God has not told me why He chose to evolve us in a cumbersome way over lots of time. God is a brilliant designer. He made life!!! There is a huge difference between a cumbersome method and a cumbersome designer God is a brilliant designer who chose to use a cumbersome method of creation. Surely you can see the difference in interpretation.

If your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing first cause, he DESIGNED the method. If a designer designs and uses a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method, I suspect most people who speak English would agree that he must be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. Why do you refuse to consider the possibility that he may have used a method that neatly, elegantly and efficiently enabled him to fulfil whatever his purpose might have been? I have offered you three such proposals, fitting possible methods to possible purposes.

dhw: Conversely, the three alternative theories I offer all make perfect sense, but you reject them on the grounds that they entail human thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God may well have human thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: I'll grant you our emotions may reflect God's in some allegorical way. Your statement is consistent with your view, God logically did it wrong. Your logic is better than God's, really???

dhw: No, it’s YOU who say he did it wrong – unless you believe that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method is “right”! In my alternatives, he does everything right – he either wants to create a species able to think as he does (plus its food), and successfully experiments with different life forms and ecosystems before finding the best formula, or he experiments to explore all the possibilities of different life forms, learning and getting new ideas as he goes along, or he sets up a free-for-all to see what his invention can produce. In all three, he conforms to your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. In none of them does he do anything wrong, messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

DAVID: Back we go to dhw's confused God who has no idea what He is doing without experimenting, testing, or letting living creations self-invent without His guidance and so surprise God with their inventiveness which produces whatever they feel like, no purpose or direction necessary. What a total disaster of a God in dhw's fertile but weak imagination. Like no God ever described.

Why do you think experimentation, testing or deliberately inventing autonomous beings means confusion or purposelessness? All of my theistic alternatives lead to the history of life as we know it. Why does that make them into a total disaster? And why do you think your messy, clumsy, inefficient version is a superior way of creating this history than mine, which at each step produces what your God wants to produce?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 13, 2023, 16:55 (320 days ago) @ dhw

For some reason, you have ignored everything I’ve listed under 2).

DAVID: I've not ignored your distortions in 2). God has not told me why He chose to evolve us in a cumbersome way over lots of time. God is a brilliant designer. He made life!!! There is a huge difference between a cumbersome method and a cumbersome designer God is a brilliant designer who chose to use a cumbersome method of creation. Surely you can see the difference in interpretation.

dhw: If your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing first cause, he DESIGNED the method. If a designer designs and uses a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method, I suspect most people who speak English would agree that he must be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. Why do you refuse to consider the possibility that he may have used a method that neatly, elegantly and efficiently enabled him to fulfil whatever his purpose might have been? I have offered you three such proposals, fitting possible methods to possible purposes.

You keep reverting to your humanized God who has no basic direction in what He is doing.


dhw: Conversely, the three alternative theories I offer all make perfect sense, but you reject them on the grounds that they entail human thought patterns and emotions, although you agree that your God may well have human thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: I'll grant you our emotions may reflect God's in some allegorical way. Your statement is consistent with your view, God logically did it wrong. Your logic is better than God's, really???

dhw: No, it’s YOU who say he did it wrong – unless you believe that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method is “right”! In my alternatives, he does everything right – he either wants to create a species able to think as he does (plus its food), and successfully experiments with different life forms and ecosystems before finding the best formula, or he experiments to explore all the possibilities of different life forms, learning and getting new ideas as he goes along, or he sets up a free-for-all to see what his invention can produce. In all three, he conforms to your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in what he creates. In none of them does he do anything wrong, messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

DAVID: Back we go to dhw's confused God who has no idea what He is doing without experimenting, testing, or letting living creations self-invent without His guidance and so surprise God with their inventiveness which produces whatever they feel like, no purpose or direction necessary. What a total disaster of a God in dhw's fertile but weak imagination. Like no God ever described.

dhw: Why do you think experimentation, testing or deliberately inventing autonomous beings means confusion or purposelessness? All of my theistic alternatives lead to the history of life as we know it. Why does that make them into a total disaster? And why do you think your messy, clumsy, inefficient version is a superior way of creating this history than mine, which at each step produces what your God wants to produce?

Your God experiments, allows free-for-alls, and that is supposed to end up with sapiens? He did it by fumbling His way there? We are here purposefully by my real God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Sunday, May 14, 2023, 12:11 (319 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God has not told me why He chose to evolve us in a cumbersome way over lots of time. God is a brilliant designer. He made life!!! There is a huge difference between a cumbersome method and a cumbersome designer God is a brilliant designer who chose to use a cumbersome method of creation. Surely you can see the difference in interpretation.

dhw: If your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing first cause, he DESIGNED the method. If a designer designs and uses a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method, I suspect most people who speak English would agree that he must be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

I would have presumed from your non-reply to this point that you have now accepted your own theory that your God is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, and yet you repeat your praise of his brilliant inefficiency in Part Two of “More Miscellany”.

dhw: Why do you refuse to consider the possibility that he may have used a method that neatly, elegantly and efficiently enabled him to fulfil whatever his purpose might have been? I have offered you three such proposals, fitting possible methods to possible purposes.

DAVID: You keep reverting to your humanized God who has no basic direction in what He is doing.

You continue to ignore the fact that my alternatives are no more “humanized” than yours, you accept that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and all three of my theories present a God with a “basic direction” which explains the history of life’s vast variety, as we know it: 1) He experiments in order to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own (plus food); 2) he experiments in order to explore all the possibilities of his invention (life), learning, coming up with and enjoying new ideas as he goes along; 3) he gives his invention free rein (autonomy) in order to enjoy all the wonders it creates, although he can intervene if he feels like it. You may disapprove of such basic directions – although you are certain that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations – but please stop pretending that these basic directions are not basic directions.

dhw: […] why do you think your messy, clumsy, inefficient version is a superior way of creating this history than mine, which at each step produces what your God wants to produce?

DAVID: Your God experiments, allows free-for-alls, and that is supposed to end up with sapiens? He did it by fumbling His way there? We are here purposefully by my real God.

In none of my versions is he “fumbling”. I would not object to the term, however, if you applied it to the messy, clumsy, inefficient method you have invented for him, which is to deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose – a method which makes no sense to you as apparently it only makes sense to God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 14, 2023, 17:05 (319 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God has not told me why He chose to evolve us in a cumbersome way over lots of time. God is a brilliant designer. He made life!!! There is a huge difference between a cumbersome method and a cumbersome designer God is a brilliant designer who chose to use a cumbersome method of creation. Surely you can see the difference in interpretation.

dhw: If your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing first cause, he DESIGNED the method. If a designer designs and uses a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method, I suspect most people who speak English would agree that he must be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

I would have presumed from your non-reply to this point that you have now accepted your own theory that your God is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, and yet you repeat your praise of his brilliant inefficiency in Part Two of “More Miscellany”.

I stand by my statement above. You totally miss the nuance of it due to your innate biases.


dhw: Why do you refuse to consider the possibility that he may have used a method that neatly, elegantly and efficiently enabled him to fulfil whatever his purpose might have been? I have offered you three such proposals, fitting possible methods to possible purposes.

DAVID: You keep reverting to your humanized God who has no basic direction in what He is doing.

dhw: You continue to ignore the fact that my alternatives are no more “humanized” than yours, you accept that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and all three of my theories present a God with a “basic direction” which explains the history of life’s vast variety, as we know it: 1) He experiments in order to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own (plus food); 2) he experiments in order to explore all the possibilities of his invention (life), learning, coming up with and enjoying new ideas as he goes along; 3) he gives his invention free rein (autonomy) in order to enjoy all the wonders it creates, although he can intervene if he feels like it. You may disapprove of such basic directions – although you are certain that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations – but please stop pretending that these basic directions are not basic directions.

Once again we are exposed to a directionless God of your imagination. Using comparisons of how each of us views God's thoughts and emotions does not smooth over the difference of my God who is powerful, purposeful, direct in creating exactly what He wants. Stick with your wimp if you wish.


dhw: […] why do you think your messy, clumsy, inefficient version is a superior way of creating this history than mine, which at each step produces what your God wants to produce?

DAVID: Your God experiments, allows free-for-alls, and that is supposed to end up with sapiens? He did it by fumbling His way there? We are here purposefully by my real God.

dhw: In none of my versions is he “fumbling”. I would not object to the term, however, if you applied it to the messy, clumsy, inefficient method you have invented for him, which is to deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose – a method which makes no sense to you as apparently it only makes sense to God.

I don't have your problem of requiring exactitudes. Life doesn't really offer them at the theological level of thought. If it makes sense to God, as you note, it is OK with me to accept God's illogical method of evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Monday, May 15, 2023, 11:49 (318 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] There is a huge difference between a cumbersome method and a cumbersome designer God is a brilliant designer who chose to use a cumbersome method of creation. Surely you can see the difference in interpretation.

dhw: If your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing first cause, he DESIGNED the method. If a designer designs and uses a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method, I suspect most people who speak English would agree that he must be a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

DAVID:I stand by my statement above. You totally miss the nuance of it due to your innate biases.

What nuance? What bias? According to you, your God was “first cause”. He was not confronted by an existing choice of methods. He designed his method! And someone who designs a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method can only be a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please stop blaming me for your criticism of your God.

dhw: […] all three of my theories present a God with a “basic direction” which explains the history of life’s vast variety, as we know it: 1) He experiments in order to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own (plus food); 2) he experiments, learning, coming up with and enjoying new ideas as he goes along; 3) he gives his invention free rein (autonomy) in order to enjoy all the wonders it creates, although he can intervene if he feels like it. You may disapprove of such basic directions – although you are certain that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations – but please stop pretending that these basic directions are not basic directions.

DAVID: Once again we are exposed to a directionless God of your imagination.

I have just listed his basic directions.

DAVID: Using comparisons of how each of us views God's thoughts and emotions does not smooth over the difference of my God who is powerful, purposeful, direct in creating exactly what He wants. Stick with your wimp if you wish.

My versions of a possible God are that he is all-powerful and purposeful, and he creates what he wants. Your God only wants to design us and our food, and therefore he designs 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with that he wants to design, and you call this direct. You regard his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient, which apparently means it is brilliant. You turn language and logic on their head.

DAVID: I don't have your problem of requiring exactitudes. Life doesn't really offer them at the theological level of thought. If it makes sense to God, as you note, it is OK with me to accept God's illogical method of evolution.

I don’t require “exactitudes”, but at any level of thought, I do require arguments that make sense. I do not note that your arguments make sense to God: I note that YOU think they make sense ONLY to God, which is a confession that they make no sense to you.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, May 15, 2023, 16:43 (318 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID:I stand by my statement above. You totally miss the nuance of it due to your innate biases.

dhw: What nuance? What bias? According to you, your God was “first cause”. He was not confronted by an existing choice of methods. He designed his method! And someone who designs a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method can only be a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please stop blaming me for your criticism of your God.

Still stuck in your biases. God achieved brilliant designs using a cumbersome method He developed. BUT the cumbersome interpretation is my human interpretation. God may not have viewed it that way as He chose to do it. He did not choose direct creation generally but did do it in the Cambrian and othee isolated examples.


dhw: […] all three of my theories present a God with a “basic direction” which explains the history of life’s vast variety, as we know it: 1) He experiments in order to create a being with thought patterns and emotions like his own (plus food); 2) he experiments, learning, coming up with and enjoying new ideas as he goes along; 3) he gives his invention free rein (autonomy) in order to enjoy all the wonders it creates, although he can intervene if he feels like it. You may disapprove of such basic directions – although you are certain that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations – but please stop pretending that these basic directions are not basic directions.

DAVID: Once again we are exposed to a directionless God of your imagination.

dhw: I have just listed his basic directions.

How is there direction if He relies on experimentation which can cause direction change. Coming uo with new ideas means direction change. And allowing autonomous events in creation can easily mean direction change. 'Directionless' fits.


DAVID: Using comparisons of how each of us views God's thoughts and emotions does not smooth over the difference of my God who is powerful, purposeful, direct in creating exactly what He wants. Stick with your wimp if you wish.

dhw: My versions of a possible God are that he is all-powerful and purposeful, and he creates what he wants. Your God only wants to design us and our food, and therefore he designs 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with that he wants to design, and you call this direct. You regard his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient, which apparently means it is brilliant. You turn language and logic on their head.

As above, a human interpretation is necessarily not God's. He used His evolutionary system to create our brain. Brilliant design, isn't it?


DAVID: I don't have your problem of requiring exactitudes. Life doesn't really offer them at the theological level of thought. If it makes sense to God, as you note, it is OK with me to accept God's illogical method of evolution.

dhw: I don’t require “exactitudes”, but at any level of thought, I do require arguments that make sense. I do not note that your arguments make sense to God: I note that YOU think they make sense ONLY to God, which is a confession that they make no sense to you.

Your lack of understanding is amazing: anything God does is OK with me. Once again you demand I read God's mind! How? The God you imagine is a mishmash of weakness.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, May 16, 2023, 09:08 (318 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: According to you, your God was “first cause”. He was not confronted by an existing choice of methods. He designed his method! And someone who designs a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method can only be a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. Please stop blaming me for your criticism of your God.

DAVID: Still stuck in your biases. God achieved brilliant designs using a cumbersome method He developed. BUT the cumbersome interpretation is my human interpretation.

Why “developed”? If he was your all-powerful and all-knowing first cause, he must have designed it. (“Developed” sounds a bit like learning as he goes along, which would be anathema to you.) I agree with you completely that if he exists, he achieved brilliant designs, and it is only your human interpretation that renders them cumbersome, messy and inefficient! That is what I’m objecting to!

DAVID: God may not have viewed it that way as He chose to do it. He did not choose direct creation generally but did do it in the Cambrian and other isolated examples.

He chose to do what? According to you, his one and only purpose was to create us and our food. He was perfectly capable of doing so directly, but instead he chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with his purpose and eventually disappeared. And your all-powerful, always-in-control God also restricted himself to designing whatever new species would fit in with conditions over which he had no control. All this has led to you condemning his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. But you refuse even to consider any alternative to a theory which makes no sense to you (you say it makes sense only to God).
I went on to list my alternatives.

DAVID: Once again we are exposed to a directionless God of your imagination.

dhw: I have just listed his basic directions.

DAVID: How is there direction if He relies on experimentation which can cause direction change?

If his purpose was to produce a being like himself (plus food), experimentation was directed towards producing a being like himself (plus food). No change of direction.

DAVID: Coming up with new ideas means direction change.

If his purpose was to find out the potential of his invention (life) by experimenting with it, there is no change of direction if he experiments to find out the potential of his invention.

DAVID: And allowing autonomous events in creation can easily mean direction change. 'Directionless' fits.

If his purpose was to find out what his invention was capable of producing by itself, there is no change of direction if he found out what his invention was capable of producing by itself. (Always remembering that he could dabble if he wanted to.)

DAVID: Using comparisons of how each of us views God's thoughts and emotions does not smooth over the difference of my God who is powerful, purposeful, direct in creating exactly what He wants. Stick with your wimp if you wish.

dhw: My versions of a possible God are that he is all-powerful and purposeful, and he creates what he wants. Your God only wants to design us and our food, and therefore he designs 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with that he wants to design, and you call this direct. You regard his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient, which apparently means it is brilliant. You turn language and logic on their head.

DAVID: As above, a human interpretation is necessarily not God's. He used His evolutionary system to create our brain. Brilliant design, isn't it?

Yes. In all my alternative theistic interpretations, the designs are brilliant. But none of them have him using a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method which involves 99 irrelevant designs out of 100.

DAVID: I don't have your problem of requiring exactitudes. Life doesn't really offer them at the theological level of thought. If it makes sense to God, as you note, it is OK with me to accept God's illogical method of evolution.

dhw: I don’t require “exactitudes”, but at any level of thought, I do require arguments that make sense. I do not note that your arguments make sense to God: I note that YOU think they make sense ONLY to God, which is a confession that they make no sense to you.

DAVID: Your lack of understanding is amazing: anything God does is OK with me.

But you don’t know what God does! You imagine that he uses an inefficient method to achieve the goal you imagine he has! If I say God experiments, will you accept my theory because anything God does is OK with me? Your statement actually means that only your theory about what God does is OK with you.

DAVID: Once again you demand I read God's mind! How? The God you imagine is a mishmash of weakness.

I don’t demand anything. You volunteered your theory about God’s inefficiency, and you volunteered the information that your theory makes sense only to God (and therefore not to you). Your belief that a God is “weak” if he does precisely what he wants to do (= my theories) sits uneasily with your theory that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method denotes all-powerful, all-knowing brilliance.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 16, 2023, 17:54 (317 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Still stuck in your biases. God achieved brilliant designs using a cumbersome method He developed. BUT the cumbersome interpretation is my human interpretation.

dhw: Why “developed”? If he was your all-powerful and all-knowing first cause, he must have designed it. (“Developed” sounds a bit like learning as he goes along, which would be anathema to you.) I agree with you completely that if he exists, he achieved brilliant designs, and it is only your human interpretation that renders them cumbersome, messy and inefficient! That is what I’m objecting to!

Developed equals created in my mind. Evolution is not simple creation. And the final appearance of humans with huge brains is a total surprise if following Darwin guidlines.


DAVID: Once again we are exposed to a directionless God of your imagination.

dhw: I have just listed his basic directions.

DAVID: How is there direction if He relies on experimentation which can cause direction change?

dhw: If his purpose was to produce a being like himself (plus food), experimentation was directed towards producing a being like himself (plus food). No change of direction.

Experimenting implies searching for a solution. Where is the direction an all-knowing God would have?


DAVID: Coming up with new ideas means direction change.

dhw: If his purpose was to find out the potential of his invention (life) by experimenting with it, there is no change of direction if he experiments to find out the potential of his invention.

Where is the direction of purpose in your scenario of a wimpy God?


DAVID: And allowing autonomous events in creation can easily mean direction change. 'Directionless' fits.

dhw: If his purpose was to find out what his invention was capable of producing by itself, there is no change of direction if he found out what his invention was capable of producing by itself. (Always remembering that he could dabble if he wanted to.)

So the individual organisms invent and if God doesn't like it, He dabbles them away?? Directionless activity!!!


DAVID: As above, a human interpretation is necessarily not God's. He used His evolutionary system to create our brain. Brilliant design, isn't it?

dhw: Yes. In all my alternative theistic interpretations, the designs are brilliant. But none of them have him using a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method which involves 99 irrelevant designs out of 100.

God's evolution happened. You can't just dismiss it.


DAVID: I don't have your problem of requiring exactitudes. Life doesn't really offer them at the theological level of thought. If it makes sense to God, as you note, it is OK with me to accept God's illogical method of evolution.

dhw: I don’t require “exactitudes”, but at any level of thought, I do require arguments that make sense. I do not note that your arguments make sense to God: I note that YOU think they make sense ONLY to God, which is a confession that they make no sense to you.

DAVID: Your lack of understanding is amazing: anything God does is OK with me.

dhw: But you don’t know what God does! You imagine that he uses an inefficient method to achieve the goal you imagine he has! If I say God experiments, will you accept my theory because anything God does is OK with me? Your statement actually means that only your theory about what God does is OK with you.

What did you expect? My belief in God is very firm.


DAVID: Once again you demand I read God's mind! How? The God you imagine is a mishmash of weakness.

dhw: I don’t demand anything. You volunteered your theory about God’s inefficiency, and you volunteered the information that your theory makes sense only to God (and therefore not to you). Your belief that a God is “weak” if he does precisely what he wants to do (= my theories) sits uneasily with your theory that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method denotes all-powerful, all-knowing brilliance.

Again a distortion of my belief: God, a brilliant designer (you agree) chose to evolve humans by evolving them over a long period of time. There is much evidence God can directly create (the Cambrian), but His final chosen method remained drawn out over 3.8 billion years.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, May 17, 2023, 13:26 (316 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Still stuck in your biases. God achieved brilliant designs using a cumbersome method He developed. BUT the cumbersome interpretation is my human interpretation.

dhw: Why “developed”? If he was your all-powerful and all-knowing first cause, he must have designed it. (“Developed” sounds a bit like learning as he goes along, which would be anathema to you.) I agree with you completely that if he exists, he achieved brilliant designs, and it is only your human interpretation that renders them cumbersome, messy and inefficient! That is what I’m objecting to!

DAVID: Developed equals created in my mind. Evolution is not simple creation. And the final appearance of humans with huge brains is a total surprise if following Darwin guidlines.

So your God deliberately created a method you call messy, cumbersome and inefficient, which can only mean you regard him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient creator. The rest of your answer is off subject, but in any case, who is “totally surprised” by what? Yes, we are special, but don’t you think the appearance of elephants, eagles, whales and the duckbilled platypus are surprising when you consider that life began with single cells?

DAVID: Once again we are exposed to a directionless God of your imagination.

dhw: I have just listed his basic directions.

DAVID: How is there direction if He relies on experimentation which can cause direction change?

dhw: If his purpose was to produce a being like himself (plus food), experimentation was directed towards producing a being like himself (plus food). No change of direction.

DAVID: Experimenting implies searching for a solution. Where is the direction an all-knowing God would have?

The whole point is that God is not necessarily all-knowing! That would explain why he has to experiment in order to follow the direction laid down by his purpose! (Incidentally, the "all-knowing" theory is a massive headache for religion, raising the whole subject of predestination versus free will.)

DAVID: Coming up with new ideas means direction change.

dhw: If his purpose was to find out the potential of his invention (life) by experimenting with it, there is no change of direction if he experiments to find out the potential of his invention.

DAVID: Where is the direction of purpose in your scenario of a wimpy God?

The purpose is to find out the potential of his invention. You have strange criteria for your subjective judgements. Trying out new things is called “wimpy”, while messy, cumbersome, inefficient design is called “brilliant”.

DAVID: And allowing autonomous events in creation can easily mean direction change. 'Directionless' fits.

dhw: If his purpose was to find out what his invention was capable of producing by itself, there is no change of direction if he found out what his invention was capable of producing by itself. (Always remembering that he could dabble if he wanted to.)

DAVID: So the individual organisms invent and if God doesn't like it, He dabbles them away?? Directionless activity!!!

The direction is provided by his enjoyment and interest in an ongoing history which he has set in motion with his wonderful invention. Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: God's evolution happened. You can't just dismiss it.

If God exists, of course his evolution happened. That doesn’t mean it happened for the purpose or by the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method which you have invented!

DAVID: Your lack of understanding is amazing: anything God does is OK with me.

dhw: But you don’t know what God does! You imagine that he uses an inefficient method to achieve the goal you imagine he has! If I say God experiments, will you accept my theory because anything God does is OK with me? Your statement actually means that only your theory about what God does is OK with you.

DAVID: What did you expect? My belief in God is very firm.

We are not arguing about your belief in God, but about your totally illogical theory about your God’s purpose and method.

dhw: […] Your belief that a God is “weak” if he does precisely what he wants to do (= my theories) sits uneasily with your theory that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method denotes all-powerful, all-knowing brilliance.

DAVID: Again a distortion of my belief: God, a brilliant designer (you agree) chose to evolve humans by evolving them over a long period of time. There is much evidence God can directly create (the Cambrian), but His final chosen method remained drawn out over 3.8 billion years.

My agreement that God, if he exists, is a brilliant designer is a rejection of your theory, which turns him into a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer! The fact that you believe he can directly create what he wants to create, but instead chose to create 99 out of 100 life forms that were NOT what he wanted to create, is what makes you criticize him for being messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And you call that brilliant. What have I distorted?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 17, 2023, 18:21 (316 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Developed equals created in my mind. Evolution is not simple creation. And the final appearance of humans with huge brains is a total surprise if following Darwin guidlines.

dhw: So your God deliberately created a method you call messy, cumbersome and inefficient, which can only mean you regard him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient creator.

Why repeat thoughts I fully reject. A cumbersome method invented by a creator cannot imply a defective creator!! You don't know His reasons for His method of choice!

dhw: The whole point is that God is not necessarily all-knowing! That would explain why he has to experiment in order to follow the direction laid down by his purpose! (Incidentally, the "all-knowing" theory is a massive headache for religion, raising the whole subject of predestination versus free will.)

I won't enter a debate on that point. All knowing about what has many avenues.


DAVID: Coming up with new ideas means direction change.

dhw: If his purpose was to find out the potential of his invention (life) by experimenting with it, there is no change of direction if he experiments to find out the potential of his invention.

DAVID: Where is the direction of purpose in your scenario of a wimpy God?

dhw: The purpose is to find out the potential of his invention. You have strange criteria for your subjective judgements. Trying out new things is called “wimpy”, while messy, cumbersome, inefficient design is called “brilliant”.

The bold means your God is clueless about what He is doing.


DAVID: And allowing autonomous events in creation can easily mean direction change. 'Directionless' fits.

dhw: If his purpose was to find out what his invention was capable of producing by itself, there is no change of direction if he found out what his invention was capable of producing by itself. (Always remembering that he could dabble if he wanted to.)

DAVID: So the individual organisms invent and if God doesn't like it, He dabbles them away?? Directionless activity!!!

dhw: The direction is provided by his enjoyment and interest in an ongoing history which he has set in motion with his wonderful invention. Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

dhw: […] Your belief that a God is “weak” if he does precisely what he wants to do (= my theories) sits uneasily with your theory that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method denotes all-powerful, all-knowing brilliance.

DAVID: Again a distortion of my belief: God, a brilliant designer (you agree) chose to evolve humans by evolving them over a long period of time. There is much evidence God can directly create (the Cambrian), but His final chosen method remained drawn out over 3.8 billion years.

dhw: My agreement that God, if he exists, is a brilliant designer is a rejection of your theory, which turns him into a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer! The fact that you believe he can directly create what he wants to create, but instead chose to create 99 out of 100 life forms that were NOT what he wanted to create, is what makes you criticize him for being messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And you call that brilliant. What have I distorted?

From above: "Why repeat thoughts I fully reject. A cumbersome method invented by a creator cannot imply a defective creator!! You don't know His reasons for His method of choice!"

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Thursday, May 18, 2023, 12:37 (315 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So your God deliberately created a method you call messy, cumbersome and inefficient, which can only mean you regard him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient creator.

DAVID: Why repeat thoughts I fully reject. A cumbersome method invented by a creator cannot imply a defective creator!! You don't know His reasons for His method of choice!

If the design is inefficient, do you blame the design or the designer? You and I agree that if he exists, his method of choice was evolution. However, you insist that evolution means he designed every species individually, and 99 out of 100 of them were irrelevant to YOUR choice of purpose (us and our food). And YOU cannot think of a single reason why he would design such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method. So maybe he did not design every species, or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design us. Or maybe it was, but he had to experiment in order to do it. All perfectly logical alternatives to a theory which you yourself find incomprehensible but cling to even though it belittles your God.

DAVID: Experimenting implies searching for a solution. Where is the direction an all-knowing God would have?

dhw: The whole point is that God is not necessarily all-knowing! That would explain why he has to experiment in order to follow the direction laid down by his purpose! (Incidentally, the "all-knowing" theory is a massive headache for religion, raising the whole subject of predestination versus free will.)

DAVID: I won't enter a debate on that point. All knowing about what has many avenues.

What do you mean by “all knowing about what”??? All knowing means knowing about everything. You try to use this concept to discredit the theory of experimentation, and then you refuse to discuss what you mean by it. If he doesn't know everything, maybe he doesn't know how to produce something he's never produced before - and enjoys the process of working out how to do it. (Do you remember how sure you are that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations?)

DAVID: Where is the direction of purpose in your scenario of a wimpy God?

dhw: The purpose is to find out the potential of his invention. You have strange criteria for your subjective judgements. Trying out new things is called “wimpy”, while messy, cumbersome, inefficient design is called “brilliant”.[/i]

DAVID: The bold means your God is clueless about what He is doing.

Do you believe in predestination, or do you believe your God gave you freedom of choice? If it’s the latter, does that make him clueless? If God deliberately designed the autonomous intelligent cell in order to enjoy the vast variety of what you yourself call “surprising” results (when you talk about humans), why does that make him clueless?

dhw: Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

I have just presented your theory. Which part of it do you now reject?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 18, 2023, 16:55 (315 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So your God deliberately created a method you call messy, cumbersome and inefficient, which can only mean you regard him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient creator.

DAVID: Why repeat thoughts I fully reject. A cumbersome method invented by a creator cannot imply a defective creator!! You don't know His reasons for His method of choice!

dhw: If the design is inefficient, do you blame the design or the designer? You and I agree that if he exists, his method of choice was evolution. However, you insist that evolution means he designed every species individually, and 99 out of 100 of them were irrelevant to YOUR choice of purpose (us and our food). And YOU cannot think of a single reason why he would design such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method. So maybe he did not design every species, or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design us. Or maybe it was, but he had to experiment in order to do it. All perfectly logical alternatives to a theory which you yourself find incomprehensible but cling to even though it belittles your God.

Exactly opposite interpretation. We humans look at evolution as cumbersome over direct creation, YOUR original point. That God chose it, means He didn't consider it a problem. I cannot tell you why He used it. But it worked. It produced our brain the most complex item in this universe. An experimenting God is not the powerful God of religions.


DAVID: Experimenting implies searching for a solution. Where is the direction an all-knowing God would have?

dhw: The whole point is that God is not necessarily all-knowing! That would explain why he has to experiment in order to follow the direction laid down by his purpose! (Incidentally, the "all-knowing" theory is a massive headache for religion, raising the whole subject of predestination versus free will.)

DAVID: I won't enter a debate on that point. All knowing about what has many avenues.

dhw: What do you mean by “all knowing about what”??? All knowing means knowing about everything. You try to use this concept to discredit the theory of experimentation, and then you refuse to discuss what you mean by it. If he doesn't know everything, maybe he doesn't know how to produce something he's never produced before - and enjoys the process of working out how to do it. (Do you remember how sure you are that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations?)

I accept God as all-knowing.


DAVID: Where is the direction of purpose in your scenario of a wimpy God?

dhw: The purpose is to find out the potential of his invention. You have strange criteria for your subjective judgements. Trying out new things is called “wimpy”, while messy, cumbersome, inefficient design is called “brilliant”.[/i]

DAVID: The bold means your God is clueless about what He is doing.

dhw: Do you believe in predestination, or do you believe your God gave you freedom of choice? If it’s the latter, does that make him clueless? If God deliberately designed the autonomous intelligent cell in order to enjoy the vast variety of what you yourself call “surprising” results (when you talk about humans), why does that make him clueless?

You are asking does God know what my free will, will conclude? I suspect God knows my thoughts in advance as I freely make them.


dhw: Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

dhw: I have just presented your theory. Which part of it do you now reject?

None of it. God can design for all environments. God designs more complex organisms purposely.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Friday, May 19, 2023, 10:44 (315 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A cumbersome method invented by a creator cannot imply a defective creator!! You don't know His reasons for His method of choice!

dhw: If the design is inefficient, do you blame the design or the designer? You and I agree that if he exists, his method of choice was evolution. However, you insist that evolution means he designed every species individually, and 99 out of 100 of them were irrelevant to YOUR choice of purpose (us and our food). And YOU cannot think of a single reason why he would design such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method. So maybe he did not design every species, or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design us. Or maybe it was, but he had to experiment in order to do it. All perfectly logical alternatives to a theory which you yourself find incomprehensible but cling to even though it belittles your God.

DAVID: Exactly opposite interpretation. We humans look at evolution as cumbersome over direct creation, YOUR original point. That God chose it, means He didn't consider it a problem. I cannot tell you why He used it. But it worked. It produced our brain the most complex item in this universe.

All of a sudden, you think all humans share your view that evolution is cumbersome! Rev. Charles Kingsley: “it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.” (Quoted in "Recapitulation and Conclusion", Origin of Species.) MY “original point” is that YOUR theory makes evolution seem cumbersome, messy and inefficient – hence my now bolded proposals above.

DAVID: An experimenting God is not the powerful God of religions.

You wrote: “The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor does Whitehead impress me. [..] I have my own brand of theism I follow.” Do you know of any religion which preaches that God’s method of evolution was messy, cumbersome and inefficient? Ah, but only you are allowed to follow your own brand of theism. ;-)

DAVID: Experimenting implies searching for a solution. Where is the direction an all-knowing God would have?

dhw: The whole point is that God is not necessarily all-knowing! That would explain why he has to experiment in order to follow the direction laid down by his purpose! (Incidentally, the "all-knowing" theory is a massive headache for religion, raising the whole subject of predestination versus free will.)

DAVID: I won't enter a debate on that point. All knowing about what has many avenues.

dhw: What do you mean by “all knowing about what”??? All knowing means knowing about everything. You try to use this concept to discredit the theory of experimentation, and then you refuse to discuss what you mean by it. If he doesn't know everything, maybe he doesn't know how to produce something he's never produced before - and enjoys the process of working out how to do it. (Do you remember how sure you are that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations?)

DAVID: I accept God as all-knowing.

You believe God to be all-knowing, and you refuse even to consider any other possibility.

dhw: The purpose is to find out the potential of his invention. You have strange criteria for your subjective judgements. Trying out new things is called “wimpy”, while messy, cumbersome, inefficient design is called “brilliant”.

DAVID: The bold means your God is clueless about what He is doing.

dhw: Do you believe in predestination, or do you believe your God gave you freedom of choice? If it’s the latter, does that make him clueless? If God deliberately designed the autonomous intelligent cell in order to enjoy the vast variety of what you yourself call “surprising” results (when you talk about humans), why does that make him clueless?

DAVID: You are asking does God know what my free will, will conclude? I suspect God knows my thoughts in advance as I freely make them.

Then I suggest you do not “accept” that God is all-knowing, but you “suspect” that he is. Hardly grounds for dismissing a theory which suggests that he may not be all-knowing.

dhw: Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

dhw: I have just presented your theory. Which part of it do you now reject?

DAVID: None of it.

Then please stop pretending that I distort it!

DAVID: God can design for all environments. God designs more complex organisms purposely.

That does not alter the fact that you regard his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient – in contrast to my theistic alternatives, which have him doing and achieving precisely what he wants to do and achieve.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, May 19, 2023, 17:47 (314 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: If the design is inefficient, do you blame the design or the designer? You and I agree that if he exists, his method of choice was evolution. However, you insist that evolution means he designed every species individually, and 99 out of 100 of them were irrelevant to YOUR choice of purpose (us and our food). And YOU cannot think of a single reason why he would design such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method. So maybe he did not design every species, or maybe his one and only purpose was not to design us. Or maybe it was, but he had to experiment in order to do it. All perfectly logical alternatives to a theory which you yourself find incomprehensible but cling to even though it belittles your God.

DAVID: Exactly opposite interpretation. We humans look at evolution as cumbersome over direct creation, YOUR original point. That God chose it, means He didn't consider it a problem. I cannot tell you why He used it. But it worked. It produced our brain the most complex item in this universe.

dhw: All of a sudden, you think all humans share your view that evolution is cumbersome! Rev. Charles Kingsley: “it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.” (Quoted in "Recapitulation and Conclusion", Origin of Species.) MY “original point” is that YOUR theory makes evolution seem cumbersome, messy and inefficient – hence my now bolded proposals above.

By 'we humans' I meant 'us humans'. I referred directly to your point. I didn't know Kingsley was such a quotable authority in old times. Your proposals are for a weak humanized God.


DAVID: An experimenting God is not the powerful God of religions.

dhw: You wrote: “The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor does Whitehead impress me. [..] I have my own brand of theism I follow.” Do you know of any religion which preaches that God’s method of evolution was messy, cumbersome and inefficient? Ah, but only you are allowed to follow your own brand of theism. ;-)

I certainly do.


dhw: The purpose is to find out the potential of his invention. You have strange criteria for your subjective judgements. Trying out new things is called “wimpy”, while messy, cumbersome, inefficient design is called “brilliant”.

DAVID: The bold means your God is clueless about what He is doing.

dhw: Do you believe in predestination, or do you believe your God gave you freedom of choice? If it’s the latter, does that make him clueless? If God deliberately designed the autonomous intelligent cell in order to enjoy the vast variety of what you yourself call “surprising” results (when you talk about humans), why does that make him clueless?

DAVID: You are asking does God know what my free will, will conclude? I suspect God knows my thoughts in advance as I freely make them.

dhw: Then I suggest you do not “accept” that God is all-knowing, but you “suspect” that he is. Hardly grounds for dismissing a theory which suggests that he may not be all-knowing.

Remember theory is not factual!!! I'll remove the word suspect and change it to it is likely God knows my next thought as I develop them.


dhw: Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

dhw: I have just presented your theory. Which part of it do you now reject?

DAVID: None of it.

Then please stop pretending that I distort it!

DAVID: God can design for all environments. God designs more complex organisms purposely.

dhw: That does not alter the fact that you regard his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient – in contrast to my theistic alternatives, which have him doing and achieving precisely what he wants to do and achieve.

as a humanized wimp of a God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Saturday, May 20, 2023, 08:25 (314 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We humans look at evolution as cumbersome over direct creation, YOUR original point. That God chose it, means He didn't consider it a problem. I cannot tell you why He used it. But it worked. It produced our brain the most complex item in this universe.

dhw: All of a sudden, you think all humans share your view that evolution is cumbersome! Rev. Charles Kingsley: “it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.” (Quoted in "Recapitulation and Conclusion", Origin of Species.) MY “original point” is that YOUR theory makes evolution seem cumbersome, messy and inefficient – hence my now bolded proposals above.

DAVID: By 'we humans' I meant 'us humans'. I referred directly to your point. I didn't know Kingsley was such a quotable authority in old times. Your proposals are for a weak humanized God.

Your generalisation that “we humans” see evolution as cumbersome is absurd. Most humans couldn’t care less, I have quoted a well-known believer in God who clearly disagrees with you, and I would frankly be amazed if even your dearest friends would agree that your God’s evolutionary methods were messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have no idea why you think my theories, all of which have your God doing precisely what he wants to do, make him weaker, wimpier (used later) and more human than yours, who invents a method which forces him into designing 99 out of 100 life forms irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: An experimenting God is not the powerful God of religions.

dhw: You wrote: “The Bible, Adam and Eve are not part of my theology, nor does Whitehead impress me. [..] I have my own brand of theism I follow.” Do you know of any religion which preaches that God’s method of evolution was messy, cumbersome and inefficient? Ah, but only you are allowed to follow your own brand of theism.

DAVID: I certainly do.

Then please stop complaining that my alternatives are not the “God of religions”.

dhw: The purpose is to find out the potential of his invention.

DAVID: The bold means your God is clueless about what He is doing.

dhw: Do you believe in predestination, or do you believe your God gave you freedom of choice? If it’s the latter, does that make him clueless? […]

DAVID: You are asking does God know what my free will, will conclude? I suspect God knows my thoughts in advance as I freely make them.

dhw: Then I suggest you do not “accept” that God is all-knowing, but you “suspect” that he is. Hardly grounds for dismissing a theory which suggests that he may not be all-knowing.

DAVID: Remember theory is not factual!!!

That is what I keep telling you, when you inform us authoritatively that your God’s purpose was us, his method was inefficient, he is all-knowing, he does not experiment, and cells are not intelligent.

DAVID: I'll remove the word suspect and change it to it is likely God knows my next thought as I develop them.

That is another of your bad habits: the moment I point out the implications of your statements, you try to change them: hence your desperate efforts to escape from his having thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, his enjoyment of creating, his interest in his creations, his failed experiments, his cumbersome inefficiency, the possibility of cellular intelligence, and now a suspicion which turns overnight into likelihood.

dhw: Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

dhw: I have just presented your theory. Which part of it do you now reject?

DAVID: None of it.

Then please stop pretending that I distort it!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 20, 2023, 16:48 (313 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: By 'we humans' I meant 'us humans'. I referred directly to your point. I didn't know Kingsley was such a quotable authority in old times. Your proposals are for a weak humanized God.

dhw: Your generalisation that “we humans” see evolution as cumbersome is absurd. Most humans couldn’t care less, I have quoted a well-known believer in God who clearly disagrees with you, and I would frankly be amazed if even your dearest friends would agree that your God’s evolutionary methods were messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have no idea why you think my theories, all of which have your God doing precisely what he wants to do, make him weaker, wimpier (used later) and more human than yours, who invents a method which forces him into designing 99 out of 100 life forms irrelevant to his purpose.

Are you and I human as we humans? That was my reference. All forms of God must evolve life to fit the known history pf creation. Your twist is to invent a guy who, unsure of Himself, is experimenting, inventing new ideas for goals which helps explain the broad expanse of the tree of life by blaming a weak God.


DAVID: You are asking does God know what my free will, will conclude? I suspect God knows my thoughts in advance as I freely make them.

dhw: Then I suggest you do not “accept” that God is all-knowing, but you “suspect” that he is. Hardly grounds for dismissing a theory which suggests that he may not be all-knowing.

DAVID: Remember theory is not factual!!!

dhw: That is what I keep telling you, when you inform us authoritatively that your God’s purpose was us, his method was inefficient, he is all-knowing, he does not experiment, and cells are not intelligent.

DAVID: I'll remove the word suspect and change it to it is likely God knows my next thought as I develop them.

dhw: That is another of your bad habits: the moment I point out the implications of your statements, you try to change them: hence your desperate efforts to escape from his having thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, his enjoyment of creating, his interest in his creations, his failed experiments, his cumbersome inefficiency, the possibility of cellular intelligence, and now a suspicion which turns overnight into likelihood.

I do not desperately escape. I still think our thought patterns mimic His, He enjoys creating, He is interested in His creations, etc.


dhw: Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

dhw: I have just presented your theory. Which part of it do you now reject?

DAVID: None of it.

dhw: Then please stop pretending that I distort it!

In this way: that 99% of all evolved organisms must disappear is not a defect of the system. God does not need to control every aspect of climate or weather systems, as His design ability allows Him to design for any condition existing.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Sunday, May 21, 2023, 08:40 (313 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We humans look at evolution as cumbersome over direct creation.

dhw: Your generalisation that “we humans” see evolution as cumbersome is absurd.

DAVID: Are you and I human as we humans? That was my reference.

My apologies. I thought you were talking about humans in general, and not just you and I. But your statement remains absurd, because I do not regard evolution as cumbersome. It only becomes cumbersome when you insist that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and for some unknown reason chose to design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us and our food. That is why I have proposed three theistic alternatives that remove your criticism of your God as having designed a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method.

DAVID: All forms of God must evolve life to fit the known history pf creation. Your twist is to invent a guy who, unsure of Himself, is experimenting, inventing new ideas for goals which helps explain the broad expanse of the tree of life by blaming a weak God.

I offer three different logical versions that fit the known history. I do not regard experimenting as a sign of his being “unsure of himself”. If he really designed every species (as you believe), he was remarkably successful – they are all wonderful in themselves. But he is not all-knowing. I do not regard a God who experiments, invents new wonders, enjoys his own inventions and discoveries, as being weak and to be “blamed”. Blamed for what? Doing what he wanted to do? It is you, with your totally illogical theory of a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method who are “blaming” him.

DAVID: You are asking does God know what my free will, will conclude? I suspect God knows my thoughts in advance as I freely make them.

dhw: Then I suggest you do not “accept” that God is all-knowing, but you “suspect” that he is. Hardly grounds for dismissing a theory which suggests that he may not be all-knowing.

DAVID: I'll remove the word suspect and change it to it is likely God knows my next thought as I develop them.

dhw: That is another of your bad habits: the moment I point out the implications of your statements, you try to change them: hence your desperate efforts to escape from his having thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, his enjoyment of creating, his interest in his creations, his failed experiments, his cumbersome inefficiency, the possibility of cellular intelligence, and now a suspicion which turns overnight into likelihood.

DAVID: I do not desperately escape. I still think our thought patterns mimic His, He enjoys creating, He is interested in His creations, etc.

Thank you. Then please stop criticizing my theories on the grounds that I “humanize” some of his thought patterns, and that you do not believe that his motive for evolution might be the enjoyment of creating and providing himself with things he can be interested in.

dhw: Your own theory has him starting out with a purpose, deliberately designing 100 individual organisms of which 99 are irrelevant to his direction (= directionless), and so he either dabbles them away or, even more directionless, lets chance destroy them for him (he doesn’t control the conditions which determine whether an organism lives or dies).

DAVID: A distortion of what evolution accomplishes. You have just presented a God who has no idea as to what is the outcome.

dhw: I have just presented your theory. Which part of it do you now reject?

DAVID: None of it.

dhw: Then please stop pretending that I distort it!

DAVID: In this way: that 99% of all evolved organisms must disappear is not a defect of the system.

So why do you call the system messy, cumbersome and inefficient? Please answer. In PART TWO of “More Miscellany” you give the following non-answer:

DAVID: I simply answering your question, why did God use evolution?

That does not explain why you call his design messy etc. Please answer. I have already answered your own question over and over again with three possible reasons: 1) because he was experimenting to see if he could create a being like himself; 2) experimenting to see what new wonders he could make with his invention of life; 3) because he wanted to see what new wonders his invention could create for itself.

DAVID: God does not need to control every aspect of climate or weather systems, as His design ability allows Him to design for any condition existing.

But he can only design organisms that will be able to cope with current conditions, as a result of which he designs 99 out of 100 that have no connection with his one and only purpose! They die out when the conditions over which he has no control make it impossible for them to survive. Isn’t this one if the reasons why you call his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 21, 2023, 16:58 (312 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: All forms of God must evolve life to fit the known history pf creation. Your twist is to invent a guy who, unsure of Himself, is experimenting, inventing new ideas for goals which helps explain the broad expanse of the tree of life by blaming a weak God.

dhw: I offer three different logical versions that fit the known history. I do not regard experimenting as a sign of his being “unsure of himself”. If he really designed every species (as you believe), he was remarkably successful – they are all wonderful in themselves. But he is not all-knowing. I do not regard a God who experiments, invents new wonders, enjoys his own inventions and discoveries, as being weak and to be “blamed”. Blamed for what? Doing what he wanted to do? It is you, with your totally illogical theory of a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method who are “blaming” him.

Your statement that God is not all=knowing explains the weak God you present. A God who created the universe and then started life knows what He is doing and HOW to do it at the start. I fully reject your inadequate God.


DAVID: I'll remove the word suspect and change it to it is likely God knows my next thought as I develop them.

dhw: That is another of your bad habits: the moment I point out the implications of your statements, you try to change them: hence your desperate efforts to escape from his having thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, his enjoyment of creating, his interest in his creations, his failed experiments, his cumbersome inefficiency, the possibility of cellular intelligence, and now a suspicion which turns overnight into likelihood.

DAVID: I do not desperately escape. I still think our thought patterns mimic His, He enjoys creating, He is interested in His creations, etc.

dhw: Thank you. Then please stop criticizing my theories on the grounds that I “humanize” some of his thought patterns, and that you do not believe that his motive for evolution might be the enjoyment of creating and providing himself with things he can be interested in.

I don't think God needs motives to create enjoyment or something interesting for Himself. Highly human request, don't you think?

DAVID: that 99% of all evolved organisms must disappear is not a defect of the system.

dhw: So why do you call the system messy, cumbersome and inefficient? Please answer. In PART TWO of “More Miscellany” you give the following non-answer:

DAVID: I simply answering your question, why did God use evolution?

dhw: That does not explain why you call his design messy etc. Please answer. I have already answered your own question over and over again with three possible reasons: 1) because he was experimenting to see if he could create a being like himself; 2) experimenting to see what new wonders he could make with his invention of life; 3) because he wanted to see what new wonders his invention could create for itself.

My answer has always been the same: God chose to evolve humans for His own reasons. Since He chose evolution as His system of creation, He must feel it is the proper way to go. I think it is cumbersome and roundabout in my human way of analysis.


DAVID: God does not need to control every aspect of climate or weather systems, as His design ability allows Him to design for any condition existing.

dhw: But he can only design organisms that will be able to cope with current conditions, as a result of which he designs 99 out of 100 that have no connection with his one and only purpose! They die out when the conditions over which he has no control make it impossible for them to survive. Isn’t this one if the reasons why you call his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient?

You have given us the reasons why we can call the system cumbersome. You questioned God's use of evolution years ago as inferior to direct creation.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Monday, May 22, 2023, 11:47 (311 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: All forms of God must evolve life to fit the known history pf creation. Your twist is to invent a guy who, unsure of Himself, is experimenting, inventing new ideas for goals which helps explain the broad expanse of the tree of life by blaming a weak God.

dhw: I offer three different logical versions that fit the known history. I do not regard experimenting as a sign of his being “unsure of himself”. If he really designed every species (as you believe), he was remarkably successful – they are all wonderful in themselves. But he is not all-knowing. I do not regard a God who experiments, invents new wonders, enjoys his own inventions and discoveries, as being weak and to be “blamed”. Blamed for what? Doing what he wanted to do? It is you, with your totally illogical theory of a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method who are “blaming” him.

DAVID: Your statement that God is not all=knowing explains the weak God you present. A God who created the universe and then started life knows what He is doing and HOW to do it at the start. I fully reject your inadequate God.

It’s not a statement as such, because it depends on the earlier "if"- but all my alternative theistic theories are indeed based on the different "ifs" which lead to the conclusion that he is not all-knowing. And I see absolutely nothing weak or wimpish or inadequate in the concept of a being who enjoys creating new and interesting things, or allows his own invention to provide new and interesting things, if that is what he wants to do. Many artists, writers, composers set out with an idea which then spawns new ideas – often unexpected. Does that mean they are weak and wimpish? What emphatically is weak and wimpish is a God who sets out with one particular purpose and invents a method which forces him to create 99 out of 100 designs that have no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: I still think our thought patterns mimic His, He enjoys creating, He is interested in His creations, etc.

dhw: Thank you. Then please stop criticizing my theories on the grounds that I “humanize” some of his thought patterns, and that you do not believe that his motive for evolution might be the enjoyment of creating and providing himself with things he can be interested in.

DAVID: I don't think God needs motives to create enjoyment or something interesting for Himself. Highly human request, don't you think?

Why a “request”? If he enjoys creating, and is interested in what he creates, why do you think it’s impossible for him to create interesting things BECAUSE he enjoys creating interesting things? (“Because” denotes the reason for doing something, i.e. a motive.)

DAVID: that 99% of all evolved organisms must disappear is not a defect of the system.

dhw: So why do you call the system messy, cumbersome and inefficient?

DAVID: My answer has always been the same: God chose to evolve humans for His own reasons. Since He chose evolution as His system of creation, He must feel it is the proper way to go. I think it is cumbersome and roundabout in my human way of analysis.

And I have asked you why you think it is messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and your answer continues to be one long dodge. I will tell you why: you think that designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving his purpose. And since your always-in-control-of-evolution God does not control the environmental conditions which species must cope with if they are to survive, his range of creation is limited at every stage by the need to conform to those conditions, which may be the reason why he keeps designing species irrelevant to his purpose, although he doesn’t actually need to create them, because he is perfectly capable of directly creating the only species he wants to create (plus its food). You can find no reason why he would choose such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method, but you refuse to consider any alternative theory. Please tell us if you have different reasons from the above.

DAVID: You have given us the reasons why we can call the system cumbersome. You questioned God's use of evolution years ago as inferior to direct creation.

I have given you the reasons why YOU call the system messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have never questioned evolution, and if God exists, I have never questioned his use of evolution to achieve whatever his purpose may have been. I only question your insistence that his only purpose was us – in which case of course direct creation would have been superior to evolution! Therefore I offer you alternative explanations for his diversifying use of evolution!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, May 22, 2023, 16:30 (311 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your statement that God is not all=knowing explains the weak God you present. A God who created the universe and then started life knows what He is doing and HOW to do it at the start. I fully reject your inadequate God.

dhw: It’s not a statement as such, because it depends on the earlier "if"- but all my alternative theistic theories are indeed based on the different "ifs" which lead to the conclusion that he is not all-knowing. And I see absolutely nothing weak or wimpish or inadequate in the concept of a being who enjoys creating new and interesting things, or allows his own invention to provide new and interesting things, if that is what he wants to do. Many artists, writers, composers set out with an idea which then spawns new ideas – often unexpected. Does that mean they are weak and wimpish? What emphatically is weak and wimpish is a God who sets out with one particular purpose and invents a method which forces him to create 99 out of 100 designs that have no connection with his purpose.

I have bolded your humanizing view of God where you are comparing Him to human thinkers, as if that makes your humanized God OK, just because humans do it. God is way above us. You just dragged Him down to our level.


DAVID: My answer has always been the same: God chose to evolve humans for His own reasons. Since He chose evolution as His system of creation, He must feel it is the proper way to go. I think it is cumbersome and roundabout in my human way of analysis.

dhw: And I have asked you why you think it is messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and your answer continues to be one long dodge. I will tell you why: you think that designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving his purpose. And since your always-in-control-of-evolution God does not control the environmental conditions which species must cope with if they are to survive, his range of creation is limited at every stage by the need to conform to those conditions, which may be the reason why he keeps designing species irrelevant to his purpose, although he doesn’t actually need to create them, because he is perfectly capable of directly creating the only species he wants to create (plus its food). You can find no reason why he would choose such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method, but you refuse to consider any alternative theory. Please tell us if you have different reasons from the above.

You constantly avoid any answer to my point God can design for any type of conditions, so that does not stop Him from advancing complexity of forms. Instead, you invent the bolded criticism out of whole cloth. We are discussing the history of evolution as created by God, and you are bent out of shape over the idea that an end point of humans changes the import of that history.


DAVID: You have given us the reasons why we can call the system cumbersome. You questioned God's use of evolution years ago as inferior to direct creation.

dhw: I have given you the reasons why YOU call the system messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have never questioned evolution, and if God exists, I have never questioned his use of evolution to achieve whatever his purpose may have been. I only question your insistence that his only purpose was us – in which case of course direct creation would have been superior to evolution! Therefore I offer you alternative explanations for his diversifying use of evolution!

And all those proposals are based on a God who is not all-knowing, unsure of His course, and highly humanized. Not a God I recognize.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, May 23, 2023, 09:03 (311 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your statement that God is not all=knowing explains the weak God you present. A God who created the universe and then started life knows what He is doing and HOW to do it at the start. I fully reject your inadequate God.

dhw: It’s not a statement as such, because it depends on the earlier "if"- but all my alternative theistic theories are indeed based on the different "ifs" which lead to the conclusion that he is not all-knowing. And I see absolutely nothing weak or wimpish or inadequate in the concept of a being who enjoys creating new and interesting things, or allows his own invention to provide new and interesting things, if that is what he wants to do. Many artists, writers, composers set out with an idea which then spawns new ideas – often unexpected. Does that mean they are weak and wimpish? What emphatically is weak and wimpish is a God who sets out with one particular purpose and invents a method which forces him to create 99 out of 100 designs that have no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: I have bolded your humanizing view of God where you are comparing Him to human thinkers, as if that makes your humanized God OK, just because humans do it. God is way above us. You just dragged Him down to our level.

As usual, you dodge the weak and wimpish implications of your own theory. But you agree that your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours. This means we have thought patterns and emotions like his. Why do you believe enjoyment of creating, interest in one’s creations, the joy of learning new things, making new discoveries, getting new ideas are all to be despised as weak and wimpish? I would suggest that such qualities bring us far closer to a possible God than your guy, who has a single goal and somehow puts himself in a position whereby 99% of his work is messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently irrelevant to what he really wants to achieve.

Dhw: […] And since your always-in-control-of-evolution God does not control the environmental conditions which species must cope with if they are to survive, his range of creation is limited at every stage by the need to conform to those conditions, which may be the reason why he keeps designing species irrelevant to his purpose, although he doesn’t actually need to create them, because he is perfectly capable of directly creating the only species he wants to create (plus its food).

DAVID: You constantly avoid any answer to my point God can design for any type of conditions, so that does not stop Him from advancing complexity of forms.

I have answered it above and many times previously. His ability to design for any type of conditions does not alter the fact that at all times he is LIMITED to designing species that can survive in those out-of-his-control conditions, even if they have no relevance to the one and only species (plus food) that he actually wants to create. Hence the cumbersome nature of the method you impose on him – especially since you insist that he is perfectly capable of designing his one and only goal directly!

DAVID: […] We are discussing the history of evolution as created by God, and you are bent out of shape over the idea that an end point of humans changes the import of that history.

Not “end point” but one and only purpose, and of course it changes the import of the history. It means that the history consists of 99% irrelevant and unnecessary creations, which is why you call your invented method messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 23, 2023, 16:49 (310 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: It’s not a statement as such, because it depends on the earlier "if"- but all my alternative theistic theories are indeed based on the different "ifs" which lead to the conclusion that he is not all-knowing. And I see absolutely nothing weak or wimpish or inadequate in the concept of a being who enjoys creating new and interesting things, or allows his own invention to provide new and interesting things, if that is what he wants to do. Many artists, writers, composers set out with an idea which then spawns new ideas – often unexpected. Does that mean they are weak and wimpish? What emphatically is weak and wimpish is a God who sets out with one particular purpose and invents a method which forces him to create 99 out of 100 designs that have no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: I have bolded your humanizing view of God where you are comparing Him to human thinkers, as if that makes your humanized God OK, just because humans do it. God is way above us. You just dragged Him down to our level.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the weak and wimpish implications of your own theory. But you agree that your God has thought patterns and emotions like ours. This means we have thought patterns and emotions like his. Why do you believe enjoyment of creating, interest in one’s creations, the joy of learning new things, making new discoveries, getting new ideas are all to be despised as weak and wimpish? I would suggest that such qualities bring us far closer to a possible God than your guy, who has a single goal and somehow puts himself in a position whereby 99% of his work is messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently irrelevant to what he really wants to achieve.

Still pursuing the image of a God who is just like us. We are not all-knowing and you now present your guy who is not all-knowing so your guy is mostly human.


Dhw: […] And since your always-in-control-of-evolution God does not control the environmental conditions which species must cope with if they are to survive, his range of creation is limited at every stage by the need to conform to those conditions, which may be the reason why he keeps designing species irrelevant to his purpose, although he doesn’t actually need to create them, because he is perfectly capable of directly creating the only species he wants to create (plus its food).

DAVID: You constantly avoid any answer to my point God can design for any type of conditions, so that does not stop Him from advancing complexity of forms.

dhw: I have answered it above and many times previously. His ability to design for any type of conditions does not alter the fact that at all times he is LIMITED to designing species that can survive in those out-of-his-control conditions, even if they have no relevance to the one and only species (plus food) that he actually wants to create. Hence the cumbersome nature of the method you impose on him – especially since you insist that he is perfectly capable of designing his one and only goal directly!

God certainly designed directly in the Cambrian explosion. That resulted in all 30+ animal phyla existing today in all conditions, unpleasant or not. Shows your complaint about climate controls fails completely.


DAVID: […] We are discussing the history of evolution as created by God, and you are bent out of shape over the idea that an end point of humans changes the import of that history.

dhw: Not “end point” but one and only purpose, and of course it changes the import of the history. It means that the history consists of 99% irrelevant and unnecessary creations, which is why you call your invented method messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

The goal or end point of evolution produces naturally 99% non-survival. Since God chose that method, the results didn't disturb Him, as it does you.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, May 24, 2023, 11:06 (310 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Still pursuing the image of a God who is just like us. We are not all-knowing and you now present your guy who is not all-knowing so your guy is mostly human.

How can a non-physical, eternal, sourceless being, who is powerful enough to create a universe, be “just like us”? You agree that he may have given us thought patterns and emotions like his. You yourself believe that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, just like some of us. Why should you assume that his enjoyment and interest is not enhanced by the pleasure of unexpected new discoveries, new ideas, learning during the process of creating? How does that make him “mostly” human? And why is such enjoyment more human and less godlike than the design of a messy, cumbersome, inefficient system which forces him to specially design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose?

dhw: His ability to design for any type of conditions does not alter the fact that at all times he is LIMITED to designing species that can survive in those out-of-his-control conditions, even if they have no relevance to the one and only species (plus food) that he actually wants to create. Hence the cumbersome nature of the method you impose on him – especially since you insist that he is perfectly capable of designing his one and only goal directly!

DAVID: God certainly designed directly in the Cambrian explosion. That resulted in all 30+ animal phyla existing today in all conditions, unpleasant or not. Shows your complaint about climate controls fails completely.

If true, it would show that he is perfectly capable of directly designing whatever he wants to design. And so it shows that it was not necessary for him to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose! Since your theory that your all-powerful God did not control the all-important conditions that would allow the survival of our ancestors, you have him restricted to designing all the unnecessary species as well as the 1% of survivors (though even these proved to be unnecessary, because he started from scratch again in the Cambrian). No wonder you call his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Your theory concerning his purpose and method is senseless (you admit that you can’t find a single reason for it), but you refuse to even consider that at least part of it might be wrong.

DAVID: […] We are discussing the history of evolution as created by God, and you are bent out of shape over the idea that an end point of humans changes the import of that history.

dhw: Not “end point” but one and only purpose, and of course it changes the import of the history. It means that the history consists of 99% irrelevant and unnecessary creations, which is why you call your invented method messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

DAVID: The goal or end point of evolution produces naturally 99% non-survival. Since God chose that method, the results didn't disturb Him, as it does you.

What do you mean by “naturally”. If your God designed every species, where does Nature come into it? And how do you know your guy chose such an inefficient method and wasn’t disturbed by it, though it is perfectly possible – as I have shown – that he had a different purpose, chose a different method to achieve that purpose, and happily continued to do exactly what he wanted to do?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 24, 2023, 19:05 (309 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Still pursuing the image of a God who is just like us. We are not all-knowing and you now present your guy who is not all-knowing so your guy is mostly human.

dhw: How can a non-physical, eternal, sourceless being, who is powerful enough to create a universe, be “just like us”? You agree that he may have given us thought patterns and emotions like his. You yourself believe that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, just like some of us. Why should you assume that his enjoyment and interest is not enhanced by the pleasure of unexpected new discoveries, new ideas, learning during the process of creating? How does that make him “mostly” human? And why is such enjoyment more human and less godlike than the design of a messy, cumbersome, inefficient system which forces him to specially design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose?

You are still struggling to show your imagined God is very human like us. And you have proposed God is not all-knowing like us humans. Your weak form of God is well-described. You don't need to convince us further.


dhw: His ability to design for any type of conditions does not alter the fact that at all times he is LIMITED to designing species that can survive in those out-of-his-control conditions, even if they have no relevance to the one and only species (plus food) that he actually wants to create. Hence the cumbersome nature of the method you impose on him – especially since you insist that he is perfectly capable of designing his one and only goal directly!

DAVID: God certainly designed directly in the Cambrian explosion. That resulted in all 30+ animal phyla existing today in all conditions, unpleasant or not. Shows your complaint about climate controls fails completely.

dhw: If true, it would show that he is perfectly capable of directly designing whatever he wants to design. And so it shows that it was not necessary for him to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose! Since your theory that your all-powerful God did not control the all-important conditions that would allow the survival of our ancestors, you have him restricted to designing all the unnecessary species as well as the 1% of survivors (though even these proved to be unnecessary, because he started from scratch again in the Cambrian). No wonder you call his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Your theory concerning his purpose and method is senseless (you admit that you can’t find a single reason for it), but you refuse to even consider that at least part of it might be wrong.

My all-powerful, all-knowing God is nothing like yours, as the debate shows. My God used a slow, cumbersome system to perfection. Look at the wondrous bush of life in all its diversity. If it all worked out so perfectly, why should you complain?


DAVID: […] We are discussing the history of evolution as created by God, and you are bent out of shape over the idea that an end point of humans changes the import of that history.

dhw: Not “end point” but one and only purpose, and of course it changes the import of the history. It means that the history consists of 99% irrelevant and unnecessary creations, which is why you call your invented method messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

DAVID: The goal or end point of evolution produces naturally 99% non-survival. Since God chose that method, the results didn't disturb Him, as it does you.

dhw: What do you mean by “naturally”. If your God designed every species, where does Nature come into it? And how do you know your guy chose such an inefficient method and wasn’t disturbed by it, though it is perfectly possible – as I have shown – that he had a different purpose, chose a different method to achieve that purpose, and happily continued to do exactly what he wanted to do?

I used 'naturally' as 'expected' as shown by Raup. Repeating how wonderful your human God is wil not convince anyone who believes.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Thursday, May 25, 2023, 08:53 (309 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Still pursuing the image of a God who is just like us. We are not all-knowing and you now present your guy who is not all-knowing so your guy is mostly human.

dhw: How can a non-physical, eternal, sourceless being, who is powerful enough to create a universe, be “just like us”? You agree that he may have given us thought patterns and emotions like his. You yourself believe that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, just like some of us. Why should you assume that his enjoyment and interest is not enhanced by the pleasure of unexpected new discoveries, new ideas, learning during the process of creating? How does that make him “mostly” human? And why is such enjoyment more human and less godlike than the design of a messy, cumbersome, inefficient system which forces him to specially design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose?

DAVID: You are still struggling to show your imagined God is very human like us. And you have proposed God is not all-knowing like us humans. Your weak form of God is well-described. You don't need to convince us further.

No struggle, no weakness, and the God I am imagining is not “very human” like us, but we have been given some of his thought patterns and emotions – as you have agreed is perfectly possible. Your objections do not answer my own objections to the sheer illogicality of your theory, which even labels your God’s method as inefficient, and they do not detract from the fact that even you accept that all my alternatives provide logical theistic explanations for the history of evolution.

DAVID: My all-powerful, all-knowing God is nothing like yours, as the debate shows. My God used a slow, cumbersome system to perfection. Look at the wondrous bush of life in all its diversity. If it all worked out so perfectly, why should you complain?

In none of my alternatives do I complain! I am the one who praises the wonderful diversity of life and who suggests that this is what your God (if he exists) wanted and achieved. You are the one who proposes that your God devised a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve what he wanted, which according to you was nothing but us humans and our food. You are totally at a loss to explain why, being all-powerful and all-knowing, he didn’t design us and our food directly, but you refuse to consider any theory that differs from your own.

DAVID: The goal or end point of evolution produces naturally 99% non-survival. Since God chose that method, the results didn't disturb Him, as it does you.

dhw: What do you mean by “naturally”. If your God designed every species, where does Nature come into it? And how do you know your guy chose such an inefficient method and wasn’t disturbed by it, though it is perfectly possible – as I have shown – that he had a different purpose, chose a different method to achieve that purpose, and happily continued to do exactly what he wanted to do?

DAVID: I used 'naturally' as 'expected' as shown by Raup. Repeating how wonderful your human God is will not convince anyone who believes.

As “expected” by whom? Who laid down the law that says: "If thou wishest to create one species plus its food, thou must design and then get rid of 99 species out of 100 that have nothing to do with the one species plus its food”? Why do you think my wonderfully efficient designer would be less convincing than your messy, cumbersome, inefficient version?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 25, 2023, 16:12 (308 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are still struggling to show your imagined God is very human like us. And you have proposed God is not all-knowing like us humans. Your weak form of God is well-described. You don't need to convince us further.

dhw: No struggle, no weakness, and the God I am imagining is not “very human” like us, but we have been given some of his thought patterns and emotions – as you have agreed is perfectly possible. Your objections do not answer my own objections to the sheer illogicality of your theory, which even labels your God’s method as inefficient, and they do not detract from the fact that even you accept that all my alternatives provide logical theistic explanations for the history of evolution.

Stop distorting!! What I agreed to in the past is if your alternative God is accepted as highly humanized, what He does is logical. Not real support foe Him.


DAVID: My all-powerful, all-knowing God is nothing like yours, as the debate shows. My God used a slow, cumbersome system to perfection. Look at the wondrous bush of life in all its diversity. If it all worked out so perfectly, why should you complain?

dhw: In none of my alternatives do I complain! I am the one who praises the wonderful diversity of life and who suggests that this is what your God (if he exists) wanted and achieved. You are the one who proposes that your God devised a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve what he wanted, which according to you was nothing but us humans and our food. You are totally at a loss to explain why, being all-powerful and all-knowing, he didn’t design us and our food directly, but you refuse to consider any theory that differs from your own.

What I can't accept is a highly humanized God who is not all-knowing.


DAVID: The goal or end point of evolution produces naturally 99% non-survival. Since God chose that method, the results didn't disturb Him, as it does you.

dhw: What do you mean by “naturally”. If your God designed every species, where does Nature come into it? And how do you know your guy chose such an inefficient method and wasn’t disturbed by it, though it is perfectly possible – as I have shown – that he had a different purpose, chose a different method to achieve that purpose, and happily continued to do exactly what he wanted to do?

DAVID: I used 'naturally' as 'expected' as shown by Raup. Repeating how wonderful your human God is will not convince anyone who believes.

dhw: As “expected” by whom? Who laid down the law that says: "If thou wishest to create one species plus its food, thou must design and then get rid of 99 species out of 100 that have nothing to do with the one species plus its food”? Why do you think my wonderfully efficient designer would be less convincing than your messy, cumbersome, inefficient version?

Anyone who know Raup's work would understand. As for which God to pick, the same wonderful diversity of life came from the evolutionary system they each used. Your guy bumbled and stumbled into humans, while my guy planned for them.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Friday, May 26, 2023, 08:09 (308 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are still struggling to show your imagined God is very human like us. And you have proposed God is not all-knowing like us humans. Your weak form of God is well-described. You don't need to convince us further.

dhw: No struggle, no weakness, and the God I am imagining is not “very human” like us, but we have been given some of his thought patterns and emotions – as you have agreed is perfectly possible. Your objections do not answer my own objections to the sheer illogicality of your theory, which even labels your God’s method as inefficient, and they do not detract from the fact that even you accept that all my alternatives provide logical theistic explanations for the history of evolution.

DAVID: Stop distorting!! What I agreed to in the past is if your alternative God is accepted as highly humanized, what He does is logical. Not real support for Him.

I didn't say you supported it! And you always try to escape from the logic by exaggerating the “humanization”. Yes, all my alternatives are logical if you accept that God (if he exists) is not all-knowing, and as the debate on free will versus predestination shows, it is perfectly possible to believe in a God who does NOT know every outcome. It is also perfectly logical to believe that your God shares some of our human thought patterns and emotions, such as enjoying creating, being interested in what he creates, and enhancing the enjoyment by learning/discovering/ inventing new things. I would assume that such patterns are what is meant by his making us “in his own image”, since the latter is unlikely to refer to our physical appearance.

dhw: You are totally at a loss to explain why, being all-powerful and all-knowing, he didn’t design us and our food directly, but you refuse to consider any theory that differs from your own.

DAVID: What I can't accept is a highly humanized God who is not all-knowing.

An immaterial, eternal, sourceless God who can design a universe can hardly be called “highly humanized” just because he enjoys getting new ideas, or conducting scientific experiments. I’m always surprised that you consider this to be more human and less godlike than a God who designs a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to fulfil his one and only purpose.

DAVID: The goal or end point of evolution produces naturally 99% non-survival. Since God chose that method, the results didn't disturb Him, as it does you.

dhw: What do you mean by “naturally”. If your God designed every species, where does Nature come into it? And how do you know your guy chose such an inefficient method and wasn’t disturbed by it, though it is perfectly possible – as I have shown – that he had a different purpose, chose a different method to achieve that purpose, and happily continued to do exactly what he wanted to do?

DAVID: I used 'naturally' as 'expected' as shown by Raup. Repeating how wonderful your human God is will not convince anyone who believes.

dhw: As “expected” by whom? Who laid down the law that says: "If thou wishest to create one species plus its food, thou must design and then get rid of 99 species out of 100 that have nothing to do with the one species plus its food”? Why do you think my wonderfully efficient designer would be less convincing than your messy, cumbersome, inefficient version?

DAVID: Anyone who know Raup's work would understand.

Then please enlighten me. If your God is the first cause, why would he have designed a system that forced him to create 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose, although according to you he was perfectly capable of direct creation? Your answer is usually that I should ask God, because you can’t make any sense out of your theory either, but maybe Raup has told you.

DAVID: As for which God to pick, the same wonderful diversity of life came from the evolutionary system they each used. Your guy bumbled and stumbled into humans, while my guy planned for them.

He “planned” for them by designing 99 out of 100 that had no connection with them, and he had to adapt his plans every time there was a change in environmental conditions (because he didn’t control these), and being all-knowing, he knew perfectly well that all of this was unnecessary because one day, when conditions were right, he would design our ancestors (plus food) from scratch. But you can’t see this as bumbling.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, May 26, 2023, 23:39 (307 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Stop distorting!! What I agreed to in the past is if your alternative God is accepted as highly humanized, what He does is logical. Not real support for Him.


dhw: I didn't say you supported it! And you always try to escape from the logic by exaggerating the “humanization”. Yes, all my alternatives are logical if you accept that God (if he exists) is not all-knowing, and as the debate on free will versus predestination shows, it is perfectly possible to believe in a God who does NOT know every outcome. It is also perfectly logical to believe that your God shares some of our human thought patterns and emotions, such as enjoying creating, being interested in what he creates, and enhancing the enjoyment by learning/discovering/ inventing new things. I would assume that such patterns are what is meant by his making us “in his own image”, since the latter is unlikely to refer to our physical appearance.

The God you present is hyper humanized, which you refuse to recognize. I base it on Adler's book, 'How to Think About God'. You can believe in your God if you wish, I can't. As for trying to compare us emotionally with God, We don't know how our concept of emotions translates to God's. I'll stick (per Adler)to the allegorical issue of the differences. Specifically, we may use the same words, but they do not have teh same meaning as applied to God.


dhw: You are totally at a loss to explain why, being all-powerful and all-knowing, he didn’t design us and our food directly, but you refuse to consider any theory that differs from your own.

DAVID: What I can't accept is a highly humanized God who is not all-knowing.

dhw: An immaterial, eternal, sourceless God who can design a universe can hardly be called “highly humanized” just because he enjoys getting new ideas, or conducting scientific experiments. I’m always surprised that you consider this to be more human and less godlike than a God who designs a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to fulfil his one and only purpose.

An amazing difference in interpretation. I see God using a cumbersome system of creatiobn of His own choice, with the magnificent resultt of our brain, the most complex item in the universe!!!


DAVID: I used 'naturally' as 'expected' as shown by Raup. Repeating how wonderful your human God is will not convince anyone who believes.

dhw: As “expected” by whom? Who laid down the law that says: "If thou wishest to create one species plus its food, thou must design and then get rid of 99 species out of 100 that have nothing to do with the one species plus its food”? Why do you think my wonderfully efficient designer would be less convincing than your messy, cumbersome, inefficient version?

DAVID: Anyone who know Raup's work would understand.

dhw: Then please enlighten me. If your God is the first cause, why would he have designed a system that forced him to create 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose, although according to you he was perfectly capable of direct creation? Your answer is usually that I should ask God, because you can’t make any sense out of your theory either, but maybe Raup has told you.

Your response is non-sensical. I accept what God chooses to do without questioning it as you do. You want God perfectly explained, but Gos doesn't explain, He just does.


DAVID: As for which God to pick, the same wonderful diversity of life came from the evolutionary system they each used. Your guy bumbled and stumbled into humans, while my guy planned for them.

dhw: He “planned” for them by designing 99 out of 100 that had no connection with them, and he had to adapt his plans every time there was a change in environmental conditions (because he didn’t control these), and being all-knowing, he knew perfectly well that all of this was unnecessary because one day, when conditions were right, he would design our ancestors (plus food) from scratch. But you can’t see this as bumbling.


Not at all. God knew His goals and how to do it by His chosen method. Our brain is here, isn't it?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Saturday, May 27, 2023, 12:56 (306 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Stop distorting!! What I agreed to in the past is if your alternative God is accepted as highly humanized, what He does is logical. Not real support for Him.

dhw: I didn't say you supported it! And you always try to escape from the logic by exaggerating the “humanization”. Yes, all my alternatives are logical if you accept that God (if he exists) is not all-knowing, and as the debate on free will versus predestination shows, it is perfectly possible to believe in a God who does NOT know every outcome. It is also perfectly logical to believe that your God shares some of our human thought patterns and emotions, such as enjoying creating, being interested in what he creates, and enhancing the enjoyment by learning/discovering/ inventing new things. I would assume that such patterns are what is meant by his making us “in his own image”, since the latter is unlikely to refer to our physical appearance.

DAVID: The God you present is hyper humanized, which you refuse to recognize. I base it on Adler's book, 'How to Think About God'. You can believe in your God if you wish, I can't. As for trying to compare us emotionally with God, We don't know how our concept of emotions translates to God's. I'll stick (per Adler)to the allegorical issue of the differences. Specifically, we may use the same words, but they do not have teh same meaning as applied to God.

Hiding behind Adler is not an argument. You think your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. So do I. You and I speak (almost) the same language, and what you and I mean by these words is what we think applies also to God – otherwise there is no point in our using such terms. You also agree that he and we probably have thought patterns and emotions in common. But you don’t think he would enjoy experimenting, learning, discovering etc., so you call it “hyper”. You presumably think he would enjoy creating 99 species out of 100 that have nothing to do with his one and only purpose. And you call that “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”. My alternatives have him doing precisely what he wants to do. Sounds a darn sight more godlike to me.

DAVID: An amazing difference in interpretation. I see God using a cumbersome system of creation of His own choice, with the magnificent result of our brain, the most complex item in the universe!!!

As he is first cause (if he exists), the method is his own invention. All our theories culminate in the human brain, but none of mine force him to invent a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method resulting in a theory which you yourself find incomprehensible.

DAVID: Anyone who know Raup's work would understand.

dhw: Then please enlighten me. If your God is the first cause, why would he have designed a system that forced him to create 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose, although according to you he was perfectly capable of direct creation? Your answer is usually that I should ask God, because you can’t make any sense out of your theory either, but maybe Raup has told you.

DAVID: Your response is non-sensical. I accept what God chooses to do without questioning it as you do. You want God perfectly explained, but God doesn't explain, He just does.

But you don’t know what God chooses to do! It is your incomprehensible theory that your God chose the above method to fulfil what you regard as his one and only purpose. You are accepting YOUR THEORY concerning what God chose to do, and YOU can’t make any sense of it. So maybe you theory is wrong!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, May 27, 2023, 15:37 (306 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Stop distorting!! What I agreed to in the past is if your alternative God is accepted as highly humanized, what He does is logical. Not real support for Him.

dhw: I didn't say you supported it! And you always try to escape from the logic by exaggerating the “humanization”. Yes, all my alternatives are logical if you accept that God (if he exists) is not all-knowing, and as the debate on free will versus predestination shows, it is perfectly possible to believe in a God who does NOT know every outcome. It is also perfectly logical to believe that your God shares some of our human thought patterns and emotions, such as enjoying creating, being interested in what he creates, and enhancing the enjoyment by learning/discovering/ inventing new things. I would assume that such patterns are what is meant by his making us “in his own image”, since the latter is unlikely to refer to our physical appearance.

DAVID: The God you present is hyper humanized, which you refuse to recognize. I base it on Adler's book, 'How to Think About God'. You can believe in your God if you wish, I can't. As for trying to compare us emotionally with God, We don't know how our concept of emotions translates to God's. I'll stick (per Adler)to the allegorical issue of the differences. Specifically, we may use the same words, but they do not have the same meaning as applied to God.

dhw: Hiding behind Adler is not an argument. You think your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. So do I. You and I speak (almost) the same language, and what you and I mean by these words is what we think applies also to God – otherwise there is no point in our using such terms. You also agree that he and we probably have thought patterns and emotions in common. But you don’t think he would enjoy experimenting, learning, discovering etc., so you call it “hyper”.

My God doesn't have to experiment, learn or discover! He is all-knowing while you prefer a God who is not all knowing and must experiment, learn or discover. A vast difference in Gods. Of course your God is very human, because He is just like us, not all-knowing.

dhw: You presumably think he would enjoy creating 99 species out of 100 that have nothing to do with his one and only purpose. And you call that “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”. My alternatives have him doing precisely what he wants to do. Sounds a darn sight more godlike to me.

Much less God-like as explained above.


DAVID: An amazing difference in interpretation. I see God using a cumbersome system of creation of His own choice, with the magnificent result of our brain, the most complex item in the universe!!!

dhw: As he is first cause (if he exists), the method is his own invention. All our theories culminate in the human brain, but none of mine force him to invent a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method resulting in a theory which you yourself find incomprehensible.

Your usual woolly distortion of my belief: I accept what God does without question.I don't have to know how or why He made his choices of a creation mechanism. He chose a cumbersome system (from a human point of view) to produce a magnificent human brain, the most complex item in the universe. My God knew exactly what He was doing with His goal in plain sight for Him.


DAVID: Anyone who know Raup's work would understand.

dhw: Then please enlighten me. If your God is the first cause, why would he have designed a system that forced him to create 99 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his purpose, although according to you he was perfectly capable of direct creation? Your answer is usually that I should ask God, because you can’t make any sense out of your theory either, but maybe Raup has told you.

DAVID: Your response is non-sensical. I accept what God chooses to do without questioning it as you do. You want God perfectly explained, but God doesn't explain, He just does.

dhw: But you don’t know what God chooses to do! It is your incomprehensible theory that your God chose the above method to fulfil what you regard as his one and only purpose. You are accepting YOUR THEORY concerning what God chose to do, and YOU can’t make any sense of it. So maybe you theory is wrong!

Once again, I don't need to make sense of it to satisfy your rigid requirements of proof of understanding. God is only partially comprehensible.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Sunday, May 28, 2023, 12:41 (305 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My God doesn't have to experiment, learn or discover! He is all-knowing while you prefer a God who is not all knowing and must experiment, learn or discover. A vast difference in Gods. Of course your God is very human, because He is just like us, not all-knowing.

All-knowing (omniscient) is another of those terms which are used without any thought of their implications. Let me list some of them for you. In your theory, your all-knowing (and also all-powerful) God had just one purpose: to create H. sapiens plus our food. He had no control over environmental changes, but he knew what they would be, that 99% of his designs would be irrelevant to his purpose, and eventually the Cambrian era would supply him with the extra oxygen he knew he needed, and he would then start all over again designing our ancestors de novo, plus lots more species that would have no connection with us or our food. He knew in advance that natural catastrophes, and “rogue” cells and the bacteria and viruses he designed, would cause immense suffering and death, but despite being all-powerful, he was powerless to stop them. And he gave humans free will but knew/knows in advance every decision that every human is going to take, which includes all the evil that has sprung from his deliberate creation. But let’s be fair – he also knew that the evil would be balanced by good: love, beauty, altruism etc – and he even knew every note of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, and every word of Shakespeare’s King Lear before humans arrived on the scene. (You usually like to focus only on the good side of his omniscience and omnipotence and pretend the bad side is not worth considering.) We can take the story of Adam and Eve as a symbol for all the problems you create with your theory: he created them and the serpent, knew they would eat the apple, and knew precisely what all the terrible results would be. He knew of every evil deed that would result from his deliberate creation, but he still went ahead. This is the all-knowing, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer you believe in. So be it.

DAVID: I see God using a cumbersome system of creation of His own choice, with the magnificent result of our brain, the most complex item in the universe!!!

dhw: As he is first cause (if he exists), the method is his own invention. All our theories culminate in the human brain, but none of mine force him to invent a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method resulting in a theory which you yourself find incomprehensible.

DAVID: Your usual woolly distortion of my belief: I accept what God does without question.

Yet again: you accept without question your own THEORY of what he does and why he does it.

DAVID: I don't have to know how or why He made his choices of a creation mechanism. He chose a cumbersome system (from a human point of view) to produce a magnificent human brain, the most complex item in the universe. My God knew exactly what He was doing with His goal in plain sight for Him.

And that apparently explains why he chose to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our brain, although he was perfectly capable of designing us and our brain directly. All my alternative theories culminate in the human brain, without being messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

dhw: You are accepting YOUR THEORY concerning what God chose to do, and YOU can’t make any sense of it. So maybe you theory is wrong!

DAVID: Once again, I don't need to make sense of it to satisfy your rigid requirements of proof of understanding. God is only partially comprehensible.

I don't require rigid proof. I only ask for a theory that makes sense. If you are happy to believe your theory that your God is the one I have described above (using your own descriptive terms) - a theory which makes no sense to you - then so be it. But please stop pretending that your inexplicable theory is the only possible truth.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, May 28, 2023, 19:11 (305 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My God doesn't have to experiment, learn or discover! He is all-knowing while you prefer a God who is not all knowing and must experiment, learn or discover. A vast difference in Gods. Of course your God is very human, because He is just like us, not all-knowing.

dhw: All-knowing (omniscient) is another of those terms which are used without any thought of their implications. Let me list some of them for you. In your theory, your all-knowing (and also all-powerful) God had just one purpose: to create H. sapiens plus our food. He had no control over environmental changes, but he knew what they would be, that 99% of his designs would be irrelevant to his purpose, and eventually the Cambrian era would supply him with the extra oxygen he knew he needed, and he would then start all over again designing our ancestors de novo, plus lots more species that would have no connection with us or our food. He knew in advance that natural catastrophes, and “rogue” cells and the bacteria and viruses he designed, would cause immense suffering and death, but despite being all-powerful, he was powerless to stop them. And he gave humans free will but knew/knows in advance every decision that every human is going to take, which includes all the evil that has sprung from his deliberate creation. But let’s be fair – he also knew that the evil would be balanced by good: love, beauty, altruism etc – and he even knew every note of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, and every word of Shakespeare’s King Lear before humans arrived on the scene. (You usually like to focus only on the good side of his omniscience and omnipotence and pretend the bad side is not worth considering.) We can take the story of Adam and Eve as a symbol for all the problems you create with your theory: he created them and the serpent, knew they would eat the apple, and knew precisely what all the terrible results would be. He knew of every evil deed that would result from his deliberate creation, but he still went ahead. This is the all-knowing, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer you believe in. So be it.

We are back to theodicy. God knew His system woold make mistakes and put in backup systems we can see. God could not invent a fast-moving molecular system where the molecules never would make a mistake. God knew his limits. Your balancing act of good and evil, is what God obviously accepted. When molecules are free to act as well as humans with free will, bad mistakes will happen as well as deliberate evil.

DAVID: I don't have to know how or why He made his choices of a creation mechanism. He chose a cumbersome system (from a human point of view) to produce a magnificent human brain, the most complex item in the universe. My God knew exactly what He was doing with His goal in plain sight for Him.

dhw: And that apparently explains why he chose to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our brain, although he was perfectly capable of designing us and our brain directly. All my alternative theories culminate in the human brain, without being messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

So now you accept evolution as totally efficient?


dhw: You are accepting YOUR THEORY concerning what God chose to do, and YOU can’t make any sense of it. So maybe you theory is wrong!

DAVID: Once again, I don't need to make sense of it to satisfy your rigid requirements of proof of understanding. God is only partially comprehensible.

dhw: I don't require rigid proof. I only ask for a theory that makes sense. If you are happy to believe your theory that your God is the one I have described above (using your own descriptive terms) - a theory which makes no sense to you - then so be it. But please stop pretending that your inexplicable theory is the only possible truth.

We have no 'truths', only theories of explanations using imagined Gods with varying personalities, yours exquisitely humanized as not all-knowing.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Monday, May 29, 2023, 11:49 (304 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My God doesn't have to experiment, learn or discover! He is all-knowing while you prefer a God who is not all knowing and must experiment, learn or discover. A vast difference in Gods. Of course your God is very human, because He is just like us, not all-knowing.

dhw: All-knowing (omniscient) is another of those terms which are used without any thought of their implications. Let me list some of them for you.

I shan’t repeat the list. The Adam and Eve story will suffice.

dhw: We can take the story of Adam and Eve as a symbol for all the problems you create with your theory: he created them and the serpent, knew they would eat the apple, and knew precisely what all the terrible results would be. He knew of every evil deed that would result from his deliberate creation, but he still went ahead. This is the all-knowing, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer you believe in. So be it.

DAVID: We are back to theodicy. God knew His system woold make mistakes and put in backup systems we can see. God could not invent a fast-moving molecular system where the molecules never would make a mistake.

Theodicy is not confined to molecules! You object to my theories because they involve a God who is not all-knowing. Neither my list nor the Adam and Eve story is limited to molecules – an all-knowing God would have known that all the evils of the world would result from his work, and since he is also all-powerful, one could only assume that he wanted what he created. You do him no favours with your “all-knowing” theory.

DAVID: God knew his limits.

Ah, so when it comes to molecules, he is not all-powerful.

DAVID: Your balancing act of good and evil, is what God obviously accepted. When molecules are free to act as well as humans with free will, bad mistakes will happen as well as deliberate evil.
And under “Cellular intelligence: the cancer problem”:
DAVID: God's DNA code is built to allow many amazing alterations with chance mutations. Cancer seems to encourage them.

Let’s substitute “cell” for “molecule”, and what do you get: cells are free to act – they have free will. Your God gave it to them. They are not programmed to do what they do. So it’s not just cancer cells that are intelligent but all cells. And if they can do bad things, they can also do good things, using their intelligence to improve their chances of survival. And oh good heavens, the code also allows amazing alterations through chance mutations. Welcome to your new part Darwin, part Shapiro God of evolution.

DAVID: I don't have to know how or why He made his choices of a creation mechanism. He chose a cumbersome system (from a human point of view) to produce a magnificent human brain, the most complex item in the universe. My God knew exactly what He was doing with His goal in plain sight for Him.

dhw: And that apparently explains why he chose to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our brain, although he was perfectly capable of designing us and our brain directly. All my alternative theories culminate in the human brain, without being messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

DAVID: So now you accept evolution as totally efficient?

Efficiency depends on the purpose! You say it’s inefficient because you insist that your God was forced to create species that were irrelevant to his purpose. If God doesn’t exist, then the question of efficiency doesn’t even arise. If God does exist and his purpose was to create a free-for-all, or to experiment with new ideas, or to experiment with a view to finding a particular formula that would produce a particular species (plus food), then yes, in all cases he got what he wanted without having to do anything he didn’t want to do. I’d call that efficient.

dhw: You are accepting YOUR THEORY concerning what God chose to do, and YOU can’t make any sense of it. So maybe you theory is wrong!

DAVID: Once again, I don't need to make sense of it to satisfy your rigid requirements of proof of understanding. God is only partially comprehensible.

dhw: I don't require rigid proof. I only ask for a theory that makes sense. If you are happy to believe your theory that your God is the one I have described above (using your own descriptive terms) - a theory which makes no sense to you - then so be it. But please stop pretending that your inexplicable theory is the only possible truth.

DAVID: We have no 'truths', only theories of explanations using imagined Gods with varying personalities…….

Agreed. So please stop pretending that your incomprehensible theory was God’s choice which you “accept”.

DAVID: ….yours exquisitely humanized as not all-knowing.

Why “exquisitely humanized”? The all-knowing God you believe in is not only a messy, inefficient designer, but he also knows he is creating evil, carries on regardless and, despite his being all-powerful, is powerless to stop free-willed molecules and cancer cells from causing nasty accidents. Perhaps you’d like to call him “exquisitely inhuman”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, May 29, 2023, 19:53 (304 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: All-knowing (omniscient) is another of those terms which are used without any thought of their implications. Let me list some of them for you.

I shan’t repeat the list. The Adam and Eve story will suffice.

dhw: We can take the story of Adam and Eve as a symbol for all the problems you create with your theory: he created them and the serpent, knew they would eat the apple, and knew precisely what all the terrible results would be. He knew of every evil deed that would result from his deliberate creation, but he still went ahead. This is the all-knowing, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer you believe in. So be it.

You have plugged in a Genesis God. That is not my God, so He cannot be used. Remember I avoid the Bible to a large extent.


DAVID: We are back to theodicy. God knew His system woold make mistakes and put in backup systems we can see. God could not invent a fast-moving molecular system where the molecules never would make a mistake.

dhw: Theodicy is not confined to molecules! You object to my theories because they involve a God who is not all-knowing. Neither my list nor the Adam and Eve story is limited to molecules – an all-knowing God would have known that all the evils of the world would result from his work, and since he is also all-powerful, one could only assume that he wanted what he created. You do him no favours with your “all-knowing” theory.

With free will God knew evil would occur. He knew errors would occur in a free moving molecular system of life. But that is the only system that creates life that He knows of.


And under “Cellular intelligence: the cancer problem”:
DAVID: God's DNA code is built to allow many amazing alterations with chance mutations. Cancer seems to encourage them.

dhw: Let’s substitute “cell” for “molecule”, and what do you get: cells are free to act – they have free will. Your God gave it to them. They are not programmed to do what they do. So it’s not just cancer cells that are intelligent but all cells. And if they can do bad things, they can also do good things, using their intelligence to improve their chances of survival. And oh good heavens, the code also allows amazing alterations through chance mutations. Welcome to your new part Darwin, part Shapiro God of evolution.

Wow!!! A wilsonoid apparition if a real cell. Cells are under rigid instructions to do what they must do. Some liver cells detoxify, others make bile, but all cooperate to make their liver function properly. On the other hand, molecules have fixed instructions on how to change folds for a new reaction, but mistakes in folding occur since the molecule is on its own to make the fold.


DAVID: I don't have to know how or why He made his choices of a creation mechanism. He chose a cumbersome system (from a human point of view) to produce a magnificent human brain, the most complex item in the universe. My God knew exactly what He was doing with His goal in plain sight for Him.

dhw: And that apparently explains why he chose to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our brain, although he was perfectly capable of designing us and our brain directly. All my alternative theories culminate in the human brain, without being messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

DAVID: So now you accept evolution as totally efficient?

dhw: Efficiency depends on the purpose! You say it’s inefficient because you insist that your God was forced to create species that were irrelevant to his purpose. If God doesn’t exist, then the question of efficiency doesn’t even arise. If God does exist and his purpose was to create a free-for-all, or to experiment with new ideas, or to experiment with a view to finding a particular formula that would produce a particular species (plus food), then yes, in all cases he got what he wanted without having to do anything he didn’t want to do. I’d call that efficient.

And I would call that a powerless very humanized form of an imagined God.

DAVID: ….yours exquisitely humanized as not all-knowing.

dhw: Why “exquisitely humanized”? The all-knowing God you believe in is not only a messy, inefficient designer, but he also knows he is creating evil, carries on regardless and, despite his being all-powerful, is powerless to stop free-willed molecules and cancer cells from causing nasty accidents. Perhaps you’d like to call him “exquisitely inhuman”.

An all-knowing God knows what will work and what cannot work and choses the best approach always.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, May 30, 2023, 13:41 (303 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Theodicy is not confined to molecules! You object to my theories because they involve a God who is not all-knowing. Neither my list nor the Adam and Eve story is limited to molecules – an all-knowing God would have known that all the evils of the world would result from his work, and since he is also all-powerful, one could only assume that he wanted what he created. You do him no favours with your “all-knowing” theory.

DAVID: With free will God knew evil would occur. He knew errors would occur in a free moving molecular system of life. But that is the only system that creates life that He knows of.

Once more: theodicy is not confined to molecules, and I am pointing out to you the kind of God you are creating if you insist on his being all-knowing. I have now bolded the reason for this exchange, and the summary, since you have ignored it.

DAVID: I don't have to know how or why He made his choices of a creation mechanism. He chose a cumbersome system (from a human point of view) to produce a magnificent human brain, the most complex item in the universe. My God knew exactly what He was doing with His goal in plain sight for Him.

dhw: And that apparently explains why he chose to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our brain, although he was perfectly capable of designing us and our brain directly. All my alternative theories culminate in the human brain, without being messy, cumbersome or inefficient.

DAVID: So now you accept evolution as totally efficient?

dhw: Efficiency depends on the purpose! You say it’s inefficient because you insist that your God was forced to create species that were irrelevant to his purpose. If God doesn’t exist, then the question of efficiency doesn’t even arise. If God does exist and his purpose was to create a free-for-all, or to experiment with new ideas, or to experiment with a view to finding a particular formula that would produce a particular species (plus food), then yes, in all cases he got what he wanted without having to do anything he didn’t want to do. I’d call that efficient.

DAVID: And I would call that a powerless very humanized form of an imagined God.
And:
An all-knowing God knows what will work and what cannot work and choses the best approach always.

A God who achieves what he wants to achieve is apparently powerless and very humanized, whereas an all-powerful, all-knowing God who designs a messy, inefficient method to achieve his purpose, has no control over the environmental conditions which limit his scope for speciation, knows he is creating all kinds of evil, and is powerless to prevent mistakes that arise from molecules that mess up their folding etc. “always chooses the best approach”. I shudder to think what the worst approach would be. NB in anticipation of your usual complaint: This is not a criticism of your God, but of your theories which lead you to this image of your God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, May 30, 2023, 15:54 (303 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Theodicy is not confined to molecules! You object to my theories because they involve a God who is not all-knowing. Neither my list nor the Adam and Eve story is limited to molecules – an all-knowing God would have known that all the evils of the world would result from his work, and since he is also all-powerful, one could only assume that he wanted what he created. You do him no favours with your “all-knowing” theory.

DAVID: With free will God knew evil would occur. He knew errors would occur in a free moving molecular system of life. But that is the only system that creates life that He knows of.

dhw: Once more: theodicy is not confined to molecules, and I am pointing out to you the kind of God you are creating if you insist on his being all-knowing. I have now bolded the reason for this exchange, and the summary, since you have ignored it.

My statement above ignores nothing. Of course, He wanted what He created. You are still wrapped up with the Bible's God. Giving us free-will allows evil to appear. Free-wheeling molecular reactions result in bad mutations, but the speed at which life runs requires that rapidity. He knew about the problems you raise. Note safeguards in the genome.

DAVID: So now you accept evolution as totally efficient?

dhw: Efficiency depends on the purpose! You say it’s inefficient because you insist that your God was forced to create species that were irrelevant to his purpose. If God doesn’t exist, then the question of efficiency doesn’t even arise. If God does exist and his purpose was to create a free-for-all, or to experiment with new ideas, or to experiment with a view to finding a particular formula that would produce a particular species (plus food), then yes, in all cases he got what he wanted without having to do anything he didn’t want to do. I’d call that efficient.

DAVID: And I would call that a powerless very humanized form of an imagined God.
And:
An all-knowing God knows what will work and what cannot work and choses the best approach always.

dhw: A God who achieves what he wants to achieve is apparently powerless and very humanized, whereas an all-powerful, all-knowing God who designs a messy, inefficient method to achieve his purpose, has no control over the environmental conditions which limit his scope for speciation, knows he is creating all kinds of evil, and is powerless to prevent mistakes that arise from molecules that mess up their folding etc. “always chooses the best approach”. I shudder to think what the worst approach would be. NB in anticipation of your usual complaint: This is not a criticism of your God, but of your theories which lead you to this image of your God.

Your experimenting, goalless God is like none I recognize. He creates the same cumbersome evolution as mine, but because He is not all-knowing suddenly His evolution is OK. Weird. By wandering into an endpoint of humans, that makes it all correct. Both our God's are all-knowing enough to create life, but then yours loses some of His mental ability. God is continuously the same but yours varies in mental ability as He progresses.

See Wiki on the subject:

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

"The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. The question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it."

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, May 31, 2023, 09:14 (303 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: With free will God knew evil would occur. He knew errors would occur in a free moving molecular system of life. But that is the only system that creates life that He knows of.

dhw: Once more: theodicy is not confined to molecules, and I am pointing out to you the kind of God you are creating if you insist on his being all-knowing.[…].

DAVID: […] Of course, He wanted what He created. You are still wrapped up with the Bible's God. Giving us free-will allows evil to appear. Free-wheeling molecular reactions result in bad mutations, but the speed at which life runs requires that rapidity. He knew about the problems you raise. Note safeguards in the genome.

Yet again, this is not just about molecules! If your God is all-knowing, of course he knew all about the problems I raise: as the creator of all things, he therefore knew that what he was creating would result in every disease, sin, evil act, disaster etc. throughout life’s history. If “He wanted what He created”, he must have wanted all of that. (He would also have wanted all the beautiful things, but those are not the problem here.) And so your objection to my alternative theories is based on your own theory that your God wanted to create all the evils and diseases and catastrophes and horrors he knew would result from his creations. Your God is not only an inefficient designer, but he is also a sadist.

DAVID: So now you accept evolution as totally efficient?

dhw: Efficiency depends on the purpose! You say it’s inefficient because you insist that your God was forced to create species that were irrelevant to his purpose. If God doesn’t exist, then the question of efficiency doesn’t even arise. If God does exist and his purpose was to create a free-for-all, or to experiment with new ideas, or to experiment with a view to finding a particular formula that would produce a particular species (plus food), then yes, in all cases he got what he wanted without having to do anything he didn’t want to do. I’d call that efficient.

DAVID: And I would call that a powerless very humanized form of an imagined God.
And:
An all-knowing God knows what will work and what cannot work and choses the best approach always.

dhw: A God who achieves what he wants to achieve is apparently powerless and very humanized, whereas an all-powerful, all-knowing God who designs a messy, inefficient method to achieve his purpose, has no control over the environmental conditions which limit his scope for speciation, knows he is creating all kinds of evil, and is powerless to prevent mistakes that arise from molecules that mess up their folding etc. “always chooses the best approach”. I shudder to think what the worst approach would be. NB in anticipation of your usual complaint: This is not a criticism of your God, but of your theories which lead you to this image of your God.

DAVID: Your experimenting, goalless God is like none I recognize.

In none of my theories is he goalless. How many folk do you think would recognize your inefficient sadist?

DAVID: He creates the same cumbersome evolution as mine, but because He is not all-knowing suddenly His evolution is OK.

It is because his experiments are successful that two of my versions are OK, and the third is OK because in a free-for-all, the enjoyment lies precisely in NOT knowing what will happen next.

DAVID: Weird. By wandering into an endpoint of humans, that makes it all correct. Both our God's are all-knowing enough to create life, but then yours loses some of His mental ability. God is continuously the same but yours varies in mental ability as He progresses.

There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox
QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. The question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it."

A good description of your non-sense theory: An all-knowing, all-powerful God who invented an inefficient method that forced him to design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing do with his one and only purpose (sapiens plus food) is a piece of non-sense which “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to you). Similarly there is no sense in claiming that your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of all things, and then claiming that he is not responsible for all the bad things he alone must have created. Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, May 31, 2023, 16:41 (302 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] Of course, He wanted what He created. You are still wrapped up with the Bible's God. Giving us free-will allows evil to appear. Free-wheeling molecular reactions result in bad mutations, but the speed at which life runs requires that rapidity. He knew about the problems you raise. Note safeguards in the genome.

dhw: Yet again, this is not just about molecules! If your God is all-knowing, of course he knew all about the problems I raise: as the creator of all things, he therefore knew that what he was creating would result in every disease, sin, evil act, disaster etc. throughout life’s history. If “He wanted what He created”, he must have wanted all of that. (He would also have wanted all the beautiful things, but those are not the problem here.) And so your objection to my alternative theories is based on your own theory that your God wanted to create all the evils and diseases and catastrophes and horrors he knew would result from his creations. Your God is not only an inefficient designer, but he is also a sadist.

It is partially about molecular reactions, as described above. For His own reasons He had to include viruses and bacteria, some of which go bad. Again theodicy. He gave us free will obviously realizing some of us would create evil. I accept that He did all that. Are you inferring your unknown stupe of a God didn't realize what would happen. I'd love to hear how your guy viewed this.


DAVID: Your experimenting, goalless God is like none I recognize.

dhw: In none of my theories is he goalless. How many folk do you think would recognize your inefficient sadist?

No onev would listen to your distortion of my God.


DAVID: He creates the same cumbersome evolution as mine, but because He is not all-knowing suddenly His evolution is OK.

dhw: It is because his experiments are successful that two of my versions are OK, and the third is OK because in a free-for-all, the enjoyment lies precisely in NOT knowing what will happen next.

DAVID: Weird. By wandering into an endpoint of humans, that makes it all correct. Both our God's are all-knowing enough to create life, but then yours loses some of His mental ability. God is continuously the same but yours varies in mental ability as He progresses.

dhw: There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

Again a purely humanized God, with a purpose to enjoy Himself.


DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox
QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. The question (and therefore the perceived paradox) is meaningless. Nonsense does not suddenly acquire sense and meaning with the addition of the two words, "God can" before it."

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory: An all-knowing, all-powerful God who invented an inefficient method that forced him to design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing do with his one and only purpose (sapiens plus food) is a piece of non-sense which “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to you). Similarly there is no sense in claiming that your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of all things, and then claiming that he is not responsible for all the bad things he alone must have created. Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

I have never heard how your God handles bad bacteria, viruses, evil, molecular mistakes, etc.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Thursday, June 01, 2023, 12:05 (301 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course He wanted what he created.

dhw: If your God is all-knowing, of course he knew all about the problems I raise: as the creator of all things, he therefore knew that what he was creating would result in every disease, sin, evil act, disaster etc. throughout life’s history. If “He wanted what He created”, he must have wanted all of that. […]Your God is not only an inefficient designer, but he is also a sadist.

DAVID: For His own reasons He had to include viruses and bacteria, some of which go bad. Again theodicy. He gave us free will obviously realizing some of us would create evil. I accept that He did all that. Are you inferring your unknown stupe of a God didn't realize what would happen. […]

You might as well say that for his own reasons he created all the”evils” I’ve listed. Not much of an explanation, is it? (See below for my “inferences”.)

DAVID: Your experimenting, goalless God is like none I recognize.

dhw: In none of my theories is he goalless. How many folk do you think would recognize your inefficient sadist?

DAVID: No one would listen to your distortion of my God.

Once again, as above: You believe your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. As first cause, he created everything that exists, and you say he created what he wanted to create. He created “evil”. Therefore he wanted to create evil, and knew from the very beginning all the evil that would result from his creations. Now please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: He creates the same cumbersome evolution as mine, but because He is not all-knowing suddenly His evolution is OK.

dhw: It is because his experiments are successful that two of my versions are OK, and the third is OK because in a free-for-all, the enjoyment lies precisely in NOT knowing what will happen next.

DAVID: Weird. By wandering into an endpoint of humans, that makes it all correct. Both our God's are all-knowing enough to create life, but then yours loses some of His mental ability. God is continuously the same but yours varies in mental ability as He progresses.

dhw: There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

DAVID: Again a purely humanized God, with a purpose to enjoy Himself.

Please tell us what you regard as his purpose for the creation of humans and every other life form that ever existed. And please tell us why a God who, in your own words, enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, could not set out with the purpose of enjoying creating things that he would find interesting.

DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. […]

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory: An all-knowing, all-powerful God who invented an inefficient method that forced him to design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing do with his one and only purpose (sapiens plus food) is a piece of non-sense which “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to you). Similarly there is no sense in claiming that your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of all things, and then claiming that he is not responsible for all the bad things he alone must have created. Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: I have never heard how your God handles bad bacteria, viruses, evil, molecular mistakes, etc.

I ask you to tell me what “mutually contradictory” things you have found in my theories, and you obviously can’t find any, so you set me a task! When I answer, I expect you will again try to divert attention away from your non-sense by claiming that my answer “humanizes” God – itself a piece of non-sense, since you acknowledge that the Creator might well have endowed humans with some of his own thought patterns and emotions.

However, I will repeat the answer I keep giving you. If God exists and performed experiments (first two theories), just like the humans he created in his own image, he would not have known all the possible effects of his experiments. (I doubt if the first AI experimenters would have envisaged the now terrifying prospect that their inventions could lead to the end of the human species.) The third theory, the free-for-all, has his original invention creating its own goods and bads, again without his foreknowledge. In none of these theories does he set out knowingly to create evil. A different question might be: why doesn’t he stop the carnage? I have no idea. Maybe he doesn't exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead. Our dispute is over why he created it in the first place. Now please tell us what “mutual contradictions” you have found in my alternative theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 01, 2023, 14:29 (301 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: For His own reasons He had to include viruses and bacteria, some of which go bad. Again theodicy. He gave us free will obviously realizing some of us would create evil. I accept that He did all that. Are you inferring your unknown stupe of a God didn't realize what would happen. […]

dhw: You might as well say that for his own reasons he created all the”evils” I’ve listed. Not much of an explanation, is it? (See below for my “inferences”.)

A non-answer. I asked you to discuss your God and evil, bad viruses.


DAVID: No one would listen to your distortion of my God.

dhw: Once again, as above: You believe your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. As first cause, he created everything that exists, and you say he created what he wanted to create. He created “evil”. Therefore he wanted to create evil, and knew from the very beginning all the evil that would result from his creations. Now please tell me what I have distorted.

When will we hear about your God and theodicy? My God expected evil when He gave us free will.


dhw: There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

DAVID: Again a purely humanized God, with a purpose to enjoy Himself.

dhw: Please tell us what you regard as his purpose for the creation of humans and every other life form that ever existed. And please tell us why a God who, in your own words, enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, could not set out with the purpose of enjoying creating things that he would find interesting.

My God does not need to create for self-interest.


DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. […]

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory: An all-knowing, all-powerful God who invented an inefficient method that forced him to design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing do with his one and only purpose (sapiens plus food) is a piece of non-sense which “makes sense only to God” (i.e. not to you). Similarly there is no sense in claiming that your God is the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of all things, and then claiming that he is not responsible for all the bad things he alone must have created. Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: I have never heard how your God handles bad bacteria, viruses, evil, molecular mistakes, etc.

dhw: I ask you to tell me what “mutually contradictory” things you have found in my theories, and you obviously can’t find any, so you set me a task! When I answer, I expect you will again try to divert attention away from your non-sense by claiming that my answer “humanizes” God – itself a piece of non-sense, since you acknowledge that the Creator might well have endowed humans with some of his own thought patterns and emotions.

At least you finally recognize I want to know about your God and theodicy. What are you hiding?


dhw: However, I will repeat the answer I keep giving you. If God exists and performed experiments (first two theories), just like the humans he created in his own image, he would not have known all the possible effects of his experiments. (I doubt if the first AI experimenters would have envisaged the now terrifying prospect that their inventions could lead to the end of the human species.) The third theory, the free-for-all, has his original invention creating its own goods and bads, again without his foreknowledge. In none of these theories does he set out knowingly to create evil. A different question might be: why doesn’t he stop the carnage? I have no idea. Maybe he doesn't exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead. Our dispute is over why he created it in the first place. Now please tell us what “mutual contradictions” you have found in my alternative theories.

So the answer is your know-nothing God went on creating evolution without realizing the consequences of His actions. You state He doesn't do anything about it or abandons it. At the level of evolution, He is a complete stupid dud. How did your God invent the universe, the perfect Earth fit for life, and make life itself, if He didn't know the consequences of His designs. He is OK until He has to evolve life and then falls apart. No wonder you don't really believe in Him.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Friday, June 02, 2023, 08:41 (301 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: For His own reasons He had to include viruses and bacteria, some of which go bad. Again theodicy. He gave us free will obviously realizing some of us would create evil. I accept that He did all that. Are you inferring your unknown stupe of a God didn't realize what would happen. […]

dhw: You might as well say that for his own reasons he created all the ”evils” I’ve listed. Not much of an explanation, is it? (See below for my “inferences”.)(dhw’s bold)

DAVID: A non-answer. I asked you to discuss your God and evil, bad viruses.

I asked you to see below. You should read the whole post before you tell me I have not answered. But perhaps you are only trying to divert attention away from your non-explanation of your God’s creation of evil (he did so for his own reasons). Please note that under “evil” I subsumed “every disease, sin, evil act, disaster etc.”

DAVID: No one would listen to your distortion of my God.

dhw: Once again, as above: You believe your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. As first cause, he created everything that exists, and you say he created what he wanted to create. He created “evil”. Therefore he wanted to create evil, and knew from the very beginning all the evil that would result from his creations. Now please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: When will we hear about your God and theodicy? My God expected evil when He gave us free will.

Once more: see below. Meanwhile, you have accused me of distortion, and I have reproduced your beliefs and asked what I have distorted. Please answer.

dhw: There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

DAVID: Again a purely humanized God, with a purpose to enjoy Himself.

dhw: Please tell us what you regard as his purpose for the creation of humans and every other life form that ever existed.

Not answered.

dhw: And please tell us why a God who, in your own words, enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, could not set out with the purpose of enjoying creating things that he would find interesting.

DAVID: My God does not need to create for self-interest.

We are not talking of “need”. Since you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, what is wrong with him wanting to enjoy creating things he will find interesting? Is it even reasonable to suppose that he enjoys doing something but DOESN’T actually want to do it? Please answer my now bolded question above.

DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. […]

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory:[I gave two examples.] Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: I have never heard how your God handles bad bacteria, viruses, evil, molecular mistakes, etc.

Once again, you refuse to respond. I had already told you I would tackle the theodicy problem “below”, and I will now repeat my answer in Part Two.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Friday, June 02, 2023, 08:46 (301 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: However, I will repeat the answer I keep giving you. If God exists and performed experiments (first two theories), just like the humans he created in his own image, he would not have known all the possible effects of his experiments. (I doubt if the first AI experimenters would have envisaged the now terrifying prospect that their inventions could lead to the end of the human species.) The third theory, the free-for-all, has his original invention creating its own goods and bads, again without his foreknowledge. In none of these theories does he set out knowingly to create evil. A different question might be: why doesn’t he stop the carnage? I have no idea. Maybe he doesn't exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead. Our dispute is over why he created it in the first place. Now please tell us what “mutual contradictions” you have found in my alternative theories.

You still refuse to respond.

DAVID: So the answer is your know-nothing God went on creating evolution without realizing the consequences of His actions.

Not being all-knowing does not mean knowing nothing! Our subject is theodicy here – why he created the various “evils” in the first place. Of course he would eventually see the effects of all his experiments. That is what gives rise to the second question: why doesn’t he step in and stop it?

DAVID: You state He doesn't do anything about it or abandons it.

Clearly he has not stepped in to stop it! We don’t know why, but I’ve offered a little list of possibilities. Once again, the question is why he created it in the first place.

DAVID: At the level of evolution, He is a complete stupid dud.

In your version he is messy, cumbersome, inefficient and sadistic. In mine, he conducts successful experiments (every living form is a success) or he creates a free-for-all. In none of these scenarios does he deliberately and knowingly create evil. Why does that make him a stupid dud?

DAVID: How did your God invent the universe, the perfect Earth fit for life, and make life itself, if He didn't know the consequences of His designs.

In the same way as humans (he and we have thought patterns in common, remember?) come up with wonderful inventions and discoveries, and then become aware of later effects they never dreamt of. Think of the motor car, smoking, industrial pollution, climate change, nuclear weapons, AI, germ warfare etc. But you insist that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. So perhaps you will tell us why he carried on if he already knew the consequences in advance?

DAVID: He is OK until He has to evolve life and then falls apart. No wonder you don't really believe in Him.

You already have him using a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve the goal you set him, and with your insistence on his omniscience, you now have him deliberately and sadistically creating evil. Successful experiments and a successful free-for-all do not denote a God falling apart. They only denote a God with a different purpose from yours and different methods of achieving his purpose. And please don’t fall back on my agnosticism as a defence of your derogatory picture of your God.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Friday, June 02, 2023, 17:44 (300 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: However, I will repeat the answer I keep giving you. If God exists and performed experiments (first two theories), just like the humans he created in his own image, he would not have known all the possible effects of his experiments. (I doubt if the first AI experimenters would have envisaged the now terrifying prospect that their inventions could lead to the end of the human species.) The third theory, the free-for-all, has his original invention creating its own goods and bads, again without his foreknowledge. In none of these theories does he set out knowingly to create evil. A different question might be: why doesn’t he stop the carnage? I have no idea. Maybe he doesn't exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead. Our dispute is over why he created it in the first place. Now please tell us what “mutual contradictions” you have found in my alternative theories.

You still refuse to respond.

Of course your not-all-knowing God would not expect evil in free-will humans He created. Part of the contradictions is a God who can create life and thinking humans with free-will and doesn't 'know' in advance the obvious result, evil humans will appear, as simple logical thinking. Your un-knowing God is basically illogical in His thinking.


DAVID: So the answer is your know-nothing God went on creating evolution without realizing the consequences of His actions.

dhw: Not being all-knowing does not mean knowing nothing! Our subject is theodicy here – why he created the various “evils” in the first place. Of course he would eventually see the effects of all his experiments. That is what gives rise to the second question: why doesn’t he step in and stop it?

The writers of the Bible thought He stepped in at times. But we are now non-Biblical, and we still have free-will and Putin. Would your guy step in?


DAVID: You state He doesn't do anything about it or abandons it.

dhw:Clearly he has not stepped in to stop it! We don’t know why, but I’ve offered a little list of possibilities. Once again, the question is why he created it in the first place.

We ae back to He wanted to for His own reasons.


DAVID: At the level of evolution, He is a complete stupid dud.

dhw: In your version he is messy, cumbersome, inefficient and sadistic. In mine, he conducts successful experiments (every living form is a success) or he creates a free-for-all. In none of these scenarios does he deliberately and knowingly create evil. Why does that make him a stupid dud?

how does your guy handle the arrival of evil?


DAVID: How did your God invent the universe, the perfect Earth fit for life, and make life itself, if He didn't know the consequences of His designs.

In the same way as humans (he and we have thought patterns in common, remember?) come up with wonderful inventions and discoveries, and then become aware of later effects they never dreamt of. Think of the motor car, smoking, industrial pollution, climate change, nuclear weapons, AI, germ warfare etc. But you insist that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. So perhaps you will tell us why he carried on if he already knew the consequences in advance?

He is letting humans handle their own affairs. What would your guy do?


DAVID: He is OK until He has to evolve life and then falls apart. No wonder you don't really believe in Him.

dhw: You already have him using a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve the goal you set him, and with your insistence on his omniscience, you now have him deliberately and sadistically creating evil. Successful experiments and a successful free-for-all do not denote a God falling apart. They only denote a God with a different purpose from yours and different methods of achieving his purpose. And please don’t fall back on my agnosticism as a defence of your derogatory picture of your God.

Your guy saw the same appearance of evil. What did He do?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Friday, June 02, 2023, 17:27 (300 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

dhw: Once again, as above: You believe your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. As first cause, he created everything that exists, and you say he created what he wanted to create. He created “evil”. Therefore he wanted to create evil, and knew from the very beginning all the evil that would result from his creations. Now please tell me what I have distorted.

No distortion in this limited area. Of course God knew evil would appear.

dhw: There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

DAVID: Again a purely humanized God, with a purpose to enjoy Himself.

dhw: Please tell us what you regard as his purpose for the creation of humans and every other life form that ever existed.

Not answered.

He obviously wanted to create a deep-thinking organism with mentation similar to His. He might want our awareness of Him and His works. What is your God's purpose?


dhw: And please tell us why a God who, in your own words, enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, could not set out with the purpose of enjoying creating things that he would find interesting.

DAVID: My God does not need to create for self-interest.

dhw: We are not talking of “need”. Since you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, what is wrong with him wanting to enjoy creating things he will find interesting? Is it even reasonable to suppose that he enjoys doing something but DOESN’T actually want to do it? Please answer my now bolded question above.

Again more humanizing of your imagined God. See answer above.


DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. […]

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory:[I gave two examples.] Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: I have never heard how your God handles bad bacteria, viruses, evil, molecular mistakes, etc.

dhw: Once again, you refuse to respond. I had already told you I would tackle the theodicy problem “below”, and I will now repeat my answer in Part Two.

Your whole imaginary God is a contradiction to usual thought about who God is.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Saturday, June 03, 2023, 08:04 (300 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: No one would listen to your distortion of my God.

dhw: Once again, as above: You believe your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. As first cause, he created everything that exists, and you say he created what he wanted to create. He created “evil”. Therefore he wanted to create evil, and knew from the very beginning all the evil that would result from his creations. Now please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: No distortion in this limited area. Of course God knew evil would appear.

No distortion. Thank you. So if, as you say, he created what he wanted to create, then he not only knew “evil” would appear, but he wanted to create it. I wonder how many religious folk would accept your version of God as an inefficient designer of evolution, and a deliberate creator of “evil”.

dhw: There is no “correctness” if he began his experiments as a voyage of discovery, learning, inventing new things. The “voyage” would have been what he wanted. When you learn something new, is that synonymous with losing some of your mental ability? (See “Neanderthal experimentation” in “Miscellany PART TWO”.)

DAVID: Again a purely humanized God, with a purpose to enjoy Himself.

dhw: Please tell us what you regard as his purpose for the creation of humans and every other life form that ever existed.

DAVID: He obviously wanted to create a deep-thinking organism with mentation similar to His. He might want our awareness of Him and His works. What is your God's purpose?

Why have you left out “every other life form that ever existed”, including the 99% which had no connection with us or our food? Mentation would presumably cover thought patterns and emotions, and yet the moment I propose thought patterns and emotions such as enjoyment of creation and interest in his creations as a possible God’s possible purpose for creating ALL of life through experimentation or a free-for-all, you moan that I am humanizing him. You also moan that this would entail self-interest. Why would he want us to be aware of him and his works? Might one of his emotions not entail the desire for appreciation? No self-interest?

DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. […]

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory:[I gave two examples.] Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: Your whole imaginary God is a contradiction to usual thought about who God is.

Do you really think your inefficient, sadistic version of God represents “usual thought about who God is”? Re mutual contradictions:

DAVID: Of course your not-all-knowing God would not expect evil in free-will humans He created. Part of the contradictions is a God who can create life and thinking humans with free-will and doesn't 'know' in advance the obvious result, evil humans will appear, as simple logical thinking. Your un-knowing God is basically illogical in His thinking.

I can’t follow your logic. You say of course a not all-knowing God would not expect evil, and this somehow contradicts the fact that a not all-knowing God doesn’t know in advance that evil will obviously appear! Do you really think experimenters already know all the possible side effects of their experiments? (See Part Two for examples.)There is no contradiction!

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Saturday, June 03, 2023, 08:09 (300 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: So the answer is your know-nothing God went on creating evolution without realizing the consequences of His actions.

dhw: Not being all-knowing does not mean knowing nothing! Our subject is theodicy here – why he created the various “evils” in the first place. Of course he would eventually see the effects of all his experiments. That is what gives rise to the second question: why doesn’t he step in and stop it?

DAVID: The writers of the Bible thought He stepped in at times. But we are now non-Biblical, and we still have free-will and Putin. Would your guy step in?

The question is pointless. My guy hasn’t stepped in, so we can only ask why.

dhw: […] We don’t know why, but I’ve offered a little list of possibilities. Once again, the question is why he created it [“evil”] in the first place.

DAVID: We are back to He wanted to for His own reasons.

A God who wanted to create evil would be a sadist.

DAVID: At the level of evolution, He is a complete stupid dud.

dhw: In your version he is messy, cumbersome, inefficient and sadistic. In mine, he conducts successful experiments (every living form is a success) or he creates a free-for-all. In none of these scenarios does he deliberately and knowingly create evil. Why does that make him a stupid dud?

Not answered.

DAVID: how does your guy handle the arrival of evil?

He doesn’t. He has not stepped in. And I gave you a list of possible reasons, which you obviously didn’t read: “Maybe he doesn’t exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead.”

DAVID: How did your God invent the universe, the perfect Earth fit for life, and make life itself, if He didn't know the consequences of His designs.

dhw: In the same way as humans (he and we have thought patterns in common, remember?) come up with wonderful inventions and discoveries, and then become aware of later effects they never dreamt of. Think of the motor car, smoking, industrial pollution, climate change, nuclear weapons, AI, germ warfare etc. But you insist that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. So perhaps you will tell us why he carried on if he already knew the consequences in advance?

Not answered.

DAVID: He is letting humans handle their own affairs. What would your guy do?

The same as yours. And one of my theories is that he let all forms of life handle their own affairs, but for some reason you can’t stand the thought of a free-for-all unless it’s exclusively for humans.

DAVID: He is OK until He has to evolve life and then falls apart. No wonder you don't really believe in Him.

dhw: You already have him using a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve the goal you set him, and with your insistence on his omniscience, you now have him deliberately and sadistically creating evil. Successful experiments and a successful free-for-all do not denote a God falling apart. They only denote a God with a different purpose from yours and different methods of achieving his purpose. And please don’t fall back on my agnosticism as a defence of your derogatory picture of your God.

DAVID: Your guy saw the same appearance of evil. What did He do?

I’ve told you. He did nothing. That doesn’t explain why your inefficient, sadistic God, who deliberately created 99 out of 100 irrelevant life forms, and deliberately created evil, is more godlike than my highly successful alternative versions, who enjoyed experimenting, learning and discovering, and who did not deliberately set out to create the forces of “evil”.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 03, 2023, 18:06 (299 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: A God who wanted to create evil would be a sadist.

God did not create evil!!! He created humans and bugs that can create evil. Vast difference.


DAVID: At the level of evolution, He is a complete stupid dud.

dhw: In your version he is messy, cumbersome, inefficient and sadistic. In mine, he conducts successful experiments (every living form is a success) or he creates a free-for-all. In none of these scenarios does he deliberately and knowingly create evil. Why does that make him a stupid dud?

Not answered.

Not worth answering, but if you insist, any thinking person realizes free will can lead to evil. Your dud is a know-nothing God who has no goals, just experiments along, not knowing the results until they happen. He, lucky for us, stumbles into humans.


DAVID: how does your guy handle the arrival of evil?

dhw: He doesn’t. He has not stepped in. And I gave you a list of possible reasons, which you obviously didn’t read: “Maybe he doesn’t exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead.”

I read them as your confused approach to understanding God. There is no answer.


DAVID: How did your God invent the universe, the perfect Earth fit for life, and make life itself, if He didn't know the consequences of His designs.

dhw: In the same way as humans (he and we have thought patterns in common, remember?) come up with wonderful inventions and discoveries, and then become aware of later effects they never dreamt of. Think of the motor car, smoking, industrial pollution, climate change, nuclear weapons, AI, germ warfare etc. But you insist that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. So perhaps you will tell us why he carried on if he already knew the consequences in advance?

Not answered.

He did carry on letting us survive and deal with the consequences of our actions.


DAVID: He is letting humans handle their own affairs. What would your guy do?

dhw: The same as yours. And one of my theories is that he let all forms of life handle their own affairs, but for some reason you can’t stand the thought of a free-for-all unless it’s exclusively for humans.

A free-for-all form of evolution has no goals. Another example of your aimless dud of a God.


DAVID: Your guy saw the same appearance of evil. What did He do?

dhw: I’ve told you. He did nothing. That doesn’t explain why your inefficient, sadistic God, who deliberately created 99 out of 100 irrelevant life forms, and deliberately created evil, is more godlike than my highly successful alternative versions, who enjoyed experimenting, learning and discovering, and who did not deliberately set out to create the forces of “evil”.

Same mistake. Both our Gods created humans and bugs with the capacity to create evil. The evil is second-hand for both Gods. You keep repeating your cook-book version of my God. I'm tired of repeating the same rebuttals, but: evolution requires a 99.9% loss; God does not create evil!!! (see above); your God created the forces for evil as mine did; your goalless so-called God luckily stumbled into humans, while my God intended our appearance.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 03, 2023, 17:42 (299 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: No distortion in this limited area. Of course God knew evil would appear.

dhw: No distortion. Thank you. So if, as you say, he created what he wanted to create, then he not only knew “evil” would appear, but he wanted to create it. I wonder how many religious folk would accept your version of God as an inefficient designer of evolution, and a deliberate creator of “evil”.

God did not create evil. Free-will humans create evil. Bacteria and viruses in the wrong places create evil.


dhw: Please tell us what you regard as his purpose for the creation of humans and every other life form that ever existed.

DAVID: He obviously wanted to create a deep-thinking organism with mentation similar to His. He might want our awareness of Him and His works. What is your God's purpose?

dhw: Why have you left out “every other life form that ever existed”, including the 99% which had no connection with us or our food? Mentation would presumably cover thought patterns and emotions, and yet the moment I propose thought patterns and emotions such as enjoyment of creation and interest in his creations as a possible God’s possible purpose for creating ALL of life through experimentation or a free-for-all, you moan that I am humanizing him. You also moan that this would entail self-interest. Why would he want us to be aware of him and his works? Might one of his emotions not entail the desire for appreciation? No self-interest?

God creates in His own selfless way. He creates without wishes for human responses, but expects they will happen.


DAVID: See Wiki on the subject:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_paradox

QUOTE: "The conclusion is that the statement "God can do anything" needs to be qualified. By this logic God cannot do both of two things that are mutually contradictory. C. S. Lewis says that logical contradictions are not a "thing". Rather they are nonsense. […]

dhw: A good description of your non-sense theory:[I gave two examples.] Now please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: Your whole imaginary God is a contradiction to usual thought about who God is.

dhw: Do you really think your inefficient, sadistic version of God represents “usual thought about who God is”? Re mutual contradictions:

DAVID: Of course your not-all-knowing God would not expect evil in free-will humans He created. Part of the contradictions is a God who can create life and thinking humans with free-will and doesn't 'know' in advance the obvious result, evil humans will appear, as simple logical thinking. Your un-knowing God is basically illogical in His thinking.

dhw: I can’t follow your logic. You say of course a not all-knowing God would not expect evil, and this somehow contradicts the fact that a not all-knowing God doesn’t know in advance that evil will obviously appear! Do you really think experimenters already know all the possible side effects of their experiments? (See Part Two for examples.)There is no contradiction!

Illogical. Free-will humans have the ability to create evil. Would your know-nothing experimenting God anticipate that?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by dhw, Sunday, June 04, 2023, 11:08 (299 days ago) @ David Turell

PART ONE

DAVID: No distortion in this limited area. Of course God knew evil would appear.

dhw: No distortion. Thank you. So if, as you say, he created what he wanted to create, then he not only knew “evil” would appear, but he wanted to create it. I wonder how many religious folk would accept your version of God as an inefficient designer of evolution, and a deliberate creator of “evil”.

DAVID: God did not create evil. Free-will humans create evil. Bacteria and viruses in the wrong places create evil.
And:
DAVID: God did not create evil!!! He created humans and bugs that can create evil. Vast difference.

Of course we and bacteria are the ones who commit the “evil deeds”. But it was your God who gave them the wherewithal to commit them, and who knew exactly how they would use the wherewithal he had given them. Being all-powerful, if he had not wanted them to have it, he would not have given it to them. And so your all-powerful, all-knowing God must have wanted them to have the power to commit evil. Maybe you’re right. Maybe your God is an inefficient and sadistic designer who enjoys watching the catastrophic misdeeds of his creations, and all the suffering they cause. I’m just a little surprised that you have such a view of him and that you emphatically reject any less critical alternatives.

dhw: Please tell us what you regard as his purpose for the creation of humans and every other life form that ever existed.

DAVID: He obviously wanted to create a deep-thinking organism with mentation similar to His. He might want our awareness of Him and His works. What is your God's purpose?

dhw: Why have you left out “every other life form that ever existed”, including the 99% which had no connection with us or our food? Mentation would presumably cover thought patterns and emotions, and yet the moment I propose thought patterns and emotions such as enjoyment of creation and interest in his creations as a possible God’s possible purpose for creating ALL of life through experimentation or a free-for-all, you moan that I am humanizing him. You also moan that this would entail self-interest. Why would he want us to be aware of him and his works? Might one of his emotions not entail the desire for appreciation? No self-interest?

DAVID: God creates in His own selfless way. He creates without wishes for human responses, but expects they will happen.

Please explain how he can want us to be aware but not wish for us to respond. How would he know we were aware if we did not respond?

dhw: […] please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: Your whole imaginary God is a contradiction to usual thought about who God is.

dhw: Do you really think your inefficient, sadistic version of God represents “usual thought about who God is”? Re mutual contradictions:

DAVID: Of course your not-all-knowing God would not expect evil in free-will humans He created. Part of the contradictions is a God who can create life and thinking humans with free-will and doesn't 'know' in advance the obvious result, evil humans will appear, as simple logical thinking. Your un-knowing God is basically illogical in His thinking.

dhw: I can’t follow your logic. You say of course a not all-knowing God would not expect evil, and this somehow contradicts the fact that a not all-knowing God doesn’t know in advance that evil will obviously appear! Do you really think experimenters already know all the possible side effects of their experiments? (See Part Two for examples.)There is no contradiction!

DAVID: Illogical. Free-will humans have the ability to create evil.

Agreed.

DAVID: Would your know-nothing experimenting God anticipate that?

Not “know-nothing”. He is not all-knowing. I’ve already answered you in the bold above.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by dhw, Sunday, June 04, 2023, 11:15 (299 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: At the level of evolution, He is a complete stupid dud.

dhw: In your version he is messy, cumbersome, inefficient and sadistic. In mine, he conducts successful experiments (every living form is a success) or he creates a free-for-all. In none of these scenarios does he deliberately and knowingly create evil. Why does that make him a stupid dud?

DAVID: any thinking person realizes free will can lead to evil.

Of course, but you seem to have forgotten that your all-powerful, all-knowing God is supposed to have created everything from scratch. If he had wanted Nature and animals and bacteria and humans to function in pure, unselfish harmony, then that’s what he could and would have created. And so we ask ourselves why he didn’t. I offer you three possible explanations, but you prefer your own mixture of inefficiency and sadism. You may be right.

DAVID: Your dud is a know-nothing GoD who has no goals, just experiments along, not knowing the results until they happen. He, lucky for us, stumbles into humans.

He is not know-nothing if he was able to create the universe and life! My version is that he is not all-knowing. If he is all-powerful and all-knowing, we should assume that evolution produced exactly what he wanted to produce (i.e. he wanted all the goodies and all the baddies). And that may indeed be the case. At a stroke, that makes him a very efficient designer, but it also reveals what you and I would regard as sadism, since all the bad things lead to so much suffering, which being all-knowing, he knew would happen. Your version retains the sadism, but as you think humans were his only goal, you label him inefficient as a designer because you can’t explain the 99 out of 100 irrelevant desgins. Again, you may be right. I am simply pointing out the implications of your rigid adherence to these beliefs, and am proposing alternatives that are less destructive to his reputation. There is no point in my repeating them here.

DAVID: (under “Gut biome”) Critics of God (note dhw)see Him as cruel and sadistic. God cannot create a perfect form of life where there is no illness or cancer or other health disasters.

Wrong, wrong, wrong! I keep telling you that I am criticizing your theories, which make him sadistic. And your second sentence contradicts your belief that he is all-powerful and all knowing. You make him unable to avoid creating evil.

DAVID: Be thankful for all the good God created. Dayenu! An old Hebrew word meaning it is enough.

I share your philosophy, whether God exists or not. I love life. It is only your absurd, illogical and destructive theories about your God that I disagree with.

DAVID: how does your guy handle the arrival of evil?

dhw: He doesn’t. He has not stepped in. And I gave you a list of possible reasons, which you obviously didn’t read: “Maybe he doesn’t exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead.”

DAVID: I read them as your confused approach to understanding God. There is no answer.

You asked the question, and I answered it.

DAVID: How did your God invent the universe, the perfect Earth fit for life, and make life itself, if He didn't know the consequences of His designs.

dhw: In the same way as humans (he and we have thought patterns in common, remember?) come up with wonderful inventions and discoveries, and then become aware of later effects they never dreamt of. Think of the motor car, smoking, industrial pollution, climate change, nuclear weapons, AI, germ warfare etc. But you insist that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. So perhaps you will tell us why he carried on if he already knew the consequences in advance?

DAVID: He did carry on letting us survive and deal with the consequences of our actions.

Agreed. This suggests he wanted a free-for-all.

DAVID: A free-for-all form of evolution has no goals. Another example of your aimless dud of a God.

A free-for-all suggests that he enjoys watching all the astonishing products of his astonishing invention – life. You agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that just like the humans he created, he might do things because he enjoys doing them and is interested in what he has done. (And you even suggest that he might want our recognition.) That is a goal which explains the whole history of evolution, including all the 99% of organisms that had no connection with what you insist was his one and only goal.

The remainder of your post is a repetition of points already dealt with.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART TWO

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 04, 2023, 17:13 (298 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

DAVID: Your dud is a know-nothing GoD who has no goals, just experiments along, not knowing the results until they happen. He, lucky for us, stumbles into humans.

dhw: He is not know-nothing if he was able to create the universe and life! My version is that he is not all-knowing. If he is all-powerful and all-knowing, we should assume that evolution produced exactly what he wanted to produce (i.e. he wanted all the goodies and all the baddies). And that may indeed be the case. At a stroke, that makes him a very efficient designer, but it also reveals what you and I would regard as sadism, since all the bad things lead to so much suffering, which being all-knowing, he knew would happen. Your version retains the sadism, but as you think humans were his only goal, you label him inefficient as a designer because you can’t explain the 99 out of 100 irrelevant desgins. Again, you may be right. I am simply pointing out the implications of your rigid adherence to these beliefs, and am proposing alternatives that are less destructive to his reputation. There is no point in my repeating them here.

We agree. What is here is what God wanted. What is here is also what your God wanted, isn't it.


DAVID: (under “Gut biome”) Critics of God (note dhw)see Him as cruel and sadistic. God cannot create a perfect form of life where there is no illness or cancer or other health disasters.

dhw: Wrong, wrong, wrong! I keep telling you that I am criticizing your theories, which make him sadistic. And your second sentence contradicts your belief that he is all-powerful and all knowing. You make him unable to avoid creating evil.

Evil is here. God either allowed it or couldn't avoid it. Your God allowed evil also.


DAVID: Be thankful for all the good God created. Dayenu! An old Hebrew word meaning it is enough.

dhw: I share your philosophy, whether God exists or not. I love life. It is only your absurd, illogical and destructive theories about your God that I disagree with.

i love it. An agnostic defending God!


DAVID: how does your guy handle the arrival of evil?

dhw: He doesn’t. He has not stepped in. And I gave you a list of possible reasons, which you obviously didn’t read: “Maybe he doesn’t exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead.”

DAVID: I read them as your confused approach to understanding God. There is no answer.

dhw: You asked the question, and I answered it.

Nothing definitive in your answers, like a good Agnostic.


DAVID: How did your God invent the universe, the perfect Earth fit for life, and make life itself, if He didn't know the consequences of His designs.

dhw: In the same way as humans (he and we have thought patterns in common, remember?) come up with wonderful inventions and discoveries, and then become aware of later effects they never dreamt of. Think of the motor car, smoking, industrial pollution, climate change, nuclear weapons, AI, germ warfare etc. But you insist that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing. So perhaps you will tell us why he carried on if he already knew the consequences in advance?

DAVID: He did carry on letting us survive and deal with the consequences of our actions.

Agreed. This suggests he wanted a free-for-all.

DAVID: A free-for-all form of evolution has no goals. Another example of your aimless dud of a God.

dhw: A free-for-all suggests that he enjoys watching all the astonishing products of his astonishing invention – life. You agree that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that just like the humans he created, he might do things because he enjoys doing them and is interested in what he has done. (And you even suggest that he might want our recognition.) That is a goal which explains the whole history of evolution, including all the 99% of organisms that had no connection with what you insist was his one and only goal.

The bold once again shows how you compare Him to humans, humanizing Him

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 04, 2023, 17:04 (298 days ago) @ dhw

PART ONE

DAVID: God did not create evil!!! He created humans and bugs that can create evil. Vast difference.

dhw: Of course we and bacteria are the ones who commit the “evil deeds”. But it was your God who gave them the wherewithal to commit them, and who knew exactly how they would use the wherewithal he had given them. Being all-powerful, if he had not wanted them to have it, he would not have given it to them. And so your all-powerful, all-knowing God must have wanted them to have the power to commit evil. Maybe you’re right. Maybe your God is an inefficient and sadistic designer who enjoys watching the catastrophic misdeeds of his creations, and all the suffering they cause. I’m just a little surprised that you have such a view of him and that you emphatically reject any less critical alternatives.

You are overbalancing evil against the good God produced. Doesn't evil exist in the same amount with your God?


DAVID: God creates in His own selfless way. He creates without wishes for human responses, but expects they will happen.

dhw: Please explain how he can want us to be aware but not wish for us to respond. How would he know we were aware if we did not respond?

An all-powerful, all-knowing God knows our thoughts and our writings.


dhw: […] please tell me what "mutually contradictory" things you have found in my alternatives.

DAVID: Your whole imaginary God is a contradiction to usual thought about who God is.

dhw: Do you really think your inefficient, sadistic version of God represents “usual thought about who God is”? Re mutual contradictions:

DAVID: Of course your not-all-knowing God would not expect evil in free-will humans He created. Part of the contradictions is a God who can create life and thinking humans with free-will and doesn't 'know' in advance the obvious result, evil humans will appear, as simple logical thinking. Your un-knowing God is basically illogical in His thinking.

dhw: I can’t follow your logic. You say of course a not all-knowing God would not expect evil, and this somehow contradicts the fact that a not all-knowing God doesn’t know in advance that evil will obviously appear! Do you really think experimenters already know all the possible side effects of their experiments? (See Part Two for examples.)There is no contradiction!

DAVID: Illogical. Free-will humans have the ability to create evil.

Agreed.

DAVID: Would your know-nothing experimenting God anticipate that?

dhw: Not “know-nothing”. He is not all-knowing. I’ve already answered you in the bold above.

An all-knowing God expects the results of experimenting. He does not experiment.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Monday, June 05, 2023, 11:55 (297 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […]: Maybe you’re right. Maybe your God is an inefficient and sadistic designer who enjoys watching the catastrophic misdeeds of his creations, and all the suffering they cause. I’m just a little surprised that you have such a view of him and that you emphatically reject any less critical alternatives.

DAVID: You are overbalancing evil against the good God produced. Doesn't evil exist in the same amount with your God?

I wonder what you told your patients who were dying of cancer: “Why are you complaining when so many other people are enjoying life?” There are millions and millions of people suffering from diseases, natural disasters, and human-made disasters – all of which I subsume under “evil”, and all of which your all-knowing God apparently knew right from the start would happen as a result of his inefficient designs. And you may be right – if he went ahead, maybe that is what he wanted. Hence sadism. Yes, the same amount of evil exists with my three alternative scenarios. But in none of them does he deliberately create evil. Your objection: that makes him human. In all honesty, I would prefer a humanized God who didn’t want to create evil – but that’s just a personal preference. By all means stick to your inefficient sadist.

DAVID: He might want our awareness of Him and His works.
And:

DAVID: God creates in His own selfless way. He creates without wishes for human responses, but expects they will happen.

dhw: Please explain how he can want us to be aware but not wish for us to respond. How would he know we were aware if we did not respond?

DAVID: An all-powerful, all-knowing God knows our thoughts and our writings.

Fine, so he gets the human responses to himself and his works, as he wanted (self-interest), though you say he didn’t wish for human responses to himself and his works (no self-interest). And you can’t see a possible contradiction?

DAVID: Of course your not-all-knowing God would not expect evil in free-will humans He created. Part of the contradictions is a God who can create life and thinking humans with free-will and doesn't 'know' in advance the obvious result, evil humans will appear, as simple logical thinking. Your un-knowing God is basically illogical in His thinking.

dhw: I can’t follow your logic. You say of course a not all-knowing God would not expect evil, and this somehow contradicts the fact that a not all-knowing God doesn’t know in advance that evil will obviously appear! Do you really think experimenters already know all the possible side effects of their experiments? bbb [...] There is no contradiction!

DAVID: Illogical. Free-will humans have the ability to create evil.

Agreed.

DAVID: Would your know-nothing experimenting God anticipate that?

dhw: Not “know-nothing”. He is not all-knowing. I’ve already answered you in the bold above.

DAVID: An all-knowing God expects the results of experimenting. He does not experiment.

In my alternative versions he is NOT all-knowing. Hence the bold above, to which your only objection is that it “humanizes” him. So stick to your inefficient sadist.

dhw: […] you may be right. I am simply pointing out the implications of your rigid adherence to these beliefs, and am proposing alternatives that are less destructive to his reputation. There is no point in my repeating them here.

DAVID: We agree. What is here is what God wanted. What is here is also what your God wanted, isn't it.

You simply refuse to differentiate between his possible “wants”, and you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that he is not all-knowing! In my three versions he gets what he wants: 1) humans, through experimentation; 2) exploring the potential of his invention through experimentation; 3) the same, but through a free-for-all. He does NOT know in advance that his experiments will lead to evil. Hence the comparison I gave you with human inventions, and the emphasis I lay on your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. He does not deliberately create evil.

DAVID: Evil is here. God either allowed it or couldn't avoid it. Your God allowed evil also.

Why have you missed out the fact that your God created everything from scratch and knew in advance that his creation would lead to evil but went ahead all the same, i.e. that he deliberately created evil? You are right, however, that my God does not intervene when he sees that his experiments have led to evil – but that is the second question: why doesn’t he intervene? We can’t answer, though I have given you a list of possible answers.

DAVID: i love it. An agnostic defending God!

I’m glad you love it. What you don’t love, however, is to be shown the massive contradictions in your arguments, which one can summarize through your sheer mockery of language; your messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is a “brilliant” designer. His purpose contains no self-interest, but he wants us to be aware of and to respond to him and his work though he doesn’t wish us to do so. He invents all life from scratch, knows his invention will lead to untold suffering, but goes ahead all the same, but he is “perfection”.

The rest of your post simply repeats points already covered.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Monday, June 05, 2023, 16:43 (297 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are overbalancing evil against the good God produced. Doesn't evil exist in the same amount with your God?

I wonder what you told your patients who were dying of cancer: “Why are you complaining when so many other people are enjoying life?” There are millions and millions of people suffering from diseases, natural disasters, and human-made disasters – all of which I subsume under “evil”, and all of which your all-knowing God apparently knew right from the start would happen as a result of his inefficient designs. And you may be right – if he went ahead, maybe that is what he wanted. Hence sadism. Yes, the same amount of evil exists with my three alternative scenarios. But in none of them does he deliberately create evil. Your objection: that makes him human. In all honesty, I would prefer a humanized God who didn’t want to create evil – but that’s just a personal preference. By all means stick to your inefficient sadist.

So with your God the same evil exists as we are discussing with my God. But because He experiments, allows free-for-alls, etc. the same evil that appears is not His fault. Somehow He has nothing to do with its appearance? It appears under His watch, He is responsible for it, for allowing it. Just like my God.


DAVID: He might want our awareness of Him and His works.
And:

DAVID: God creates in His own selfless way. He creates without wishes for human responses, but expects they will happen.

dhw: Please explain how he can want us to be aware but not wish for us to respond. How would he know we were aware if we did not respond?

DAVID: An all-powerful, all-knowing God knows our thoughts and our writings.

dhw: Fine, so he gets the human responses to himself and his works, as he wanted (self-interest), though you say he didn’t wish for human responses to himself and his works (no self-interest). And you can’t see a possible contradiction?

Not wish for, as He does not need responses.

dhw: […] you may be right. I am simply pointing out the implications of your rigid adherence to these beliefs, and am proposing alternatives that are less destructive to his reputation. There is no point in my repeating them here.

DAVID: We agree. What is here is what God wanted. What is here is also what your God wanted, isn't it.

dhw: You simply refuse to differentiate between his possible “wants”, and you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that he is not all-knowing! In my three versions he gets what he wants: 1) humans, through experimentation; 2) exploring the potential of his invention through experimentation; 3) the same, but through a free-for-all. He does NOT know in advance that his experiments will lead to evil. Hence the comparison I gave you with human inventions, and the emphasis I lay on your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. He does not deliberately create evil.

Big difference. My God knows evil will occur and puts in safeguards. Your guy may not anticipate it, but the evil that appears is His responsibility as creator.


DAVID: Evil is here. God either allowed it or couldn't avoid it. Your God allowed evil also.

dhw: Why have you missed out the fact that your God created everything from scratch and knew in advance that his creation would lead to evil but went ahead all the same, i.e. that he deliberately created evil? You are right, however, that my God does not intervene when he sees that his experiments have led to evil – but that is the second question: why doesn’t he intervene? We can’t answer, though I have given you a list of possible answers.

The answer is seen in my God's works. The appearance of evil is unavoidable and must have safeguards in place, and they exist. Since they exist, both Gods must have made them!


DAVID: i love it. An agnostic defending God!

dhw: I’m glad you love it. What you don’t love, however, is to be shown the massive contradictions in your arguments, which one can summarize through your sheer mockery of language; your messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is a “brilliant” designer. His purpose contains no self-interest, but he wants us to be aware of and to respond to him and his work though he doesn’t wish us to do so. He invents all life from scratch, knows his invention will lead to untold suffering, but goes ahead all the same, but he is “perfection”.

The rest of your post simply repeats points already covered.

And I've shown your God has the same imperfections about evil. Not knowing is no excuse!

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Tuesday, June 06, 2023, 11:05 (297 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You are overbalancing evil against the good God produced. Doesn't evil exist in the same amount with your God?

dhw: I wonder what you told your patients who were dying of cancer: “Why are you complaining when so many other people are enjoying life?” There are millions and millions of people suffering from diseases, natural disasters, and human-made disasters – all of which I subsume under “evil”, and all of which your all-knowing God apparently knew right from the start would happen as a result of his inefficient designs. And you may be right – if he went ahead, maybe that is what he wanted. Hence sadism. Yes, the same amount of evil exists with my three alternative scenarios. But in none of them does he deliberately create evil. Your objection: that makes him human. In all honesty, I would prefer a humanized God who didn’t want to create evil – but that’s just a personal preference. By all means stick to your inefficient sadist.

DAVID: So with your God the same evil exists as we are discussing with my God.

Of course it does. I have just said so (bolded).

DAVID: But because He experiments, allows free-for-alls, etc. the same evil that appears is not His fault. Somehow He has nothing to do with its appearance? It appears under His watch, He is responsible for it, for allowing it. Just like my God.

I’m fascinated by your determined efforts to portray your God as inefficient and sadistic! There is a huge difference between a being who deliberately creates evil and one who creates something good, without knowing in advance that it will result in something bad. I gave you a number of examples, which you totally ignored: the motor car, smoking, industrial pollution, climate change, nuclear weapons, AI, germ warfare – all these horrors arose from research, discoveries, experiments, inventions which initially were thought to be of huge benefit to us all. Do you blame Sir Walter Raleigh (who is said to have started the craze for smoking in England) for all the cancer deaths? Daimler et al for all the deaths by traffic fumes? But yes, if these folk had been all-knowing and had deliberately designed cancer-producers and lethal toxic fume-makers, of course we would hold them responsible. You simply refuse to recognize the implications of your insisting that your God is all-knowing. However, I agree that there is a problem when we come to the second phase of the process: why does God allow it? Why doesn’t he intervene? But as I keep saying, that is a different question, to which I gave a few possible answers: “Maybe he doesn’t exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead.”

DAVID (under “Neanderthal experimentation"): God did not create evil, His creations did and He knew it would happen and added safeguards. Since present, your God added them also, didn't He?

Since (if he exists) he built our world from scratch, and if he had not preprogrammed his creations (including natural disasters, murderous bacteria and viruses, and humans) to do their dirty deeds, they must have been part of a massive free-for-all, though you say they weren’t because your God is always in control. This is already a mess! And now, despite being all-powerful, you have him adding “safeguards” which unfortunately have done very little to stop the natural disasters, horrific diseases, and us baddies. In answer to your question, no, in none of my versions did he add safeguards, because in none of them did he deliberately create anything to be guarded against.

dhw: (under “apoptosis”) I really don’t see how an all-knowing and all-powerful God can be called “perfect” when he can’t even find a cure for the diseases he has created. It must be a cause of great sorrow to him if he is as humanly sensitive as you think he is.

DAVID: Yes, He knew and added protective mechanisms, but not perfectly which in our only living system available, it is impossible.

So your perfect God invented a system which made natural disasters, horrific diseases, and human wickedness impossible to avoid, and despite his being all-knowing and all-powerful he didn’t have the knowledge or power to provide perfect safeguards against the evil consequences of the system he had invented from scratch.

DAVID: He might want our awareness of Him and His works.
And:
DAVID: God creates in His own selfless way. He creates without wishes for human responses, but expects they will happen.[…]

dhw: […] so he gets the human responses to himself and his works, as he wanted (self-interest), though you say he didn’t wish for human responses to himself and his works (no self-interest). And you can’t see a possible contradiction?

DAVID: Not wish for, as He does not need responses.

So he might want our awareness of him and his works, but he doesn’t wish for it. And there is no contradiction.

The rest of your post simply repeats points already covered.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 06, 2023, 17:24 (296 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: So with your God the same evil exists as we are discussing with my God.

dhw: Of course it does. I have just said so (bolded).

DAVID: But because He experiments, allows free-for-alls, etc. the same evil that appears is not His fault. Somehow He has nothing to do with its appearance? It appears under His watch, He is responsible for it, for allowing it. Just like my God.

dhw: I’m fascinated by your determined efforts to portray your God as inefficient and sadistic! There is a huge difference between a being who deliberately creates evil and one who creates something good, without knowing in advance that it will result in something bad.

My God created evil just as you describe below in your examples of unexpected side effects. Your unknowing guy doesn't anticipate the bad results, but my God knows they will appear and puts in many safeguard mechanisms which you never recognize or comment upon, until finally below. Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of the bad things He has done because He is ignorant of them? Nonsense. Another point I've made is I believe God chose the only system for life that would work even if it had some bd side effects. An all-knowing God would know that. How was your God going to invent life? By experimentation? And His experiments came up with the same system. So it must be the only one available.

dhw: I gave you a number of examples, which you totally ignored: the motor car, smoking, industrial pollution, climate change, nuclear weapons, AI, germ warfare – all these horrors arose from research, discoveries, experiments, inventions which initially were thought to be of huge benefit to us all. Do you blame Sir Walter Raleigh (who is said to have started the craze for smoking in England) for all the cancer deaths? Daimler et al for all the deaths by traffic fumes? But yes, if these folk had been all-knowing and had deliberately designed cancer-producers and lethal toxic fume-makers, of course we would hold them responsible. You simply refuse to recognize the implications of your insisting that your God is all-knowing. However, I agree that there is a problem when we come to the second phase of the process: why does God allow it? Why doesn’t he intervene? But as I keep saying, that is a different question, to which I gave a few possible answers: “Maybe he doesn’t exist, maybe he can’t, maybe he enjoys the show, maybe he’s abandoned it, maybe he’s dead.”

DAVID (under “Neanderthal experimentation"): God did not create evil, His creations did and He knew it would happen and added safeguards. Since present, your God added them also, didn't He?

dhw: Since (if he exists) he built our world from scratch, and if he had not preprogrammed his creations (including natural disasters, murderous bacteria and viruses, and humans) to do their dirty deeds, they must have been part of a massive free-for-all, though you say they weren’t because your God is always in control. This is already a mess! And now, despite being all-powerful, you have him adding “safeguards” which unfortunately have done very little to stop the natural disasters, horrific diseases, and us baddies. In answer to your question, no, in none of my versions did he add safeguards, because in none of them did he deliberately create anything to be guarded against.

That means your God didn't care about bad, dangerous aspects of what He was creating. At least my God put in safeguards, imperfect but very helpful.


dhw: (under “apoptosis”) I really don’t see how an all-knowing and all-powerful God can be called “perfect” when he can’t even find a cure for the diseases he has created. It must be a cause of great sorrow to him if he is as humanly sensitive as you think he is.

DAVID: Yes, He knew and added protective mechanisms, but not perfectly which in our only living system available, it is impossible.

dhw: So your perfect God invented a system which made natural disasters, horrific diseases, and human wickedness impossible to avoid, and despite his being all-knowing and all-powerful he didn’t have the knowledge or power to provide perfect safeguards against the evil consequences of the system he had invented from scratch.

The system cannot be perfect: note our cells a constantly dividing and you and I have lived to be ancient, so it works for most folks. I see the glass relatively full, and you complain that it isn't full.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Wednesday, June 07, 2023, 08:49 (296 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: So with your God the same evil exists as we are discussing with my God.

dhw: Of course it does. I have just said so […].

DAVID: But because He experiments, allows free-for-alls, etc. the same evil that appears is not His fault. Somehow He has nothing to do with its appearance? It appears under His watch, He is responsible for it, for allowing it. Just like my God.

dhw: I’m fascinated by your determined efforts to portray your God as inefficient and sadistic! There is a huge difference between a being who deliberately creates evil and one who creates something good, without knowing in advance that it will result in something bad.

DAVID: My God created evil just as you describe below in your examples of unexpected side effects. Your unknowing guy doesn't anticipate the bad results, but my God knows they will appear and puts in many safeguard mechanisms which you never recognize or comment upon, until finally below.

I have repeatedly pointed out that your so-called safeguards are woefully inadequate, since millions continue to suffer from the consequences of your God’s inefficiency and lack of control. The problem of evil is not solved by focusing solely on the good!

DAVID: Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of the bad things He has done because He is ignorant of them? Nonsense.

Once again, you take a pride in finding your God guilty. You may be right. But you have skipped a stage in my theories. He does not know the evil consequences IN ADVANCE. You then go on to ignore my examples and my questions concerning good intentions and bad consequences. I’ll repeat just one: Do you think Sir Walter Raleigh, who popularized smoking in this country, is in any way guilty of the millions of deaths now known to have been caused by smoking?

DAVID: Another point I've made is I believe God chose the only system for life that would work even if it had some bad side effects. An all-knowing God would know that.

So your all-knowing, all-purposeful God said to himself at the very beginning: “I want to create H. sapiens (plus food), and there’s only one way to do it, which is to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with H. sapiens and his food, and it will result in all kinds of natural disasters and nasty bacteria and viruses which I shall try but generally fail to control, and I shall let humans do whatever they like, although I know they will create all kinds of evil – but that is the only way I can do it, and I am perfect.” You may be right. I hope you’re not.

DAVID: How was your God going to invent life? By experimentation? And His experiments came up with the same system. So it must be the only one available.

We are not talking here about inventing life, but about evolution and evil, and you are confusing the system with the result! We have the same result: the history of life as we know it. You interpret that history as being a success (the arrival of H. sapiens), although the system he used also produced 99% of failures, and the deliberate creation of evil. My interpretation of the history is success through alternative systems: 2 x targeted experimentation, and 1 targeted free-for-all, all of which successfully provide him with the enjoyment of creation and an ever changing variety of interesting organisms and events to watch. I have no objections at all, though, to your proposal that he specially created humans (as in my first theory) because he wanted them to recognize him and his work. But I do not find such self-interest in any way reprehensible or unnatural.

(The “Neanderthal experimentation” post repeats the above arguments, so we can drop it.)

DAVID: The system cannot be perfect: note our cells a constantly dividing and you and I have lived to be ancient, so it works for most folks. I see the glass relatively full, and you complain that it isn't full.

We are discussing the problem of evil. It is not solved by pretending there is no problem.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 07, 2023, 14:18 (295 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My God created evil just as you describe below in your examples of unexpected side effects. Your unknowing guy doesn't anticipate the bad results, but my God knows they will appear and puts in many safeguard mechanisms which you never recognize or comment upon, until finally below.

dhw: I have repeatedly pointed out that your so-called safeguards are woefully inadequate, since millions continue to suffer from the consequences of your God’s inefficiency and lack of control. The problem of evil is not solved by focusing solely on the good!

Where do you find support for your offhand 'million are suffering' while billions are just fine.


DAVID: Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of the bad things He has done because He is ignorant of them? Nonsense.

dhw: Once again, you take a pride in finding your God guilty. You may be right. But you have skipped a stage in my theories. He does not know the evil consequences IN ADVANCE. You then go on to ignore my examples and my questions concerning good intentions and bad consequences. I’ll repeat just one: Do you think Sir Walter Raleigh, who popularized smoking in this country, is in any way guilty of the millions of deaths now known to have been caused by smoking?

Your distorted God ignorant of consequences is like no other God I've ever heard of. In the one form of life both Gods have given us trillions of cell divisions occur daily without error, as some are automatically corrected. A rare mistake happens. Your distortion assumes only my God added the corrections, but they are there under your God's watch. How did that happen, if He didn't know what to expect? Your theoretical now-nothing God has all sorts of frayed edges.


DAVID: Another point I've made is I believe God chose the only system for life that would work even if it had some bad side effects. An all-knowing God would know that.

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-purposeful God said to himself at the very beginning: “I want to create H. sapiens (plus food), and there’s only one way to do it, which is to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with H. sapiens and his food, and it will result in all kinds of natural disasters and nasty bacteria and viruses which I shall try but generally fail to control, and I shall let humans do whatever they like, although I know they will create all kinds of evil – but that is the only way I can do it, and I am perfect.” You may be right. I hope you’re not.

Again theoretically distorting how much good and evil exist in the world.


DAVID: How was your God going to invent life? By experimentation? And His experiments came up with the same system. So it must be the only one available.

dhw: We are not talking here about inventing life, but about evolution and evil, and you are confusing the system with the result! We have the same result: the history of life as we know it. You interpret that history as being a success (the arrival of H. sapiens), although the system he used also produced 99% of failures, and the deliberate creation of evil.

God did not directly produce evil. You've agreed to that.

dhw: My interpretation of the history is success through alternative systems: 2 x targeted experimentation, and 1 targeted free-for-all, all of which successfully provide him with the enjoyment of creation and an ever changing variety of interesting organisms and events to watch. I have no objections at all, though, to your proposal that he specially created humans (as in my first theory) because he wanted them to recognize him and his work. But I do not find such self-interest in any way reprehensible or unnatural.

Just very human-like for an imagined God.


(The “Neanderthal experimentation” post repeats the above arguments, so we can drop it.)

DAVID: The system cannot be perfect: note our cells a constantly dividing and you and I have lived to be ancient, so it works for most folks. I see the glass relatively full, and you complain that it isn't full.

dhw: We are discussing the problem of evil. It is not solved by pretending there is no problem.

How big is the problem compared to the number of non-problems??? Any numerical support for your skewed view?

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by dhw, Thursday, June 08, 2023, 09:18 (295 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My God created evil just as you describe below in your examples of unexpected side effects. Your unknowing guy doesn't anticipate the bad results, but my God knows they will appear and puts in many safeguard mechanisms which you never recognize or comment upon, until finally below.

dhw: I have repeatedly pointed out that your so-called safeguards are woefully inadequate, since millions continue to suffer from the consequences of your God’s inefficiency and lack of control. The problem of evil is not solved by focusing solely on the good!

DAVID: Where do you find support for your offhand 'millions are suffering' while billions are just fine.

What world are you living in? Each year approx 12.7 million people discover they have cancer and approx. 7.6 million people die from the disease. Do you never watch the news? According to you, your all-knowing God would have known in advance that today, as a result of his knowingly inventing the human mind’s propensity for evil, somewhere around 100 million people would be fleeing the death and destruction caused by the human-made evils of war and civil conflicts in places like Ukraine, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen etc. .And he would have known in advance about the suffering caused by all the floods and famines. This is the problem of theodicy, which you think you can solve by shutting your eyes to the MILLIONS of people suffering.

DAVID: Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of the bad things He has done because He is ignorant of them? Nonsense.

dhw: Once again, you take a pride in finding your God guilty. You may be right. But you have skipped a stage in my theories. He does not know the evil consequences IN ADVANCE. You then go on to ignore my examples and my questions concerning good intentions and bad consequences. I’ll repeat just one: Do you think Sir Walter Raleigh, who popularized smoking in this country, is in any way guilty of the millions of deaths now known to have been caused by smoking?

DAVID: Your distorted God ignorant of consequences is like no other God I've ever heard of. In the one form of life both Gods have given us trillions of cell divisions occur daily without error, as some are automatically corrected. A rare mistake happens. […]

Evil is not confined to faulty cell divisions!!! Why don’t you answer my question?

DAVID: Another point I've made is I believe God chose the only system for life that would work even if it had some bad side effects. An all-knowing God would know that.

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-purposeful God said to himself at the very beginning: “I want to create H. sapiens (plus food), and there’s only one way to do it, which is to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with H. sapiens and his food, and it will result in all kinds of natural disasters and nasty bacteria and viruses which I shall try but generally fail to control, and I shall let humans do whatever they like, although I know they will create all kinds of evil – but that is the only way I can do it, and I am perfect.” You may be right. I hope you’re not.

DAVID: Again theoretically distorting how much good and evil exist in the world.

Once again: The problem of theodicy - why an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God would create evil - is not solved by telling us there is more good than evil.

DAVID: How was your God going to invent life? By experimentation? And His experiments came up with the same system. So it must be the only one available.

dhw: We are not talking here about inventing life, but about evolution and evil, and you are confusing the system with the result! We have the same result: the history of life as we know it. You interpret that history as being a success (the arrival of H. sapiens), although the system he used also produced 99% of failures, and the deliberate creation of evil.

DAVID: God did not directly produce evil. You've agreed to that.
And under "Madagascar":
DAVID: 'Sadism' is your invention as you negatively attack my God. God produced humans who can create evil, and a living system that can make evil through molecular mistakes. Not a direct creation of evil.

Of course your God did not perform the evil deeds himself, but according to you, he produced life forms which he knew would do evil. If, for instance, he creates a virus which he knows will kill me, I reckon that’s pretty direct. And sadistic - or at the very best, indifferent to the suffering he causes.

dhw: My interpretation of the history is success through alternative systems: 2 x targeted experimentation, and 1 targeted free-for-all, all of which successfully provide him with the enjoyment of creation and an ever changing variety of interesting organisms and events to watch. I have no objections at all, though, to your proposal that he specially created humans (as in my first theory) because he wanted them to recognize him and his work. But I do not find such self-interest in any way reprehensible or unnatural.

DAVID: Just very human-like for an imagined God.

Your usual silly fall-back on “humanization”, though you agree that the Creator might well have thought patterns and emotions like those of his creations (and you are certain that these include enjoyment and interest), and it’s you who have proposed that he might want our recognition.

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS ONE & TWO

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 08, 2023, 17:42 (294 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Where do you find support for your offhand 'millions are suffering' while billions are just fine.

dhw: What world are you living in? Each year approx 12.7 million people discover they have cancer and approx. 7.6 million people die from the disease. Do you never watch the news? According to you, your all-knowing God would have known in advance that today, as a result of his knowingly inventing the human mind’s propensity for evil, somewhere around 100 million people would be fleeing the death and destruction caused by the human-made evils of war and civil conflicts in places like Ukraine, Myanmar, Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen etc. .And he would have known in advance about the suffering caused by all the floods and famines. This is the problem of theodicy, which you think you can solve by shutting your eyes to the MILLIONS of people suffering.

Place your numbers against eight billion living. Cancer deaths are .0085% of the human population, taking your numbers as just one example. Your God is so ignorant He isn't responsible for those same numbers. What world theology are you living i?

DAVID: Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of the bad things He has done because He is ignorant of them? Nonsense.

dhw: Once again, you take a pride in finding your God guilty. You may be right. But you have skipped a stage in my theories. He does not know the evil consequences IN ADVANCE. You then go on to ignore my examples and my questions concerning good intentions and bad consequences. I’ll repeat just one: Do you think Sir Walter Raleigh, who popularized smoking in this country, is in any way guilty of the millions of deaths now known to have been caused by smoking?

DAVID: Your distorted God ignorant of consequences is like no other God I've ever heard of. In the one form of life both Gods have given us trillions of cell divisions occur daily without error, as some are automatically corrected. A rare mistake happens. […]

dhw: Evil is not confined to faulty cell divisions!!! Why don’t you answer my question?

I'm showing the great good with cell divisions. You characteristically ignore it. Sir Walter is not guilty of anything.


DAVID: Another point I've made is I believe God chose the only system for life that would work even if it had some bad side effects. An all-knowing God would know that.

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-purposeful God said to himself at the very beginning: “I want to create H. sapiens (plus food), and there’s only one way to do it, which is to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with H. sapiens and his food, and it will result in all kinds of natural disasters and nasty bacteria and viruses which I shall try but generally fail to control, and I shall let humans do whatever they like, although I know they will create all kinds of evil

DAVID: Again theoretically distorting how much good and evil exist in the world.

dhw: Once again: The problem of theodicy - why an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God would create evil - is not solved by telling us there is more good than evil.

God did not directly create evil!!! You agree. It is a secondhand event from His creations. Are you inferring humans should not have been created?


DAVID: How was your God going to invent life? By experimentation? And His experiments came up with the same system. So it must be the only one available.

dhw: We are not talking here about inventing life, but about evolution and evil, and you are confusing the system with the result! We have the same result: the history of life as we know it. You interpret that history as being a success (the arrival of H. sapiens), although the system he used also produced 99% of failures, and the deliberate creation of evil.

DAVID: God did not directly produce evil. You've agreed to that.
And under "Madagascar":
DAVID: 'Sadism' is your invention as you negatively attack my God. God produced humans who can create evil, and a living system that can make evil through molecular mistakes. Not a direct creation of evil.

dhw: Of course your God did not perform the evil deeds himself, but according to you, he produced life forms which he knew would do evil. If, for instance, he creates a virus which he knows will kill me, I reckon that’s pretty direct. And sadistic - or at the very best, indifferent to the suffering he causes.

dhw: My interpretation of the history is success through alternative systems: 2 x targeted experimentation, and 1 targeted free-for-all, all of which successfully provide him with the enjoyment of creation and an ever changing variety of interesting organisms and events to watch. I have no objections at all, though, to your proposal that he specially created humans (as in my first theory) because he wanted them to recognize him and his work. .

DAVID: Just very human-like for an imagined God.

dhw: Your usual silly fall-back on “humanization”, though you agree that the Creator might well have thought patterns and emotions like those of his creations (and you are certain that these include enjoyment and interest), and it’s you who have proposed that he might want our recognition.

You are blind to the fact that your God is just like you. I'm sure we reflect God as you note.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, June 09, 2023, 08:08 (294 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Where do you find support for your offhand 'millions are suffering' while billions are just fine.

dhw: What world are you living in? Each year approx 12.7 million people discover they have cancer and approx. 7.6 million people die from the disease. Do you never watch the news? According to you, your all-knowing God would have known in advance that today, as a result of his knowingly inventing the human mind’s propensity for evil, somewhere around 100 million people would be fleeing the death and destruction caused by the human-made evils of war and civil conflicts […and] by all the floods and famines. This is the problem of theodicy, which you think you can solve by shutting your eyes to the MILLIONS of people suffering.

DAVID: Place your numbers against eight billion living. Cancer deaths are .0085% of the human population, taking your numbers as just one example. Your God is so ignorant He isn't responsible for those same numbers. What world theology are you living in?

You asked me where I got my “millions” from, and I told you. If you really regarded the above sufferings as insignificant, it would make you as callous as the God you are imagining. (Having known you all these years, I can assure everyone that this is not the case!) The problem of theodicy is not based on comparative numbers but on the question why an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God would produce evil. What world theology are you living in?

DAVID: In the one form of life both Gods have given us trillions of cell divisions occur daily without error, as some are automatically corrected. A rare mistake happens. […]

dhw: Evil is not confined to faulty cell divisions!!!

DAVID: I'm showing the great good with cell divisions. You characteristically ignore it.

Yet again: the problem of theodicy bolded above is not solved by telling us about God’s GOOD works!

dhw: Do you think Sir Walter Raleigh […] is in any way guilty of the millions of deaths now known to have been caused by smoking?

DAVID: Sir Walter is not guilty of anything.

Then perhaps you will understand how my alternative theories provide logical explanations for the existence of evil without your all-knowing God deliberately creating it. If he did NOT know initially that his successful experiments, discoveries, new ideas etc. would lead to evil, he is not the callous sadist you imagine.

DAVID: Another point I've made is I believe God chose the only system for life that would work even if it had some bad side effects. An all-knowing God would know that.

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-purposeful God said to himself at the very beginning: “I want to create H. sapiens (plus food), and there’s only one way to do it, which is to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with H. sapiens and his food, and it will result in all kinds of natural disasters and nasty bacteria and viruses which I shall try but generally fail to control, and I shall let humans do whatever they like, although I know they will create all kinds of evil – but that is the only way I can do it, and I am perfect.”

DAVID: Again theoretically distorting how much good and evil exist in the world.

dhw: Again: The problem of theodicy - why an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God would create evil - is not solved by telling us there is more good than evil.

DAVID: God did not directly create evil!!! You agree. It is a secondhand event from His creations.

Deliberately creating life forms which he knew would commit evil deeds (e.g. murderous viruses and bacteria and human beings) is direct enough for us to ask why, if he is all-good, he would do such a thing.

DAVID: Are you inferring humans should not have been created?

No. I am asking why an all-good God would create evil – and you are spending all this time dodging the question or trying to brush aside my alternative explanations.

dhw: My interpretation of the history is success through alternative systems: 2 x targeted experimentation, and 1 targeted free-for-all, all of which successfully provide him with the enjoyment of creation and an ever changing variety of interesting organisms and events to watch. I have no objections at all, though, to your proposal that he specially created humans (as in my first theory) because he wanted them to recognize him and his work.

DAVID: Just very human-like for an imagined God.

dhw: Your usual silly fall-back on “humanization”, though you agree that the Creator might well have thought patterns and emotions like those of his creations (and you are certain that these include enjoyment and interest), and it’s you who have proposed that he might want our recognition.

DAVID: You are blind to the fact that your God is just like you. I'm sure we reflect God as you note.

If you are sure we reflect God, why are you sure that although he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and might want recognition for himself and his works, he cannot possibly have created life so that he would be able to enjoy creating things which he would be interested in and which might appreciate him and his works?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, June 09, 2023, 13:31 (293 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Place your numbers against eight billion living. Cancer deaths are .0085% of the human population, taking your numbers as just one example. Your God is so ignorant He isn't responsible for those same numbers. What world theology are you living in?

dhw;You asked me where I got my “millions” from, and I told you. If you really regarded the above sufferings as insignificant, it would make you as callous as the God you are imagining. (Having known you all these years, I can assure everyone that this is not the case!) The problem of theodicy is not based on comparative numbers but on the question why an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God would produce evil. What world theology are you living in?

Once again God did not produce evil. He produced bacteria which do more good than evil and viruses, both of whom do no evil unless ending up in the wrong places. Giving free wiil to humans allowed them to be evil.


DAVID: In the one form of life both Gods have given us trillions of cell divisions occur daily without error, as some are automatically corrected. A rare mistake happens. […]

dhw: Evil is not confined to faulty cell divisions!!!

DAVID: I'm showing the great good with cell divisions. You characteristically ignore it.

dhw: Yet again: the problem of theodicy bolded above is not solved by telling us about God’s GOOD works!

But those good works are 99% of God's story.


dhw: Do you think Sir Walter Raleigh […] is in any way guilty of the millions of deaths now known to have been caused by smoking?

DAVID: Sir Walter is not guilty of anything.

dhw: Then perhaps you will understand how my alternative theories provide logical explanations for the existence of evil without your all-knowing God deliberately creating it. If he did NOT know initially that his successful experiments, discoveries, new ideas etc. would lead to evil, he is not the callous sadist you imagine.

Makes no sense that your God blundered ahead not knowing consequences of His works. Lack of knowledge of criminal law does not help criminals escape punishment.


DAVID: Again theoretically distorting how much good and evil exist in the world.

dhw: Again: The problem of theodicy - why an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God would create evil - is not solved by telling us there is more good than evil.

DAVID: God did not directly create evil!!! You agree. It is a secondhand event from His creations.

dhw: Deliberately creating life forms which he knew would commit evil deeds (e.g. murderous viruses and bacteria and human beings) is direct enough for us to ask why, if he is all-good, he would do such a thing.

The good outweighs the evil secondary events. See above.


DAVID: Are you inferring humans should not have been created?

dhw: No. I am asking why an all-good God would create evil – and you are spending all this time dodging the question or trying to brush aside my alternative explanations.

I'll stick to my answer above. "Once again God did not produce evil. He produced bacteria which do more good than evil and viruses, both of whom do no evil unless ending up in the wrong places. Giving free wiil to humans allowed them to be evil."


dhw: My interpretation of the history is success through alternative systems: 2 x targeted experimentation, and 1 targeted free-for-all, all of which successfully provide him with the enjoyment of creation and an ever changing variety of interesting organisms and events to watch. I have no objections at all, though, to your proposal that he specially created humans (as in my first theory) because he wanted them to recognize him and his work.

DAVID: Just very human-like for an imagined God.

dhw: Your usual silly fall-back on “humanization”, though you agree that the Creator might well have thought patterns and emotions like those of his creations (and you are certain that these include enjoyment and interest), and it’s you who have proposed that he might want our recognition.

DAVID: You are blind to the fact that your God is just like you. I'm sure we reflect God as you note.

dhw: If you are sure we reflect God, why are you sure that although he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and might want recognition for himself and his works, he cannot possibly have created life so that he would be able to enjoy creating things which he would be interested in and which might appreciate him and his works?

God may have those thoughts as secondary to His purpose in producing humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, June 10, 2023, 09:02 (293 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Place your numbers against eight billion living. Cancer deaths are .0085% of the human population, taking your numbers as just one example. Your God is so ignorant He isn't responsible for those same numbers. What world theology are you living in?

dhw;You asked me where I got my “millions” from, and I told you. If you really regarded the above sufferings as insignificant, it would make you as callous as the God you are imagining. (Having known you all these years, I can assure everyone that this is not the case!) The problem of theodicy is not based on comparative numbers but on the question why an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God would produce evil. What world theology are you living in?

DAVID: Once again God did not produce evil. He produced bacteria which do more good than evil and viruses, both of whom do no evil unless ending up in the wrong places. Giving free wiil to humans allowed them to be evil.

You seem to have forgotten that your God is all-knowing, which means he knew that some bacteria, some viruses and some human beings would do evil. The problem of theodicy is why your “perfect” and all-powerful God would knowingly create a system which produced evil and the suffering it causes. The problem is not solved by putting on a pair of blinkers that allow you only to look at the good things he created.

DAVID: But those good works are 99% of God's story.

I have no idea where you get your statistics from, but even if they were correct, a perfect God is not 99% good. It’s no defence to say that Dr X saved the lives of 99 patients but murdered the 100th.

dhw: Do you think Sir Walter Raleigh […] is in any way guilty of the millions of deaths now known to have been caused by smoking?

DAVID: Sir Walter is not guilty of anything.

dhw: Then perhaps you will understand how my alternative theories provide logical explanations for the existence of evil without your all-knowing God deliberately creating it. If he did NOT know initially that his successful experiments, discoveries, new ideas etc. would lead to evil, he is not the callous sadist you imagine.

DAVID: Makes no sense that your God blundered ahead not knowing consequences of His works.
Lack of knowledge of criminal law does not help criminals escape punishment.

The ultimate contradiction. You think your God is perfect, but you find him guilty, whether he did or didn’t know that the consequences of his work would be murder.

dhw: My interpretation of the history is success through alternative systems: 2 x targeted experimentation, and 1 targeted free-for-all, all of which successfully provide him with the enjoyment of creation and an ever changing variety of interesting organisms and events to watch. I have no objections at all, though, to your proposal that he specially created humans (as in my first theory) because he wanted them to recognize him and his work.

DAVID: You are blind to the fact that your God is just like you. I'm sure we reflect God as you note.

dhw: If you are sure we reflect God, why are you sure that although he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and might want recognition for himself and his works, he cannot possibly have created life so that he would be able to enjoy creating things which he would be interested in and which might appreciate him and his works?

DAVID: God may have those thoughts as secondary to His purpose in producing humans.

And so far, his purpose in producing humans is to have them recognize him and his works – which is a nice humanizing addition to the list of purposes I have proposed in order to explain the 99 out of 100 designs which had nothing to do with humans. Your agreement that he may have these thoughts finally invalidates your objection to my alternatives on the grounds that they “humanize” your God. Thank you. :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 10, 2023, 16:33 (292 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Once again God did not produce evil. He produced bacteria which do more good than evil and viruses, both of whom do no evil unless ending up in the wrong places. Giving free wiil to humans allowed them to be evil.


dhw: You seem to have forgotten that your God is all-knowing, which means he knew that some bacteria, some viruses and some human beings would do evil. The problem of theodicy is why your “perfect” and all-powerful God would knowingly create a system which produced evil and the suffering it causes. The problem is not solved by putting on a pair of blinkers that allow you only to look at the good things he created.

There is irrefutable evidence God knew of the problems His creations might cause. Living biochemistry is filled with editing safeguard mechanisms to correct errors. Since living reactions move at such high speeds, everything is correct 99.9999+% of the time.


DAVID: But those good works are 99% of God's story.

dhw: I have no idea where you get your statistics from, but even if they were correct, a perfect God is not 99% good. It’s no defence to say that Dr X saved the lives of 99 patients but murdered the 100th.

Same illogical point. God does not murder, but His creations can cause death.


dhw: My interpretation of the history is success through alternative systems: 2 x targeted experimentation, and 1 targeted free-for-all, all of which successfully provide him with the enjoyment of creation and an ever changing variety of interesting organisms and events to watch. I have no objections at all, though, to your proposal that he specially created humans (as in my first theory) because he wanted them to recognize him and his work.

DAVID: You are blind to the fact that your God is just like you. I'm sure we reflect God as you note.

dhw: If you are sure we reflect God, why are you sure that although he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and might want recognition for himself and his works, he cannot possibly have created life so that he would be able to enjoy creating things which he would be interested in and which might appreciate him and his works?

DAVID: God may have those thoughts as secondary to His purpose in producing humans.

dhw: And so far, his purpose in producing humans is to have them recognize him and his works – which is a nice humanizing addition to the list of purposes I have proposed in order to explain the 99 out of 100 designs which had nothing to do with humans. Your agreement that he may have these thoughts finally invalidates your objection to my alternatives on the grounds that they “humanize” your God. Thank you. :-)

My agreement is a 'may have' which means a possibility of God's personality characteristics. Your God enters into an experimental form of evolution with no goals in sight. So lets go back. Why did He produce a universe, invent life? What was His reasons to get things started? It is ludicrous to think He was just playing with possibilities to occupy His eternal time.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, June 11, 2023, 12:56 (291 days ago) @ David Turell

The human brain

DAVID: Different words, same agreement. New brains came so more complexification could occur with more new neurons present.

dhw: Not exactly “new”, as they retain their old neurons, but yes, you’ve finally cottoned on, so let’s have no more of this nonsense about “excessive”, “spare”, “redundant”, “reserve” neurons and oversized brains.

DAVID: Sorry, but new neurons are added to new larger brains in evolution.

Why are you sorry? I’m delighted that you’ve dropped your theory that the new neurons were excessive, spare, redundant and in reserve. Of course new neurons were added, but I suggest they were added to existing brains, not brains that were created de novo. I believe in common descent, i.e. that we and our brains are descended from earlier forms of homo.

Cellular intelligence

dhw: […] once an organ or organism or species is established, of course it must repeat its processes in order to remain itself. Intelligence only comes into play when conditions change and require or allow the cells to make changes to themselves. If single cells can do it autonomously, why can’t cell communities do the same?

DAVID: Yes, we see epigenetic adaptations.

dhw: I take it your “yes” now means that individual cells are autonomously intelligent and retain their autonomous intelligence when they form communities. Why do you mention epigenetic adaptations? Since bacteria can autonomously edit their DNA, do you think intelligent cells lose the ability to edit their DNA when they form communities?

DAVID: Epigenetics is one form of adaptation we see for cell intelligence, but no new speciation.

I know. But as you now accept that individual cells are autonomously intelligent (which enables them to edit their own DNA) and retain their autonomous intelligence when they form communities, why would they ever lose the ability to edit their own DNA – as is essential for speciation?

INFORMATION IS THE BASIS OF LIVING BIOLOGY.

DAVID: At least you admit information exists, but we shouldn't mention it.

dhw: Of course information exists, and I only object when you and others use the word so loosely, unnecessarily and misleadingly that it causes confusion and contradiction, as above and throughout this discussion.

DAVID: The word is commonly used intelligently, but you always bristle at it.

I frequently use it myself, and I only bristle when it is used in such a manner that it creates confusion and contradiction, as in your statement that information is never created “de novo”, and your belief that the inert information in DNA is the basis of living biology although inert DNA information cannot be used until there is already living biology to use it.

Bounce v Big Bang

DAVID: […] And as I believe the BB is God created, it came from nothing.

dhw: I don’t think many theists would define God as nothing. And if eternal bouncing universes can exist without a God, I don’t see why an eternal universe shouldn’t go bang without a God. Apparently most scientists agree that the BB didn’t need a God.

DAVID: Still Guth's point: no 'before' before the BB. The BB is a singularity de novo.

A point which we discussed at length, and which you finally rejected.

Homo habilis

dhw: All very mysterious, and highly relevant to many of our discussions. The incompleteness of the fossil record from approx. 3 million years ago emphasizes how unlikely it is that there could be a complete record from 600 million years ago (Cambrian) and earlier. Why so many transitional forms, if an all-powerful God only wanted one? What caused brain expansion? Just how sophisticated were our ancestors (see “Naledi burials” two days ago), and how “unique” is sapiens?

DAVID: See: Human evolution: genes driving toward sapiens (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Monday, April 26, 2021, 20:08 (775 days ago) @ David Turell

Special genes driving human evolution. Why? Not chance but God editing DNA.

No doubt because of my own technical incompetence, I’ve wasted a lot of time trying “search” in order to find this. Please summarize the argument. See above concerning intelligent cells, not chance, editing DNA.

We see only 5% of our universe

QUOTES: "The 20th century brought with it the realization that the majority of what we know and experience in this physical Universe — atoms, light, and the known subatomic particles along with everything they combine to form — makes up only 5% of the total amount of stuff in the Universe. The remaining 95% is a mixture of things that are completely “dark” to us…”

“From the latest observations and experiments, only 4.7-5.0% of the entire energy budget of the Universe can be composed of normal matter. The remaining 95%, whatever it is, must truly be dark."

Not for the first time, Ethan Siegel tells us something that we already know, and concludes that it is true.

Influence of Neanderthal genes

DAVID: these results are generalizations about genetic influences. Were these trysts consensual? I doubt it. Humans and Neanderthals coexisted side by side, but there is no evidence of cooperation.

I’m sorry, but if we have inherited Neanderthal genes, I can guarantee that at least one Neanderthal and one sapiens must have cooperated in the closest manner possible.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 11, 2023, 18:06 (291 days ago) @ dhw

The human brain

dhw: Not exactly “new”, as they retain their old neurons, but yes, you’ve finally cottoned on, so let’s have no more of this nonsense about “excessive”, “spare”, “redundant”, “reserve” neurons and oversized brains.

DAVID: Sorry, but new neurons are added to new larger brains in evolution.

dhw: I’m delighted that you’ve dropped your theory that the new neurons were excessive, spare, redundant and in reserve. Of course new neurons were added, but I suggest they were added to existing brains, not brains that were created de novo. I believe in common descent, i.e. that we and our brains are descended from earlier forms of homo.

And I believe God speciates/speciated.


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: Epigenetics is one form of adaptation we see for cell intelligence, but no new speciation.

dhw: I know. But as you now accept that individual cells are autonomously intelligent (which enables them to edit their own DNA) and retain their autonomous intelligence when they form communities, why would they ever lose the ability to edit their own DNA – as is essential for speciation?

Only bacteria can fully edit DNA.


INFORMATION IS THE BASIS OF LIVING BIOLOGY.

dhw: Of course information exists, and I only object when you and others use the word so loosely, unnecessarily and misleadingly that it causes confusion and contradiction, as above and throughout this discussion.

DAVID: The word is commonly used intelligently, but you always bristle at it.

dhw: I frequently use it myself, and I only bristle when it is used in such a manner that it creates confusion and contradiction, as in your statement that information is never created “de novo”, and your belief that the inert information in DNA is the basis of living biology although inert DNA information cannot be used until there is already living biology to use it.

ID uses it frequently in ways you object to.


Homo habilis

DAVID: See: Human evolution: genes driving toward sapiens (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Monday, April 26, 2021, 20:08 (775 days ago) @ David Turell

Special genes driving human evolution. Why? Not chance but God editing DNA.

dhw: No doubt because of my own technical incompetence, I’ve wasted a lot of time trying “search” in order to find this. Please summarize the argument. See above concerning intelligent cells, not chance, editing DNA.

Briefly, the human genome has HAR's, rapidly reacting portions driving human evolution.


Influence of Neanderthal genes

DAVID: these results are generalizations about genetic influences. Were these trysts consensual? I doubt it. Humans and Neanderthals coexisted side by side, but there is no evidence of cooperation.

dhw: I’m sorry, but if we have inherited Neanderthal genes, I can guarantee that at least one Neanderthal and one sapiens must have cooperated in the closest manner possible.

And the other may not have cooperated.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, June 12, 2023, 08:52 (291 days ago) @ David Turell

Unfortunately, you have duplicated your "Miscellany" post. I blame your Neanderthal genes. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, June 12, 2023, 17:43 (290 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Unfortunately, you have duplicated your "Miscellany" post. I blame your Neanderthal genes. ;-)

So where is my Theories reply? I'm still confused!:-(, because I can find it!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, June 13, 2023, 07:27 (290 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Unfortunately, you have duplicated your "Miscellany" post. I blame your Neanderthal genes. ;-)

DAVID: So where is my Theories reply? I'm still confused!:-(, because I can find it!

Oh, oh, oh! Abject apologies! This is entirely my fault. I am the one who got it all muddled and mistakenly copied a "Miscellany" post into this theory thread. I can only plead that at the moment my mind is mainly on an unfolding family tragedy, and although these discussions provide welcome respite from it, I'm sometimes struggling to concentrate.

I've now deleted your repeated reply to the "Miscellany" post, and this is my reply to your "theory" post.

DAVID: Once again God did not produce evil. He produced bacteria which do more good than evil and viruses, both of whom do no evil unless ending up in the wrong places. Giving free wiil to humans allowed them to be evil.

dhw: You seem to have forgotten that your God is all-knowing, which means he knew that some bacteria, some viruses and some human beings would do evil. The problem of theodicy is why your “perfect” and all-powerful God would knowingly create a system which produced evil and the suffering it causes. The problem is not solved by putting on a pair of blinkers that allow you only to look at the good things he created.

DAVID: There is irrefutable evidence God knew of the problems His creations might cause.

There is no irrefutable evidence even that your God exists, let alone that he is omniscient. If it was irrefutable, everyone would agree. However, the theory of omniscience and omnipotence and all-goodness is precisely what creates the huge problem of theodicy!

DAVID: Living biochemistry is filled with editing safeguard mechanisms to correct errors. Since living reactions move at such high speeds, everything is correct 99.9999+% of the time.

You seem desperate to confine “evil” to the odd crash by racing molecules. Do you never read the newspapers or watch the news on TV? Have you never heard of diseases, floods, famines, wars, crimes etc., all of which – including all those perpetrated by your God’s specially created human beings – your God apparently knew would happen, and yet he deliberately went ahead creating all the causes of these evils!

DAVID: But those good works are 99% of God's story.

dhw: I have no idea where you get your statistics from, but even if they were correct, a perfect God is not 99% good. It’s no defence to say that Dr X saved the lives of 99 patients but murdered the 100th.

DAVID: Same illogical point. God does not murder, but His creations can cause death.

So your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God designs creatures which he knows perfectly well in advance will murder us, but defence counsel D. Turell pleads on his behalf that it’s not his fault.

DAVID: I'm sure we reflect God as you note.

dhw: If you are sure we reflect God, why are you sure that although he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and might want recognition for himself and his works, he cannot possibly have created life so that he would be able to enjoy creating things which he would be interested in and which might appreciate him and his works?

DAVID: God may have those thoughts as secondary to His purpose in producing humans.

dhw: And so far, his purpose in producing humans is to have them recognize him and his works – which is a nice humanizing addition to the list of purposes I have proposed in order to explain the 99 out of 100 designs which had nothing to do with humans. Your agreement that he may have these thoughts finally invalidates your objection to my alternatives on the grounds that they “humanize” your God. Thank you.

DAVID: My agreement is a 'may have' which means a possibility of God's personality characteristics.

Every speculation, including that of God’s existence, is a “may have”. There is no irrefutable evidence of anything.

DAVID: Your God enters into an experimental form of evolution with no goals in sight. So lets go back. Why did He produce a universe, invent life? What was His reasons to get things started? It is ludicrous to think He was just playing with possibilities to occupy His eternal time.

I have no idea why you think it is ludicrous for your God to want to do something with his eternal time. If he exists, then clearly he wanted life to exist, or he wouldn’t have created it. You are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his own creations, but you refuse to believe that he might have started life with the goal of doing something he finds enjoyable and interesting. You are also sure that “we reflect God”, and so one of his goals might have been to create a being that would reflect him (and he conducted experiments in order to find the best formula for such a being). Why did he want to create such a being? According to my resident expert, he wanted recognition of himself and his works, and maybe to have some kind of relationship with us. Thank you for answering your own question, but please don’t ask it again.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 13, 2023, 17:02 (289 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: So where is my Theories reply? I'm still confused!:-(, because I can find it!

dhw: Oh, oh, oh! Abject apologies! This is entirely my fault. I am the one who got it all muddled and mistakenly copied a "Miscellany" post into this theory thread. I can only plead that at the moment my mind is mainly on an unfolding family tragedy, and although these discussions provide welcome respite from it, I'm sometimes struggling to concentrate.

I've now deleted your repeated reply to the "Miscellany" post, and this is my reply to your "theory" post.

Knowing the tragedy, I fully understand.


DAVID: There is irrefutable evidence God knew of the problems His creations might cause.

dhw: There is no irrefutable evidence even that your God exists, let alone that he is omniscient. If it was irrefutable, everyone would agree. However, the theory of omniscience and omnipotence and all-goodness is precisely what creates the huge problem of theodicy!

DAVID: Living biochemistry is filled with editing safeguard mechanisms to correct errors. Since living reactions move at such high speeds, everything is correct 99.9999+% of the time.

dhw: You seem desperate to confine “evil” to the odd crash by racing molecules. Do you never read the newspapers or watch the news on TV? Have you never heard of diseases, floods, famines, wars, crimes etc., all of which – including all those perpetrated by your God’s specially created human beings – your God apparently knew would happen, and yet he deliberately went ahead creating all the causes of these evils!

You concentrate on the slim edge of reality which is evil or bad. I view the world as 95+% good.


DAVID: But those good works are 99% of God's story.

dhw: I have no idea where you get your statistics from, but even if they were correct, a perfect God is not 99% good. It’s no defence to say that Dr X saved the lives of 99 patients but murdered the 100th.

DAVID: Same illogical point. God does not murder, but His creations can cause death.

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God designs creatures which he knows perfectly well in advance will murder us, but defence counsel D. Turell pleads on his behalf that it’s not his fault.

God knew of the problems His creations might cause, and in the biochemistry of life many safeguards are in place.


DAVID: Your God enters into an experimental form of evolution with no goals in sight. So lets go back. Why did He produce a universe, invent life? What was His reasons to get things started? It is ludicrous to think He was just playing with possibilities to occupy His eternal time.

dhw: I have no idea why you think it is ludicrous for your God to want to do something with his eternal time. If he exists, then clearly he wanted life to exist, or he wouldn’t have created it. You are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his own creations, but you refuse to believe that he might have started life with the goal of doing something he finds enjoyable and interesting. You are also sure that “we reflect God”, and so one of his goals might have been to create a being that would reflect him (and he conducted experiments in order to find the best formula for such a being). Why did he want to create such a being? According to my resident expert, he wanted recognition of himself and his works, and maybe to have some kind of relationship with us. Thank you for answering your own question, but please don’t ask it again.

I asked about YOUR God and got a discussion of my God. Please tell me your God's purposes as he experiments along.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, June 14, 2023, 08:47 (289 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You seem desperate to confine “evil” to the odd crash by racing molecules. Do you never read the newspapers or watch the news on TV? Have you never heard of diseases, floods, famines, wars, crimes etc., all of which – including all those perpetrated by your God’s specially created human beings – your God apparently knew would happen, and yet he deliberately went ahead creating all the causes of these evils!

DAVID: You concentrate on the slim edge of reality which is evil or bad. I view the world as 95+% good.

Much as I admire your positive attitude towards life, I have to point out that the problem of theodicy is to reconcile the conventional view of an all-good God with the fact that as first cause, he is responsible for creating evil. You do not solve the problem by telling us that we should not think about it.

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God designs creatures which he knows perfectly well in advance will murder us, but defence counsel D. Turell pleads on his behalf that it’s not his fault.

DAVID: God knew of the problems His creations might cause, and in the biochemistry of life many safeguards are in place.

The problem of theodicy is the evil that exists outside of whatever safeguards you think your God may have provided.

dhw: I have no idea why you think it is ludicrous for your God to want to do something with his eternal time. If he exists, then clearly he wanted life to exist, or he wouldn’t have created it. You are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his own creations, but you refuse to believe that he might have started life with the goal of doing something he finds enjoyable and interesting. You are also sure that “we reflect God”, and so one of his goals might have been to create a being that would reflect him (and he conducted experiments in order to find the best formula for such a being). Why did he want to create such a being? According to my resident expert, he wanted recognition of himself and his works, and maybe to have some kind of relationship with us. Thank you for answering your own question, but please don’t ask it again.

DAVID: I asked about YOUR God and got a discussion of my God. Please tell me your God's purposes as he experiments along.

I have simply pointed out that “my” God’s purposes coincide with your own observations, though you refuse to acknowledge your acceptance of them: generally, the enjoyment of creating things that will be of interest to him; and as regards humans, recognition of himself and his works. There is enormous enjoyment to be had from experimenting, making new discoveries, coming up with new ideas, or eventually fulfilling a particular goal. If God exists, I would see him as the supreme artist and scientist. And I would see us, just as you do, as “reflecting” him. So out of the window goes your silly objection that although we reflect him, he mustn’t be “humanized”. If we reflect him, then – again I agree with you – we must have thought patterns and emotions like his.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 14, 2023, 16:51 (288 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God designs creatures which he knows perfectly well in advance will murder us, but defence counsel D. Turell pleads on his behalf that it’s not his fault.

DAVID: God knew of the problems His creations might cause, and in the biochemistry of life many safeguards are in place.

dhw: The problem of theodicy is the evil that exists outside of whatever safeguards you think your God may have provided.

It is not God's fault that free-will people create evil. As for biochemical mistakes, noted in the past, reactions occur at trillions of times a second, and safeguard mechanisms catch most mistakes, so when one happens it is an exceedingly rare event. I believe God gave us the best system of life He could as all-knowing.


dhw: I have no idea why you think it is ludicrous for your God to want to do something with his eternal time. If he exists, then clearly he wanted life to exist, or he wouldn’t have created it. You are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his own creations, but you refuse to believe that he might have started life with the goal of doing something he finds enjoyable and interesting. You are also sure that “we reflect God”, and so one of his goals might have been to create a being that would reflect him (and he conducted experiments in order to find the best formula for such a being). Why did he want to create such a being? According to my resident expert, he wanted recognition of himself and his works, and maybe to have some kind of relationship with us. Thank you for answering your own question, but please don’t ask it again.

DAVID: I asked about YOUR God and got a discussion of my God. Please tell me your God's purposes as he experiments along.

dhw: I have simply pointed out that “my” God’s purposes coincide with your own observations, though you refuse to acknowledge your acceptance of them: generally, the enjoyment of creating things that will be of interest to him; and as regards humans, recognition of himself and his works. There is enormous enjoyment to be had from experimenting, making new discoveries, coming up with new ideas, or eventually fulfilling a particular goal. If God exists, I would see him as the supreme artist and scientist. And I would see us, just as you do, as “reflecting” him. So out of the window goes your silly objection that although we reflect him, he mustn’t be “humanized”. If we reflect him, then – again I agree with you – we must have thought patterns and emotions like his.

The bold is a clear description of a human being, not a God. In comparison, we mimic Him but He in no way mimics us. It is not a two-way street. 'Experimenting' means drifting into the future, based on the results of each experiment. There is no goal

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, June 15, 2023, 08:52 (288 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God designs creatures which he knows perfectly well in advance will murder us, but defence counsel D. Turell pleads on his behalf that it’s not his fault.

DAVID: God knew of the problems His creations might cause, and in the biochemistry of life many safeguards are in place.

dhw: The problem of theodicy is the evil that exists outside of whatever safeguards you think your God may have provided.

DAVID: It is not God's fault that free-will people create evil.

If your all-powerful, all-knowing God created all life from scratch and knew in advance that some of his creations (e.g. bacteria, viruses, humans) would cause untold suffering through "evil", of course it’s his fault. But if evil was an unexpected consequence of his experiments, he might plead mitigating circumstances – only you won’t countenance that. You wrote: “Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of things He has done because he is ignorant of them? Nonsense.” You insist, then, that he is guilty.

DAVID: As for biochemical mistakes, noted in the past, reactions occur at trillions of times a second, and safeguard mechanisms catch most mistakes, so when one happens it is an exceedingly rare event. I believe God gave us the best system of life He could as all-knowing.

Your usual desperate attempt to avoid the problem of theodicy by pretending that evil is so rare that we should ignore it.

DAVID: I asked about YOUR God and got a discussion of my God. Please tell me your God's purposes as he experiments along.

dhw: I have simply pointed out that “my” God’s purposes coincide with your own observations, though you refuse to acknowledge your acceptance of them: generally, the enjoyment of creating things that will be of interest to him; and as regards humans, recognition of himself and his works. There is enormous enjoyment to be had from experimenting, making new discoveries, coming up with new ideas, or eventually fulfilling a particular goal. If God exists, I would see him as the supreme artist and scientist. And I would see us, just as you do, as “reflecting” him. So out of the window goes your silly objection that although we reflect him, he mustn’t be “humanized”. If we reflect him, then – again I agree with you – we must have thought patterns and emotions like his.

DAVID: The bold is a clear description of a human being, not a God. In comparison, we mimic Him but He in no way mimics us. It is not a two-way street.

Since God came first, of course he doesn’t mimic us! Our enjoyment etc. “reflects” his enjoyment etc.! And that means he enjoys etc., and you have said you are sure that he does.

DAVID: 'Experimenting' means drifting into the future, based on the results of each experiment. There is no goal.

There are two types of experiment: 1) trying different ways to achieve a precise goal; 2) seeing what will happen if… My alternative theories cover both types. And you are still stuck a) with an all-powerful God who incomprehensibly sets out to achieve his goal by deliberately setting out to design life forms that have no connection with his goal, and b) with an all-knowing God who deliberately creates things he knows to be bad, although it’s not his fault that he deliberately creates things he knows to be bad.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 15, 2023, 15:49 (287 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: So your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God designs creatures which he knows perfectly well in advance will murder us, but defence counsel D. Turell pleads on his behalf that it’s not his fault.

DAVID: God knew of the problems His creations might cause, and in the biochemistry of life many safeguards are in place.

dhw: The problem of theodicy is the evil that exists outside of whatever safeguards you think your God may have provided.

DAVID: It is not God's fault that free-will people create evil.

dhw: If your all-powerful, all-knowing God created all life from scratch and knew in advance that some of his creations (e.g. bacteria, viruses, humans) would cause untold suffering through "evil", of course it’s his fault. But if evil was an unexpected consequence of his experiments, he might plead mitigating circumstances – only you won’t countenance that. You wrote: “Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of things He has done because he is ignorant of them? Nonsense.” You insist, then, that he is guilty.

Since we are looking at the same evolution performed by both our Gods, we see safeguards in place. How did your unknowing God know to provide safeguards? Your God does not fit the evidence.


DAVID: As for biochemical mistakes, noted in the past, reactions occur at trillions of times a second, and safeguard mechanisms catch most mistakes, so when one happens it is an exceedingly rare event. I believe God gave us the best system of life He could as all-knowing.

dhw: Your usual desperate attempt to avoid the problem of theodicy by pretending that evil is so rare that we should ignore it.

Same argument as above. Mistakes can't be helped under the current system. There would be no life without it. I accept it with its warts.


DAVID: I asked about YOUR God and got a discussion of my God. Please tell me your God's purposes as he experiments along.

dhw: I have simply pointed out that “my” God’s purposes coincide with your own observations, though you refuse to acknowledge your acceptance of them: generally, the enjoyment of creating things that will be of interest to him; and as regards humans, recognition of himself and his works. There is enormous enjoyment to be had from experimenting, making new discoveries, coming up with new ideas, or eventually fulfilling a particular goal. If God exists, I would see him as the supreme artist and scientist. And I would see us, just as you do, as “reflecting” him. So out of the window goes your silly objection that although we reflect him, he mustn’t be “humanized”. If we reflect him, then – again I agree with you – we must have thought patterns and emotions like his.

DAVID: The bold is a clear description of a human being, not a God. In comparison, we mimic Him but He in no way mimics us. It is not a two-way street.

Since God came first, of course he doesn’t mimic us! Our enjoyment etc. “reflects” his enjoyment etc.! And that means he enjoys etc., and you have said you are sure that he does.

Doesn't change the humanness of your God. Trying to compare Him to my God's aspect of human- like traits doesn't diminish your God's overwhelming humanlike thoughts.


DAVID: 'Experimenting' means drifting into the future, based on the results of each experiment. There is no goal.

dhw: There are two types of experiment: 1) trying different ways to achieve a precise goal; 2) seeing what will happen if… My alternative theories cover both types. And you are still stuck a) with an all-powerful God who incomprehensibly sets out to achieve his goal by deliberately setting out to design life forms that have no connection with his goal, and b) with an all-knowing God who deliberately creates things he knows to be bad, although it’s not his fault that he deliberately creates things he knows to be bad.

My God must stick with the only system He provided for life, since as all-knowing, He realizes it is the only system that will work. While yours has no idea of what will work.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, June 16, 2023, 08:08 (287 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It is not God's fault that free-will people create evil.

dhw: If your all-powerful, all-knowing God created all life from scratch and knew in advance that some of his creations (e.g. bacteria, viruses, humans) would cause untold suffering through "evil", of course it’s his fault. But if evil was an unexpected consequence of his experiments, he might plead mitigating circumstances – only you won’t countenance that. You wrote: “Your unknowing God is somehow innocent of things He has done because he is ignorant of them? Nonsense.” You insist, then, that he is guilty.

DAVID: Since we are looking at the same evolution performed by both our Gods, we see safeguards in place. How did your unknowing God know to provide safeguards? Your God does not fit the evidence.

You seem determined to switch attention from the problem of theodicy to all the good things your God may have done. I don’t know what safeguards he provided against human evil, but if he did, thry were clearly inadequate! As for diseases, if there really are safeguards, I could argue that he didn’t know initially that they would happen, but when they did, he tried his best – often unsuccessfully – to correct his errors. Now would you please return to the subject: if your God deliberately created “evil” life forms which he knew would cause untold suffering, is he or is he not responsible for the suffering? If he is guilty, then how can he be called all-good?

DAVID: Mistakes can't be helped under the current system. There would be no life without it. I accept it with its warts.

So you accept that your God deliberately created bacteria, viruses and humans which he knew would commit murderous acts because that is the system he created, and although he is all-powerful, he couldn’t even provide efficient safeguards to protect victims from the consequences of his unavoidable “mistakes”.

DAVID: Please tell me your God's purposes as he experiments along.

dhw: I have simply pointed out that “my” God’s purposes coincide with your own observations, though you refuse to acknowledge your acceptance of them: generally, the enjoyment of creating things that will be of interest to him; and as regards humans, recognition of himself and his works. There is enormous enjoyment to be had from experimenting, making new discoveries, coming up with new ideas, or eventually fulfilling a particular goal. If God exists, I would see him as the supreme artist and scientist. And I would see us, just as you do, as “reflecting” him. […]

DAVID: The bold is a clear description of a human being, not a God. In comparison, we mimic Him but He in no way mimics us. It is not a two-way street.

dhw: Since God came first, of course he doesn’t mimic us! Our enjoyment etc. “reflects” his enjoyment etc.! And that means he enjoys etc., and you have said you are sure that he does.

DAVID: Doesn't change the humanness of your God. Trying to compare Him to my God's aspect of human- like traits doesn't diminish your God's overwhelming humanlike thoughts.

It is you who told us you were sure your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and may have wanted us to recognize him and his work, and you are also sure that we reflect him. That means that our enjoyment, interest and wish for recognition reflect his, since he came first.

DAVID: 'Experimenting' means drifting into the future, based on the results of each experiment. There is no goal.

dhw: There are two types of experiment: 1) trying different ways to achieve a precise goal; 2) seeing what will happen if… My alternative theories cover both types. And you are still stuck a) with an all-powerful God who incomprehensibly sets out to achieve his goal by deliberately setting out to design life forms that have no connection with his goal, and b) with an all-knowing God who deliberately creates things he knows to be bad, although it’s not his fault that he deliberately creates things he knows to be bad.

DAVID: My God must stick with the only system He provided for life, since as all-knowing, He realizes it is the only system that will work. While yours has no idea of what will work.

The only system that will work for your God is 1) to design life forms that have no connection with his goal, even though he is perfectly capable of designing life forms “de novo”, and 2) one that will result in all the sufferings caused by the natural disasters, diseases and evil humans he has created in full knowledge of their future evil deeds, though he tries to provide safeguards but despite his omnipotence, frequently fails. My alternatives include experiments in which he finds out what will work, gives himself new ideas, or simply observes what new ideas his autonomous invention can come up with. You accept that they fit in with life’s history as we know it, and your only objection is that we humans reflect him, but you can’t see that this means we have thought patterns and emotions like his, and therefore he must have thought patterns and emotions like ours.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, June 16, 2023, 19:43 (286 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You seem determined to switch attention from the problem of theodicy to all the good things your God may have done. I don’t know what safeguards he provided against human evil, but if he did, thry were clearly inadequate! As for diseases, if there really are safeguards, I could argue that he didn’t know initially that they would happen, but when they did, he tried his best – often unsuccessfully – to correct his errors. Now would you please return to the subject: if your God deliberately created “evil” life forms which he knew would cause untold suffering, is he or is he not responsible for the suffering? If he is guilty, then how can he be called all-good?

It is obvious from the safeguard editing systems, God knew there would be errors in the biochemical system of life. You ignore my point that an all-knowing God built the only system available. Yes, they cause troubles, but are the exception of many trillions of proper reactions every minute. I'll stick with Dayenu, God gave enough. As for human evil, God knew it would happen when He gave us necessary free will, but it falls into our hands to control it. God can't after His grant.

DAVID: Please tell me your God's purposes as he experiments along.

dhw: I have simply pointed out that “my” God’s purposes coincide with your own observations, though you refuse to acknowledge your acceptance of them: generally, the enjoyment of creating things that will be of interest to him; and as regards humans, recognition of himself and his works. There is enormous enjoyment to be had from experimenting, making new discoveries, coming up with new ideas, or eventually fulfilling a particular goal. If God exists, I would see him as the supreme artist and scientist. And I would see us, just as you do, as “reflecting” him. […]

DAVID: The bold is a clear description of a human being, not a God. In comparison, we mimic Him but He in no way mimics us. It is not a two-way street.

dhw: Since God came first, of course he doesn’t mimic us! Our enjoyment etc. “reflects” his enjoyment etc.! And that means he enjoys etc., and you have said you are sure that he does.

DAVID: Doesn't change the humanness of your God. Trying to compare Him to my God's aspect of human- like traits doesn't diminish your God's overwhelming humanlike thoughts.

dhw: It is you who told us you were sure your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and may have wanted us to recognize him and his work, and you are also sure that we reflect him. That means that our enjoyment, interest and wish for recognition reflect his, since he came first.

The human-like aspects of God's personality of course are reflected in our personalities, but these are minor points when we try to ascertain God's purpose/s aside from His possible personality. You always use this weak argument when I point out how human your God appears to be.


DAVID: 'Experimenting' means drifting into the future, based on the results of each experiment. There is no goal.

dhw: There are two types of experiment: 1) trying different ways to achieve a precise goal; 2) seeing what will happen if… My alternative theories cover both types. And you are still stuck a) with an all-powerful God who incomprehensibly sets out to achieve his goal by deliberately setting out to design life forms that have no connection with his goal, and b) with an all-knowing God who deliberately creates things he knows to be bad, although it’s not his fault that he deliberately creates things he knows to be bad.

DAVID: My God must stick with the only system He provided for life, since as all-knowing, He realizes it is the only system that will work. While yours has no idea of what will work.

dhw: The only system that will work for your God is 1) to design life forms that have no connection with his goal, even though he is perfectly capable of designing life forms “de novo”, and 2) one that will result in all the sufferings caused by the natural disasters, diseases and evil humans he has created in full knowledge of their future evil deeds, though he tries to provide safeguards but despite his omnipotence, frequently fails. My alternatives include experiments in which he finds out what will work, gives himself new ideas, or simply observes what new ideas his autonomous invention can come up with. You accept that they fit in with life’s history as we know it, and your only objection is that we humans reflect him, but you can’t see that this means we have thought patterns and emotions like his, and therefore he must have thought patterns and emotions like ours.

Magnifying the error rate is itself an error. The actual rate is miniscule. You cannot distort that an all-knowing God, that you seem to abhor, would know the only system that can work. Be glad He did, as we are here to argue.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, June 17, 2023, 10:53 (286 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] if your God deliberately created “evil” life forms which he knew would cause untold suffering, is he or is he not responsible for the suffering? If he is guilty, then how can he be called all-good?

DAVID: It is obvious from the safeguard editing systems, God knew there would be errors in the biochemical system of life.
And:
DAVID: Magnifying the error rate is itself an error. The actual rate is miniscule.

“Evil” is not confined to errors in the biochemical system of life!

DAVID: You ignore my point that an all-knowing God built the only system available.
And:
DAVID: You cannot distort that an all-knowing God, that you seem to abhor, would know the only system that can work. Be glad He did, as we are here to argue.

You make it sound as if your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, first-cause God was somehow forced into using a system he knew would create evil! I am as glad as you are that we are here. That does not mean I must shut my eyes to the sufferings of millions of people which result from what you believe to have been his deliberate creation of all the “evils” he apparently knew would happen. It is the age-old problem of THEODICY which you are determined to ignore.

DAVID: Yes, they cause troubles, but are the exception of many trillions of proper reactions every minute. I'll stick with Dayenu, God gave enough. As for human evil, God knew it would happen when He gave us necessary free will, but it falls into our hands to control it. God can't after [alter?] His grant.

If God exists, and if he is all-knowing, as you claim, then he knew perfectly well that we would commit evil. Since we agree that he would only have created what he wanted to create, in your scenario he must therefore have wanted all the evil he knew would happen. Hence the problem of THEODICY which you are determined to ignore. (I have made this complaint before!)

dhw: It is you who told us you were sure your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and may have wanted us to recognize him and his work, and you are also sure that we reflect him. That means that our enjoyment, interest and wish for recognition reflect his, since he came first.

DAVID: The human-like aspects of God's personality of course are reflected in our personalities, but these are minor points when we try to ascertain God's purpose/s aside from His possible personality. You always use this weak argument when I point out how human your God appears to be.

When we try to ascertain his purpose/s, you come up with just one: to create us and our food. You have no idea why he therefore created 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. When you tell us you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and wants our recognition, and that we “reflect” him (so he and we have thought patterns and emotions in common), you contradict yourself by claiming that these aspects of his personality make him too human. And it is patently absurd to claim that they could not at least be part of his purpose/s.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 17, 2023, 16:35 (285 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You make it sound as if your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, first-cause God was somehow forced into using a system he knew would create evil! I am as glad as you are that we are here. That does not mean I must shut my eyes to the sufferings of millions of people which result from what you believe to have been his deliberate creation of all the “evils” he apparently knew would happen. It is the age-old problem of THEODICY which you are determined to ignore.

I don't ignore theodicy. I have a vastly different view than you. Free will released evil in humans, not God. The tiny incidents of biochemical errors remain and build into larger numbers, so you pounce on a collective, which does not represent the system's efficiency.


DAVID: Yes, they cause troubles, but are the exception of many trillions of proper reactions every minute. I'll stick with Dayenu, God gave enough. As for human evil, God knew it would happen when He gave us necessary free will, but it falls into our hands to control it. God can't after [alter?] His grant.

dhw: If God exists, and if he is all-knowing, as you claim, then he knew perfectly well that we would commit evil. Since we agree that he would only have created what he wanted to create, in your scenario he must therefore have wanted all the evil he knew would happen. Hence the problem of THEODICY which you are determined to ignore. (I have made this complaint before!)

The wrong conclusion. Yes, God created our free will, but that means He wanted humans to handle the problem we create, and we do, as best we can.


dhw: It is you who told us you were sure your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, and may have wanted us to recognize him and his work, and you are also sure that we reflect him. That means that our enjoyment, interest and wish for recognition reflect his, since he came first.

DAVID: The human-like aspects of God's personality of course are reflected in our personalities, but these are minor points when we try to ascertain God's purpose/s aside from His possible personality. You always use this weak argument when I point out how human your God appears to be.

dhw: When we try to ascertain his purpose/s, you come up with just one: to create us and our food. You have no idea why he therefore created 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. When you tell us you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and wants our recognition, and that we “reflect” him (so he and we have thought patterns and emotions in common), you contradict yourself by claiming that these aspects of his personality make him too human. And it is patently absurd to claim that they could not at least be part of his purpose/s.

That humans are/were His goal does not make Him into the tunnel-visioned caricature of a God you always distort. By comparison your experimenting God is directionless, waiting for the results of each experiment to tell him what to try next.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, June 18, 2023, 11:25 (285 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You make it sound as if your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, first-cause God was somehow forced into using a system he knew would create evil! I am as glad as you are that we are here. That does not mean I must shut my eyes to the sufferings of millions of people which result from what you believe to have been his deliberate creation of all the “evils” he apparently knew would happen. It is the age-old problem of THEODICY which you are determined to ignore.

DAVID: I don't ignore theodicy. I have a vastly different view than you. Free will released evil in humans, not God.

Your all-knowing God created bacteria and viruses and humans in the full knowledge of all the harm (as well as the good) that they would do. If a scientist produced a robot which he knew would do lots of wonderful things but would also go round murdering people, you would not hesitate to condemn him. (That is actually the fear now being expressed by a number of scientists working in AI.) Your defence of your God is that he gave us free will. The prosecution will say that he knew he was creating murderers, and did so of his OWN free will.
The case of murderous bacteria and viruses raises another issue: do they have free will? If evil bacteria and viruses have free will, then clearly they must have the autonomous intelligence to make their own choices. (If they don't have free will, then your God has no defence at all!) And if the baddies have autonomous intelligence, it stands to reason that the goodies must also have autonomous intelligence. What a neat way to dovetail two of our controversial topics. :-)

DAVID: The tiny incidents of biochemical errors remain and build into larger numbers, so you pounce on a collective, which does not represent the system's efficiency.

The biochemical errors throw doubt on your all-powerful God’s efficiency. The deliberate creation of “evil” throws doubt on his all-goodness, and is compounded by his all-knowingness. Hence the problem of theodicy.

dhw: […] Since we agree that he would only have created what he wanted to create, in your scenario he must therefore have wanted all the evil he knew would happen. […]

DAVID: The wrong conclusion. Yes, God created our free will, but that means He wanted humans to handle the problem we create, and we do, as best we can.

Thank you for supporting the concept of a free-for-all, which you readily accept for humans but totally reject as an explanation for the rest of life’s history. I have no objections to that concept. However, it doesn’t alter the fact that your God deliberately created all the potential for evil since he knew in advance all the harm that his humans and his bacteria and viruses and his disease-causing mistakes would cause.

dhw: When we try to ascertain his purpose/s, you come up with just one: to create us and our food. You have no idea why he therefore created 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. When you tell us you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and wants our recognition, and that we “reflect” him (so he and we have thought patterns and emotions in common), you contradict yourself by claiming that these aspects of his personality make him too human. And it is patently absurd to claim that they could not at least be part of his purpose/s.

DAVID: That humans are/were His goal does not make Him into the tunnel-visioned caricature of a God you always distort. By comparison your experimenting God is directionless, waiting for the results of each experiment to tell him what to try next.

It is your own God who is tunnel-visioned, since you restrict him to the single purpose of creating us and our food, thereby making him a messy, cumbersome, inefficient (all your own words) caricature of a God, because he proceeds to design 99 out of 100 life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose. By contrast, ONE of my theories has him with the same “direction” as yours, but experimenting – just like us humans – to find the best formula, while the other two are as bolded above, again following thought patterns which you accept although you desperately try to ignore their implications.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 18, 2023, 17:24 (284 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I don't ignore theodicy. I have a vastly different view than you. Free will released evil in humans, not God.

dhw: Your all-knowing God created bacteria and viruses and humans in the full knowledge of all the harm (as well as the good) that they would do. If a scientist produced a robot which he knew would do lots of wonderful things but would also go round murdering people, you would not hesitate to condemn him. (That is actually the fear now being expressed by a number of scientists working in AI.) Your defence of your God is that he gave us free will. The prosecution will say that he knew he was creating murderers, and did so of his OWN free will.
The case of murderous bacteria and viruses raises another issue: do they have free will? If evil bacteria and viruses have free will, then clearly they must have the autonomous intelligence to make their own choices. (If they don't have free will, then your God has no defence at all!) And if the baddies have autonomous intelligence, it stands to reason that the goodies must also have autonomous intelligence. What a neat way to dovetail two of our controversial topics. :-)

I keep telling you the bad sided is a tiny side and the good side is the big side, but you keep your magnifying glasses where you wish them. Perhaps we should put aside all the bugs in your colon which help you in so many ways, as long as they stay at home. An example of the tradeoffs we live with necessarily. As for bacteria and viruses with free will, It doesn't exist.


DAVID: The tiny incidents of biochemical errors remain and build into larger numbers, so you pounce on a collective, which does not represent the system's efficiency.

dhw: The biochemical errors throw doubt on your all-powerful God’s efficiency. The deliberate creation of “evil” throws doubt on his all-goodness, and is compounded by his all-knowingness. Hence the problem of theodicy.

Your unknowing God must have no problem since He is ignorant of them. Ridiculous.


dhw: When we try to ascertain his purpose/s, you come up with just one: to create us and our food. You have no idea why he therefore created 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. When you tell us you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and wants our recognition, and that we “reflect” him (so he and we have thought patterns and emotions in common), you contradict yourself by claiming that these aspects of his personality make him too human. And it is patently absurd to claim that they could not at least be part of his purpose/s.

DAVID: That humans are/were His goal does not make Him into the tunnel-visioned caricature of a God you always distort. By comparison your experimenting God is directionless, waiting for the results of each experiment to tell him what to try next.

dhw: It is your own God who is tunnel-visioned, since you restrict him to the single purpose of creating us and our food, thereby making him a messy, cumbersome, inefficient (all your own words) caricature of a God, because he proceeds to design 99 out of 100 life forms that have no connection with his one and only purpose. By contrast, ONE of my theories has him with the same “direction” as yours, but experimenting – just like us humans – to find the best formula, while the other two are as bolded above, again following thought patterns which you accept although you desperately try to ignore their implications.

Your God conduced the only evolutionary process we see. How do you explain His role? He produced the same result my God did in the same roundabout way. And they both had viruses and bacteria in the mix, but only your guy is OK because He was ignorant of what might turn out bad.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, June 19, 2023, 13:29 (283 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I keep telling you the bad sided is a tiny side and the good side is the big side, but you keep your magnifying glasses where you wish them. Perhaps we should put aside all the bugs in your colon which help you in so many ways, as long as they stay at home. An example of the tradeoffs we live with necessarily.

And I keep telling you that you cannot solve the problem of theodicy – why an all-good and all-knowing God has created evil – by telling us that the good outweighs the bad.

DAVID: As for bacteria and viruses with free will, It doesn't exist.

You have told us categorically that cancer cells are intelligent, that molecules are “freewheeling”, and when they “ are free to act as well as humans with free will, bad mistakes will happen as well as deliberate evil”, and that bacteria can autonomously edit their own DNA, which of course means they are free to find ways of killing us. I can’t remember what you said about viruses. However, if your God did not programme them to kill us, I can only assume that they were left free to do what they wanted to do.

DAVID: The tiny incidents of biochemical errors remain and build into larger numbers, so you pounce on a collective, which does not represent the system's efficiency.

dhw: The biochemical errors throw doubt on your all-powerful God’s efficiency.

I should add that this is consistent with your view that his evolutionary method is messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

dhw: The deliberate creation of “evil” throws doubt on his all-goodness, and is compounded by his all-knowingness. Hence the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: Your unknowing God must have no problem since He is ignorant of them. Ridiculous.
And:
DAVID: Your God conduced the only evolutionary process we see. How do you explain His role? He produced the same result my God did in the same roundabout way. And they both had viruses and bacteria in the mix, but only your guy is OK because He was ignorant of what might turn out bad.

A gross over-simplification. Not being all-knowing is not the same as “unknowing”. You agreed that Walter Raleigh, who knew all about the pleasures of smoking, was not to blame for the millions of deaths caused by smoking. A God who invents “free-wheeling” life which initially is “good” should not be blamed for consequences he did not foresee. It is precisely your insistence on his all-knowingness that makes him “guilty”: your all-knowing, all-powerful God would only create what he wanted to create, and therefore he wanted to create evil.

But maybe you're right. Maybe he did want to create evil. After all, one can argue that good can only be appreciated if we have bad as well, and death is essential if there is to be room enough for new life, and why should God care about the suffering involved? That would certainly explain non-intervention. Then you can have your all-powerful God who deliberately creates evil. He may or may not know all the future details (human free will could suggest he doesn't), but not caring is not consistent with our concept of “all-good”. So this will strengthen the view of a deistic watcher (if he’s there) who enjoys creating and who watches with interest – callously at best, sadistically at worst.

The above makes sense. It’s only your rigidly blinkered view of God that makes no sense: what is “ridiculous” is a concept of him which makes him all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good (by our standards) and yet consciously creating evil – hence theodicy – and a concept which lumbers him with a single purpose which he achieves by deliberately designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to that purpose – viz your theory of evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, June 19, 2023, 15:10 (283 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As for bacteria and viruses with free will, It doesn't exist.

dhw: You have told us categorically that cancer cells are intelligent, that molecules are “freewheeling”, and when they “ are free to act as well as humans with free will, bad mistakes will happen as well as deliberate evil”, and that bacteria can autonomously edit their own DNA, which of course means they are free to find ways of killing us. I can’t remember what you said about viruses. However, if your God did not programme them to kill us, I can only assume that they were left free to do what they wanted to do.

Again a magnification of bad events. Molecules fold freely, so mistakes can happen. We need gut bacteria, but they make an awful mess if they escape. Cancer cells seem very intelligent as they use DNA in distorted ways. Free will allows humans to be very evil, if they wish. What you want is a Garden of Eden now. You can't have it. You must live with tradeoffs that necessarily exist. I lead a happy life. I guess you don't.


DAVID: The tiny incidents of biochemical errors remain and build into larger numbers, so you pounce on a collective, which does not represent the system's efficiency.

dhw: The biochemical errors throw doubt on your all-powerful God’s efficiency.

God had to allow molecules the freedom to fold or reactions would otherwise be too slow.


dhw: I should add that this is consistent with your view that his evolutionary method is messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

Not consistent at all. The overall evolutionary method is not at the biochemical molecular level.


dhw: The deliberate creation of “evil” throws doubt on his all-goodness, and is compounded by his all-knowingness. Hence the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: Your unknowing God must have no problem since He is ignorant of them. Ridiculous.
And:
DAVID: Your God conduced the only evolutionary process we see. How do you explain His role? He produced the same result my God did in the same roundabout way. And they both had viruses and bacteria in the mix, but only your guy is OK because He was ignorant of what might turn out bad.

dhw: A gross over-simplification. Not being all-knowing is not the same as “unknowing”. You agreed that Walter Raleigh, who knew all about the pleasures of smoking, was not to blame for the millions of deaths caused by smoking. A God who invents “free-wheeling” life which initially is “good” should not be blamed for consequences he did not foresee. It is precisely your insistence on his all-knowingness that makes him “guilty”: your all-knowing, all-powerful God would only create what he wanted to create, and therefore he wanted to create evil.

So a lack of knowledge exonerates your God from all the evils He creates? Preposterous.


dhw: But maybe you're right. Maybe he did want to create evil. After all, one can argue that good can only be appreciated if we have bad as well, and death is essential if there is to be room enough for new life, and why should God care about the suffering involved? That would certainly explain non-intervention. Then you can have your all-powerful God who deliberately creates evil. He may or may not know all the future details (human free will could suggest he doesn't), but not caring is not consistent with our concept of “all-good”. So this will strengthen the view of a deistic watcher (if he’s there) who enjoys creating and who watches with interest – callously at best, sadistically at worst.

The above makes sense. It’s only your rigidly blinkered view of God that makes no sense: what is “ridiculous” is a concept of him which makes him all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good (by our standards) and yet consciously creating evil – hence theodicy – and a concept which lumbers him with a single purpose which he achieves by deliberately designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to that purpose – viz your theory of evolution.

Interesting summary sort of from the bright side. Your God and my God produced the same system of evolution. Mine knew exactly what He was doing and yours experimented with no goal in sight. Makes us a lucky result. Mine knew of problems and produced safeguard systems of editing. How did your God produce those same edits, if not knowing consequences as He bumbled along?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, June 20, 2023, 07:45 (283 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As for bacteria and viruses with free will, It doesn't exist. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: You have told us categorically that cancer cells are intelligent, that molecules are “freewheeling”, and when they “ are free to act as well as humans with free will, bad mistakes will happen as well as deliberate evil”, and that bacteria can autonomously edit their own DNA, which of course means they are free to find ways of killing us. I can’t remember what you said about viruses. However, if your God did not programme them to kill us, I can only assume that they were left free to do what they wanted to do.

DAVID: Again a magnification of bad events. Molecules fold freely, so mistakes can happen. We need gut bacteria, but they make an awful mess if they escape. Cancer cells seem very intelligent as they use DNA in distorted ways. Free will allows humans to be very evil, if they wish.

Bad events = evil. Back to your bolded statement above: Do you believe some bacteria and some viruses were programmed to kill us, or did your God give them the freedom to do so?

DAVID: What you want is a Garden of Eden now. You can't have it. You must live with tradeoffs that necessarily exist. I lead a happy life. I guess you don't.

I’m afraid the fact that you lead a happy life (and so do I) does not explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would create evil. Stop dodging.

dhw: Not being all-knowing is not the same as “unknowing”. You agreed that Walter Raleigh, who knew all about the pleasures of smoking, was not to blame for the millions of deaths caused by smoking. A God who invents “free-wheeling” life which initially is “good” should not be blamed for consequences he did not foresee. It is precisely your insistence on his all-knowingness that makes him “guilty”: your all-knowing, all-powerful God would only create what he wanted to create, and therefore he wanted to create evil.

DAVID: So a lack of knowledge exonerates your God from all the evils He creates? Preposterous.

I’m always amazed at your eagerness to blame your God – once called “perfect” by you – for creating all evil. Fine. Your solution to the problem of theodicy is now clear: God created evil because he wanted to create evil. But on the other hand, apparently evil is so rare that we should ignore it, because...what? God is all-good?

dhw: But maybe you're right. Maybe he did want to create evil. After all, one can argue that good can only be appreciated if we have bad as well, and death is essential if there is to be room enough for new life, and why should God care about the suffering involved? That would certainly explain non-intervention. Then you can have your all-powerful God who deliberately creates evil. He may or may not know all the future details (human free will could suggest he doesn't), but not caring is not consistent with our concept of “all-good”. So this will strengthen the view of a deistic watcher (if he’s there) who enjoys creating and who watches with interest – callously at best, sadistically at worst.

DAVID: Interesting summary sort of from the bright side. Your God and my God produced the same system of evolution.

I would not regard a God who deliberately created evil, and was indifferent to the sufferings he caused, as being “from the bright side”. In none of my theories do my versions of God produce the same system as yours: you have him deliberately designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose. This is never the case in any of my alternatives.

DAVID: Mine knew exactly what He was doing…

Yes, yours knew he was using a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to produce what you believe was his one and only goal...

DAVID: ...and yours experimented with no goal in sight. Makes us a lucky result.

How many more times must I remind you that in the first theory the goal of his experiments is to design a being like himself, while in the other two theories his goal is to do precisely what you are certain he does: to enjoy creating and to create things he will be interested in, including all the new ideas he or his creations might produce. We are not a lucky result in the first two theories, and even in the third (a free-for-all) he could have done a dabble if he wanted to. But all these theories are based on the the thory that there is a God. If there isn’t, then ALL life is a lucky result.

DAVID: Mine knew of problems and produced safeguard systems of editing. How did your God produce those same edits, if not knowing consequences as He bumbled along?

I'm not concerned with his so-called safeguards, because if he and they exist, they could have been inserted when he became conscious of the damage he had done, and in any case they were woefully inadequate, since the diseases and other evils he created are still rampant, and the problem of theodicy is concerned with the evil that exists, not with the good or with safeguards.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 20, 2023, 16:37 (282 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again a magnification of bad events. Molecules fold freely, so mistakes can happen. We need gut bacteria, but they make an awful mess if they escape. Cancer cells seem very intelligent as they use DNA in distorted ways. Free will allows humans to be very evil, if they wish.

dhw: Bad events = evil. Back to your bolded statement above: Do you believe some bacteria and some viruses were programmed to kill us, or did your God give them the freedom to do so?

Definitely no. Those bugs were fine as long as they were living in their own safe place. The bacteria in the colon are just very helpful, unless they leak outside the colon. Viruses must invade your body to cause trouble.


DAVID: What you want is a Garden of Eden now. You can't have it. You must live with tradeoffs that necessarily exist. I lead a happy life. I guess you don't.

dhw: I’m afraid the fact that you lead a happy life (and so do I) does not explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would create evil. Stop dodging.

God did not directly create evil. Free-will humans do that; all so-called bad bugs become that only if they get in the wrong places. Being aware of His creation's potential, He provided safeguard mechanisms documented here.


dhw: Not being all-knowing is not the same as “unknowing”....A God who invents “free-wheeling” life which initially is “good” should not be blamed for consequences he did not foresee. It is precisely your insistence on his all-knowingness that makes him “guilty”: your all-knowing, all-powerful God would only create what he wanted to create, and therefore he wanted to create evil.

DAVID: So a lack of knowledge exonerates your God from all the evils He creates? Preposterous.

dhw: I’m always amazed at your eagerness to blame your God – once called “perfect” by you – for creating all evil. Fine. Your solution to the problem of theodicy is now clear: God created evil because he wanted to create evil. But on the other hand, apparently evil is so rare that we should ignore it, because...what? God is all-good?

You did not answer for your God's ignorance, stated above, did you?


dhw: But maybe you're right. Maybe he did want to create evil. After all, one can argue that good can only be appreciated if we have bad as well, and death is essential if there is to be room enough for new life, and why should God care about the suffering involved? That would certainly explain non-intervention. Then you can have your all-powerful God who deliberately creates evil. He may or may not know all the future details (human free will could suggest he doesn't), but not caring is not consistent with our concept of “all-good”. So this will strengthen the view of a deistic watcher (if he’s there) who enjoys creating and who watches with interest – callously at best, sadistically at worst.

DAVID: Interesting summary sort of from the bright side. Your God and my God produced the same system of evolution.

dhw: I would not regard a God who deliberately created evil, and was indifferent to the sufferings he caused, as being “from the bright side”. In none of my theories do my versions of God produce the same system as yours: you have him deliberately designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose. This is never the case in any of my alternatives.

I don't see your conclusion as valid. Both of our Gods created the same evolitionary process with a 99.9% loss rate.


DAVID: Mine knew exactly what He was doing…

Yes, yours knew he was using a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to produce what you believe was his one and only goal...

DAVID: ...and yours experimented with no goal in sight. Makes us a lucky result.

dhw: How many more times must I remind you that in the first theory the goal of his experiments is to design a being like himself, while in the other two theories his goal is to do precisely what you are certain he does: to enjoy creating and to create things he will be interested in, including all the new ideas he or his creations might produce. We are not a lucky result in the first two theories, and even in the third (a free-for-all) he could have done a dabble if he wanted to. But all these theories are based on the the thory that there is a God. If there isn’t, then ALL life is a lucky result.

Your wobbly theories produce the same evolution with 99.9% loss.


DAVID: Mine knew of problems and produced safeguard systems of editing. How did your God produce those same edits, if not knowing consequences as He bumbled along?

dhw: I'm not concerned with his so-called safeguards, because if he and they exist, they could have been inserted when he became conscious of the damage he had done, and in any case they were woefully inadequate, since the diseases and other evils he created are still rampant, and the problem of theodicy is concerned with the evil that exists, not with the good or with safeguards.

I've bolded the overt use of propaganda, in which the repetition creates a 'truth'. The definition of rampant is: "Extending unchecked; unrestrained. Occurring without restraint and frequently, widely, or menacingly; rife." Nothing like that exists in real life. Your use is overblown.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, June 21, 2023, 09:04 (282 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Do you believe some bacteria and some viruses were programmed to kill us, or did your God give them the freedom to do so?

DAVID: Definitely no. Those bugs were fine as long as they were living in their own safe place. The bacteria in the colon are just very helpful, unless they leak outside the colon. Viruses must invade your body to cause trouble.

Of course bad viruses must invade the body – I didn’t think they did their dirty work by telepathy. I’d have thought the same would apply to many of the bad bacteria which do so much damage. And I’d have thought they all survived precisely by invading our bodies and attacking our goodies, and providing themselves with enough energy to stay alive. And both bacteria and viruses seem to be able to work out ways of defying whatever means we invent to kill them. As regards my question, I’m not sure what your “no” refers to. Your all-knowing God knew the bugs would kill us. If he didn’t programme them to do so, he must have left them free to do so.

DAVID: What you want is a Garden of Eden now. You can't have it. You must live with tradeoffs that necessarily exist. I lead a happy life. I guess you don't.

dhw: I’m afraid the fact that you lead a happy life (and so do I) does not explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would create evil. Stop dodging.

DAVID: God did not directly create evil. Free-will humans do that; all so-called bad bugs become that only if they get in the wrong places.

If he created bugs and humans and he knew they would do evil, then he is to blame, as you have made clear in the following exchange:

dhw: your all-knowing, all-powerful God would only create what he wanted to create, and therefore he wanted to create evil.

DAVID: So a lack of knowledge exonerates your God from all the evils He creates? Preposterous.

If it is preposterous to “exonerate” him, and he creates the evils, you are blaming him for creating the evils.

DAVID: Being aware of His creation's potential, He provided safeguard mechanisms documented here.

dhw: I'm not concerned with his so-called safeguards, because if he and they exist, they could have been inserted when he became conscious of the damage he had done, and in any case they were woefully inadequate, since the diseases and other evils he created are still rampant, and the problem of theodicy is concerned with the evil that exists, not with the good or with safeguards. (David's bold)

DAVID: I've bolded the overt use of propaganda, in which the repetition creates a 'truth'. The definition of rampant is: "Extending unchecked; unrestrained. Occurring without restraint and frequently, widely, or menacingly; rife." Nothing like that exists in real life. Your use is overblown.

Now what are you saying? Evil is not rampant, and so you can exonerate your God from all the evils he created? Purely out of interest, the cancer figures I gave before were out of date. Just under 10 million died from it in 2020 (no doubt more since then). As a result of human evil, which according to you, your God knew would happen, there are currently 89.3 million refugees (including 36.5 million children) fleeing from evil of one kind or another. Just two examples of the “evil” your God knew would happen. Even if you don’t think that qualifies to be called “rampant”, you are still blaming your God for it. And you may be right.

DAVID: Your God and my God produced the same system of evolution.

dhw: In none of my theories do my versions of God produce the same system as yours: you have him deliberately designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose. This is never the case in any of my alternatives.

DAVID: I don't see your conclusion as valid. Both of our Gods created the same evolitionary process with a 99.9% loss rate.

In your interpretation, the 99.9% were mistakes (which once you even called "failed experiments"), because they had nothing to do with your God’s one and only purpose – hence your description of his system as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. In mine, they were successful experiments as he tried out new ideas, or watched his invention produce its own new ideas. The latter is illustrated beautifully by your comment on the following:

Fungal spore defense

DAVID: The amazing battles continue. It is still a dog-eat-dog world with each side capable of adapting.

This sums up the world of good and evil. Your God does not intervene. So maybe this free-for-all battle for survival, with its vast range of variations, adaptations, innovations, comings and goings, goods and bads, was his purpose right from the start.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 21, 2023, 15:52 (281 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Do you believe some bacteria and some viruses were programmed to kill us, or did your God give them the freedom to do so?

DAVID: Definitely no. Those bugs were fine as long as they were living in their own safe place. The bacteria in the colon are just very helpful, unless they leak outside the colon. Viruses must invade your body to cause trouble.

dhw: Of course bad viruses must invade the body – I didn’t think they did their dirty work by telepathy. I’d have thought the same would apply to many of the bad bacteria which do so much damage. And I’d have thought they all survived precisely by invading our bodies and attacking our goodies, and providing themselves with enough energy to stay alive. And both bacteria and viruses seem to be able to work out ways of defying whatever means we invent to kill them. As regards my question, I’m not sure what your “no” refers to. Your all-knowing God knew the bugs would kill us. If he didn’t programme them to do so, he must have left them free to do so.

The no meant God did not program them specifically to kill us. They have the freedom to attack us.


DAVID: What you want is a Garden of Eden now. You can't have it. You must live with tradeoffs that necessarily exist. I lead a happy life. I guess you don't.

dhw: I’m afraid the fact that you lead a happy life (and so do I) does not explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would create evil. Stop dodging.

DAVID: God did not directly create evil. Free-will humans do that; all so-called bad bugs become that only if they get in the wrong places.

dhw: If he created bugs and humans and he knew they would do evil, then he is to blame, as you have made clear in the following exchange:

dhw: your all-knowing, all-powerful God would only create what he wanted to create, and therefore he wanted to create evil.

DAVID: So a lack of knowledge exonerates your God from all the evils He creates? Preposterous.

dhw: If it is preposterous to “exonerate” him, and he creates the evils, you are blaming him for creating the evils.

You admit your God created evils.


DAVID: Being aware of His creation's potential, He provided safeguard mechanisms documented here.

dhw: I'm not concerned with his so-called safeguards, because if he and they exist, they could have been inserted when he became conscious of the damage he had done, and in any case they were woefully inadequate, since the diseases and other evils he created are still rampant, and the problem of theodicy is concerned with the evil that exists, not with the good or with safeguards. (David's bold)

DAVID: I've bolded the overt use of propaganda, in which the repetition creates a 'truth'. The definition of rampant is: "Extending unchecked; unrestrained. Occurring without restraint and frequently, widely, or menacingly; rife." Nothing like that exists in real life. Your use is overblown.

dhw: Now what are you saying? Evil is not rampant, and so you can exonerate your God from all the evils he created? Purely out of interest, the cancer figures I gave before were out of date. Just under 10 million died from it in 2020 (no doubt more since then). As a result of human evil, which according to you, your God knew would happen, there are currently 89.3 million refugees (including 36.5 million children) fleeing from evil of one kind or another. Just two examples of the “evil” your God knew would happen. Even if you don’t think that qualifies to be called “rampant”, you are still blaming your God for it. And you may be right.

Not rampant. What is the percentage of 130 million in a population of over eight billion?


DAVID: Your God and my God produced the same system of evolution.

dhw: In none of my theories do my versions of God produce the same system as yours: you have him deliberately designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose. This is never the case in any of my alternatives.

DAVID: I don't see your conclusion as valid. Both of our Gods created the same evolitionary process with a 99.9% loss rate.

dhw: In your interpretation, the 99.9% were mistakes (which once you even called "failed experiments"), because they had nothing to do with your God’s one and only purpose – hence your description of his system as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. In mine, they were successful experiments as he tried out new ideas, or watched his invention produce its own new ideas. The latter is illustrated beautifully by your comment on the following:

A non-answer as usual. Your God produced the same 99.9% loss in evolution, didn't He.


Fungal spore defense

DAVID: The amazing battles continue. It is still a dog-eat-dog world with each side capable of adapting.

dhw: This sums up the world of good and evil. Your God does not intervene. So maybe this free-for-all battle for survival, with its vast range of variations, adaptations, innovations, comings and goings, goods and bads, was his purpose right from the start.

I think so.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, June 22, 2023, 07:48 (281 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Do you believe some bacteria and some viruses were programmed to kill us, or did your God give them the freedom to do so?

DAVID: Definitely no. […]

dhw: […] I’m not sure what your “no” refers to. Your all-knowing God knew the bugs would kill us. If he didn’t programme them to do so, he must have left them free to do so.

DAVID: The no meant God did not program them specifically to kill us. They have the freedom to attack us.

Thank you. Earlier this week, you wrote: “As for bacteria and viruses with free will, it doesn’t exist.” Now we have your God creating bacteria, viruses and humans, giving them the freedom to kill us, knowing that some of them will do so, but as there is more good than evil, we should ignore the problem of theodicy!

DAVID: What you want is a Garden of Eden now. You can't have it. You must live with tradeoffs that necessarily exist. I lead a happy life. I guess you don't.

dhw: I’m afraid the fact that you lead a happy life (and so do I) does not explain why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would create evil. Stop dodging.

dhw: […] your all-knowing, all-powerful God would only create what he wanted to create, and therefore he wanted to create evil.

DAVID: So a lack of knowledge exonerates your God from all the evils He creates? Preposterous.

dhw: If it is preposterous to “exonerate” him, and he creates the evils, you are blaming him for creating the evils.

DAVID: You admit your God created evils.

Once more: Evil exists, and we are trying to solve the problem of why a supposedly all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, the Creator of all things, would have created it. Your theory is that he wanted it, is fully to blame for it, but as it’s only a minor blip (you even argue later that 10 million cancer victims and 89 million refugees from human evil do not justify the epithet “rampant”), we shouldn’t even think about it. I offer alternatives, which include the proposal that he didn’t know initially what damage his experiments, inventions and discoveries might do (the Walter Raleigh “syndrome”). But you insist that he is 100% guilty. Maybe you’re right. But that conflicts with the view that your God is all-good.

DAVID: Your God and my God produced the same system of evolution.

dhw: In none of my theories do my versions of God produce the same system as yours: you have him deliberately designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose. This is never the case in any of my alternatives.

DAVID: I don't see your conclusion as valid. Both of our Gods created the same evolitionary process with a 99.9% loss rate.

dhw: In your interpretation, the 99.9% were mistakes (which once you even called "failed experiments"), because they had nothing to do with your God’s one and only purpose – hence your description of his system as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. In mine, they were successful experiments as he tried out new ideas, or watched his invention produce its own new ideas. […]

DAVID: A non-answer as usual. Your God produced the same 99.9% loss in evolution, didn't He.

It’s a complete answer! You say they were mistakes, and I say they were successful experiments by himself or by his inventions! The next exchange illustrates the point:

Fungal spore defense

DAVID: The amazing battles continue. It is still a dog-eat-dog world with each side capable of adapting.

dhw: This sums up the world of good and evil. Your God does not intervene. So maybe this free-for-all battle for survival, with its vast range of variations, adaptations, innovations, comings and goings, goods and bads, was his purpose right from the start.

DAVID: I think so.

Thank you for suddenly agreeing that your God’s purpose might have been a free-for-all battle for survival. It makes far more sense than your previous belief that his purpose was to create humans and therefore he created 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with humans. Now perhaps you might tell us why you think your all-purposeful God might have wanted to create a free-for-all battle for survival.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 22, 2023, 22:02 (280 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: So a lack of knowledge exonerates your God from all the evils He creates? Preposterous.

dhw: If it is preposterous to “exonerate” him, and he creates the evils, you are blaming him for creating the evils.

DAVID: You admit your God created evils.

dhw: Once more: Evil exists, and we are trying to solve the problem of why a supposedly all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, the Creator of all things, would have created it. Your theory is that he wanted it, is fully to blame for it, but as it’s only a minor blip (you even argue later that 10 million cancer victims and 89 million refugees from human evil do not justify the epithet “rampant”), we shouldn’t even think about it. I offer alternatives, which include the proposal that he didn’t know initially what damage his experiments, inventions and discoveries might do (the Walter Raleigh “syndrome”). But you insist that he is 100% guilty. Maybe you’re right. But that conflicts with the view that your God is all-good.

DAVID: Your God and my God produced the same system of evolution.

dhw: In none of my theories do my versions of God produce the same system as yours: you have him deliberately designing 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his one and only purpose. This is never the case in any of my alternatives.

DAVID: I don't see your conclusion as valid. Both of our Gods created the same evolitionary process with a 99.9% loss rate.

dhw: In your interpretation, the 99.9% were mistakes (which once you even called "failed experiments"), because they had nothing to do with your God’s one and only purpose – hence your description of his system as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. In mine, they were successful experiments as he tried out new ideas, or watched his invention produce its own new ideas. […]

DAVID: A non-answer as usual. Your God produced the same 99.9% loss in evolution, didn't He.

dhw; It’s a complete answer! You say they were mistakes, and I say they were successful experiments by himself or by his inventions!

Your God's experiments were 99.9% failures!!! That can't be ignored. We see only one evolutionary process.

dhw: The next exchange illustrates the point:

Fungal spore defense

DAVID: The amazing battles continue. It is still a dog-eat-dog world with each side capable of adapting.

dhw: This sums up the world of good and evil. Your God does not intervene. So maybe this free-for-all battle for survival, with its vast range of variations, adaptations, innovations, comings and goings, goods and bads, was his purpose right from the start.

DAVID: I think so.

dhw: Thank you for suddenly agreeing that your God’s purpose might have been a free-for-all battle for survival. It makes far more sense than your previous belief that his purpose was to create humans and therefore he created 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with humans. Now perhaps you might tell us why you think your all-purposeful God might have wanted to create a free-for-all battle for survival.

I've always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world. One purpose, another was humans.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, June 23, 2023, 11:46 (279 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: So a lack of knowledge exonerates your God from all the evils He creates? Preposterous.

dhw: If it is preposterous to “exonerate” him, and he creates the evils, you are blaming him for creating the evils.

DAVID: You admit your God created evils.

dhw: Once more: Evil exists, and we are trying to solve the problem of why a supposedly all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful God, the Creator of all things, would have created it. Your theory is that he wanted it, is fully to blame for it, but as it’s only a minor blip (you even argue later that 10 million cancer victims and 89 million refugees from human evil do not justify the epithet “rampant”), we shouldn’t even think about it. I offer alternatives, which include the proposal that he didn’t know initially what damage his experiments, inventions and discoveries might do (the Walter Raleigh “syndrome”). But you insist that he is 100% guilty. Maybe you’re right. But that conflicts with the view that your God is all-good.

Perhaps understandably, you have now dropped the subject, but it casts its shadow again over the new purpose you attribute to your God at the end of this post. The dog-eat-dog metaphor applies to most forms of evil - in nature as in human affairs - which result from self-interest.

DAVID: Your God produced the same 99.9% loss in evolution, didn't He.

dhw: [...] You say they were mistakes, and I say they were successful experiments by himself or by his inventions!

DAVID: Your God's experiments were 99.9% failures!!! That can't be ignored. We see only one evolutionary process.

They were not God's failures (if he exists)! This is made abundantly clear by the next exchange:

DAVID: The amazing battles continue. It is still a dog-eat-dog world with each side capable of adapting.

dhw: This sums up the world of good and evil. Your God does not intervene. So maybe this free-for-all battle for survival, with its vast range of variations, adaptations, innovations, comings and goings, goods and bads, was his purpose right from the start.[…]

DAVID: […] I've always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world. One purpose, another was humans.

You have always acknowledged the dog-eat-dog element of life’s history. But you have always claimed that the creation of humans plus food was his only purpose. That is why you consider the 99% of past species to have been failures – because they did not lead to humans plus food. But if his purpose was to create a dog-eat-dog world, the 99% of losses were the direct consequence of the free-for-all he intended to create from the beginning. Whether he designed the 99% directly, or gave them the ability to design themselves, makes no difference. Dog-eat-dog, producing an ever changing variety of “dogs”, was the purpose, and so every dog was relevant to that purpose. Now ask yourself what was the purpose of dog-eat-dog, if it was not to provide enjoyment of creation and interest in the ever changing products of creation.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, June 23, 2023, 18:16 (279 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Perhaps understandably, you have now dropped the subject, but it casts its shadow again over the new purpose you attribute to your God at the end of this post. The dog-eat-dog metaphor applies to most forms of evil - in nature as in human affairs - which result from self-interest.

Evil is a tiny part of the dog-eat-dog world God gave us. You prefer to think of it as a battle for survivability which is a correct view, but not as Darwin viewed it, a driver of evolution. Everyone must eat, just like your 'humans plus food' pejorative, which shows us the emptiness of your approach. Eating constantly is imperative.

DAVID: Your God produced the same 99.9% loss in evolution, didn't He.

dhw: [...] You say they were mistakes, and I say they were successful experiments by himself or by his inventions!

DAVID: Your God's experiments were 99.9% failures!!! That can't be ignored. We see only one evolutionary process.

They were not God's failures (if he exists)! This is made abundantly clear by the next exchange:

DAVID: The amazing battles continue. It is still a dog-eat-dog world with each side capable of adapting.

dhw: This sums up the world of good and evil. Your God does not intervene. So maybe this free-for-all battle for survival, with its vast range of variations, adaptations, innovations, comings and goings, goods and bads, was his purpose right from the start.[…]

DAVID: […] I've always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world. One purpose, another was humans.

dhw: You have always acknowledged the dog-eat-dog element of life’s history. But you have always claimed that the creation of humans plus food was his only purpose. That is why you consider the 99% of past species to have been failures – because they did not lead to humans plus food.

A totally an incorrect interpretation. The 99.9% loss is simply a part of the culling nature of evolution. What survived led to humans plus food as a necessary endpoint.

dhw: But if his purpose was to create a dog-eat-dog world, the 99% of losses were the direct consequence of the free-for-all he intended to create from the beginning. Whether he designed the 99% directly, or gave them the ability to design themselves, makes no difference. Dog-eat-dog, producing an ever changing variety of “dogs”, was the purpose, and so every dog was relevant to that purpose. Now ask yourself what was the purpose of dog-eat-dog, if it was not to provide enjoyment of creation and interest in the ever changing products of creation.

Totally misses the point. Whether animal or vegetable, all must have constant nutrition, which creates constant competition.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, June 28, 2023, 17:19 (274 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evil is a tiny part of the dog-eat-dog world God gave us.

You continue to minimize the extent of evil in your desperate attempt to avoid the question of why an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God would have produced it.

DAVID: You prefer to think of it as a battle for survivability which is a correct view, but not as Darwin viewed it, a driver of evolution. Everyone must eat, just like your 'humans plus food' pejorative, which shows us the emptiness of your approach. Eating constantly is imperative.

Do you honestly believe I am not aware that everyone must eat? The “pejorative” concerns your illogical theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he proceeded to design 99% of species and foods that had no connection with us. Stop dodging! (See also the “Miscellany” thread.) And of course the battle for survival drives evolution: every species has evolved different ways of adapting to or exploiting new conditions in order to survive! Those that cannot do so become extinct.

DAVID: […] I've always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world. One purpose, another was humans.

dhw: You have always acknowledged the dog-eat-dog element of life’s history. But you have always claimed that the creation of humans plus food was his only purpose. That is why you consider the 99% of past species to have been failures – because they did not lead to humans plus food.

DAVID: A totally an incorrect interpretation. The 99.9% loss is simply a part of the culling nature of evolution. What survived led to humans plus food as a necessary endpoint.

Please explain why you consider the 99% to have been failures, and why you consider your God’s method of achieving his one and only goal to have been messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

dhw: But if his purpose was to create a dog-eat-dog world, the 99% of losses were the direct consequence of the free-for-all he intended to create from the beginning. Whether he designed the 99% directly, or gave them the ability to design themselves, makes no difference. Dog-eat-dog, producing an ever changing variety of “dogs”, was the purpose, and so every dog was relevant to that purpose. Now ask yourself what was the purpose of dog-eat-dog, if it was not to provide enjoyment of creation and interest in the ever changing products of creation.

DAVID: Totally misses the point. Whether animal or vegetable, all must have constant nutrition, which creates constant competition.

Correct, and blindingly obvious. And if God exists, I think we can assume that it was his intention to create the dog-eat-dog battle for survival, as above. You have now told us that he had two purposes: to create the battle, and to create humans plus food. So please tell us why you think he wanted to create a battle which would result in the loss of 99 out of 100 species, bearing in mind that these had no connection with his other purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, June 28, 2023, 18:14 (274 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Evil is a tiny part of the dog-eat-dog world God gave us.

dhw: You continue to minimize the extent of evil in your desperate attempt to avoid the question of why an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God would have produced it.

I'm tired of explaining God knew evil would appear with human free will. It is human responsibility to deal with it. It is a tradeoff in that it makes us more complete and enhanced humans. That God knew His systems of life could not fully control molecular mechanical mistakes is shown by His putting in editing systems. God also know this is the only system that would work.


DAVID: You prefer to think of it as a battle for survivability which is a correct view, but not as Darwin viewed it, a driver of evolution. Everyone must eat, just like your 'humans plus food' pejorative, which shows us the emptiness of your approach. Eating constantly is imperative.

dhw: Do you honestly believe I am not aware that everyone must eat? The “pejorative” concerns your illogical theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he proceeded to design 99% of species and foods that had no connection with us. Stop dodging! (See also the “Miscellany” thread.) And of course the battle for survival drives evolution: every species has evolved different ways of adapting to or exploiting new conditions in order to survive! Those that cannot do so become extinct.

Which is what happened to 99.9% as a natural result. That God decided to evolve us was His decision. I cannot tell you His reasoning.


dhw: Please explain why you consider the 99% to have been failures, and why you consider your God’s method of achieving his one and only goal to have been messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

It is obviously not direct creation, which is efficient. Failure to survive is a failure to survive.


dhw: But if his purpose was to create a dog-eat-dog world, the 99% of losses were the direct consequence of the free-for-all he intended to create from the beginning. Whether he designed the 99% directly, or gave them the ability to design themselves, makes no difference. Dog-eat-dog, producing an ever changing variety of “dogs”, was the purpose, and so every dog was relevant to that purpose. Now ask yourself what was the purpose of dog-eat-dog, if it was not to provide enjoyment of creation and interest in the ever changing products of creation.

DAVID: Totally misses the point. Whether animal or vegetable, all must have constant nutrition, which creates constant competition.

dhw: Correct, and blindingly obvious. And if God exists, I think we can assume that it was his intention to create the dog-eat-dog battle for survival, as above. You have now told us that he had two purposes: to create the battle, and to create humans plus food. So please tell us why you think he wanted to create a battle which would result in the loss of 99 out of 100 species, bearing in mind that these had no connection with his other purpose.

You keep asking the same unanswerable question, His choice of evolving us. No point in asking if there is no answer.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, June 29, 2023, 13:33 (273 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evil is a tiny part of the dog-eat-dog world God gave us.

dhw: You continue to minimize the extent of evil in your desperate attempt to avoid the question of why an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God would have produced it.

DAVID: I'm tired of explaining God knew evil would appear with human free will. It is human responsibility to deal with it. It is a tradeoff in that it makes us more complete and enhanced humans. That God knew His systems of life could not fully control molecular mechanical mistakes is shown by His putting in editing systems. God also know this is the only system that would work.

You don’t need to explain that God knew evil would appear. That only reinforces the mystery of theodicy, which asks why an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God created evil. Your previous answer has been that the proportion of evil to good is so minuscule that we should ignore the question. Now your answer is that theft, rape, murder, genocide etc. make us more complete and enhanced, that he was powerless to prevent mistakes, and he was unable to devise a system which would not produce natural catastrophes, plus murderous bacteria and viruses (but he tried hard, though often unsuccessfully, to provide remedies in advance).

DAVID: You prefer to think of it as a battle for survivability which is a correct view, but not as Darwin viewed it, a driver of evolution. Everyone must eat, just like your 'humans plus food' pejorative, which shows us the emptiness of your approach. Eating constantly is imperative.

dhw: Do you honestly believe I am not aware that everyone must eat? The “pejorative” concerns your illogical theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he proceeded to design 99% of species and foods that had no connection with us. Stop dodging! (See also the “Miscellany” thread.) And of course the battle for survival drives evolution: every species has evolved different ways of adapting to or exploiting new conditions in order to survive! Those that cannot do so become extinct.

DAVID: Which is what happened to 99.9% as a natural result. That God decided to evolve us was His decision. I cannot tell you His reasoning.

Summary: I am aware that everyone must eat. The battle for survival does drive evolution. And you have no idea why your God chose to specially design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his purpose of designing us and our food, which is why you ridicule his method of design as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

DAVID: I’ve always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world. One purpose, another was humans. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: But if his purpose was to create a dog-eat-dog world, the 99% of losses were the direct consequence of the free-for-all he intended to create from the beginning. Whether he designed the 99% directly, or gave them the ability to design themselves, makes no difference. Dog-eat-dog, producing an ever changing variety of “dogs”, was the purpose, and so every dog was relevant to that purpose. Now ask yourself what was the purpose of dog-eat-dog, if it was not to provide enjoyment of creation and interest in the ever changing products of creation.

DAVID: Totally misses the point. Whether animal or vegetable, all must have constant nutrition, which creates constant competition.

dhw: Correct, and blindingly obvious. And if God exists, I think we can assume that it was his intention to create the dog-eat-dog battle for survival, as above. You have now told us that he had two purposes: to create the battle, and to create humans plus food. So please tell us why you think he wanted to create a battle which would result in the loss of 99 out of 100 species, bearing in mind that these had no connection with his other purpose.

DAVID: You keep asking the same unanswerable question, His choice of evolving us. No point in asking if there is no answer.

That is not the question I’m asking. If God exists, I have no difficulty accepting that he chose evolution as his method of creating all forms of life including our own. But you have now extended your range of his purposes from the single one (us and our food) to a battle for survival in which 99% of species become extinct. And I have asked why you think he wanted to create such a battle in the first place. My suggestion is that he might have done so because he enjoys creating and watching the ever changing products of his creation. What is your suggestion?

Edited from “bacterial gut help

DAVID: God cannot control free-living organisms.

dhw: I note that your all-powerful God is now powerless to control free-living organisms. May I suggest that instead of being powerless, he deliberately gave organisms of all kinds the freedom to work out their own means of survival in the dog-eat-dog free-for-all you have described […].

DAVID: I agree.

A sensational new development in your theory: you agree that your God created a free-for-all. So wouldn’t that explain the 99% of organisms that had no connection with humans? (See also under “More miscellany".)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 29, 2023, 15:52 (273 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You don’t need to explain that God knew evil would appear. That only reinforces the mystery of theodicy, which asks why an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God created evil. Your previous answer has been that the proportion of evil to good is so minuscule that we should ignore the question. Now your answer is that theft, rape, murder, genocide etc. make us more complete and enhanced, that he was powerless to prevent mistakes, and he was unable to devise a system which would not produce natural catastrophes, plus murderous bacteria and viruses (but he tried hard, though often unsuccessfully, to provide remedies in advance).

[/b]

The bold is a great distortion of the reality of cellular biochemistry: trillions of reactions per second are normal. Then one tiny miscue causes trouble, unless blocked by one of God's editing systems. This is the only system God found that would work.


DAVID: You prefer to think of it as a battle for survivability which is a correct view, but not as Darwin viewed it, a driver of evolution. Everyone must eat, just like your 'humans plus food' pejorative, which shows us the emptiness of your approach. Eating constantly is imperative.

dhw: Do you honestly believe I am not aware that everyone must eat? The “pejorative” concerns your illogical theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he proceeded to design 99% of species and foods that had no connection with us. Stop dodging! (See also the “Miscellany” thread.) And of course the battle for survival drives evolution: every species has evolved different ways of adapting to or exploiting new conditions in order to survive! Those that cannot do so become extinct.

DAVID: Which is what happened to 99.9% as a natural result. That God decided to evolve us was His decision. I cannot tell you His reasoning.

dhw: Summary: I am aware that everyone must eat. The battle for survival does drive evolution. And you have no idea why your God chose to specially design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his purpose of designing us and our food, which is why you ridicule his method of design as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

God purposely used an evolutionary process for His own reasons. I can't ever tell you why.


DAVID: I’ve always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world. One purpose, another was humans. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: But if his purpose was to create a dog-eat-dog world, the 99% of losses were the direct consequence of the free-for-all he intended to create from the beginning. Whether he designed the 99% directly, or gave them the ability to design themselves, makes no difference. Dog-eat-dog, producing an ever changing variety of “dogs”, was the purpose, and so every dog was relevant to that purpose. Now ask yourself what was the purpose of dog-eat-dog, if it was not to provide enjoyment of creation and interest in the ever changing products of creation.

DAVID: Totally misses the point. Whether animal or vegetable, all must have constant nutrition, which creates constant competition.

dhw: Correct, and blindingly obvious. And if God exists, I think we can assume that it was his intention to create the dog-eat-dog battle for survival, as above. You have now told us that he had two purposes: to create the battle, and to create humans plus food. So please tell us why you think he wanted to create a battle which would result in the loss of 99 out of 100 species, bearing in mind that these had no connection with his other purpose.

DAVID: You keep asking the same unanswerable question, His choice of evolving us. No point in asking if there is no answer.

dhw: That is not the question I’m asking. If God exists, I have no difficulty accepting that he chose evolution as his method of creating all forms of life including our own. But you have now extended your range of his purposes from the single one (us and our food) to a battle for survival in which 99% of species become extinct. And I have asked why you think he wanted to create such a battle in the first place. My suggestion is that he might have done so because he enjoys creating and watching the ever changing products of his creation. What is your suggestion?

Ever-changing? As God is the all-knowing designer of all complex biochemistry, He always knows the results. You invent a form of God I don't recognize.


Edited from “bacterial gut help

DAVID: God cannot control free-living organisms.

dhw: I note that your all-powerful God is now powerless to control free-living organisms. May I suggest that instead of being powerless, he deliberately gave organisms of all kinds the freedom to work out their own means of survival in the dog-eat-dog free-for-all you have described […].

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: A sensational new development in your theory: you agree that your God created a free-for-all. So wouldn’t that explain the 99% of organisms that had no connection with humans? (See also under “More miscellany".)

The 0.1% that survived helped to produce humans. That is how evolution works.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, June 30, 2023, 10:51 (273 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy
dhw: Now your answer is that theft, rape, murder, genocide etc. make us more complete and enhanced, that he was powerless to prevent mistakes, and he was unable to devise a system which would not produce natural catastrophes, plus murderous bacteria and viruses (but he tried hard, though often unsuccessfully, to provide remedies in advance).

DAVID: The bold is a great distortion of the reality of cellular biochemistry: trillions of reactions per second are normal. Then one tiny miscue causes trouble, unless blocked by one of God's editing systems. This is the only system God found that would work.

You seem desperate to confine evil to tiny “miscues” in the biochemistry! What about the rest? As for the bold, it is clear that your God’s “editing” doesn’t always work. So much for his all-powerfulness.

David's theory of evolution

dhw: Summary: I am aware that everyone must eat. The battle for survival does drive evolution. And you have no idea why your God chose to specially design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his purpose of designing us and our food, which is why you ridicule his method of design as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

DAVID: God purposely used an evolutionary process for His own reasons. I can't ever tell you why.

Thank you for confirming that you can find no sense in your theory concerning your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving what you believe to have been his purpose.

dhw: you have now extended your range of his purposes from the single one (us and our food) to a battle for survival in which 99% of species become extinct. And I have asked why you think he wanted to create such a battle in the first place. My suggestion is that he might have done so because he enjoys creating and watching the ever changing products of his creation. What is your suggestion?

DAVID: Ever-changing? As God is the all-knowing designer of all complex biochemistry, He always knows the results. You invent a form of God I don't recognize.

The ever-changing products are the different species, 99% of which have disappeared.
As usual, you dodge the question. Once more: Why do you think he wanted to create a battle in the first place? I have offered a suggestion and asked for yours, so please tell us yours.

Edited from “bacterial gut help

DAVID: God cannot control free-living organisms.

dhw: I note that your all-powerful God is now powerless to control free-living organisms. May I suggest that instead of being powerless, he deliberately gave organisms of all kinds the freedom to work out their own means of survival in the dog-eat-dog free-for-all you have described […].

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: A sensational new development in your theory: you agree that your God created a free-for-all. So wouldn’t that explain the 99% of organisms that had no connection with humans? (See also under “More miscellany".)

DAVID: The 0.1% that survived helped to produce humans. That is how evolution works.

That is indeed how evolution worked. And I’m delighted that you have accepted the idea that it is a free-for-all, which means your God did not deliberately design 99% of life forms that were irrelevant to what you believe to have been his goal.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, June 30, 2023, 16:42 (272 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy
dhw: Now your answer is that theft, rape, murder, genocide etc. make us more complete and enhanced, that he was powerless to prevent mistakes, and he was unable to devise a system which would not produce natural catastrophes, plus murderous bacteria and viruses (but he tried hard, though often unsuccessfully, to provide remedies in advance).

DAVID: The bold is a great distortion of the reality of cellular biochemistry: trillions of reactions per second are normal. Then one tiny miscue causes trouble, unless blocked by one of God's editing systems. This is the only system God found that would work.

dhw: You seem desperate to confine evil to tiny “miscues” in the biochemistry! What about the rest? As for the bold, it is clear that your God’s “editing” doesn’t always work. So much for his all-powerfulness.

You don't realize His editing worked 99% of the time. You just glorify the rare mistake. Your god had the same results, didn't He?


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: God purposely used an evolutionary process for His own reasons. I can't ever tell you why.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that you can find no sense in your theory concerning your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving what you believe to have been his purpose.

It makes perfect sense to me that God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.


dhw: you have now extended your range of his purposes from the single one (us and our food) to a battle for survival in which 99% of species become extinct. And I have asked why you think he wanted to create such a battle in the first place. My suggestion is that he might have done so because he enjoys creating and watching the ever changing products of his creation. What is your suggestion?

DAVID: Ever-changing? As God is the all-knowing designer of all complex biochemistry, He always knows the results. You invent a form of God I don't recognize.

dhw: The ever-changing products are the different species, 99% of which have disappeared.
As usual, you dodge the question. Once more: Why do you think he wanted to create a battle in the first place? I have offered a suggestion and asked for yours, so please tell us yours.

The battle is a natural product of life's necessity, constant food supply. Unless God supplied constant manna, it can't work any other way. Survival became a definite issue for each species.


Edited from “bacterial gut help

DAVID: God cannot control free-living organisms.

dhw: I note that your all-powerful God is now powerless to control free-living organisms. May I suggest that instead of being powerless, he deliberately gave organisms of all kinds the freedom to work out their own means of survival in the dog-eat-dog free-for-all you have described […].

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: A sensational new development in your theory: you agree that your God created a free-for-all. So wouldn’t that explain the 99% of organisms that had no connection with humans? (See also under “More miscellany".)

DAVID: The 0.1% that survived helped to produce humans. That is how evolution works.

dhw: That is indeed how evolution worked. And I’m delighted that you have accepted the idea that it is a free-for-all, which means your God did not deliberately design 99% of life forms that were irrelevant to what you believe to have been his goal.

No!!! The free-for-all is only among pre-designed species and is a free-for-all for survival.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, July 01, 2023, 08:42 (272 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

dhw: Now your answer is that theft, rape, murder, genocide etc. make us more complete and enhanced, that he was powerless to prevent mistakes, and he was unable to devise a system which would not produce natural catastrophes, plus murderous bacteria and viruses (but he tried hard, though often unsuccessfully, to provide remedies in advance).

DAVID: The bold is a great distortion of the reality of cellular biochemistry: trillions of reactions per second are normal. Then one tiny miscue causes trouble, unless blocked by one of God's editing systems. This is the only system God found that would work.

dhw: You seem desperate to confine evil to tiny “miscues” in the biochemistry! What about the rest? As for the bold, it is clear that your God’s “editing” doesn’t always work. So much for his all-powerfulness.

DAVID: You don't realize His editing worked 99% of the time. You just glorify the rare mistake. Your god had the same results, didn't He?

And still you desperately try to confine the subject to “miscues” in the biochemistry. I have no idea where you get your 99% figure from, but I do know that millions of people suffer illness and death from the errors, and that is the subject of the discussion. I have now changed the bold to other sorts of evil.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: God purposely used an evolutionary process for His own reasons. I can't ever tell you why.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that you can find no sense in your theory concerning your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving what you believe to have been his purpose.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me that God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

If he exists, of course he chose to evolve all species for his own reasons. But what does not make sense to you is the absurd theory that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing us and our food, he designed 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: I’ve always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world.One purpose, another was humans. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: you have now extended your range of his purposes from the single one (us and our food) to a battle for survival in which 99% of species become extinct. And I have asked why you think he wanted to create such a battle in the first place. My suggestion is that he might have done so because he enjoys creating and watching the ever changing products of his creation. What is your suggestion?

DAVID: The battle is a natural product of life's necessity, constant food supply. Unless God supplied constant manna, it can't work any other way. Survival became a definite issue for each species.

All perfectly logical, but you haven’t answered my question. I’ll explain. Originally you thought his only purpose was to design us and our food. But now you are telling us that he had another purpose: to design lots of other life forms, unconnected with us, which would engage in a dog-eat-dog battle for survival. We can forget about humans. Long before we came on the scene, your God designed all the nice doggies that went round peacefully munching leaves and fruit and flowers and grass, and he also designed all the nasty doggies that went around eating all the nice doggies as well as each other. So please tell us why you think he would have wanted to create all these creatures to fight one another, knowing that most of them would disappear anyway.

Edited from “bacterial gut help”

DAVID: God cannot control free-living organisms.

dhw: I note that your all-powerful God is now powerless to control free-living organisms. May I suggest that instead of being powerless, he deliberately gave organisms of all kinds the freedom to work out their own means of survival in the dog-eat-dog free-for-all you have described […].

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: A sensational new development in your theory: you agree that your God created a free-for-all. So wouldn’t that explain the 99% of organisms that had no connection with humans? (See also under “More miscellany".)

DAVID: The 0.1% that survived helped to produce humans. That is how evolution works.

dhw: That is indeed how evolution worked. And I’m delighted that you have accepted the idea that it is a free-for-all, which means your God did not deliberately design 99% of life forms that were irrelevant to what you believe to have been his goal.

DAVID: No!!! The free-for-all is only among pre-designed species and is a free-for-all for survival.

A sad misunderstanding, as my "means of survival" was supposed to refer to evolutionary innovations. But in that case, we go back to my original question: if your God had a special purpose for specially designing species that would do battle with one another, and if we bear in mind that 99% of them had nothing to do with his other purpose of designing humans, what do you think that special purpose was?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 01, 2023, 15:54 (271 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

dhw: Now your answer is that theft, rape, murder, genocide etc. make us more complete and enhanced, that he was powerless to prevent mistakes, and he was unable to devise a system which would not produce natural catastrophes, plus murderous bacteria and viruses (but he tried hard, though often unsuccessfully, to provide remedies in advance).

DAVID: The bold is a great distortion of the reality of cellular biochemistry: trillions of reactions per second are normal. Then one tiny miscue causes trouble, unless blocked by one of God's editing systems. This is the only system God found that would work.

dhw: You seem desperate to confine evil to tiny “miscues” in the biochemistry! What about the rest? As for the bold, it is clear that your God’s “editing” doesn’t always work. So much for his all-powerfulness.

DAVID: You don't realize His editing worked 99% of the time. You just glorify the rare mistake. Your god had the same results, didn't He?

dhw: And still you desperately try to confine the subject to “miscues” in the biochemistry. I have no idea where you get your 99% figure from, but I do know that millions of people suffer illness and death from the errors, and that is the subject of the discussion. I have now changed the bold to other sorts of evil.

Again, it is proportional. How many in prison for crime compared to 300 million plus not in prison in this country. Again, ignoring your God and His evils.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me that God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

dhw: If he exists, of course he chose to evolve all species for his own reasons. But what does not make sense to you is the absurd theory that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing us and our food, he designed 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us and our food. Stop dodging!

No dodge. Logic. I bolded your agreement!! The evolved bush of life is our food!


DAVID: The battle is a natural product of life's necessity, constant food supply. Unless God supplied constant manna, it can't work any other way. Survival became a definite issue for each species.

dhw: All perfectly logical, but you haven’t answered my question. I’ll explain. Originally you thought his only purpose was to design us and our food. But now you are telling us that he had another purpose: to design lots of other life forms, unconnected with us, which would engage in a dog-eat-dog battle for survival. We can forget about humans. Long before we came on the scene, your God designed all the nice doggies that went round peacefully munching leaves and fruit and flowers and grass, and he also designed all the nasty doggies that went around eating all the nice doggies as well as each other. So please tell us why you think he would have wanted to create all these creatures to fight one another, knowing that most of them would disappear anyway.

Still seeking an answer I don't have. At each stage all have to eat, thus each stage is large.


Edited from “bacterial gut help”

DAVID: The 0.1% that survived helped to produce humans. That is how evolution works.

dhw: That is indeed how evolution worked. And I’m delighted that you have accepted the idea that it is a free-for-all, which means your God did not deliberately design 99% of life forms that were irrelevant to what you believe to have been his goal.

DAVID: No!!! The free-for-all is only among pre-designed species and is a free-for-all for survival.

dhw: A sad misunderstanding, as my "means of survival" was supposed to refer to evolutionary innovations. But in that case, we go back to my original question: if your God had a special purpose for specially designing species that would do battle with one another, and if we bear in mind that 99% of them had nothing to do with his other purpose of designing humans, what do you think that special purpose was?

Survival involves food supply. Large bushes of life supplied food for all at each stage. 99.9% are that food. You recognize the need for food intake, and then belittle its constant necessity for survival.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, July 02, 2023, 11:17 (271 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

dhw: Now your answer is that theft, rape, murder, genocide etc. make us more complete and enhanced, that he was powerless to prevent mistakes, and he was unable to devise a system which would not produce natural catastrophes, plus murderous bacteria and viruses (but he tried hard, though often unsuccessfully, to provide remedies in advance).[…]

DAVID: You don't realize His editing worked 99% of the time. You just glorify the rare mistake. Your god had the same results, didn't He?

dhw: And still you desperately try to confine the subject to “miscues” in the biochemistry. I have no idea where you get your 99% figure from, but I do know that millions of people suffer illness and death from the errors, and that is the subject of the discussion. I have now changed the bold to other sorts of evil.

DAVID: Again, it is proportional. How many in prison for crime compared to 300 million plus not in prison in this country. Again, ignoring your God and His evils.

It is YOU who try to ignore God and his evils by pretending that the evil is minuscule compared to the good!!! Once more, theodicy is concerned with the problem of why a so-called all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would have created evil. The problem is not solved by telling us that evil is outweighed by good!

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me that God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

dhw: If he exists, of course he chose to evolve all species for his own reasons. […] Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodge. Logic. I bolded your agreement!! The evolved bush of life is our food!

Yes, our food evolved from the 1% of past species. What does not make sense, as you well know, is your fixed belief that in order to specially design us and our food, your God specially designed the other 99% which had no connection with us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: I’ve always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world. One purpose, another was humans. (dhw’s bold) […]

dhw: Originally you thought his only purpose was to design us and our food. But now you are telling us that he had another purpose: to design lots of other life forms, unconnected with us, which would engage in a dog-eat-dog battle for survival. […] So please tell us why you think he would have wanted to create all these creatures to fight one another, knowing that most of them would disappear anyway.

DAVID: Still seeking an answer I don't have. At each stage all have to eat, thus each stage is large.

The fact that all organisms have to eat does not explain why, according to you, your purposeful God specially designed all the organisms just so they could fight one another! I have taken up your earlier expression of certainty that he enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, as being a logical purpose in itself for his creation of the dog-eat-dog battle. We humans also enjoy creating things we can watch with interest, and as you have repeatedly agreed, if God exists, we may reflect him and share some of his thought patterns and emotions. (See below)

Edited from “bacterial gut help”

dhw: […] I’m delighted that you have accepted the idea that it is a free-for-all, which means your God did not deliberately design 99% of life forms that were irrelevant to what you believe to have been his goal.

DAVID: No!!! The free-for-all is only among pre-designed species and is a free-for-all for survival.

dhw: A sad misunderstanding, as my "means of survival" was supposed to refer to evolutionary innovations. But in that case, we go back to my original question: if your God had a special purpose for specially designing species that would do battle with one another, and if we bear in mind that 99% of them had nothing to do with his other purpose of designing humans, what do you think that special purpose was?

DAVID: Survival involves food supply. Large bushes of life supplied food for all at each stage. 99.9% are that food. You recognize the need for food intake, and then belittle its constant necessity for survival.

Your usual dodge. Do you really think I don’t know that food is necessary for survival? Two questions have arisen from your two theories concerning your God’s PURPOSE. 1) If his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, why did he design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food? Your answer: you have no idea. 2) If he deliberately designed all species to fight one another in an endless battle for survival, what might have been his purpose? Your answer: you have no idea. I have offered you a possible answer, as bolded above.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 02, 2023, 16:21 (270 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: Again, it is proportional. How many in prison for crime compared to 300 million plus not in prison in this country. Again, ignoring your God and His evils.

dhw: It is YOU who try to ignore God and his evils by pretending that the evil is minuscule compared to the good!!! Once more, theodicy is concerned with the problem of why a so-called all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God would have created evil. The problem is not solved by telling us that evil is outweighed by good!

It all depends upon how humans view evil. Human free will allows humans to be evil, which is not God's fault, although God knew what might happen when He allowed it. As for bad bacteria and viruses, they are agents of good events unless landing in wrong places. What about the evil allowed by your God. Not answered yet.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me that God chose to evolve us for His own reasons.

dhw: If he exists, of course he chose to evolve all species for his own reasons. […] Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodge. Logic. I bolded your agreement!! The evolved bush of life is our food!

dhw: Yes, our food evolved from the 1% of past species. What does not make sense, as you well know, is your fixed belief that in order to specially design us and our food, your God specially designed the other 99% which had no connection with us and our food. Stop dodging!

No dodge. Stop ignoring the point God chose to evolve us over time, with the result you deplore.


DAVID: I’ve always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world. One purpose, another was humans. (dhw’s bold) […]

dhw: Originally you thought his only purpose was to design us and our food. But now you are telling us that he had another purpose: to design lots of other life forms, unconnected with us, which would engage in a dog-eat-dog battle for survival. […] So please tell us why you think he would have wanted to create all these creatures to fight one another, knowing that most of them would disappear anyway.

DAVID: Still seeking an answer I don't have. At each stage all have to eat, thus each stage is large.

dhw: The fact that all organisms have to eat does not explain why, according to you, your purposeful God specially designed all the organisms just so they could fight one another! I have taken up your earlier expression of certainty that he enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, as being a logical purpose in itself for his creation of the dog-eat-dog battle. We humans also enjoy creating things we can watch with interest, and as you have repeatedly agreed, if God exists, we may reflect him and share some of his thought patterns and emotions. (See below)

The red is foolishness. Not just fighting but eating to survive!!! I agree God and we have similarities.


Edited from “bacterial gut help”

dhw: […] I’m delighted that you have accepted the idea that it is a free-for-all, which means your God did not deliberately design 99% of life forms that were irrelevant to what you believe to have been his goal.

DAVID: No!!! The free-for-all is only among pre-designed species and is a free-for-all for survival.

dhw: A sad misunderstanding, as my "means of survival" was supposed to refer to evolutionary innovations. But in that case, we go back to my original question: if your God had a special purpose for specially designing species that would do battle with one another, and if we bear in mind that 99% of them had nothing to do with his other purpose of designing humans, what do you think that special purpose was?

Again a congenital remark, off point. The large bush of life at each stage of evolution is the food supply for all.


DAVID: Survival involves food supply. Large bushes of life supplied food for all at each stage. 99.9% are that food. You recognize the need for food intake, and then belittle its constant necessity for survival.

dhw; Your usual dodge. Do you really think I don’t know that food is necessary for survival? Two questions have arisen from your two theories concerning your God’s PURPOSE. 1) If his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, why did he design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food? Your answer: you have no idea. 2) If he deliberately designed all species to fight one another in an endless battle for survival, what might have been his purpose? Your answer: you have no idea. I have offered you a possible answer, as bolded above.

Wonderful, you recognize food is necessary. But you ignore how necessary it is. Don't you eat two/three times a day? Then you berate me because I cannot give you God's reasons for His choices of methods. I simply accept what God did. Do you know all your God's reasons? He used evolution also. Please answer.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, July 03, 2023, 08:17 (270 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

dhw: The problem is not solved by telling us that evil is outweighed by good!

DAVID: It all depends upon how humans view evil. Human free will allows humans to be evil, which is not God's fault, although God knew what might happen when He allowed it. As for bad bacteria and viruses, they are agents of good events unless landing in wrong places.

You forget that your all-knowing, first-cause God specially designed everything from the start, and knew what everything WOULD (not “might”) do. And so he knew humans would steal, rape, murder, oppress, exploit, wage war, and that bad bacteria and viruses would kill us, but he still went ahead. Maybe you’re right, but if so, you can hardly call him all-good, and that is the problem of theodicy!

DAVID: What about the evil allowed by your God. Not answered yet.

I have distinguished between the deliberate creation of evil (as in your scenario) and evil as an unforeseen consequence of your God’s experiments, but this leads to the different question of why an all-good God does not intervene. I offered a list of alternative answers: he does not exist, he has gone away, he is dead, he doesn’t care, he enjoys watching it. I am not offering one specific answer to the problem of theodicy. I am offering alternatives, just as I offer alternatives to your illogical theory of evolution, which envisions your God as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer.

David's theory of evolution

dhw: What does not make sense, as you well know, is your fixed belief that in order to specially design us and our food, your God specially designed the other 99% which had no connection with us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Stop ignoring the point God chose to evolve us over time, with the result you deplore.

What result do I deplore? If God exists, he chose to evolve all life forms over time. That does not explain why, according to you, he chose to design 99 out of 100 organisms that had nothing to do with what, according to you, was his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: I’ve always thought God created a dog-eat-dog world. One purpose, another was humans. (dhw’s bold) […]

dhw: Originally you thought his only purpose was to design us and our food. But now you are telling us that he had another purpose: to design lots of other life forms, unconnected with us, which would engage in a dog-eat-dog battle for survival. [See below.] […] So please tell us why you think he would have wanted to create all these creatures to fight one another, knowing that most of them would disappear anyway.

DAVID: Still seeking an answer I don't have. At each stage all have to eat, thus each stage is large.

dhw: The fact that all organisms have to eat does not explain why, according to you, your purposeful God specially designed all the organisms just so they could fight one another! I have taken up your earlier expression of certainty that he enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, as being a logical purpose in itself for his creation of the dog-eat-dog battle. We humans also enjoy creating things we can watch with interest, and as you have repeatedly agreed, if God exists, we may reflect him and share some of his thought patterns and emotions. (See below)

DAVID: The red is foolishness. Not just fighting but eating to survive!!! I agree God and we have similarities.

Why don’t you read what I write? Of course they fight to survive! I’ve now put it in red for you above! And I’ve asked you why your God wanted them to fight, and I’ve offered you an explanation. Since you acknowledge that we reflect your God, do you now accept the logic of that explanation?

DAVID: Wonderful, you recognize food is necessary. But you ignore how necessary it is. Don't you eat two/three times a day? Then you berate me because I cannot give you God's reasons for His choices of methods. I simply accept what God did. Do you know all your God's reasons? He used evolution also. Please answer.

Please stop pretending that I’m an idiot. Of course food is/was necessary for all organisms, including the 99% that had no connection with us and our food. I berate you because you offer us illogical theories about what your God did and why he did it, but you insist that he did what you say he did for reasons which make no sense even to you. I offer you alternatives, and your sole reason for rejecting them is that they humanise him, although you agree that he and we have similarities.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, July 03, 2023, 13:19 (269 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

dhw: You forget that your all-knowing, first-cause God specially designed everything from the start, and knew what everything WOULD (not “might”) do. And so he knew humans would steal, rape, murder, oppress, exploit, wage war, and that bad bacteria and viruses would kill us, but he still went ahead. Maybe you’re right, but if so, you can hardly call him all-good, and that is the problem of theodicy!

You refuse to allow for balance in the results. Free will allows humans to act badly, a human problem for humans to solve. Most folks survive to old age while playing host to a necessary gut microbiome.


DAVID: What about the evil allowed by your God. Not answered yet.

dhw: I have distinguished between the deliberate creation of evil (as in your scenario) and evil as an unforeseen consequence of your God’s experiments, but this leads to the different question of why an all-good God does not intervene. I offered a list of alternative answers: he does not exist, he has gone away, he is dead, he doesn’t care, he enjoys watching it. I am not offering one specific answer to the problem of theodicy. I am offering alternatives, just as I offer alternatives to your illogical theory of evolution, which envisions your God as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer.

Your first solution is that it is OK if a God doesn't know what will happen following His creations. That is a blundering poor example of a God. I view God as giving us the best arrangement He could, since He is all-knowing. We humans might complain, but this is the best that can be, no Garden of Eden.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Stop ignoring the point God chose to evolve us over time, with the result you deplore.

dhw: What result do I deplore? If God exists, he chose to evolve all life forms over time. That does not explain why, according to you, he chose to design 99 out of 100 organisms that had nothing to do with what, according to you, was his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. Stop dodging!

You deplore the way evolution works. It is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms. God chose that method.


DAVID: Still seeking an answer I don't have. At each stage all have to eat, thus each stage is large.

dhw: The fact that all organisms have to eat does not explain why, according to you, your purposeful God specially designed all the organisms just so they could fight one another! I have taken up your earlier expression of certainty that he enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, as being a logical purpose in itself for his creation of the dog-eat-dog battle. We humans also enjoy creating things we can watch with interest, and as you have repeatedly agreed, if God exists, we may reflect him and share some of his thought patterns and emotions. (See below)

DAVID: The red is foolishness. Not just fighting but eating to survive!!! I agree God and we have similarities.

dhw: Why don’t you read what I write? Of course they fight to survive! I’ve now put it in red for you above! And I’ve asked you why your God wanted them to fight, and I’ve offered you an explanation. Since you acknowledge that we reflect your God, do you now accept the logic of that explanation?

DAVID: Wonderful, you recognize food is necessary. But you ignore how necessary it is. Don't you eat two/three times a day? Then you berate me because I cannot give you God's reasons for His choices of methods. I simply accept what God did. Do you know all your God's reasons? He used evolution also. Please answer.

dhw: Please stop pretending that I’m an idiot. Of course food is/was necessary for all organisms, including the 99% that had no connection with us and our food. I berate you because you offer us illogical theories about what your God did and why he did it, but you insist that he did what you say he did for reasons which make no sense even to you. I offer you alternatives, and your sole reason for rejecting them is that they humanise him, although you agree that he and we have similarities.

Our possible similarities with God do not excuse a God who thinks like a human as your "solution" God does. It is not illogical to assume God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Makes perfect snese to me.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, July 04, 2023, 14:15 (268 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: You refuse to allow for balance in the results. Free will allows humans to act badly, a human problem for humans to solve. Most folks survive to old age while playing host to a necessary gut microbiome.

Once more: theodicy poses the question why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God created evil. The question is not answered by claiming that there is more good than evil in the world, and it is not answered by the fact that humans (like bacteria and viruses) are free to perform what we consider to be bad acts. In your own version, he knew in advance that some humans, bacteria and viruses would do evil things, but he still went ahead with their creation. How does that make him all-good?

DAVID: What about the evil allowed by your God. Not answered yet.

dhw: I have distinguished between the deliberate creation of evil (as in your scenario) and evil as an unforeseen consequence of your God’s experiments, but this leads to the different question of why an all-good God does not intervene. I offered a list of alternative answers: he does not exist, he has gone away, he is dead, he doesn’t care, he enjoys watching it. I am not offering one specific answer to the problem of theodicy. I am offering alternatives, just as I offer alternatives to your illogical theory of evolution, which envisions your God as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer.

DAVID: Your first solution is that it is OK if a God doesn't know what will happen following His creations. That is a blundering poor example of a God.

I didn’t say it was OK. I am not passing judgement. I am proposing that if he didn’t know the outcome, he cannot be accused of consciously creating evil (the Walter Raleigh syndrome.)

DAVID: I view God as giving us the best arrangement He could, since He is all-knowing. We humans might complain, but this is the best that can be, no Garden of Eden.

I don’t know why you think your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden. He did the ‘best he could’ suggests that he failed, and yet you call my version “blundering” and “poor”! In another of my alternatives, he wants a free-for-all, and part of his enjoyment comes precisely from not knowing what will happen next. By deliberately - not “blunderingly” - giving organisms (cell communities) autonomy, he leaves them free to design their own innovations in the cause of their own survival. It is this pursuit of self-interest that lies behind most forms of “evil”, whether in Nature (dog eat dog) or in the human world.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Stop ignoring the point God chose to evolve us over time, with the result you deplore.

dhw: What result do I deplore? If God exists, he chose to evolve all life forms over time. That does not explain why, according to you, he chose to design 99 out of 100 organisms that had nothing to do with what, according to you, was his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: You deplore the way evolution works. It is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms. God chose that method.

No “deploring”! If God exists, I agree completely. Your God WANTED the 99% as part of the ever changing variety of life’s history. What I deplore is your nonsensical claim that 99% of the organisms were NOT successful, i.e. were specially designed failures because they did not lead to what you insist was his one and only purpose: us and our food. It is you who deplore his method, which you call messy, cumbersome and inefficient!

DAVID: Wonderful, you recognize food is necessary. But you ignore how necessary it is. Don't you eat two/three times a day? Then you berate me because I cannot give you God's reasons for His choices of methods. I simply accept what God did. Do you know all your God's reasons? He used evolution also. Please answer.

dhw: Please stop pretending that I’m an idiot. Of course food is/was necessary for all organisms, including the 99% that had no connection with us and our food. I berate you because you offer us illogical theories about what your God did and why he did it, but you insist that he did what you say he did for reasons which make no sense even to you. I offer you alternatives, and your sole reason for rejecting them is that they humanise him, although you agree that he and we have similarities.

DAVID: Our possible similarities with God do not excuse a God who thinks like a human as your "solution" God does. It is not illogical to assume God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Makes perfect snese to me.

You have demolished your own “humanising” argument again and again by agreeing that we reflect him. Of course Darwin’s theory that we are descended from bacteria is not illogical, and he allows for your God as the originator of the process. What, for the thousandth time, is illogical is your claim that your all-powerful, all-knowing God chose to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing us plus food by designing 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us plus food. When will you stop dodging?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 04, 2023, 16:06 (268 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: You refuse to allow for balance in the results. Free will allows humans to act badly, a human problem for humans to solve. Most folks survive to old age while playing host to a necessary gut microbiome.

dhw: theodicy poses the question why an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God created evil...In your own version, he knew in advance that some humans, bacteria and viruses would do evil things, but he still went ahead with their creation. How does that make him all-good?

It is still a measure of proportionality. God gave us the only system available and placed editing systems to control biochemical errors. God deliberately gave humans free will so what we do wrong is our problem, not His. It is still the concept of 'Dayenu' with you complaining.


DAVID: What about the evil allowed by your God. Not answered yet.

dhw: I have distinguished between the deliberate creation of evil and evil as an unforeseen consequence of your God’s experiments, but this leads to the different question of why an all-good God does not intervene. I offered a list of alternative answers: he does not exist, he has gone away, he is dead, he doesn’t care, he enjoys watching it. I am not offering one specific answer to the problem of theodicy. I am offering alternatives, just as I offer alternatives to your illogical theory of evolution, which envisions your God as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer.

DAVID: Your first solution is that it is OK if a God doesn't know what will happen following His creations. That is a blundering poor example of a God.

dhw: I didn’t say it was OK. I am not passing judgement. I am proposing that if he didn’t know the outcome, he cannot be accused of consciously creating evil (the Walter Raleigh syndrome.)

So your God gets a pass since He is a know-nothing?


DAVID: I view God as giving us the best arrangement He could, since He is all-knowing. We humans might complain, but this is the best that can be, no Garden of Eden.

dhw: I don’t know why you think your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden. He did the ‘best he could’ suggests that he failed, and yet you call my version “blundering” and “poor”! In another of my alternatives, he wants a free-for-all, and part of his enjoyment comes precisely from not knowing what will happen next. By deliberately - not “blunderingly” - giving organisms (cell communities) autonomy, he leaves them free to design their own innovations in the cause of their own survival. It is this pursuit of self-interest that lies behind most forms of “evil”, whether in Nature (dog eat dog) or in the human world.

You describe a God of no controls over what He creates, so He can enjoy the resultant mess and chaos of free-for-all. Grisly!!


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: You deplore the way evolution works. It is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms. God chose that method.

dhw: No “deploring”! If God exists, I agree completely. Your God WANTED the 99% as part of the ever-changing variety of life’s history. What I deplore is your nonsensical claim that 99% of the organisms were NOT successful, i.e. were specially designed failures because they did not lead to what you insist was his one and only purpose: us and our food. It is you who deplore his method, which you call messy, cumbersome and inefficient!

So we agree. God wanted the 99%. I remind you, early in our discussions YOU raised the issue of 'why evolve' when direst creation was the better option.


DAVID: Wonderful, you recognize food is necessary. But you ignore how necessary it is. Don't you eat two/three times a day? Then you berate me because I cannot give you God's reasons for His choices of methods. I simply accept what God did. Do you know all your God's reasons? He used evolution also. Please answer.

dhw: Please stop pretending that I’m an idiot. Of course food is/was necessary for all organisms, including the 99% that had no connection with us and our food. I berate you because you offer us illogical theories about what your God did and why he did it, but you insist that he did what you say he did for reasons which make no sense even to you. I offer you alternatives, and your sole reason for rejecting them is that they humanise him, although you agree that he and we have similarities.

DAVID: Our possible similarities with God do not excuse a God who thinks like a human as your "solution" God does. It is not illogical to assume God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: You have demolished your own “humanising” argument again and again by agreeing that we reflect him. Of course Darwin’s theory that we are descended from bacteria is not illogical, and he allows for your God as the originator of the process. What, for the thousandth time, is illogical is your claim that your all-powerful, all-knowing God chose to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing us plus food by designing 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us plus food. When will you stop dodging?

Above you just agreed: "I agree completely. Your God WANTED the 99% as part of the ever-changing variety of life’s history." You can't have it both ways. As for our possible resemblance to God, it doesn't negate your God's obvious human thinking.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, July 05, 2023, 11:11 (268 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: It is still a measure of proportionality. God gave us the only system available and placed editing systems to control biochemical errors. God deliberately gave humans free will so what we do wrong is our problem, not His. It is still the concept of 'Dayenu' with you complaining.
And:
DAVID: I view God as giving us the best arrangement He could, since He is all-knowing. We humans might complain, but this is the best that can be, no Garden of Eden.

“Proportionality” is irrelevant. Theodicy is only concerned with the origin of evil. Why “available”? You make it sound as if your Creator of all things popped into a shop and was told: “Sorry, that’s all we have.” Of course what we do wrong is our problem. But the question is why an all-good God would create the possibility of evil in the first place. Why was he incapable of designing a Garden of Eden? (To complete the metaphor: why did he create the serpent and the forbidden fruit?) I’m not complaining. I’m asking the age-old question how a God who creates evil can be all-good. So far, your answer has been: ignore evil, it doesn’t count “proportionally”.

DAVID: Your first solution is that it is OK if a God doesn't know what will happen following His creations. That is a blundering poor example of a God.

dhw: I didn’t say it was OK. I am not passing judgement. I am proposing that if he didn’t know the outcome, he cannot be accused of consciously creating evil (the Walter Raleigh syndrome.)

DAVID: So your God gets a pass since He is a know-nothing?

A know-nothing would not be capable of designing anything. Two possible answers to the theodicy question are that he did not know in advance all the outcomes of his experiments, or he did not know (and did not want to know) in advance the outcomes of the free-for-all he set in motion.

DAVID: You describe a God of no controls over what He creates, so He can enjoy the resultant mess and chaos of free-for-all. Grisly!!

But you yourself keep telling us that he has no control over the bad bacteria and viruses and humans! They are free to do their dirty deeds! The difference between our theories is that your God knows he is creating evil-doers but deliberately goes ahead all the same, whereas I propose two ways in which his creation of evil might not be deliberate. The “mess and chaos” caused by evil is the same, whether it is the result of a free-for-all or your God’s deliberate creation of evil. You are certain that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and I agree that a God who enjoys watching the mess and chaos is grisly. However, I’ve offered various reasons for his non-intervention. Please tell us your own explanation.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: […] It is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms. God chose that method.

dhw: […] If God exists, I agree completely. […] (I have omitted the rest, as I am forced to repeat the same argument below.)

DAVID: So we agree. God wanted the 99%. I remind you, early in our discussions YOU raised the issue of 'why evolve' when direst creation was the better option.

We do not agree. (See below.) I raised the issue only because you insist that humans plus food were his sole purpose. In your nonsensical theory, he does NOT want the 99%: for some unknown reason he is forced to design them, although he knows that they are not necessary for his purpose – hence your description of them as failures, and of his method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Only in my proposals are they successful, because his purpose is to create the ever changing variety of life forms which constitutes the history of evolution.

DAVID: Our possible similarities with God do not excuse a God who thinks like a human as your "solution" God does. It is not illogical to assume God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: You have demolished your own “humanising” argument again and again by agreeing that we reflect him. Of course Darwin’s theory that we are descended from bacteria is not illogical, and he allows for your God as the originator of the process. What, for the thousandth time, is illogical is your claim that your all-powerful, all-knowing God chose to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing us plus food by designing 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us plus food. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: Above you just agreed: "I agree completely. Your God WANTED the 99% as part of the ever-changing variety of life’s history." You can't have it both ways.

More dodging! You wrote that evolution “is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms.” I agree. But your 99% were NOT successful: they were failures. It’s you who can’t have it both ways!

DAVID: As for our possible resemblance to God, it doesn't negate your God's obvious human thinking.

Of course it doesn’t. It supports his human thinking. Thank you.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 05, 2023, 15:42 (267 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: It is still a measure of proportionality. God gave us the only system available and placed editing systems to control biochemical errors. God deliberately gave humans free will so what we do wrong is our problem, not His. It is still the concept of 'Dayenu' with you complaining.
And:
DAVID: I view God as giving us the best arrangement He could, since He is all-knowing. We humans might complain, but this is the best that can be, no Garden of Eden.

dhw: “Proportionality” is irrelevant. Theodicy is only concerned with the origin of evil. Why “available”? You make it sound as if your Creator of all things popped into a shop and was told: “Sorry, that’s all we have.” Of course what we do wrong is our problem. But the question is why an all-good God would create the possibility of evil in the first place. Why was he incapable of designing a Garden of Eden? (To complete the metaphor: why did he create the serpent and the forbidden fruit?) I’m not complaining. I’m asking the age-old question how a God who creates evil can be all-good. So far, your answer has been: ignore evil, it doesn’t count “proportionally”.

The serpent and the fruit mean God chose to end the possibility of Eden. He meant for us to have a challenging life using our brain. And thus we are to deal with evil.


DAVID: So your God gets a pass since He is a know-nothing?

dhw: A know-nothing would not be capable of designing anything. Two possible answers to the theodicy question are that he did not know in advance all the outcomes of his experiments, or he did not know (and did not want to know) in advance the outcomes of the free-for-all he set in motion.

A creating God without anticipation is creating a world blindly. Not much of a creator.


DAVID: You describe a God of no controls over what He creates, so He can enjoy the resultant mess and chaos of free-for-all. Grisly!!

dhw: But you yourself keep telling us that he has no control over the bad bacteria and viruses and humans! They are free to do their dirty deeds! The difference between our theories is that your God knows he is creating evil-doers but deliberately goes ahead all the same, whereas I propose two ways in which his creation of evil might not be deliberate. The “mess and chaos” caused by evil is the same, whether it is the result of a free-for-all or your God’s deliberate creation of evil. You are certain that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and I agree that a God who enjoys watching the mess and chaos is grisly. However, I’ve offered various reasons for his non-intervention. Please tell us your own explanation.

I've presented my God here as allowing evil, as a challenge, not like yours out of ignorance of it.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: […] It is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms. God chose that method.

dhw: […] If God exists, I agree completely. […] (I have omitted the rest, as I am forced to repeat the same argument below.)

DAVID: So we agree. God wanted the 99%. I remind you, early in our discussions YOU raised the issue of 'why evolve' when direst creation was the better option.

dhw: We do not agree. (See below.) I raised the issue only because you insist that humans plus food were his sole purpose. In your nonsensical theory, he does NOT want the 99%: for some unknown reason he is forced to design them, although he knows that they are not necessary for his purpose

Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: Only in my proposals are they successful, because his purpose is to create the ever changing variety of life forms which constitutes the history of evolution.

And our appearance is a lucky result!!


DAVID: Our possible similarities with God do not excuse a God who thinks like a human as your "solution" God does. It is not illogical to assume God chose to evolve us from bacteria. Makes perfect sense to me.

dhw: You have demolished your own “humanising” argument again and again by agreeing that we reflect him. Of course Darwin’s theory that we are descended from bacteria is not illogical, and he allows for your God as the originator of the process. What, for the thousandth time, is illogical is your claim that your all-powerful, all-knowing God chose to fulfil his one and only purpose of designing us plus food by designing 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us plus food. When will you stop dodging?

DAVID: Above you just agreed: "I agree completely. Your God WANTED the 99% as part of the ever-changing variety of life’s history." You can't have it both ways.

dhw: More dodging! You wrote that evolution “is a culling process which arrives at very successful organisms.” I agree. But your 99% were NOT successful: they were failures. It’s you who can’t have it both ways!

Not failures, but successful steps.


DAVID: As for our possible resemblance to God, it doesn't negate your God's obvious human thinking.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t. It supports his human thinking. Thank you.

Just the opposite. A God who thinks like us, at the human level is not much of a God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, July 06, 2023, 11:45 (266 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

dhw: […] the question is why an all-good God would create the possibility of evil in the first place. Why was he incapable of designing a Garden of Eden? (To complete the metaphor: why did he create the serpent and the forbidden fruit?) I’m not complaining. I’m asking the age-old question how a God who creates evil can be all-good. So far, your answer has been: ignore evil, it doesn’t count “proportionally”.

DAVID: The serpent and the fruit mean God chose to end the possibility of Eden. He meant for us to have a challenging life using our brain. And thus we are to deal with evil.

So you are now withdrawing your theory that God was incapable of designing a world without evil, but instead you have him deliberately creating evil as a challenge to us humans. Just for a moment, let’s leave aside theodicy and the question why he spent 3.X billion years designing 99 out of 100 organisms unrelated to humans so that they could kill one another in a battle to survive. We have always agreed that your God must have a purpose for whatever he does. So what do you think was the purpose of the challenge he set by deliberately creating humans who he knew would rob, rape, murder, exploit, wage war etc.

dhw: Two possible answers to the theodicy question are that he did not know in advance all the outcomes of his experiments, or he did not know (and did not want to know) in advance the outcomes of the free-for-all he set in motion.

DAVID: A creating God without anticipation is creating a world blindly. Not much of a creator.

You are certain that your God is interested in his creations. A creating God who WANTS to create a world which will interest him through its unpredictability is not creating it blindly. With your latest theory, do you think your all-knowing God watches us and knows precisely how we are all going to respond to the challenge?

DAVID: I've presented my God here as allowing evil, as a challenge, not like yours out of ignorance of it.

Yes, you have presented your God as deliberately creating (not merely "allowing") evil as a challenge. You may be right. Back to theodicy: your new answer to the question of how an all-good God can create evil is clearly that he is not all-good. I offer alternative explanations (but NB they are not beliefs – I can’t even decide whether God exists or not!).

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: So we agree. God wanted the 99%. I remind you, early in our discussions YOU raised the issue of 'why evolve' when direst creation was the better option.

dhw: We do not agree. [...] I raised the issue only because you insist that humans plus food were his sole purpose. In your nonsensical theory, he does NOT want the 99%: for some unknown reason he is forced to design them, although he knows that they are not necessary for his purpose

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled!

dhw: Only in my proposals are they successful, because his purpose is to create the ever changing variety of life forms which constitutes the history of evolution.

DAVID: And our appearance is a lucky result!!

Stop changing the subject! In my theory, the 99 are successful, whereas in yours they are failures. Hence your description of your God’s design as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Our subject here is your nonsensical theory. In two of my alternatives, your God creates humans through experimentation. No luck involved. Even the third - the free-for-all - leaves open the possibility of divine dabbling.

DAVID: As for our possible resemblance to God, it doesn't negate your God's obvious human thinking.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t. It supports his human thinking. Thank you.

DAVID: Just the opposite. A God who thinks like us, at the human level is not much of a God.

It depends what thought patterns and emotions you are referring to. You accept that like us he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Why shouldn’t our method of designing via experimentation, discovery, on-going improvements etc. reflect his own?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 06, 2023, 16:42 (266 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: The serpent and the fruit mean God chose to end the possibility of Eden. He meant for us to have a challenging life using our brain. And thus we are to deal with evil.

dhw: So you are now withdrawing your theory that God was incapable of designing a world without evil, but instead you have him deliberately creating evil as a challenge to us humans. Just for a moment, let’s leave aside theodicy and the question why he spent 3.X billion years designing 99 out of 100 organisms unrelated to humans so that they could kill one another in a battle to survive. We have always agreed that your God must have a purpose for whatever he does. So what do you think was the purpose of the challenge he set by deliberately creating humans who he knew would rob, rape, murder, exploit, wage war etc.

God's purpose was to create a world with challenges, and He knew the number of criminals would be small compared to our total population. It meant it is our responsibility to control criminality.


dhw: Two possible answers to the theodicy question are that he did not know in advance all the outcomes of his experiments, or he did not know (and did not want to know) in advance the outcomes of the free-for-all he set in motion.

DAVID: A creating God without anticipation is creating a world blindly. Not much of a creator.

You are certain that your God is interested in his creations. A creating God who WANTS to create a world which will interest him through its unpredictability is not creating it blindly. With your latest theory, do you think your all-knowing God watches us and knows precisely how we are all going to respond to the challenge?

Yes, He follows us. Your blind God drifts along, entertained by the chaos He is partially creating.


DAVID: I've presented my God here as allowing evil, as a challenge, not like yours out of ignorance of it.

dhw: Yes, you have presented your God as deliberately creating (not merely "allowing") evil as a challenge. You may be right. Back to theodicy: your new answer to the question of how an all-good God can create evil is clearly that he is not all-good. I offer alternative explanations (but NB they are not beliefs – I can’t even decide whether God exists or not!).

Bold is wrong. See above for using evil as a challenge.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: So we agree. God wanted the 99%. I remind you, early in our discussions YOU raised the issue of 'why evolve' when direst creation was the better option.

dhw: We do not agree. [...] I raised the issue only because you insist that humans plus food were his sole purpose. In your nonsensical theory, he does NOT want the 99%: for some unknown reason he is forced to design them, although he knows that they are not necessary for his purpose

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled!

Nonsensical only in your Godless view. God chose to create us by evolving us. Your rudderless version did the same thing.

dhw: Only in my proposals are they successful, because his purpose is to create the ever changing variety of life forms which constitutes the history of evolution.

DAVID: And our appearance is a lucky result!!

dhw: Stop changing the subject! In my theory, the 99 are successful, whereas in yours they are failures. Hence your description of your God’s design as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Our subject here is your nonsensical theory. In two of my alternatives, your God creates humans through experimentation. No luck involved. Even the third - the free-for-all - leaves open the possibility of divine dabbling.

99% successfully survived properly until they didn't. As for 'experimental' humans it requires luck to find the right answers.


DAVID: As for our possible resemblance to God, it doesn't negate your God's obvious human thinking.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t. It supports his human thinking. Thank you.

DAVID: Just the opposite. A God who thinks like us, at the human level is not much of a God.

dhw: It depends what thought patterns and emotions you are referring to. You accept that like us he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Why shouldn’t our method of designing via experimentation, discovery, on-going improvements etc. reflect his own?

Exactly, as we bumble along is not God-like. Review Thomas Edison's example of 'hard work required'.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, July 07, 2023, 13:21 (265 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: The serpent and the fruit mean God chose to end the possibility of Eden. He meant for us to have a challenging life using our brain. And thus we are to deal with evil.

dhw: So you are now withdrawing your theory that God was incapable of designing a world without evil, but instead you have him deliberately creating evil as a challenge to us humans. Just for a moment, let’s leave aside theodicy and the question why he spent 3.X billion years designing 99 out of 100 organisms unrelated to humans so that they could kill one another in a battle to survive. We have always agreed that your God must have a purpose for whatever he does. So what do you think was the purpose of the challenge he set by deliberately creating humans who he knew would rob, rape, murder, exploit, wage war etc.

DAVID: God's purpose was to create a world with challenges, and He knew the number of criminals would be small compared to our total population. It meant it is our responsibility to control criminality.

I have asked you what you think was his purpose in creating a world with challenges, and you merely repeat that his purpose was to create a world with challenges! Why do you think he wanted to create world with challenges? The proportion of evil to good is irrelevant, and so is our responsibility.

dhw: Two possible answers to the theodicy question are that he did not know in advance all the outcomes of his experiments, or he did not know (and did not want to know) in advance the outcomes of the free-for-all he set in motion.

DAVID: A creating God without anticipation is creating a world blindly. Not much of a creator.

dhw: You are certain that your God is interested in his creations. A creating God who WANTS to create a world which will interest him through its unpredictability is not creating it blindly. With your latest theory, do you think your all-knowing God watches us and knows precisely how we are all going to respond to the challenge?

DAVID: Yes, He follows us. Your blind God drifts along, entertained by the chaos He is partially creating.

“Follows”? Do you mean he watches us with interest? But in your theory he knows precisely how we are going to act, so why bother to “follow” us? My God can hardly be blind if he watches us with interest. But there are two separate questions here: why did your all-good God create evil (or why did he create a world of “challenges” in which good battles with evil), and why doesn’t he intervene now that he sees the chaos he has created? You have dodged the first question, and I have offered a list of possible responses to the second.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled!

DAVID: Nonsensical only in your Godless view. God chose to create us by evolving us. Your rudderless version did the same thing.

Hardly “godless”, since we are discussing your God’s motives and methods, not his existence. You keep repeating the mantra that focuses solely on us, and leaving out the nonsensical part of your theory, which is that in order to create us plus food, he deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. My alternatives are not “rudderless” – they simply offer different methods and/or purposes from those you impose on him, though their combination makes no sense to you.

dhw: Only in my proposals are they successful, because his purpose is to create the ever changing variety of life forms which constitutes

DAVID: 99% successfully survived properly until they didn't.

Thank you for now adopting one of my theories, as opposed to your own, which until now has described them as failures because they had to be culled – hence your description of your God’s method of designing us as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”.

DAVID: As for 'experimental' humans it requires luck to find the right answers.

So our motor cars, airplanes, rockets, computers, telephones, medicines, TV, weapons of mass destruction etc. were each invented “de novo” by a stroke of luck, were they?

dhw: You accept that like us he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Why shouldn’t our method of designing via experimentation, discovery, on-going improvements etc. reflect his own?

DAVID: Exactly, as we bumble along is not God-like. Review Thomas Edison's example of 'hard work required'.

Why is “hard work” bumbling? Don’t you think the above list of inventions is a reasonable analogy for the range of inventions that led from bacteria to the vast variety of species past and present, including ourselves?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, July 07, 2023, 17:13 (265 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: God's purpose was to create a world with challenges, and He knew the number of criminals would be small compared to our total population. It meant it is our responsibility to control criminality.

dhw: I have asked you what you think was his purpose in creating a world with challenges, and you merely repeat that his purpose was to create a world with challenges! Why do you think he wanted to create world with challenges?

We have the brain He gave us to handle challenges, so He challenged our brain.

dhw: The proportion of evil to good is irrelevant, and so is our responsibility.

Proportionality depends on perspective. God allowed evil but we have the capacity to reduce its size.


dhw: Two possible answers to the theodicy question are that he did not know in advance all the outcomes of his experiments, or he did not know (and did not want to know) in advance the outcomes of the free-for-all he set in motion.

DAVID: A creating God without anticipation is creating a world blindly. Not much of a creator.

dhw: You are certain that your God is interested in his creations. A creating God who WANTS to create a world which will interest him through its unpredictability is not creating it blindly. With your latest theory, do you think your all-knowing God watches us and knows precisely how we are all going to respond to the challenge?

DAVID: Yes, He follows us. Your blind God drifts along, entertained by the chaos He is partially creating.

dhw: “Follows”? Do you mean he watches us with interest? But in your theory he knows precisely how we are going to act, so why bother to “follow” us?

Free will means humans producing unexpected results.

dhw; My God can hardly be blind if he watches us with interest. But there are two separate questions here: why did your all-good God create evil (or why did he create a world of “challenges” in which good battles with evil), and why doesn’t he intervene now that he sees the chaos he has created? You have dodged the first question, and I have offered a list of possible responses to the second.

Chaos again is your over interpretation of the amount of evil.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled!

DAVID: Nonsensical only in your Godless view. God chose to create us by evolving us. Your rudderless version did the same thing.

dhw: Hardly “godless”, since we are discussing your God’s motives and methods, not his existence. You keep repeating the mantra that focuses solely on us, and leaving out the nonsensical part of your theory, which is that in order to create us plus food, he deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. My alternatives are not “rudderless” – they simply offer different methods and/or purposes from those you impose on him, though their combination makes no sense to you.

Yes, your so-called God makes no sense to me. His lack of foresight allows Him to permit evil! What a twisted view of God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, July 08, 2023, 11:35 (265 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

dhw: I have asked you what you think was his purpose in creating a world with challenges, and you merely repeat that his purpose was to create a world with challenges! Why do you think he wanted to create a world with challenges?

DAVID: We have the brain He gave us to handle challenges, so He challenged our brain.
What possible purpose could he have had in creating murderous bacteria, viruses and human beings, knowing the pain and suffering they would cause, in order “to challenge our brain”? Is it perhaps a game for him to watch?

dhw: The proportion of evil to good is irrelevant, and so is our responsibility.

DAVID: Proportionality depends on perspective. God allowed evil but we have the capacity to reduce its size.

If we are asking how and why an all-good, all-powerful God created evil, the proportion of good to evil is irrelevant. According to you, your God did not “allow” evil: he deliberately created the murderous bacteria, viruses and humans knowing in advance the suffering they would cause. The question is why, and now that you have dropped your first approach (evil doesn’t matter), your second is that he wants to challenge us. Why? Is it a game?

DAVID: A creating God without anticipation is creating a world blindly. Not much of a creator.

dhw: You are certain that your God is interested in his creations. A creating God who WANTS to create a world which will interest him through its unpredictability is not creating it blindly. With your latest theory, do you think your all-knowing God watches us and knows precisely how we are all going to respond to the challenge? […]

DAVID: Yes, He follows us. Your blind God drifts along, entertained by the chaos He is partially creating.

dhw: “Follows”? Do you mean he watches us with interest? But in your theory he knows precisely how we are going to act, so why bother to “follow” us?

DAVID: Free will means humans producing unexpected results.

So if that is what he wanted from us, why do you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that he might have created the process of evolution as a free-for-all because he wanted unexpected results?

dhw: But there are two separate questions here: why did your all-good God create evil (or why did he create a world of “challenges” in which good battles with evil), and why doesn’t he intervene now that he sees the chaos he has created? You have dodged the first question, and I have offered a list of possible responses to the second.

DAVID: Chaos again is your over interpretation of the amount of evil.

It is you who introduced the word “chaos” (now bolded above), but I have no objection to it. Perhaps you don’t watch the news bulletins concerning epidemics, pandemics, wars and civil wars, natural disasters, homeless refugees etc. that are bringing suffering to millions of people. Meanwhile, how about answering the two questions above?

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled!

DAVID: Nonsensical only in your Godless view. God chose to create us by evolving us. Your rudderless version did the same thing.

dhw: Hardly “godless”, since we are discussing your God’s motives and methods, not his existence. You keep repeating the mantra that focuses solely on us, and leaving out the nonsensical part of your theory, which is that in order to create us plus food, he deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. My alternatives are not “rudderless” – they simply offer different methods and/or purposes from those you impose on him, though their combination makes no sense to you.

DAVID: Yes, your so-called God makes no sense to me. His lack of foresight allows Him to permit evil! What a twisted view of God.

This time you dodge your nonsensical theory of evolution (the 99% of irrelevant designs) and go back to theodicy. I’m surprised that you now have a fixed belief in an all-powerful, all-good God who deliberately creates (not “allows”) evil, with all the suffering that it involves, in order to “challenge” us – though you haven’t come up with a single reason why he would want to do that. But you think a God who experiments is “twisted”.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 08, 2023, 17:03 (264 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

dhw: The proportion of evil to good is irrelevant, and so is our responsibility.

DAVID: Proportionality depends on perspective. God allowed evil but we have the capacity to reduce its size.

dhw: If we are asking how and why an all-good, all-powerful God created evil, the proportion of good to evil is irrelevant. According to you, your God did not “allow” evil: he deliberately created the murderous bacteria, viruses and humans knowing in advance the suffering they would cause. The question is why, and now that you have dropped your first approach (evil doesn’t matter), your second is that he wants to challenge us. Why? Is it a game?

Not a game but having us use our brains to dampen the effects. Big brains for a reason.


DAVID: A creating God without anticipation is creating a world blindly. Not much of a creator.

dhw: You are certain that your God is interested in his creations. A creating God who WANTS to create a world which will interest him through its unpredictability is not creating it blindly. With your latest theory, do you think your all-knowing God watches us and knows precisely how we are all going to respond to the challenge? […]

DAVID: Free will means humans producing unexpected results.

dhw: So if that is what he wanted from us, why do you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that he might have created the process of evolution as a free-for-all because he wanted unexpected results?

Back to a God blind to the future. Why don't you like a purposeful creator?


dhw: But there are two separate questions here: why did your all-good God create evil (or why did he create a world of “challenges” in which good battles with evil), and why doesn’t he intervene now that he sees the chaos he has created? You have dodged the first question, and I have offered a list of possible responses to the second.

DAVID: Chaos again is your over interpretation of the amount of evil.

dhw: It is you who introduced the word “chaos” (now bolded above), but I have no objection to it. Perhaps you don’t watch the news bulletins concerning epidemics, pandemics, wars and civil wars, natural disasters, homeless refugees etc. that are bringing suffering to millions of people. Meanwhile, how about answering the two questions above?

I think the time for an intervening G0d is over. For the first question, answered above, the big brain is there for a reason, and we can mitigate evil in many ways.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled!

DAVID: Nonsensical only in your Godless view. God chose to create us by evolving us. Your rudderless version did the same thing.

dhw: Hardly “godless”, since we are discussing your God’s motives and methods, not his existence. You keep repeating the mantra that focuses solely on us, and leaving out the nonsensical part of your theory, which is that in order to create us plus food, he deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. My alternatives are not “rudderless” – they simply offer different methods and/or purposes from those you impose on him, though their combination makes no sense to you.

DAVID: Yes, your so-called God makes no sense to me. His lack of foresight allows Him to permit evil! What a twisted view of God.

dhw: This time you dodge your nonsensical theory of evolution (the 99% of irrelevant designs) and go back to theodicy. I’m surprised that you now have a fixed belief in an all-powerful, all-good God who deliberately creates (not “allows”) evil, with all the suffering that it involves, in order to “challenge” us – though you haven’t come up with a single reason why he would want to do that. But you think a God who experiments is “twisted”.

God's reason is He wants us to use our big brain. A Garden of Eden existence is boring. Life is meant to be challenging.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, July 09, 2023, 10:34 (264 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

dhw: If we are asking how and why an all-good, all-powerful God created evil, the proportion of good to evil is irrelevant. According to you, your God did not “allow” evil: he deliberately created the murderous bacteria, viruses and humans knowing in advance the suffering they would cause. The question is why, and now that you have dropped your first approach (evil doesn’t matter), your second is that he wants to challenge us. Why? Is it a game?

DAVID: Not a game but having us use our brains to dampen the effects. Big brains for a reason.

And so the reason for your all-good, all-powerful God deliberately designing evil with all the resultant suffering is to make us use our big brains. Now please give us a reason why he has deliberately created this “challenge”. Once upon a time, you thought he had created us because he wanted us to recognize his wonderful work, and maybe form a relationship with us. Do you think we are supposed to admire his wonderful, murderous bacteria and viruses and big-brained baddy humans, and thank him for giving us goodies the big brains to fight against the evils and suffering he has deliberately created?

DAVID: Free will means humans producing unexpected results.

dhw: So if that is what he wanted from us, why do you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that he might have created the process of evolution as a free-for-all because he wanted unexpected results?

DAVID: Back to a God blind to the future. Why don't you like a purposeful creator?

You have just said your God gave humans free will so that the results would be unexpected. Still wearing my theist hat, I have proposed that the same desire for “unexpected results” may explain the whole history of evolution, which presents us with a vast variety of life forms that have come and gone. His purpose: enjoyment of creation (whether direct or indirect) and the desire to create things that he will find interesting. This ties in with your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Now will you please answer my question.

dhw: But there are two separate questions here: why did your all-good God create evil (or why did he create a world of “challenges” in which good battles with evil), and why doesn’t he intervene now that he sees the chaos he has created? You have dodged the first question, and I have offered a list of possible responses to the second.

DAVID: I think the time for an intervening G0d is over.

Please tell us why.

DAVID: For the first question, answered above, the big brain is there for a reason, and we can mitigate evil in many ways.

And what do you think might be his reason for creating evil and creating our big brains to produce evil of their own as well as to fight against evil? Please don’t forget that your all-good, all-powerful God is also all-purposeful.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled!

In order to dodge this argument, you returned to the theodicy problem.

DAVID: God's reason is He wants us to use our big brain. A Garden of Eden existence is boring. Life is meant to be challenging.

Boring for whom? If we continue to use the Eden metaphor, why do you think your all-knowing God deliberately created the serpent, knowing the havoc it would cause? Who “meant” life to be challenging, with all its diseases and wars etc.? Your God is interested in his creations. You have him also wanting unexpected results. Put the two together, and you have a logical explanation for the history of evolution, a possible explanation for theodicy, and a clear purpose: A Garden of Eden would be boring for your God.

NB All of your negative views concerning your God’s inefficiency as a designer and his deliberate, callous (possibly sadistic) creation of evil and its terrible consequences may be correct. My alternative explanations are no less theoretical than your own, and in some cases can also be interpreted as negative. We don’t even know if your God exists, let alone how he thinks.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 09, 2023, 15:27 (263 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

dhw: And so the reason for your all-good, all-powerful God deliberately designing evil with all the resultant suffering is to make us use our big brains. Now please give us a reason why he has deliberately created this “challenge”. Once upon a time, you thought he had created us because he wanted us to recognize his wonderful work, and maybe form a relationship with us. Do you think we are supposed to admire his wonderful, murderous bacteria and viruses and big-brained baddy humans, and thank him for giving us goodies the big brains to fight against the evils and suffering he has deliberately created?

DAVID: Free will means humans producing unexpected results.

dhw: So if that is what he wanted from us, why do you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that he might have created the process of evolution as a free-for-all because he wanted unexpected results?

DAVID: Back to a God blind to the future. Why don't you like a purposeful creator?

dhw: You have just said your God gave humans free will so that the results would be unexpected. Still wearing my theist hat, I have proposed that the same desire for “unexpected results” may explain the whole history of evolution, which presents us with a vast variety of life forms that have come and gone. His purpose: enjoyment of creation (whether direct or indirect) and the desire to create things that he will find interesting. This ties in with your own certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. Now will you please answer my question.

I have responded to your very slanted question above many times. Bacteria and viruses overwhelmingly do good when all results are balanced. The same applies to humans.


dhw: But there are two separate questions here: why did your all-good God create evil (or why did he create a world of “challenges” in which good battles with evil), and why doesn’t he intervene now that he sees the chaos he has created? You have dodged the first question, and I have offered a list of possible responses to the second.

DAVID: I think the time for an intervening G0d is over.

dhw: Please tell us why.

No evidence of overt Godly actions for many centuries, while I am aware Catholicism accepts miracles.


DAVID: For the first question, answered above, the big brain is there for a reason, and we can mitigate evil in many ways.

dhw: And what do you think might be his reason for creating evil and creating our big brains to produce evil of their own as well as to fight against evil? Please don’t forget that your all-good, all-powerful God is also all-purposeful.

Evil is a byproduct of all that is good. Bugs in wrong places and humans with freewill choosing evil.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled!

dhw: In order to dodge this argument, you returned to the theodicy problem.

My return was to repeat, God chose to evolve us for His own reasons, rather than directly create us.


DAVID: God's reason is He wants us to use our big brain. A Garden of Eden existence is boring. Life is meant to be challenging.

dhw: Boring for whom?

For us.

dhw; If we continue to use the Eden metaphor, why do you think your all-knowing God deliberately created the serpent, knowing the havoc it would cause? Who “meant” life to be challenging, with all its diseases and wars etc.? Your God is interested in his creations. You have him also wanting unexpected results.

"Unexpected results"? My purposeful God knows exactly what to expect.

dhw: Put the two together, and you have a logical explanation for the history of evolution, a possible explanation for theodicy, and a clear purpose: A Garden of Eden would be boring for your God.

I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.


dhw: NB All of your negative views concerning your God’s inefficiency as a designer and his deliberate, callous (possibly sadistic) creation of evil and its terrible consequences may be correct. My alternative explanations are no less theoretical than your own, and in some cases can also be interpreted as negative. We don’t even know if your God exists, let alone how he thinks.

Same confusion on your part. God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, July 10, 2023, 13:09 (262 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: Free will means humans producing unexpected results. (dhw's bold)

dhw: So if that is what he wanted from us, why do you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that he might have created the process of evolution as a free-for-all because he wanted unexpected results?

DAVID: I have responded to your very slanted question above many times. Bacteria and viruses overwhelmingly do good when all results are balanced. The same applies to humans.

That is your way of dodging the theodicy question: why and how would an all-good God create evil? Your answer here: let’s ignore the evil and focus on the good. My question is why, if your God deliberately gave us free will because he wanted “unexpected results”, the same purpose cannot underlie the higgledy-piggledy process of evolution, with all its comings and goings. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: I think the time for an intervening G0d is over.

dhw: Please tell us why.

DAVID: No evidence of overt Godly actions for many centuries, while I am aware Catholicism accepts miracles.

A misunderstanding. Of course I agree that there is no divine intervention! My question is why your all-good God is not intervening to put an end to all the suffering he has created.

dhw: And what do you think might be his reason for creating evil and creating our big brains to produce evil of their own as well as to fight against evil? […]

DAVID: Evil is a byproduct of all that is good. Bugs in wrong places and humans with freewill choosing evil.

But you have told us that your all-knowing God knew this would happen when he first created the bugs and us. And since your God is all-purposeful and all-powerful, the question is why he went ahead, and your answer is that he wanted to challenge us. So I now ask why you think your all purposeful God wanted to create the “challenge”. Please answer.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: Since God chose to develop humans in a stepwise fashion through evolution, the 99.9% culled out are absolutely necessary.

dhw: In your nonsensical theory, the problem is not the culling but the deliberate creation of 99 unnecessary organisms which have to be culled! […]

DAVID: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons, rather than directly create us.

“For his own reasons” can only mean you have no idea why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with the single purpose you impose on him, despite your bluster about their being “absolutely necessary”. In brief, your theory makes no sense to you, but still you cling to it. A blatant example of what, on another thread, you call “preconceived bias”.

DAVID: God's reason is He wants us to use our big brain. A Garden of Eden existence is boring. Life is meant to be challenging.

dhw: Boring for whom?

DAVID: For us.

Answered indirectly by my next comment:

dhw: If we continue to use the Eden metaphor, why do you think your all-knowing God deliberately created the serpent, knowing the havoc it would cause? Who “meant” life to be challenging, with all its diseases and wars etc.? Your God is interested in his creations. You have him also wanting unexpected results.

DAVID: "Unexpected results"? My purposeful God knows exactly what to expect.

You have just told us (now bolded) “free will means humans producing unexpected results”. If your all-purposeful God created free will which produces unexpected results, it is only logical to assume that he wanted to create something which would produce results he did not expect! Who else was around to do the expecting at the time when he created our free will?

dhw: Put the two together, and you have a logical explanation for the history of evolution, a possible explanation for theodicy, and a clear purpose: A Garden of Eden would be boring for your God.

DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

At last you have cottoned on! Yes, all our discussions – including those on God’s existence – are “theoretical considerations”. The theory that God would otherwise be bored fits in with the theory that he created life because he enjoyed creating and wanted to create things he would find interesting. This theory explains the history of evolution, including the 99 out of 100 species that leave you clueless. It also answers the theodicy problem, as the creation of a free-for-all with unexpected results at least exonerates your God from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. Of course it does not explain his non-intervention, but I have offered reasons for that too.

dhw: NB All of your negative views concerning your God’s inefficiency as a designer and his deliberate, callous (possibly sadistic) creation of evil and its terrible consequences may be correct. My alternative explanations are no less theoretical than your own, and in some cases can also be interpreted as negative. We don’t even know if your God exists, let alone how he thinks.

DAVID: Same confusion on your part. God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.

So a designer who designs a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the goal you impose on him is an excellent designer. Welcome to Wonderland.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, July 10, 2023, 17:14 (262 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: I have responded to your very slanted question above many times. Bacteria and viruses overwhelmingly do good when all results are balanced. The same applies to humans.

dhw: That is your way of dodging the theodicy question: why and how would an all-good God create evil? Your answer here: let’s ignore the evil and focus on the good. My question is why, if your God deliberately gave us free will because he wanted “unexpected results”, the same purpose cannot underlie the higgledy-piggledy process of evolution, with all its comings and goings. Please stop dodging.

As a believer, I'm not dodging. I accept God's creations produced evil, and I don't blame God. Evil exists in a small percentage way, that I accept. My molehill is your mountain.


DAVID: I think the time for an intervening G0d is over.

dhw: Please tell us why.

DAVID: No evidence of overt Godly actions for many centuries, while I am aware Catholicism accepts miracles.

dhw: A misunderstanding. Of course I agree that there is no divine intervention! My question is why your all-good God is not intervening to put an end to all the suffering he has created.

He most likely sees it as I do.


dhw: And what do you think might be his reason for creating evil and creating our big brains to produce evil of their own as well as to fight against evil? […]

DAVID: Evil is a byproduct of all that is good. Bugs in wrong places and humans with freewill choosing evil.

dhw: But you have told us that your all-knowing God knew this would happen when he first created the bugs and us. And since your God is all-purposeful and all-powerful, the question is why he went ahead, and your answer is that he wanted to challenge us. So I now ask why you think your all purposeful God wanted to create the “challenge”. Please answer.

Life would be boring without the challenges, is my view.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons, rather than directly create us.

dhw: “For his own reasons” can only mean you have no idea why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with the single purpose you impose on him, despite your bluster about their being “absolutely necessary”. In brief, your theory makes no sense to you, but still you cling to it. A blatant example of what, on another thread, you call “preconceived bias”.

No, simply a faith in God.

dhw: If we continue to use the Eden metaphor, why do you think your all-knowing God deliberately created the serpent, knowing the havoc it would cause? Who “meant” life to be challenging, with all its diseases and wars etc.? Your God is interested in his creations. You have him also wanting unexpected results.

DAVID: "Unexpected results"? My purposeful God knows exactly what to expect.

dhw: You have just told us (now bolded) “free will means humans producing unexpected results”. If your all-purposeful God created free will which produces unexpected results, it is only logical to assume that he wanted to create something which would produce results he did not expect! Who else was around to do the expecting at the time when he created our free will?

I agree.


dhw: Put the two together, and you have a logical explanation for the history of evolution, a possible explanation for theodicy, and a clear purpose: A Garden of Eden would be boring for your God.

DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

dhw: At last you have cottoned on! Yes, all our discussions – including those on God’s existence – are “theoretical considerations”. The theory that God would otherwise be bored fits in with the theory that he created life because he enjoyed creating and wanted to create things he would find interesting. This theory explains the history of evolution, including the 99 out of 100 species that leave you clueless. It also answers the theodicy problem, as the creation of a free-for-all with unexpected results at least exonerates your God from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. Of course it does not explain his non-intervention, but I have offered reasons for that too.

I assume God doesn't see the need to intervene now.


dhw: NB All of your negative views concerning your God’s inefficiency as a designer and his deliberate, callous (possibly sadistic) creation of evil and its terrible consequences may be correct. My alternative explanations are no less theoretical than your own, and in some cases can also be interpreted as negative. We don’t even know if your God exists, let alone how he thinks.

DAVID: Same confusion on your part. God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.

dhw: So a designer who designs a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the goal you impose on him is an excellent designer. Welcome to Wonderland.

Still missing the point: the organisms are wonderfully designed.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, July 11, 2023, 08:56 (262 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

dhw: […] why and how would an all-good God create evil? Your answer here: let’s ignore the evil and focus on the good. My question is why, if your God deliberately gave us free will because he wanted “unexpected results”, the same purpose cannot underlie the higgledy-piggledy process of evolution, with all its comings and goings. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: As a believer, I'm not dodging. I accept God's creations produced evil, and I don't blame God. Evil exists in a small percentage way, that I accept. My molehill is your mountain.

But you believe that when your all-knowing God created his creatures (including us), he knew that they would produce evil, in which case he deliberately created creatures which would produce evil. But you don’t blame him for deliberately producing creatures that would produce evil. You believe (not “accept”) that evil is a molehill not a mountain, but that does not explain why an all-good God would create even a molehill which causes suffering and misery to millions. [...]

dhw: My question is why your all-good God is not intervening to put an end to all the suffering he has created.

DAVID: He most likely sees it as I do.

So he watches millions of people suffering, as he knew they would, but that doesn’t matter because lots of other people are OK. That makes him callous in the extreme, and possibly even sadistic. You may be right, of course. But in that case, if you were one of the millions who are suffering, I doubt if you would call him all-good.

Your new theory, however, is that he created evil in order to provide us humans with a challenge. I asked what his purpose might have been.

DAVID: Life would be boring without the challenges, is my view.

Previously you used the Garden of Eden as your metaphor for a boring life, and I asked the age-old question why your God created the serpent, knowing that it would be the instigator of all the evil to come. You also wrote: “Free will means humans producing unexpected results,” and you have now agreed that this could only mean results which God did not expect. We then had the following exchange:

dhw: Put the two together, and you have a logical explanation for the history of evolution, a possible explanation for theodicy, and a clear purpose: A Garden of Eden would be boring for your God.

DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

This “theoretical consideration” supports the theory that your God deliberately created the whole of evolution as a free-for-all, because he wanted to create something that would be of interest to him, and watching the unexpected is infinitely more interesting than watching something you already know will happen. It can also absolve him from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. If the results of his invention were unexpected, he cannot have been all-knowing and cannot have foreseen the evil that has arisen from the self-interest which drives the struggle for survival.

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons, rather than directly create us.

dhw: “For his own reasons” can only mean you have no idea why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with the single purpose you impose on him, despite your bluster about their being “absolutely necessary”. In brief, your theory makes no sense to you, but still you cling to it. A blatant example of what, on another thread, you call “preconceived bias”.

DAVID: No, simply a faith in God.

It is not simply faith in God, but faith in a nonsensical theory about what God might have intended and done. All the alternatives I have offered you include God as their creator.

dhw: NB All of your negative views concerning your God’s inefficiency as a designer and his deliberate, callous (possibly sadistic) creation of evil and its terrible consequences may be correct. My alternative explanations are no less theoretical than your own, and in some cases can also be interpreted as negative. We don’t even know if your God exists, let alone how he thinks.

DAVID: Same confusion on your part. God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.

dhw: So a designer who designs a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the goal you impose on him is an excellent designer. Welcome to Wonderland.

DAVID: Still missing the point: the organisms are wonderfully designed.

As with theodicy, you put on your blinkers and insist on seeing nothing but the good. And yet it is you yourself who insist on the nonsensical theory which has your all-powerful God designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose, and it is you yourself who label his design messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Stop dodging!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 11, 2023, 17:59 (261 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: As a believer, I'm not dodging. I accept God's creations produced evil, and I don't blame God. Evil exists in a small percentage way, that I accept. My molehill is your mountain.

dhw: But you believe that when your all-knowing God created his creatures (including us), he knew that they would produce evil, in which case he deliberately created creatures which would produce evil. But you don’t blame him for deliberately producing creatures that would produce evil. You believe (not “accept”) that evil is a molehill not a mountain, but that does not explain why an all-good God would create even a molehill which causes suffering and misery to millions. [...]

What God desired to create is what was required in the biochemistry of life. He wished us to have freewill but knew there would be bad apples as a consequence. Freewill is an overall good for us. It is a tradeoff.


dhw: My question is why your all-good God is not intervening to put an end to all the suffering he has created.

DAVID: He most likely sees it as I do.

dhw: So he watches millions of people suffering, as he knew they would, but that doesn’t matter because lots of other people are OK. That makes him callous in the extreme, and possibly even sadistic. You may be right, of course. But in that case, if you were one of the millions who are suffering, I doubt if you would call him all-good.

Where do you find you enormous statistics of suffering against an eight billion population?


dhw: Your new theory, however, is that he created evil in order to provide us humans with a challenge. I asked what his purpose might have been.

That is a purpose.


DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

dhw: This “theoretical consideration” supports the theory that your God deliberately created the whole of evolution as a free-for-all, because he wanted to create something that would be of interest to him, and watching the unexpected is infinitely more interesting than watching something you already know will happen. It can also absolve him from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. If the results of his invention were unexpected, he cannot have been all-knowing and cannot have foreseen the evil that has arisen from the self-interest which drives the struggle for survival.

A God with His head in the sand is not a God in any form. A very weak way to excuse evil.


David's theory of evolution

DAVID: God chose to evolve us for His own reasons, rather than directly create us.

dhw: “For his own reasons” can only mean you have no idea why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with the single purpose you impose on him, despite your bluster about their being “absolutely necessary”. In brief, your theory makes no sense to you, but still you cling to it. A blatant example of what, on another thread, you call “preconceived bias”.

DAVID: No, simply a faith in God.

dhw:It is not simply faith in God, but faith in a nonsensical theory about what God might have intended and done. All the alternatives I have offered you include God as their creator.

A humanized God who has no idea what might result from His creations.


dhw: NB All of your negative views concerning your God’s inefficiency as a designer and his deliberate, callous (possibly sadistic) creation of evil and its terrible consequences may be correct. My alternative explanations are no less theoretical than your own, and in some cases can also be interpreted as negative. We don’t even know if your God exists, let alone how he thinks.

DAVID: Same confusion on your part. God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.

dhw: So a designer who designs a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the goal you impose on him is an excellent designer. Welcome to Wonderland.

DAVID: Still missing the point: the organisms are wonderfully designed.

dhw: As with theodicy, you put on your blinkers and insist on seeing nothing but the good. And yet it is you yourself who insist on the nonsensical theory which has your all-powerful God designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose, and it is you yourself who label his design messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Stop dodging!

No dodge. I accept God as He is. God is good.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, July 12, 2023, 11:58 (260 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: What God desired to create is what was required in the biochemistry of life. He wished us to have freewill but knew there would be bad apples as a consequence. Freewill is an overall good for us. It is a tradeoff.

Murderous bacteria and viruses, robbery, rape, murder, war, floods, famines etc. were required in the biochemistry of life, were they? Yes, your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God knew that all of these would spring from his creations, but he went ahead (a) because the suffering of millions of people didn’t matter, and/or (b) because he wanted to set us a challenge (you can’t think why), and (c) he created free will because he didn’t want to know what would happen next (“Free will means humans producing unexpected results”) but he is all-knowing and therefore knew what would happen next. What a mess!

dhw: My question is why your all-good God is not intervening to put an end to all the suffering he has created.

DAVID: He most likely sees it as I do.

dhw: So he watches millions of people suffering, as he knew they would, but that doesn’t matter because lots of other people are OK. That makes him callous in the extreme, and possibly even sadistic. You may be right, of course. But in that case, if you were one of the millions who are suffering, I doubt if you would call him all-good.

DAVID: Where do you find you enormous statistics of suffering against an eight billion population?

Why “against”? Figures vary, but approximately 10 million people die of cancer every year, and approximately 100 million people are homeless refugees. In 2021 there were 21,570 murders and 144,300 rapes in your country alone. But apparently none of them matter to you or your God, because we should only look at all the happy people.

dhw: Your new theory, however, is that he created evil in order to provide us humans with a challenge. I asked what his purpose might have been.

DAVID: That is a purpose.

So God said: “I’ll create evil in order to challenge humans” – but he didn’t have any purpose for doing so. However, see your next comment:

DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

dhw: But you cannot bring yourself to believe that he might have created life and evil in order to avoid being bored.

dhw: This “theoretical consideration” supports the theory that your God deliberately created the whole of evolution as a free-for-all, because he wanted to create something that would be of interest to him, and watching the unexpected is infinitely more interesting than watching something you already know will happen. It can also absolve him from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. If the results of his invention were unexpected, he cannot have been all-knowing and cannot have foreseen the evil that has arisen from the self-interest which drives the struggle for survival.

DAVID: A God with His head in the sand is not a God in any form. A very weak way to excuse evil.

It is you who put your head in the sand! Evil doesn’t matter, apparently, because there is more good than evil! I would say that a God who wishes to avoid boredom, and so deliberately creates a free-for-all which he can watch with interest, is not putting his head in the sand. But that does lead to the question of non-intervention, to which I have offered several alternative answers.

David's theory of evolution

dhw: you have no idea why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with the single purpose you impose on him. […] your theory makes no sense to you, but still you cling to it. A blatant example of what, on another thread, you call “preconceived bias”.

DAVID: No, simply a faith in God.

dhw: It is not simply faith in God, but faith in a nonsensical theory about what God might have intended and done. All the alternatives I have offered you include God as their creator.

DAVID: A humanized God who has no idea what might result from His creations.

You claim that your preconceived bias in favour of a theory that makes no sense to you is derived from your faith in God. No it isn’t. It’s derived from your faith in a theory that makes no sense to you. Your refusal to consider other theories does not make your own theory any the less nonsensical.

DAVID: God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.[…]

dhw: As with theodicy, you put on your blinkers and insist on seeing nothing but the good. And yet it is you yourself who insist on the nonsensical theory which has your all-powerful God designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose, and it is you yourself who label his design messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodge. I accept God as He is. God is good.

How do you know what God “is”? You have him deliberately creating evil, and that means he is good, and you have him messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designing evolution, and that means he is an excellent designer. The logic of Wonderland.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 12, 2023, 19:03 (260 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: What God desired to create is what was required in the biochemistry of life. He wished us to have freewill but knew there would be bad apples as a consequence. Freewill is an overall good for us. It is a tradeoff.

dhw:Murderous bacteria and viruses, robbery, rape, murder, war, floods, famines etc. were required in the biochemistry of life, were they? Yes, your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God knew that all of these would spring from his creations, but he went ahead (a) because the suffering of millions of people didn’t matter, and/or (b) because he wanted to set us a challenge (you can’t think why), and (c) he created free will because he didn’t want to know what would happen next (“Free will means humans producing unexpected results”) but he is all-knowing and therefore knew what would happen next. What a mess!

A typical non-believer exaggerating the results of God's actions. The challenge is puroseful to make life more interesting than Eden.


DAVID: Where do you find you enormous statistics of suffering against an eight billion population?

dhw: Why “against”? Figures vary, but approximately 10 million people die of cancer every year, and approximately 100 million people are homeless refugees. In 2021 there were 21,570 murders and 144,300 rapes in your country alone. But apparently none of them matter to you or your God, because we should only look at all the happy people.

It certainly matters and make us humans respond with corrections as best we can.


DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

dhw: But you cannot bring yourself to believe that he might have created life and evil in order to avoid being bored.

dhw: This “theoretical consideration” supports the theory that your God deliberately created the whole of evolution as a free-for-all, because he wanted to create something that would be of interest to him, and watching the unexpected is infinitely more interesting than watching something you already know will happen. It can also absolve him from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. If the results of his invention were unexpected, he cannot have been all-knowing and cannot have foreseen the evil that has arisen from the self-interest which drives the struggle for survival.

DAVID: A God with His head in the sand is not a God in any form. A very weak way to excuse evil.

dhw: It is you who put your head in the sand! Evil doesn’t matter, apparently, because there is more good than evil! I would say that a God who wishes to avoid boredom, and so deliberately creates a free-for-all which he can watch with interest, is not putting his head in the sand. But that does lead to the question of non-intervention, to which I have offered several alternative answers.

David's theory of evolution

dhw: you have no idea why your God chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms which had no connection with the single purpose you impose on him. […] your theory makes no sense to you, but still you cling to it. A blatant example of what, on another thread, you call “preconceived bias”.

DAVID: No, simply a faith in God.

dhw: It is not simply faith in God, but faith in a nonsensical theory about what God might have intended and done. All the alternatives I have offered you include God as their creator.

DAVID: A humanized God who has no idea what might result from His creations.

dhw: You claim that your preconceived bias in favour of a theory that makes no sense to you is derived from your faith in God. No it isn’t. It’s derived from your faith in a theory that makes no sense to you. Your refusal to consider other theories does not make your own theory any the less nonsensical.

Your psychonalysis of me is way off base.


DAVID: God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.[…]

dhw: As with theodicy, you put on your blinkers and insist on seeing nothing but the good. And yet it is you yourself who insist on the nonsensical theory which has your all-powerful God designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose, and it is you yourself who label his design messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodge. I accept God as He is. God is good.

dhw: How do you know what God “is”? You have him deliberately creating evil, and that means he is good, and you have him messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designing evolution, and that means he is an excellent designer. The logic of Wonderland.

His organisms are superbly designed while evolving them dragged on. I know my God from a believing faith in the God I picture.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, July 13, 2023, 09:11 (260 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: What God desired to create is what was required in the biochemistry of life. He wished us to have freewill but knew there would be bad apples as a consequence. Freewill is an overall good for us. It is a tradeoff.

dhw: Murderous bacteria and viruses, robbery, rape, murder, war, floods, famines etc. were required in the biochemistry of life, were they? Yes, your all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good God knew that all of these would spring from his creations, but he went ahead (a) because the suffering of millions of people didn’t matter, and/or (b) because he wanted to set us a challenge (you can’t think why), and (c) he created free will because he didn’t want to know what would happen next (“Free will means humans producing unexpected results”) but he is all-knowing and therefore knew what would happen next. What a mess!

DAVID: A typical non-believer exaggerating the results of God's actions. The challenge is puroseful to make life more interesting than Eden.

There is no exaggeration, as proven by the next exchange:
DAVID: Where do you find you enormous statistics of suffering against an eight billion population?

dhw: Why “against”? Figures vary, but approximately 10 million people die of cancer every year, and approximately 100 million people are homeless refugees. In 2021 there were 21,570 murders and 144,300 rapes in your country alone. But apparently none of them matter to you or your God, because we should only look at all the happy people.

DAVID: It certainly matters and make us humans respond with corrections as best we can.

Thank you for at last acknowledging that evil matters. Of course we respond as best we can to the evil that your God created. And thank you also for your next acknowledgement regarding his purpose:

DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

dhw: This “theoretical consideration” supports the theory that your God deliberately created the whole of evolution as a free-for-all, because he wanted to create something that would be of interest to him, and watching the unexpected is infinitely more interesting than watching something you already know will happen. It can also absolve him from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. If the results of his invention were unexpected, he cannot have been all-knowing and cannot have foreseen the evil that has arisen from the self-interest which drives the struggle for survival. […]But that does lead to the question of non-intervention, to which I have offered several alternative answers.

Apart from a rather silly remark about head in the sand (which is far more applicable to your earlier downgrading of the importance of evil), you seem to have accepted the logic of this “theoretical consideration”. Too soon to say thank you? (NB In return, I acknowledge that of course it is only a theory, as is the very existence of your God.)

David's theory of evolution
dhw: You claim that your preconceived bias in favour of a theory that makes no sense to you is derived from your faith in God. No it isn’t. It’s derived from your faith in a theory that makes no sense to you. Your refusal to consider other theories does not make your own theory any the less nonsensical.

DAVID: Your psychonalysis of me is way off base.

It is not a psychoanalysis of you. I have simply pointed out that your faith in God has absolutely nothing to do with your faith in a theory which makes no sense to you. There are alternative theories that also allow for faith in God, and which do make sense to you, only they do not conform to your personal interpretation of your God’s motive and method.

DAVID: God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.[…]

dhw: As with theodicy, you put on your blinkers and insist on seeing nothing but the good. And yet it is you yourself who insist on the nonsensical theory which has your all-powerful God designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose, and it is you yourself who label his design messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodge. I accept God as He is. God is good.
And:
DAVID: His organisms are superbly designed while evolving them dragged on. I know my God from a believing faith in the God I picture.

A good description. You have a believing faith in your own theory (or picture) that your God is a superb designer although he is also a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer, and is all-good although he deliberately created evil. Welcome to Wonderland.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 13, 2023, 20:23 (259 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: A typical non-believer exaggerating the results of God's actions. The challenge is purposeful to make life more interesting than Eden.

dhw; There is no exaggeration, as proven by the next exchange:
DAVID: Where do you find you enormous statistics of suffering against an eight billion population?

dhw: Why “against”? Figures vary, but approximately 10 million people die of cancer every year, and approximately 100 million people are homeless refugees. In 2021 there were 21,570 murders and 144,300 rapes in your country alone. But apparently none of them matter to you or your God, because we should only look at all the happy people.

DAVID: It certainly matters and make us humans respond with corrections as best we can.

Thank you for at last acknowledging that evil matters. Of course we respond as best we can to the evil that your God created. And thank you also for your next acknowledgement regarding his purpose:

DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

dhw: This “theoretical consideration” supports the theory that your God deliberately created the whole of evolution as a free-for-all, because he wanted to create something that would be of interest to him, and watching the unexpected is infinitely more interesting than watching something you already know will happen. It can also absolve him from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. If the results of his invention were unexpected, he cannot have been all-knowing and cannot have foreseen the evil that has arisen from the self-interest which drives the struggle for survival. […]But that does lead to the question of non-intervention, to which I have offered several alternative answers.

Apart from a rather silly remark about head in the sand (which is far more applicable to your earlier downgrading of the importance of evil), you seem to have accepted the logic of this “theoretical consideration”. Too soon to say thank you? (NB In return, I acknowledge that of course it is only a theory, as is the very existence of your God.)

David's theory of evolution
dhw: You claim that your preconceived bias in favour of a theory that makes no sense to you is derived from your faith in God. No it isn’t. It’s derived from your faith in a theory that makes no sense to you. Your refusal to consider other theories does not make your own theory any the less nonsensical.

DAVID: Your psychonalysis of me is way off base.

dhw: It is not a psychoanalysis of you. I have simply pointed out that your faith in God has absolutely nothing to do with your faith in a theory which makes no sense to you. There are alternative theories that also allow for faith in God, and which do make sense to you, only they do not conform to your personal interpretation of your God’s motive and method.

We each must conclude opinions about God's personality. No proofs available. Just what we conclude from studies of His works.


DAVID: God is an excellent designer using a cumbersome stepwise evolutionary method.[…]

dhw: As with theodicy, you put on your blinkers and insist on seeing nothing but the good. And yet it is you yourself who insist on the nonsensical theory which has your all-powerful God designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose, and it is you yourself who label his design messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No dodge. I accept God as He is. God is good.
And:
DAVID: His organisms are superbly designed while evolving them dragged on. I know my God from a believing faith in the God I picture.

dhw: A good description. You have a believing faith in your own theory (or picture) that your God is a superb designer although he is also a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer, and is all-good although he deliberately created evil. Welcome to Wonderland.

Spinning more and more: please recognize and differentiate between excellent design of organisms used in a cumbersome evolutionary system.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, July 17, 2023, 13:33 (255 days ago) @ David Turell

THEODICY

DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

dhw: This “theoretical consideration” supports the theory that your God deliberately created the whole of evolution as a free-for-all, because he wanted to create something that would be of interest to him, and watching the unexpected is infinitely more interesting than watching something you already know will happen. It can also absolve him from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. If the results of his invention were unexpected, he cannot have been all-knowing and cannot have foreseen the evil that has arisen from the self-interest which drives the struggle for survival. […]But that does lead to the question of non-intervention, to which I have offered several alternative answers.
Apart from a rather silly remark about head in the sand (which is far more applicable to your earlier downgrading of the importance of evil), you seem to have accepted the logic of this “theoretical consideration”. Too soon to say thank you? (NB In return, I acknowledge that of course it is only a theory, as is the very existence of your God.)

The fact that you have not responded would seem to indicate that you now accept the logic of this theory. Of course, that is all it is, but at least it avoids all the mental knot-twisting which downgrades evil to a minor blip that we can ignore, or which downgrades God to a callous, if not sadistic monster who deliberately creates evil and all its concomitant pain and suffering as a means of relieving his boredom.

David’s theory of evolution

dhw: I have simply pointed out that your faith in God has absolutely nothing to do with your faith in a theory which makes no sense to you. There are alternative theories that also allow for faith in God, and which do make sense to you, only they do not conform to your personal interpretation of your God’s motive and method.

DAVID: We each must conclude opinions about God's personality. No proofs available. Just what we conclude from studies of His works.

True. But then the whole discussion centres on the reasonableness of the opinions. For instance, if we study the complexities of living organisms, it seems perfectly reasonable to both of us to argue that they support the theory of design. But if we study the history of life, it seems totally unreasonable to me to assume that an all-powerful designer would deliberately design 99 out of 100 organisms that had no connection whatsoever with the only organisms he wanted to design. You yourself can make no sense of it, and yet you cling to it. See also below.

DAVID: I accept God as He is. God is good.
And:
DAVID: His organisms are superbly designed while evolving them dragged on. I know my God from a believing faith in the God I picture.

dhw: A good description. You have a believing faith in your own theory (or picture) that your God is a superb designer although he is also a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer, and is all-good although he deliberately created evil. Welcome to Wonderland.

DAVID: Spinning more and more: please recognize and differentiate between excellent design of organisms used in a cumbersome evolutionary system.

Yes, organisms are an excellent design, but you are the one who, through your anthropocentric theory of evolution, castigate your God as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer! I don’t. If I believed in God, it would be in a God who designs what he wants to design, as he does in all three of my alternatives. You do not “accept God as he is.” Nobody knows God “as he is”. You only accept your inconsistent, self-contradictory theories of what God is: an excellent inefficient designer, and an all-good creator of evil.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, July 17, 2023, 15:37 (255 days ago) @ dhw

THEODICY

DAVID: I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.

dhw: This “theoretical consideration” supports the theory that your God deliberately created the whole of evolution as a free-for-all, because he wanted to create something that would be of interest to him, and watching the unexpected is infinitely more interesting than watching something you already know will happen. It can also absolve him from the accusation that he deliberately created evil. If the results of his invention were unexpected, he cannot have been all-knowing and cannot have foreseen the evil that has arisen from the self-interest which drives the struggle for survival. […]But that does lead to the question of non-intervention, to which I have offered several alternative answers.
Apart from a rather silly remark about head in the sand (which is far more applicable to your earlier downgrading of the importance of evil), you seem to have accepted the logic of this “theoretical consideration”. Too soon to say thank you? (NB In return, I acknowledge that of course it is only a theory, as is the very existence of your God.)

dhw: The fact that you have not responded would seem to indicate that you now accept the logic of this theory. Of course, that is all it is, but at least it avoids all the mental knot-twisting which downgrades evil to a minor blip that we can ignore, or which downgrades God to a callous, if not sadistic monster who deliberately creates evil and all its concomitant pain and suffering as a means of relieving his boredom.

Sorry. I have gotten tired of your same exposition of your same theory. A God who cannot foresee the future of His creations is an intellectually blinded distortion of a true God. It does not exonerate Him from blame. I've read endless theodicy excuses and leave unimpressed. The semi-uncontrolled biochemical system of life is the best that can be. Only an all-knowing God could find it. Viruses and bacteria must be a part of it, doing much good and also some bad. Free will made evil people not God. I still follow Dayenu, it is enough. My mole hill is your Everest.


David’s theory of evolution

dhw: I have simply pointed out that your faith in God has absolutely nothing to do with your faith in a theory which makes no sense to you. There are alternative theories that also allow for faith in God, and which do make sense to you, only they do not conform to your personal interpretation of your God’s motive and method.

DAVID: We each must conclude opinions about God's personality. No proofs available. Just what we conclude from studies of His works.

dhw: True. But then the whole discussion centres on the reasonableness of the opinions. For instance, if we study the complexities of living organisms, it seems perfectly reasonable to both of us to argue that they support the theory of design. But if we study the history of life, it seems totally unreasonable to me to assume that an all-powerful designer would deliberately design 99 out of 100 organisms that had no connection whatsoever with the only organisms he wanted to design. You yourself can make no sense of it, and yet you cling to it. See also below.

You are denying the fact of evolution within the assumption God is the creator of life, which evolved us as an endpoint.


DAVID: I accept God as He is. God is good.
And:
DAVID: His organisms are superbly designed while evolving them dragged on. I know my God from a believing faith in the God I picture.

dhw: A good description. You have a believing faith in your own theory (or picture) that your God is a superb designer although he is also a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer, and is all-good although he deliberately created evil. Welcome to Wonderland.

DAVID: Spinning more and more: please recognize and differentiate between excellent design of organisms used in a cumbersome evolutionary system.

dhw; Yes, organisms are an excellent design, but you are the one who, through your anthropocentric theory of evolution, castigate your God as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer! I don’t. If I believed in God, it would be in a God who designs what he wants to design, as he does in all three of my alternatives. You do not “accept God as he is.” Nobody knows God “as he is”. You only accept your inconsistent, self-contradictory theories of what God is: an excellent inefficient designer, and an all-good creator of evil.

Again incapable of separating two issues! You admit great designs, but the evolutionary process is a system of culling which naturally results in 99.9% losses along the way. Cumbersome only when compared to direct creation.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, July 18, 2023, 11:09 (255 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Sorry. I have gotten tired of your same exposition of your same theory. A God who cannot foresee the future of His creations is an intellectually blinded distortion of a true God.

Sorry, but I have gotten tired of your same response, which even ignores your own concessions. You agree that God would be bored by Eden, and you agree that free will means humans producing unexpected results, but you refuse to link the two observations together: a God who does not want to be bored may have deliberately created the whole history of life to produce unexpected results, which would be far less boring than results which he already knows in advance. This is not “intellectual blindness”, and you have no more idea than I have of what constitutes a “true” God.

DAVID: It does not exonerate Him from blame.

Your usual self-contradictory view that an all-good God deliberately created beings he knew would commit evil (as a challenge to the goodies)– and so is to “blame” for all the evil and its resultant suffering, and yet at the same time you “blame” humans for using their free will to commit evil deeds (as below) and thus try to exonerate God.

DAVID: I've read endless theodicy excuses and leave unimpressed. The semi-uncontrolled biochemical system of life is the best that can be. Only an all-knowing God could find it. Viruses and bacteria must be a part of it, doing much good and also some bad. Free will made evil people not God. I still follow Dayenu, it is enough. My mole hill is your Everest.

A complete muddle. One moment your all-powerful God is in complete control of evolution, but now he is only in semi-control, and he is incapable of designing a Garden of Eden, although he could have done so but a Garden of Eden would have been boring for him. See above for my version of free will exonerating God from blame, your denial that it exonerates him, and now your belief that free will does exonerate him (“Free will made evil people not God”.) And the problem of theodicy is not solved by pretending that evil is only a molehill which we should ignore.

dhw: if we study the complexities of living organisms, it seems perfectly reasonable to both of us to argue that they support the theory of design. But if we study the history of life, it seems totally unreasonable to me to assume that an all-powerful designer would deliberately design 99 out of 100 organisms that had no connection whatsoever with the only organisms he wanted to design. You yourself can make no sense of it, and yet you cling to it. See also below.

DAVID: You are denying the fact of evolution within the assumption God is the creator of life, which evolved us as an endpoint.

I am not denying evolution or the possibility that God created life. Nor do I deny that we are the latest species to have evolved. Yet again, you choose to sidetrack the illogical, self-contradictory theories I object to, which are that an all-powerful, all knowing, all-good God would have deliberately and knowingly designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only species he wanted to design, and that an all-good, all-knowing God would have deliberately and knowingly created evil with all the suffering that accompanies it.

dhw: Yes, organisms are an excellent design, but you are the one who, through your anthropocentric theory of evolution, castigate your God as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer! I don’t. If I believed in God, it would be in a God who designs what he wants to design, as he does in all three of my alternatives. You do not “accept God as he is.” Nobody knows God “as he is”. You only accept your inconsistent, self-contradictory theories of what God is: an excellent inefficient designer, and an all-good creator of evil.

DAVID: Again incapable of separating two issues! You admit great designs, but the evolutionary process is a system of culling which naturally results in 99.9% losses along the way. Cumbersome only when compared to direct creation.

They are not two issues! He brilliantly designs 100 life forms, but according to you, 99 of them have no connection with his one and only purpose. You usually use the word “naturally” to dissociate events from your God’s doing. Once again, you seem “incapable” of recognizing that your God, as first-cause creator of everything, would have designed the system which made him design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. That in your own words makes him a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. Please stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 18, 2023, 13:25 (254 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Sorry. I have gotten tired of your same exposition of your same theory. A God who cannot foresee the future of His creations is an intellectually blinded distortion of a true God.

dhw: Sorry, but I have gotten tired of your same response, which even ignores your own concessions. You agree that God would be bored by Eden, and you agree that free will means humans producing unexpected results, but you refuse to link the two observations together: a God who does not want to be bored may have deliberately created the whole history of life to produce unexpected results, which would be far less boring than results which he already knows in advance. This is not “intellectual blindness”, and you have no more idea than I have of what constitutes a “true” God.

Only humans get bored. This comment about your God reflects your humanizing of Him.


DAVID: It does not exonerate Him from blame.

dhw: Your usual self-contradictory view that an all-good God deliberately created beings he knew would commit evil (as a challenge to the goodies)– and so is to “blame” for all the evil and its resultant suffering, and yet at the same time you “blame” humans for using their free will to commit evil deeds (as below) and thus try to exonerate God.

Yes, free will allowed humans to be evil which is the same result as Walter Raleigh and smoking. And yes, God knew.


DAVID: I've read endless theodicy excuses and leave unimpressed. The semi-uncontrolled biochemical system of life is the best that can be. Only an all-knowing God could find it. Viruses and bacteria must be a part of it, doing much good and also some bad. Free will made evil people not God. I still follow Dayenu, it is enough. My mole hill is your Everest.

dhw: A complete muddle. One moment your all-powerful God is in complete control of evolution, but now he is only in semi-control.

Dashing off again and misunderstanding that the current daily activities of bugs follows from their freedom to act. Evolution not involved.

dhw: and he is incapable of designing a Garden of Eden, although he could have done so but a Garden of Eden would have been boring for him. See above for my version of free will exonerating God from blame, your denial that it exonerates him, and now your belief that free will does exonerate him (“Free will made evil people not God”.) And the problem of theodicy is not solved by pretending that evil is only a molehill which we should ignore.

Not ignore, but accept it as a tiny part of God's works, Dayenu.


dhw: if we study the complexities of living organisms, it seems perfectly reasonable to both of us to argue that they support the theory of design. But if we study the history of life, it seems totally unreasonable to me to assume that an all-powerful designer would deliberately design 99 out of 100 organisms that had no connection whatsoever with the only organisms he wanted to design. You yourself can make no sense of it, and yet you cling to it. See also below.

DAVID: You are denying the fact of evolution within the assumption God is the creator of life, which evolved us as an endpoint.

dhw: I am not denying evolution or the possibility that God created life. Nor do I deny that we are the latest species to have evolved. Yet again, you choose to sidetrack the illogical, self-contradictory theories I object to, which are that an all-powerful, all knowing, all-good God would have deliberately and knowingly designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only species he wanted to design, and that an all-good, all-knowing God would have deliberately and knowingly created evil with all the suffering that accompanies it.

You are still denying God chose to evolve us from bacteria. 99.9% are required to be lost.


dhw: Yes, organisms are an excellent design, but you are the one who, through your anthropocentric theory of evolution, castigate your God as a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer! I don’t. If I believed in God, it would be in a God who designs what he wants to design, as he does in all three of my alternatives. You do not “accept God as he is.” Nobody knows God “as he is”. You only accept your inconsistent, self-contradictory theories of what God is: an excellent inefficient designer, and an all-good creator of evil.

DAVID: Again incapable of separating two issues! You admit great designs, but the evolutionary process is a system of culling which naturally results in 99.9% losses along the way. Cumbersome only when compared to direct creation.

dhw: They are not two issues! He brilliantly designs 100 life forms, but according to you, 99 of them have no connection with his one and only purpose. You usually use the word “naturally” to dissociate events from your God’s doing. Once again, you seem “incapable” of recognizing that your God, as first-cause creator of everything, would have designed the system which made him design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. That in your own words makes him a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. Please stop dodging.

Stop twisting facts. 99.9% had to disappear if evolution is a method of culling to achieve better results. God chose to evolve us. You cannot deny that point. All connected!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, July 19, 2023, 12:08 (253 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: […] A God who cannot foresee the future of His creations is an intellectually blinded distortion of a true God.

dhw: […] You agree that God would be bored by Eden, and you agree that free will means humans producing unexpected results, but you refuse to link the two observations together: a God who does not want to be bored may have deliberately created the whole history of life to produce unexpected results, which would be far less boring than results which he already knows in advance. This is not “intellectual blindness”, and you have no more idea than I have of what constitutes a “true” God.

DAVID: Only humans get bored. This comment about your God reflects your humanizing of Him.

A week ago, you wrote: “I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.” All our discussions – including that concerning the existence of your God – are theoretical considerations, and so you agree that your God could be bored by Eden. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: It does not exonerate Him from blame.

dhw: Your usual self-contradictory view that an all-good God deliberately created beings he knew would commit evil (as a challenge to the goodies)– and so is to “blame” for all the evil and its resultant suffering, and yet at the same time you “blame” humans for using their free will to commit evil deeds (as below) and thus try to exonerate God.

DAVID: Yes, free will allowed humans to be evil which is the same result as Walter Raleigh and smoking. And yes, God knew.

The point of the Walter Raleigh analogy is that he did NOT know that smoking would have “evil results”, and so we cannot blame him. Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God designed humans in full knowledge of the fact that they would commit evil acts, and that makes him responsible for evil.

DAVID: […] The semi-uncontrolled biochemical system of life is the best that can be. Only an all-knowing God could find it. Viruses and bacteria must be a part of it, doing much good and also some bad. Free will made evil people not God. I still follow Dayenu, it is enough. My mole hill is your Everest.

dhw: A complete muddle. One moment your all-powerful God is in complete control of evolution, but now he is only in semi-control...

DAVID: Dashing off again and misunderstanding that the current daily activities of bugs follows from their freedom to act. Evolution not involved.

Even today, bugs both good and bad mutate in order to combat new threats to their existence. Of course evolution is “involved”. And according to you, your all-powerful God is incapable of stopping them. He also deliberately created humans to act independently of his control, and according to you he has no control over the environmental changes which demand or allow organisms to speciate into other life forms. It is you have introduced the term “semi-uncontrolled”.

dhw: ...and he is incapable of designing a Garden of Eden, although he could have done so but a Garden of Eden would have been boring for him. See above for my version of free will exonerating God from blame, your denial that it exonerates him, and now your belief that free will does exonerate him (“Free will made evil people not God”.) And the problem of theodicy is not solved by pretending that evil is only a molehill which we should ignore.

DAVID: Not ignore, but accept it as a tiny part of God's works, Dayenu.

You do not solve the problem of theodicy by pretending that evil is only a molehill!

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: You are still denying God chose to evolve us from bacteria. 99.9% are required to be lost.
And:
DAVID: 99.9% had to disappear if evolution is a method of culling to achieve better results. God chose to evolve us. You cannot deny that point. All connected

I am convinced that Darwin was right, and all life including ourselves has evolved from the earliest cells, whether God exists or not. I agree that 99% or 99.9% are lost. I do not agree that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would have started out with the one and only purpose of designing us plus food but despite his omnipotence and omniscience, and despite your belief that he was perfectly capable of creating phenotypes “de novo”, found himself “required” to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. You can’t understand it either. You even denigrate your God by insisting that his design system is messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have offered you three alternative explanations for the 99% which make perfect sense to you, but which you reject on the absurd grounds that in some way they “humanise” your God, although you agree that we reflect him and have thought patterns in common with his own.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 19, 2023, 16:48 (253 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: Only humans get bored. This comment about your God reflects your humanizing of Him.

dhw; A week ago, you wrote: “I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.” All our discussions – including that concerning the existence of your God – are theoretical considerations, and so you agree that your God could be bored by Eden. Please stop contradicting yourself.

You love to pounce on comments made in other contexts. The evidence for your humanized God is constant and overwhelming. A creating God should be interested in watching His creations in action. No action in Eden, no interest was my previous intent.

DAVID: Yes, free will allowed humans to be evil which is the same result as Walter Raleigh and smoking. And yes, God knew.

dhw: The point of the Walter Raleigh analogy is that he did NOT know that smoking would have “evil results”, and so we cannot blame him. Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God designed humans in full knowledge of the fact that they would commit evil acts, and that makes him responsible for evil.

Why argue? I agreed above.

DAVID: Dashing off again and misunderstanding that the current daily activities of bugs follows from their freedom to act. Evolution not involved.

dhw: Even today, bugs both good and bad mutate in order to combat new threats to their existence. Of course evolution is “involved”.

You are inflating simple adaptations into speciation as usual.

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: You are still denying God chose to evolve us from bacteria. 99.9% are required to be lost.
And:
DAVID: 99.9% had to disappear if evolution is a method of culling to achieve better results. God chose to evolve us. You cannot deny that point. All connected

dhw: I am convinced that Darwin was right, and all life including ourselves has evolved from the earliest cells, whether God exists or not. I agree that 99% or 99.9% are lost. I do not agree that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would have started out with the one and only purpose of designing us plus food but despite his omnipotence and omniscience, and despite your belief that he was perfectly capable of creating phenotypes “de novo”, found himself “required” to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. You can’t understand it either. You even denigrate your God by insisting that his design system is messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have offered you three alternative explanations for the 99% which make perfect sense to you, but which you reject on the absurd grounds that in some way they “humanise” your God, although you agree that we reflect him and have thought patterns in common with his own.

In "How to Think About God", Adler tells us that God is not like us so that any attempt at comparisons is tenuous at best. What makes perfect sense to me about your theories is to accept them from a highly humanized God standpoint. Stop ignoring my original statement in true context.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, July 20, 2023, 09:57 (253 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

DAVID: Only humans get bored. This comment about your God reflects your humanizing of Him.

dhw; A week ago, you wrote: “I agree God would be bored by Eden, as a theoretical consideration.” All our discussions – including that concerning the existence of your God – are theoretical considerations, and so you agree that your God could be bored by Eden. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: You love to pounce on comments made in other contexts. The evidence for your humanized God is constant and overwhelming. A creating God should be interested in watching His creations in action. No action in Eden, no interest was my previous intent.

The comment was made in this same context of theodicy, and thank you for now confirming it so emphatically. No interest = boring, and so you are telling us that your God created evil so that his creations would be more interesting for him to watch. You have also told us that he created free will in order to produce unexpected results, which again would be more interesting for him than watching results he already knew.

DAVID: Yes, free will allowed humans to be evil which is the same result as Walter Raleigh and smoking. And yes, God knew.

dhw: The point of the Walter Raleigh analogy is that he did NOT know that smoking would have “evil results”, and so we cannot blame him. Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God designed humans in full knowledge of the fact that they would commit evil acts, and that makes him responsible for evil.

DAVID: Why argue? I agreed above.

Your reference to Walter Raleigh was entirely out of place. Thank you for now agreeing that your theory makes your God responsible for evil. You have solved the problem of theodicy: God is not all good.

DAVID: Dashing off again and misunderstanding that the current daily activities of bugs follows from their freedom to act. Evolution not involved.

dhw: Even today, bugs both good and bad mutate in order to combat new threats to their existence. Of course evolution is “involved”.

DAVID: You are inflating simple adaptations into speciation as usual.

I am not inflating anything. Adaptation is part of the process of evolution!

David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: You are still denying God chose to evolve us from bacteria. 99.9% are required to be lost.
And:
DAVID: 99.9% had to disappear if evolution is a method of culling to achieve better results. God chose to evolve us. You cannot deny that point. All connected

dhw: I am convinced that Darwin was right, and all life including ourselves has evolved from the earliest cells, whether God exists or not. I agree that 99% or 99.9% are lost. I do not agree that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would have started out with the one and only purpose of designing us plus food but despite his omnipotence and omniscience, and despite your belief that he was perfectly capable of creating phenotypes “de novo”, found himself “required” to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. You can’t understand it either. You even denigrate your God by insisting that his design system is messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have offered you three alternative explanations for the 99% which make perfect sense to you, but which you reject on the absurd grounds that in some way they “humanise” your God, although you agree that we reflect him and have thought patterns in common with his own.

DAVID: In "How to Think About God", Adler tells us that God is not like us so that any attempt at comparisons is tenuous at best.

Nobody knows what God is like, or even if he exists. How on earth does that justify the theory that he forced himself to design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose? And how does it invalidate the logic of my alternatives to your theories?

DAVID: What makes perfect sense to me about your theories is to accept them from a highly humanized God standpoint. Stop ignoring my original statement in true context.

You have agreed that we reflect your God and have thought patterns and emotions similar to his. My theories fit in logically with the history of life. What original statement and “true context” are you referring to? You have even agreed in this post that your God “should be interested in his creations”, and Eden would not be interesting, and so he created evil. Why is relief of boredom, and creating interesting evil, less “humanized” than conducting interesting experiments, or creating a free-for-all in which the unexpected is more interesting than the expected?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 20, 2023, 16:09 (252 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: You love to pounce on comments made in other contexts. The evidence for your humanized God is constant and overwhelming. A creating God should be interested in watching His creations in action. No action in Eden, no interest was my previous intent.

dhw: The comment was made in this same context of theodicy, and thank you for now confirming it so emphatically. No interest = boring, and so you are telling us that your God created evil so that his creations would be more interesting for him to watch. You have also told us that he created free will in order to produce unexpected results, which again would be more interesting for him than watching results he already knew.

Your stretched interpretation of my point about God is out of order in how my God approaches His creations. God creates with the simple purpose of creating. He then may follow with interest. He does not create to be entertained, as your God does. Stop interpreting my concept of God in your humanizing terms.


David’s theory of evolution

DAVID: You are still denying God chose to evolve us from bacteria. 99.9% are required to be lost.
And:
DAVID: 99.9% had to disappear if evolution is a method of culling to achieve better results. God chose to evolve us. You cannot deny that point. All connected

dhw: I am convinced that Darwin was right, and all life including ourselves has evolved from the earliest cells, whether God exists or not. I agree that 99% or 99.9% are lost. I do not agree that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would have started out with the one and only purpose of designing us plus food but despite his omnipotence and omniscience, and despite your belief that he was perfectly capable of creating phenotypes “de novo”, found himself “required” to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. You can’t understand it either. You even denigrate your God by insisting that his design system is messy, cumbersome and inefficient. I have offered you three alternative explanations for the 99% which make perfect sense to you, but which you reject on the absurd grounds that in some way they “humanise” your God, although you agree that we reflect him and have thought patterns in common with his own.

DAVID: In "How to Think About God", Adler tells us that God is not like us so that any attempt at comparisons is tenuous at best.

dhw: Nobody knows what God is like, or even if he exists. How on earth does that justify the theory that he forced himself to design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose? And how does it invalidate the logic of my alternatives to your theories?

DAVID: What makes perfect sense to me about your theories is to accept them from a highly humanized God standpoint. Stop ignoring my original statement in true context.

dhw: You have agreed that we reflect your God and have thought patterns and emotions similar to his. My theories fit in logically with the history of life. What original statement and “true context” are you referring to? You have even agreed in this post that your God “should be interested in his creations”, and Eden would not be interesting, and so he created evil. Why is relief of boredom, and creating interesting evil, less “humanized” than conducting interesting experiments, or creating a free-for-all in which the unexpected is more interesting than the expected?

Same old view of a God who must entertain Himself, so He is not bored. He experiments because He can't see a road to His nebulous purposes, which may not even exist!! And sure He is totally interested since He has no idea what is coming next. And this is the same guy who made our universe and started life? Totally incompatible aspects of your so-called God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, July 21, 2023, 08:50 (252 days ago) @ David Turell

Theodicy

dhw: Your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God designed humans in full knowledge of the fact that they would commit evil acts, and that makes him responsible for evil.

DAVID: Why argue? I agreed above.

dhw: […] You have solved the problem of theodicy: God is not all good.

That presumably marks the end of the discussion on theodicy from your point of view, and I needn't repeat my alternatives. What follows concerns your theory of evolution.

DAVID: […] God creates with the simple purpose of creating.

Not according to you. He approached creation with the one and only purpose of designing us and our food. […]

DAVID: He then may follow with interest.

Your earlier theory was that he ENJOYED creating, and was interested in his creations. Of course you can’t be interested in them until you have created them, but how does that come to mean that his purpose was not to enjoy creating things that would interest him?

DAVID: He does not create to be entertained, as your God does. Stop interpreting my concept of God in your humanizing terms.

Then forget the word “entertained”*** and stick to “interested”. Why, if you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, would he NOT want to create things that would interest him? In your own words, “I agree God would be bored by Eden…”. And so, according to last week’s theory, he deliberately created evil as a challenge, and created free will so that it could produce unexpected results. It is YOU who have used all these “humanizing” terms! Why are you now criticising them?

*** I owe you an apology. I have fought long and hard against your use of “entertainment”, but I have just discovered that I used it myself in the “brief guide”, which I am revising. I am removing it because it is far too superficial.

DAVID: You are still denying God chose to evolve us from bacteria. 99.9% are required to be lost.

dhw: I am convinced that Darwin was right, and all life including ourselves has evolved from the earliest cells, whether God exists or not. I agree that 99% or 99.9% are lost. I do not agree that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would have started out with the one and only purpose of designing us plus food but despite his omnipotence and omniscience, and despite your belief that he was perfectly capable of creating phenotypes “de novo”, found himself “required” to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. You can’t understand it either. You even denigrate your God by insisting that his design system is messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

All met with a profound silence – which is no doubt due to the fact that you have no idea why your God would behave so illogically.

dhw: I have offered you three alternative explanations for the 99% which make perfect sense to you, but which you reject on the absurd grounds that in some way they “humanise” your God, although you agree that we reflect him and have thought patterns in common with his own.

DAVID: In "How to Think About God", Adler tells us that God is not like us so that any attempt at comparisons is tenuous at best.

dhw: Nobody knows what God is like, or even if he exists. How on earth does that justify the theory that he forced himself to design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose?

No answer.

dhw: And how does it invalidate the logic of my alternatives to your theories?

DAVID: What makes perfect sense to me about your theories is to accept them from a highly humanized God standpoint. […]

dhw: You have agreed that we reflect your God and have thought patterns and emotions similar to his. My theories fit in logically with the history of life. […] You have even agreed in this post that your God “should be interested in his creations”, and Eden would not be interesting, and so he created evil. Why is relief of boredom, and creating interesting evil, less “humanized” than conducting interesting experiments, or creating a free-for-all in which the unexpected is more interesting than the expected?

No reply.

DAVID: He experiments because He can't see a road to His nebulous purposes, which may not even exist!!

Your usual distortion. In my first experimental theory, he sets out to design a being like himself (= your own theory), in my second, he creates for enjoyment and interest (a perfectly acceptable purpose in itself), and gets new ideas as he goes along. In my third, he creates a free-for-all for the same purpose.

DAVID: And sure He is totally interested since He has no idea what is coming next. And this is the same guy who made our universe and started life? Totally incompatible aspects of your so-called God.

There is nothing incompatible about a God who starts life in order to have something interesting to watch, and therefore creates something interesting to watch. The only incompatible theories we have so far are yours concerning an all-powerful God who is forced to design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose, and an all-good God who deliberately creates evil.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, July 21, 2023, 16:04 (251 days ago) @ dhw

Theodicy

DAVID: […] God creates with the simple purpose of creating.

dhw: Not according to you. He approached creation with the one and only purpose of designing us and our food. […]

The intended endpoint does not distort God's wish to create, as you try to claim.


DAVID: He then may follow with interest.

dhw: Your earlier theory was that he ENJOYED creating, and was interested in his creations. Of course you can’t be interested in them until you have created them, but how does that come to mean that his purpose was not to enjoy creating things that would interest him?

Stop it. My God creates simply to create what He wishes. Enjoyment and interest are very secondary events. He is not your over-humanized God.


dhw: Then forget the word “entertained”*** and stick to “interested”. Why, if you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, would he NOT want to create things that would interest him? In your own words, “I agree God would be bored by Eden…”. And so, according to last week’s theory, he deliberately created evil as a challenge, and created free will so that it could produce unexpected results. It is YOU who have used all these “humanizing” terms! Why are you now criticising them?

When seen as secondary to purpose, they are not humanizing like your God.


dhw: *** I owe you an apology. I have fought long and hard against your use of “entertainment”, but I have just discovered that I used it myself in the “brief guide”, which I am revising. I am removing it because it is far too superficial.

DAVID: You are still denying God chose to evolve us from bacteria. 99.9% are required to be lost.

dhw: I am convinced that Darwin was right, and all life including ourselves has evolved from the earliest cells, whether God exists or not. I agree that 99% or 99.9% are lost. I do not agree that an all-powerful, all-knowing God would have started out with the one and only purpose of designing us plus food but despite his omnipotence and omniscience, and despite your belief that he was perfectly capable of creating phenotypes “de novo”, found himself “required” to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. You can’t understand it either. You even denigrate your God by insisting that his design system is messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

All met with a profound silence – which is no doubt due to the fact that you have no idea why your God would behave so illogically.

Same dialogue as usual. Your frail human logic is not God's. God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons, my usual response.


dhw: And how does it invalidate the logic of my alternatives to your theories?

DAVID: What makes perfect sense to me about your theories is to accept them from a highly humanized God standpoint. […]

dhw: You have agreed that we reflect your God and have thought patterns and emotions similar to his. My theories fit in logically with the history of life. […] You have even agreed in this post that your God “should be interested in his creations”, and Eden would not be interesting, and so he created evil. Why is relief of boredom, and creating interesting evil, less “humanized” than conducting interesting experiments, or creating a free-for-all in which the unexpected is more interesting than the expected?

No reply.

Same dialogue as usual. Your frail human logic is not God's. God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons, my usual response. My God acts purely with purpose, not for secondary benefits to His personality, like yours does.


DAVID: He experiments because He can't see a road to His nebulous purposes, which may not even exist!!

dhw: Your usual distortion. In my first experimental theory, he sets out to design a being like himself (= your own theory), in my second, he creates for enjoyment and interest (a perfectly acceptable purpose in itself),

The bold fits only if you are fully human.

dhw; and gets new ideas as he goes along. In my third, he creates a free-for-all for the same purpose.

An all-knowing God has all the needed ideas and purposes from the beginning. And the free-for-alls only purpose is to entertain your humanized God!


DAVID: And sure He is totally interested since He has no idea what is coming next. And this is the same guy who made our universe and started life? Totally incompatible aspects of your so-called God.

dhw: There is nothing incompatible about a God who starts life in order to have something interesting to watch, and therefore creates something interesting to watch. The only incompatible theories we have so far are yours concerning an all-powerful God who is forced to design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose, and an all-good God who deliberately creates evil.

My God is not 'forced' to evolve us. He chose to do it. All evil is a byproduct of His good works.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, July 22, 2023, 10:57 (251 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] God creates with the simple purpose of creating.

dhw: Not according to you. He approached creation with the one and only purpose of designing us and our food. […]

DAVID: The intended endpoint does not distort God's wish to create, as you try to claim.

For as long as I can remember in the history of this website, you have told us that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. However, you have also agreed that he enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, and I have suggested that since according to you he specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, maybe his purpose was to enjoy creating things he could watch with interest. You pooh-pooh the idea as being too “humanized”, as in your next response:

DAVID: Stop it. My God creates simply to create what He wishes. Enjoyment and interest are very secondary events. He is not your over-humanized God.

If he exists, then of course he would create what he wishes. That is the major problem with your theory of evolution: he only wishes to create us and our food, and so he creates 99 out 100 species that have nothing to do with his one and only wish. I am the one who proposes that he wishes to create those 99, and it makes perfect sense that he does so because he enjoys creating, and finds this vast and changing variety of life forms interesting to watch.

dhw: […] It is YOU who have used all these “humanizing” terms! Why are you now criticising them?

DAVID: When seen as secondary to purpose, they are not humanizing like your God.

Great! I propose that enjoyment and interest are not secondary to purpose but ARE purpose, so according to your logic, they are not “humanizing”! And indeed, if we reflect him, as you say we do, then our enjoyment of creating interesting things will reflect his, i.e. we are not “humanizing” God, but God has given us some of his characteristics.

DAVID: […] Your frail human logic is not God's. God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons, my usual response.

We don’t know God’s logic. Your usual response is a cop-out, because according to your theory, your God also chose to “evolve” (= individually design) 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, although we and our food were his only purpose, and this theory is so absurd that you can’t think of a single reason why he would act so illogically. Maybe your God is not the messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer you take him for.

There is more repetition until our final exchange.

DAVID: And sure He is totally interested since He has no idea what is coming next. And this is the same guy who made our universe and started life? Totally incompatible aspects of your so-called God.

dhw: There is nothing incompatible about a God who starts life in order to have something interesting to watch, and therefore creates something interesting to watch. The only incompatible theories we have so far are yours concerning an all-powerful God who is forced to design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose, and an all-good God who deliberately creates evil.

DAVID: My God is not 'forced' to evolve us. He chose to do it. All evil is a byproduct of His good works.

I did not say he was forced to evolve us! Stop misquoting! Firstly, according to you he was forced to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food because in his messy, cumbersome, inefficient way he couldn’t think of any other method. And secondly, according to you, he knew in advance that he was creating evil as well as good, but he deliberately went ahead all the same, because it would provide some sort of challenge. Your all-good God therefore deliberately created evil.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 22, 2023, 17:46 (250 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] God creates with the simple purpose of creating.

dhw: For as long as I can remember in the history of this website, you have told us that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. However, you have also agreed that he enjoys creating, and watches his creations with interest, and I have suggested that since according to you he specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, maybe his purpose was to enjoy creating things he could watch with interest. You pooh-pooh the idea as being too “humanized”, as in your next response:

DAVID: Stop it. My God creates simply to create what He wishes. Enjoyment and interest are very secondary events. He is not your over-humanized God.

dhw: If he exists, then of course he would create what he wishes. That is the major problem with your theory of evolution: he only wishes to create us and our food, and so he creates 99 out 100 species that have nothing to do with his one and only wish. I am the one who proposes that he wishes to create those 99, and it makes perfect sense that he does so because he enjoys creating, and finds this vast and changing variety of life forms interesting to watch.

God does not create to find something interesting to watch. When God made the Big Bang, He knew humans would appear because all His actions are purposeful.


dhw: […] It is YOU who have used all these “humanizing” terms! Why are you now criticising them?

DAVID: When seen as secondary to purpose, they are not humanizing like your God.

dhw: Great! I propose that enjoyment and interest are not secondary to purpose but ARE purpose, so according to your logic, they are not “humanizing”! And indeed, if we reflect him, as you say we do, then our enjoyment of creating interesting things will reflect his, i.e. we are not “humanizing” God, but God has given us some of his characteristics.

This humanistic reasoning is why your God is essentially human in thought.


DAVID: […] Your frail human logic is not God's. God chose to evolve us for His own unknown reasons, my usual response.

dhw: We don’t know God’s logic. Your usual response is a cop-out, because according to your theory, your God also chose to “evolve” (= individually design) 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, although we and our food were his only purpose, and this theory is so absurd that you can’t think of a single reason why he would act so illogically. Maybe your God is not the messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer you take him for.

Giod chose to evolve us as His method of creation. Your human reasoning is not God's, but a weak attempt to disagree with God. God wins.


There is more repetition until our final exchange.

DAVID: And sure He is totally interested since He has no idea what is coming next. And this is the same guy who made our universe and started life? Totally incompatible aspects of your so-called God.

dhw: There is nothing incompatible about a God who starts life in order to have something interesting to watch, and therefore creates something interesting to watch. The only incompatible theories we have so far are yours concerning an all-powerful God who is forced to design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose, and an all-good God who deliberately creates evil.

DAVID: My God is not 'forced' to evolve us. He chose to do it. All evil is a byproduct of His good works.

dhw: I did not say he was forced to evolve us! Stop misquoting! Firstly, according to you he was forced to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food because in his messy, cumbersome, inefficient way he couldn’t think of any other method. And secondly, according to you, he knew in advance that he was creating evil as well as good, but he deliberately went ahead all the same, because it would provide some sort of challenge. Your all-good God therefore deliberately created evil.

God evolving us demonstrates His method of choice. An all-powerful God had many methods at His command. Your weird bolded point again makes God human like your preferred form of God. Evil is a small partial byproduct of God's good works.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, July 23, 2023, 12:47 (249 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My God creates simply to create what He wishes. Enjoyment and interest are very secondary events. He is not your over-humanized God.

dhw: If he exists, then of course he would create what he wishes. That is the major problem with your theory of evolution: he only wishes to create us and our food, and so he creates 99 out 100 species that have nothing to do with his one and only wish. I am the one who proposes that he wishes to create those 99, and it makes perfect sense that he does so because he enjoys creating, and finds this vast and changing variety of life forms interesting to watch.

DAVID: God does not create to find something interesting to watch.

Please stop making these authoritative statements. You don’t know any more than I do what your God – if he exists – thinks and wants. If we’re interested, we can only theorize and then test the reasonableness of our theories in relation to what we know of life’s history.

DAVID: When God made the Big Bang, He knew humans would appear because all His actions are purposeful.

But even for you it makes no sense for an all-powerful, all-knowing God to perform 99 out of 100 actions that had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose. “God has His unknown reasons”, and you can’t think of a single one. Stop dodging.

dhw: […] It is YOU who have used all these “humanizing” terms! Why are you now criticising them?

DAVID: When seen as secondary to purpose, they are not humanizing like your God.

dhw: Great! I propose that enjoyment and interest are not secondary to purpose but ARE purpose, so according to your logic, they are not “humanizing”! And indeed, if we reflect him, as you say we do, then our enjoyment of creating interesting things will reflect his, i.e. we are not “humanizing” God, but God has given us some of his characteristics.

DAVID: This humanistic reasoning is why your God is essentially human in thought.
And later:
DAVID: Your weird bolded point again makes God human like your preferred form of God.

I'll repeat the above, since you have ignored it: In your own words, we reflect God and have thought patterns like his. That means that we follow God’s example, not that he follows ours, i.e. we are godlike, as opposed to him being humanlike.

DAVID: God chose to evolve us as His method of creation. Your human reasoning is not God's, but a weak attempt to disagree with God. God wins.

I am not disagreeing with God but with your irrational, illogical, self-contradictory and even derogatory (“messy”, “cumbersome”, “inefficient”) interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. Stop dodging, and stop pretending you know God’s unknowable thoughts.

DAVID: And sure He is totally interested since He has no idea what is coming next. And this is the same guy who made our universe and started life? Totally incompatible aspects of your so-called God.

dhw: There is nothing incompatible about a God who starts life in order to have something interesting to watch, and therefore creates something interesting to watch. The only incompatible theories we have so far are yours concerning an bbball-powerful God who is forced to design 99 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to his purpose, and an all-good God who deliberately creates evil.

DAVID: My God is not 'forced' to evolve us. He chose to do it. All evil is a byproduct of His good works.

dhw: I did not say he was forced to evolve us! Stop misquoting! Firstly, according to you he was forced to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food because in his messy, cumbersome, inefficient way he couldn’t think of any other method. And secondly, according to you, he knew in advance that he was creating evil as well as good, but he deliberately went ahead all the same, because it would provide some sort of challenge. Your all-good God therefore deliberately created evil.

DAVID: God evolving us demonstrates His method of choice.

Agreed, if God exists. However, “evolve” in most people’s minds is not synonymous with “individually design”, and you always omit the fact that every other life form extant and extant also evolved.

DAVID: An all-powerful God had many methods at His command.

And yet according to you, for the thousandth time, he chose a method which forced him to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what, according to you, was his one and only purpose. Strange choice, don’t you think? Messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Or maybe that wasn’t his method, or maybe that wasn’t his purpose.

DAVID: Evil is a small partial byproduct of God's good works.

This “small byproduct” causes untold suffering, as your God knew it would. And one cannot solve the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, July 23, 2023, 16:46 (249 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God does not create to find something interesting to watch.

dhw: Please stop making these authoritative statements. You don’t know any more than I do what your God – if he exists – thinks and wants. If we’re interested, we can only theorize and then test the reasonableness of our theories in relation to what we know of life’s history.

Apology. Always put 'my' in front of God in my statements.

dhw: […] It is YOU who have used all these “humanizing” terms! Why are you now criticising them?

DAVID: When seen as secondary to purpose, they are not humanizing like your God.

dhw: Great! I propose that enjoyment and interest are not secondary to purpose but ARE purpose, so according to your logic, they are not “humanizing”! And indeed, if we reflect him, as you say we do, then our enjoyment of creating interesting things will reflect his, i.e. we are not “humanizing” God, but God has given us some of his characteristics.

DAVID: This humanistic reasoning is why your God is essentially human in thought.
And later:
DAVID: Your weird bolded point again makes God human like your preferred form of God.>
dhw: I'll repeat the above, since you have ignored it: In your own words, we reflect God and have thought patterns like his. That means that we follow God’s example, not that he follows ours, i.e. we are godlike, as opposed to him being humanlike.

Your God's thought patterns are very human.


DAVID: God chose to evolve us as His method of creation. Your human reasoning is not God's, but a weak attempt to disagree with God. God wins.

dhw: I am not disagreeing with God but with your irrational, illogical, self-contradictory and even derogatory (“messy”, “cumbersome”, “inefficient”) interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. Stop dodging, and stop pretending you know God’s unknowable thoughts.

When I describe God, He is my chosen form of God.


DAVID: My God is not 'forced' to evolve us. He chose to do it. All evil is a byproduct of His good works.

dhw: I did not say he was forced to evolve us! Stop misquoting! Firstly, according to you he was forced to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food because in his messy, cumbersome, inefficient way he couldn’t think of any other method. And secondly, according to you, he knew in advance that he was creating evil as well as good, but he deliberately went ahead all the same, because it would provide some sort of challenge. Your all-good God therefore deliberately created evil.

DAVID: God evolving us demonstrates His method of choice.

dhw: Agreed, if God exists. However, “evolve” in most people’s minds is not synonymous with “individually design”, and you always omit the fact that every other life form extant and extant also evolved.

God's form of stages of designed organisms is Darwin's evolution.

DAVID: An all-powerful God had many methods at His command.

dhw: And yet according to you, for the thousandth time, he chose a method which forced him to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what, according to you, was his one and only purpose. Strange choice, don’t you think? Messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Or maybe that wasn’t his method, or maybe that wasn’t his purpose.

I view God as creator of reality and therefore of the historical evolutionary process. It was His unforced method.


DAVID: Evil is a small partial byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: This “small byproduct” causes untold suffering, as your God knew it would. And one cannot solve the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, July 24, 2023, 09:07 (249 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God does not create to find something interesting to watch.

dhw: Please stop making these authoritative statements. You don’t know any more than I do what your God – if he exists – thinks and wants. If we’re interested, we can only theorize and then test the reasonableness of our theories in relation to what we know of life’s history.

DAVID: Apology. Always put 'my' in front of God in my statements.

Thank you. Now my question to you is why your God, who according to you enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, cannot possibly create things because he wants to enjoy creating things that will interest him.

dhw: […] It is YOU who have used all these “humanizing” terms! Why are you now criticising them?

DAVID: When seen as secondary to purpose, they are not humanizing like your God.

dhw: Great! I propose that enjoyment and interest are not secondary to purpose but ARE purpose, so according to your logic, they are not “humanizing”! And indeed, if we reflect him, as you say we do, then our enjoyment of creating interesting things will reflect his, i.e. we are not “humanizing” God, but God has given us some of his characteristics.

DAVID: Your God's thought patterns are very human.

Wrong way round. Since he is supposed to have created us and we reflect him, our human thought patterns are very godlike. We purposefully create things out of enjoyment and interest, just as he does.

DAVID: God chose to evolve us as His method of creation. Your human reasoning is not God's, but a weak attempt to disagree with God. God wins.

dhw: I am not disagreeing with God but with your irrational, illogical, self-contradictory and even derogatory (“messy”, “cumbersome”, “inefficient”) interpretation of your God’s purpose and method. Stop dodging, and stop pretending you know God’s unknowable thoughts.

DAVID: When I describe God, He is my chosen form of God.

And I am not disagreeing with God but with your choice of God’s purpose and method, which
even you find totally incomprehensible, as you cannot find a single reason for such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the purpose you have chosen for your God.

DAVID: My God is not 'forced' to evolve us. He chose to do it. All evil is a byproduct of His good works.

dhw: I did not say he was forced to evolve us! Stop misquoting! Firstly, according to you he was forced to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food because in his messy, cumbersome, inefficient way he couldn’t think of any other method. And secondly, according to you, he knew in advance that he was creating evil as well as good, but he deliberately went ahead all the same, because it would provide some sort of challenge. Your all-good God therefore deliberately created evil.

DAVID: God evolving us demonstrates His method of choice.

dhw: Agreed, if God exists. However, “evolve” in most people’s minds is not synonymous with “individually design”, and you always omit the fact that every other life form extant and extant also evolved.

DAVID: God's form of stages of designed organisms is Darwin's evolution.

I’m delighted to hear you supporting Darwin’s theory of organisms developing in stages, but I don’t recall Darwin telling us that every stage of every organism extant and extinct was individually designed by God for the sole purpose of specially designing us and our food, although 99% of them had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: An all-powerful God had many methods at His command.

dhw: And yet according to you, for the thousandth time, he chose a method which forced him to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what, according to you, was his one and only purpose. Strange choice, don’t you think? Messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Or maybe that wasn’t his method, or maybe that wasn’t his purpose.

DAVID: I view God as creator of reality and therefore of the historical evolutionary process. It was His unforced method.

If God exists, I would also regard him as the creator of reality and of the historical evolutionary process. But I would not regard him as the messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer of a method which meant he had to design 99 out of 100 species for the sole purpose of designing us and our food. Will you please stop trying to hide the absurdity of your theories behind these perfectly acceptable generalisations.

DAVID: Evil is a small partial byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: This “small byproduct” causes untold suffering, as your God knew it would. And one cannot solve the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

DAVID: I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

Thank you. Perhaps you will also admit that your theory, which has him deliberately creating evil as a “challenge”, runs totally counter to the concept of an all-good God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, July 24, 2023, 16:18 (248 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Apology. Always put 'my' in front of God in my statements.

dhw: Thank you. Now my question to you is why your God, who according to you enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, cannot possibly create things because he wants to enjoy creating things that will interest him.

I view my God as having distinct visons of His future creations, purposely proceeding, and not for the purpose of self-enjoyment or self-interest


DAVID: Your God's thought patterns are very human.

dhw: Wrong way round. Since he is supposed to have created us and we reflect him, our human thought patterns are very godlike. We purposefully create things out of enjoyment and interest, just as he does.

How we reflect God's personality is a very tenuous subject and doesn't allow your declarative statement above.


DAVID: My God is not 'forced' to evolve us. He chose to do it. All evil is a byproduct of His good works.

dhw: I did not say he was forced to evolve us! Stop misquoting! Firstly, according to you he was forced to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food because in his messy, cumbersome, inefficient way he couldn’t think of any other method. And secondly, according to you, he knew in advance that he was creating evil as well as good, but he deliberately went ahead all the same, because it would provide some sort of challenge. Your all-good God therefore deliberately created evil.

DAVID: God evolving us demonstrates His method of choice.

dhw: Agreed, if God exists. However, “evolve” in most people’s minds is not synonymous with “individually design”, and you always omit the fact that every other life form extant and extant also evolved.

DAVID: God's form of stages of designed organisms is Darwin's evolution.

dhw: I’m delighted to hear you supporting Darwin’s theory of organisms developing in stages, but I don’t recall Darwin telling us that every stage of every organism extant and extinct was individually designed by God for the sole purpose of specially designing us and our food, although 99% of them had no connection with us and our food.

We both know Darwin only mentioned God as a means of covering His agnosticism.


DAVID: An all-powerful God had many methods at His command.

dhw: And yet according to you, for the thousandth time, he chose a method which forced him to design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what, according to you, was his one and only purpose. Strange choice, don’t you think? Messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Or maybe that wasn’t his method, or maybe that wasn’t his purpose.

DAVID: I view God as creator of reality and therefore of the historical evolutionary process. It was His unforced method.

dhw; If God exists, I would also regard him as the creator of reality and of the historical evolutionary process. But I would not regard him as the messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer of a method which meant he had to design 99 out of 100 species for the sole purpose of designing us and our food. Will you please stop trying to hide the absurdity of your theories behind these perfectly acceptable generalisations.

Stop distorting my view of God, who brilliantly designed all living forms is stages that resembled the way Darwin theorized about evolution.


DAVID: Evil is a small partial byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: This “small byproduct” causes untold suffering, as your God knew it would. And one cannot solve the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

DAVID: I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps you will also admit that your theory, which has him deliberately creating evil as a “challenge”, runs totally counter to the concept of an all-good God.

See new article here about soil viruses at work.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, July 25, 2023, 08:52 (248 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Apology. Always put 'my' in front of God in my statements.

dhw: Thank you. Now my question to you is why your God, who according to you enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, cannot possibly create things because he wants to enjoy creating things that will interest him.

DAVID: I view my God as having distinct visons of His future creations, purposely proceeding, and not for the purpose of self-enjoyment or self-interest.

I know that is your view. And as usual, you hide behind vague generalisations instead of facing up to the irrationality of the details: the one purpose you have him pursuing is the design of us and our food; his distinct vision entails designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with the one purpose you have him pursuing – a method you yourself ridicule as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Your distinct vision sees him as all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good, but he deliberately creates evil as a challenge. And you have categorically stated that you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but your vision is too blinkered to imagine that he might want to create things out of enjoyment and interest.

DAVID: Your God's thought patterns are very human.

dhw: Wrong way round. Since he is supposed to have created us and we reflect him, our human thought patterns are very godlike. We purposefully create things out of enjoyment and interest, just as he does.

DAVID: How we reflect God's personality is a very tenuous subject and doesn't allow your declarative statement above.

It is you who agreed that we reflect him, and since he got here first, that has to be the order of creation: his characteristics are passed onto us, so our characteristics are godlike. And it is you who expressed certainty about his enjoyment and his interest. But of course, you are right – even God’s existence is a tenuous subject, as are his nature, purpose, methods and thoughts. That is why we can only theorize and then test the feasibility of our theories. See above for the irrationality of your own.

DAVID: God evolving us demonstrates His method of choice.

dhw: Agreed, if God exists. However, “evolve” in most people’s minds is not synonymous with “individually design”, and you always omit the fact that every other life form extant and extant also evolved.

DAVID: God's form of stages of designed organisms is Darwin's evolution.

dhw: I’m delighted to hear you supporting Darwin’s theory of organisms developing in stages, but I don’t recall Darwin telling us that every stage of every organism extant and extinct was individually designed by God for the sole purpose of specially designing us and our food, although 99% of them had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: We both know Darwin only mentioned God as a means of covering His agnosticism.

I have no idea what this part of our discussion is about. You have accepted Darwin’s theory of evolution in stages. His theory also allows for the existence of God.

DAVID: I view God as creator of reality and therefore of the historical evolutionary process. It was His unforced method.

dhw: If God exists, I would also regard him as the creator of reality and of the historical evolutionary process. But I would not regard him as the messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer of a method which meant he had to design 99 out of 100 species for the sole purpose of designing us and our food. Will you please stop trying to hide the absurdity of your theories behind these perfectly acceptable generalisations.

DAVID: Stop distorting my view of God, who brilliantly designed all living forms is stages that resembled the way Darwin theorized about evolution.

And yet again you ignore the all-important and completely irrational part of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: Evil is a small partial byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: This “small byproduct” causes untold suffering, as your God knew it would. And one cannot solve the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

DAVID: I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps you will also admit that your theory, which has him deliberately creating evil as a “challenge”, runs totally counter to the concept of an all-good God.

DAVID: See new article here about soil viruses at work.

Viruses are a vital component

DAVID: this huge descriptive study cannot be reduced to a size here. What it shows us is that there is a working macro-viral world at work in our soils and I assume improving their quality for vegetative fertility and productivity. This shows the vast population of viruses is working for the good. It answers theodicy criticisms of the existence of viruses.

No, it doesn’t. Two days ago you wrote: “I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.” Do you or do you not admit that there are viruses which cause great suffering, and according to you, your all-knowing God knew in advance that they would, and so his deliberate creation of such “evil” is part of the problem of theodicy. Your solutions so far appear to be (a) God is mostly good, so forget the evil, or (b) your God knowingly created evil, which can only mean he is not all-good.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, July 25, 2023, 16:39 (247 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I view my God as having distinct visons of His future creations, purposely proceeding, and not for the purpose of self-enjoyment or self-interest.

dhw: I know that is your view. And as usual, you hide behind vague generalisations instead of facing up to the irrationality of the details: the one purpose you have him pursuing is the design of us and our food; his distinct vision entails designing 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with the one purpose you have him pursuing – a method you yourself ridicule as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Your distinct vision sees him as all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good, but he deliberately creates evil as a challenge. And you have categorically stated that you are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but your vision is too blinkered to imagine that he might want to create things out of enjoyment and interest.

As usual our disagreement relates to God's possible personality patterns. An all-knowing God knows the future, so how can He be interested in something He knows will happen? In TV dramas the writers keep up interest by writing in the unexpected events. In re-reading the script I doubt the author finds enjoyment at a viewer's level.


DAVID: I view God as creator of reality and therefore of the historical evolutionary process. It was His unforced method.

dhw: If God exists, I would also regard him as the creator of reality and of the historical evolutionary process. But I would not regard him as the messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer of a method which meant he had to design 99 out of 100 species for the sole purpose of designing us and our food. Will you please stop trying to hide the absurdity of your theories behind these perfectly acceptable generalisations.

DAVID: Stop distorting my view of God, who brilliantly designed all living forms is stages that resembled the way Darwin theorized about evolution.

dhw: And yet again you ignore the all-important and completely irrational part of your theory bolded above.

That God chose to evolve us is an entirely reasonable position.


DAVID: Evil is a small partial byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: This “small byproduct” causes untold suffering, as your God knew it would. And one cannot solve the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

DAVID: I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps you will also admit that your theory, which has him deliberately creating evil as a “challenge”, runs totally counter to the concept of an all-good God.

DAVID: See new article here about soil viruses at work.

Viruses are a vital component

DAVID: this huge descriptive study cannot be reduced to a size here. What it shows us is that there is a working macro-viral world at work in our soils and I assume improving their quality for vegetative fertility and productivity. This shows the vast population of viruses is working for the good. It answers theodicy criticisms of the existence of viruses.

dhw: No, it doesn’t. Two days ago you wrote: “I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.” Do you or do you not admit that there are viruses which cause great suffering, and according to you, your all-knowing God knew in advance that they would, and so his deliberate creation of such “evil” is part of the problem of theodicy. Your solutions so far appear to be (a) God is mostly good, so forget the evil, or (b) your God knowingly created evil, which can only mean he is not all-good.

Please try to remember good bacteria and viruses are good unless they get out of their proper doing-good environments. Like free will is a trade-off, so are good bugs that turn bad. God designed the only system of life that can work. Remember He is considered all-knowing.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, July 26, 2023, 12:33 (246 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As usual our disagreement relates to God's possible personality patterns. An all-knowing God knows the future, so how can He be interested in something He knows will happen?

Precisely. You have stated explicitly that your God is interested in his creations. Knowing what will happen would be boring. And so it makes perfect sense to have him create something that will produce “unexpected results” – the expression you have used in relation to the free will you say he gave us humans. Why not apply the same reasoning to other life forms? Instead of this crazy idea of your God having to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with the only one (plus food) that he wants to produce – he could have produced a mechanism to design countless “unexpected results”.

DAVID: In TV dramas the writers keep up interest by writing in the unexpected events. In re-reading the script I doubt the author finds enjoyment at a viewer's level.

Different authors have different modes of writing, but I think you will find that the majority are constantly surprised by the different twists and turns their narrative takes once they have started writing. I am one of those who rarely know what is coming. That is part of the excitement engendered by the creative process.

DAVID (transferred from “More miscellany”): Of course an all-knowing God expects the unexpected, while humans don't.

Not the point. Did he give humans free will so that we could produce results HE did not expect (which would enhance his interest in us), or did he know in advance every decision that we would make (boring for him)?

DAVID: I view God as creator of reality and therefore of the historical evolutionary process. It was His unforced method.

dhw: If God exists, I would also regard him as the creator of reality and of the historical evolutionary process. But I would not regard him as the messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer of a method which meant he had to design 99 out of 100 species for the sole purpose of designing us and our food. Will you please stop trying to hide the absurdity of your theories behind these perfectly acceptable generalisations.

DAVID: Stop distorting my view of God, who brilliantly designed all living forms is stages that resembled the way Darwin theorized about evolution.

dhw: And yet again you ignore the all-important and completely irrational part of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: That God chose to evolve us is an entirely reasonable position.

If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course it is entirely reasonable to argue that he chose to evolve us and every other organism that ever lived. What is entirely unreasonable is the theory bolded above, which you continue to gloss over with your vague generalizations. Please stop it!

DAVID: Evil is a small partial byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: This “small byproduct” causes untold suffering, as your God knew it would. And one cannot solve the problem of theodicy by pretending there is no problem.

DAVID: I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps you will also admit that your theory, which has him deliberately creating evil as a “challenge”, runs totally counter to the concept of an all-good God.

DAVID: See new article here about soil viruses at work.

dhw: Two days ago you wrote: “I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.” Do you or do you not admit that there are viruses which cause great suffering, and according to you, your all-knowing God knew in advance that they would, and so his deliberate creation of such “evil” is part of the problem of theodicy. Your solutions so far appear to be (a) God is mostly good, so forget the evil, or (b) your God knowingly created evil, which can only mean he is not all-good.

DAVID: Please try to remember good bacteria and viruses are good unless they get out of their proper doing-good environments. Like free will is a trade-off, so are good bugs that turn bad. God designed the only system of life that can work. Remember He is considered all-knowing.

I can hardly forget your theory that he is all-knowing when it means that he knew perfectly well that some of his bacteria and viruses would create untold suffering, but he went ahead all the same. And although he is all-powerful, he was powerless to control the evil effects he knew would result from his choice of method - except that in another of your theories he deliberately created evil as a challenge, i.e. he wanted it, because a Garden of Eden would have been boring. As for his designing the only system that could work, a few days ago you wrote: “an all-powerful God had many methods at his command”. But he chose one which you ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and you refuse to consider any other possible purposes and/or methods.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, July 26, 2023, 16:33 (246 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You have stated explicitly that your God is interested in his creations. Knowing what will happen would be boring. And so it makes perfect sense to have him create something that will produce “unexpected results” – the expression you have used in relation to the free will you say he gave us humans. Why not apply the same reasoning to other life forms? Instead of this crazy idea of your God having to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with the only one (plus food) that he wants to produce – he could have produced a mechanism to design countless “unexpected results”.

Your humanized God gets bored; my God doesn't. Evolution happened. My God did it and He expected the results.


DAVID (transferred from “More miscellany”): Of course an all-knowing God expects the unexpected, while humans don't.

dhw: Not the point. Did he give humans free will so that we could produce results HE did not expect (which would enhance his interest in us), or did he know in advance every decision that we would make (boring for him)?

Being bored is a human attribute: Your humanized God gets bored; my God doesn't.


dhw: And yet again you ignore the all-important and completely irrational part of your theory bolded above.

DAVID: That God chose to evolve us is an entirely reasonable position.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course it is entirely reasonable to argue that he chose to evolve us and every other organism that ever lived. What is entirely unreasonable is the theory bolded above, which you continue to gloss over with your vague generalizations. Please stop it!

Stop what? Long ago you declared God should have directed created us as more efficient than evolution. What is it about evolution you don't like? I've taken the view it is messy and cumbersome. Is that incorrect?


DAVID: I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps you will also admit that your theory, which has him deliberately creating evil as a “challenge”, runs totally counter to the concept of an all-good God.

DAVID: See new article here about soil viruses at work.

dhw: Two days ago you wrote: “I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.” Do you or do you not admit that there are viruses which cause great suffering, and according to you, your all-knowing God knew in advance that they would, and so his deliberate creation of such “evil” is part of the problem of theodicy. Your solutions so far appear to be (a) God is mostly good, so forget the evil, or (b) your God knowingly created evil, which can only mean he is not all-good.

DAVID: Please try to remember good bacteria and viruses are good unless they get out of their proper doing-good environments. Like free will is a trade-off, so are good bugs that turn bad. God designed the only system of life that can work. Remember He is considered all-knowing.

dhw: I can hardly forget your theory that he is all-knowing when it means that he knew perfectly well that some of his bacteria and viruses would create untold suffering, but he went ahead all the same. And although he is all-powerful, he was powerless to control the evil effects he knew would result from his choice of method - except that in another of your theories he deliberately created evil as a challenge, i.e. he wanted it, because a Garden of Eden would have been boring. As for his designing the only system that could work, a few days ago you wrote: “an all-powerful God had many methods at his command”. But he chose one which you ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and you refuse to consider any other possible purposes and/or methods.

To repeat as always: my all-knowing God chose the best method available to create a system of life. I conclude there is nothing better. Started with bacteria, still here, and had to have viruses.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, July 27, 2023, 13:08 (245 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have stated explicitly that your God is interested in his creations. Knowing what will happen would be boring. And so it makes perfect sense to have him create something that will produce “unexpected results” – the expression you have used in relation to the free will you say he gave us humans. Why not apply the same reasoning to other life forms? Instead of this crazy idea of your God having to design 99 out of 100 species that have no connection with the only one (plus food) that he wants to produce – he could have produced a mechanism to design countless “unexpected results”.

DAVID: Your humanized God gets bored; my God doesn't. Evolution happened. My God did it and He expected the results.

My "humanized" God presumably didn’t get bored, since he invented ways of keeping himself interested. However, according to you, your humanized God “would be bored by Eden”, which is one reason why, according to you, he deliberately created evil as a challenge, and he gave us free will so that we would produce “unexpected results”. But we agree that evolution happened. (NB As I keep repeating, if your God created us and we reflect him, as you believe, any shared characteristics make us godlike – they do not make him human.)

DAVID: That God chose to evolve us is an entirely reasonable position.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course it is entirely reasonable to argue that he chose to evolve us and every other organism that ever lived. What is entirely unreasonable is the theory bolded above [i.e. that God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only species you say he wanted to design – us and our food], which you continue to gloss over with your vague generalizations. Please stop it!

DAVID: Stop what? Long ago you declared God should have directed created us as more efficient than evolution. What is it about evolution you don't like? I've taken the view it is messy and cumbersome. Is that incorrect?

I have never said he should have created us directly, and I am happy with evolution. It is the above bolded theory I don’t like, plus your absurd declaration that your God is a brilliant designer who devised a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method of design to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

DAVID: I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps you will also admit that your theory, which has him deliberately creating evil as a “challenge”, runs totally counter to the concept of an all-good God.

You seem to have forgotten this theory of yours, which has him deliberately creating evil.

dhw: (re theodicy): Your solutions so far appear to be (a) God is mostly good, so forget the evil, or (b) your God knowingly created evil, which can only mean he is not all-good.

DAVID: To repeat as always: my all-knowing God chose the best method available to create a system of life. I conclude there is nothing better. Started with bacteria, still here, and had to have viruses.

To repeat as always:[…] a few days ago you wrote: “an all-powerful God had many methods at his command”. But he chose one which you ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and you refuse to consider any other possible purposes and/or methods. Your all-knowing God knew in advance that some bacteria and some viruses would create the evil you now acknowledge, but he still went ahead, and despite being all-powerful, he was powerless to prevent the evil he had created.

Conclusions: 1) your “humanized” God used an inefficient method to fulfil the purpose you impose on him through a theory you yourself find incomprehensible. 2) Your all-good and all-knowing God knew in advance that his bugs would cause evil but he went ahead and created them, and 3) your all-powerful God was powerless to stop their evil, though in another theory he wanted the evil as it presented a “challenge”. 4) Your “humanized” God enjoys creation and is interested in his creations, but he could not possibly have designed evolution because he wanted to enjoy creating something that would interest him. 5) Your “humanized”, all-knowing God gave humans free will, so that they would produce results he could not expect, but he expected the results that they produced.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 27, 2023, 17:08 (245 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, July 27, 2023, 17:15

DAVID: Your humanized God gets bored; my God doesn't. Evolution happened. My God did it and He expected the results.

dhw: My "humanized" God presumably didn’t get bored, since he invented ways of keeping himself interested.

Again, you have God acting in self-interest. Find a God like that in any discussion of the theism of God's personality.

DAVID: That God chose to evolve us is an entirely reasonable position.

dhw: If God exists and if we believe in evolution, then of course it is entirely reasonable to argue that he chose to evolve us and every other organism that ever lived. What is entirely unreasonable is the theory bolded above [i.e. that God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only species you say he wanted to design – us and our food], which you continue to gloss over with your vague generalizations. Please stop it!

DAVID: Stop what? Long ago you declared God should have directed created us as more efficient than evolution. What is it about evolution you don't like? I've taken the view it is messy and cumbersome. Is that incorrect?

dhw: I have never said he should have created us directly, and I am happy with evolution. It is the above bolded theory I don’t like, plus your absurd declaration that your God is a brilliant designer who devised a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method of design to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

Dodge what? Are the designs you see brilliant or not?


DAVID: I admit there is a problem. Evil exists.

dhw: Thank you. Perhaps you will also admit that your theory, which has him deliberately creating evil as a “challenge”, runs totally counter to the concept of an all-good God.

dhw: You seem to have forgotten this theory of yours, which has him deliberately creating evil.

Never. Evil is a byproduct of good: free-will; good bacteria and viruses arriving in the wrong places.


dhw: (re theodicy): Your solutions so far appear to be (a) God is mostly good, so forget the evil, or (b) your God knowingly created evil, which can only mean he is not all-good.

DAVID: To repeat as always: my all-knowing God chose the best method available to create a system of life. I conclude there is nothing better. Started with bacteria, still here, and had to have viruses.

dhw; To repeat as always:[…] a few days ago you wrote: “an all-powerful God had many methods at his command”. But he chose one which you ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and you refuse to consider any other possible purposes and/or methods. Your all-knowing God knew in advance that some bacteria and some viruses would create the evil you now acknowledge, but he still went ahead, and despite being all-powerful, he was powerless to prevent the evil he had created.

Conclusions: 1) your “humanized” God used an inefficient method to fulfil the purpose you impose on him through a theory you yourself find incomprehensible.

Incomprehensible denied!!! It is your confused and muddled psychological interpretation of my mind's thoughts. That I do not know God's reasons for using an evolutionary method does not make God incomprehensible to me. I accept He has good reasons for His actions that I DO NOT NEED TO KNOWE AS YOU DO.

dhw: 2) Your all-good and all-knowing God knew in advance that his bugs would cause evil but he went ahead and created them,

God knew of their secondary ability to produce evil not in His control, but the good they do outweigh the evil.

dhw: and 3) your all-powerful God was powerless to stop their evil, though in another theory he wanted the evil as it presented a “challenge”.

A side effect of evil is that it makes life more challenging is true.

4) dhw: Your “humanized” God enjoys creation and is interested in his creations, but he could not possibly have designed evolution because he wanted to enjoy creating something that would interest him.

Stop describing my God as ever acting in self-interest like your humanized God. My God is purely purposeful in designing His creations.

5) dhw: Your “humanized”, all-knowing God gave humans free will, so that they would produce results he could not expect, but he expected the results that they produced.

What a contortion! What he expected is evil would appear.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 27, 2023, 19:19 (245 days ago) @ David Turell

Centenarian's bugs help define the true meaning of bacteria as good, not evil:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/gut-bugs-may-help-centenarians-reach-their-1...

"In research published in Nature, Kenya Honda, a microbiologist and immunologist at Keio University School of Medicine, and his colleagues showed that a clue to centenarians’ long lives may be in their guts. Microbes that produce unique bile acids in the intestines of 100-year-olds may keep inflammation and aging-related illness at bay.

***

"Individuals who make it past their 100th birthdays are less likely to have high blood pressure, diabetes, and cancer, among other diseases that associate with aging. Honda suspected that external factors, such as the gut microbiota, might contribute to preventing the development of these age-related diseases in long-living individuals.

"The microbiome regulates bodily functions including digestion, bone density, neuronal activity, and immunity. Honda and his team aimed to identify beneficial bacteria from the microbiota of centenarians that might help others ward off infection and other stresses.

***

"They also collected samples from elderly Japanese people around 85 years old and young people about 30 years old. Then they compared the microbiomes and metabolites between the cohorts.

"The team found that the microbiomes of centenarians differed from the other two groups. Centenarian microbiomes had more Proteobacteria and Synergistetes and fewer Actinobacteria species than microbiomes in the other two cohorts. But what Honda found much more intriguing were the results of a metagenome analysis, which revealed increased abundance of bile-acid-inducible genes in the 100-year-old-plus age group. Some bile acids play a role in host metabolic and immune responses, including blocking pathogens such as Clostridium difficile from colonizing the intestines.

"The chance of living to be 100 years old is not out of the question, but it’s certainly not guaranteed. Those who manage to celebrate their triple-numbered birthday are less susceptible to illness and chronic inflammation than those who don’t.

"In research published in Nature, Kenya Honda, a microbiologist and immunologist at Keio University School of Medicine, and his colleagues showed that a clue to centenarians’ long lives may be in their guts. Microbes that produce unique bile acids in the intestines of 100-year-olds may keep inflammation and aging-related illness at bay.

“'This was a unique study that allowed us to look at the microbiome at the extreme of aging,” said Ramnik Xavier, a gastroenterologist and molecular biologist at the Broad Institute and Harvard University, who authored the study with Honda. “Could we identify microbial features unique to centenarians and then use that to get to the biology?”

Comment: more evidence of how bacteria are here to help, not damage. A side effect is when tey are in the wrong environment and cause illness.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, July 28, 2023, 11:31 (245 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your humanized God gets bored; my God doesn't. Evolution happened. My God did it and He expected the results.

dhw: My "humanized" God presumably didn’t get bored, since he invented ways of keeping himself interested.

DAVID: Again, you have God acting in self-interest. Find a God like that in any discussion of the theism of God's personality.

Then you had better call me a revolutionary philosopher of religion. Now please tell me why a God who according to you enjoys creating and is interested in his creations cannot possibly act out of the desire to enjoy creating things he will find interesting. (See Conclusion 4 below.)

DAVID: That God chose to evolve us is an entirely reasonable position.[…]

dhw: […] I am happy with evolution. It is the above bolded theory [i.e. that God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only species you say he wanted to design – us and our food], I don’t like, plus your absurd declaration that your God is a brilliant designer who devised a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method of design to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Dodge what? Are the designs you see brilliant or not?

Yes, every cell and cell community is a brilliant design, and I am the one who rejects your depiction of him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, because I do not for one second believe that if he had one purpose (us and our food) as you claim, he would messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design 99 species out of 100 that were irrelevant to that purpose! So please stop dodging your own irrational theory and self-contradiction!

The rest of your post is covered by the list of conclusions:

dhw: Conclusions: 1) your “humanized” God used an inefficient method to fulfil the purpose you impose on him through a theory you yourself find incomprehensible.

DAVID: Incomprehensible denied!!! It is your confused and muddled psychological interpretation of my mind's thoughts. That I do not know God's reasons for using an evolutionary method does not make God incomprehensible to me. I accept He has good reasons for His actions that I DO NOT NEED TO KNOW AS YOU DO.

I did not say God was incomprehensible to you. It is your irrational theory, as bolded above, that you find incomprehensible, as you have now admitted again. Please stop dodging.

dhw: 2) Your all-good and all-knowing God knew in advance that his bugs would cause evil but he went ahead and created them,

DAVID: God knew of their secondary ability to produce evil not in His control, but the good they do outweigh the evil.

Your all-powerful, all-knowing God can’t control the evil he knew he was creating, but you think you can solve the problem of how an all-good God can create evil by telling us that there is more good than evil. A great way to solve a problem – by pretending it isn’t a problem.

dhw: and 3) your all-powerful God was powerless to stop their evil, though in another theory he wanted the evil as it presented a “challenge”.

DAVID: A side effect of evil is that it makes life more challenging is true.

Are you saying your all-good God actually wanted the evil, so that he could make life tougher for us and our fellow creatures? If so, why do you think he wanted to do that?

4) dhw: Your “humanized” God enjoys creation and is interested in his creations, but he could not possibly have designed evolution because he wanted to enjoy creating something that would interest him.

DAVID: Stop describing my God as ever acting in self-interest like your humanized God. My God is purely purposeful in designing His creations.

What does “purely” purposeful mean? See above re self-interest.

5) dhw: Your “humanized”, all-knowing God gave humans free will, so that they would produce results he could not expect, but he expected the results that they produced.

DAVID: What a contortion! What he expected is evil would appear.

And so he went ahead and created it, which hardly makes him all-good. But this reference concerned the fact that the unexpected is always more interesting that the expected (you tried to use TV writers as an analogy, but you didn’t know that many writers like myself do NOT know all the twists and turns in advance) – hence the argument for an unpredictable free-for-all evolution, which would be far more interesting for God than a predictable Garden of Eden which you said would bore him.


Centenarians' bugs

DAVID: Centenarian's bugs help define the true meaning of bacteria as good, not evil:

QUOTE: […] a clue to centenarians’ long lives may be in their guts. Microbes that produce unique bile acids in the intestines of 100-year-olds may keep inflammation and aging-related illness at bay.

DAVID: more evidence of how bacteria are here to help, not damage. A side effect is when they are in the wrong environment and cause illness.

The problem is the existence of evil, as created by a supposedly all-good God, whether through murderous microbes or free-willed humans, and you do not solve the problem by telling us to look only at all the good things.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, July 28, 2023, 16:11 (244 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Again, you have God acting in self-interest. Find a God like that in any discussion of the theism of God's personality.

dhw: Then you had better call me a revolutionary philosopher of religion. Now please tell me why a God who according to you enjoys creating and is interested in his creations cannot possibly act out of the desire to enjoy creating things he will find interesting. (See Conclusion 4 below.)

Humans act to produce enjoyment for themselves. My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations.


DAVID: Are the designs you see brilliant or not?

dhw: Yes, every cell and cell community is a brilliant design, and I am the one who rejects your depiction of him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, because I do not for one second believe that if he had one purpose (us and our food) as you claim, he would messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design 99 species out of 100 that were irrelevant to that purpose! So please stop dodging your own irrational theory and self-contradiction!

Evolution is known history. I say God did it by design, and it is a long drawn out slow process. Culling out 99.9% is not irrelevant to the process or its end point.


The rest of your post is covered by the list of conclusions:

dhw: Conclusions: 1) your “humanized” God used an inefficient method to fulfil the purpose you impose on him through a theory you yourself find incomprehensible.

dhw: 2) Your all-good and all-knowing God knew in advance that his bugs would cause evil but he went ahead and created them,

DAVID: God knew of their secondary ability to produce evil not in His control, but the good they do outweigh the evil.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God can’t control the evil he knew he was creating, but you think you can solve the problem of how an all-good God can create evil by telling us that there is more good than evil. A great way to solve a problem – by pretending it isn’t a problem.

It is a problem but the proportionality of good far outweighs the bad. Would you give up free will to wipe out evil people?


dhw: and 3) your all-powerful God was powerless to stop their evil, though in another theory he wanted the evil as it presented a “challenge”.

DAVID: A side effect of evil is that it makes life more challenging is true.

dhw: Are you saying your all-good God actually wanted the evil, so that he could make life tougher for us and our fellow creatures? If so, why do you think he wanted to do that?

Would you prefer to live in the Garden of Eden? God gave us the brain to handle the challenges He expected.


4) dhw: Your “humanized” God enjoys creation and is interested in his creations, but he could not possibly have designed evolution because he wanted to enjoy creating something that would interest him.

DAVID: Stop describing my God as ever acting in self-interest like your humanized God. My God is purely purposeful in designing His creations.

dhw: What does “purely” purposeful mean? See above re self-interest.

He creates without a smidgen of self-interest or self-entertainment.


5) dhw: Your “humanized”, all-knowing God gave humans free will, so that they would produce results he could not expect, but he expected the results that they produced.

DAVID: What a contortion! What he expected is evil would appear.

dhw: And so he went ahead and created it, which hardly makes him all-good. But this reference concerned the fact that the unexpected is always more interesting that the expected (you tried to use TV writers as an analogy, but you didn’t know that many writers like myself do NOT know all the twists and turns in advance) – hence the argument for an unpredictable free-for-all evolution, which would be far more interesting for God than a predictable Garden of Eden which you said would bore him.

It would bore you also.

Centenarians' bugs

DAVID: Centenarian's bugs help define the true meaning of bacteria as good, not evil:

QUOTE: […] a clue to centenarians’ long lives may be in their guts. Microbes that produce unique bile acids in the intestines of 100-year-olds may keep inflammation and aging-related illness at bay.

DAVID: more evidence of how bacteria are here to help, not damage. A side effect is when they are in the wrong environment and cause illness.

dhw: The problem is the existence of evil, as created by a supposedly all-good God, whether through murderous microbes or free-willed humans, and you do not solve the problem by telling us to look only at all the good things.

Answered above. I recognize the bad side effects of necessary good bugs.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, August 07, 2023, 12:41 (234 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Again, you have God acting in self-interest. Find a God like that in any discussion of the theism of God's personality.

dhw: Then you had better call me a revolutionary philosopher of religion. Now please tell me why a God who according to you enjoys creating and is interested in his creations cannot possibly act out of the desire to enjoy creating things he will find interesting.

DAVID: Humans act to produce enjoyment for themselves. My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations.
And later:
He creates without a smidgen of self-interest or self-entertainment.

Why do you keep inserting the word “need”, which suggests some sort of inadequacy? If you enjoy a good meal, a Beethoven symphony, or a nice chat with your wife, and I enjoy writing a poem or play, does that mean we’re “needy”? It’s you who said he enjoys creating. How can he possibly enjoy it without feeling any enjoyment himself? And why would he create if he didn't want to do so?

Later:

dhw: […] this reference concerned the fact that the unexpected is always more interesting that the expected […] – hence the argument for an unpredictable free-for-all evolution, which would be far more interesting for God than a predictable Garden of Eden which you said would bore him.

DAVID: It would bore you also.

Nice to see you agreeing with yourself that he would be bored, like me. Next perhaps you will find yourself agreeing that he might logically have designed the “challenge” in order to prevent himself from being bored, though, according to you, he would not relieve his boredom out of the desire to relieve his boredom.

DAVID: Are the designs you see brilliant or not?

dhw: Yes, every cell and cell community is a brilliant design, and I am the one who rejects your depiction of him as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, because I do not for one second believe that if he had one purpose (us and our food) as you claim, he would messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design 99 species out of 100 that were irrelevant to that purpose! So please stop dodging your own irrational theory and self-contradiction!

DAVID: Evolution is known history. I say God did it by design, and it is a long drawn out slow process.

No problem, if we assume God exists.

DAVID: Culling out 99.9% is not irrelevant to the process or its end point.

Your usual dodge. The daft part of your theory is making your all-knowing God design the 99.9% in the first place, when you tell us he knew they were irrelevant to what you insist was his one and only purpose.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God can’t control the evil he knew he was creating, but you think you can solve the problem of how an all-good God can create evil by telling us that there is more good than evil. A great way to solve a problem – by pretending it isn’t a problem.

DAVID: It is a problem but the proportionality of good far outweighs the bad. Would you give up free will to wipe out evil people?

You never stop dodging. The proportion, even if what you say is true, is totally irrelevant to the question of your God’s nature, and so is the question of what I would like your God to do! Theodicy asks how an all-good God can create evil. Your answer is that we shouldn’t bother to think about the evil.

DAVID: A side effect of evil is that it makes life more challenging is true.

dhw: Are you saying your all-good God actually wanted the evil, so that he could make life tougher for us and our fellow creatures? If so, why do you think he wanted to do that?

DAVID: Would you prefer to live in the Garden of Eden? God gave us the brain to handle the challenges He expected.

Of course I would prefer to live in a Garden of Eden, where people did not have to suffer the dreadful consequences of war, disease, flood, famine, murder, rape etc., which your all-knowing God apparently foresaw when he designed all the agents of such suffering. I’m incredibly lucky to have lived a life largely untouched by these evils, and have been free to enjoy all the good wonders. Now please answer the above question: why do you think he wanted to present us with a challenge?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, August 07, 2023, 16:20 (234 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Humans act to produce enjoyment for themselves. My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations.
And later:
He creates without a smidgen of self-interest or self-entertainment.

dhw: Why do you keep inserting the word “need”, which suggests some sort of inadequacy? If you enjoy a good meal, a Beethoven symphony, or a nice chat with your wife, and I enjoy writing a poem or play, does that mean we’re “needy”? It’s you who said he enjoys creating. How can he possibly enjoy it without feeling any enjoyment himself? And why would he create if he didn't want to do so?

God is selfless, not requiring human needs.


Later:

dhw: […] this reference concerned the fact that the unexpected is always more interesting that the expected […] – hence the argument for an unpredictable free-for-all evolution, which would be far more interesting for God than a predictable Garden of Eden which you said would bore him.

DAVID: It would bore you also.

dhw: Nice to see you agreeing with yourself that he would be bored, like me. Next perhaps you will find yourself agreeing that he might logically have designed the “challenge” in order to prevent himself from being bored, though, according to you, he would not relieve his boredom out of the desire to relieve his boredom.

To repeat: God is selfless. He does not need our personal requirements for entertainments.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God can’t control the evil he knew he was creating, but you think you can solve the problem of how an all-good God can create evil by telling us that there is more good than evil. A great way to solve a problem – by pretending it isn’t a problem.

DAVID: It is a problem but the proportionality of good far outweighs the bad. Would you give up free will to wipe out evil people?

dhw: You never stop dodging. The proportion, even if what you say is true, is totally irrelevant to the question of your God’s nature, and so is the question of what I would like your God to do! Theodicy asks how an all-good God can create evil. Your answer is that we shouldn’t bother to think about the evil.

Evil comes from the good: free will is good but creates evil people. Most bacteria do a required good as in our intestinal microbiome. Our cells split trillions of times a day perfectly, but a bad split brings cancer, despite exiting editing mechanisms.


DAVID: Would you prefer to live in the Garden of Eden? God gave us the brain to handle the challenges He expected.

dhw; Of course I would prefer to live in a Garden of Eden, where people did not have to suffer the dreadful consequences of war, disease, flood, famine, murder, rape etc., which your all-knowing God apparently foresaw when he designed all the agents of such suffering. I’m incredibly lucky to have lived a life largely untouched by these evils, and have been free to enjoy all the good wonders. Now please answer the above question: why do you think he wanted to present us with a challenge?

Your own proportionality of a good life is the tale for most folks. The evil you see is the secondhand results of the required good.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, August 07, 2023, 17:36 (234 days ago) @ David Turell

Parasites can produce good outcomes:

https://phys.org/news/2023-08-parasites-positive-effect-biodiversity-play.html

"A new study by Tel Aviv University reveals that the presence of parasites in nature is not necessarily negative, and sometimes even helps animals survive. The team of researchers explain: "Thinking about parasites usually brings up negative connotations, such as, 'do they harm their host'? Or 'how harmful are they to those who carry them'? In our research, we showed that parasites can in fact have a positive effect on the structure of an ecosystem, and that they can play a key role in the design of the habitat and in sustaining its biological diversity."

***

"The researchers explain that in a healthy ecosystem, there is usually a wide variety of species living side by side. Related species are able to exist in the same habitat provided that they influence and are influenced differently by natural resources and predators. Without proper separation and balance between those species, they cannot coexist—one of the species will be driven to extinction by the other. This principle is termed the 'competitive exclusion principle,' also known as Gause's law.

"Dr. Sigal Orlansky adds, "Parasites and pathogens are an integral part of any ecosystem. Despite their bad reputation, parasites play a key role in shaping population dynamics, community structure, and biodiversity, thanks to their influence on the balance between the species in that ecosystem."

***

"According to Prof. Ben-Ami, "In the population of water fleas in Israel, we found one species called Daphnia similis, whose nickname in the laboratory is 'Super Daphnia' due to its almost complete resistance to parasites. Nevertheless, this 'Super Daphnia' does not become the dominant Daphnia species in ponds. The most common species is actually Daphnia magna, which is highly vulnerable to a wide variety of parasites."

"To understand why immunological immunity does not constitute a springboard for wide distribution in the pond, the researchers have set up a biological microcosm in the laboratory, in which the two species shared the same habitat in the presence or absence of parasites. The results showed that in a parasite-free habitat, the parasite-sensitive species, which is the most common Daphnia species in the wild, is the one that won the competition, even forcing the disappearance of the parasite-resistant 'Super Daphnia'.

"However, in habitats with parasites, the survival of the parasite -sensitive Daphnia decreased dramatically and the 'Super Daphnia' population became established, demonstrating an environment where coexistence between the two species is possible via the mediation of parasites.

"Dr. Sigal Orlansky says that "The results of these experiments emphasize the important role of parasites in shaping biodiversity, as the parasites can mediate competition between Daphnia species."

"'This competition enables the coexistence of a species that is indeed resistant to parasites, but its ability to compete is lacking and without parasites would probably become extinct when it shares the same habitat with the Daphnia species most common in Israel, the Daphnia magna, which while sensitive to parasites is otherwise strongly competitive. Our research shows that coexistence of these two Daphnia species is only possible through the mediation of a parasite.'"

Comment: a human might think all parasitism is bad, but this study shows the good side. This is a lesson is what God has given us, a mix of good necessary things that can have bad aspects. Theodicy is a study of that aspect of what is required for this system of life.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, August 08, 2023, 11:40 (234 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Humans act to produce enjoyment for themselves. My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations.
And later:
He creates without a smidgen of self-interest or self-entertainment.

dhw: Why do you keep inserting the word “need”, which suggests some sort of inadequacy? If you enjoy a good meal, a Beethoven symphony, or a nice chat with your wife, and I enjoy writing a poem or play, does that mean we’re “needy”? It’s you who said he enjoys creating. How can he possibly enjoy it without feeling any enjoyment himself? And why would he create if he didn't want to do so?

DAVID: God is selfless, not requiring human needs.

You have simply ignored my comment about “needs” and the question I have asked you, and repeated your mantra as if you were an authority on the nature of God. You do not know any more than I do about your possible God, so why do you keep dodging even your own statements about his “human” attributes?

dhw: […] this reference concerned the fact that the unexpected is always more interesting that the expected […] – hence the argument for an unpredictable free-for-all evolution, which would be far more interesting for God than a predictable Garden of Eden which you said would bore him.

DAVID: It would bore you also.

dhw: Nice to see you agreeing with yourself that he would be bored, like me. Next perhaps you will find yourself agreeing that he might logically have designed the “challenge” in order to prevent himself from being bored, though, according to you, he would not relieve his boredom out of the desire to relieve his boredom.

DAVID: To repeat: God is selfless. He does not need our personal requirements for entertainments.

Same dodge as above. You agree that he would be bored, and then you put your blinkers back on.

dhw: Theodicy asks how an all-good God can create evil. Your answer is that we shouldn’t bother to think about the evil.

DAVID: Evil comes from the good: free will is good but creates evil people. Most bacteria do a required good as in our intestinal microbiome. Our cells split trillions of times a day perfectly, but a bad split brings cancer, despite exiting editing mechanisms.

Free will does not “create evil people”! Your theoretical, all-knowing God knew in advance that by creating people and bacteria he was creating war, murder, rape, as well as countless diseases and other forms of suffering. Theodicy asks how his creation of evil can be equated with the theory that God is all-good. Your answer is once more to put on your blinkers and pretend evil is too minor to even think about.

DAVID: Would you prefer to live in the Garden of Eden? God gave us the brain to handle the challenges He expected.

dhw: Of course I would prefer to live in a Garden of Eden, where people did not have to suffer the dreadful consequences of war, disease, flood, famine, murder, rape etc., which your all-knowing God apparently foresaw when he designed all the agents of such suffering. I’m incredibly lucky to have lived a life largely untouched by these evils, and have been free to enjoy all the good wonders. Now please answer the above question: why do you think he wanted to present us with a challenge?

DAVID: Your own proportionality of a good life is the tale for most folks. The evil you see is the secondhand results of the required good.

Even if it was true that most folks are untouched by the evils I have described (a highly questionable statement in itself), there is nothing “secondhand” about a God who knows in advance precisely what evil he is creating. Take off your blinkers, and please explain how an all-good, first-cause God who created our world and our life out of himself can possibly KNOW what evil is and can then go ahead and create it. And please answer the now bolded question above.

Parasites can produce good outcomes

DAVID: a human might think all parasitism is bad, but this study shows the good side. This is a lesson is what God has given us, a mix of good necessary things that can have bad aspects. Theodicy is a study of that aspect of what is required for this system of life.

So God created some good parasites and some bad parasites, and that means we can ignore the bad parasites. Theodicy is NOT a study of what is required for life! Theodicy is the “study” of how one can reconcile the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God with the existence of evil. Stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 08, 2023, 18:35 (233 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God is selfless, not requiring human needs.

dhw: You have simply ignored my comment about “needs” and the question I have asked you, and repeated your mantra as if you were an authority on the nature of God. You do not know any more than I do about your possible God, so why do you keep dodging even your own statements about his “human” attributes?

His attributes are never dodged. You demand repeating. Comparisons to God are always allegorical. I do not know more about God than you, as you note. But I know the answers theologians prefer and have offered them.


dhw: Theodicy asks how an all-good God can create evil. Your answer is that we shouldn’t bother to think about the evil.

DAVID: Evil comes from the good: free will is good but creates evil people. Most bacteria do a required good as in our intestinal microbiome. Our cells split trillions of times a day perfectly, but a bad split brings cancer, despite exiting editing mechanisms.

dhw: Free will does not “create evil people”! Your theoretical, all-knowing God knew in advance that by creating people and bacteria he was creating war, murder, rape, as well as countless diseases and other forms of suffering. Theodicy asks how his creation of evil can be equated with the theory that God is all-good. Your answer is once more to put on your blinkers and pretend evil is too minor to even think about.

You ignore the needed good and concentrate on the side effects. Free will allows people to be evil. Necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled by God to only do good.


DAVID: Would you prefer to live in the Garden of Eden? God gave us the brain to handle the challenges He expected.

dhw: Of course I would prefer to live in a Garden of Eden, where people did not have to suffer the dreadful consequences of war, disease, flood, famine, murder, rape etc., which your all-knowing God apparently foresaw when he designed all the agents of such suffering. I’m incredibly lucky to have lived a life largely untouched by these evils, and have been free to enjoy all the good wonders. Now please answer the above question: why do you think he wanted to present us with a challenge?

DAVID: Your own proportionality of a good life is the tale for most folks. The evil you see is the secondhand results of the required good.

dhw: Even if it was true that most folks are untouched by the evils I have described (a highly questionable statement in itself), there is nothing “secondhand” about a God who knows in advance precisely what evil he is creating. Take off your blinkers, and please explain how an all-good, first-cause God who created our world and our life out of himself can possibly KNOW what evil is and can then go ahead and create it. And please answer the now bolded question above.

We have the brain He gave us to answer/solve challenges. They make life more interesting.


Parasites can produce good outcomes

DAVID: a human might think all parasitism is bad, but this study shows the good side. This is a lesson is what God has given us, a mix of good necessary things that can have bad aspects. Theodicy is a study of that aspect of what is required for this system of life.

dhw: So God created some good parasites and some bad parasites, and that means we can ignore the bad parasites. Theodicy is NOT a study of what is required for life! Theodicy is the “study” of how one can reconcile the concept of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God with the existence of evil. Stop dodging.

No dodge. Having the required necessary good means accepting the bad side effects. Yes, one aspect of theodicy is noting the required good. All living organisms have freedom of action which means God cannot control their activities which can be bad for us.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 08, 2023, 19:34 (233 days ago) @ David Turell

Vaginal birth gives the infantba useful microbiome:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news/vaginal-delivery-promotes-early-childhood-vaccine-re...

"To investigate the association of deliv­ery, the microbiome, and early vaccine response, Fuentes and her colleagues fol­lowed a cohort of 120 healthy infants. Formation of the early infant immune system is partially governed by the gut microbiome, which is seeded at birth.7 The method by which an infant is born influences what types of bacteria are more prevalent in the early microbiome.8 The researchers characterized the infants’ early gut microbiome through genetic sequencing and their mucosal antibody responses following administration of the anti-pneumococcal vaccine at 12 months and the anti-meningococcal vaccine at 18 months of age. They then investigated factors such as mode of delivery, early feeding methods, sex, having pets or sib­lings, exposure to antibiotics, and daycare attendance on the microbiome and anti­body responses.

***

"...the researchers showed that birth by vagi­nal delivery resulted in higher antibody responses against the anti-pneumococ­cal and anti-meningococcal vaccines. This could be because the vaginal micro­biome is an important microbial source that drives infant gut microbiome devel­opment.9 Fuentes further found that the presence of Bifidobacterium and Escherichia coli in the first few weeks of infant gut devel­opment resulted in increased immune responses to the vaccines. This study is the first to show an association between gut microbial colonization patterns early in life and the vaccine response, establishing the microbiome as a novel player that researchers can exploit when designing new intervention strategies for infectious diseases.

“I think it really puts another nail in the coffin [in the debate whether] microbes really do influence immune system development in early life,” said Brett Finlay, a professor and microbiolo­gist at the University of British Columbia who was not involved in the study. “And that’s what a vaccination is, it’s a readout of the immune system.”

Comment: we have to have useful bacteria despite the bad side effects.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, August 09, 2023, 11:25 (233 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How can he possibly enjoy it [creating] without feeling any enjoyment himself? And why would he create if he didn’t want to?

DAVID: God is selfless, not requiring human needs.

dhw: You have simply ignored my comment about “needs” and the question I have asked you, and repeated your mantra as if you were an authority on the nature of God. You do not know any more than I do about your possible God, so why do you keep dodging even your own statements about his “human” attributes?

DAVID: His attributes are never dodged. You demand repeating. Comparisons to God are always allegorical. I do not know more about God than you, as you note. But I know the answers theologians prefer and have offered them.

Enjoyment means enjoyment. How can this be an “allegory”? You agree that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but the moment I suggest that enjoyment and interest might constitute a purpose, you pretend that this would make him "needy". I know you prefer to stick to the answers you prefer to stick to, but don’t blame the theologians for the illogicalities of your theories, and please don’t expect me to believe that they know more than you or I do about a God who is not known by anybody. And please answer the now bolded questions at the head of this post.

dhw: Your theoretical, all-knowing God knew in advance that by creating people and bacteria he was creating war, murder, rape, as well as countless diseases and other forms of suffering. Theodicy asks how his creation of evil can be equated with the theory that God is all-good. Your answer is once more to put on your blinkers and pretend evil is too minor to even think about.

DAVID: You ignore the needed good and concentrate on the side effects. Free will allows people to be evil. Necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled by God to only do good.
And under “Vaginal birth”:
DAVID: we have to have useful bacteria despite the bad side effects.

Your attribute 4: God is Omnipotent – He is All Powerful.
Your attribute 5: God is Omniscient – He is All-Knowing.
Your attribute 7: God is wise – He is full of perfect, Unchanging Wisdom
(DAVID: This is religious teaching which I accept.)

So your all-knowing God knew in advance that his creations would produce the evils listed above, and in his perfect wisdom he must have wanted the evil “allowed” by free will, and despite his omnipotence he had no control over the evils committed by bacteria. Is this what your theologians tell you?

dhw: why do you think he wanted to present us with a challenge?

DAVID: We have the brain He gave us to answer/solve challenges. They make life more interesting.

For whom? Do you truly believe that God thought that the suffering caused by war, murder, rape, famine, flood, crippling and fatal diseases etc. would make life more interesting for us? All this for our benefit? Or perish the thought, more interesting for him? I know your answer: don’t even think about all this. That’s how to solve the problem of theodicy!

Parasites can produce good outcomes

DAVID: All living organisms have freedom of action which means God cannot control their activities which can be bad for us.

So your new solution to the problem of theodicy is that your God created a free-for-all. But since he is omnipotent, we can only assume that a free-for-all is what he wanted. And if a free-for-all explains the existence of evil, why would it not also explain the history of evolution itself? You simply cannot understand why your God would design 99 out of 100 organisms that had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (sapiens plus food). Maybe he didn’t design them all, and that was not his purpose. In his omnipotence, and with his decision to create “freedom of action”, perhaps he also decided to create freedom of speciation (though he could dabble if he wanted to). After all,
ATTRIBUTE 3: God is Self-Sufficient – He Has No Needs.
He doesn’t need us, so why would he bother to create us, let alone the other 99% that had no connection with us? And one more question: why do you think he bothered to create life in the first place?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 09, 2023, 16:36 (232 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: How can he possibly enjoy it [creating] without feeling any enjoyment himself? And why would he create if he didn’t want to?

God's enjoyment is God's form of enjoyment, not ours. Of course, God does what He wants to do.


DAVID: God is selfless, not requiring human needs.

dhw: You have simply ignored my comment about “needs” and the question I have asked you, and repeated your mantra as if you were an authority on the nature of God. You do not know any more than I do about your possible God, so why do you keep dodging even your own statements about his “human” attributes?

DAVID: His attributes are never dodged. You demand repeating. Comparisons to God are always allegorical. I do not know more about God than you, as you note. But I know the answers theologians prefer and have offered them.

dhw: Enjoyment means enjoyment. How can this be an “allegory”?

How God enjoys is not the same as how we enjoy. Thus allegorical.

dhw: Your theoretical, all-knowing God knew in advance that by creating people and bacteria he was creating war, murder, rape, as well as countless diseases and other forms of suffering. Theodicy asks how his creation of evil can be equated with the theory that God is all-good. Your answer is once more to put on your blinkers and pretend evil is too minor to even think about.

DAVID: You ignore the needed good and concentrate on the side effects. Free will allows people to be evil. Necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled by God to only do good.
And under “Vaginal birth”:
DAVID: we have to have useful bacteria despite the bad side effects.

Your attribute 4: God is Omnipotent – He is All Powerful.
Your attribute 5: God is Omniscient – He is All-Knowing.
Your attribute 7: God is wise – He is full of perfect, Unchanging Wisdom
(DAVID: This is religious teaching which I accept.)

dhw: So your all-knowing God knew in advance that his creations would produce the evils listed above, and in his perfect wisdom he must have wanted the evil “allowed” by free will, and despite his omnipotence he had no control over the evils committed by bacteria. Is this what your theologians tell you?

Theodicy articles I've reviewed all take my approach, which you abhor. God asks us not to sin, i.e., create evil. God knew necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled but are absolutely required for us to live properly.


Parasites can produce good outcomes

DAVID: All living organisms have freedom of action which means God cannot control their activities which can be bad for us.

dhw: So your new solution to the problem of theodicy is that your God created a free-for-all. But since he is omnipotent, we can only assume that a free-for-all is what he wanted. And if a free-for-all explains the existence of evil, why would it not also explain the history of evolution itself? You simply cannot understand why your God would design 99 out of 100 organisms that had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (sapiens plus food). Maybe he didn’t design them all, and that was not his purpose. In his omnipotence, and with his decision to create “freedom of action”, perhaps he also decided to create freedom of speciation (though he could dabble if he wanted to). After all,
ATTRIBUTE 3: God is Self-Sufficient – He Has No Needs.
He doesn’t need us, so why would he bother to create us, let alone the other 99% that had no connection with us? And one more question: why do you think he bothered to create life in the first place?

God did those things because He wanted to. He did not need to, because He has no needs. Your free-for-all is our term for the dog-eat-dog world where all life has to eat to survive. If God could have created a life without energy needs, He would have.

On the other hand, your so-called God needs enjoyment from directionless free-for-alls, needs to experiment since he has no goals in mind, and is innocent of His mistakes because He is blissfully unaware of His unforeseen consequences of His blundering actions.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, August 10, 2023, 13:10 (231 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: How can he possibly enjoy it [creating] without feeling any enjoyment himself? And why would he create if he didn’t want to?

DAVID: God's enjoyment is God's form of enjoyment, not ours. Of course, God does what He wants to do.
And:
DAVID: How God enjoys is not the same as how we enjoy. Thus allegorical.

An allegory is a symbol that represents an idea. In Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian journeys through the Slough of Despond, the Valley of Humiliation, Vanity Fair etc. That’s an allegory. It’s you who used the word enjoyment, and you knew precisely what you meant by it. The word means to take pleasure in something. If you don’t mean what you say, then why say it?

dhw: Your theoretical, all-knowing God knew in advance that by creating people and bacteria he was creating war, murder, rape, as well as countless diseases and other forms of suffering. Theodicy asks how his creation of evil can be equated with the theory that God is all-good. […]

DAVID: You ignore the needed good and concentrate on the side effects. Free will allows people to be evil. Necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled by God to only do good.

dhw: Your attribute 4: God is Omnipotent – He is All Powerful.
Your attribute 5: God is Omniscient – He is All-Knowing.
Your attribute 7: God is wise – He is full of perfect, Unchanging Wisdom

(DAVID: This is religious teaching which I accept.)

dhw: So your all-knowing God knew in advance that his creations would produce the evils listed above, and in his perfect wisdom he must have wanted the evil “allowed” by free will, and despite his omnipotence he had no control over the evils committed by bacteria. Is this what your theologians tell you?

DAVID: Theodicy articles I've reviewed all take my approach, which you abhor. God asks us not to sin, i.e., create evil. God knew necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled but are absolutely required for us to live properly.

Please stop hiding behind other people’s work. YOUR all-knowing God knew in advance that we WOULD sin, so what would be the point in asking us not to? And how can an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent the evil consequences of his own inventions? You say your God does what he wants to do. So he wanted to create the evil he knew would happen. I wonder which “theodicy articles” take your approach.

Parasites can produce good outcomes

DAVID: All living organisms have freedom of action which means God cannot control their activities which can be bad for us.

dhw: So your new solution to the problem of theodicy is that your God created a free-for-all. But since he is omnipotent, we can only assume that a free-for-all is what he wanted. And if a free-for-all explains the existence of evil, why would it not also explain the history of evolution itself? […]

dhw: ATTRIBUTE 3: God is Self-Sufficient – He Has No Needs.
He doesn’t need us, so why would he bother to create us, let alone the other 99% that had no connection with us? And one more question: why do you think he bothered to create life in the first place?

DAVID: God did those things because He wanted to.

Did what things? As above, if he wanted to designed species irrelevant to what you say was his purpose, maybe your interpretation of his purpose is wrong. If he wanted to create the forces of evil, then how can he be all-good? Now please tell us why you think he wanted to create us, and why he wanted to create life in the first place.

DAVID: He did not need to, because He has no needs.

I keep rejecting your deliberate insertion of “need”. I never used the term. I agree with you that your God, if he exists, would do what he wants to do. Please answer the two questions.

DAVID: Your free-for-all is our term for the dog-eat-dog world where all life has to eat to survive. If God could have created a life without energy needs, He would have.

My free-for-all goes beyond dog-eat-dog (though energy can be acquired without the cruelty of dog-eat-dog) to speciation, as it would explain what you cannot explain: namely, the vast variety of life forms that have come and gone and have/had no relevance to your God’s sole purpose in creating life: us and our food.

DAVID: On the other hand, your so-called God needs enjoyment from directionless free-for-alls, needs to experiment since he has no goals in mind, and is innocent of His mistakes because He is blissfully unaware of His unforeseen consequences of His blundering actions.

Again, he does not “need” anything. Enjoyment and interest do not denote need. Stop putting up such straw men. Experimentation is not goal-less. I offered you two forms: one the goal of creating a being like himself, and the other the enjoyment of discovery. I’m always surprised by your implicit condemnation of your perfect God’s “mistakes”, which fits in with your firm belief that despite his all-goodness he knew perfectly well that he was creating evil, just as with his perfect wisdom and omniscience he knew perfectly well that his method of achieving his sole purpose was cumbersome and inefficient. I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 10, 2023, 17:47 (231 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How God enjoys is not the same as how we enjoy. Thus allegorical.

dhw; An allegory is a symbol that represents an idea. In Pilgrim’s Progress, Christian journeys through the Slough of Despond, the Valley of Humiliation, Vanity Fair etc. That’s an allegory. It’s you who used the word enjoyment, and you knew precisely what you meant by it. The word means to take pleasure in something. If you don’t mean what you say, then why say it?

You don't understand the concept. We cannot know how God enjoys, if he does.

DAVID: Theodicy articles I've reviewed all take my approach, which you abhor. God asks us not to sin, i.e., create evil. God knew necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled but are absolutely required for us to live properly.

dhw: Please stop hiding behind other people’s work. YOUR all-knowing God knew in advance that we WOULD sin, so what would be the point in asking us not to? And how can an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent the evil consequences of his own inventions? You say your God does what he wants to do. So he wanted to create the evil he knew would happen. I wonder which “theodicy articles” take your approach.

All on Wikipedia. God created free acting organisms, which cannot be controlled. And yes, I believe God knew the consequences.


dhw: ATTRIBUTE 3: God is Self-Sufficient – He Has No Needs.
He doesn’t need us, so why would he bother to create us, let alone the other 99% that had no connection with us? And one more question: why do you think he bothered to create life in the first place?

DAVID: God did those things because He wanted to.

dhw: Did what things? As above, if he wanted to designed species irrelevant to what you say was his purpose, maybe your interpretation of his purpose is wrong. If he wanted to create the forces of evil, then how can he be all-good? Now please tell us why you think he wanted to create us, and why he wanted to create life in the first place.

Repeat: because He wanted to, and His reasoning is unknown. Your demand for exactitude is unreasonable.


DAVID: He did not need to, because He has no needs.

dhw: I keep rejecting your deliberate insertion of “need”. I never used the term. I agree with you that your God, if he exists, would do what he wants to do. Please answer the two questions.

Above.


DAVID: Your free-for-all is our term for the dog-eat-dog world where all life has to eat to survive. If God could have created a life without energy needs, He would have.

dhw: My free-for-all goes beyond dog-eat-dog (though energy can be acquired without the cruelty of dog-eat-dog) to speciation, as it would explain what you cannot explain: namely, the vast variety of life forms that have come and gone and have/had no relevance to your God’s sole purpose in creating life: us and our food.

Evolution involves creating new forms from simple to complex and in the sorting process 99.9% don't survive. My God and your humanized from both used evolutions, so don't complain about mine.


DAVID: On the other hand, your so-called God needs enjoyment from directionless free-for-alls, needs to experiment since he has no goals in mind, and is innocent of His mistakes because He is blissfully unaware of His unforeseen consequences of His blundering actions.

dhw: Again, he does not “need” anything. Enjoyment and interest do not denote need. Stop putting up such straw men. Experimentation is not goal-less. I offered you two forms: one the goal of creating a being like himself, and the other the enjoyment of discovery. I’m always surprised by your implicit condemnation of your perfect God’s “mistakes”, which fits in with your firm belief that despite his all-goodness he knew perfectly well that he was creating evil, just as with his perfect wisdom and omniscience he knew perfectly well that his method of achieving his sole purpose was cumbersome and inefficient. I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

Their articles mirror my theology.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, August 11, 2023, 11:17 (231 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It’s you who used the word enjoyment, and you knew precisely what you meant by it. The word means to take pleasure in something. If you don’t mean what you say, then why say it?

DAVID: You don't understand the concept. We cannot know how God enjoys, if he does.

You said you were sure that he enjoys creating. Please tell us what YOU meant when you used the word “enjoy”?

DAVID: Theodicy articles I've reviewed all take my approach, which you abhor. God asks us not to sin, i.e., create evil. God knew necessary free-living bacteria cannot be controlled but are absolutely required for us to live properly.

dhw: Please stop hiding behind other people’s work. YOUR all-knowing God knew in advance that we WOULD sin, so what would be the point in asking us not to? And how can an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent the evil consequences of his own inventions? You say your God does what he wants to do. So he wanted to create the evil he knew would happen. I wonder which “theodicy articles” take your approach.

DAVID: All on Wikipedia. God created free acting organisms, which cannot be controlled. And yes, I believe God knew the consequences.

Thank you for confirming your belief that your all-powerful God was powerless to control his inventions, and that your all-good God knew in advance that he was creating evil. I wonder which theodicy articles take this approach.

dhw: […] if he wanted to designed species irrelevant to what you say was his purpose, maybe your interpretation of his purpose is wrong. If he wanted to create the forces of evil, then how can he be all-good? Now please tell us why you think he wanted to create us, and why he wanted to create life in the first place.

DAVID: Repeat: because He wanted to, and His reasoning is unknown. Your demand for exactitude is unreasonable.

But you are the one who proposes exactitude: over and over again, you have specified that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. (Repeated today under “ocean floor”: "My form of God is strictly purposeful with humans as a goal.") When I ask you why he would then have created 99 out of 100 irrelevant life forms, you can find no answer. It is your theory that is unreasonable. Just as your two responses to the theodicy problem are unreasonable: 1) evil is so minor that we shouldn’t even think about it; 2) your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God can’t control his inventions or, in the case of humans, gave them the freedom to commit evil, knowing in advance exactly what evil they would commit.

DAVID: He did not need to, because He has no needs.

dhw: I keep rejecting your deliberate insertion of “need”. I never used the term. I agree with you that your God, if he exists, would do what he wants to do.

DAVID: Your free-for-all is our term for the dog-eat-dog world where all life has to eat to survive. If God could have created a life without energy needs, He would have.

dhw: My free-for-all goes beyond dog-eat-dog (though energy can be acquired without the cruelty of dog-eat-dog) to speciation, as it would explain what you cannot explain: namely, the vast variety of life forms that have come and gone and have/had no relevance to your God’s sole purpose in creating life: us and our food.

DAVID: Evolution involves creating new forms from simple to complex and in the sorting process 99.9% don't survive. My God and your humanized form both used evolutions, so don't complain about mine.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. You have insisted that your humanized God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 forms, knowing that they were irrelevant to his purpose (us and food), and you can’t think of a single reason why he would have done so. That is what I complain about.

DAVID: On the other hand, your so-called God needs enjoyment from directionless free-for-alls, needs to experiment since he has no goals in mind, and is innocent of His mistakes because He is blissfully unaware of His unforeseen consequences of His blundering actions.

dhw: Again, he does not “need” anything. Enjoyment and interest do not denote need. Stop putting up such straw men. Experimentation is not goal-less. I offered you two forms: one the goal of creating a being like himself, and the other the enjoyment of discovery. I’m always surprised by your implicit condemnation of your perfect God’s “mistakes”, which fits in with your firm belief that despite his all-goodness he knew perfectly well that he was creating evil, just as with his perfect wisdom and omniscience he knew perfectly well that his method of achieving his sole purpose was cumbersome and inefficient. I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.

So they ridicule his method of designing his one and only purpose as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”, and they inform us that their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God knew perfectly well that he was creating future war, murder, rape, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. but went ahead all the same. I’m surprised that they all embrace such negative views of their God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, August 11, 2023, 16:27 (230 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Please stop hiding behind other people’s work. YOUR all-knowing God knew in advance that we WOULD sin, so what would be the point in asking us not to? And how can an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent the evil consequences of his own inventions? You say your God does what he wants to do. So he wanted to create the evil he knew would happen. I wonder which “theodicy articles” take your approach.

DAVID: All on Wikipedia. God created free acting organisms, which cannot be controlled. And yes, I believe God knew the consequences.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your belief that your all-powerful God was powerless to control his inventions, and that your all-good God knew in advance that he was creating evil. I wonder which theodicy articles take this approach.

Once again, they all emphasize the 'good'.


dhw: […] if he wanted to designed species irrelevant to what you say was his purpose, maybe your interpretation of his purpose is wrong. If he wanted to create the forces of evil, then how can he be all-good? Now please tell us why you think he wanted to create us, and why he wanted to create life in the first place.

DAVID: Repeat: because He wanted to, and His reasoning is unknown. Your demand for exactitude is unreasonable.

dhw: But you are the one who proposes exactitude: over and over again, you have specified that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. (Repeated today under “ocean floor”: "My form of God is strictly purposeful with humans as a goal.") When I ask you why he would then have created 99 out of 100 irrelevant life forms, you can find no answer. It is your theory that is unreasonable. Just as your two responses to the theodicy problem are unreasonable: 1) evil is so minor that we shouldn’t even think about it; 2) your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God can’t control his inventions or, in the case of humans, gave them the freedom to commit evil, knowing in advance exactly what evil they would commit.

Total poppycock: evolution is a culling process which must result in a 99% loss. My God and your God both used it, although your purposeless God didn't know the endpoint.


dhw: My free-for-all goes beyond dog-eat-dog (though energy can be acquired without the cruelty of dog-eat-dog) to speciation, as it would explain what you cannot explain: namely, the vast variety of life forms that have come and gone and have/had no relevance to your God’s sole purpose in creating life: us and our food.

DAVID: Evolution involves creating new forms from simple to complex and in the sorting process 99.9% don't survive. My God and your humanized form both used evolutions, so don't complain about mine.

dhw: Dodge, dodge, dodge. You have insisted that your humanized God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 forms, knowing that they were irrelevant to his purpose (us and food), and you can’t think of a single reason why he would have done so. That is what I complain about.

Endless sophistry. God chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons. We have both made endless guesses as to why.


DAVID: On the other hand, your so-called God needs enjoyment from directionless free-for-alls, needs to experiment since he has no goals in mind, and is innocent of His mistakes because He is blissfully unaware of His unforeseen consequences of His blundering actions.

dhw: Again, he does not “need” anything. Enjoyment and interest do not denote need. Stop putting up such straw men. Experimentation is not goal-less. I offered you two forms: one the goal of creating a being like himself, and the other the enjoyment of discovery. I’m always surprised by your implicit condemnation of your perfect God’s “mistakes”, which fits in with your firm belief that despite his all-goodness he knew perfectly well that he was creating evil, just as with his perfect wisdom and omniscience he knew perfectly well that his method of achieving his sole purpose was cumbersome and inefficient. I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.

dhw: So they ridicule his method of designing his one and only purpose as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”, and they inform us that their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God knew perfectly well that he was creating future war, murder, rape, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. but went ahead all the same. I’m surprised that they all embrace such negative views of their God.

Not in your distorted mirror. My agreement with ID is a God who designs, is purposeful in His designs and has humans as His endpoint. ID and I see the positive, while you do is reflect entirely on the negative, which is a much smaller aspect of reality.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, August 12, 2023, 08:27 (230 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] YOUR all-knowing God knew in advance that we WOULD sin, so what would be the point in asking us not to? And how can an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent the evil consequences of his own inventions? You say your God does what he wants to do. So he wanted to create the evil he knew would happen. I wonder which “theodicy articles” take your approach. […]

DAVID: Once again, they all emphasize the 'good'.

In which case, just like you, they are simply dodging the question posed by theodicy, which is how an all-good God could possibly create evil.

DAVID: […] His reasoning is unknown. Your demand for exactitude is unreasonable.

dhw: But you are the one who proposes exactitude: over and over again, you have specified that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. (Repeated today under “ocean floor”: "My form of God is strictly purposeful with humans as a goal.") When I ask you why he would then have created 99 out of 100 irrelevant life forms, you can find no answer. It is your theory that is unreasonable. Just as your two responses to the theodicy problem are unreasonable: 1) evil is so minor that we shouldn’t even think about it; 2) your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God can’t control his inventions or, in the case of humans, gave them the freedom to commit evil, knowing in advance exactly what evil they would commit.

DAVID: Total poppycock: evolution is a culling process which must result in a 99% loss. My God and your God both used it, although your purposeless God didn't know the endpoint.

You have ignored your irrational views on theodicy. As for evolution, we know that 99% became extinct. But why “must” your all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately design 99% that are irrelevant to his purpose? As first-cause creator, why on earth would he create such a binding obligation to use what you yourself call a messy, inefficient system to achieve what you tell us is his one and only purpose? You have no idea. Only God can make sense of such nonsense. And please stop repeating that my various alternative explanations are “purposeless”. Experiments to find a particular formula, or the joy of making new discoveries are purposes.

DAVID: Endless sophistry. God chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons. We have both made endless guesses as to why.

If God exists, and since we both accept evolution as a fact, then of course he chose to evolve us and every other species that exists and/or existed. That is not the problem and you know it, and you are the one who is guilty of sophistry because you keep leaving it out of your vague generalizations. You cannot find any reasons for the theory I have bolded above, and so you keep dodging it.

dhw: I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.

dhw: So they ridicule his method of designing his one and only purpose as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”, and they inform us that their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God knew perfectly well that he was creating future war, murder, rape, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. but went ahead all the same. I’m surprised that they all embrace such negative views of their God.

DAVID: Not in your distorted mirror. My agreement with ID is a God who designs, is purposeful in His designs and has humans as His endpoint.

I’m not questioning your agreement with them, but what you claim is their agreement with you. Do ID-ers believe that your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design us and our food, and therefore he was compelled by some law of his own making to deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose?

DAVID: ID and I see the positive, while you do is reflect entirely on the negative, which is a much smaller aspect of reality.

Do they agree with you that the problem of theodicy is solved by ignoring evil, and that your all-good God knew in advance that his creations would wage war, commit murder, rape etc., and would produce floods and famines and terrible diseases, but went ahead all the same? And why do you regard these beliefs of yours as being “positive”?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 12, 2023, 18:13 (229 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Total poppycock: evolution is a culling process which must result in a 99% loss. My God and your God both used it, although your purposeless God didn't know the endpoint.

dhw: You have ignored your irrational views on theodicy. As for evolution, we know that 99% became extinct. But why “must” your all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately design 99% that are irrelevant to his purpose? As first-cause creator, why on earth would he create such a binding obligation to use what you yourself call a messy, inefficient system to achieve what you tell us is his one and only purpose? You have no idea. Only God can make sense of such nonsense. And please stop repeating that my various alternative explanations are “purposeless”. Experiments to find a particular formula, or the joy of making new discoveries are purposes.

God does not tell me why He chose to evolve us, when He could create a universe and life itself. Your God has no fixed goals, and you view in the bold is an example of an excuse for lacking purpose. And your directionless God used the same evolutionary process as mine.


DAVID: Endless sophistry. God chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons. We have both made endless guesses as to why.

dhw: If God exists, and since we both accept evolution as a fact, then of course he chose to evolve us and every other species that exists and/or existed. That is not the problem and you know it, and you are the one who is guilty of sophistry because you keep leaving it out of your vague generalizations. You cannot find any reasons for the theory I have bolded above, and so you keep dodging it.

A disagreement is not dodging. I don't generalize, as I have very specific reasons for my positions.


dhw: I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.

dhw: So they ridicule his method of designing his one and only purpose as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”, and they inform us that their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God knew perfectly well that he was creating future war, murder, rape, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. but went ahead all the same. I’m surprised that they all embrace such negative views of their God.

DAVID: Not in your distorted mirror. My agreement with ID is a God who designs, is purposeful in His designs and has humans as His endpoint.

dhw: I’m not questioning your agreement with them, but what you claim is their agreement with you. Do ID-ers believe that your God’s one and only purpose for creating life was to design us and our food, and therefore he was compelled by some law of his own making to deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his one and only purpose?

Same distorted view of how evolution works when it is directed toward a goal. Raup's review of evolution showed it required a 99.9% loss as a natural result of the process.


DAVID: ID and I see the positive, while you do is reflect entirely on the negative, which is a much smaller aspect of reality.

dhw: Do they agree with you that the problem of theodicy is solved by ignoring evil, and that your all-good God knew in advance that his creations would wage war, commit murder, rape etc., and would produce floods and famines and terrible diseases, but went ahead all the same? And why do you regard these beliefs of yours as being “positive”?

You can't see the see the truth of reality with your dark view of reality. I have not seen a discussion of theodicy in ID.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, August 13, 2023, 08:40 (229 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] evolution is a culling process which must result in a 99% loss. My God and your God both used it, although your purposeless God didn't know the endpoint.

dhw:[…]. As for evolution, we know that 99% became extinct. But why “must” your all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately design 99% that are irrelevant to his purpose? As first-cause creator, why on earth would he create such a binding obligation to use what you yourself call a messy, inefficient system to achieve what you tell us is his one and only purpose? You have no idea. Only God can make sense of such nonsense. And please stop repeating that my various alternative explanations are “purposeless”. Experiments to find a particular formula, or the joy of making new discoveries are purposes.

DAVID: God does not tell me why He chose to evolve us, when He could create a universe and life itself.

The issue is not why, if he exists, he chose to evolve us! READ THE FIRST BOLD!

DAVID: Your God has no fixed goals, and you view in the bold is an example of an excuse for lacking purpose.

I have offered two “fixed goals”. READ THE SECOND BOLD!

DAVID: And your directionless God used the same evolutionary process as mine.

A God with a goal (READ THE SECOND BOLD) is not directionless, and he did not necessarily use the same evolutionary process as yours, because yours individually designed every species, even though 99% were irrelevant to his purpose, whereas mine either designed them or gave them the freedom to design themselves BECAUSE they were relevant to his purpose.

DAVID: Same distorted view of how evolution works when it is directed toward a goal. Raup's review of evolution showed it required a 99.9% loss as a natural result of the process.

The 99.9% loss is a fact. But if Raup tells you that your God had to design 100 species and then kill off 99.9 of them because they were irrelevant to his one and only goal (us and our food), his theory is just as senseless as yours. But I don’t know Raup’s theory, so I am only criticizing yours.

DAVID: Endless sophistry. God chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons. We have both made endless guesses as to why.

dhw: If God exists, and since we both accept evolution as a fact, then of course he chose to evolve us and every other species that exists and/or existed. That is not the problem and you know it, and you are the one who is guilty of sophistry because you keep leaving it out of your vague generalizations. You cannot find any reasons for the theory I have bolded above, and so you keep dodging it.

DAVID: A disagreement is not dodging. I don't generalize, as I have very specific reasons for my positions.

“He chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons” could hardly be more vague, and you cannot find a single specific reason for your fixed belief in the bolded theory.

dhw: I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.

dhw: So they ridicule his method of designing his one and only purpose as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”, and they inform us that their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God knew perfectly well that he was creating future war, murder, rape, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. but went ahead all the same. I’m surprised that they all embrace such negative views of their God. [...]

DAVID: You can't see the truth of reality with your dark view of reality. I have not seen a discussion of theodicy in ID.

The problem of why an all-good God would create evil is not solved by telling me to ignore evil. If your ID-ers don’t discuss theodicy (and I doubt if they all ridicule your God’s method of achieving his purpose as messy, cumbersome and inefficient), please stop telling me that their articles mirror your theology.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 13, 2023, 17:22 (228 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: […] evolution is a culling process which must result in a 99% loss. My God and your God both used it, although your purposeless God didn't know the endpoint.

dhw:[…]. As for evolution, we know that 99% became extinct. But why “must” your all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately design 99% that are irrelevant to his purpose? As first-cause creator, why on earth would he create such a binding obligation to use what you yourself call a messy, inefficient system to achieve what you tell us is his one and only purpose? You have no idea. Only God can make sense of such nonsense. And please stop repeating that my various alternative explanations are “purposeless”. Experiments to find a particular formula, or the joy of making new discoveries are purposes.

DAVID: God does not tell me why He chose to evolve us, when He could create a universe and life itself.

dhw: The issue is not why, if he exists, he chose to evolve us! READ THE FIRST BOLD!

Pure nonsense!! I cannot know why God chose to evolve us. Evolution requires everything you complain about. Your form of God also evolved us by 'experimenting and discovering', describing a new form of a clueless God, which no religion would recognize.


DAVID: Your God has no fixed goals, and you view in the bold is an example of an excuse for lacking purpose.

dhw: I have offered two “fixed goals”. READ THE SECOND BOLD!

Sure, invented goals of a humanized God.


DAVID: And your directionless God used the same evolutionary process as mine.

dhw: A God with a goal (READ THE SECOND BOLD) is not directionless, and he did not necessarily use the same evolutionary process as yours, because yours individually designed every species, even though 99% were irrelevant to his purpose, whereas mine either designed them or gave them the freedom to design themselves BECAUSE they were relevant to his purpose.

Stop and think: tell us His different evolutionary process, please!


DAVID: Same distorted view of how evolution works when it is directed toward a goal. Raup's review of evolution showed it required a 99.9% loss as a natural result of the process.

dhw: The 99.9% loss is a fact. But if Raup tells you that your God had to design 100 species and then kill off 99.9 of them because they were irrelevant to his one and only goal (us and our food), his theory is just as senseless as yours. But I don’t know Raup’s theory, so I am only criticizing yours.

You know Raup's pure point of 99.9% species loss due to bad luck in attempting survival. Don't try to add my theory to his aproach.


DAVID: Endless sophistry. God chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons. We have both made endless guesses as to why.

dhw: If God exists, and since we both accept evolution as a fact, then of course he chose to evolve us and every other species that exists and/or existed. That is not the problem and you know it, and you are the one who is guilty of sophistry because you keep leaving it out of your vague generalizations. You cannot find any reasons for the theory I have bolded above, and so you keep dodging it.

DAVID: A disagreement is not dodging. I don't generalize, as I have very specific reasons for my positions.

dhw: “He chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons” could hardly be more vague, and you cannot find a single specific reason for your fixed belief in the bolded theory.

Any view of God is vague. Evolution exists/existed, God created our reality, so evolution is His choice of creating forms of life. Pure logic.


dhw: I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.

dhw: So they ridicule his method of designing his one and only purpose as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”, and they inform us that their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God knew perfectly well that he was creating future war, murder, rape, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. but went ahead all the same. I’m surprised that they all embrace such negative views of their God. [...]

DAVID: You can't see the truth of reality with your dark view of reality. I have not seen a discussion of theodicy in ID.

dhw: The problem of why an all-good God would create evil is not solved by telling me to ignore evil. If your ID-ers don’t discuss theodicy (and I doubt if they all ridicule your God’s method of achieving his purpose as messy, cumbersome and inefficient), please stop telling me that their articles mirror your theology.

You know so little of ID, you can't criticize me. Their main point is an eternal mind designed all of evolution and its biochemistry.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, August 14, 2023, 13:15 (227 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I cannot know why God chose to evolve us.

I can only repeat the comment you are pretending to answer. The issue is not why your God chose to evolve us, but why he chose to individually design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, although you claim that we were his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Evolution requires everything you complain about.

According to you, God is the master of evolution, not its servant. Evolution does not say to God: “Thou must specially design 100 species, 99 of which must be irrelevant to thy purpose.”

DAVID: Your form of God also evolved us by 'experimenting and discovering', describing a new form of a clueless God, which no religion would recognize.

Please tell me which religion preaches that God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer who individually designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Your God has no fixed goals, and you view in the bold is an example of an excuse for lacking purpose.

dhw: I have offered two “fixed goals”. READ THE SECOND BOLD! [To find a particular formula, or the joy of making new discoveries]

DAVID: Sure, invented goals of a humanized God.

The fact that you don’t accept these logical theistic explanations of evolution and prefer your own, which you yourself find incomprehensible, does not justify your claim that my versions of God have “no fixed goals”. Stop dodging.

DAVID: And your directionless God used the same evolutionary process as mine.

dhw: A God with a goal (READ THE SECOND BOLD) is not directionless, and he did not necessarily use the same evolutionary process as yours, because yours individually designed every species, even though 99% were irrelevant to his purpose, whereas mine either designed them or gave them the freedom to design themselves BECAUSE they were relevant to his purpose.

DAVID: Stop and think: tell us His different evolutionary process, please!

Stop and read what I write. “He did not necessarily use the same evolutionary process”. In my first two theistic theories, the process is the same as yours, except that in neither case were his designs irrelevant to his purpose, but in my third alternative, he did NOT design all species, and instead gave them the wherewithal to do their own designing.

DAVID: Raup's review of evolution showed it required a 99.9% loss as a natural result of the process.

dhw: The 99.9% loss is a fact. But if Raup tells you that your God had to design 100 species and then kill off 99.9 of them because they were irrelevant to his one and only goal (us and our food), his theory is just as senseless as yours. But I don’t know Raup’s theory, so I am only criticizing yours.

DAVID: You know Raup's pure point of 99.9% species loss due to bad luck in attempting survival. Don't try to add my theory to his approach.

I have no objection to the comment that extinction is a matter of bad luck. If Raup is irrelevant to your own absurd theory, why have you quoted him?

DAVID: God chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons. […]

dhw: […] You cannot find any reasons for the theory I have bolded above, and so you keep dodging it.

DAVID: A disagreement is not dodging. I don't generalize, as I have very specific reasons for my positions.

dhw: “He chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasonscould hardly be more vague, and you cannot find a single specific reason for your fixed belief in the bolded theory.

DAVID: Any view of God is vague. Evolution exists/existed, God created our reality, so evolution is His choice of creating forms of life. Pure logic.

Yes, yes, yawn, yawn. If God exists, that is pure logic. What is not pure logic is that he chose to design 99 out of 100 forms of life that were irrelevant to what you say was his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. You cannot find any reasons for this absurd theory, and so you keep dodging it.

dhw: I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.

dhw: So they ridicule his method of designing his one and only purpose as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”, and they inform us that their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God knew perfectly well that he was creating future war, murder, rape, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. but went ahead all the same. I’m surprised that they all embrace such negative views of their God. [...]

DAVID: You know so little of ID, you can't criticize me. Their main point is an eternal mind designed all of evolution and its biochemistry.

And that is not the point in dispute. You have claimed that they support your absurd theory of evolution and your answer to the problem of theodicy, and now you admit that they don’t, so please stop pretending that ID articles “mirror” your theology.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, August 14, 2023, 18:00 (227 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I can only repeat the comment you are pretending to answer. The issue is not why your God chose to evolve us, but why he chose to individually design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, although you claim that we were his one and only purpose.

To reach God's purpose (humans), He chose to evolve us, rather than directly create us, the only two options availabe..


DAVID: Your form of God also evolved us by 'experimenting and discovering', describing a new form of a clueless God, which no religion would recognize.

dhw: Please tell me which religion preaches that God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer who individually designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

Which religion describes your rudderless God who enjoys experimeting?

DAVID: Stop and think: tell us His different evolutionary process, please!

dhw: Stop and read what I write. “He did not necessarily use the same evolutionary process”. In my first two theistic theories, the process is the same as yours, except that in neither case were his designs irrelevant to his purpose, but in my third alternative, he did NOT design all species, and instead gave them the wherewithal to do their own designing.

The bold interests me. How does our God conduct His purposeful evolution to what current endpoint?


dhw: “He chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasonscould hardly be more vague, and you cannot find a single specific reason for your fixed belief in the bolded theory.

DAVID: Any view of God is vague. Evolution exists/existed, God created our reality, so evolution is His choice of creating forms of life. Pure logic.

dhw: Yes, yes, yawn, yawn. If God exists, that is pure logic. What is not pure logic is that he chose to design 99 out of 100 forms of life that were irrelevant to what you say was his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. You cannot find any reasons for this absurd theory, and so you keep dodging it.

Why can't you accept that is how a creative evolution works?


dhw: I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.

dhw: So they ridicule his method of designing his one and only purpose as “messy, cumbersome and inefficient”, and they inform us that their all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God knew perfectly well that he was creating future war, murder, rape, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. but went ahead all the same. I’m surprised that they all embrace such negative views of their God. [...]

DAVID: You know so little of ID, you can't criticize me. Their main point is an eternal mind designed all of evolution and its biochemistry.

dhw: And that is not the point in dispute. You have claimed that they support your absurd theory of evolution and your answer to the problem of theodicy, and now you admit that they don’t, so please stop pretending that ID articles “mirror” your theology.

My 'absurd' theory of evolution is what they believe. God designed evolution for our appearance.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, August 15, 2023, 10:53 (227 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I can only repeat the comment you are pretending to answer. The issue is not why your God chose to evolve us, but why he chose to individually design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, although you claim that we were his one and only purpose.

DAVID: To reach God's purpose (humans), He chose to evolve us, rather than directly create us, the only two options availabe..

If he exists, he “chose to evolve” (by which you mean design) every life form that ever existed, and according to you he knowingly chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose (us and our food). When will you stop dodging the illogical basis of your theory?

DAVID: Your form of God also evolved us by 'experimenting and discovering', describing a new form of a clueless God, which no religion would recognize.

dhw: Please tell me which religion preaches that God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer who individually designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

You have failed to answer this question.

DAVID: Which religion describes your rudderless God who enjoys experimeting?

Stop pretending that my experimenting God is “rudderless”. He knows precisely what he is doing. If there is no religion supporting your illogical theory of a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer (not to mention your sadistic creator of evil – see later), and no religion supporting my logical theories concerning a highly efficient designer who designs precisely what he wants (through ongoing experiments or through a deliberate free-for-all), we can agree that we should take no notice of established religious theories.

DAVID: Stop and think: tell us His different evolutionary process, please!

dhw: Stop and read what I write. “He did not necessarily use the same evolutionary process”. In my first two theistic theories, the process is the same as yours, except that in neither case were his designs irrelevant to his purpose, but in my third alternative, he did NOT design all species, and instead gave them the wherewithal to do their own designing.

DAVID: The bold interests me. How does your God conduct His purposeful evolution to what current endpoint?

As usual, you ask a question, I answer it, and so you dodge to another question, the answers to which you already know! Three theories: 1) he experiments in order to create a being like himself; 2) he experiments in order to make new discoveries; 3) he creates a free-for-all in order to make new discoveries. We have no idea what the endpoint might be. In 2) and 3) humans are the latest “discovery”, which you call the “current endpoint”.

dhw: “He chose to evolve us for His special unknown reasons” could hardly be more vague, and you cannot find a single specific reason for your fixed belief in the bolded theory.

DAVID: Any view of God is vague. Evolution exists/existed, God created our reality, so evolution is His choice of creating forms of life. Pure logic.

dhw: Yes, yes, yawn, yawn. If God exists, that is pure logic. What is not pure logic is that he chose to design 99 out of 100 forms of life that were irrelevant to what you say was his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. You cannot find any reasons for this absurd theory, and so you keep dodging it.

DAVID: Why can't you accept that is how a creative evolution works?

How many types of evolution of life do you know? The only one we know has resulted in 99% of species going extinct, and according to you this is because your messy, inefficient designer God, for totally unknown reasons, decided to design them all, knowing full well that they were irrelevant to his purpose.

dhw: I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.[…]

dhw: You have claimed that they support your absurd theory of evolution and your answer to the problem of theodicy, and now you admit that they don’t, so please stop pretending that ID articles “mirror” your theology.

DAVID: My 'absurd' theory of evolution is what they believe. God designed evolution for our appearance.

You have now admitted that they don’t even discuss your theory of theodicy. Do they believe as you do that in his inefficient, messy, cumbersome way, their all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose for reasons which only he can know as their theory makes no sense to them?

Please note the repetitions of your theory, which I have now bolded in the hope that you will at last stop ignoring or fudging the issue of its illogicality. (My apologies to any readers who have been patient enough to follow these discussions.)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 15, 2023, 14:33 (226 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: To reach God's purpose (humans), He chose to evolve us, rather than directly create us, the only two options availabe..

dhw: If he exists, he “chose to evolve” (by which you mean design) every life form that ever existed, and according to you he knowingly chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose (us and our food). When will you stop dodging the illogical basis of your theory?

Our food is the diversity of life on Earth which must be created by evolving an enormous bush of life supported by the mechanism of diverse, interrelated ecosystems. All of this shows purposes of God's creationism to support human's existence.

DAVID: Your form of God also evolved us by 'experimenting and discovering', describing a new form of a clueless God, which no religion would recognize.

dhw: Please tell me which religion preaches that God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer who individually designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

You have failed to answer this question.

Answered above as vital food supply, and both forms of God created novelties as part of advancing evolution. Your clueless God is the one who experiments, noting that experimenting implies no knowledge of the endpoint.

I try not to follow the Bible, but the 'attributes of God' previously presented are a reasonable human starting point of theological discussion. I see my God closer to that list.


dhw: Stop and read what I write. “He did not necessarily use the same evolutionary process”. In my first two theistic theories, the process is the same as yours, except that in neither case were his designs irrelevant to his purpose, but in my third alternative, he did NOT design all species, and instead gave them the wherewithal to do their own designing.

DAVID: The bold interests me. How does your God conduct His purposeful evolution to what current endpoint?

dhw: As usual, you ask a question, I answer it, and so you dodge to another question, the answers to which you already know! Three theories: 1) he experiments in order to create a being like himself; 2) he experiments in order to make new discoveries; 3) he creates a free-for-all in order to make new discoveries. We have no idea what the endpoint might be. In 2) and 3) humans are the latest “discovery”, which you call the “current endpoint”.

To which I make the point, any experimenting being, by definition, cannot know the unexpected endpoints of experimentation.

DAVID: Any view of God is vague. Evolution exists/existed, God created our reality, so evolution is His choice of creating forms of life. Pure logic.

dhw: Yes, yes, yawn, yawn. If God exists, that is pure logic. What is not pure logic is that he chose to design 99 out of 100 forms of life that were irrelevant to what you say was his one and only purpose: to design us and our food. You cannot find any reasons for this absurd theory, and so you keep dodging it.

DAVID: Why can't you accept that is how a creative evolution works?

dhw: How many types of evolution of life do you know? The only one we know has resulted in 99% of species going extinct, and according to you this is because your messy, inefficient designer God, for totally unknown reasons, decided to design them all, knowing full well that they were irrelevant to his purpose.

Your experimenting God strangely created the same results. What my God does is always relevant to the process. He doesn't waste His time. It is your analysis of His works that is irrational. See discussion above of the necessary bush of life.


dhw: I wonder what your fellow theologians would make of your theories.

DAVID: Their articles mirror my theology.[…]

dhw: You have claimed that they support your absurd theory of evolution and your answer to the problem of theodicy, and now you admit that they don’t, so please stop pretending that ID articles “mirror” your theology.

DAVID: My 'absurd' theory of evolution is what they believe. God designed evolution for our appearance.

dhw: You have now admitted that they don’t even discuss your theory of theodicy. Do they believe as you do that in his inefficient, messy, cumbersome way, their all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to his one and only purpose for reasons which only he can know as their theory makes no sense to them?

Please note the repetitions of your theory, which I have now bolded in the hope that you will at last stop ignoring or fudging the issue of its illogicality. (My apologies to any readers who have been patient enough to follow these discussions.)

My 'mirror' of current theology is based on the 'attributes of God' and the teachings of ID.
Your irrational view of God's evolution has to be refuted.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, August 16, 2023, 11:26 (226 days ago) @ David Turell

Again I have edited the post in order to condense the arguments.

DAVID: To reach God's purpose (humans), He chose to evolve us, rather than directly create us, the only two options availabe..

dhw: If he exists, he “chose to evolve” (by which you mean design) every life form that ever existed, and according to you he knowingly chose to design 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with his one and only purpose (us and our food). When will you stop dodging the illogical basis of your theory?

DAVID: Our food is the diversity of life on Earth which must be created by evolving an enormous bush of life supported by the mechanism of diverse, interrelated ecosystems. All of this shows purposes of God's creationism to support human's existence.

ALL forms of life depend on diverse interrelated ecosystems, and these come and go as forms of life appear and disappear. Two days ago:
dhw: Past ecosystems were for the past, present ecosystems are for the present.

DAVID: The bold is correct.

So please stop pretending that this means your God individually created every past ecosystem in order to “support human’s existence”.

DAVID: Your form of God also evolved us by 'experimenting and discovering', describing a new form of a clueless God, which no religion would recognize.

dhw: Please tell me which religion preaches that God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer who individually designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose.

DAVID: My 'mirror' of current theology is based on the 'attributes of God' and the teachings of ID.

So where among the attributes of God and the teachings of ID have you found that your God’s “messy, cumbersome, inefficient” (your description) method of design, as bolded above, arose from the fact that his sole purpose was to design us and our food, but in order to do so he had to design 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us and our food? You have told us that ID does not even discuss theodicy. Please tell us which religion or list of God’s attributes includes your theory that your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent the diseases caused by his otherwise good bacteria and viruses, and that your all-good, all-knowing God knew in advance that by giving humans free will, he would be producing war, murder, rape etc. but still went ahead with his invention.

dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Answered above as vital food supply [dhw: dealt with above] and both forms of God created novelties as part of advancing evolution. Your clueless God is the one who experiments, noting that experimenting implies no knowledge of the endpoint.

In two of my theistic alternatives, God wants to discover all the possible variations that can be produced by his invention, because – in your own words – he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. He does and gets precisely what he wants to do and get. Why is this “clueless”? I’d have thought the term was far more appropriate for a God who knows what he wants, but for unknown reasons makes himself design 99 out of 100 life forms that he doesn’t want.

The rest of your post repeats the same dodges and arguments.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 16, 2023, 17:51 (225 days ago) @ dhw

Again I have edited the post in order to condense the arguments.

DAVID: Our food is the diversity of life on Earth which must be created by evolving an enormous bush of life supported by the mechanism of diverse, interrelated ecosystems. All of this shows purposes of God's creationism to support human's existence.

dhw: ALL forms of life depend on diverse interrelated ecosystems, and these come and go as forms of life appear and disappear. Two days ago:
dhw: Past ecosystems were for the past, present ecosystems are for the present.

DAVID: The bold is correct.

dhw: So please stop pretending that this means your God individually created every past ecosystem in order to “support human’s existence”.

The current need of the eight-plus billion human population requires all ecosystems for food. Those systems were developed in the past to become the present systems. Pure logic.


DAVID: My 'mirror' of current theology is based on the 'attributes of God' and the teachings of ID.

dhw: So where among the attributes of God and the teachings of ID have you found that your God’s “messy, cumbersome, inefficient” (your description) method of design, as bolded above, arose from the fact that his sole purpose was to design us and our food, but in order to do so he had to design 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us and our food? You have told us that ID does not even discuss theodicy. Please tell us which religion or list of God’s attributes includes your theory that your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent the diseases caused by his otherwise good bacteria and viruses, and that your all-good, all-knowing God knew in advance that by giving humans free will, he would be producing war, murder, rape etc. but still went ahead with his invention.

All of the theodicy essays I found use the Dayenu approach, which I have presented here.


dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Answered above as vital food supply [dhw: dealt with above] and both forms of God created novelties as part of advancing evolution. Your clueless God is the one who experiments, noting that experimenting implies no knowledge of the endpoint.

dhw: In two of my theistic alternatives, God wants to discover all the possible variations that can be produced by his invention, because – in your own words – he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. He does and gets precisely what he wants to do and get. Why is this “clueless”? I’d have thought the term was far more appropriate for a God who knows what he wants, but for unknown reasons makes himself design 99 out of 100 life forms that he doesn’t want.

The rest of your post repeats the same dodges and arguments.

Anyone who experiments is looking for an answer to his question. Experimentation finds his answer. An experimenting God is clueless just like my human example.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, August 17, 2023, 09:12 (225 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Past ecosystems were for the past, present ecosystems are for the present.

DAVID: The bold is correct.

dhw: So please stop pretending that this means your God individually created every past ecosystem in order to “support human’s existence”.

DAVID: The current need of the eight-plus billion human population requires all ecosystems for food. Those systems were developed in the past to become the present systems. Pure logic.

Even current ecosystems are disappearing thanks to our mismanagement, but we are still here. And as usual, you skate over the fact that only 1% of past ecosystems evolved into present ecosystems. According to your theory, your God spent 3+ billion years designing 99 out of 100 ecosystems that had no connection with current ecosystems, although his one and only purpose was to design us and the food provided by our current ecosystems. Pure logic? You cannot find a single reason why he would use what you call this "messy, cumbersome, inefficient" method of fulfilling the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

DAVID: My 'mirror' of current theology is based on the 'attributes of God' and the teachings of ID.

dhw: […]You have told us that ID does not even discuss theodicy. Please tell us which religion or list of God’s attributes includes your theory that your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent the diseases caused by his otherwise good bacteria and viruses, and that your all-good, all-knowing God knew in advance that by giving humans free will, he would be producing war, murder, rape etc. but still went ahead with his invention.

DAVID: All of the theodicy essays I found use the Dayenu approach, which I have presented here.

The word “Dayenu” means “it would have been enough” (Wikipedia), and it thanks God for all the nice things he has done for the Jews. I have no idea how any essay on theodicy, which questions how/why an all-good God can have created evil, can confine itself to thanking God for all the nice things he has done for the Jews. Isn’t it time you used your own brain to discuss the issue instead of pretending that other people have solved it by ignoring it? (See
Miscellany Part One for more on this subject.)

dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Anyone who experiments is looking for an answer to his question. Experimentation finds his answer. An experimenting God is clueless just like my human example.

If you look for an answer and find it, you can hardly be called “clueless”! A God who experiments in order to find out the potential of his invention, and succeeds in finding out the potential of his invention, has achieved his purpose! But a God who for unknown reasons has to design 100 species and then”cull” 99 of them in order to achieve his one and only purpose is, according to you, a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, so you may as well add the word “clueless” to your list of adjectives.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 17, 2023, 15:48 (224 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Past ecosystems were for the past, present ecosystems are for the present.

DAVID: The bold is correct.

dhw: So please stop pretending that this means your God individually created every past ecosystem in order to “support human’s existence”.

DAVID: The current need of the eight-plus billion human population requires all ecosystems for food. Those systems were developed in the past to become the present systems. Pure logic.

dhw: Even current ecosystems are disappearing thanks to our mismanagement, but we are still here. And as usual, you skate over the fact that only 1% of past ecosystems evolved into present ecosystems. According to your theory, your God spent 3+ billion years designing 99 out of 100 ecosystems that had no connection with current ecosystems, although his one and only purpose was to design us and the food provided by our current ecosystems. Pure logic? You cannot find a single reason why he would use what you call this "messy, cumbersome, inefficient" method of fulfilling the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

The pure logic is God chose to evolve us, but we can't know His reasons. Both you and I have guessed at many, so your 'cannot find a reason' is false and you know it.


DAVID: My 'mirror' of current theology is based on the 'attributes of God' and the teachings of ID.

dhw: […]You have told us that ID does not even discuss theodicy. Please tell us which religion or list of God’s attributes includes your theory that your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent the diseases caused by his otherwise good bacteria and viruses, and that your all-good, all-knowing God knew in advance that by giving humans free will, he would be producing war, murder, rape etc. but still went ahead with his invention.

DAVID: All of the theodicy essays I found use the Dayenu approach, which I have presented here.

dhw: The word “Dayenu” means “it would have been enough” (Wikipedia), and it thanks God for all the nice things he has done for the Jews. I have no idea how any essay on theodicy, which questions how/why an all-good God can have created evil, can confine itself to thanking God for all the nice things he has done for the Jews. Isn’t it time you used your own brain to discuss the issue instead of pretending that other people have solved it by ignoring it? (See
Miscellany Part One for more on this subject.)

I extract Dayenu from the theodicy studies. My own brain is very active in developing theories that are my individual originating theology, based on others' thinking and mine.


dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Anyone who experiments is looking for an answer to his question. Experimentation finds his answer. An experimenting God is clueless just like my human example.

dhw: If you look for an answer and find it, you can hardly be called “clueless”!

This comment is totally clueless. The point is at the beginning of experimentation the end point is unknown!! The experimenting God is clueless at the beginning, while you are touting His endpoint! My form of God doesn't experiment.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, August 18, 2023, 11:38 (224 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Past ecosystems were for the past, present ecosystems are for the present.

DAVID: The bold is correct.

dhw: So please stop pretending that this means your God individually created every past ecosystem in order to “support human’s existence”.

DAVID: The current need of the eight-plus billion human population requires all ecosystems for food. Those systems were developed in the past to become the present systems. Pure logic.

dhw: Even current ecosystems are disappearing thanks to our mismanagement, but we are still here. And as usual, you skate over the fact that only 1% of past ecosystems evolved into present ecosystems. […] Pure logic? You cannot find a single reason why he would use what you call this "messy, cumbersome, inefficient" method of fulfilling the purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging.

DAVID: The pure logic is God chose to evolve us, but we can't know His reasons. Both you and I have guessed at many, so your 'cannot find a reason' is false and you know it.

And still you go on dodging! If God exists, then clearly he chose evolution as his method of producing every life form that ever existed, including humans. That is a logical hypothesis. What is not logical is your theory that his one and only purpose was to design us and our ecosystems/food supply, and therefore he chose to design 99 out of 100 species and ecosystems/food supplies that had no connection with us. You cannot find a single reason why he would use such a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” (your terms) method to achieve the goal you impose on him. It is illogical, and you know it.

DAVID: Your form of God also evolved us by ‘experimenting and discovering’ […] which no religion would recognize.
And:
DAVID: My ‘mirror of current theology is based on ‘the attributes of God’ and the teaching of ID.

dhw: Please tell us which religion or list of God’s attributes includes your theory that your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent the diseases caused by his otherwise good bacteria and viruses, and that your all-good, all-knowing God knew in advance that by giving humans free will, he would be producing war, murder, rape etc. but still went ahead with his invention.[/b]

DAVID: All of the theodicy essays I found use the Dayenu approach, which I have presented here.

dhw: The word “Dayenu” means “it would have been enough” (Wikipedia), and it thanks God for all the nice things he has done for the Jews. I have no idea how any essay on theodicy, which questions how/why an all-good God can have created evil, can confine itself to thanking God for all the nice things he has done for the Jews. Isn’t it time you used your own brain to discuss the issue instead of pretending that other people have solved it by ignoring it?

DAVID: I extract Dayenu from the theodicy studies. My own brain is very active in developing theories that are my individual originating theology, based on others' thinking and mine.

So tell us which religion supports your theodicy theory bolded above, as well as the theory that your God had to design 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose. Otherwise, please stop moaning that my alternatives would not be recognized by any religion.

dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Anyone who experiments is looking for an answer to his question. Experimentation finds his answer. An experimenting God is clueless just like my human example.

dhw: If you look for an answer and find it, you can hardly be called “clueless”!

DAVID: This comment is totally clueless. The point is at the beginning of experimentation the end point is unknown!! The experimenting God is clueless at the beginning, while you are touting His endpoint! My form of God doesn't experiment.

There are different types of experiment: one tries different methods to achieve a goal, and another looks to discover what will happen if….Both forms would explain the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution theistically (as would a free-for-all), with your God successfully producing the vast variety of species and ecosystems we know from life’s history. I know your God doesn’t experiment. Instead he deliberately, messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently and cluelessly designs 99 out of 100 species and ecosystems which have no connection with his purpose, and you can’t think of a single reason why he would do so.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, August 18, 2023, 17:31 (223 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The pure logic is God chose to evolve us, but we can't know His reasons. Both you and I have guessed at many, so your 'cannot find a reason' is false and you know it.

dhw: And still you go on dodging! (1) If God exists, then clearly he chose evolution as his method of producing every life form that ever existed, including humans. That is a logical hypothesis. What is not logical is your theory that (2) his one and only purpose was to design us and our ecosystems/food supply, and therefore he chose to design 99 out of 100 species and ecosystems/food supplies that had no connection with us. You cannot find a single reason why he would use such a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” (your terms) method to achieve the goal you impose on him. It is illogical, and you know it.

That is the most convoluted mess you keep illogically repeating! Number one is correct. Number two is an irrational distortion of the evolutionary process as conducted by God. Number one and two are the same process!! We agree God chose to evolve. When I add purpose in number two you fall into a lather. God can evolve with purpose, and we are so unusual a result, it can be seen as purpose, as Adler and I do.


dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Anyone who experiments is looking for an answer to his question. Experimentation finds his answer. An experimenting God is clueless just like my human example.

dhw: If you look for an answer and find it, you can hardly be called “clueless”!

DAVID: This comment is totally clueless. The point is at the beginning of experimentation the end point is unknown!! The experimenting God is clueless at the beginning, while you are touting His endpoint! My form of God doesn't experiment.

dhw: There are different types of experiment: one tries different methods to achieve a goal, and another looks to discover what will happen if….Both forms would explain the higgledy-piggledy course of evolution theistically (as would a free-for-all), with your God successfully producing the vast variety of species and ecosystems we know from life’s history.

All types of experiments look for answers. All experimenters are clueless as to the answers until they are uncovered. You have failed to exonerate your God from cluelessness.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, August 19, 2023, 07:24 (223 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The pure logic is God chose to evolve us, but we can't know His reasons. Both you and I have guessed at many, so your 'cannot find a reason' is false and you know it.

dhw: And still you go on dodging! (1) If God exists, then clearly he chose evolution as his method of producing every life form that ever existed, including humans. That is a logical hypothesis. What is not logical is your theory that (2) his one and only purpose was to design us and our ecosystems/food supply, and therefore he chose to design 99 out of 100 species and ecosystems/food supplies that had no connection with us. You cannot find a single reason why he would use such a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” (your terms) method to achieve the goal you impose on him. It is illogical, and you know it.

DAVID: That is the most convoluted mess you keep illogically repeating! Number one is correct. Number two is an irrational distortion of the evolutionary process as conducted by God.

It certainly is. You can find no reason whatsoever why he would deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose!

DAVID: Number one and two are the same process!! We agree God chose to evolve. When I add purpose in number two you fall into a lather.

Then once and for all, please explain the purpose of designing 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose.

DAVID: God can evolve with purpose, and we are so unusual a result, it can be seen as purpose, as Adler and I do.

Let us remember that by “evolve” you mean design, and of course if he exists he would design with purpose. Yes, we are unusual and can be seen as "purpose". And as far as we know, all life is “unusual”, and if your God designed the brontosaurus, that can also be seen as “unusual” and "purpose". What is absurd in your theory is your insistence that all other life forms, extant and extinct, no matter how “unusual” they may be, were designed solely for the purpose of designing us and our food, although 99% of them had no connection with us and our food. When will you stop dodging?

dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Anyone who experiments is looking for an answer to his question. Experimentation finds his answer. An experimenting God is clueless just like my human example.
And:
DAVID: All types of experiments look for answers. All experimenters are clueless as to the answers until they are uncovered.

“Clueless” is a term of abuse meaning having no knowledge or understanding of something. I would suggest that a God who creates life and experiments with its biochemistry in order to create new forms, or to find a formula for a particular form, or to devise a mechanism that will enable his invention to do its own designing, must know a bit about his subject. And I would also suggest that his success in fulfilling any of these purposes offers a far more positive view of his talents than the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method and single purpose you impose on him.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 19, 2023, 15:14 (222 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The pure logic is God chose to evolve us, but we can't know His reasons. Both you and I have guessed at many, so your 'cannot find a reason' is false and you know it.

dhw: And still you go on dodging! (1) If God exists, then clearly he chose evolution as his method of producing every life form that ever existed, including humans. That is a logical hypothesis. What is not logical is your theory that (2) his one and only purpose was to design us and our ecosystems/food supply, and therefore he chose to design 99 out of 100 species and ecosystems/food supplies that had no connection with us. You cannot find a single reason why he would use such a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” (your terms) method to achieve the goal you impose on him. It is illogical, and you know it.

DAVID: That is the most convoluted mess you keep illogically repeating! Number one is correct. Number two is an irrational distortion of the evolutionary process as conducted by God.

dhw: It certainly is. You can find no reason whatsoever why he would deliberately design 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose!

How can I find reason why God chose to evolve us? Please answer. You agree He did. As for connection, evolution is a continuous process and therefore totally connected to its endpoint.


DAVID: Number one and two are the same process!! We agree God chose to evolve. When I add purpose in number two you fall into a lather.

dhw: Then once and for all, please explain the purpose of designing 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose.

Repeat: "As for connection, evolution is a continuous process and therefore totally connected to its endpoint."


DAVID: God can evolve with purpose, and we are so unusual a result, it can be seen as purpose, as Adler and I do.

dhw: Let us remember that by “evolve” you mean design, and of course if he exists he would design with purpose. Yes, we are unusual and can be seen as "purpose". And as far as we know, all life is “unusual”, and if your God designed the brontosaurus, that can also be seen as “unusual” and "purpose". What is absurd in your theory is your insistence that all other life forms, extant and extinct, no matter how “unusual” they may be, were designed solely for the purpose of designing us and our food, although 99% of them had no connection with us and our food. When will you stop dodging?

The dodge is all yours with your constant disconnected complaints about evolution in bits and parts.


dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Anyone who experiments is looking for an answer to his question. Experimentation finds his answer. An experimenting God is clueless just like my human example.
And:
DAVID: All types of experiments look for answers. All experimenters are clueless as to the answers until they are uncovered.

dhw: “Clueless” is a term of abuse meaning having no knowledge or understanding of something. I would suggest that a God who creates life and experiments with its biochemistry in order to create new forms, or to find a formula for a particular form, or to devise a mechanism that will enable his invention to do its own designing, must know a bit about his subject. And I would also suggest that his success in fulfilling any of these purposes offers a far more positive view of his talents than the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method and single purpose you impose on him.

Your experimenting God has no definite endpoint. I'm afraid that is a clueless God to me. A true God is so superior He needs no experimentation.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, August 20, 2023, 12:09 (221 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: What is not logical is your theory that (2) his one and only purpose was to design us and our ecosystems/food supply, and therefore he chose to design 99 out of 100 species and ecosystems/food supplies that had no connection with us. You cannot find a single reason why he would use such a “messy, cumbersome and inefficient” (your terms) method to achieve the goal you impose on him. It is illogical, and you know it.

DAVID: How can I find reason why God chose to evolve us? Please answer. You agree He did.

Please stop dodging! The question is not why (if he exists) he chose to evolve us, but why, if his one and only purpose was to evolve (in your language = design) us and our food, did he choose to evolve (= design) 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us?

DAVID: As for connection, evolution is a continuous process and therefore totally connected to its endpoint.

It is a continuous process of comings and goings, in which the vast majority of organisms have led to a dead end. You claim that we are the endpoint, and agree that 99% of life forms had no connection with us or our food. There is therefore a 1% continuous line from the beginning to us and a 99% of lines that did not lead to us. As you know perfectly well, it is the deliberate design of the 99% which you yourself find inexplicable, as well as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Please stop playing with language!

DAVID: Number one and two are the same process!! We agree God chose to evolve. When I add purpose in number two you fall into a lather.

dhw: Then once and for all, please explain the purpose of designing 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose.

DAVID: Repeat: "As for connection, evolution is a continuous process and therefore totally connected to its endpoint."

Repeat: Yes, it is a continuous process of comings and goings. No, it is not totally connected to any endpoint. 99% has no connection with what you call the endpoint!

dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: All types of experiments look for answers. All experimenters are clueless as to the answers until they are uncovered.

dhw: “Clueless” is a term of abuse meaning having no knowledge or understanding of something. I would suggest that a God who creates life and experiments with its biochemistry in order to create new forms, or to find a formula for a particular form, or to devise a mechanism that will enable his invention to do its own designing, must know a bit about his subject. And I would also suggest that his success in fulfilling any of these purposes offers a far more positive view of his talents than the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method and single purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Your experimenting God has no definite endpoint. I'm afraid that is a clueless God to me. A true God is so superior He needs no experimentation.

You are no more qualified to describe a “true” God than I am. So far your “true God” has used a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve what you claim to have been his one and only purpose, and in doing so he has knowingly and therefore deliberately created all the causes of evil. If God is an eternal, conscious mind, and if we assume that he created life for a purpose, and if – as you have assured us – he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, why do you find it impossible to believe that he might have created life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him? Experimentation with or without a specific “endpoint” would be one way of doing this. How do you know he did not get what he wanted to get, and if he did, how does that make him "clueless"?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 20, 2023, 16:13 (221 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How can I find reason why God chose to evolve us? Please answer. You agree He did.

dhw: Please stop dodging! The question is not why (if he exists) he chose to evolve us, but why, if his one and only purpose was to evolve (in your language = design) us and our food, did he choose to evolve (= design) 99 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with us?

This is your failure to reason: Raup described the only evolutionary process we have to study. It contained a 99.9% failure-to-survive rate. But it achieved producing human beings from Archaea in a continuous process of inventing forms and culling them through bad luck. It also kept life to a compatible size on a limited Earth area. Its appearance of common descent indicates present forms were related-to/descended-from past forms. That last fact means evolution is a continuum process. All existing on earth today are the 0.1% survivors. Life must ingest daily energy to survive. The Earth is covered with interlocking ecosystems from the diversity of life to feed all. The current human population is straining that supply to emphasize the point of the necessary diversity of life forms. God knew when He gave us the brain we have, that at some future point we would dominate the Earth and control it and begin to possibly overpopulate it. The diversity of life, which is what you question as 99.9% unnecessary, is our food supply!


dhw: It is a continuous process of comings and goings, in which the vast majority of organisms have led to a dead end. You claim that we are the endpoint, and agree that 99% of life forms had no connection with us or our food. There is therefore a 1% continuous line from the beginning to us and a 99% of lines that did not lead to us. As you know perfectly well, it is the deliberate design of the 99% which you yourself find inexplicable, as well as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Please stop playing with language!

This is your process of messing with language, compared with my bolded statement above. Evolution is a very long arduous and cumbersome process, but it the process God used.


dhw: Yes, it is a continuous process of comings and goings. No, it is not totally connected to any endpoint. 99% has no connection with what you call the endpoint!

It is all now connected as we humans use it all for food.


dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: All types of experiments look for answers. All experimenters are clueless as to the answers until they are uncovered.

dhw: “Clueless” is a term of abuse meaning having no knowledge or understanding of something. I would suggest that a God who creates life and experiments with its biochemistry in order to create new forms, or to find a formula for a particular form, or to devise a mechanism that will enable his invention to do its own designing, must know a bit about his subject. And I would also suggest that his success in fulfilling any of these purposes offers a far more positive view of his talents than the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method and single purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Your experimenting God has no definite endpoint. I'm afraid that is a clueless God to me. A true God is so superior He needs no experimentation.

dhw: You are no more qualified to describe a “true” God than I am. So far your “true God” has used a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve what you claim to have been his one and only purpose, and in doing so he has knowingly and therefore deliberately created all the causes of evil. If God is an eternal, conscious mind, and if we assume that he created life for a purpose, and if – as you have assured us – he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, why do you find it impossible to believe that he might have created life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him? Experimentation with or without a specific “endpoint” would be one way of doing this. How do you know he did not get what he wanted to get, and if he did, how does that make him "clueless"?

The obvious comparison: my God knew in advance exactly what He was getting, and your God found us a surprise!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, August 21, 2023, 09:02 (221 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: How can I find reason why God chose to evolve us? […].

Please stop dodging! for approximately the 150th time, the question is not why (if he exists) he chose to evolve us, but why, if his one and only purpose was to evolve (in your language = design) us and our ecosystems to supply our food, did he choose to evolve (= design) 99 out of 100 life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our food?***

(I’m removing the bolds from your response, and will use the symbol *** to refer back to this question whenever you ignore it.)

DAVID: This is your failure to reason: Raup described the only evolutionary process we have to study. It contained a 99.9% failure-to-survive rate.

Correct.

DAVID: But it achieved producing human beings from Archaea in a continuous process of inventing forms and culling them through bad luck.

See the question ***. You now consolidate the absurdity by informing us that your always-in-control God didn’t even cull the species he knew were irrelevant: he left that to luck, which can only mean that the crucial 1% which did lead to us survived by luck and not through his control.

DAVID: It also kept life to a compatible size on a limited Earth area.

Agreed.

DAVID: Its appearance of common descent indicates present forms were related-to/descended-from past forms.

Correct – but they were only related to/descended from 1% of past forms. See the
question ***.

DAVID: That last fact means evolution is a continuum process. All existing on earth today are the 0.1% survivors.

Correct. There is a continuous process of comings and goings, but there is not a continuum between all past forms and all present forms. The continuity is limited to 1%. The rest were dead ends. See *** above.

DAVID: Life must ingest daily energy to survive. The Earth is covered with interlocking ecosystems from the diversity of life to feed all.

Of course, but see *** above.

DAVID: The current human population is straining that supply to emphasize the point of the necessary diversity of life forms.

Agreed. How does that answer *** above?

DAVID: God knew when He gave us the brain we have, that at some future point we would dominate the Earth and control it and begin to possibly overpopulate it.

Well done, God, for your clairvoyance. Now see question ***.

DAVID: The diversity of life, which is what you question as 99.9% unnecessary, is our food supply!

Only the surviving 1% is necessary. See *** above. I support all the articles which warn us we’re in the process of destroying our necessary ecosystems. You have written this entire post without even once mentioning the question *** above. Your most long-winded dodge so far.

DAVID: Evolution is a continuous process and therefore totally connected to its endpoint.
And:
DAVID: […] Evolution is a very long arduous and cumbersome process, but it the process God used.

If God exists, of course evolution is the process he used. But you believe we were the “endpoint”, which is why you keep dodging the question *** above, and also why you ridicule his design as messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

DAVID: It is all now connected as we humans use it all for food.

You never give up, do you? “All” = the whole of evolution, but we humans do not use 99% of it as food. Only 1% survived. See your agreement from Miscellany Part Two, as follows:
dhw: Only 1% of current foods from current ecosystems evolved from the past. You keep agreeing, so why do you then go on disagreeing?

DAVID: Only 0.01% of the past is the current present. Agreed.

Then stop pretending that the whole of evolution is a continuum "totally connected" to your God's one and only purpose, and answer question *** above.

dhw: Why do you describe a God who wants to create “novelties”, i.e. life forms which never existed before, and succeeds in doing so, as “clueless”?

DAVID: Your experimenting God has no definite endpoint. I'm afraid that is a clueless God to me. A true God is so superior He needs no experimentation.

dhw: You are no more qualified to describe a “true” God than I am. […] If […] we assume that he created life for a purpose, and if – as you have assured us – he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, why do you find it impossible to believe that he might have created life because he wanted to enjoy creating things that would interest him? Experimentation with or without a specific “endpoint” would be one way of doing this. How do you know he did not get what he wanted to get, and if he did, how does that make him "clueless"?

DAVID: The obvious comparison: my God knew in advance exactly what He was getting, and your God found us a surprise!!!

Yes, your all-knowing, all-powerful, always-in-control God knew he was specially designing 99% of irrelevant species which luck would have to “cull”, and your all-knowing and all-good God knew he was specially designing evil bugs and humans, but that was what he wanted.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, August 21, 2023, 18:21 (220 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: How can I find reason why God chose to evolve us? […].

dhw: Please stop dodging! for approximately the 150th time, the question is not why (if he exists) he chose to evolve us, but why, if his one and only purpose was to evolve (in your language = design) us and our ecosystems to supply our food, did he choose to evolve (= design) 99 out of 100 life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our food?***

(I’m removing the bolds from your response, and will use the symbol *** to refer back to this question whenever you ignore it.)

DAVID: This is your failure to reason: Raup described the only evolutionary process we have to study. It contained a 99.9% failure-to-survive rate.

dhw: Correct.

DAVID: But it achieved producing human beings from Archaea in a continuous process of inventing forms and culling them through bad luck.

dhw: See the question ***. You now consolidate the absurdity by informing us that your always-in-control God didn’t even cull the species he knew were irrelevant: he left that to luck, which can only mean that the crucial 1% which did lead to us survived by luck and not through his control.

DAVID: It also kept life to a compatible size on a limited Earth area.

dhw: Agreed.

DAVID: Its appearance of common descent indicates present forms were related-to/descended-from past forms.

dhw: Correct – but they were only related to/descended from 1% of past forms. See the
question ***.

DAVID: That last fact means evolution is a continuum process. All existing on earth today are the 0.1% survivors.

dhw: Correct. There is a continuous process of comings and goings, but there is not a continuum between all past forms and all present forms. The continuity is limited to 1%. The rest were dead ends. See *** above.

DAVID: Life must ingest daily energy to survive. The Earth is covered with interlocking ecosystems from the diversity of life to feed all.

dhw: Of course, but see *** above.

DAVID: The current human population is straining that supply to emphasize the point of the necessary diversity of life forms.

dhw: Agreed. How does that answer *** above?

DAVID: God knew when He gave us the brain we have, that at some future point we would dominate the Earth and control it and begin to possibly overpopulate it.

dhw: Well done, God, for your clairvoyance. Now see question ***.

DAVID: The diversity of life, which is what you question as 99.9% unnecessary, is our food supply!

dhw: Only the surviving 1% is necessary. See *** above. I support all the articles which warn us we’re in the process of destroying our necessary ecosystems. You have written this entire post without even once mentioning the question *** above. Your most long-winded dodge so far.

DAVID: Evolution is a continuous process and therefore totally connected to its endpoint.
And:
DAVID: […] Evolution is a very long arduous and cumbersome process, but it the process God used.

dhw: If God exists, of course evolution is the process he used. But you believe we were the “endpoint”, which is why you keep dodging the question *** above, and also why you ridicule his design as messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

DAVID: It is all now connected as we humans use it all for food.

You never give up, do you? “All” = the whole of evolution, but we humans do not use 99% of it as food. Only 1% survived. See your agreement from Miscellany Part Two, as follows:
dhw: Only 1% of current foods from current ecosystems evolved from the past. You keep agreeing, so why do you then go on disagreeing?

DAVID: Only 0.01% of the past is the current present. Agreed.

dhw: Then stop pretending that the whole of evolution is a continuum "totally connected" to your God's one and only purpose, and answer question *** above.

Impossible as the series of responses above completely negate your premise. The 0.01% result of evolution existing are the present endpoint of the continuum of evolution, humans plus food.

dhw: You are no more qualified to describe a “true” God than I am......

DAVID: The obvious comparison: my God knew in advance exactly what He was getting, and your God found us a surprise!!!

dhw: Yes, your all-knowing, all-powerful, always-in-control God knew he was specially designing 99% of irrelevant species which luck would have to “cull”, and your all-knowing and all-good God knew he was specially designing evil bugs and humans, but that was what he wanted.

God never designed evil humans or bugs. All explained previously as secondary events.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 11:02 (220 days ago) @ David Turell

Evolution

dhw: Please stop dodging! for approximately the 150th time, the question is not why (if he exists) he chose to evolve us, but why, if his one and only purpose was to evolve (in your language = design) us and our ecosystems to supply our food, did he choose to evolve (= design) 99 out of 100 life forms and ecosystems that had no connection with us and our food?***
The ramifications of this theory reach right into the heart of nearly all our disagreements on the purpose and nature of your God. You acknowledge its illogicality (you can’t find a single reason to justify it), but you cling to it, refuse to consider any alternative, and continue to dodge it.
[...]
The gap is my point by point list of answers to your previous post, drawing attention to the manner in which you try to dodge the question *** above. Your whole approach is epitomized by the following exchange:

DAVID: Only 0.01% of the past is the current present. Agreed.

dhw: Then stop pretending that the whole of evolution is a continuum "totally connected" to your God's one and only purpose, and answer question *** above.

DAVID: Impossible as the series of responses above completely negate your premise. The 0.01% result of evolution existing are the present endpoint of the continuum of evolution, humans plus food.

By substituting “present endpoint” for “one and only purpose”, you dodge your own basic premise, which is that your God’s one and only purpose in creating life was to design us and our food. Yes, we are the current endpoint, in the sense that we are the last species so far in the process of evolution, but that does not mean that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, your God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Your basic premise makes no sense even to you, which is why you continue to dodge it. And only the 1% (or 0.01%) constitutes a “continuum” of evolution! 1% does not constitute a “total connection”!

Theodicy

dhw: You are no more qualified to describe a “true” God than I am......

DAVID: The obvious comparison: my God knew in advance exactly what He was getting, and your God found us a surprise!!!

dhw: Yes, your all-knowing, all-powerful, always-in-control God knew he was specially designing 99% of irrelevant species which luck would have to “cull”, and your all-knowing and all-good God knew he was specially designing evil bugs and humans, but that was what he wanted.

DAVID: God never designed evil humans or bugs. All explained previously as secondary events.

According to you, he designed free-willed bugs and humans, and he knew in advance all the evils they would produce. Your God only does what he wants to do. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that he wanted the evil he knew his creations would produce. You add insult to injury when you dismiss these consequences as “secondary” and urge us to focus only on the good. Theodicy asks how an all-good God can produce evil. You do not solve the problem by pretending that evil is only “secondary”.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 15:59 (219 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution
[...]
dhw: The gap is my point by point list of answers to your previous post, drawing attention to the manner in which you try to dodge the question *** above. Your whole approach is epitomized by the following exchange:

DAVID: Only 0.01% of the past is the current present. Agreed.

dhw: Then stop pretending that the whole of evolution is a continuum "totally connected" to your God's one and only purpose, and answer question *** above.

DAVID: Impossible as the series of responses above completely negate your premise. The 0.01% result of evolution existing are the present endpoint of the continuum of evolution, humans plus food.

dhw: By substituting “present endpoint” for “one and only purpose”, you dodge your own basic premise, which is that your God’s one and only purpose in creating life was to design us and our food. Yes, we are the current endpoint, in the sense that we are the last species so far in the process of evolution, but that does not mean that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, your God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. Your basic premise makes no sense even to you, which is why you continue to dodge it. And only the 1% (or 0.01%) constitutes a “continuum” of evolution! 1% does not constitute a “total connection”!

Current evolution developed into millions of species, the 0.1% survivors of the process which I see as conducted by God. I see first life as driven toward complexity and novelty. The complexity drive ended in us; the novelty drive ended in the many strange forms life takes. The result is a huge human population requiring the huge bush of life for food. Analyzed from my God point of view, it makes perfect sense. The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. You try to make sense of the same historical evolution by inventing a strange, humanized God who simply experiments, not knowing the endpoints, hopes to create free-for-alls with unknown endpoints for entertainment. Contrasting forms: my very purposeful God and your playful guy.


Theodicy

DAVID: God never designed evil humans or bugs. All explained previously as secondary events.

dhw: According to you, he designed free-willed bugs and humans, and he knew in advance all the evils they would produce. Your God only does what he wants to do. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that he wanted the evil he knew his creations would produce. You add insult to injury when you dismiss these consequences as “secondary” and urge us to focus only on the good. Theodicy asks how an all-good God can produce evil. You do not solve the problem by pretending that evil is only “secondary”.

It is not a 'pretend secondary' but a real secondary. Humans are born sinless, and some develop into evil. For life to exist biochemicals must float freely. Good bugs become bad if they freely end up in the wrong places. God chose to accept these tradeoffs, because nothing else would/could work.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, August 23, 2023, 13:50 (218 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Only 0.01% of the past is the current present. Agreed.

dhw: Then stop pretending that the whole of evolution is a continuum "totally connected" to your God's one and only purpose, and answer question *** above. [Now below, and still never answered.]

DAVID: Impossible as the series of responses above completely negate your premise. The 0.01% result of evolution existing are the present endpoint of the continuum of evolution, humans plus food.

dhw: By substituting “present endpoint” for “one and only purpose”, you dodge your own basic premise, which is that your God’s one and only purpose in creating life was to design us and our food.*** Yes, we are the current endpoint, in the sense that we are the last species so far in the process of evolution, but that does not mean that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose, your God deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose.*** Your basic premise makes no sense even to you, which is why you continue to dodge it. And only the 1% (or 0.01%) constitutes a “continuum” of evolution! 1% does not constitute a “total connection”!

DAVID: Current evolution developed into millions of species, the 0.1% survivors of the process which I see as conducted by God. I see first life as driven toward complexity and novelty. The complexity drive ended in us; the novelty drive ended in the many strange forms life takes.

What do you mean by “current” evolution? Evolution developed into millions of species extinct and extant, and you claim that they were all specifically designed by God for the purpose of designing us and our food. Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?*** Your attempts to dodge the question are becoming increasingly absurd.

DAVID: The result is a huge human population requiring the huge bush of life for food.

Another result is that the irrelevant 99 out of 100 species have disappeared, and you have no idea why he would have designed them in the first place if his only purpose was to create us and our food.***

DAVID: Analyzed from my God point of view, it makes perfect sense. The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. (dhw's bold)

Precisely. Your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and his method of designing 99 out of 100 “novelties” which had no connection with us and our food***, makes no sense to you. But you keep repeating it and then ignoring it in your endless attempts to dodge the fact that it makes NO sense.I have noted your comment, and will quote it whenever you pretend your theory makes sense!

DAVID: You try to make sense of the same historical evolution by inventing a strange, humanized God who simply experiments, not knowing the endpoints, hopes to create free-for-alls with unknown endpoints for entertainment. Contrasting forms: my very purposeful God and your playful guy.

You can trivialize my own theories as much as you like with your choice of vocabulary, but that does not alter the fact that your own theory makes no sense to you because – unlike all of my alternatives - there is no way it can be made to fit in with the history of evolution. Stop dodging!

Theodicy

DAVID: God never designed evil humans or bugs. All explained previously as secondary events.

dhw: According to you, he designed free-willed bugs and humans, and he knew in advance all the evils they would produce. Your God only does what he wants to do. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that he wanted the evil he knew his creations would produce. You add insult to injury when you dismiss these consequences as “secondary” and urge us to focus only on the good. Theodicy asks how an all-good God can produce evil. You do not solve the problem by pretending that evil is only “secondary”.

DAVID: It is not a 'pretend secondary' but a real secondary. Humans are born sinless, and some develop into evil. For life to exist biochemicals must float freely. Good bugs become bad if they freely end up in the wrong places. God chose to accept these tradeoffs, because nothing else would/could work.

How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden? Your all-knowing God knew perfectly well that some humans and some bugs would produce evil, because he made them that way. Even if we accept your strange theory that bugs must be free to kill us in order for them to be free to keep us alive, why must humans be free to kill one another? (NB I have no objection to the theory of free will. I only object to your answers to the problem of theodicy, i.e. why and how an all-good God can create evil: 1) evil is too minor to discuss, or 2) your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent it even though he knew it would happen.)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 23, 2023, 16:36 (218 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Current evolution developed into millions of species, the 0.1% survivors of the process which I see as conducted by God. I see first life as driven toward complexity and novelty. The complexity drive ended in us; the novelty drive ended in the many strange forms life takes.

dhw: What do you mean by “current” evolution? Evolution developed into millions of species extinct and extant, and you claim that they were all specifically designed by God for the purpose of designing us and our food. Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?*** Your attempts to dodge the question are becoming increasingly absurd.

The absurdity is your constant downplaying the issue of food supply for over eight billion humans some of whom are undernourished.


DAVID: The result is a huge human population requiring the huge bush of life for food.

dhw: Another result is that the irrelevant 99 out of 100 species have disappeared, and you have no idea why he would have designed them in the first place if his only purpose was to create us and our food.***

The current survivors are our food.


DAVID: Analyzed from my God point of view, it makes perfect sense. The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. (dhw's bold)

Precisely. Your theory that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and his method of designing 99 out of 100 “novelties” which had no connection with us and our food***, makes no sense to you. But you keep repeating it and then ignoring it in your endless attempts to dodge the fact that it makes NO sense.I have noted your comment, and will quote it whenever you pretend your theory makes sense!

I view your analysis as lacking common sense. You agree God chose to evolve us and then complain about His method, but only then when I say God had a goal of humans. Then you pop up with a God who achieves humans as a surprise.


DAVID: You try to make sense of the same historical evolution by inventing a strange, humanized God who simply experiments, not knowing the endpoints, hopes to create free-for-alls with unknown endpoints for entertainment. Contrasting forms: my very purposeful God and your playful guy.

dhw: You can trivialize my own theories as much as you like with your choice of vocabulary, but that does not alter the fact that your own theory makes no sense to you because – unlike all of my alternatives - there is no way it can be made to fit in with the history of evolution. Stop dodging!

The history of evolution is God created. I've changed nothing, while your view is a distortion of what happened, claiming the 99.9% were unnecessary. Without them we won't eat.


Theodicy

DAVID: God never designed evil humans or bugs. All explained previously as secondary events.

dhw: According to you, he designed free-willed bugs and humans, and he knew in advance all the evils they would produce. Your God only does what he wants to do. Therefore, it is only logical to assume that he wanted the evil he knew his creations would produce. You add insult to injury when you dismiss these consequences as “secondary” and urge us to focus only on the good. Theodicy asks how an all-good God can produce evil. You do not solve the problem by pretending that evil is only “secondary”.

DAVID: It is not a 'pretend secondary' but a real secondary. Humans are born sinless, and some develop into evil. For life to exist biochemicals must float freely. Good bugs become bad if they freely end up in the wrong places. God chose to accept these tradeoffs, because nothing else would/could work.

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden? Your all-knowing God knew perfectly well that some humans and some bugs would produce evil, because he made them that way. Even if we accept your strange theory that bugs must be free to kill us in order for them to be free to keep us alive, why must humans be free to kill one another? (NB I have no objection to the theory of free will. I only object to your answers to the problem of theodicy, i.e. why and how an all-good God can create evil: 1) evil is too minor to discuss, or 2) your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent it even though he knew it would happen.)

God can prevent human evil, with free will present, only by killing humans. No other solution. Microbiomes containing some dangerous bacteria are necessary for life. Only in your mind is that 'strange'. Only with free-floating molecules can life's mechanisms work, which allows for mistakes and of course, editing systems to be added.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, August 24, 2023, 11:16 (218 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?*** Your attempts to dodge the question are becoming increasingly absurd.

DAVID: The absurdity is your constant downplaying the issue of food supply for over eight billion humans some of whom are undernourished.

There is no issue here! Humans need food, just like every other life form, and humans are destroying the environment which provides them with that food, which is leading to catastrophe. How does that answer the bolded question *** above? Your dodging is becoming farcical. Please stop it.

DAVID: The current survivors are our food.

Correct. See question *** above.

DAVID: The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. (dhw's bold)

Precisely […] I have noted your comment, and will quote it whenever you pretend your theory makes sense!

DAVID: I view your analysis as lacking common sense. You agree God chose to evolve us and then complain about His method, but only then when I say God had a goal of humans.

Not “a” goal, but “the” one and only goal, which is why you cannot answer question *** above, and continue to dodge it.

DAVID: Then you pop up with a God who achieves humans as a surprise.

I have offered three logical, theistic alternatives to your theory, and your only reason for rejecting them is that they “humanize” God, although you agree that we reflect God and therefore share some of his thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: The history of evolution is God created.

That is not history, but as an agnostic, I am happy to discuss all the theistic implications of the history.

DAVID: I've changed nothing, while your view is a distortion of what happened, claiming the 99.9% were unnecessary. Without them we won't eat.

It is you who say the 99.9% were unnecessary, and you agree that only the 0.1% (see “current survivors” above) evolved into us and our food. Hence the question *** which you continue to dodge. You have admitted that your theory makes no sense to you, so why do you continue to defend it?

Theodicy

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

Not answered.

dhw: Your all-knowing God knew perfectly well that some humans and some bugs would produce evil, because he made them that way. Even if we accept your strange theory that bugs must be free to kill us in order for them to be free to keep us alive, why must humans be free to kill one another? (NB I have no objection to the theory of free will. I only object to your answers to the problem of theodicy, i.e. why and how an all-good God can create evil: 1) evil is too minor to discuss, or 2) your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent it even though he knew it would happen.)

DAVID: God can prevent human evil, with free will present, only by killing humans.

So according to you, he deliberately created humans and bugs in full knowledge that they would kill each other and would create all the suffering that we associate with evil. If we assume that your God is the first cause of everything, how does the existence of such evil fit in with the common concept of God as being all-good? That is the question posed by theodicy, and it seems that your only answers are (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 24, 2023, 18:01 (217 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The absurdity is your constant downplaying the issue of food supply for over eight billion humans some of whom are undernourished.


dhw: There is no issue here! Humans need food, just like every other life form, and humans are destroying the environment which provides them with that food, which is leading to catastrophe. How does that answer the bolded question *** above? Your dodging is becoming farcical. Please stop it.

*** ignores the obvious the current human need for food. God's form of evolution resulting in 0.1% survivors are the current huge bush of life, where everyone is eating everyone else.

DAVID: The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. (dhw's bold)

dhw:n Precisely […] I have noted your comment, and will quote it whenever you pretend your theory makes sense!

Makes perfect sense as a believer. God knows what He is doing and I trust He chose the right/appropriate method of creation.


DAVID: I view your analysis as lacking common sense. You agree God chose to evolve us and then complain about His method, but only then when I say God had a goal of humans.

dhw: Not “a” goal, but “the” one and only goal, which is why you cannot answer question *** above, and continue to dodge it.

Humans are an obvious goal. Ask Adler or read his book as I have.


DAVID: Then you pop up with a God who achieves humans as a surprise.

I have offered three logical, theistic alternatives to your theory, and your only reason for rejecting them is that they “humanize” God, although you agree that we reflect God and therefore share some of his thought patterns and emotions.

DAVID: The history of evolution is God created.

dhw: That is not history, but as an agnostic, I am happy to discuss all the theistic implications of the history.

So am I.


Theodicy

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

Not answered.

He wasn't incapable. He chose differently. Eden without competition was a dead end.


dhw: Your all-knowing God knew perfectly well that some humans and some bugs would produce evil, because he made them that way. Even if we accept your strange theory that bugs must be free to kill us in order for them to be free to keep us alive, why must humans be free to kill one another? (NB I have no objection to the theory of free will. I only object to your answers to the problem of theodicy, i.e. why and how an all-good God can create evil: 1) evil is too minor to discuss, or 2) your all-powerful God was powerless to prevent it even though he knew it would happen.)

DAVID: God can prevent human evil, with free will present, only by killing humans.

dhw: So according to you, he deliberately created humans and bugs in full knowledge that they would kill each other and would create all the suffering that we associate with evil. If we assume that your God is the first cause of everything, how does the existence of such evil fit in with the common concept of God as being all-good? That is the question posed by theodicy, and it seems that your only answers are (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?

My answer is in a new article posed here about phages and bacteria and all the necessary good they do to support all life on Earth.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, August 25, 2023, 12:14 (216 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?***

DAVID: The absurdity is your constant downplaying the issue of food supply for over eight billion humans some of whom are undernourished.

dhw: There is no possible disagreement here! Humans need food, just like every other life form, and humans are destroying the environment which provides them with that food, which is leading to catastrophe. How does that answer the bolded question *** above? Your dodging is becoming farcical. Please stop it.

DAVID: *** ignores the obvious the current human need for food. God's form of evolution resulting in 0.1% survivors are the current huge bush of life, where everyone is eating everyone else.

All forms of life, including us, need food. No dispute over the obvious. The current bush of life evolved from 0.1% of past life forms, and the other 99.9% had no connection with us or our food, which raises the question***. You admit that you have no idea, as follows:
DAVID: The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. (dhw's bold)

dhw:Precisely […] I have noted your comment, and will quote it whenever you pretend your theory makes sense!

DAVID: Makes perfect sense as a believer. God knows what He is doing and I trust He chose the right/appropriate method of creation.

You can’t think of a single reason why he would use such an illogical method, which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, but it “makes perfect sense”! Yes, I’m sure that God, if he exists, knows what he is doing, and I suggest to you that there might be different theistic explanations for the history that do make perfect sense.

DAVID: I view your analysis as lacking common sense. You agree God chose to evolve us and then complain about His method, but only then when I say God had a goal of humans.

dhw: Not “a” goal, but “the” one and only goal, which is why you cannot answer question *** above, and continue to dodge it.

DAVID: Humans are an obvious goal. Ask Adler or read his book as I have.

The fact that if God exists he directly or indirectly created every life form that ever existed means that every life form that ever existed must have had a goal, and it is abundantly clear that since 99.9% had no connection with humans plus food, his one and only goal could not possibly have been to design humans plus food.***

Theodicy

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

DAVID: He wasn't incapable. He chose differently. Eden without competition was a dead end.

Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease?

dhw: it seems that your only answers [to the question posed by theodicy] are (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?

DAVID: My answer is in a new article posed here about phages and bacteria and all the necessary good they do to support all life on Earth.

Yes, that is your answer No. 1. Forget about evil and focus only on good.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, August 25, 2023, 18:15 (216 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: *** ignores the obvious the current human need for food. God's form of evolution resulting in 0.1% survivors are the current huge bush of life, where everyone is eating everyone else.

dhw: All forms of life, including us, need food. No dispute over the obvious. The current bush of life evolved from 0.1% of past life forms, and the other 99.9% had no connection with us or our food, which raises the question***. You admit that you have no idea, as follows:

DAVID: The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. (dhw's bold)

dhw:Precisely […] I have noted your comment, and will quote it whenever you pretend your theory makes sense!

DAVID: Makes perfect sense as a believer. God knows what He is doing and I trust He chose the right/appropriate method of creation.

dhw: You can’t think of a single reason why he would use such an illogical method, which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, but it “makes perfect sense”! Yes, I’m sure that God, if he exists, knows what he is doing, and I suggest to you that there might be different theistic explanations for the history that do make perfect sense.

Your substitute God is mostly human in His decision making. Unrecognizable for me.


DAVID: I view your analysis as lacking common sense. You agree God chose to evolve us and then complain about His method, but only then when I say God had a goal of humans.

dhw: Not “a” goal, but “the” one and only goal, which is why you cannot answer question *** above, and continue to dodge it.

DAVID: Humans are an obvious goal. Ask Adler or read his book as I have.

dhw: The fact that if God exists he directly or indirectly created every life form that ever existed means that every life form that ever existed must have had a goal, and it is abundantly clear that since 99.9% had no connection with humans plus food, his one and only goal could not possibly have been to design humans plus food.***

The food is a giant bush of life created by God's method of evolutionary creation. We are at the current end point. It is my contention and Adler's that humans are so unusual only a special creation by God could have produced them. The giant food supply, provided by
God, is barely sufficient, as shown by starvation on the world. Your *** is specious reasoning.


Theodicy

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

DAVID: He wasn't incapable. He chose differently. Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease?

Wrong interpretation. Competition provided for survival of the fittest according to Darwin and created evolution.


dhw: it seems that your only answers [to the question posed by theodicy] are (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?

DAVID: My answer is in a new article posed here about phages and bacteria and all the necessary good they do to support all life on Earth.

dhw: Yes, that is your answer No. 1. Forget about evil and focus only on good.

It is simple. Yes, there is evil but the good overwhelms it.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, August 26, 2023, 08:19 (216 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?***

You admit that you have no idea, as follows:
DAVID: The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Precisely […]

DAVID: Makes perfect sense as a believer. God knows what He is doing and I trust He chose the right/appropriate method of creation.

dhw: You can’t think of a single reason why he would use such an illogical method, which you yourself ridicule as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, but it “makes perfect sense”! Yes, I’m sure that God, if he exists, knows what he is doing, and I suggest to you that there might be different theistic explanations for the history that do make perfect sense.

DAVID: Your substitute God is mostly human in His decision making. Unrecognizable for me.

The fact that you don’t like the idea of your God experimenting or creating a free-for-all does not provide the slightest defence of your own illogical theory, which you admit makes no sense to you.

DAVID: Humans are an obvious goal.[…].

dhw: The fact that if God exists he directly or indirectly created every life form that ever existed means that every life form that ever existed must have had a goal, and it is abundantly clear that since 99.9% had no connection with humans plus food his one and only goal could not possibly have been to design humans plus food.[/b]***

DAVID: The food is a giant bush of life created by God's method of evolutionary creation. We are at the current end point.

If God exists, this is perfectly logical. It does not answer question ***.

DAVID: It is my contention and Adler's that humans are so unusual only a special creation by God could have produced them.

It is also your contention that all life is so complex that only a special creation by God could have produced it. This does not answer the question ***.

DAVID: The giant food supply, provided by God, is barely sufficient, as shown by starvation on the world. Your *** is specious reasoning.

No one would deny the problem of starvation. It has nothing to do with the question ***. You have now resorted to a liturgy of non sequiturs, some of which contain obvious truths, as if somehow they would cancel out your own admission that you have no answer to question ***, which means your theory does not make any sense to you. Please stop this silly game. You believe in a bit of non-sense, and refuse to consider any logical alternatives.

Theodicy

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

DAVID: He wasn't incapable. He chose differently. Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease?

DAVID: Wrong interpretation. Competition provided for survival of the fittest according to Darwin and created evolution.

Lovely to see you finally supporting Darwin, although you’ve forgotten that symbiosis/cooperation also provided for survival and evolution. But we are not arguing about the facts of evolution! The problem is why an all-good God would even have thought of a system which resulted in the evils of war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease etc., let alone gone ahead with it knowing the suffering these events would cause. You have given us two possible answers, as follows:
dhw: (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?
And all you can come up with is:

DAVID: My answer is in a new article posed here about phages and bacteria and all the necessary good they do to support all life on Earth.

dhw: Yes, that is your answer No. 1. Forget about evil and focus only on good.

DAVID: It is simple. Yes, there is evil but the good overwhelms it.

Yet again: the problem of theodicy is why/how an all-good God could create evil, and it is not solved by saying there is more good than evil so let’s ignore evil.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, August 26, 2023, 18:00 (215 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The fact that you don’t like the idea of your God experimenting or creating a free-for-all does not provide the slightest defence of your own illogical theory, which you admit makes no sense to you.

My defense is whatever God does is OK with me. I don't need His reasons, only you do.


DAVID: Humans are an obvious goal.[…].

dhw: The fact that if God exists he directly or indirectly created every life form that ever existed means that every life form that ever existed must have had a goal, and it is abundantly clear that since 99.9% had no connection with humans plus food his one and only goal could not possibly have been to design humans plus food.[/b]***

DAVID: The food is a giant bush of life created by God's method of evolutionary creation. We are at the current end point.

dhw: If God exists, this is perfectly logical. It does not answer question ***.

Yes it does. Using God's evolutionary method resulted in a necessary loss of 0.1% of all previous forms to the present.


DAVID: It is my contention and Adler's that humans are so unusual only a special creation by God could have produced them.

dhw: It is also your contention that all life is so complex that only a special creation by God could have produced it. This does not answer the question ***.

See above, no need to. Evolution is a drive to complexity.


DAVID: The giant food supply, provided by God, is barely sufficient, as shown by starvation on the world. Your *** is specious reasoning.

No one would deny the problem of starvation. It has nothing to do with the question ***. You have now resorted to a liturgy of non sequiturs, some of which contain obvious truths, as if somehow they would cancel out your own admission that you have no answer to question ***, which means your theory does not make any sense to you. Please stop this silly game. You believe in a bit of non-sense, and refuse to consider any logical alternatives.

Not nonsense but more careful reasoning than yours. Whatever God does is OK with me. I don't need His reasons, only you do.

Theodicy

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

DAVID: He wasn't incapable. He chose differently. Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease?

DAVID: Wrong interpretation. Competition provided for survival of the fittest according to Darwin and created evolution.

dhw: Lovely to see you finally supporting Darwin, although you’ve forgotten that symbiosis/cooperation also provided for survival and evolution. But we are not arguing about the facts of evolution! The problem is why an all-good God would even have thought of a system which resulted in the evils of war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease etc., let alone gone ahead with it knowing the suffering these events would cause. You have given us two possible answers, as follows:
dhw: (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?
And all you can come up with is:

DAVID: My answer is in a new article posed here about phages and bacteria and all the necessary good they do to support all life on Earth.

dhw: Yes, that is your answer No. 1. Forget about evil and focus only on good.

DAVID: It is simple. Yes, there is evil but the good overwhelms it.

dhw: Yet again: the problem of theodicy is why/how an all-good God could create evil, and it is not solved by saying there is more good than evil so let’s ignore evil.

Both bacteria and viruses are required for our form of life as necessary participants. That they are doing 99% good and 1% bad is a standard answer in theodicy essays. I can do no better.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, August 27, 2023, 13:24 (214 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?***

DAVID: My defense is whatever God does is OK with me. I don't need His reasons, only you do.

But you insist on giving him just one reason for creating life: to design us and our food – hence the question*** which you keep dodging. The existence of the 99% is history. So maybe the reason for their existence is not what you say it is.

DAVID: The food is a giant bush of life created by God's method of evolutionary creation. We are at the current end point.

dhw: If God exists, this is perfectly logical. It does not answer question ***.

DAVID: Yes it does. Using God's evolutionary method resulted in a necessary loss of 0.1% of all previous forms to the present.

Your theory means losing 99.9% of specially designed forms, with only 0.1% leading to our food. Hence the question *** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: It is my contention and Adler's that humans are so unusual only a special creation by God could have produced them.

dhw: It is also your contention that all life is so complex that only a special creation by God could have produced it. This does not answer the question ***.

DAVID: […] Evolution is a drive to complexity.

That does not answer question***

DAVID: The giant food supply, provided by God, is barely sufficient, as shown by starvation on the world. Your *** is specious reasoning.

No one would deny the problem of starvation. That has nothing to do with the question ***. Please stop this silly game. You believe in a bit of non-sense, produce one non-sequitur after another, and refuse to consider any logical alternatives.

DAVID: Not nonsense but more careful reasoning than yours. […]

Your careful reasoning has led you to admit: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” That is the question *** which you keep dodging because you know the theory is non-sense.

Evolution and Theodicy

I am combining your answers on this thread with those in Miscellany Part One.

dhw: How do you know that your all-powerful God was incapable of creating a Garden of Eden?

DAVID: He wasn't incapable. He chose differently. Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease?

DAVID: Reference was to the Biblical Garden of Eden, not the whole present world.

Eden is an image for a world without evil. Please answer the question. Meanwhile,Your two answers to the problem of theodicy are:

dhw: (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?

Your only answer is to repeat that bacteria etc. are 99% good, which means we should avoid the problem.

DAVID: I can do no better.

You can’t answer the question ***, and you refuse to face the problem of evil, but you praise your own careful reasoning and stick to your irrational beliefs.

dhw: […] one of your theories concerning theodicy is that your God deliberately sacrificed control of bugs and humans. A possible answer to the question*** which leaves you floundering is that your God may also have given up control of speciation.
This would provide a logical alternative to the theory that leads to question ***
. […]

DAVID: […] Your theistic logic is always to humanize God.

dhw: Enjoyment and interest, experimenting, getting new ideas, creating a free-for-all are no more human than your messy, inefficient version of his methods, or his desire for total control. They have the added advantage of answering the question*** which you cannot answer, and which you desperately try to dodge with one non sequitur after another.

DAVID: A God who is always acting purposely with set goals is my view of a consistently theistic God as most philosophers of theism accept.

And if he exists, I accept that too, and my theistic alternatives offer purposeful action and goals. I do not accept your non-answers to question ***, and to the problem of theodicy.

dhw: A God who deliberately allows freedom of design, just as he allows freedom of action, is not “godless”.

DAVID: Not any God recognized in the literature. Your personal skewed view.

In what literature do you find your messy, inefficient designer, or your all-good God deliberately and knowingly creating evil because a Garden of Eden would have been a dead end, or your all-powerful God being powerless to prevent it? Why don’t you stick to the arguments?

DAVID: Dead end explained.

dhw: Not explained. Why would peaceful cooperation and inventive methods of exploiting different environments without war, murder, rape, floods, famines and diseases be a dead end?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, August 27, 2023, 16:21 (214 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My defense is whatever God does is OK with me. I don't need His reasons, only you do.

dhw: But you insist on giving him just one reason for creating life: to design us and our food – hence the question*** which you keep dodging. The existence of the 99% is history. So maybe the reason for their existence is not what you say it is.

Your *** ignores the definition of evolution. The history of the only process existing shows that it developed a huge bush of life currently culminating in humans, the most complex form of life to be produced. The obvious drive is toward diversity and complexity. It fits perfectly with a God who wished to produce humans and their food. A loss of 99.9% of organisms is observed and considered to be a result of the process. I view *** as an irrational invention.


DAVID: The giant food supply, provided by God, is barely sufficient, as shown by starvation on the world. Your *** is specious reasoning.

dhw: No one would deny the problem of starvation. That has nothing to do with the question ***. Please stop this silly game. You believe in a bit of non-sense, produce one non-sequitur after another, and refuse to consider any logical alternatives.

Your inventive alternatives ae just-so stories about a very human God who thinks as we do.


DAVID: Not nonsense but more careful reasoning than yours. […]

dhw: Your careful reasoning has led you to admit: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” That is the question *** which you keep dodging because you know the theory is non-sense.

Not knowing God's reasons for evolving us is in consequential to one who believes. God did what He wished and we are here to discuss it. Dayenu.


Evolution and Theodicy

DAVID: Reference was to the Biblical Garden of Eden, not the whole present world.

Eden is an image for a world without evil. Please answer the question. Meanwhile,Your two answers to the problem of theodicy are:

dhw: (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?

Your only answer is to repeat that bacteria etc. are 99% good, which means we should avoid the problem.

DAVID: I can do no better.

dhw: You can’t answer the question ***, and you refuse to face the problem of evil, but you praise your own careful reasoning and stick to your irrational beliefs.

You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.


DAVID: […] Your theistic logic is always to humanize God.

dhw: Enjoyment and interest, experimenting, getting new ideas, creating a free-for-all are no more human than your messy, inefficient version of his methods, or his desire for total control. They have the added advantage of answering the question*** which you cannot answer, and which you desperately try to dodge with one non sequitur after another.

DAVID: A God who is always acting purposely with set goals is my view of a consistently theistic God as most philosophers of theism accept.

dhw: And if he exists, I accept that too, and my theistic alternatives offer purposeful action and goals. I do not accept your non-answers to question ***, and to the problem of theodicy.

dhw: A God who deliberately allows freedom of design, just as he allows freedom of action, is not “godless”.

DAVID: Not any God recognized in the literature. Your personal skewed view.

dhw: In what literature do you find your messy, inefficient designer, or your all-good God deliberately and knowingly creating evil because a Garden of Eden would have been a dead end, or your all-powerful God being powerless to prevent it? Why don’t you stick to the arguments?

What we deal with is the only form of life God could produce, and it involves free acting molecules and bugs free to act. It is all fine 99.999% of the time, but with eight billion- plus humans, mistakes add up presenting our issue with theodicy. I am answering your very skewed view of the results.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, August 28, 2023, 08:15 (214 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?***

DAVID: My defense is whatever God does is OK with me. I don't need His reasons, only you do.

dhw: But you insist on giving him just one reason for creating life: to design us and our food – hence the question*** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: Your *** ignores the definition of evolution.

The usual definition of evolution is the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. How does that answer the question ***?

DAVID: The history of the only process existing shows that it developed a huge bush of life currently culminating in humans, the most complex form of life to be produced. The obvious drive is toward diversity and complexity. It fits perfectly with a God who wished to produce humans and their food.

So why did he also wish to produce the diversity and complexity of the 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food? See the question*** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: A loss of 99.9% of organisms is observed and considered to be a result of the process.

Of course it is a result of the process. But the process and purpose you believe in lead to the question *** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: I view *** as an irrational invention.

*** points out the irrationality of your theory, which you yourself find incomprehensible: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” Since it makes no sense, maybe he did not choose this purpose or this method.

DAVID: Your inventive alternatives are just-so stories about a very human God who thinks as we do.

Your “humanization” argument has been demolished over and over again by your agreement that we reflect your God, and it is no defence of your theory or of your endless non sequiturs to divert attention away from its irrationality.

DAVID: Not knowing God's reasons for evolving us is in consequential to one who believes. God did what He wished and we are here to discuss it. Dayenu.

I also believe that if God exists, he would do what he wished. How does that answer question ***?

Evolution and Theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

DAVID: Reference was to the Biblical Garden of Eden, not the whole present world.

Eden is an image for a world without evil. Please answer the question***. Meanwhile ,your two answers to the problem of theodicy are:

dhw: (1) forget about evil, which is only a minor matter, or (2) despite being all-powerful, he had no choice. You also conveniently forget your own belief that your God would have created what he wanted to create. So we have two puzzles now: Why would an all-good God want to create evil, and why would an all-powerful God be powerless to prevent evil?
Your only answer is to repeat that bacteria etc. are 99% good, which means we should avoid the problem.

DAVID: You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.

I have stated no such thing. You are tying yourself in knots. It is your belief in your theories about your God’s purpose, method and responsibility for evil which are irrational – as proven by your inability to answer question *** and your admission that your only answer to the problem of theodicy is to say we should ignore it. Please stop dodging!

dhw: A God who deliberately allows freedom of design, just as he allows freedom of action, is not “godless”.

DAVID: Not any God recognized in the literature. Your personal skewed view.

That does mean the theory is godless.

dhw: In what literature do you find your messy, inefficient designer, or your all-good God deliberately and knowingly creating evil because a Garden of Eden would have been a dead end, or your all-powerful God being powerless to prevent it? Why don’t you stick to the arguments?

DAVID: What we deal with is the only form of life God could produce...

How do you know? If your all-powerful God does what he wants to do, maybe this is the form of life he wanted to produce, as opposed to his being forced to produce what he didn’t want to produce (99% of irrelevant species, and all the suffering caused by his creation of evil).

DAVID: ...and it involves free acting molecules and bugs free to act.

So if he is willing to give up control over molecules and bugs and humans’ free will, why can’t he be willing to give up control over speciation?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, August 28, 2023, 17:50 (213 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your *** ignores the definition of evolution.

dhw: The usual definition of evolution is the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. How does that answer the question ***?

Logic: assuming God chose to evolve us, 99.9% were shown to be lost as a natural part of the process. What presently survives demonstrates His endpoint purpose.


DAVID: The history of the only process existing shows that it developed a huge bush of life currently culminating in humans, the most complex form of life to be produced. The obvious drive is toward diversity and complexity. It fits perfectly with a God who wished to produce humans and their food.

dhw: So why did he also wish to produce the diversity and complexity of the 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food? See the question*** which you keep dodging.

Total illogicality. The endpoint of diversity is today's food supply.

dhw: Of course it is a result of the process. But the process and purpose you believe in lead to the question *** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: I view *** as an irrational invention.

dhw: *** points out the irrationality of your theory, which you yourself find incomprehensible: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” Since it makes no sense, maybe he did not choose this purpose or this method.

This whole discussion assumes God created the present reality and evolved us!! Your now bolded makes no sense.


DAVID: Your inventive alternatives are just-so stories about a very human God who thinks as we do.

dhw; Your “humanization” argument has been demolished over and over again by your agreement that we reflect your God, and it is no defence of your theory or of your endless non sequiturs to divert attention away from its irrationality.

My description of your invented God is taken from an analysis of His thoughts, based on His intentions.


Evolution and Theodicy

dhw: Please answer the question***. Meanwhile ,your two answers to the problem of theodicy are:

DAVID: You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.

dhw: I have stated no such thing. You are tying yourself in knots. It is your belief in your theories about your God’s purpose, method and responsibility for evil which are irrational – as proven by your inability to answer question *** and your admission that your only answer to the problem of theodicy is to say we should ignore it. Please stop dodging!

Your *** is impossible to answer because it is based on a false premise. 99.9% who disappeared were necessary for the process to proceed. We have only form of evolution of living forms to study.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, August 29, 2023, 11:50 (212 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?***

DAVID: Your *** ignores the definition of evolution.

dhw: The usual definition of evolution is the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. How does that answer the question ***?

No reply.

DAVID: Logic: assuming God chose to evolve us, 99.9% were shown to be lost as a natural part of the process. What presently survives demonstrates His endpoint purpose.

That is not logic, it is merely a statement that 99.9% were lost. Nature has nothing to do with it since it is your belief that your God deliberately designed those 99.9%. Even if it is true that he designed them all, what presently survives is the current endpoint, which is connected to only 0.1% of what you say he designed. Hence the question ***, which you agree you can’t answer because it makes no sense for your God to have deliberately designed 99.9% of organisms that had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

DAVID: The history of the only process existing shows that it developed a huge bush of life currently culminating in humans, the most complex form of life to be produced. The obvious drive is toward diversity and complexity. It fits perfectly with a God who wished to produce humans and their food.

dhw: So why did he also wish to produce the diversity and complexity of the 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food? See the question*** which you keep dodging.

DAVID: Total illogicality. The endpoint of diversity is today's food supply.

According to you, the current endpoint is the product of 0.1% of past diversity, and you have no idea why your God designed the lost 99.9%, which is why you admit: “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.

dhw: Since it makes no sense, maybe he did not choose this purpose or this method.

DAVID: This whole discussion assumes God created the present reality and evolved us!! Your now bolded makes no sense.

It assumes that your God exists, and if he does, that he created both the past and the present reality, and you have no idea why he would have deliberately designed 99.9% of past realities if his only purpose was to produce 0.1% of what he designed. Maybe you are wrong, and he had a different purpose, or maybe he didn’t individually design every species that ever lived. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Your inventive alternatives are just-so stories about a very human God who thinks as we do.

dhw: Your “humanization” argument has been demolished over and over again by your agreement that we reflect your God, and it is no defence of your theory or of your endless non sequiturs to divert attention away from its irrationality.

DAVID: My description of your invented God is taken from an analysis of His thoughts, based on His intentions.

I’m afraid I do not believe that you have any more access to your God’s thoughts and intentions than I do, and since your analysis has led you to a theory which does not make sense even to you, I suggest your analysis may be faulty.

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

Please answer the question***.

DAVID: You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.

dhw: I have stated no such thing. You are tying yourself in knots. It is your belief in your theories about your God’s purpose, method and responsibility for evil which are irrational – as proven by your inability to answer question *** and your admission that your only answer to the problem of theodicy is to say we should ignore it. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Your *** is impossible to answer because it is based on a false premise. 99.9% who disappeared were necessary for the process to proceed. We have only form of evolution of living forms to study.

The first question *** is why, if your God’s only purpose was to produce us plus food, he produced 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. And now your answer is that you can’t answer because the 99.9% were necessary although you don’t know why they were necessary! Please accept your own admission that your theory makes no sense even to you.

The second question ***, which again you have ignored, concerns theodicy, and your new theory that life could not go on (Eden would be a dead end) without the evils of war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease...

No answer from you.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 29, 2023, 15:36 (212 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?***

DAVID: Your *** ignores the definition of evolution.

dhw: The usual definition of evolution is the process by which living organisms have developed from earlier ancestral forms. How does that answer the question ***?

No reply.

DAVID: Logic: assuming God chose to evolve us, 99.9% were shown to be lost as a natural part of the process. What presently survives demonstrates His endpoint purpose.

dhw: That is not logic, it is merely a statement that 99.9% were lost. Nature has nothing to do with it since it is your belief that your God deliberately designed those 99.9%. Even if it is true that he designed them all, what presently survives is the current endpoint, which is connected to only 0.1% of what you say he designed. Hence the question ***, which you agree you can’t answer because it makes no sense for your God to have deliberately designed 99.9% of organisms that had no connection with what you insist was his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

Again, your illogical distortion: food is missing from your statement!! 'Natural for a process' is not nature!!!


dhw: Since it makes no sense, maybe he did not choose this purpose or this method.

DAVID: This whole discussion assumes God created the present reality and evolved us!! Your now bolded makes no sense.

dhw: It assumes that your God exists, and if he does, that he created both the past and the present reality, and you have no idea why he would have deliberately designed 99.9% of past realities if his only purpose was to produce 0.1% of what he designed. Maybe you are wrong, and he had a different purpose, or maybe he didn’t individually design every species that ever lived. Stop dodging.

Again, a false premise: if God created all of reality, He created evolution with 99.9% loss.


DAVID: My description of your invented God is taken from an analysis of His thoughts, based on His intentions.

dhw: I’m afraid I do not believe that you have any more access to your God’s thoughts and intentions than I do, and since your analysis has led you to a theory which does not make sense even to you, I suggest your analysis may be faulty.

Given your God's stated intentions, He thinks as if He were human.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

Please answer the question***.

Competition provided for the drive in evolution as designed by God. As explained you ignore the evil you vastly over-emphasize is a byproduct of God's good works.


DAVID: You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.

dhw: I have stated no such thing. You are tying yourself in knots. It is your belief in your theories about your God’s purpose, method and responsibility for evil which are irrational – as proven by your inability to answer question *** and your admission that your only answer to the problem of theodicy is to say we should ignore it. Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Your *** is impossible to answer because it is based on a false premise. 99.9% who disappeared were necessary for the process to proceed. We have only form of evolution of living forms to study.

dhw: The first question *** is why, if your God’s only purpose was to produce us plus food, he produced 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. And now your answer is that you can’t answer because the 99.9% were necessary although you don’t know why they were necessary! Please accept your own admission that your theory makes no sense even to you.

Obviously necessary as part of an evolutionary process. Pointless quibble.


dhw: The second question ***, which again you have ignored, concerns theodicy, and your new theory that life could not go on (Eden would be a dead end) without the evils of war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease...

No answer from you.

As explained you ignore the evil you vastly over-emphasize is a byproduct of God's good works.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, August 30, 2023, 11:51 (211 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Why do you think he would deliberately have designed 99% of “novelties” (strange forms) that had no connection with us if his only purpose was to design the 1% that would lead to us?***

DAVID: Logic: assuming God chose to evolve us, 99.9% were shown to be lost as a natural part of the process. What presently survives demonstrates His endpoint purpose.

dhw: That is not logic, it is merely a statement that 99.9% were lost. Nature has nothing to do with it since it is your belief that your God deliberately designed those 99.9%. Even if it is true that he designed them all, what presently survives is the current endpoint, which is connected to only 0.1% of what you say he designed. Hence the question ***, which you agree you can’t answer […]

DAVID: Again, your illogical distortion: food is missing from your statement!! 'Natural for a process' is not nature!!!
And:
DAVID: 99.9% who disappeared were necessary for the process to proceed.

Here we go again. You claim that your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food, but he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food, and you don’t know why but it is “natural” and "necessary". How can it be "natural" and why was it “necessary” for your all-powerful, all-knowing God to deliberately design 99.9% of organisms that had no connection with his one and only purpose? You have no answer: ““The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.”

dhw: Maybe you are wrong, and he had a different purpose, or maybe he didn’t individually design every species that ever lived. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Again, a false premise: if God created all of reality, He created evolution with 99.9% loss.

But the fact of a 99.9% loss does not mean (a) that he personally designed every organism, or (b) that his sole purpose was to design us plus food! A God who experimented or created a free-for-all for purposes of enjoyment and discovery could also have “created evolution with 99.9% loss”. Stop dodging!

DAVID: My description of your invented God is taken from an analysis of His thoughts, based on His intentions.

dhw: I’m afraid I do not believe that you have any more access to your God’s thoughts and intentions than I do, and since your analysis has led you to a theory which does not make sense even to you, I suggest your analysis may be faulty.

DAVID: Given your God's stated intentions, He thinks as if He were human.

So what? Why shouldn’t our enjoyment of and interest in creation and discovery reflect thought patterns of our creator (if he exists)? Why do you insist that what you call his inefficient designs and his deliberate creation of the causes of evil make him more godlike than the above versions?

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

DAVID: Competition provided for the drive in evolution as designed by God. As explained you ignore the evil you vastly over-emphasize is a byproduct of God's good works.

Once more, competition is not synonymous with “evil”. Please answer my question***. I do not accept that war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease are excusable as "byproducts", since your version of God knew full well what suffering his creations would cause, and I do not accept that the answer to the problem of how an all-good God can create evil is solved by minimizing the impact of evil.

DAVID: You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.

dhw: I have stated no such thing. You are tying yourself in knots. It is your belief in your theories about your God’s purpose, method and responsibility for evil which are irrational – as proven by your inability to answer question *** and your admission that your only answer to the problem of theodicy is to say we should ignore it. Please stop dodging!

No reply. Please stop distorting my arguments in your attempts to justify your irrational beliefs. You do the same again in "Miscellany".:-(

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 30, 2023, 20:29 (211 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Logic: assuming God chose to evolve us, 99.9% were shown to be lost as a natural part of the process. What presently survives demonstrates His endpoint purpose.

dhw: That is not logic, it is merely a statement that 99.9% were lost. Nature has nothing to do with it since it is your belief that your God deliberately designed those 99.9%. Even if it is true that he designed them all, what presently survives is the current endpoint, which is connected to only 0.1% of what you say he designed. Hence the question ***, which you agree you can’t answer […]

DAVID: Again, your illogical distortion: food is missing from your statement!! 'Natural for a process' is not nature!!!
And:
DAVID: 99.9% who disappeared were necessary for the process to proceed.

Here we go again. You claim that your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food, but he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food, and you don’t know why but it is “natural” and "necessary". How can it be "natural" and why was it “necessary” for your all-powerful, all-knowing God to deliberately design 99.9% of organisms that had no connection with his one and only purpose? You have no answer: ““The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.”

[/b]

Same weird rant not supported by constant repetition:


DAVID: a false premise: if God created all of reality, He created evolution with 99.9% loss.

dhw: But the fact of a 99.9% loss does not mean (a) that he personally designed every organism, or (b) that his sole purpose was to design us plus food!

But that is my belief!!! The 99.9% loss is a part of an evolutionary culling process. To cull must mean many are lost, doesn't it?

dhw: A God who experimented or created a free-for-all for purposes of enjoyment and discovery could also have “created evolution with 99.9% loss”. Stop dodging!

And one who luckily stumbled on humans is no God I can recognize.


DAVID: My description of your invented God is taken from an analysis of His thoughts, based on His intentions.

dhw: I’m afraid I do not believe that you have any more access to your God’s thoughts and intentions than I do, and since your analysis has led you to a theory which does not make sense even to you, I suggest your analysis may be faulty.

DAVID: Given your God's stated intentions, He thinks as if He were human. (see above)

dhw: So what? Why shouldn’t our enjoyment of and interest in creation and discovery reflect thought patterns of our creator (if he exists)? Why do you insist that what you call his inefficient designs and his deliberate creation of the causes of evil make him more godlike than the above versions?

My God follows defininte planned purposes.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

DAVID: Competition provided for the drive in evolution as designed by God. As explained you ignore the evil you vastly over-emphasize is a byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: Once more, competition is not synonymous with “evil”. Please answer my question***. I do not accept that war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease are excusable as "byproducts", since your version of God knew full well what suffering his creations would cause, and I do not accept that the answer to the problem of how an all-good God can create evil is solved by minimizing the impact of evil.

That is what theists discussing theodicy conclude. To have life we must accept the rare side effects, which you view in a cumulative state, while actual rate is .0000000% of activity.


DAVID: You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.

dhw: I have stated no such thing. You are tying yourself in knots. It is your belief in your theories about your God’s purpose, method and responsibility for evil which are irrational – as proven by your inability to answer question *** and your admission that your only answer to the problem of theodicy is to say we should ignore it. Please stop dodging!

No reply. Please stop distorting my arguments in your attempts to justify your irrational beliefs. You do the same again in "Miscellany".:-(

Theodicy never dodged. Your *** is a totally false premise, couched as to be unanswerable. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, August 31, 2023, 08:04 (211 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You claim that your God’s one and only purpose was to create us plus food, but he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food,*** and you don’t know why but it is “natural” and "necessary". How can it be "natural" and why was it “necessary”? You have no answer: ““The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.

DAVID: Same weird rant not supported by constant repetition.

No “weird rant”. I repeat your admission that you can’t make any sense of your illogical theory of evolution.

DAVID: a false premise: if God created all of reality, He created evolution with 99.9% loss.

dhw: But the fact of a 99.9% loss does not mean (a) that he personally designed every organism, or (b) that his sole purpose was to design us plus food!

DAVID: But that is my belief!!! The 99.9% loss is a part of an evolutionary culling process. To cull must mean many are lost, doesn't it?

Of course “culling” means losing. How does that explain why your God deliberately chose to create 99.9% of species irrelevant to his sole purpose? You “do not have an answer”, but you can’t see that at least one of your theories re purpose and design must be a “false premise”.

dhw: A God who experimented or created a free-for-all for purposes of enjoyment and discovery could also have “created evolution with 99.9% loss”. Stop dodging!

DAVID: And one who luckily stumbled on humans is no God I can recognize.

It would not have been luck if he was experimenting. Again you dodge my point, which is that there are logical theistic explanations of the 99.9% loss.

DAVID: My description of your invented God is taken from an analysis of His thoughts, based on His intentions.

dhw: I’m afraid I do not believe that you have any more access to your God’s thoughts and intentions than I do, and since your analysis has led you to a theory which does not make sense even to you, I suggest your analysis may be faulty.

DAVID: Given your God's stated intentions, He thinks as if He were human. (see above)

dhw: So what? Why shouldn’t our enjoyment of and interest in creation and discovery reflect thought patterns of our creator (if he exists)? Why do you insist that what you call his inefficient designs and his deliberate creation of the causes of evil make him more godlike than the above versions?

DAVID: My God follows definite planned purposes.

So does mine. Now please answer my questions.

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

DAVID: Competition provided for the drive in evolution as designed by God. As explained you ignore the evil you vastly over-emphasize is a byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: Once more, competition is not synonymous with “evil”. Please answer my question***. I do not accept that war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease are excusable as "byproducts", since your version of God knew what suffering his creations would cause, and I do not accept that the problem of how an all-good God can create evil is solved by minimizing the impact of evil.

DAVID: That is what theists discussing theodicy conclude.

Do they really? Then please tell me their answers to the questions*** you keep ignoring. Do they all agree that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that evil is too minor to discuss, that their God’s designs are inefficient, and he is incapable of preventing the evil he has to create even though he doesn’t want to?

DAVID: To have life we must accept the rare side effects, which you view in a cumulative state, while actual rate is .0000000% of activity.

dhw: Your usual attempt to minimize the impact of wars, murder etc. as a solution to the problem of theodicy.

And repeated on the “Miscellany” thread:
DAVID: To have life we must accept the rare side effects, which you view in a cumulative state, while actual rate is .0000000% of activity. Stop distorting real statistics

I have no idea what you’re trying to prove. The so-called “side effects” of bad bugs and bad humans affect millions of people, regardless of your “statistics”. Evil exists, so take your head out of the sand and consider its implications in the context of your all-powerful, all-good God.

DAVID: You claim that my beliefs in God are related to your problems with my thoughts about God. Therefore, you must think my belief in God is irrational as you state.

I have never stated that your belief in God is irrational. It is your theistic theory of evolution and your head-in-the-sand approach to theodicy that are irrational. Please stop distorting my arguments in your attempts to justify your irrational beliefs.

DAVID: Theodicy never dodged. Your *** is a totally false premise, couched as to be unanswerable.

Your main approach to theodicy is to tell me to ignore evil. My *** is not a premise but a repeat of your illogical theory. See above for your false premise(s).

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 31, 2023, 14:47 (210 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But the fact of a 99.9% loss does not mean (a) that he personally designed every organism, or (b) that his sole purpose was to design us plus food!

DAVID: But that is my belief!!! The 99.9% loss is a part of an evolutionary culling process. To cull must mean many are lost, doesn't it?

dhw: Of course “culling” means losing. How does that explain why your God deliberately chose to create 99.9% of species irrelevant to his sole purpose? You “do not have an answer”, but you can’t see that at least one of your theories re purpose and design must be a “false premise”.

My God designed evolution with the purpose of producing humans and enough ecosystems for their food. I cannot explain why God chose that route, but it fits history as created by God.


dhw: A God who experimented or created a free-for-all for purposes of enjoyment and discovery could also have “created evolution with 99.9% loss”. Stop dodging!

DAVID: And one who luckily stumbled on humans is no God I can recognize.

dhw: It would not have been luck if he was experimenting. Again you dodge my point, which is that there are logical theistic explanations of the 99.9% loss.

Of course, there are logical reasons for the loss, a normal culling loss.


DAVID: Given your God's stated intentions, He thinks as if He were human. (see above)

dhw: So what? Why shouldn’t our enjoyment of and interest in creation and discovery reflect thought patterns of our creator (if he exists)? Why do you insist that what you call his inefficient designs and his deliberate creation of the causes of evil make him more godlike than the above versions?

DAVID: My God follows definite planned purposes.

So does mine. Now please answer my questions.

My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations. He is selfless. As all-knowing, He chose to evolve us rather than directly create us.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

DAVID: Competition provided for the drive in evolution as designed by God. As explained you ignore the evil you vastly over-emphasize is a byproduct of God's good works.

dhw: Once more, competition is not synonymous with “evil”. Please answer my question***. I do not accept that war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease are excusable as "byproducts", since your version of God knew what suffering his creations would cause, and I do not accept that the problem of how an all-good God can create evil is solved by minimizing the impact of evil.

DAVID: That is what theists discussing theodicy conclude.

dhw: Do they really? Then please tell me their answers to the questions*** you keep ignoring. Do they all agree that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that evil is too minor to discuss, that their God’s designs are inefficient, and he is incapable of preventing the evil he has to create even though he doesn’t want to?

DAVID: To have life we must accept the rare side effects, which you view in a cumulative state, while actual rate is .0000000% of activity.

dhw: Your usual attempt to minimize the impact of wars, murder etc. as a solution to the problem of theodicy.

And repeated on the “Miscellany” thread:
DAVID: To have life we must accept the rare side effects, which you view in a cumulative state, while actual rate is .0000000% of activity. Stop distorting real statistics

dhw: I have no idea what you’re trying to prove. The so-called “side effects” of bad bugs and bad humans affect millions of people, regardless of your “statistics”. Evil exists, so take your head out of the sand and consider its implications in the context of your all-powerful, all-good God.

Your generalized bold above comes from what temporal statistics? Please quote evil in specific time periods accepted studies.


DAVID: Theodicy never dodged. Your *** is a totally false premise, couched as to be unanswerable.

dhw; our main approach to theodicy is to tell me to ignore evil. My *** is not a premise but a repeat of your illogical theory. See above for your false premise(s).

No, an overt distortion of my theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, September 01, 2023, 11:27 (210 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My God designed evolution with the purpose of producing humans and enough ecosystems for their food. I cannot explain why God chose that route, but it fits history as created by God.

But as usual it leaves out the question why an all-knowing, all-powerful God whose one and only purpose was to create humans and our food, would have specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with humans and our food.*** You “do not have an answer”, but you can’t see that at least one of your theories re purpose and design must be a “false premise”.

dhw: A God who experimented or created a free-for-all for purposes of enjoyment and discovery could also have “created evolution with 99.9% loss”. Stop dodging!

DAVID: And one who luckily stumbled on humans is no God I can recognize.

dhw: It would not have been luck if he was experimenting. Again you dodge my point, which is that there are logical theistic explanations of the 99.9% loss.

DAVID: Of course, there are logical reasons for the loss, a normal culling loss.

How many “normal” evolutions of life on Earth do you know of? Why do you constantly leave out the all-important part of your theory that your God individually designed the 99.9% which had no relevance to his purpose. “Oh,” said God, “I only want humans plus food, but normally in evolution there are 99.9% of organisms that have no connection with my purpose, so I’d better design and cull them.”

dhw: Why shouldn’t our enjoyment of and interest in creation and discovery reflect thought patterns of our creator (if he exists)? Why do you insist that what you call his inefficient designs and his deliberate creation of the causes of evil make him more godlike than the above versions?

DAVID: My God follows definite planned purposes.

dhw: So does mine. Now please answer my questions.

DAVID: My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations. He is selfless. As all-knowing, He chose to evolve us rather than directly create us.

If he exists, I have no objection to the final statement, since we did evolve. But see under “early pre-humans” on the "Miscellany" thread. I have no idea how you can possibly know that your first-cause God, who created all of life, does not have any feelings of “self”, and since you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, I have no idea how you can possibly know that he does not enjoy creating and is not interested in his creations, or why you attach “self” to enjoyment. You make it sound as if enjoyment is some sort of masturbation.

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

You keep dodging this question
.
DAVID: That is what theists discussing theodicy conclude.

dhw: Do they really? Then please tell me their answers to the questions*** you keep ignoring. Do they all agree that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that evil is too minor to discuss, that their God’s designs are inefficient, and he is incapable of preventing the evil he has to create even though he doesn’t want to?

Not answered.

DAVID: To have life we must accept the rare side effects, which you view in a cumulative state, while actual rate is .0000000% of activity. Stop distorting real statistics

dhw: I have no idea what you’re trying to prove. The so-called “side effects” of bad bugs and bad humans affect millions of people, regardless of your “statistics”. Evil exists, so take your head out of the sand and consider its implications in the context of your all-powerful, all-good God.(David’s bold)

DAVID: Your generalized bold above comes from what temporal statistics? Please quote evil in specific time periods accepted studies.

This is your silliest ever dodge. Who can possibly compile an accurate list of all the victims of all wars, murders, rapes, floods, famines, diseases etc. since life began? Do you or do you not accept that all these forms of evil have affected millions of people? The following exchange illustrates your head-in-the-sand approach:

More microbiome benefits

QUOTE: Millions of children worldwide suffer from allergic disorders, including eczema, asthma, and hay fever[...]...

DAVID: What is the support for your 'millions'??

The above article which you have offered us – and that relates to only one form of “evil”.

DAVID: Theodicy never dodged. Your *** is a totally false premise, couched as to be unanswerable.

dhw: Your main approach to theodicy is to tell me to ignore evil. My *** is not a premise but a repeat of your illogical theory.

DAVID: No, an overt distortion of my theory.

Your theory is that a) your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and (b) he designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with this purpose, but you have no idea why. Please tell me what I have distorted.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, September 01, 2023, 21:20 (209 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My God designed evolution with the purpose of producing humans and enough ecosystems for their food. I cannot explain why God chose that route, but it fits history as created by God.

dhw: But as usual it leaves out the question why an all-knowing, all-powerful God whose one and only purpose was to create humans and our food, would have specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with humans and our food.*** You “do not have an answer”, but you can’t see that at least one of your theories re purpose and design must be a “false premise”.

Your usual rebuttal is nonsensical. To evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

[/i]
DAVID: Of course, there are logical reasons for the loss, a normal culling loss.

dhw: How many “normal” evolutions of life on Earth do you know of? Why do you constantly leave out the all-important part of your theory that your God individually designed the 99.9% which had no relevance to his purpose.

I know of only one which experienced a required 99.9% loss, all relevant to His purpose.
.

DAVID: My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations. He is selfless. As all-knowing, He chose to evolve us rather than directly create us.

dhw: If he exists, I have no objection to the final statement, since we did evolve. But see under “early pre-humans” on the "Miscellany" thread. I have no idea how you can possibly know that your first-cause God, who created all of life, does not have any feelings of “self”, and since you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, I have no idea how you can possibly know that he does not enjoy creating and is not interested in his creations, or why you attach “self” to enjoyment. You make it sound as if enjoyment is some sort of masturbation.

Contrarily, it is your self-pleasuring God whom you constantly present!


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

You keep dodging this question

More false premise. Competition, as Darwin stated, helped create evolution. Your usual total overemphasis on various 'evils.

.
DAVID: That is what theists discussing theodicy conclude.

dhw: [i Do they all agree that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that evil is too minor to discuss, that their God’s designs are inefficient, and he is incapable of preventing the evil he has to create even though he doesn’t want to?[/i]

Not answered.

What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.


DAVID: To have life we must accept the rare side effects, which you view in a cumulative state, while actual rate is .0000000% of activity. Stop distorting real statistics

dhw: I have no idea what you’re trying to prove. The so-called “side effects” of bad bugs and bad humans affect millions of people, regardless of your “statistics”. Evil exists, so take your head out of the sand and consider its implications in the context of your all-powerful, all-good God.(David’s bold)

DAVID: Your generalized bold above comes from what temporal statistics? Please quote evil in specific time periods accepted studies.

dhw: This is your silliest ever dodge. Who can possibly compile an accurate list of all the victims of all wars, murders, rapes, floods, famines, diseases etc. since life began? Do you or do you not accept that all these forms of evil have affected millions of people?

Yes over accumulated time, a concept seemingly foreign to you.

dhw: The following exchange illustrates your head-in-the-sand approach:

More microbiome benefits

QUOTE: Millions of children worldwide suffer from allergic disorders, including eczema, asthma, and hay fever[...]...

DAVID: What is the support for your 'millions'??

dhw: The above article which you have offered us – and that relates to only one form of “evil”.

DAVID: Theodicy never dodged. Your *** is a totally false premise, couched as to be unanswerable.

dhw: Your main approach to theodicy is to tell me to ignore evil. My *** is not a premise but a repeat of your illogical theory.

DAVID: No, an overt distortion of my theory.

dhw: Your theory is that a) your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and (b) he designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with this purpose, but you have no idea why. Please tell me what I have distorted.

Your interpretation is the distortion. For God to evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, September 02, 2023, 12:56 (208 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My God designed evolution with the purpose of producing humans and enough ecosystems for their food. I cannot explain why God chose that route, but it fits history as created by God. (dhw's bold)

dhw: But as usual it leaves out the question why an all-knowing, all-powerful God whose one and only purpose was to create humans and our food, would have specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with humans and our food.*** You “do not have an answer”, but you can’t see that at least one of your theories re purpose and design must be a “false premise”.

DAVID: Your usual rebuttal is nonsensical. To evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

We know that there was a 99.9% loss. Please tell us why Raup thinks your all-powerful, all-knowing God “had to” design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose.*** If Raup doesn’t tell us why, then please stop quoting him.

DAVID: Of course, there are logical reasons for the loss, a normal culling loss.

dhw: How many “normal” evolutions of life on Earth do you know of? […]

DAVID: I know of only one which experienced a required 99.9% loss, all relevant to His purpose.

You are making a mockery of this whole discussion, which centres on your agreement that the 99.9% were NOT relevant to the purpose you impose on him***, which is why you “cannot explain why he chose that route”!

DAVID: My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations. He is selfless. […]
And:
DAVID: […] it is your self-pleasuring God whom you constantly present!

You are certain that he enjoys creating, and to enjoy means to give oneself pleasure. How can he give himself pleasure unless he has a self to give it to?

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

DAVID: More false premise. Competition, as Darwin stated, helped create evolution. Your usual total overemphasis on various 'evils.

I’m not questioning the role of competition in evolution. I’m questioning the need for such evils as war, murder, rape etc., and if we are to tackle the subject of why/how an all-good God creates evil, it is absurd to pretend that evil is too minor to discuss.
.
dhw: Do they [theists] all agree that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that evil is too minor to discuss, that their God’s designs are inefficient, and he is incapable of preventing the evil he has to create even though he doesn’t want to?

DAVID: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.

I can’t help wondering how you know they’re all as happy as you are with the knowledge that their God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and disease, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. Or do they emulate you and pretend that these matters are too minor to take seriously?

dhw: Do you or do you not accept that all these forms of evil have affected millions of people?

DAVID: Yes over accumulated time, a concept seemingly foreign to you.

I am perfectly aware that time passes, and that figures accumulate. You, on the other hand, seem to be totally unaware that even currently, millions of people are victims of current evils. Did you know that approx. 600,000 people die of cancer each year in the USA alone, and approx. 9 million die annually worldwide? Did you know that approximately 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust? Take your head out of the sand.

dhw: Your main approach to theodicy is to tell me to ignore evil. My *** is not a premise but a repeat of your illogical theory.

DAVID: No, an overt distortion of my theory.

dhw: Your theory is that a) your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and (b) he designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with this purpose, but you have no idea why. Please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: Your interpretation is the distortion. For God to evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

Which part of your theory have I “overtly distorted”? And you admit that you can’t explain why your God “had to” design 99.9% out of 100 irrelevant species! Why is that a “distortion”?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 02, 2023, 18:30 (208 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your usual rebuttal is nonsensical. To evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

dhw: We know that there was a 99.9% loss. Please tell us why Raup thinks your all-powerful, all-knowing God “had to” design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose.*** If Raup doesn’t tell us why, then please stop quoting him.

Raup discovered the 'fact'. I taught you that. Raup offered no opinions.


DAVID: Of course, there are logical reasons for the loss, a normal culling loss.

dhw: How many “normal” evolutions of life on Earth do you know of? […]

DAVID: I know of only one which experienced a required 99.9% loss, all relevant to His purpose.

dhw: You are making a mockery of this whole discussion, which centres on your agreement that the 99.9% were NOT relevant to the purpose you impose on him***, which is why you “cannot explain why he chose that route”!

God has never told me His reasons for using an evolutionary process which causes a 99.9% loss of forms.


DAVID: My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations. He is selfless. […]
And:
DAVID: […] it is your self-pleasuring God whom you constantly present!

dhw: You are certain that he enjoys creating, and to enjoy means to give oneself pleasure. How can he give himself pleasure unless he has a self to give it to?

Weird answer. I said God is selfless. I remind you God's personality can only be discussed at the allegorical level.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: Eden without competition was a dead end.

dhw: Since when was “competition” synonymous with “evil”? Do you think the world would come to an end if we didn’t have war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease? ***

DAVID: More false premise. Competition, as Darwin stated, helped create evolution. Your usual total overemphasis on various 'evils.

dhw: I’m not questioning the role of competition in evolution. I’m questioning the need for such evils as war, murder, rape etc., and if we are to tackle the subject of why/how an all-good God creates evil, it is absurd to pretend that evil is too minor to discuss.

Not to minor to discuss. I'm trying to put evil in perspective against all the good. Your overemphasis ignores that ratio.

.
dhw: Do they [theists] all agree that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that evil is too minor to discuss, that their God’s designs are inefficient, and he is incapable of preventing the evil he has to create even though he doesn’t want to?

DAVID: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.

dhw: I can’t help wondering how you know they’re all as happy as you are with the knowledge that their God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and disease, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. Or do they emulate you and pretend that these matters are too minor to take seriously?

They take them as seriously as I do in the perspective I've offered.


dhw: Do you or do you not accept that all these forms of evil have affected millions of people?

DAVID: Yes over accumulated time, a concept seemingly foreign to you.

dhw: I am perfectly aware that time passes, and that figures accumulate. You, on the other hand, seem to be totally unaware that even currently, millions of people are victims of current evils. Did you know that approx. 600,000 people die of cancer each year in the USA alone, and approx. 9 million die annually worldwide? Did you know that approximately 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust? Take your head out of the sand.

Thank you. Finally, some real numbers. Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!) USA cancer deaths were .01% of our population. World cancer death about 2%. Remember, death is inevitable.


dhw: Your main approach to theodicy is to tell me to ignore evil. My *** is not a premise but a repeat of your illogical theory.

DAVID: No, an overt distortion of my theory.

dhw: Your theory is that a) your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and (b) he designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with this purpose, but you have no idea why. Please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: Your interpretation is the distortion. For God to evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

dhw Which part of your theory have I “overtly distorted”? And you admit that you can’t explain why your God “had to” design 99.9% out of 100 irrelevant species! Why is that a “distortion”?

God chose: He didn't have to, which is your false premise that God was 'forced' to lose 99.9% of all organisms. It is simply part of an evolutionary process.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, September 09, 2023, 08:53 (202 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: [...] To evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

dhw: We know that there was a 99.9% loss. Please tell us why Raup thinks your all-powerful, all-knowing God “had to” design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose.*** If Raup doesn’t tell us why, then please stop quoting him.

DAVID: Raup discovered the 'fact'. I taught you that. Raup offered no opinions.

The theory of mass extinctions goes back to the early 19th century, but I don’t know who fixed the figure of 99.9%. That is not what we’re discussing. The question is why your God “had to” design 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to the one and only purpose you have imposed on him. Stop dodging!

DAVID: God has never told me His reasons for using an evolutionary process which causes a 99.9% loss of forms.

Not just using, but “having to use”, or rather having to individually design all 99.9 irrelevant species. And your God hasn’t told you his one and only purpose was to design us and our food. And the two theories put together make no sense even to you.

DAVID: My God does not need self-enjoyment from His creations. He is selfless. […]
(Repeated elsewhere)

dhw: You are certain that he enjoys creating, and to enjoy means to give oneself pleasure. How can he give himself pleasure unless he has a self to give it to?

DAVID: Weird answer. I said God is selfless. I remind you God's personality can only be discussed at the allegorical level.

What is the allegorical meaning of “selfless”? What is the allegorical meaning of “enjoy”? YOU know precisely what YOU mean by these words, but if you’re now claiming you don’t mean enjoy when you say enjoy, then you can’t mean selfless when you say selfless. You make a mockery of language.

Evolution and theodicy
DAVID: Competition, as Darwin stated, helped create evolution. Your usual total overemphasis on various 'evils.

dhw: I’m not questioning the role of competition in evolution. I’m questioning the need for such evils as war, murder, rape etc., and if we are to tackle the subject of why/how an all-good God creates evil, it is absurd to pretend that evil is too minor to discuss.

DAVID: Not to minor to discuss. I'm trying to put evil in perspective against all the good. Your overemphasis ignores that ratio.

The ratio is irrelevant to the question of why/how an all-good God can create evil. Stop dodging.

DAVID: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.

dhw: I can’t help wondering how you know they’re all as happy as you are with the knowledge that their God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and disease, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. Or do they emulate you and pretend that these matters are too minor to take seriously?

DAVID: They take them as seriously as I do in the perspective I've offered.

And are they all as happy as you with the bolded explanation above?

dhw: You […] seem to be totally unaware that even currently, millions of people are victims of current evils. Did you know that approx. 600,000 people die of cancer each year in the USA alone, and approx. 9 million die annually worldwide? Did you know that approximately 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust? Take your head out of the sand.

DAVID: Thank you. Finally, some real numbers. Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!)

I’m surprised you hadn’t realized that “millions” suffer. According to you, your all-knowing God went ahead deliberately creating a system he knew would result in the free-willed Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews. I’m not arguing against free will. I’m asking why/how an all-good God could knowingly create a system that would lead to such horrific evil.

DAVID: USA cancer deaths were .01% of our population. World cancer death about 2%. Remember, death is inevitable.

Yet again, the theodicy problem is not solved by pretending that the figures don’t matter or by the fact that we all die. Stop dodging. Next, you accused me of an “overt distortion” of your theory.

dhw: Your theory is that a) your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and (b) he designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with this purpose, but you have no idea why. Please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: Your interpretation is the distortion. For God to evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed. (dhw's bold)

dhw […] you admit that you can’t explain why your God “had to” design 99.9% out of 100 irrelevant species! Why is that a “distortion”?

DAVID: God chose: He didn't have to, which is your false premise that God was 'forced' to lose 99.9% of all organisms. It is simply part of an evolutionary process.

You’ve just said he “had to have a 99.9% loss” – as bolded – and now you say he didn’t have to. No wonder only your God can understand your theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 09, 2023, 19:05 (201 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, September 09, 2023, 19:13

DAVID: [...] To evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed.

dhw: We know that there was a 99.9% loss. Please tell us why Raup thinks your all-powerful, all-knowing God “had to” design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose.*** If Raup doesn’t tell us why, then please stop quoting him.

DAVID: Raup discovered the 'fact'. I taught you that. Raup offered no opinions.

dhw: The theory of mass extinctions goes back to the early 19th century, but I don’t know who fixed the figure of 99.9%.

Raup!!! In his book!

DAVID: God has never told me His reasons for using an evolutionary process which causes a 99.9% loss of forms.

dhw: Not just using, but “having to use”, or rather having to individually design all 99.9 irrelevant species. And your God hasn’t told you his one and only purpose was to design us and our food. And the two theories put together make no sense even to you.

Accusations I have no sensible reasons are not an argument. The evolutionary process we are discussing involves creation of advanced forms and culling through survival as they don't survive. 99.9% is the observed loss rate (Raup).


dhw: You are certain that he enjoys creating, and to enjoy means to give oneself pleasure. How can he give himself pleasure unless he has a self to give it to?

DAVID: Weird answer. I said God is selfless. I remind you God's personality can only be discussed at the allegorical level.

dhw: What is the allegorical meaning of “selfless”? What is the allegorical meaning of “enjoy”? YOU know precisely what YOU mean by these words, but if you’re now claiming you don’t mean enjoy when you say enjoy, then you can’t mean selfless when you say selfless. You make a mockery of language.

Just as you make a mockery as a theist. God is a personage like no other person. Discussing Him in our language in only suggestive of what and who He might be.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.

dhw: I can’t help wondering how you know they’re all as happy as you are with the knowledge that their God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and disease, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. Or do they emulate you and pretend that these matters are too minor to take seriously?

DAVID: They take them as seriously as I do in the perspective I've offered.

dhw: And are they all as happy as you with the explanation above?

Yes.


dhw: You […] seem to be totally unaware that even currently, millions of people are victims of current evils. Did you know that approx. 600,000 people die of cancer each year in the USA alone, and approx. 9 million die annually worldwide? Did you know that approximately 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust? Take your head out of the sand.

DAVID: Thank you. Finally, some real numbers. Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!)

dhw: I’m surprised you hadn’t realized that “millions” suffer. According to you, your all-knowing God went ahead deliberately creating a system he knew would result in the free-willed Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews. I’m not arguing against free will. I’m asking why/how an all-good God could knowingly create a system that would lead to such horrific evil.

I accept He did.


dhw: Your theory is that a) your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and (b) he designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with this purpose, but you have no idea why. Please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: Your interpretation is the distortion. For God to evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed. (dhw's bold)

dhw […] you admit that you can’t explain why your God “had to” design 99.9% out of 100 irrelevant species! Why is that a “distortion”?

DAVID: God chose: He didn't have to, which is your false premise that God was 'forced' to lose 99.9% of all organisms. It is simply part of an evolutionary process.

dhw: You’ve just said he “had to have a 99.9% loss” – as bolded – and now you say he didn’t have to. No wonder only your God can understand your theories.

As a required part of any evolutionary culling process. Do evolutionary processes work this way or not??? God chose to evolve. Loss must come with that choice. Stop raising your false premise. He created the Cambrian organisms directly, but humans were evolved by Him. This assumes God created all history.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, September 10, 2023, 11:37 (201 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We know that there was a 99.9% loss. Please tell us why Raup thinks your all-powerful, all-knowing God “had to” design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose.*** If Raup doesn’t tell us why, then please stop quoting him.[/i]

Apparently Raup does not tell us why, and you can’t either.

DAVID: Accusations I have no sensible reasons are not an argument.

Of course they are an argument! If your theory doesn’t make sense even to you, maybe it’s wrong! You went on to accuse me of distorting your theory.

dhw: Your theory is that a) your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, and (b) he designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with this purpose, but you have no idea why. Please tell me what I have distorted.

DAVID: For God to evolve us He had to have a 99.9% loss as Raup analyzed. (dhw's bold)

dhw […] you admit that you can’t explain why your God “had to” design 99.9% out of 100 irrelevant species! Why is that a “distortion”?

DAVID: God chose: He didn't have to, which is your false premise that God was 'forced' to lose 99.9% of all organisms. It is simply part of an evolutionary process.

dhw: You’ve just said he “had to have a 99.9% loss” – as bolded – and now you say he didn’t have to. No wonder only your God can understand your theories.

DAVID: As a required part of any evolutionary culling process. Do evolutionary processes work this way or not??? God chose to evolve. Loss must come with that choice.

We only know of one process concerning the evolution of life. One moment you say he “chose” this process, and the next he “had to” use it, which means he had no choice. Why? If the only thing your all-powerful God wanted was us and our food, then he would have been perfectly capable – according to your next comment – of creating us directly:

DAVID: He created the Cambrian organisms directly, but humans were evolved by Him.

So he was able to create species directly, but he had to design 99.9 that were irrelevant, except that he didn’t have to but he chose to and you don’t know why.

dhw: You are certain that he enjoys creating, and to enjoy means to give oneself pleasure. How can he give himself pleasure unless he has a self to give it to?

DAVID: Weird answer. I said God is selfless. I remind you God's personality can only be discussed at the allegorical level.

dhw: What is the allegorical meaning of “selfless”? What is the allegorical meaning of “enjoy”? YOU know precisely what YOU mean by these words, but if you’re now claiming you don’t mean enjoy when you say enjoy, then you can’t mean selfless when you say selfless. You make a mockery of language.

DAVID: Just as you make a mockery as a theist. God is a personage like no other person. Discussing Him in our language in only suggestive of what and who He might be.

Of course we can only use our language to suggest what he might be – if he exists. And we both know what our language means. There is no “allegory” if you are sure he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and is selfless. The only problem is that it’s impossible to imagine any “personage” enjoying something and being interested without having a self.

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.

dhw: I can’t help wondering how you know they’re all as happy as you are with the knowledge that their God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and disease, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. Or do they emulate you and pretend that these matters are too minor to take seriously?

DAVID: They take them as seriously as I do in the perspective I've offered.

dhw: And are they all as happy as you with the explanation above?

DAVID: Yes.

Not having read every opinion of every theist, I’m in no position to contradict you, but since nobody knows whether God even exists, and if he does, nobody knows his thoughts, motives or feelings, I’m surprised they all take such a negative view of him.

DAVID: […] Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!)

dhw: I’m surprised you hadn’t realized that “millions” suffer. According to you, your all-knowing God went ahead deliberately creating a system he knew would result in the free-willed Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews. I’m not arguing against free will. I’m asking why/how an all-good God could knowingly create a system that would lead to such horrific evil.

DAVID: I accept He did.

Your acceptance does not answer the question how you can reconcile your God’s advance awareness that his invention of free will would result in Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews, with the theory that he is all-good? If your all-powerful, all-knowing God is the first cause of everything that has ever existed, where did evil come from? (The discussion continues under “microbiome”.)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 10, 2023, 17:08 (200 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Accusations I have no sensible reasons are not an argument.

dhw; Of course they are an argument! If your theory doesn’t make sense even to you, maybe it’s wrong! You went on to accuse me of distorting your theory.

You attack Raup's statistical results and reach an irrational premise about God's use of evolution because He had the obvious purpose of producing humans. Adler's argument is no natural process could have done it. Your attempt at theism is unrecognizable.


dhw: We only know of one process concerning the evolution of life. One moment you say he “chose” this process, and the next he “had to” use it, which means he had no choice. Why? If the only thing your all-powerful God wanted was us and our food, then he would have been perfectly capable – according to your next comment – of creating us directly:

DAVID: He created the Cambrian organisms directly, but humans were evolved by Him.

dhw: So he was able to create species directly, but he had to design 99.9 that were irrelevant, except that he didn’t have to but he chose to and you don’t know why.

I've explained 99.9% loss is a required result in the evolutionary process. You make a mockery of a statistical result from a method God chose to use. You ha ve agreed in the past God had that right.


DAVID: Just as you make a mockery as a theist. God is a personage like no other person. Discussing Him in our language in only suggestive of what and who He might be.

dhw: Of course we can only use our language to suggest what he might be – if he exists. And we both know what our language means. There is no “allegory” if you are sure he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and is selfless. The only problem is that it’s impossible to imagine any “personage” enjoying something and being interested without having a self.

You found the problem, finally. God is selfless so when we think He enjoys, etc., it must be in an allegorical sense as Adler advises.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. Evil is always a secondhand result of good necessary processes.

dhw: I can’t help wondering how you know they’re all as happy as you are with the knowledge that their God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and disease, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. Or do they emulate you and pretend that these matters are too minor to take seriously?

DAVID: They take them as seriously as I do in the perspective I've offered.

dhw: And are they all as happy as you with the explanation above?

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: Not having read every opinion of every theist, I’m in no position to contradict you, but since nobody knows whether God even exists, and if he does, nobody knows his thoughts, motives or feelings, I’m surprised they all take such a negative view of him.

My views of God are mine alone. My theodicy review of theist articles is accurate. You purposely conflate two discussions.


DAVID: […] Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!)

dhw: I’m surprised you hadn’t realized that “millions” suffer. According to you, your all-knowing God went ahead deliberately creating a system he knew would result in the free-willed Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews. I’m not arguing against free will. I’m asking why/how an all-good God could knowingly create a system that would lead to such horrific evil.

DAVID: I accept He did.

dhw: Your acceptance does not answer the question how you can reconcile your God’s advance awareness that his invention of free will would result in Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews, with the theory that he is all-good? If your all-powerful, all-knowing God is the first cause of everything that has ever existed, where did evil come from? (The discussion continues under “microbiome”.)

Simple answer repeated: evil is a side effect of God's good works.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, September 11, 2023, 10:48 (200 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Accusations I have no sensible reasons are not an argument.

dhw: Of course they are an argument! If your theory doesn’t make sense even to you, maybe it’s wrong! You went on to accuse me of distorting your theory.

DAVID: You attack Raup's statistical results…

They are irrelevant to the question why, according to your theory, a God whose one and only purpose was to produce us plus food “had to” produce 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food.***

DAVID: ….and reach an irrational premise about God's use of evolution because He had the obvious purpose of producing humans. Adler's argument is no natural process could have done it. Your attempt at theism is unrecognizable.

The ID argument is that no “natural” process could have produced the complexities of all species. The irrational premise is the theory bolded above***. You admit that you have no idea why your God would have used such a method to achieve such a purpose. I suggest that an irrational theory that makes no sense to the theorist himself is probably wrong.

DAVID: I've explained 99.9% loss is a required result in the evolutionary process. You make a mockery of a statistical result from a method God chose to use. You have agreed in the past God had that right.

I agree that the vast majority of species have been lost, and you agree that they were irrelevant to what you believe was your God’s purpose. As first cause, your all-powerful God therefore invented a system which forced him to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. One moment he “had to”, the next moment he “chose to”. Your self-contradiction is yet more evidence that, as you admit, your theory makes no sense even to you.

DAVID: […] God is a personage like no other person. Discussing Him in our language in only suggestive of what and who He might be.

dhw: Of course we can only use our language to suggest what he might be – if he exists. And we both know what our language means. There is no “allegory” if you are sure he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and is selfless. The only problem is that it’s impossible to imagine any “personage” enjoying something and being interested without having a self.

DAVID: You found the problem, finally. God is selfless so when we think He enjoys, etc., it must be in an allegorical sense as Adler advises.

Stop messing about with language. If “selfless” means “selfless”, “enjoy” means “enjoy”. YOU know what you mean by both terms, and so you are sure that your God takes pleasure in creating and watching his creations. How can he do so without a “self”? Why do you use words if you don’t think they mean what they mean to you?

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: What theists say about theodicy is what I have presented previously. […]

dhw: And are they all as happy as you with the explanation above?

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: Not having read every opinion of every theist, I’m in no position to contradict you, but since nobody knows whether God even exists, and if he does, nobody knows his thoughts, motives or feelings, I’m surprised they all take such a negative view of him.

DAVID: My views of God are mine alone.

Then stop pretending that theists agree with your explanation!

DAVID: My theodicy review of theist articles is accurate. You purposely conflate two discussions.

There is only one discussion. You believe that your God knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape etc., but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused. You claimed that theists agreed with you, according to every article you know. Do they or don’t they?

DAVID: […] Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!)

dhw: I’m surprised you hadn’t realized that “millions” suffer. According to you, your all-knowing God went ahead deliberately creating a system he knew would result in the free-willed Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews. I’m not arguing against free will. I’m asking why/how an all-good God could knowingly create a system that would lead to such horrific evil.

DAVID: I accept He did.

dhw: Your acceptance does not answer the question how you can reconcile your God’s advance awareness that his invention of free will would result in Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews, with the theory that he is all-good? If your all-powerful, all-knowing God is the first cause of everything that has ever existed, where did evil come from?

DAVID: Simple answer repeated: evil is a side effect of God's good works.

Answered under “Microbiome (Back to theodicy)”.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, September 11, 2023, 18:28 (199 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You attack Raup's statistical results…

dhw:They are irrelevant to the question why, according to your theory, a God whose one and only purpose was to produce us plus food “had to” produce 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food.***

They are relevant as they quantify the loss that must happen in an evolutionary culling process.


DAVID: ….and reach an irrational premise about God's use of evolution because He had the obvious purpose of producing humans. Adler's argument is no natural process could have done it. Your attempt at theism is unrecognizable.

dhw: The ID argument is that no “natural” process could have produced the complexities of all species. The irrational premise is the theory bolded above***. You admit that you have no idea why your God would have used such a method to achieve such a purpose. I suggest that an irrational theory that makes no sense to the theorist himself is probably wrong.

God does not talk with me. His reasons are unknown, but His goal is obvious.


DAVID: I've explained 99.9% loss is a required result in the evolutionary process. You make a mockery of a statistical result from a method God chose to use. You have agreed in the past God had that right.

dhw: I agree that the vast majority of species have been lost, and you agree that they were irrelevant to what you believe was your God’s purpose. As first cause, your all-powerful God therefore invented a system which forced him to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. One moment he “had to”, the next moment he “chose to”. Your self-contradiction is yet more evidence that, as you admit, your theory makes no sense even to you.

I'm sorry it makes no sense to you. I accept how God did it. God knew exactly what to do.


DAVID: You found the problem, finally. God is selfless so when we think He enjoys, etc., it must be in an allegorical sense as Adler advises.

dhw: Stop messing about with language. If “selfless” means “selfless”, “enjoy” means “enjoy”. YOU know what you mean by both terms, and so you are sure that your God takes pleasure in creating and watching his creations. How can he do so without a “self”? Why do you use words if you don’t think they mean what they mean to you?

I understand how I use words about God allegorically, as taught by Adler. I wish you did.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: My views of God are mine alone.

dhw: Then stop pretending that theists agree with your explanation!

My views of theodicy are theists published views. Stop mixing two subjects!!

From here: Friday, September 01, 2023, 18:27

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwqQdpjfGvpFVPlsHHvXCGNWT

"Revealing whales’ secrets to long, cancer-free lives"

"Note the bold. Cancers are the result of mistakes as cell split in mitosis, a very complicated process with many events occurring all at once, under tight controls. Our bodies cells do this trillions of times a day, which means cancer is actually a very rare outcome. This should be noted in the theodicy thread for dhw's edification."

You didn't reply.


DAVID: […] Holocaust from evil free-willed Hitler. (A side effect!)

dhw: I’m surprised you hadn’t realized that “millions” suffer. According to you, your all-knowing God went ahead deliberately creating a system he knew would result in the free-willed Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews. I’m not arguing against free will. I’m asking why/how an all-good God could knowingly create a system that would lead to such horrific evil.

DAVID: I accept He did.

dhw: Your acceptance does not answer the question how you can reconcile your God’s advance awareness that his invention of free will would result in Hitler & Co slaughtering 6 million Jews, with the theory that he is all-good? If your all-powerful, all-knowing God is the first cause of everything that has ever existed, where did evil come from?

DAVID: Simple answer repeated: evil is a side effect of God's good works.

Answered under “Microbiome (Back to theodicy)”.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 08:18 (199 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You attack Raup's statistical results…

dhw:They are irrelevant to the question why, according to your theory, a God whose one and only purpose was to produce us plus food “had to” produce 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food.***

DAVID: They are relevant as they quantify the loss that must happen in an evolutionary culling process

How many evolutions are you talking about? We know of only one evolution of life on Earth. There is no “must”. Extinctions are a matter of history, but not of some unknown law. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus food, it doesn’t make the slightest difference whether 99.9% or 89.9% or even 50% of his designs were irrelevant to his purpose; you admit that you still can’t find any reason why he “had to” design species that had no connection with his purpose. Your theory makes no sense to you, so stop dodging.

DAVID: God does not talk with me. His reasons are unknown, but His goal is obvious.

How can his obvious goal be us and our food if he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food? If you can’t think of any reason, then it makes no sense to you.

DAVID: I'm sorry it makes no sense to you. I accept how God did it. God knew exactly what to do.

You can’t even decide if he “had to” or “chose to” use the method you impose on him. What you accept is your own theory about your God’s purpose and his illogical way of achieving it. I can well believe that if God exists, he knew exactly what to do in order to achieve his purpose, but that doesn’t mean his purpose and method had to be your irrational mess of a theory which makes no sense to me or to you.

DAVID: God is selfless so when we think He enjoys, etc., it must be in an allegorical sense as Adler advises.

dhw: Stop messing about with language. If “selfless” means “selfless”, “enjoy” means “enjoy”. YOU know what you mean by both terms, and so you are sure that your God takes pleasure in creating and watching his creations. How can he do so without a “self”? Why do you use words if you don’t think they mean what they mean to you?

DAVID: I understand how I use words about God allegorically, as taught by Adler. I wish you did.

When you told us you were sure your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, what did you mean by the words “enjoy” and “interested”? And please tell us the allegorical meaning of “selfless”.

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: My views of God are mine alone.

dhw: Then stop pretending that theists agree with your explanation!

DAVID: My views of theodicy are theists published views. Stop mixing two subjects!!

I asked if theists “were as happy as you” with your view (which I bolded) that your God “knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and diseases, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused.” You said yes. But I’m pleased to hear that you now wish to withdraw your claim that theists support your view, and perhaps you will now stop moaning that my own proposals are also out of line with what some theists think.

DAVID: From here: Friday, September 01, 2023, 18:27
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwqQdpjfGvpFVPlsHHvXCGNWT

DAVID: "Revealing whales’ secrets to long, cancer-free lives"
"Note the bold. Cancers are the result of mistakes as cell split in mitosis, a very complicated process with many events occurring all at once, under tight controls. Our bodies cells do this trillions of times a day, which means cancer is actually a very rare outcome. This should be noted in the theodicy thread for dhw's edification.
"
You didn't reply.

There is nothing to reply to! One of your dodges is to minimize the extent of evil, as if that solved the problem of theodicy. Millions of people suffer from the effects of war, murder, famines, floods, diseases (including cancer) etc., but your answer to the question how/why an all-good God could create such evils is that we shouldn’t take any notice of them, because God created lots more good than bad. Stop dodging.

dhw: […] If your all-powerful, all-knowing God is the first cause of everything that has ever existed, where did evil come from?

DAVID: Simple answer repeated: evil is a side effect of God's good works.

Answered under “Microbiome (Back to theodicy)”.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 12, 2023, 17:36 (198 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: How many evolutions are you talking about? We know of only one evolution of life on Earth. There is no “must”. Extinctions are a matter of history, but not of some unknown law. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus food, it doesn’t make the slightest difference whether 99.9% or 89.9% or even 50% of his designs were irrelevant to his purpose; you admit that you still can’t find any reason why he “had to” design species that had no connection with his purpose. Your theory makes no sense to you, so stop dodging.

Your entirely false premise ignores the facts of present life: evolution produced a vast diversity of life that provides our food for over 8+ billion humans with an increasing population. God's works studied teleologically are fully comprehensible. That is something you do not even entertain.


dhw: You can’t even decide if he “had to” or “chose to” use the method you impose on him. What you accept is your own theory about your God’s purpose and his illogical way of achieving it. I can well believe that if God exists, he knew exactly what to do in order to achieve his purpose, but that doesn’t mean his purpose and method had to be your irrational mess of a theory which makes no sense to me or to you.

Still missing the point as expressed above.


DAVID: God is selfless so when we think He enjoys, etc., it must be in an allegorical sense as Adler advises.

dhw: Stop messing about with language. If “selfless” means “selfless”, “enjoy” means “enjoy”. YOU know what you mean by both terms, and so you are sure that your God takes pleasure in creating and watching his creations. How can he do so without a “self”? Why do you use words if you don’t think they mean what they mean to you?

DAVID: I understand how I use words about God allegorically, as taught by Adler. I wish you did.

dhw: When you told us you were sure your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, what did you mean by the words “enjoy” and “interested”? And please tell us the allegorical meaning of “selfless”.

Those words in our language have meanings to us. God is in our imagination as a pure state of being and our words are insufficient to describe Him.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: My views of God are mine alone.

dhw: Then stop pretending that theists agree with your explanation!

DAVID: My views of theodicy are theists published views. Stop mixing two subjects!!

dhw: I asked if theists “were as happy as you” with your view (which I bolded) that your God “knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and diseases, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused.” You said yes. But I’m pleased to hear that you now wish to withdraw your claim that theists support your view, and perhaps you will now stop moaning that my own proposals are also out of line with what some theists think.

Tell us of any theists who agree with your God proposals.


DAVID: From here: Friday, September 01, 2023, 18:27
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzGtwqQdpjfGvpFVPlsHHvXCGNWT

DAVID: "Revealing whales’ secrets to long, cancer-free lives"
"Note the bold. Cancers are the result of mistakes as cell split in mitosis, a very complicated process with many events occurring all at once, under tight controls. Our bodies cells do this trillions of times a day, which means cancer is actually a very rare outcome. This should be noted in the theodicy thread for dhw's edification.
"
You didn't reply.

dhw: There is nothing to reply to! One of your dodges is to minimize the extent of evil, as if that solved the problem of theodicy. Millions of people suffer from the effects of war, murder, famines, floods, diseases (including cancer) etc., but your answer to the question how/why an all-good God could create such evils is that we shouldn’t take any notice of them, because God created lots more good than bad. Stop dodging.

Your usual non-answer to facts: "Cancers are the result of mistakes as cell split in mitosis, a very complicated process with many events occurring all at once, under tight controls. Our bodies cells do this trillions of times a day, which means cancer is actually a very rare outcome." You are crying over an additive result. I don't like cancer any more than you do, but my view is much more reasonable.


dhw: […] If your all-powerful, all-knowing God is the first cause of everything that has ever existed, where did evil come from?

DAVID: Simple answer repeated: evil is a side effect of God's good works.

Answered under “Microbiome (Back to theodicy)”.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, September 13, 2023, 11:15 (198 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] Extinctions are a matter of history, but not of some unknown law. If your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us plus food, it doesn’t make the slightest difference whether 99.9% or 89.9% or even 50% of his designs were irrelevant to his purpose; bbbyou admit that you still can’t find any reason why he “had to” design species that had no connection with his purpose.bbb Your theory makes no sense to you, so stop dodging.

DAVID: Your entirely false premise ignores the facts of present life: evolution produced a vast diversity of life that provides our food for over 8+ billion humans with an increasing population. God's works studied teleologically are fully comprehensible. That is something you do not even entertain.

What false premise? I have reproduced your theory. According to you and Raup, only 0.1% of evolution produced us and our food, but you insist that your God specially designed the other irrelevant 99.9% and you don’t know why. In other words, if you study your God’s works, telelology makes the 99.9% incomprehensible! However, when I offer you different purposes for his works, you refuse to “entertain” them.

dhw: You can’t even decide if he “had to” or “chose to” use the method you impose on him.

Not answered.

DAVID: God is selfless so when we think He enjoys, etc., it must be in an allegorical sense as Adler advises.

dhw: When you told us you were sure your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, what did you mean by the words “enjoy” and “interested”? And please tell us the allegorical meaning of “selfless”.

DAVID: Those words in our language have meanings to us. God is in our imagination as a pure state of being and our words are insufficient to describe Him.

I presume you know what you mean when you say your God is “selfless”. What did you mean when you said you were sure he “enjoyed” creating and was “interested” in his creations?

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: My views of God are mine alone.

dhw: Then stop pretending that theists agree with your explanation!

DAVID: My views of theodicy are theists published views. Stop mixing two subjects!!

dhw: I asked if theists “were as happy as you” with your view (which I bolded) that your God “knew in advance that his inventions would result in war, murder, rape, floods, famines and diseases, but went ahead and was powerless to prevent all the suffering these evils have caused.” You said yes.

DAVID: Tell us of any theists who agree with your God proposals.

It’s you who claimed that theists agreed with you, presumably thinking that this would somehow invalidate my arguments, but then you said that your theories were yours alone! I couldn’t care less if theists agree or don’t agree with my theories. Why can’t you just stick to the arguments?

dhw: One of your dodges is to minimize the extent of evil, as if that solved the problem of theodicy. Millions of people suffer from the effects of war, murder, famines, floods, diseases (including cancer) etc., but your answer to the question how/why an all-good God could create such evils is that we shouldn’t take any notice of them, because God created lots more good than bad. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Your usual non-answer to facts: "Cancers are the result of mistakes as cell split in mitosis, a very complicated process with many events occurring all at once, under tight controls. Our bodies cells do this trillions of times a day, which means cancer is actually a very rare outcome." You are crying over an additive result. I don't like cancer any more than you do, but my view is much more reasonable.

I am not disputing your facts. Theodicy is not concerned with statistics, and cancer is only one of countless diseases and other “evils” such as war, murder, rape, famine, flood…The question you are so desperate to dodge with your statistics is why/how an all-good God could create a system resulting in evil. The comparative rarity of cancer does not answer the question, so please stop dodging!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 13, 2023, 18:01 (197 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your entirely false premise ignores the facts of present life: evolution produced a vast diversity of life that provides our food for over 8+ billion humans with an increasing population. God's works studied teleologically are fully comprehensible. That is something you do not even entertain.

dhw: What false premise? I have reproduced your theory. According to you and Raup, only 0.1% of evolution produced us and our food, but you insist that your God specially designed the other irrelevant 99.9% and you don’t know why. In other words, if you study your God’s works, telelology makes the 99.9% incomprehensible! However, when I offer you different purposes for his works, you refuse to “entertain” them.

The 99.9% loss came from God's evolution producing an evolved Earth with its current huge bush of life which is our food supply. See Privileged Plant entry today.


dhw: You can’t even decide if he “had to” or “chose to” use the method you impose on him.

Not answered.

Answered many times before: God chose to evolve us. It was the method He felt He had to use as best available.


DAVID: Those words in our language have meanings to us. God is in our imagination as a pure state of being and our words are insufficient to describe Him.

dhw: I presume you know what you mean when you say your God is “selfless”. What did you mean when you said you were sure he “enjoyed” creating and was “interested” in his creations?

Just that!!! Our words applied to God allegorically.


Evolution and theodicy

dhw: One of your dodges is to minimize the extent of evil, as if that solved the problem of theodicy. Millions of people suffer from the effects of war, murder, famines, floods, diseases (including cancer) etc., but your answer to the question how/why an all-good God could create such evils is that we shouldn’t take any notice of them, because God created lots more good than bad. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Your usual non-answer to facts: "Cancers are the result of mistakes as cell split in mitosis, a very complicated process with many events occurring all at once, under tight controls. Our bodies cells do this trillions of times a day, which means cancer is actually a very rare outcome." You are crying over an additive result. I don't like cancer any more than you do, but my view is much more reasonable.

dhw: I am not disputing your facts. Theodicy is not concerned with statistics, and cancer is only one of countless diseases and other “evils” such as war, murder, rape, famine, flood…The question you are so desperate to dodge with your statistics is why/how an all-good God could create a system resulting in evil. The comparative rarity of cancer does not answer the question, so please stop dodging!

"War, rape, and famine" are the result of evil humans, not God. The flood deaths in Libya from storm Dan are due to storm surge and a broken dam. All due to human error. Our warning systems here always prevent such a mess. None of this is God's fault.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 13, 2023, 20:22 (197 days ago) @ David Turell

Ed Feser:

Back to theodicy and David's theories: Ed Feser's take (The nature of a \'Creator\')
by David Turell @, Tuesday, April 13, 2021, 21:44 (883 days ago) @ David Turell

"Feser is a theological philosopher who follows Thomism. This essay away the problem of evil and discusses proper allegorical treatment of God. Note the reference to ecosystems, animals do what animals do.

https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/4/268/htm

"For the Thomist, when one properly understands what God is and what morality and moral agents are, it simply makes no sense to think of God as less than perfectly good or as morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists.

***

"For Thomists God is utterly distinct from the natural order of things, creating and sustaining it in being ex nihilo while being in no way affected by it in turn. But the “logical problem of evil” implicitly presupposes that God is himself part of the natural order, or at least causally related to it in something like the way that entities within that order are related to one another.

***

"Goodness or badness as general features of the world are, on this account, to be analyzed in terms of how fully a substance actualizes the potentials which, given its nature, it needs to actualize in order to be a flourishing instance of its kind.

***

"Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature. For example, it is good for beavers to gnaw at and fell trees. They cannot flourish as the kinds of things they are without doing so. But obviously, their doing so is not good for trees. Now, a natural order with both beavers and trees in it has more kinds of goodness in it than a natural order without both. Hence, an increase in the amount of goodness in the world can in some cases entail also an increase in certain kinds of badness as a necessary concomitant.

***

"Now, where does God fit into this picture? The answer is that he does not fit into it at all. He is no more a part of the natural order—and thus no more part of the moral order that is a segment of the natural order—than an author is part of a novel or than a painter is part of a painting. Rather, he is the necessary precondition of there being any natural order at all, just as an author is the necessary precondition of there being any novel at all and a painter is a necessary precondition of there being any painting at all. And conceiving of God on the model of a natural substance is like conceiving of an author as an additional character in a novel, or conceiving of a painter as one of the images in a painting.

***

"When a natural substance brings about an effect, it works through parts (such as the hand you use to move a stick) and itself undergoes change over time as it does so (as when your arm flexes and changes position when moving the stick). Nothing like this happens with divine causality, since God is non-composite, immutable, and eternal. When a natural substance exercises causal power, it does so in accordance with the laws of nature that describe its characteristic mode of behaving. But God is not governed by laws of nature, since those laws are themselves precisely among the things he causes in creating the natural order that the laws describe.
For these reasons, the Thomist holds that the language we use when describing God and his causal relationship to the world must be understood in an analogical way, where analogy is a middle ground sort of usage lying between the univocal and equivocal uses of terms.

***

"The “god of the gaps” approach is indeed feeble, but it has nothing to do with the arguments of Thomists and other classical theists. They are not trying to fill explanatory gaps within the natural order studied by science, but rather explaining what empirical science itself presupposes but cannot account for—namely, the fact that there is any natural order at all in the first place. The “god of the gaps” approach is like supposing that to say that a painting presupposes a painter amounts to positing an as-yet unseen person lurking somewhere in the image (“Where’s Waldo?” style), or that to say that a novel presupposes an author amounts to positing a character in the story who somehow escaped the reader’s notice on a first reading

***

"Since God cannot possibly be in danger and has no appetites, he cannot intelligibly be said to possess virtues like courage and temperance. More generally, God is not subject to the natural law, any more than he is subject to physical laws.

***

"More generally, if you are going to create a natural order with all the specific kinds of goodness that ours exhibits—the goodness of lions, gazelles, birds, worms, bacteria, and so on—then, given their natures, certain sorts of badness (gazelles eaten by lions, worms eaten by birds, diseases caused by bacteria, etc.) are going to be a concomitant. The overall order is good, and the badness that accompanies it is a necessary part of that good, without which that particular kind of good could not exist. You might have a world with things that looked like lions but did not eat gazelles, but they would not be lions. If you want lions, the occasional dead gazelle is part of the package.

Comment: obviously dhw should answer Feser as he did not last time.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, September 14, 2023, 12:34 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I have reproduced your theory. According to you and Raup, only 0.1% of evolution produced us and our food, but you insist that your God specially designed the other irrelevant 99.9% and you don’t know why. In other words, if you study your God’s works, telelology makes the 99.9% incomprehensible! However, when I offer you different purposes for his works, you refuse to “entertain” them.

DAVID: The 99.9% loss came from God's evolution producing an evolved Earth with its current huge bush of life which is our food supply. See Privileged Plant entry today.

That does not explain why your God “had to” or “chose to” design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: Answered many times before: God chose to evolve us. It was the method He felt He had to use as best available.

So he could have used other methods, e.g. he could have designed us plus food directly instead of designing 99.9 species that had no connection with us plus food, but for reasons which make no sense to you or me, he felt he "had to" design them and then lose them (apparently relying on luck to get rid of them).

DAVID: Those words in our language have meanings to us. God is in our imagination as a pure state of being and our words are insufficient to describe Him.

dhw: I presume you know what you mean when you say your God is “selfless”. What did you mean when you said you were sure he “enjoyed” creating and was “interested” in his creations?

DAVID: Just that!!! Our words applied to God allegorically.

Enjoy means to gain pleasure from something. Do you or do you not think your God gains pleasure from creating?

Reading God’s nature (Feser)

QUOTE: the skeptic can no more pretend that his position is neutral about them than the theist can.

An excellent insight which forms the very basis of agnosticism.

DAVID: note the comment about analogical use of words when describing God. I could use metaphorical in that same sense. I have used allegorical in the sense of hidden meaning. Adler tells us any definition of 'God' is extremely difficult to achieve. So we know what words mean in our level of existence, but we really do not know how they apply to God and His personality.

We don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he does or doesn’t have. However, WE know what we mean when we use terms like enjoy, interested, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and if you don’t think they mean what you think they mean, you should stop using them altogether. (More on Feser in the next post.)

Evolution and theodicy

dhw:Theodicy is not concerned with statistics, and cancer is only one of countless diseases and other “evils” such as war, murder, rape, famine, flood…The question you are so desperate to dodge with your statistics is why/how an all-good God could create a system resulting in evil. The comparative rarity of cancer does not answer the question, so please stop dodging!

DAVID: "War, rape, and famine" are the result of evil humans, not God. The flood deaths in Libya from storm Dan are due to storm surge and a broken dam. All due to human error. Our warning systems here always prevent such a mess. None of this is God's fault.

As regards environmental catastrophes, you have never managed to sort out whether you think your God is responsible or not. (I’m not thinking of those caused by human error. There were environmental catastrophes long before sapiens came on the scene.) And of course humans cause the evils of war, murder and rape. But your God knew they would when, according to you, he gave them free will. So once again, how can all-knowing God deliberately create a system which he knows will result in evil and yet be all-good?

DAVID(transferred from “microbiome”): I've given you the current answers.

dhw: You’ve given me the following answers: 1) evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it; 2) Your all-knowing God “had to” or “chose to” (you keep switching) design a system which he knew in advance would result in all the forms of evil we know, and he is all-good but actually wants to create evil because if he created an Eden, humans wouldn’t be able to invent “something else”.

DAVID: The bold is nonsense. Evil is a byproduct of God's works.

The bold refers to your statement that “an idealistic Eden would not push us to invent something else”. Again: If your God deliberately created a system which he knew would lead to evil, how can he be all-good? And why do you use such a term if it doesn’t mean what you mean but is “allegorical!” or “analogous” or “metaphorical”? And if your God is all-powerful, why do you think he "had to" design something he didn't want to design?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Thursday, September 14, 2023, 12:59 (196 days ago) @ dhw

FESER: when one properly understands what God is and what morality and moral agents are, it simply makes no sense to think of God as less than perfectly good or as morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists.

Who judges what is the “proper” understanding? If there is a God who created what Feser calls the “natural order”, and the natural order produces evil, how does that mean God must be perfectly good? Of course he’s not “morally obligated” to prevent the evil. He does what he wants to do! How does Feser know that his God doesn’t WANT the evil that has emerged from the natural order?

FESER: But the “logical problem of evil” implicitly presupposes that God is himself part of the natural order.

No it doesn’t. Like the author and painter Feser introduces later, he can create his work without being part of it! An implicit presupposition might be that an all-knowing God knew his work would result in evil, in which case Feser’s approach fits in perfectly with a God who set up the system, and then allowed it to develop in one great free-for-all.

FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.

FESER: the Thomist holds that the language we use when describing God and his causal relationship to the world must be understood in an analogical way, where analogy is a middle ground sort of usage lying between the univocal and equivocal uses of terms.

Sheer obfuscation. When Feser describes God as “perfectly” good, what is the analogy? When you say God “enjoys” creating, what is the analogy? If the words don’t mean what you think they mean, you should not use them in the first place!

FESER: The overall order is good, and the badness that accompanies it is a necessary part of that good, without which that particular kind of good could not exist. You might have a world with things that looked like lions but did not eat gazelles, but they would not be lions. If you want lions, the occasional dead gazelle is part of the package.

The overall order is good for the lion and bad for the gazelle. I suggest that human free will is good for humans when it leads to love and kindness, and bad for humans when it leads to war, murder and rape. If Feser’s God exists, he created this natural order, which has resulted in the good and the bad. Yes of course it would be a different world if lions didn’t eat gazelles and if humans didn’t murder one another and if there were no environmental disasters. The question is how a God who created a system which produced evil can still be “perfectly good”. Ah, maybe “perfectly good” is an analogy for a sort of perfect goodness mixed with imperfect badness. Who knows? Maybe Feser and his fellow Thomists shouldn’t bother trying to describe God at all, since none of their words mean what they say.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 14, 2023, 21:00 (196 days ago) @ dhw

FESER: when one properly understands what God is and what morality and moral agents are, it simply makes no sense to think of God as less than perfectly good or as morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists.

dhw: Who judges what is the “proper” understanding? If there is a God who created what Feser calls the “natural order”, and the natural order produces evil, how does that mean God must be perfectly good? Of course he’s not “morally obligated” to prevent the evil. He does what he wants to do! How does Feser know that his God doesn’t WANT the evil that has emerged from the natural order?

Remember the word 'sin'? We are warned about sinning by God!!!


FESER: But the “logical problem of evil” implicitly presupposes that God is himself part of the natural order.

dhw: No it doesn’t. Like the author and painter Feser introduces later, he can create his work without being part of it! An implicit presupposition might be that an all-knowing God knew his work would result in evil, in which case Feser’s approach fits in perfectly with a God who set up the system, and then allowed it to develop in one great free-for-all.

He didn't control any organism from free will, freedom of action.


FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

dhw: Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.

Agreed. Everyone consumes necessary daily energy.


FESER: the Thomist holds that the language we use when describing God and his causal relationship to the world must be understood in an analogical way, where analogy is a middle ground sort of usage lying between the univocal and equivocal uses of terms.

dhw: Sheer obfuscation. When Feser describes God as “perfectly” good, what is the analogy? When you say God “enjoys” creating, what is the analogy? If the words don’t mean what you think they mean, you should not use them in the first place!

When they apply to God they have a special meaning only partially known to us. (Pure Adler)


FESER: The overall order is good, and the badness that accompanies it is a necessary part of that good, without which that particular kind of good could not exist. You might have a world with things that looked like lions but did not eat gazelles, but they would not be lions. If you want lions, the occasional dead gazelle is part of the package.

dhw: The overall order is good for the lion and bad for the gazelle. I suggest that human free will is good for humans when it leads to love and kindness, and bad for humans when it leads to war, murder and rape. If Feser’s God exists, he created this natural order, which has resulted in the good and the bad. Yes of course it would be a different world if lions didn’t eat gazelles and if humans didn’t murder one another and if there were no environmental disasters. The question is how a God who created a system which produced evil can still be “perfectly good”. Ah, maybe “perfectly good” is an analogy for a sort of perfect goodness mixed with imperfect badness. Who knows? Maybe Feser and his fellow Thomists shouldn’t bother trying to describe God at all, since none of their words mean what they say.

I pity you. All of this theism is perfectly clear to me. The words imply a sense about God at our level of understanding, but realizing we do not know how the words exactly apply to God. An easy concept to understand.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Friday, September 15, 2023, 11:11 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

FESER: when one properly understands what God is and what morality and moral agents are, it simply makes no sense to think of God as less than perfectly good or as morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists.

dhw: Who judges what is the “proper” understanding? If there is a God who created what Feser calls the “natural order”, and the natural order produces evil, how does that mean God must be perfectly good? Of course he’s not “morally obligated” to prevent the evil. He does what he wants to do! How does Feser know that his God doesn’t WANT the evil that has emerged from the natural order?

DAVID: Remember the word 'sin'? We are warned about sinning by God!!!

God has never warned me about anything. When did you last talk to him? However, according to your theory, even if he warned us, it can only have been lip-service since apparently he knew in advance exactly what sins we humans would commit!

FESER: But the “logical problem of evil” implicitly presupposes that God is himself part of the natural order.

dhw: No it doesn’t. Like the author and painter Feser introduces later, he can create his work without being part of it! An implicit presupposition might be that an all-knowing God knew his work would result in evil, in which case Feser’s approach fits in perfectly with a God who set up the system, and then allowed it to develop in one great free-for-all.

DAVID: He didn't control any organism from free will, freedom of action.

Yes, a free-for-all, which means that God is NOT part of the natural order. But if he created the natural order, and opted to allow all the evil he knew the free-for-all would produce, how does that come to mean that he is “perfectly good”?

FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

dhw: Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.

DAVID: Agreed. Everyone consumes necessary daily energy.

The need for daily energy has nothing to do with war, murder and rape. My point is that if God wanted evil, of course he would not be “morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists”.

FESER: the Thomist holds that the language we use when describing God and his causal relationship to the world must be understood in an analogical way, where analogy is a middle ground sort of usage lying between the univocal and equivocal uses of terms.

dhw: Sheer obfuscation. When Feser describes God as “perfectly” good, what is the analogy? When you say God “enjoys” creating, what is the analogy? If the words don’t mean what you think they mean, you should not use them in the first place!

DAVID: When they apply to God they have a special meaning only partially known to us. (Pure Adler)

We invented the words. There is no “special” meaning. We simply don’t know if the words apply to him.

FESER: The overall order is good, and the badness that accompanies it is a necessary part of that good, without which that particular kind of good could not exist. You might have a world with things that looked like lions but did not eat gazelles, but they would not be lions. If you want lions, the occasional dead gazelle is part of the package.

dhw: The overall order is good for the lion and bad for the gazelle. I suggest that human free will is good for humans when it leads to love and kindness, and bad for humans when it leads to war, murder and rape. If Feser’s God exists, he created this natural order, which has resulted in the good and the bad. Yes of course it would be a different world if lions didn’t eat gazelles and if humans didn’t murder one another and if there were no environmental disasters. The question is how a God who created a system which produced evil can still be “perfectly good”. Ah, maybe “perfectly good” is an analogy for a sort of perfect goodness mixed with imperfect badness. Who knows? Maybe Feser and his fellow Thomists shouldn’t bother trying to describe God at all, since none of their words mean what they say.

DAVID: I pity you. All of this theism is perfectly clear to me. The words imply a sense about God at our level of understanding, but realizing we do not know how the words exactly apply to God. An easy concept to understand.

What is easy to understand is that we don’t know if God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, enjoys, is interested etc. If you and Feser don’t know if God is “perfectly good” in our sense of the words, then don’t tell us he is “perfectly good”.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Friday, September 15, 2023, 17:28 (195 days ago) @ dhw

FESER: when one properly understands what God is and what morality and moral agents are, it simply makes no sense to think of God as less than perfectly good or as morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists.

dhw: Who judges what is the “proper” understanding? If there is a God who created what Feser calls the “natural order”, and the natural order produces evil, how does that mean God must be perfectly good? Of course he’s not “morally obligated” to prevent the evil. He does what he wants to do! How does Feser know that his God doesn’t WANT the evil that has emerged from the natural order?

DAVID: Remember the word 'sin'? We are warned about sinning by God!!!

dhw: God has never warned me about anything. When did you last talk to him? However, according to your theory, even if he warned us, it can only have been lip-service since apparently he knew in advance exactly what sins we humans would commit!

God warned you in religious services before you left your religion.


FESER: But the “logical problem of evil” implicitly presupposes that God is himself part of the natural order.

dhw: No it doesn’t. Like the author and painter Feser introduces later, he can create his work without being part of it! An implicit presupposition might be that an all-knowing God knew his work would result in evil, in which case Feser’s approach fits in perfectly with a God who set up the system, and then allowed it to develop in one great free-for-all.

DAVID: He didn't control any organism from free will, freedom of action.

dhw: Yes, a free-for-all, which means that God is NOT part of the natural order. But if he created the natural order, and opted to allow all the evil he knew the free-for-all would produce, how does that come to mean that he is “perfectly good”?

A presumption of theists and believers


FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

dhw: Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.

DAVID: Agreed. Everyone consumes necessary daily energy.

dhw: The need for daily energy has nothing to do with war, murder and rape. My point is that if God wanted evil, of course he would not be “morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists”.

He expects us to be obligated.


FESER: the Thomist holds that the language we use when describing God and his causal relationship to the world must be understood in an analogical way, where analogy is a middle ground sort of usage lying between the univocal and equivocal uses of terms.

dhw: Sheer obfuscation. When Feser describes God as “perfectly” good, what is the analogy? When you say God “enjoys” creating, what is the analogy? If the words don’t mean what you think they mean, you should not use them in the first place!

DAVID: When they apply to God they have a special meaning only partially known to us. (Pure Adler)

dhw: We invented the words. There is no “special” meaning. We simply don’t know if the words apply to him.

Exactly.


FESER: The overall order is good, and the badness that accompanies it is a necessary part of that good, without which that particular kind of good could not exist. You might have a world with things that looked like lions but did not eat gazelles, but they would not be lions. If you want lions, the occasional dead gazelle is part of the package.

dhw: The overall order is good for the lion and bad for the gazelle. I suggest that human free will is good for humans when it leads to love and kindness, and bad for humans when it leads to war, murder and rape. If Feser’s God exists, he created this natural order, which has resulted in the good and the bad. Yes of course it would be a different world if lions didn’t eat gazelles and if humans didn’t murder one another and if there were no environmental disasters. The question is how a God who created a system which produced evil can still be “perfectly good”. Ah, maybe “perfectly good” is an analogy for a sort of perfect goodness mixed with imperfect badness. Who knows? Maybe Feser and his fellow Thomists shouldn’t bother trying to describe God at all, since none of their words mean what they say.

DAVID: I pity you. All of this theism is perfectly clear to me. The words imply a sense about God at our level of understanding, but realizing we do not know how the words exactly apply to God. An easy concept to understand.

dhw: What is easy to understand is that we don’t know if God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, enjoys, is interested etc. If you and Feser don’t know if God is “perfectly good” in our sense of the words, then don’t tell us he is “perfectly good”.

Across Pascal's chasm/wager is all it applies. Over here God is 'perfectly good'.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 27, 2023, 14:02 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

FESER: when one properly understands what God is and what morality and moral agents are, it simply makes no sense to think of God as less than perfectly good or as morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists.

dhw: Who judges what is the “proper” understanding? If there is a God who created what Feser calls the “natural order”, and the natural order produces evil, how does that mean God must be perfectly good? Of course he’s not “morally obligated” to prevent the evil. He does what he wants to do! How does Feser know that his God doesn’t WANT the evil that has emerged from the natural order?

DAVID: Remember the word 'sin'? We are warned about sinning by God!!!

dhw: God has never warned me about anything. When did you last talk to him? However, according to your theory, even if he warned us, it can only have been lip-service since apparently he knew in advance exactly what sins we humans would commit!

DAVID: God warned you in religious services before you left your religion.

Surprise, surprise. I thought the religious services were conducted by human beings. My bolded question remains unanswered.

FESER: But the “logical problem of evil” implicitly presupposes that God is himself part of the natural order.

dhw: No it doesn’t. Like the author and painter Feser introduces later, he can create his work without being part of it! An implicit presupposition might be that an all-knowing God knew his work would result in evil, in which case Feser’s approach fits in perfectly with a God who set up the system, and then allowed it to develop in one great free-for-all.

DAVID: He didn't control any organism from free will, freedom of action.

dhw: Yes, a free-for-all, which means that God is NOT part of the natural order. But if he created the natural order, and opted to allow all the evil he knew the free-for-all would produce, how does that come to mean that he is “perfectly good”?

DAVID: A presumption of theists and believers.

Meaningless, since you don’t know whether your terminology (e.g. enjoy, interest, selfless, all-good) means the same to your God as it does to you.

FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

dhw: Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.

DAVID: Agreed. Everyone consumes necessary daily energy.

dhw: The need for daily energy has nothing to do with war, murder and rape. My point is that if God wanted evil, of course he would not be “morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists”.

DAVID: He expects us to be obligated.

There you go again, pretending you can read your God’s mind.

DAVID: When they [specific words] apply to God they have a special meaning only partially known to us. (Pure Adler)

dhw: We invented the words. There is no “special” meaning. We simply don’t know if the words apply to him.

DAVID: Exactly.

So you agree that “enjoy” means to take pleasure, but you can’t be certain that he takes pleasure in creating, although you are certain that he takes pleasure in creating.

DAVID: The words imply a sense about God at our level of understanding, but realizing we do not know how the words exactly apply to God. An easy concept to understand.

dhw: What is easy to understand is that we don’t know if God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, enjoys, is interested etc. If you and Feser don’t know if God is “perfectly good” in our sense of the words, then don’t tell us he is “perfectly good”.

DAVID: Across Pascal's chasm/wager is all it applies. Over here God is 'perfectly good'.

This has nothing to do with Pascal’s wager. You keep loading your God with attributes, but the moment I point out alternative views, you bury your head in the sand (re theodicy) and you resort to questioning the meaning of words other than those which you approve of.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 27, 2023, 17:41 (183 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God warned you in religious services before you left your religion.

dhw: Surprise, surprise. I thought the religious services were conducted by human beings. My bolded question remains unanswered.

Surprise, Rabbis present the word of God.


FESER: But the “logical problem of evil” implicitly presupposes that God is himself part of the natural order.

dhw: No it doesn’t. Like the author and painter Feser introduces later, he can create his work without being part of it! An implicit presupposition might be that an all-knowing God knew his work would result in evil, in which case Feser’s approach fits in perfectly with a God who set up the system, and then allowed it to develop in one great free-for-all.

DAVID: He didn't control any organism from free will, freedom of action.

dhw: Yes, a free-for-all, which means that God is NOT part of the natural order. But if he created the natural order, and opted to allow all the evil he knew the free-for-all would produce, how does that come to mean that he is “perfectly good”?

DAVID: A presumption of theists and believers.

dhw: Meaningless, since you don’t know whether your terminology (e.g. enjoy, interest, selfless, all-good) means the same to your God as it does to you.

And you don't know either! So we can discuss understanding the problem of meaning.


FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

dhw: Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.

DAVID: Agreed. Everyone consumes necessary daily energy.

dhw: The need for daily energy has nothing to do with war, murder and rape. My point is that if God wanted evil, of course he would not be “morally obligated to prevent the evil that exists”.

DAVID: He expects us to be obligated.

dhw: There you go again, pretending you can read your God’s mind.

Of course, I can't. But I can assume what God might want of us.


DAVID: When they [specific words] apply to God they have a special meaning only partially known to us. (Pure Adler)

dhw: We invented the words. There is no “special” meaning. We simply don’t know if the words apply to him.

DAVID: Exactly.

dhw: So you agree that “enjoy” means to take pleasure, but you can’t be certain that he takes pleasure in creating, although you are certain that he takes pleasure in creating.

No, I can't be certain!!! But I use the terms for discussing at our level of existence.


DAVID: The words imply a sense about God at our level of understanding, but realizing we do not know how the words exactly apply to God. An easy concept to understand.

dhw: What is easy to understand is that we don’t know if God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, enjoys, is interested etc. If you and Feser don’t know if God is “perfectly good” in our sense of the words, then don’t tell us he is “perfectly good”.

DAVID: Across Pascal's chasm/wager is all it applies. Over here God is 'perfectly good'.

dhw: This has nothing to do with Pascal’s wager. You keep loading your God with attributes, but the moment I point out alternative views, you bury your head in the sand (re theodicy) and you resort to questioning the meaning of words other than those which you approve of.

I approve of all words. Their usage is at issue as they attempt to describe God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Thursday, September 28, 2023, 07:33 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God warned you in religious services before you left your religion.

dhw: Surprise, surprise. I thought the religious services were conducted by human beings. My bolded question remains unanswered.

DAVID: Surprise, Rabbis present the word of God.

How do you know it’s the word of God? My unanswered question was: How does Feser know that his God doesn’t WANT the evil that has emerged from the natural order?

FESER: But the “logical problem of evil” implicitly presupposes that God is himself part of the natural order.

dhw: No it doesn’t. Like the author and painter Feser introduces later, he can create his work without being part of it! An implicit presupposition might be that an all-knowing God knew his work would result in evil, in which case Feser’s approach fits in perfectly with a God who set up the system, and then allowed it to develop in one great free-for-all.

DAVID: He didn't control any organism from free will, freedom of action.

dhw: Yes, a free-for-all, which means that God is NOT part of the natural order. But if he created the natural order, and opted to allow all the evil he knew the free-for-all would produce, how does that come to mean that he is “perfectly good”?

DAVID: A presumption of theists and believers.

dhw: Meaningless, since you don’t know whether your terminology (e.g. enjoy, interest, selfless, all-good) means the same to your God as it does to you.

DAVID: And you don't know either! So we can discuss understanding the problem of meaning.

The only problem of meaning is that you choose to question meanings when you don’t like their implications (e.g. enjoyment and interest), but you don’t query the meanings of terms you like (e.g. selfless and all-good). The fact is, we both know exactly what you mean by all these terms. What we don’t know is whether they are applicable to your God or not.

FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

dhw: Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.[…]

DAVID: He expects us to be obligated.

dhw: There you go again, pretending you can read your God’s mind.

DAVID: Of course, I can't. But I can assume what God might want of us.

No you can’t. You can only theorize about what God might want of us, but since you insist that he is all-knowing and therefore knows precisely what we are going to do, it would clearly be absurd for him to tell us not to do what he already knows we are going to do. If he knows we’re going to do the evil he has enabled us to do, how can he be all-good? If free will leaves him NOT knowing what we’re going to do, how can he be all-knowing?

DAVID: When they [specific words] apply to God they have a special meaning only partially known to us. (Pure Adler)

dhw: We invented the words. There is no “special” meaning. We simply don’t know if the words apply to him.

DAVID: Exactly.

dhw: So you agree that “enjoy” means to take pleasure, but you can’t be certain that he takes pleasure in creating, although you are certain that he takes pleasure in creating.

DAVID: No, I can't be certain!!! But I use the terms for discussing at our level of existence.

Once upon a time, you were certain, just as you are certain that your God is all-good and selfless. If you think your God enjoys creating and is selfless and all-good, why should those terms only apply to our level of existence?

DAVID: The words imply a sense about God at our level of understanding, but realizing we do not know how the words exactly apply to God. An easy concept to understand.

dhw: What is easy to understand is that we don’t know if God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, enjoys, is interested etc. If you and Feser don’t know if God is “perfectly good” in our sense of the words, then don’t tell us he is “perfectly good”.

DAVID: […] Over here God is 'perfectly good'.

dhw:. […] You keep loading your God with attributes, but the moment I point out alternative views, you bury your head in the sand (re theodicy) and you resort to questioning the meaning of words other than those which you approve of.

DAVID: I approve of all words. Their usage is at issue as they attempt to describe God.

And that is why I say that if you renounce your previous belief that God enjoyed creating, you should also stop using such terms as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and selfless.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 28, 2023, 17:47 (182 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: How do you know it’s the word of God? My unanswered question was: How does Feser know that his God doesn’t WANT the evil that has emerged from the natural order?

God is presumed ethical. God obviously hates evil as we do.


DAVID: He didn't control any organism from free will, freedom of action.

dhw: Yes, a free-for-all, which means that God is NOT part of the natural order. But if he created the natural order, and opted to allow all the evil he knew the free-for-all would produce, how does that come to mean that he is “perfectly good”?

DAVID: A presumption of theists and believers.

dhw: Meaningless, since you don’t know whether your terminology (e.g. enjoy, interest, selfless, all-good) means the same to your God as it does to you.

DAVID: And you don't know either! So we can discuss understanding the problem of meaning.

dhw: The only problem of meaning is that you choose to question meanings when you don’t like their implications (e.g. enjoyment and interest), but you don’t query the meanings of terms you like (e.g. selfless and all-good). The fact is, we both know exactly what you mean by all these terms. What we don’t know is whether they are applicable to your God or not.

[/b]
Thank you for the bold, finally.


FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

dhw: Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.[…]

DAVID: He expects us to be obligated.

dhw: There you go again, pretending you can read your God’s mind.

DAVID: Of course, I can't. But I can assume what God might want of us.

dhw: No you can’t. You can only theorize about what God might want of us, but since you insist that he is all-knowing and therefore knows precisely what we are going to do, it would clearly be absurd for him to tell us not to do what he already knows we are going to do. If he knows we’re going to do the evil he has enabled us to do, how can he be all-good? If free will leaves him NOT knowing what we’re going to do, how can he be all-knowing?

I equate 'assume' with theorize. Our evil is not God's fault as you imply. His all-good action gave us free will which results in a much more fulfilling life for us. Believers discuss sin, recognizing it is not something God would want. 'All-knowing' means God knows we sin. You can't see that as a non-believer.

dhw: Once upon a time, you were certain, just as you are certain that your God is all-good and selfless. If you think your God enjoys creating and is selfless and all-good, why should those terms only apply to our level of existence?

DAVID: The words imply a sense about God at our level of understanding, but realizing we do not know how the words exactly apply to God. An easy concept to understand.

dhw: What is easy to understand is that we don’t know if God is all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, enjoys, is interested etc. If you and Feser don’t know if God is “perfectly good” in our sense of the words, then don’t tell us he is “perfectly good”.

DAVID: […] Over here God is 'perfectly good'.

dhw:. […] You keep loading your God with attributes, but the moment I point out alternative views, you bury your head in the sand (re theodicy) and you resort to questioning the meaning of words other than those which you approve of.

DAVID: I approve of all words. Their usage is at issue as they attempt to describe God.

dhw: And that is why I say that if you renounce your previous belief that God enjoyed creating, you should also stop using such terms as all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and selfless.

I renounced nothing. We must use the only terms we have. More of your distortions. Stop it.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Friday, September 29, 2023, 08:44 (182 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Rabbis present the word of God.

dhw: How do you know it’s the word of God? My unanswered question was: How does Feser know that his God doesn’t WANT the evil that has emerged from the natural order?

DAVID: God is presumed ethical. God obviously hates evil as we do.

As first cause, he created a system which he knew would give rise to evil. So did he, in his all-powerfulness, create something he didn’t want to create? Why do you “presume” he hates it? What evidence do you have for such a presumption? Rabbis telling you so? Have they told you why he deliberately created a system he knew would give rise to war, murder and rape?

dhw: […] how does that come to mean that he is “perfectly good”?

DAVID: A presumption of theists and believers.

dhw: Meaningless, since you don’t know whether your terminology (e.g. enjoy, interest, selfless, all-good) means the same to your God as it does to you.

At this point, you agreed that it was not a question of meaning but of whether the terms you used were applicable to your God (See the previous thread).

FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

dhw: Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.[…]

DAVID: He expects us to be obligated.

dhw: There you go again, pretending you can read your God’s mind.

DAVID: Of course, I can't. But I can assume what God might want of us.

dhw: No you can’t. You can only theorize about what God might want of us, but since you insist that he is all-knowing and therefore knows precisely what we are going to do, it would clearly be absurd for him to tell us not to do what he already knows we are going to do. If he knows we’re going to do the evil he has enabled us to do, how can he be all-good? If free will leaves him NOT knowing what we’re going to do, how can he be all-knowing?

DAVID: I equate 'assume' with theorize.

A bad equation. A theory is an unproven explanation. An assumption is the belief that an unproven theory is true.

DAVID: Our evil is not God's fault as you imply. His all-good action gave us free will which results in a much more fulfilling life for us.

I am not questioning the value of free will (if we have it). The question, for the umpteenth time, is how an all-good God can conceive of and create the opportunity for evil.

DAVID: Believers discuss sin, recognizing it is not something God would want. 'All-knowing' means God knows we sin. You can't see that as a non-believer.

Believers cannot “recognize” something they do not know! Believers have a belief. But even if it’s true, it still doesn’t explain how an all-good God can create evil! All-knowing is not confined to the observation of what is actually happening. You have him knowing in advance that his creations, which came out of nothing but his own self, would produce evil. If there was no good and no evil before he created life, where did the concept of evil come from if not from himself? Hence the question posed by theodicy: how does his creation of evil square with his being “perfectly good”? So please stop dodging the question.

The rest of your post goes over ground we have already covered, but I’d like to return to your rabbis and the so-called word of God. What is their source? In particular, I’m interested in your belief that your God is “selfless”, since my alternative theories concerning experimentation and enjoyment are bound up with the concept of God as a being who, in your own words, has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Friday, September 29, 2023, 18:36 (181 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Rabbis present the word of God.

dhw: How do you know it’s the word of God? My unanswered question was: How does Feser know that his God doesn’t WANT the evil that has emerged from the natural order?

DAVID: God is presumed ethical. God obviously hates evil as we do.

dhw: As first cause, he created a system which he knew would give rise to evil. So did he, in his all-powerfulness, create something he didn’t want to create? Why do you “presume” he hates it? What evidence do you have for such a presumption? Rabbis telling you so? Have they told you why he deliberately created a system he knew would give rise to war, murder and rape?

Not a God system!! All a human system. Human free will allows us to create our current civilization with its good and bad parts. All human creations, not God's. God, as a theoretical personage, is in the eye of the beholder. In that context God hates evil, as I do. Your search for 'evidence' pollutes your thinking. The only evidence is our reality. If God created, it is what God wanted to create, no reasons given. We humans assume God had reasons. Perhaps God is simply reasonless purpose.

FESER: Sometimes what is good for one kind of physical substance, given its nature, will be bad for another kind, given its different nature.

dhw: Spot on. By killing us, certain bacteria are bad for us, but good for themselves. When Jack murders or rapes Jill, he may do so because he thinks it’s a good thing for him to do. And of course an all-knowing God is not obliged to intervene if he set the whole system up as a free-for-all.[…]

DAVID: He expects us to be obligated.

dhw: There you go again, pretending you can read your God’s mind.

DAVID: Of course, I can't. But I can assume what God might want of us.

dhw: No you can’t. You can only theorize about what God might want of us, but since you insist that he is all-knowing and therefore knows precisely what we are going to do, it would clearly be absurd for him to tell us not to do what he already knows we are going to do. If he knows we’re going to do the evil he has enabled us to do, how can he be all-good? If free will leaves him NOT knowing what we’re going to do, how can he be all-knowing?

DAVID: I equate 'assume' with theorize.

dhw: A bad equation. A theory is an unproven explanation. An assumption is the belief that an unproven theory is true.

Or untrue!!


DAVID: Our evil is not God's fault as you imply. His all-good action gave us free will which results in a much more fulfilling life for us.

dhw: I am not questioning the value of free will (if we have it). The question, for the umpteenth time, is how an all-good God can conceive of and create the opportunity for evil.

Humans were given that opportunity. You have circled back to wanting life in a Garden of Eden for humanity.


DAVID: Believers discuss sin, recognizing it is not something God would want. 'All-knowing' means God knows we sin. You can't see that as a non-believer.

dhw: Believers cannot “recognize” something they do not know! Believers have a belief. But even if it’s true, it still doesn’t explain how an all-good God can create evil! All-knowing is not confined to the observation of what is actually happening. You have him knowing in advance that his creations, which came out of nothing but his own self, would produce evil. If there was no good and no evil before he created life, where did the concept of evil come from if not from himself? Hence the question posed by theodicy: how does his creation of evil square with his being “perfectly good”? So please stop dodging the question.

Same answer. Proportionality in one's view. Yours is very dark, while mine is very light. Evil is a human concept. Our giant brain recognizes good and evil, no God required. In God's creation of humans, He knew what would happen, and left it all up to us.


The rest of your post goes over ground we have already covered, but I’d like to return to your rabbis and the so-called word of God. What is their source? In particular, I’m interested in your belief that your God is “selfless”, since my alternative theories concerning experimentation and enjoyment are bound up with the concept of God as a being who, in your own words, has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

Rabbis believe in God as I do, and we have the same God theologically and theoretically. God has no self as we view our selves. God is immaterial, not a being. As pure mind He thinks logically, like us. But emotions are our attributes and may not be part of God's attributes.

Feser is a catholic philosopher, but his view of God is quite similar to mine, due to my training from what I have read.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Saturday, September 30, 2023, 08:39 (181 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Rabbis present the word of God.

dhw: How do you know it’s the word of God?

See later for the significance of this question.

dhw: As first cause, he created a system which he knew would give rise to evil. So did he, in his all-powerfulness, create something he didn’t want to create? Why do you “presume” he hates it? What evidence do you have for such a presumption? Rabbis telling you so? Have they told you why he deliberately created a system he knew would give rise to war, murder and rape?

DAVID: Not a God system!! All a human system. Human free will allows us to create our current civilization with its good and bad parts. All human creations, not God's.

But your God is all-knowing, so he knew that by giving humans free will, he would enable them to produce all the evils which never existed until he created life out of himself. If he is all-powerful, does it not stand to reason that he would only create what he wanted to create? So did he or did not want to create a system which would produce evil?

DAVID: If God created, it is what God wanted to create, no reasons given. We humans assume God had reasons. Perhaps God is simply reasonless purpose.

So your God wanted to create evil, but although you never cease to tell us how purposeful he is, he may have had a purposeless purpose for doing so.

DAVID: Your search for 'evidence' pollutes your thinking. The only evidence is our reality. God, as a theoretical personage, is in the eye of the beholder. In that context God hates evil, as I do.

A theoretical personage whose nature is “in the eye of the beholder” leaves it open to all of us to load him with whatever characteristics we like, and so neither you nor Adler nor the rabbis nor the theologians have any authority to tell us how to think about him. But we can also test the reasonableness of different views. For instance, as above: if he’s all-powerful, he must have created what he wanted to create, so why did he want to create a world of good and evil if he hates evil? Or if he is the first cause of all things, and created a system which would result in evil as well as good, how can he be all-good?

DAVID: Same answer. Proportionality in one's view. Yours is very dark, while mine is very light.

I love life just as much as you do, and the question why and how an all-good God can create evil has absolutely nothing to do with dark and light. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Evil is a human concept.

Then so is good. How come your all-knowing God knew nothing about good and evil before he designed the humans who produced both?

DAVID: Our giant brain recognizes good and evil, no God required. In God's creation of humans, He knew what would happen, and left it all up to us.

How could he possibly have known in advance that we would commit evil if there was no such concept as evil before we arrived on the scene?

dhw: I’d like to return to your rabbis and the so-called word of God. What is their source? In particular, I’m interested in your belief that your God is “selfless”, since my alternative theories concerning experimentation and enjoyment are bound up with the concept of God as a being who, in your own words, has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: Rabbis believe in God as I do, and we have the same God theologically and theoretically. God has no self as we view our selves.

Your rabbis’ source – what you call the “Word of God” - is the Pentateuch. I quote: Exodus 20: “I am the Lord thy God […] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God” – in a modern translation this has changed to: “I am a God exacting exclusive devotion”. Deuteronomy 12: “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods…” Any prophet who turns to any other god “shall be put to death” (Chapter 13), and anyone else you know who turns to other gods should be killed: “stone him with stones”. Selfless?

DAVID: God is immaterial, not a being. As pure mind He thinks logically, like us. But emotions are our attributes and may not be part of God's attributes.

Yet again: How can he be all-good and think logically and know everything, and enjoy creating, and be interested in what he creates, and yet have no self? How can he hate evil and yet have no self? Once upon a time you even thought he might want us to admire his work. You and your rabbis and Feser can endow him with whatever attributes you like, but don’t pretend your imaginings have any authenticity.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 30, 2023, 18:01 (180 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not a God system!! All a human system. Human free will allows us to create our current civilization with its good and bad parts. All human creations, not God's.

dhw: But your God is all-knowing, so he knew that by giving humans free will, he would enable them to produce all the evils which never existed until he created life out of himself. If he is all-powerful, does it not stand to reason that he would only create what he wanted to create? So did he or did not want to create a system which would produce evil?

God obviously wanted humans whom He knew would create evil.


DAVID: If God created, it is what God wanted to create, no reasons given. We humans assume God had reasons. Perhaps God is simply reasonless purpose.

dhw: So your God wanted to create evil, but although you never cease to tell us how purposeful he is, he may have had a purposeless purpose for doing so.

Humans were His purpose. God is never purposeless except in your mind.


DAVID: Your search for 'evidence' pollutes your thinking. The only evidence is our reality. God, as a theoretical personage, is in the eye of the beholder. In that context God hates evil, as I do.

dhw: A theoretical personage whose nature is “in the eye of the beholder” leaves it open to all of us to load him with whatever characteristics we like, and so neither you nor Adler nor the rabbis nor the theologians have any authority to tell us how to think about him. But we can also test the reasonableness of different views. For instance, as above: if he’s all-powerful, he must have created what he wanted to create, so why did he want to create a world of good and evil if he hates evil? Or if he is the first cause of all things, and created a system which would result in evil as well as good, how can he be all-good?

It is all the way you look at balance. I see life for us as 99% good. God's 'system' is human beings who create their own evil, which God expects them to control.

DAVID: Evil is a human concept.

dhw: Then so is good. How come your all-knowing God knew nothing about good and evil before he designed the humans who produced both?

Our concepts are well known to God.


dhw: I’d like to return to your rabbis and the so-called word of God. What is their source? In particular, I’m interested in your belief that your God is “selfless”, since my alternative theories concerning experimentation and enjoyment are bound up with the concept of God as a being who, in your own words, has thought patterns and emotions like ours.

DAVID: Rabbis believe in God as I do, and we have the same God theologically and theoretically. God has no self as we view our selves.

dhw: Your rabbis’ source – what you call the “Word of God” - is the Pentateuch. I quote: Exodus 20: “I am the Lord thy God […] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God” – in a modern translation this has changed to: “I am a God exacting exclusive devotion”. Deuteronomy 12: “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods…” Any prophet who turns to any other god “shall be put to death” (Chapter 13), and anyone else you know who turns to other gods should be killed: “stone him with stones”. Selfless?

I am quoting current thought as in Feser. I'm sure the rabbis are just as current.


DAVID: God is immaterial, not a being. As pure mind He thinks logically, like us. But emotions are our attributes and may not be part of God's attributes.

dhw: Yet again: How can he be all-good and think logically and know everything, and enjoy creating, and be interested in what he creates, and yet have no self? How can he hate evil and yet have no self? Once upon a time you even thought he might want us to admire his work. You and your rabbis and Feser can endow him with whatever attributes you like, but don’t pretend your imaginings have any authenticity.

Current theological thought about God is what we have. Luckily, not your rambling conjectures.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Sunday, October 01, 2023, 12:02 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Not a God system!! All a human system. Human free will allows us to create our current civilization with its good and bad parts. All human creations, not God's.

dhw: But your God is all-knowing, so he knew that by giving humans free will, he would enable them to produce all the evils which never existed until he created life out of himself. If he is all-powerful, does it not stand to reason that he would only create what he wanted to create? So did he or did not want to create a system which would produce evil?

DAVID: God obviously wanted humans whom He knew would create evil.

Please tell us why he wanted the evil he knew humans would create.

DAVID: If God created, it is what God wanted to create, no reasons given. We humans assume God had reasons. Perhaps God is simply reasonless purpose.

dhw: So your God wanted to create evil, but although you never cease to tell us how purposeful he is, he may have had a purposeless purpose for doing so.

DAVID: Humans were His purpose. God is never purposeless except in your mind.

Please tell us what you think was your purposeful God's purpose in creating humans.

DAVID: Your search for 'evidence' pollutes your thinking. The only evidence is our reality. God, as a theoretical personage, is in the eye of the beholder. In that context God hates evil, as I do.

dhw: A theoretical personage whose nature is “in the eye of the beholder” leaves it open to all of us to load him with whatever characteristics we like, and so neither you nor Adler nor the rabbis nor the theologians have any authority to tell us how to think about him.

No comment from you.

dhw: But we can also test the reasonableness of different views. For instance, as above: if he’s all-powerful, he must have created what he wanted to create, so why did he want to create a world of good and evil if he hates evil? Or if he is the first cause of all things, and created a system which would result in evil as well as good, how can he be all-good?

DAVID: It is all the way you look at balance. I see life for us as 99% good. God's 'system' is human beings who create their own evil, which God expects them to control.

How you see life is irrelevant to the question of how and why an all-good God can create a system he knows will produce evil.

DAVID: Evil is a human concept.

dhw: Then so is good. How come your all-knowing God knew nothing about good and evil before he designed the humans who produced both?

DAVID: Our concepts are well known to God.

If he is the all-knowing first cause, then all concepts were known to him before they were known to us.

DAVID: Rabbis believe in God as I do, and we have the same God theologically and theoretically. God has no self as we view our selves.

dhw: Your rabbis’ source – what you call the “Word of God” - is the Pentateuch. I quote: Exodus 20: “I am the Lord thy God […] Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God” – in a modern translation this has changed to: “I am a God exacting exclusive devotion”. Deuteronomy 12: “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods…” Any prophet who turns to any other god “shall be put to death” (Chapter 13), and anyone else you know who turns to other gods should be killed: “stone him with stones”. Selfless?

DAVID: I am quoting current thought as in Feser. I'm sure the rabbis are just as current.

You wrote that God warned me “in religious services before you left your religion” and “Rabbis present the word of God.” Please tell us what you and the rabbis understand as being the “word of God”, since clearly the Torah is now regarded as invalid.

dhw: How can he be all-good and think logically and know everything, and enjoy creating, and be interested in what he creates, and yet have no self? How can he hate evil and yet have no self? Once upon a time you even thought he might want us to admire his work. You and your rabbis and Feser can endow him with whatever attributes you like, but don’t pretend your imaginings have any authenticity.

DAVID: Current theological thought about God is what we have. Luckily, not your rambling conjectures.

There are no conjectures. I have quoted your own list of what you believe to be divine attributes and asked you to explain the discrepancies. Please give me the answers provided by “current theological thought”.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 01, 2023, 17:06 (179 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God obviously wanted humans whom He knew would create evil.

dhw: Please tell us why he wanted the evil he knew humans would create.

God did not want the evil humans create. But He wished to create us while accepting that result. Humans also had the ability fight and control evil.


DAVID: If God created, it is what God wanted to create, no reasons given. We humans assume God had reasons. Perhaps God is simply reasonless purpose.

dhw: So your God wanted to create evil, but although you never cease to tell us how purposeful he is, he may have had a purposeless purpose for doing so.

DAVID: Humans were His purpose. God is never purposeless except in your mind.

dhw: Please tell us what you think was your purposeful God's purpose in creating humans.

To have a thoughtful organism who might study God's purposes.


DAVID: Your search for 'evidence' pollutes your thinking. The only evidence is our reality. God, as a theoretical personage, is in the eye of the beholder. In that context God hates evil, as I do.

dhw: A theoretical personage whose nature is “in the eye of the beholder” leaves it open to all of us to load him with whatever characteristics we like, and so neither you nor Adler nor the rabbis nor the theologians have any authority to tell us how to think about him.

No comment from you.

There are agreed upon characteristics among the accepted experts in the theological theories.


dhw: But we can also test the reasonableness of different views. For instance, as above: if he’s all-powerful, he must have created what he wanted to create, so why did he want to create a world of good and evil if he hates evil? Or if he is the first cause of all things, and created a system which would result in evil as well as good, how can he be all-good?

DAVID: It is all the way you look at balance. I see life for us as 99% good. God's 'system' is human beings who create their own evil, which God expects them to control.

dhw: How you see life is irrelevant to the question of how and why an all-good God can create a system he knows will produce evil.

DAVID: Evil is a human concept.

dhw: Then so is good. How come your all-knowing God knew nothing about good and evil before he designed the humans who produced both?

DAVID: Our concepts are well known to God.

dhw: If he is the all-knowing first cause, then all concepts were known to him before they were known to us.

Of course, God knew all in advance of our thinking. Our discussions come from a 50,000-year- old language development in a 315,000-old God-given brain.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Monday, October 02, 2023, 10:36 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God obviously wanted humans whom He knew would create evil.

dhw: Please tell us why he wanted the evil he knew humans would create.

DAVID: God did not want the evil humans create. But He wished to create us while accepting that result. Humans also had the ability fight and control evil.

So now you have your omnipotent, all-knowing, all-good God deliberately creating (and wanting to create) what he knew would produce something he did not want, as you agree in your next comment, which I have bolded:

DAVID: If God created, it is what God wanted to create, no reasons given. We humans assume God had reasons. Perhaps God is simply reasonless purpose.

dhw: So your God wanted to create evil, but although you never cease to tell us how purposeful he is, he may have had a purposeless purpose for doing so.

DAVID: Humans were His purpose. God is never purposeless except in your mind.

If he exists, I have no doubt that he had a purpose for creating life.

dhw: Please tell us what you think was your purposeful God's purpose in creating humans.

DAVID: To have a thoughtful organism who might study God's purposes.

So a God who has no self wanted to create an organism to study the thinking of his non-self when he created life, including the 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his non-self’s purposes. Why do you think he wanted to create an organism that would study his non-self’s purposes?

DAVID: Your search for 'evidence' pollutes your thinking. The only evidence is our reality. God, as a theoretical personage, is in the eye of the beholder. In that context God hates evil, as I do.

dhw: A theoretical personage whose nature is “in the eye of the beholder” leaves it open to all of us to load him with whatever characteristics we like, and so neither you nor Adler nor the rabbis nor the theologians have any authority to tell us how to think about him.

DAVID: There are agreed upon characteristics among the accepted experts in the theological theories.

“Accepted” by whom? They may be experts in studying the vast number of theological theories that humans have come up with, but none of them is an expert on how to think about God, because nobody even knows if God exists, let alone what his nature and purposes might be.

dhw: But we can also test the reasonableness of different views. For instance, as above: if he’s all-powerful, he must have created what he wanted to create, so why did he want to create a world of good and evil if he hates evil? Or if he is the first cause of all things, and created a system which would result in evil as well as good, how can he be all-good? […]

DAVID: Evil is a human concept.

dhw: Then so is good. How come your all-knowing God knew nothing about good and evil before he designed the humans who produced both?

DAVID: Our concepts are well known to God.

dhw: If he is the all-knowing first cause, then all concepts were known to him before they were known to us.

DAVID: Of course, God knew all in advance of our thinking. Our discussions come from a 50,000-year- old language development in a 315,000-old God-given brain.

The fact that we use our brains does not answer the question why and how an all-good God deliberately created a system which he knew would produce evil. Stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Monday, October 02, 2023, 21:19 (178 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Humans were His purpose. God is never purposeless except in your mind.

dhw: If he exists, I have no doubt that he had a purpose for creating life.

dhw: Please tell us what you think was your purposeful God's purpose in creating humans.

DAVID: To have a thoughtful organism who might study God's purposes.

dhw: So a God who has no self wanted to create an organism to study the thinking of his non-self when he created life, including the 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his non-self’s purposes. Why do you think he wanted to create an organism that would study his non-self’s purposes?

I can guess He would be interested in our thought patterns as we guess about Him. Remember God is immaterial mind, nothing more.


DAVID: Your search for 'evidence' pollutes your thinking. The only evidence is our reality. God, as a theoretical personage, is in the eye of the beholder. In that context God hates evil, as I do.

dhw: A theoretical personage whose nature is “in the eye of the beholder” leaves it open to all of us to load him with whatever characteristics we like, and so neither you nor Adler nor the rabbis nor the theologians have any authority to tell us how to think about him.

DAVID: There are agreed upon characteristics among the accepted experts in the theological theories.

dhw: “Accepted” by whom? They may be experts in studying the vast number of theological theories that humans have come up with, but none of them is an expert on how to think about God, because nobody even knows if God exists, let alone what his nature and purposes might be.

Adler tells pagans how to believe. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion.


DAVID: Our concepts are well known to God.

dhw: If he is the all-knowing first cause, then all concepts were known to him before they were known to us.

DAVID: Of course, God knew all in advance of our thinking. Our discussions come from a 50,000-year- old language development in a 315,000-old God-given brain.

dhw: The fact that we use our brains does not answer the question why and how an all-good God deliberately created a system which he knew would produce evil. Stop dodging.

If you accept the good, the bad comes with it.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 03, 2023, 12:54 (177 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Humans were His purpose. God is never purposeless except in your mind.

dhw: If he exists, I have no doubt that he had a purpose for creating life. [...]
Please tell us what you think was your purposeful God's purpose in creating humans.

DAVID: To have a thoughtful organism who might study God's purposes.

dhw: So a God who has no self wanted to create an organism to study the thinking of his non-self when he created life, including the 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his non-self’s purposes. Why do you think he wanted to create an organism that would study his non-self’s purposes?

DAVID: I can guess He would be interested in our thought patterns as we guess about Him. Remember God is immaterial mind, nothing more.

How could he possibly be interested in our thought patterns without having any thoughts of his own, i.e. without having a self which thinks?

DAVID: There are agreed upon characteristics among the accepted experts in the theological theories.

dhw: “Accepted” by whom? They may be experts in studying the vast number of theological theories that humans have come up with, but none of them is an expert on how to think about God, because nobody even knows if God exists, let alone what his nature and purposes might be.

DAVID: Adler tells pagans how to believe. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion.

Lots and lots of religious people, including the writers whose works appear in the Bible and all the “authorities” who preside over all the different religions in the world, tell other people how and what to believe. And strange to relate, there are even world-renowned philosophers who tell people not to believe in a God.

DAVID: Our concepts are well known to God.

dhw: If he is the all-knowing first cause, then all concepts were known to him before they were known to us.

DAVID: Of course, God knew all in advance of our thinking. Our discussions come from a 50,000-year- old language development in a 315,000-old God-given brain.

dhw: The fact that we use our brains does not answer the question why and how an all-good God deliberately created a system which he knew would produce evil. Stop dodging.

DAVID: If you accept the good, the bad comes with it.

I know it does. That is what underlies the problem of theodicy, which is why and how an all-powerful, all-knowing, ALL-GOOD God who only creates what he wants to create, and who hates evil, proceeded to create a system which he knew would produce evil. How many more times do you intend to dodge this question?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 03, 2023, 15:26 (177 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Humans were His purpose. God is never purposeless except in your mind.

dhw: If he exists, I have no doubt that he had a purpose for creating life. [...]
Please tell us what you think was your purposeful God's purpose in creating humans.

DAVID: To have a thoughtful organism who might study God's purposes.

dhw: So a God who has no self wanted to create an organism to study the thinking of his non-self when he created life, including the 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his non-self’s purposes. Why do you think he wanted to create an organism that would study his non-self’s purposes?

DAVID: I can guess He would be interested in our thought patterns as we guess about Him. Remember God is immaterial mind, nothing more.

dhw: How could he possibly be interested in our thought patterns without having any thoughts of his own, i.e. without having a self which thinks?

God, as an immaterial mind, thinks. Where is your confusion?


DAVID: There are agreed upon characteristics among the accepted experts in the theological theories.

dhw: “Accepted” by whom? They may be experts in studying the vast number of theological theories that humans have come up with, but none of them is an expert on how to think about God, because nobody even knows if God exists, let alone what his nature and purposes might be.

DAVID: Adler tells pagans how to believe. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion.

dhw: Lots and lots of religious people, including the writers whose works appear in the Bible and all the “authorities” who preside over all the different religions in the world, tell other people how and what to believe. And strange to relate, there are even world-renowned philosophers who tell people not to believe in a God.

Agreed.


DAVID: Our concepts are well known to God.

dhw: If he is the all-knowing first cause, then all concepts were known to him before they were known to us.

DAVID: Of course, God knew all in advance of our thinking. Our discussions come from a 50,000-year- old language development in a 315,000-old God-given brain.

dhw: The fact that we use our brains does not answer the question why and how an all-good God deliberately created a system which he knew would produce evil. Stop dodging.

DAVID: If you accept the good, the bad comes with it.

I know it does. That is what underlies the problem of theodicy, which is why and how an all-powerful, all-knowing, ALL-GOOD God who only creates what he wants to create, and who hates evil, proceeded to create a system which he knew would produce evil. How many more times do you intend to dodge this question?

Not dodged. The theodicy problem comes from byproducts of God's good works. That is not a dodge.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by dhw, Wednesday, October 04, 2023, 08:34 (177 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Please tell us what you think was your purposeful God's purpose in creating humans.

DAVID: To have a thoughtful organism who might study God's purposes.

dhw: So a God who has no self wanted to create an organism to study the thinking of his non-self when he created life, including the 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with his non-self’s purposes. Why do you think he wanted to create an organism that would study his non-self’s purposes?

DAVID: I can guess He would be interested in our thought patterns as we guess about Him. Remember God is immaterial mind, nothing more.

dhw: How could he possibly be interested in our thought patterns without having any thoughts of his own, i.e. without having a self which thinks?

DAVID: God, as an immaterial mind, thinks. Where is your confusion?

You have told us that your God “has no self as we view ourselves”. If he thinks, and is interested in our thoughts, how can he do so without having a self, i.e. a personal identity? My question also applies to your belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. How can he be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, enjoying, interested in, wanting and even hating this and that, without having a self? Your next comment contradicts your contention that he has no self:

DAVID: There are agreed upon characteristics among the accepted experts in the theological theories.

dhw: “Accepted” by whom? They may be experts in studying the vast number of theological theories that humans have come up with, but none of them is an expert on how to think about God, because nobody even knows if God exists, let alone what his nature and purposes might be.

DAVID: Adler tells pagans how to believe. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion.

dhw: Lots and lots of religious people, including the writers whose works appear in the Bible and all the “authorities” who preside over all the different religions in the world, tell other people how and what to believe. And strange to relate, there are even world-renowned philosophers who tell people not to believe in a God.

DAVID: Agreed.

So please stop hiding behind Adler as if his opinions are gospel!

The rest of your post repeats your various attempts to dodge the theodicy problem, as dealt with on the other "evolution" thread.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy (Feser)

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 04, 2023, 17:42 (176 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: How could he possibly be interested in our thought patterns without having any thoughts of his own, i.e. without having a self which thinks?

DAVID: God, as an immaterial mind, thinks. Where is your confusion?

dhw; You have told us that your God “has no self as we view ourselves”. If he thinks, and is interested in our thoughts, how can he do so without having a self, i.e. a personal identity? My question also applies to your belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. How can he be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, enjoying, interested in, wanting and even hating this and that, without having a self? Your next comment contradicts your contention that he has no self:

DAVID: There are agreed upon characteristics among the accepted experts in the theological theories.

dhw: “Accepted” by whom? They may be experts in studying the vast number of theological theories that humans have come up with, but none of them is an expert on how to think about God, because nobody even knows if God exists, let alone what his nature and purposes might be.

DAVID: Adler tells pagans how to believe. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion.

dhw: Lots and lots of religious people, including the writers whose works appear in the Bible and all the “authorities” who preside over all the different religions in the world, tell other people how and what to believe. And strange to relate, there are even world-renowned philosophers who tell people not to believe in a God.

DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: So please stop hiding behind Adler as if his opinions are gospel!

As a pagan directly addressed by Adler in his book, 'How to Think About God', His instructions represent a theological philosopher's distillation of thoughts by many theists. Certainly, an acceptable teacher for me. Equal to 'The Theology of God's Attributes 101' in college.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 14, 2023, 20:48 (196 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The 99.9% loss came from God's evolution producing an evolved Earth with its current huge bush of life which is our food supply. See Privileged Plant entry today.

DHW: That does not explain why your God “had to” or “chose to” design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: Answered many times before: God chose to evolve us. It was the method He felt He had to use as best available.

DHW: So he could have used other methods, e.g. he could have designed us plus food directly instead of designing 99.9 species that had no connection with us plus food, but for reasons which make no sense to you or me, he felt he "had to" design them and then lose them (apparently relying on luck to get rid of them).

Live with this black box. I do.


DAVID: Those words in our language have meanings to us. God is in our imagination as a pure state of being and our words are insufficient to describe Him.

dhw: I presume you know what you mean when you say your God is “selfless”. What did you mean when you said you were sure he “enjoyed” creating and was “interested” in his creations?

DAVID: Just that!!! Our words applied to God allegorically.

dhw: Enjoy means to gain pleasure from something. Do you or do you not think your God gains pleasure from creating?

Yes, in His own special way.


Reading God’s nature (Feser)

QUOTE: the skeptic can no more pretend that his position is neutral about them than the theist can.

An excellent insight which forms the very basis of agnosticism.

DAVID: note the comment about analogical use of words when describing God. I could use metaphorical in that same sense. I have used allegorical in the sense of hidden meaning. Adler tells us any definition of 'God' is extremely difficult to achieve. So we know what words mean in our level of existence, but we really do not know how they apply to God and His personality.

dhw: We don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he does or doesn’t have. However, WE know what we mean when we use terms like enjoy, interested, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and if you don’t think they mean what you think they mean, you should stop using them altogether. (More on Feser in the next post.)

I have fully explained the ways they can be used.


Evolution and theodicy

dhw:Theodicy is not concerned with statistics, and cancer is only one of countless diseases and other “evils” such as war, murder, rape, famine, flood…The question you are so desperate to dodge with your statistics is why/how an all-good God could create a system resulting in evil. The comparative rarity of cancer does not answer the question, so please stop dodging!

DAVID: "War, rape, and famine" are the result of evil humans, not God. The flood deaths in Libya from storm Dan are due to storm surge and a broken dam. All due to human error. Our warning systems here always prevent such a mess. None of this is God's fault.

dhw: As regards environmental catastrophes, you have never managed to sort out whether you think your God is responsible or not. (I’m not thinking of those caused by human error. There were environmental catastrophes long before sapiens came on the scene.) And of course humans cause the evils of war, murder and rape. But your God knew they would when, according to you, he gave them free will. So once again, how can all-knowing God deliberately create a system which he knows will result in evil and yet be all-good?

The good from free will greatly outweighs the resultant human caused evil. Your proportionalities are backwards.


DAVID(transferred from “microbiome”): I've given you the current answers.

dhw: You’ve given me the following answers: 1) evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it; 2) Your all-knowing God “had to” or “chose to” (you keep switching) design a system which he knew in advance would result in all the forms of evil we know, and he is all-good but actually wants to create evil because if he created an Eden, humans wouldn’t be able to invent “something else”.

DAVID: The bold is nonsense. Evil is a byproduct of God's works.

dhw: The bold refers to your statement that “an idealistic Eden would not push us to invent something else”. Again: If your God deliberately created a system which he knew would lead to evil, how can he be all-good? And why do you use such a term if it doesn’t mean what you mean but is “allegorical!” or “analogous” or “metaphorical”? And if your God is all-powerful, why do you think he "had to" design something he didn't want to design?

The good from free will greatly outweighs the resultant human caused evil. Your proportionalities are backwards. I'll stick with Dayenu.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, September 15, 2023, 11:06 (196 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The 99.9% loss came from God's evolution producing an evolved Earth with its current huge bush of life which is our food supply.

dhw: That does not explain why your God “had to” or “chose to” design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: Answered many times before: God chose to evolve us. It was the method He felt He had to use as best available.

dhw: So he could have used other methods, e.g. he could have designed us plus food directly instead of designing 99.9 species that had no connection with us plus food, but for reasons which make no sense to you or me, he felt he "had to" design them and then lose them (apparently relying on luck to get rid of them).

DAVID: Live with this black box. I do.

You live with the knowledge that your theory makes no sense because you cannot bear the thought that your nonsensical theory might be wrong.:-|

dhw: I presume you know what you mean when you say your God is “selfless”. What did you mean when you said you were sure he “enjoyed” creating and was “interested” in his creations?

DAVID: Just that!!! Our words applied to God allegorically.

dhw: Enjoy means to gain pleasure from something. Do you or do you not think your God gains pleasure from creating?

DAVID: Yes, in His own special way.

We all enjoy things in our own special way. Thank you for confirming your belief that your God gains pleasure from creating. How is it possible for him to gain pleasure in his own special way if he doesn’t have a self?

DAVID: […] we know what words mean in our level of existence, but we really do not know how they apply to God and His personality.

dhw: We don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he does or doesn’t have. However, WE know what we mean when we use terms like enjoy, interested, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and if you don’t think they mean what you think they mean, you should stop using them altogether.

DAVID: I have fully explained the ways they can be used.

You have not explained how any of them can mean anything other than what you and I understand by the words. You merely resort to obfuscations with terms like ”allegory” and “analogy”, although it is totally impossible to regard them as the symbols or comparisons that those two terms denote.

Evolution and theodicy

dhw: […] once again, how can all-knowing God deliberately create a system which he knows will result in evil and yet be all-good?[…]

DAVID: I've given you the current answers.

dhw: You’ve given me the following answers: 1) evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it; 2) Your all-knowing God “had to” or “chose to” (you keep switching) design a system which he knew in advance would result in all the forms of evil we know, and he is all-good but actually wants to create evil because if he created an Eden, humans wouldn’t be able to invent “something else”.

DAVID: The bold is nonsense. Evil is a byproduct of God's works.

dhw: The bold refers to your statement thatan idealistic Eden would not push us to invent something else”. Again: If your God deliberately created a system which he knew would lead to evil, how can he be all-good? And why do you use such a term if it doesn’t mean what you mean but is “allegorical!” or “analogous” or “metaphorical”? And if your God is all-powerful, why do you think he "had to" design something he didn't want to design?

DAVID: The good from free will greatly outweighs the resultant human caused evil. Your proportionalities are backwards. I'll stick with Dayenu.

Back to your first solution to the problem of theodicy: Let’s not bother to answer any of the above questions: evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, September 15, 2023, 17:15 (195 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I presume you know what you mean when you say your God is “selfless”. What did you mean when you said you were sure he “enjoyed” creating and was “interested” in his creations?

DAVID: Just that!!! Our words applied to God allegorically.

dhw: Enjoy means to gain pleasure from something. Do you or do you not think your God gains pleasure from creating?

DAVID: Yes, in His own special way.

dhw: We all enjoy things in our own special way. Thank you for confirming your belief that your God gains pleasure from creating. How is it possible for him to gain pleasure in his own special way if he doesn’t have a self?

Not a self in our way. Pure theology.


DAVID: […] we know what words mean in our level of existence, but we really do not know how they apply to God and His personality.

dhw: We don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he does or doesn’t have. However, WE know what we mean when we use terms like enjoy, interested, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and if you don’t think they mean what you think they mean, you should stop using them altogether.

DAVID: I have fully explained the ways they can be used.

dhw: You have not explained how any of them can mean anything other than what you and I understand by the words. You merely resort to obfuscations with terms like ”allegory” and “analogy”, although it is totally impossible to regard them as the symbols or comparisons that those two terms denote.

Exactly!!! We know our meanings as APPLIED TO US. We do not know if they carry the same meaning when applied to God.


Evolution and theodicy

dhw: […] once again, how can all-knowing God deliberately create a system which he knows will result in evil and yet be all-good?[…]

DAVID: I've given you the current answers.

dhw: You’ve given me the following answers: 1) evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it; 2) Your all-knowing God “had to” or “chose to” (you keep switching) design a system which he knew in advance would result in all the forms of evil we know, and he is all-good but actually wants to create evil because if he created an Eden, humans wouldn’t be able to invent “something else”.

DAVID: The bold is nonsense. Evil is a byproduct of God's works.

dhw: The bold refers to your statement thatan idealistic Eden would not push us to invent something else”. Again: If your God deliberately created a system which he knew would lead to evil, how can he be all-good? And why do you use such a term if it doesn’t mean what you mean but is “allegorical!” or “analogous” or “metaphorical”? And if your God is all-powerful, why do you think he "had to" design something he didn't want to design?

DAVID: The good from free will greatly outweighs the resultant human caused evil. Your proportionalities are backwards. I'll stick with Dayenu.

dhw: Back to your first solution to the problem of theodicy: Let’s not bother to answer any of the above questions: evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it.

It is not just my thinking but that of scholarly theists.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, September 27, 2023, 13:56 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

For brevity’s sake, I am juggling posts.

DAVID (under “microbiome”): I repeat. My views are mine alone, totally consistent with ID.

dhw: As your views are yours alone, you can hardly attack my alternatives on the grounds that they are mine alone! You are quite right that your views concerning design are consistent with the theory of intelligent design. So are all my theistic alternatives. What is obviously not supported by ID is your unique theory that your God designed all species for the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% were irrelevant to us plus food.*** Stop dodging.

DAVID: ID assumes God designed all of evolution. Not different than my theory.

dhw: Read the bold.

DAVID: I did and disagree with your conclusion about ID.

I strongly suspect that many ID-ers would be surprised to hear that they believe their God deliberately designed 99.9% of life forms that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. However, it makes no difference whether they do or don’t – the fact remains that you yourself can make no sense of it.

Early pre-humans

DAVID: The Cambrian answers your straw man illogical premise. God designed as God needed to. He didn't mind how long it took.

dhw: Your belief that your God created Cambrian species “de novo” denotes that he could have designed us directly if he'd wanted to, but for unknown reasons he either chose or was forced to use the method bolded above.***.

DAVID: As God used evolution it was the best method available.

According to you, he also used direct creation, which is why you can’t understand why he chose the nonsensical bolded theory you impose on him.

dhw: Enjoy means to gain pleasure from something. Do you or do you not think your God gains pleasure from creating?

DAVID: Yes, in His own special way.

dhw: We all enjoy things in our own special way. Thank you for confirming your belief that your God gains pleasure from creating. How is it possible for him to gain pleasure in his own special way if he doesn’t have a self?

DAVID: Not a self in our way. Pure theology.
And:
DAVID: […] we know what words mean in our level of existence, but we really do not know how they apply to God and His personality.

dhw: We don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he does or doesn’t have. However, WE know what we mean when we use terms like enjoy, interested, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and if you don’t think they mean what you think they mean, you should stop using them altogether.

DAVID: We know our meanings as APPLIED TO US. We do not know if they carry the same meaning when applied to God.

So stop telling us that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing and selfless and all good!

Evolution and theodicy

dhw: If your God deliberately created a system which he knew would lead to evil, how can he be all-good? And why do you use such a term if it doesn’t mean what you mean but is “allegorical!” or “analogous” or “metaphorical”? And if your God is all-powerful, why do you think he "had to" design something he didn't want to design?

DAVID: The good from free will greatly outweighs the resultant human caused evil. Your proportionalities are backwards. I'll stick with Dayenu.

dhw: Back to your first solution to the problem of theodicy: Let’s not bother to answer any of the above questions: evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it.

DAVID: It is not just my thinking but that of scholarly theists.

So if someone asks how an all-good God can possibly be the creator of evil, scholarly theists’ answer is to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that war, rape, murder, famine, flood, disease etc. aren’t worth discussing. This post begins with your statement that your views are yours alone. I suspect you're right.

TOTAL CELLS IN A HUMAN

DAVID: Several trillion cells reproduce every day or so. New mutations, mainly as mistakes occur infrequently. Much rarer mistakes result in cancer. The editing systems keep these mistakes at a very low ratio compared to the rate of cell splitting on a daily basis. This is the answer theodicy articles give to complaints about God's works: it is the only system that works. To enjoy this life we must accept it .

I have no objection to the philosophy that tells us to make the most of life, in spite of all the evil. That has nothing to do with the problem of theodicy, and I find it hard to accept that a God who creates a system which he knows will produce all kinds of evil is “all-good”. Apparently you and your fellow scholarly theists have the same problem, which is why you stick your heads in the sand. (See also the Feser thread.)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, September 27, 2023, 17:29 (183 days ago) @ dhw

For brevity’s sake, I am juggling posts.

DAVID (under “microbiome”): I repeat. My views are mine alone, totally consistent with ID.

dhw: What is obviously not supported by ID is your unique theory that your God designed all species for the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% were irrelevant to us plus food.*** Stop dodging.

DAVID: ID assumes God designed all of evolution. Not different than my theory.

dhw: Read the bold.

DAVID: I did and disagree with your conclusion about ID.

I strongly suspect that many ID-ers would be surprised to hear that they believe their God deliberately designed 99.9% of life forms that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. However, it makes no difference whether they do or don’t – the fact remains that you yourself can make no sense of it.

The bold would make no sense to ID'ers.


Early pre-humans

DAVID: As God used evolution it was the best method available.

dhw: According to you, he also used direct creation, which is why you can’t understand why he chose the nonsensical bolded theory you impose on him.

God, as Creator, can create as He wishes. Perfectly understood!

dhw: We don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he does or doesn’t have. However, WE know what we mean when we use terms like enjoy, interested, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and if you don’t think they mean what you think they mean, you should stop using them altogether.

DAVID: We know our meanings as APPLIED TO US. We do not know if they carry the same meaning when applied to God.

dhw: So stop telling us that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing and selfless and all good!

Silly. We are discussing terms that apply to God's personality, not his works.


Evolution and theodicy

dhw: Back to your first solution to the problem of theodicy: Let’s not bother to answer any of the above questions: evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it.

DAVID: It is not just my thinking but that of scholarly theists.

dhw: So if someone asks how an all-good God can possibly be the creator of evil, scholarly theists’ answer is to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that war, rape, murder, famine, flood, disease etc. aren’t worth discussing. This post begins with your statement that your views are yours alone. I suspect you're right.

I'm simply repeating scholarly conclusions about theodicy.


TOTAL CELLS IN A HUMAN

DAVID: Several trillion cells reproduce every day or so. New mutations, mainly as mistakes occur infrequently. Much rarer mistakes result in cancer. The editing systems keep these mistakes at a very low ratio compared to the rate of cell splitting on a daily basis. This is the answer theodicy articles give to complaints about God's works: it is the only system that works. To enjoy this life we must accept it .

dhw: I have no objection to the philosophy that tells us to make the most of life, in spite of all the evil. That has nothing to do with the problem of theodicy, and I find it hard to accept that a God who creates a system which he knows will produce all kinds of evil is “all-good”. Apparently you and your fellow scholarly theists have the same problem, which is why you stick your heads in the sand. (See also the Feser thread.)

We like God's good sand.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, September 28, 2023, 07:21 (183 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I repeat. My views are mine alone, totally consistent with ID.

dhw: What is obviously not supported by ID is your unique theory that your God designed all species for the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% were irrelevant to us plus food.*** Stop dodging.

DAVID: ID assumes God designed all of evolution. Not different than my theory.[…]

dhw: I strongly suspect that many ID-ers would be surprised to hear that they believe their God deliberately designed 99.9% of life forms that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. However, it makes no difference whether they do or don’t – the fact remains that you yourself can make no sense of it.

DAVID: The bold would make no sense to ID'ers.

Thank you for your honesty. Since it would make no sense to them and makes no sense to you either, maybe it’s time for you to admit that it might just possibly be wrong?

Early pre-humans

DAVID: As God used evolution it was the best method available.

dhw: According to you, he also used direct creation, which is why you can’t understand why he chose the nonsensical bolded theory you impose on him.

DAVID: God, as Creator, can create as He wishes. Perfectly understood!

Of course. And that’s why your bolded theory makes no sense. Maybe, just maybe he did NOT design every species individually, or maybe, just maybe he did NOT invent life for the sole purpose of designing us plus food.

dhw: We don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he does or doesn’t have. However, WE know what we mean when we use terms like enjoy, interested, all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing, and if you don’t think they mean what you think they mean, you should stop using them altogether.

DAVID: We know our meanings as APPLIED TO US. We do not know if they carry the same meaning when applied to God.

dhw: So stop telling us that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing and selfless and all-good!

DAVID: Silly. We are discussing terms that apply to God's personality, not his works.

Of course when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and selfless, you are describing his personality, but since you insist that the words may mean something different to your God, there is no point in your using such terms!

Evolution and theodicy

dhw: Back to your first solution to the problem of theodicy: Let’s not bother to answer any of the above questions: evil is such a minor matter that we don’t need to discuss it.

DAVID: It is not just my thinking but that of scholarly theists.

dhw: So if someone asks how an all-good God can possibly be the creator of evil, scholarly theists’ answer is to stick their heads in the sand and pretend that war, rape, murder, famine, flood, disease etc. aren’t worth discussing. This post begins with your statement that your views are yours alone. I suspect you're right.

DAVID: I'm simply repeating scholarly conclusions about theodicy.

If the scholarly answer to the problem of evil is that evil is not worth discussing, I suggest you ignore it and start thinking for yourself.

TOTAL CELLS IN A HUMAN

DAVID: Several trillion cells reproduce every day or so. New mutations, mainly as mistakes occur infrequently. Much rarer mistakes result in cancer. The editing systems keep these mistakes at a very low ratio compared to the rate of cell splitting on a daily basis. This is the answer theodicy articles give to complaints about God's works: it is the only system that works. To enjoy this life we must accept it .

dhw: I have no objection to the philosophy that tells us to make the most of life, in spite of all the evil. That has nothing to do with the problem of theodicy, and I find it hard to accept that a God who creates a system which he knows will produce all kinds of evil is “all-good”. Apparently you and your fellow scholarly theists have the same problem, which is why you stick your heads in the sand. (See also the Feser thread.)

DAVID: We like God's good sand.

And you like pretending that the problem of evil is solved by ignoring the problem of evil.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, September 28, 2023, 17:26 (182 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I repeat. My views are mine alone, totally consistent with ID.

dhw: What is obviously not supported by ID is your unique theory that your God designed all species for the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% were irrelevant to us plus food.*** Stop dodging.

DAVID: ID assumes God designed all of evolution. Not different than my theory.[…]

dhw: I strongly suspect that many ID-ers would be surprised to hear that they believe their God deliberately designed 99.9% of life forms that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. However, it makes no difference whether they do or don’t – the fact remains that you yourself can make no sense of it.

DAVID: The bold would make no sense to ID'ers.

dhw: Thank you for your honesty. Since it would make no sense to them and makes no sense to you either, maybe it’s time for you to admit that it might just possibly be wrong?

My 'no sense' was meant to be derogatory. As your snowman complaint makes no sense to me!


Early pre-humans

DAVID: As God used evolution it was the best method available.

dhw: According to you, he also used direct creation, which is why you can’t understand why he chose the nonsensical bolded theory you impose on him.

DAVID: God, as Creator, can create as He wishes. Perfectly understood!

dhw: Of course. And that’s why your bolded theory makes no sense. Maybe, just maybe he did NOT design every species individually, or maybe, just maybe he did NOT invent life for the sole purpose of designing us plus food.

And maybe He did!


dhw: So stop telling us that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing and selfless and all-good!

DAVID: Silly. We are discussing terms that apply to God's personality, not his works.

dhw: Of course when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and selfless, you are describing his personality, but since you insist that the words may mean something different to your God, there is no point in your using such terms!

Silly!! We have to use our terms to discuss Him at all.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: I'm simply repeating scholarly conclusions about theodicy.

dhw: If the scholarly answer to the problem of evil is that evil is not worth discussing, I suggest you ignore it and start thinking for yourself.

Thinking for myself first involves self-education in the subject.


TOTAL CELLS IN A HUMAN

dhw: And you like pretending that the problem of evil is solved by ignoring the problem of evil.

No, I like recognizing proportionality of the problems you over magnify.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, September 29, 2023, 08:36 (182 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I repeat. My views are mine alone, totally consistent with ID. […]

dhw: […] I strongly suspect that many ID-ers would be surprised to hear that they believe their God deliberately designed 99.9% of life forms that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. However, it makes no difference whether they do or don’t – the fact remains that you yourself can make no sense of it.

DAVID: The bold would make no sense to ID'ers.

dhw: Thank you for your honesty. Since it would make no sense to them and makes no sense to you either, maybe it’s time for you to admit that it might just possibly be wrong?

DAVID: My 'no sense' was meant to be derogatory. As your snowman complaint makes no sense to me!

If the bolded theory would make no sense to ID-ers, what is meant to be “derogatory”? What snowman complaint are you talking about? You have agreed over and over again that you cannot find a single reason why your God would deliberately design 99.9 out of 100 species which have no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. Hence your derogatory description of your senseless theory as messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and your statement that it makes sense only to God (i.e. not to you).

Early pre-humans

DAVID: God, as Creator, can create as He wishes. Perfectly understood!

dhw: Of course. And that’s why your bolded theory makes no sense. Maybe, just maybe he did NOT design every species individually, or maybe, just maybe he did NOT invent life for the sole purpose of designing us plus food.

DAVID: And maybe He did!

But if you put your two theories together, you have him senselessly creating 99.9% of life forms that had no relevance to his one and only purpose. Such messy inefficiency can hardly be said to fit in with other concepts of yours, such as his all-powerfulness and all-knowingness.

dhw: […] So stop telling us that your God is all-powerful and all-knowing and selfless and all-good!

DAVID: Silly. We are discussing terms that apply to God's personality, not his works.

dhw: Of course when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and selfless, you are describing his personality, but since you insist that the words may mean something different to your God, there is no point in your using such terms!

DAVID: Silly!! We have to use our terms to discuss Him at all.

Of course we do, and we know exactly what we mean by these terms.

dhw: (taken from the “Feser” thread): The fact is, we both know exactly what you mean by all these terms. What we don’t know is whether they are applicable to your God or not.

DAVID: Thank you for the bold, finally.

It’s you have finally understood that it is not a matter of the terms having a different meaning for God, but of whether the terms – whose meaning is perfectly clear – can be applied to him. When you say you are certain he enjoys creating, you don’t think your God may have a different concept of enjoyment; the question is whether or not creating gives him pleasure. Similarly such terms as all-powerful or selfless are not open to different interpretations – we all know what they mean. So is he or is he not all-powerful and selfless? (See the Feser thread.)

Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: I'm simply repeating scholarly conclusions about theodicy.

dhw: If the scholarly answer to the problem of evil is that evil is not worth discussing, I suggest you ignore it and start thinking for yourself.

DAVID: Thinking for myself first involves self-education in the subject.

You don’t seem to have got beyond the thought that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending it isn’t a problem. […]

DAVID: No, I like recognizing proportionality of the problems you over magnify.

There is no magnification. Evils such as war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease all exist, and the ratio of good to bad does not explain how such evil can result from the deliberate work of an all-good God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, September 29, 2023, 17:55 (181 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My 'no sense' was meant to be derogatory. As your snowman complaint makes no sense to me!

dhw: If the bolded theory would make no sense to ID-ers, what is meant to be “derogatory”? What snowman complaint are you talking about? You have agreed over and over again that you cannot find a single reason why your God would deliberately design 99.9 out of 100 species which have no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. Hence your derogatory description of your senseless theory as messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and your statement that it makes sense only to God (i.e. not to you).

ID theory is that God designed evolution and every individual. Your weird complaint comes from not accepting the end of evolution in humans as evidence of God's intention from the beginning. Adler did it, I do it.


Early pre-humans

dhw: But if you put your two theories together, you have him senselessly creating 99.9% of life forms that had no relevance to his one and only purpose. Such messy inefficiency can hardly be said to fit in with other concepts of yours, such as his all-powerfulness and all-knowingness.

Same old simple answer. God chose to evolve us for His own, unknown to us, reasons. Accept it!!!


dhw: (taken from the “Feser” thread): The fact is, we both know exactly what you mean by all these terms. What we don’t know is whether they are applicable to your God or not.

DAVID: Thank you for the bold, finally.

dhw: It’s you have finally understood that it is not a matter of the terms having a different meaning for God, but of whether the terms – whose meaning is perfectly clear – can be applied to him. When you say you are certain he enjoys creating, you don’t think your God may have a different concept of enjoyment; the question is whether or not creating gives him pleasure. Similarly such terms as all-powerful or selfless are not open to different interpretations – we all know what they mean. So is he or is he not all-powerful and selfless? (See the Feser thread.)

I, like all believers, view God as all-powerful and selfless.


Evolution and theodicy

DAVID: I'm simply repeating scholarly conclusions about theodicy.

dhw: If the scholarly answer to the problem of evil is that evil is not worth discussing, I suggest you ignore it and start thinking for yourself.

DAVID: Thinking for myself first involves self-education in the subject.

dhw: You don’t seem to have got beyond the thought that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending it isn’t a problem. […]

DAVID: No, I like recognizing proportionality of the problems you over-magnify.

dhw: There is no magnification. Evils such as war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease all exist, and the ratio of good to bad does not explain how such evil can result from the deliberate work of an all-good God.

The bolded all can come from human evil: floods due to ill-kept dams in Libya; disease from poor sanitation and lack of providing for immunity-giving shots. Famine is poor planning by governments. An all-good God gave us free will to both create and solve problems.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, September 29, 2023, 21:07 (181 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: No, I like recognizing proportionality of the problems you over-magnify.

dhw: There is no magnification. Evils such as war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease all exist, and the ratio of good to bad does not explain how such evil can result from the deliberate work of an all-good God.


DAVID: The bolded all can come from human evil: floods due to ill-kept dams in Libya; disease from poor sanitation and lack of providing for immunity-giving shots. Famine is poor planning by governments. An all-good God gave us free will to both create and solve problems.

See this article:

https://www.sciencemagazinedigital.org/sciencemagazine/library/item/29_september_2023/4...

"When the World Health Organization called attention in 2022 to a surge in cholera outbreaks around the globe, it listed the usual factors that favor waterborne diseases: lack of sanitation, humanitarian crises, and conflict. But it also said climate change was worsening the situation.

"Cholera is caused by Vibrio cholerae, a bacterium that can produce a toxin and spreads when the stool of infected people contaminates drinking water and food. Microbiologist Rita Colwell has long argued that warmer surface waters can favor the emergence of the bacterium. Whether this plays any role in the large outbreaks around the globe is contested. But another climate link is clear. Floods can aid spread by causing latrines to overflow into water sources, for instance, and droughts can boost the concentration of the bacterium in shrinking ponds and streams and force people to use unsafe water.

"Climate change is making such extreme weather events more frequent, so cholera is likely to surge in a warming world, says Andrew Azman, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University. But there is little consensus on the magnitude of the effect. “It is really, really hard to attribute any of the current cholera cases to climate change,” Azman says—in large part because there are few good long-term data on cholera. The same caveat applies to other waterborne diarrheal diseases, which some researchers suspect will also increase in a warmer world."

Comment: All here can be human controlled. And climate disasters can be anticipated: don't build in flood plains!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, September 30, 2023, 08:30 (181 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have agreed over and over again that you cannot find a single reason why your God would deliberately design 99.9 out of 100 species which have no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. Hence your derogatory description of your senseless theory as messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and your statement that it makes sense only to God (i.e. not to you).

DAVID: ID theory is that God designed evolution and every individual. Your weird complaint comes from not accepting the end of evolution in humans as evidence of God's intention from the beginning. Adler did it, I do it.

And still you go on ignoring the core feature of your theory, bolded above, which you yourself cannot explain, and which you admitted would make no sense to your fellow ID-ers.

DAVID: Same old simple answer. God chose to evolve us for His own, unknown to us, reasons. Accept it!!!

And still you dodge! Once more: The absurdity of your theory lies in your belief that your all-powerful God deliberately designed 99.9 out 100 species which had no relevance to us and our food, although you insist that we and our food were his only purpose from the beginning. And you cannot think of any reason why he might have done so.

dhw: […] you have finally understood that it is not a matter of the terms having a different meaning for God, but of whether the terms – whose meaning is perfectly clear – can be applied to him. When you say you are certain he enjoys creating, you don’t think your God may have a different concept of enjoyment; the question is whether or not creating gives him pleasure. Similarly such terms as all-powerful or selfless are not open to different interpretations – we all know what they mean. So is he or is he not all-powerful and selfless? (See the Feser thread.)

DAVID: I, like all believers, view God as all-powerful and selfless.

And in the past you have expressed certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations and probably has thought processes and emotions in common with us. We are fortunately no longer bogged down by the silly argument that these terms are “allegorical” or “metaphorical”, since you agree that we know what they mean and the question is simply whether these descriptions do or do not apply to your God. If you believe that he takes pleasure in creating, how can he possibly do so without a self which is conscious of the enjoyment? If he is all-powerful, how can he possibly be incapable of preventing the evil that apparently he hates?

Evolution and theodicy

dhw: You don’t seem to have got beyond the thought that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending it isn’t a problem. […]

DAVID: No, I like recognizing proportionality of the problems you over-magnify.

dhw: There is no magnification. Evils such as war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease all exist, and the ratio of good to bad does not explain how such evil can result from the deliberate work of an all-good God.

DAVID: The bolded all can come from human evil: floods due to ill-kept dams in Libya; disease from poor sanitation and lack of providing for immunity-giving shots. Famine is poor planning by governments. An all-good God gave us free will to both create and solve problems.

I’m not denying that a lot of evil is caused by humans, including war, murder, rape and your other examples, including your later one of cholera. As usual, you merely skate over the problem: if God is the first cause and creator of all life, then there was no such thing as evil before he invented the system which produced it. If he is all-knowing, he must have known what evil was before he deliberately created the system that produced it, so how can he be all-good?

DAVID (on the “Feser” thread): Our evil is not God's fault as you imply. His all-good action gave us free will which results in a much more fulfilling life for us.

dhw: I am not questioning the value of free will (if we have it). The question, for the umpteenth time, is how an all-good God can conceive of and create the opportunity for evil.

DAVID: Humans were given that opportunity. You have circled back to wanting life in a Garden of Eden for humanity.

I don’t want a Garden of Eden. I’m asking how an all-good God can create evil if he is the first cause of everything. Stop dodging!

(More of the same on the “Feser” thread)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 30, 2023, 17:44 (180 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same old simple answer. God chose to evolve us for His own, unknown to us, reasons. Accept it!!!

dhw: And still you dodge! Once more: The absurdity of your theory lies in your belief that your all-powerful God deliberately designed 99.9 out 100 species which had no relevance to us and our food, although you insist that we and our food were his only purpose from the beginning. And you cannot think of any reason why he might have done so.

Your same old, tired, flawed response. Evolution happened. God did it. Humans are His end point. With a belief in God all factual.


dhw: […] you have finally understood that it is not a matter of the terms having a different meaning for God, but of whether the terms – whose meaning is perfectly clear – can be applied to him. When you say you are certain he enjoys creating, you don’t think your God may have a different concept of enjoyment; the question is whether or not creating gives him pleasure. Similarly such terms as all-powerful or selfless are not open to different interpretations – we all know what they mean. So is he or is he not all-powerful and selfless? (See the Feser thread.)

DAVID: I, like all believers, view God as all-powerful and selfless.

dhw: And in the past you have expressed certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations and probably has thought processes and emotions in common with us. We are fortunately no longer bogged down by the silly argument that these terms are “allegorical” or “metaphorical”, since you agree that we know what they mean and the question is simply whether these descriptions do or do not apply to your God. If you believe that he takes pleasure in creating, how can he possibly do so without a self which is conscious of the enjoyment? If he is all-powerful, how can he possibly be incapable of preventing the evil that apparently he hates?

God does not have a physical self. He is immaterial, purely a mental state, that is pure thought. The bold is an important realization for you. You might benefit from some study in current theology to follow this. To answer the last question, it appears God lets us manage the evil we create.


Evolution and theodicy

dhw: You don’t seem to have got beyond the thought that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending it isn’t a problem. […]

DAVID: No, I like recognizing proportionality of the problems you over-magnify.

dhw: There is no magnification. Evils such as war, murder, rape, famine, flood, disease all exist, and the ratio of good to bad does not explain how such evil can result from the deliberate work of an all-good God.

DAVID: The bolded all can come from human evil: floods due to ill-kept dams in Libya; disease from poor sanitation and lack of providing for immunity-giving shots. Famine is poor planning by governments. An all-good God gave us free will to both create and solve problems.

dhw: I’m not denying that a lot of evil is caused by humans, including war, murder, rape and your other examples, including your later one of cholera. As usual, you merely skate over the problem: if God is the first cause and creator of all life, then there was no such thing as evil before he invented the system which produced it. If he is all-knowing, he must have known what evil was before he deliberately created the system that produced it, so how can he be all-good?

The 'system' is humans with free will. We create our own evil, God doesn't. And I welcome the free will as an important part of how we live.


DAVID (on the “Feser” thread): Our evil is not God's fault as you imply. His all-good action gave us free will which results in a much more fulfilling life for us.

dhw: I am not questioning the value of free will (if we have it). The question, for the umpteenth time, is how an all-good God can conceive of and create the opportunity for evil.

DAVID: Humans were given that opportunity. You have circled back to wanting life in a Garden of Eden for humanity.

dhw: I don’t want a Garden of Eden. I’m asking how an all-good God can create evil if he is the first cause of everything. Stop dodging!

Humans create evil, God doesn't


(More of the same on the “Feser” thread)

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, October 01, 2023, 11:56 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Once more: The absurdity of your theory lies in your belief that your all-powerful God deliberately designed 99.9 out 100 species which had no relevance to us and our food, although you insist that we and our food were his only purpose from the beginning. And you cannot think of any reason why he might have done so.

DAVID: Your same old, tired, flawed response. Evolution happened. God did it. Humans are His end point. With a belief in God all factual.(dhw's bold)

Now read what you wrote on your Thomist thread:

DAVID: Faith is not knowing, it is believing. We are not dealing with fact. dhw's problem is he wants 'factual evidence' he cannot have and will never have.

So long as you believe your nonsensical theory, it apparently becomes a fact, although there is no factual evidence (a) that your God exists, (b) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, (c) that he designed every species that ever lived, and (d) that he did so knowing that 99.9% of them were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. You are tying yourself in more knots than a weaverbird could ever tie in its nest.

DAVID: I, like all believers, view God as all-powerful and selfless.

dhw:[…] And in the past you have expressed certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations and probably has thought processes and emotions in common with us. We are fortunately no longer bogged down by the silly argument that these terms are “allegorical” or “metaphorical”, since you agree that we know what they mean and the question is simply whether these descriptions do or do not apply to your God. If you believe that he takes pleasure in creating, how can he possibly do so without a self which is conscious of the enjoyment? If he is all-powerful, how can he possibly be incapable of preventing the evil that apparently he hates?

DAVID: God does not have a physical self. He is immaterial, purely a mental state, that is pure thought.

Nobody has said he is physical! What is “pure thought” if it has no content? If he exists, the question is whether some of his thought patterns and emotions (as listed earlier) are like ours.

DAVID: The bold is an important realization for you.

No, it is an important realization for YOU, since you have now realized that terms like enjoyment and interest and all-goodness and selflessness are not “allegorical”, but mean exactly what they say.

DAVID: You might benefit from some study in current theology to follow this.

Since you are the expert on current theology, why don’t you simply answer my questions?

DAVID: To answer the last question, it appears God lets us manage the evil we create.

If he exists, then obviously he is not intervening. That does not help us to understand why, if he is all-good, all-powerful and therefore only creates what he wants to create, and hates evil – as you believe he does – he created a system which he knew would result in evil, and does nothing to prevent it.

DAVID: The 'system' is humans with free will. We create our own evil, God doesn't. And I welcome the free will as an important part of how we live.

Quite apart from the fact that there were floods and famines and diseases long before sapiens appeared on the scene, you believe your God created a system which would produce evil. You believe he is the creator of all life and all systems. How could an all-good God create a system which he knows will produce evil? As regards free will, if we have it, I also welcome it. That is irrelevant to the problem of theodicy, which you keep dodging. (Continued, and sometimes repeated, on the Feser thread.)

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 01, 2023, 16:48 (179 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Faith is not knowing, it is believing. We are not dealing with fact. dhw's problem is he wants 'factual evidence' he cannot have and will never have.

dhw: So long as you believe your nonsensical theory, it apparently becomes a fact, although there is no factual evidence (a) that your God exists, (b) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, (c) that he designed every species that ever lived, and (d) that he did so knowing that 99.9% of them were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. You are tying yourself in more knots than a weaverbird could ever tie in its nest.

Right. No facts. All beliefs based on the original step to have faith in God's existence. That step was based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the evidence for design. Thus a designer called God. You are right on the cusp, as an agnostic who recognizes design.


DAVID: I, like all believers, view God as all-powerful and selfless.

dhw:[…] And in the past you have expressed certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations and probably has thought processes and emotions in common with us. We are fortunately no longer bogged down by the silly argument that these terms are “allegorical” or “metaphorical”, since you agree that we know what they mean and the question is simply whether these descriptions do or do not apply to your God. If you believe that he takes pleasure in creating, how can he possibly do so without a self which is conscious of the enjoyment? If he is all-powerful, how can he possibly be incapable of preventing the evil that apparently he hates?

DAVID: God does not have a physical self. He is immaterial, purely a mental state, that is pure thought.

dhw: Nobody has said he is physical! What is “pure thought” if it has no content? If he exists, the question is whether some of his thought patterns and emotions (as listed earlier) are like ours.

The real question is are our thoughts are in any way comparable to His?


DAVID: The bold is an important realization for you.

dhw: No, it is an important realization for YOU, since you have now realized that terms like enjoyment and interest and all-goodness and selflessness are not “allegorical”, but mean exactly what they say.

NO. We know what those words mean at the human level, nothing more about how they apply to God.


DAVID: To answer the last question, it appears God lets us manage the evil we create.

dhw: If he exists, then obviously he is not intervening. That does not help us to understand why, if he is all-good, all-powerful and therefore only creates what he wants to create, and hates evil – as you believe he does – he created a system which he knew would result in evil, and does nothing to prevent it.

We must assume God does not wish to intervene now.


DAVID: The 'system' is humans with free will. We create our own evil, God doesn't. And I welcome the free will as an important part of how we live.

dhw: Quite apart from the fact that there were floods and famines and diseases long before sapiens appeared on the scene, you believe your God created a system which would produce evil. You believe he is the creator of all life and all systems. How could an all-good God create a system which he knows will produce evil? As regards free will, if we have it, I also welcome it. That is irrelevant to the problem of theodicy, which you keep dodging. (Continued, and sometimes repeated, on the Feser thread.)

I don't dodge. Theodicy is a matter of perceived proportionality. You intensely magnify all teh bad in the world, when it is mostely very good.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, October 02, 2023, 10:27 (179 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Faith is not knowing, it is believing. We are not dealing with fact. dhw's problem is he wants 'factual evidence' he cannot have and will never have.

dhw: So long as you believe your nonsensical theory, it apparently becomes a fact, although there is no factual evidence (a) that your God exists, (b) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, (c) that he designed every species that ever lived, and (d) that he did so knowing that 99.9% of them were irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him. You are tying yourself in more knots than a weaverbird could ever tie in its nest.

DAVID: Right. No facts. All beliefs based on the original step to have faith in God's existence. That step was based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the evidence for design. Thus a designer called God. You are right on the cusp, as an agnostic who recognizes design.

As usual, you dodge the issue here, which is not the existence of God but the nature, purposes and methods of God if he exists. You insist that your God’s only purpose was us plus food, and so he deliberately designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with his one and only purpose – a method you yourself ridicule as messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and yet you cling to the theory as if it were a God-given fact.

DAVID: I, like all believers, view God as all-powerful and selfless.

dhw: […] If you believe that he takes pleasure in creating, how can he possibly do so without a self which is conscious of the enjoyment? If he is all-powerful, how can he possibly be incapable of preventing the evil that apparently he hates?

DAVID: God does not have a physical self. He is immaterial, purely a mental state, that is pure thought.

dhw: Nobody has said he is physical! What is “pure thought” if it has no content? If he exists, the question is whether some of his thought patterns and emotions (as listed earlier) are like ours.

DAVID: The real question is are our thoughts are in any way comparable to His?

You have said you believe he enjoys creating, and is selfless and all-powerful, so please answer the two questions bolded above.

dhw: […] you have now realized that terms like enjoyment and interest and all-goodness and selflessness are not “allegorical”, but mean exactly what they say.

DAVID: NO. We know what those words mean at the human level, nothing more about how they apply to God.

Why “no”? We know what the terms mean (they are not “allegorical”), and yes, the question is whether they apply to God. You have said that you think they do, and so I have asked you two questions. Please answer them.

DAVID: To answer the last question, it appears God lets us manage the evil we create.

dhw: If he exists, then obviously he is not intervening. That does not help us to understand why, if he is all-good, all-powerful and therefore only creates what he wants to create, and hates evil – as you believe he does – he created a system which he knew would result in evil, and does nothing to prevent it.

DAVID: We must assume God does not wish to intervene now.

Obviously (if he exists). But that that does not help us to understand what I have now bolded above. Stop dodging.

DAVID: I don't dodge. Theodicy is a matter of perceived proportionality. You intensely magnify all teh bad in the world, when it is mostely very good.

Theodicy has nothing whatsoever to do with your made-up percentages of proportionality. Do you deny that there is such a thing as evil? If you accept that evil exists, then regardless of percentages, why and how could an all-good God produce it?

Wikipedia describes theodicy as: an argument that attempts to resolve the problem of evil that arises when omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience are all simultaneously ascribed to God.[1]
Your attempt to resolve the problem is to pretend that evil is so minor that there is no problem to resolve.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, October 02, 2023, 21:10 (178 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Right. No facts. All beliefs based on the original step to have faith in God's existence. That step was based on proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the evidence for design. Thus a designer called God. You are right on the cusp, as an agnostic who recognizes design.

dhw: As usual, you dodge the issue here, which is not the existence of God but the nature, purposes and methods of God if he exists. You insist that your God’s only purpose was us plus food, and so he deliberately designed 99.9% of species that had no connection with his one and only purpose – a method you yourself ridicule as messy, cumbersome and inefficient, and yet you cling to the theory as if it were a God-given fact.

As usual you have no idea of how to believe in God. Once accepting His existence, theistic discussions must be based on experts in the field. I have done just that. When presented your constant response is 'how do they know'? We have agreed no one knows. But their deep philosophical thinking is all we have other than our own thoughts. What I present here is an amalgam of readings and my own analysis as a believer. What I present is fact for me. And you sit looking from the outside, uncomfortable with what is presented. As for your usual cook-book complaint, it comes from ignoring the starting point that what is here is what God created. Evolution happened as a result of God's, unknown to us, decisions. Humans are an amazing, surprising result. Try on that viewpoint. But you can't. You strongly feel humans should not be accepted as exceptional, when we are. Are you afraid of the sin of pride? Your hero, Darwin, touted the white race as best!!!


DAVID: The real question is are our thoughts are in any way comparable to His?

dhw: You have said you believe he enjoys creating, and is selfless and all-powerful, so please answer the two questions bolded above: dhw: […] If you believe that he takes pleasure in creating, how can he possibly do so without a self which is conscious of the enjoyment? If he is all-powerful, how can he possibly be incapable of preventing the evil that apparently he hates? >

"Self" is consciousness in a material brain. God is immaterial brain. His motives are all in His purposes. God's enjoyment is His alone and may not be equivalent to ours. As for evil, it is a necessary byproduct of God's good works. Simply, you can't have one without the other.

dhw: If he exists, then obviously he is not intervening. That does not help us to understand why, if he is all-good, all-powerful and therefore only creates what he wants to create, and hates evil – as you believe he does – he created a system which he knew would result in evil, and does nothing to prevent it.

DAVID: We must assume God does not wish to intervene now.

dhw; Obviously (if he exists). But that that does not help us to understand what I have now bolded above. Stop dodging.

I've given you 'understanding' you refuse to accept.


DAVID: I don't dodge. Theodicy is a matter of perceived proportionality. You intensely magnify all the bad in the world, when it is mostly very good.

dhw: Theodicy has nothing whatsoever to do with your made-up percentages of proportionality. Do you deny that there is such a thing as evil? If you accept that evil exists, then regardless of percentages, why and how could an all-good God produce it?

dhw: Wikipedia describes theodicy as: an argument that attempts to resolve the problem of evil that arises when omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience are all simultaneously ascribed to God.[1]
Your attempt to resolve the problem is to pretend that evil is so minor that there is no problem to resolve.

If you really tried to discover theodicy thought, read it. You won't accept my interpretation of it. The answers are all about proportionality.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, October 03, 2023, 12:42 (177 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As usual you have no idea of how to believe in God.

We are not discussing the existence of God, but his possible nature, purposes and methods if he does exist.

DAVID: Once accepting His existence, theistic discussions must be based on experts in the field. I have done just that. When presented your constant response is 'how do they know'? We have agreed no one knows. But their deep philosophical thinking is all we have other than our own thoughts.

So do all your experts agree with you that your God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food, and they have no idea why he would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient system? And do all your experts agree that the problem of theodicy, which has been discussed by so-called experts for centuries, has been solved by claiming that good so outweighs evil that there is no problem to discuss?

DAVID: What I present here is an amalgam of readings and my own analysis as a believer. What I present is fact for me. And you sit looking from the outside, uncomfortable with what is presented.

I am uncomfortable with any theory that makes no sense even to the theorist.

DAVID: As for your usual cook-book complaint, it comes from ignoring the starting point that what is here is what God created.

One cannot study a possible God’s nature etc., without accepting the basic premise that what is here is what a possible God created.

DAVID: Evolution happened as a result of God's, unknown to us, decisions. Humans are an amazing, surprising result. Try on that viewpoint. But you can't. You strongly feel humans should not be accepted as exceptional, when we are.

I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but (a) ALL life is amazing and surprising, and (b) our exceptional gifts do not explain why your God would have deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us if we and our food were his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Are you afraid of the sin of pride? Your hero, Darwin, touted the white race as best!!!

I have no idea why you think my analysis of your illogical theories comes from fear of pride, or why you have ended your diatribe with a personal attack on Darwin, complete with the racial slur which is hotly disputed by those who have studied Darwin’s writings.

dhw: You have said you believe he enjoys creating, and is selfless and all-powerful, so please answer the two questions:
[…] If you believe that he takes pleasure in creating, how can he possibly do so without a self which is conscious of the enjoyment? If he is all-powerful, how can he possibly be incapable of preventing the evil that apparently he hates?

DAVID: "Self" is consciousness in a material brain. God is immaterial brain.

Now what are you saying? That God is not conscious???

DAVID: His motives are all in His purposes.

His motives ARE his purposes, whatever they may be.

DAVID: God's enjoyment is His alone and may not be equivalent to ours.

Either he enjoys creating or he doesn’t. You say he does. Either he is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing and selfless, or he isn’t. You say he is.

DAVID: As for evil, it is a necessary byproduct of God's good works. Simply, you can't have one without the other.

So your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God, who would only create what he wants to create and who hates evil, had no choice but to create evil, which he wanted to create anyway.

DAVID: If you really tried to discover theodicy thought, read it. You won't accept my interpretation of it. The answers are all about proportionality.

Why don’t you read the Wikipedia article on the subject? There you will find a huge range of “answers” ancient and modern, none of which mention “proportionality”.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 03, 2023, 15:21 (177 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: As usual you have no idea of how to believe in God.

We are not discussing the existence of God, but his possible nature, purposes and methods if he does exist.

DAVID: Once accepting His existence, theistic discussions must be based on experts in the field. I have done just that. When presented your constant response is 'how do they know'? We have agreed no one knows. But their deep philosophical thinking is all we have other than our own thoughts.

dhw: So do all your experts agree with you that your God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food, and they have no idea why he would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient system? And do all your experts agree that the problem of theodicy, which has been discussed by so-called experts for centuries, has been solved by claiming that good so outweighs evil that there is no problem to discuss?

As you have devolved and extrapolated your brilliant cell theory, I've evolved mine patterned on Adler's thesis humans prove God. Theodicy must be discussed. I brought up the subject, or have you forgotten. But I reject your point of view.


DAVID: What I present here is an amalgam of readings and my own analysis as a believer. What I present is fact for me. And you sit looking from the outside, uncomfortable with what is presented.

dhw: I am uncomfortable with any theory that makes no sense even to the theorist.

Sorry you can't understand it as I do.


DAVID: As for your usual cook-book complaint, it comes from ignoring the starting point that what is here is what God created.

dhw: One cannot study a possible God’s nature etc., without accepting the basic premise that what is here is what a possible God created.

Thank you.


DAVID: Evolution happened as a result of God's, unknown to us, decisions. Humans are an amazing, surprising result. Try on that viewpoint. But you can't. You strongly feel humans should not be accepted as exceptional, when we are.

dhw: I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but (a) ALL life is amazing and surprising, and (b) our exceptional gifts do not explain why your God would have deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us if we and our food were his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

Degrading humans by faint praise.


DAVID: Are you afraid of the sin of pride? Your hero, Darwin, touted the white race as best!!!

dhw: I have no idea why you think my analysis of your illogical theories comes from fear of pride, or why you have ended your diatribe with a personal attack on Darwin, complete with the racial slur which is hotly disputed by those who have studied Darwin’s writings.

And hotly pointed out by other authorities.


DAVID: God's enjoyment is His alone and may not be equivalent to ours.

dhw: Either he enjoys creating or he doesn’t. You say he does. Either he is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing and selfless, or he isn’t. You say he is.

As our terms apply to us, they may not apply to God.


DAVID: As for evil, it is a necessary byproduct of God's good works. Simply, you can't have one without the other.

dhw: So your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God, who would only create what he wants to create and who hates evil, had no choice but to create evil, which he wanted to create anyway.

The word byproduct means it comes as a secondary event, not desired or wished for. Stop distorting


DAVID: If you really tried to discover theodicy thought, read it. You won't accept my interpretation of it. The answers are all about proportionality.

dhw: Why don’t you read the Wikipedia article on the subject? There you will find a huge range of “answers” ancient and modern, none of which mention “proportionality”.

Do you really trust Wikipedia?

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, October 04, 2023, 08:29 (177 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: [..] do all your experts agree with you that your God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food, and they have no idea why he would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient system? And do all your experts agree that the problem of theodicy, which has been discussed by so-called experts for centuries, has been solved by claiming that good so outweighs evil that there is no problem to discuss?

DAVID: As you have devolved and extrapolated your brilliant cell theory, I've evolved mine patterned on Adler's thesis humans prove God.

We are not discussing the existence of God, but his possible nature, purpose(s) and methods if he does exist. You have admitted that Adler does not cover the theories bolded above, and since the first theory makes no sense even to you, all you keep doing is DODGING it. Please stop dodging it.

DAVID: Theodicy must be discussed. I brought up the subject, or have you forgotten. But I reject your point of view.

You mean you reject my rejection of your absurd view, which is that the problem of why and how an all-good God would create a system which he knows will result in evil is solved by pretending that evil is too minor to be discussed.

DAVID: Evolution happened as a result of God's, unknown to us, decisions. Humans are an amazing, surprising result. Try on that viewpoint. But you can't. You strongly feel humans should not be accepted as exceptional, when we are.

dhw: I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but (a) ALL life is amazing and surprising, and (b) our exceptional gifts do not explain why your God would have deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us if we and our food were his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Degrading humans by faint praise.

Our subject is not the exceptional nature of humans but your illogical theories bolded above. STOP DODGING!

DAVID: God's enjoyment is His alone and may not be equivalent to ours.

dhw: Either he enjoys creating or he doesn’t. You say he does. Either he is all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing and selfless, or he isn’t. You say he is.

DAVID: As our terms apply to us, they may not apply to God.

Do you or do you not believe that your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and selfless?

DAVID: As for evil, it is a necessary byproduct of God's good works. Simply, you can't have one without the other.

dhw: So your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God, who would only create what he wants to create and who hates evil, had no choice but to create evil, which he wanted to create anyway.

DAVID: The word byproduct means it comes as a secondary event, not desired or wished for. Stop distorting.
[dhw: Argument repeated on the “Feser” thread, so I’ve cut it from there.]

Your “byproduct” theory is irrelevant. Do you believe that your evil-hating God is all-powerful and all-good, and would only create what he wants to create? If he’s all-powerful, why do you think he is incapable of designing a system which does not produce something he hates? If he only creates what he wants to create, why do you think he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil?

DAVID: If you really tried to discover theodicy thought, read it. You won't accept my interpretation of it. The answers are all about proportionality.

dhw (taken from T-cells): Your manufactured statistics of “proportionality” are totally irrelevant to the question of how/why an all-good God has produced a system which gives rise to evil, whatever the “percentage”. If he had “no other choice”, how can he possibly be all-powerful?

DAVID: Anyone who creates a universe and life is all-powerful.

So please answer the two bolded questions.

dhw: Why don’t you read the Wikipedia article on the subject? There you will find a huge range of “answers” ancient and modern, none of which mention “proportionality”.

DAVID: Do you really trust Wikipedia?

I have several dictionaries of religion, philosophy, modern thought etc., all of which agree with my definition of theodicy. The problem “has been on the philosophical agenda for at least 2000 years.” (Fontana Dic. of Modern Thought) The Wikipedia article gives a history of this endless and extremely varied discussion. Like all my reference books, it never even mentions “proportionality” as a factor – the reason being painfully obvious: you can’t solve a problem by pretending that the problem doesn’t exist.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 04, 2023, 17:33 (176 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: [..] do all your experts agree with you that your God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food, and they have no idea why he would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient system? And do all your experts agree that the problem of theodicy, which has been discussed by so-called experts for centuries, has been solved by claiming that good so outweighs evil that there is no problem to discuss?

DAVID: As you have devolved and extrapolated your brilliant cell theory, I've evolved mine patterned on Adler's thesis humans prove God.

dhw: We are not discussing the existence of God, but his possible nature, purpose(s) and methods if he does exist. You have admitted that Adler does not cover the theories bolded above, and since the first theory makes no sense even to you, all you keep doing is DODGING it. Please stop dodging it.

Adler and I believe God's primary purpose was to create humans by evolving them. Method and purpose are now covered, not dodged. Nature is what theologists guess it is. The first bold is your strawman invention of a twisted interpretation of God's form of evolution, which is the only form we have. Adler accepted that form in his discussions. Theodicy has been fully discussed.


DAVID: Evolution happened as a result of God's, unknown to us, decisions. Humans are an amazing, surprising result. Try on that viewpoint. But you can't. You strongly feel humans should not be accepted as exceptional, when we are.

dhw: I have always accepted that we are exceptional, but (a) ALL life is amazing and surprising, and (b) our exceptional gifts do not explain why your God would have deliberately designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us if we and our food were his one and only purpose. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Degrading humans by faint praise.

dhw: Our subject is not the exceptional nature of humans but your illogical theories bolded above. STOP DODGING!

Fully covered above.


DAVID: As our terms apply to us, they may not apply to God.

dhw: Do you or do you not believe that your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good and selfless?

Yes, as our terms may define Him.


DAVID: As for evil, it is a necessary byproduct of God's good works. Simply, you can't have one without the other.

dhw: So your all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God, who would only create what he wants to create and who hates evil, had no choice but to create evil, which he wanted to create anyway.

DAVID: The word byproduct means it comes as a secondary event, not desired or wished for. Stop distorting.
[dhw: Argument repeated on the “Feser” thread, so I’ve cut it from there.]

dhw: Your “byproduct” theory is irrelevant. Do you believe that your evil-hating God is all-powerful and all-good, and would only create what he wants to create? If he’s all-powerful, why do you think he is incapable of designing a system which does not produce something he hates? If he only creates what he wants to create, why do you think he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil?

Incapable? God created what He could create from available substrates. And byproduct results are relevant.


DAVID: If you really tried to discover theodicy thought, read it. You won't accept my interpretation of it. The answers are all about proportionality.

dhw (taken from T-cells): Your manufactured statistics of “proportionality” are totally irrelevant to the question of how/why an all-good God has produced a system which gives rise to evil, whatever the “percentage”. If he had “no other choice”, how can he possibly be all-powerful?

DAVID: Anyone who creates a universe and life is all-powerful.

dhw: So please answer the two bolded questions.

see above.


dhw: Why don’t you read the Wikipedia article on the subject? There you will find a huge range of “answers” ancient and modern, none of which mention “proportionality”.

DAVID: Do you really trust Wikipedia?

dhw: I have several dictionaries of religion, philosophy, modern thought etc., all of which agree with my definition of theodicy. The problem “has been on the philosophical agenda for at least 2000 years.” (Fontana Dic. of Modern Thought) The Wikipedia article gives a history of this endless and extremely varied discussion. Like all my reference books, it never even mentions “proportionality” as a factor – the reason being painfully obvious: you can’t solve a problem by pretending that the problem doesn’t exist.

We must read different authors. Mine all use proportionality to mitigate the problem.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, October 05, 2023, 10:50 (176 days ago) @ David Turell

I have combined this and the “Feser” thread.

dhw: We are not discussing the existence of God, but his possible nature, purpose(s) and methods if he does exist. You have admitted that Adler does not cover the theories bolded above, and since the first theory makes no sense even to you, all you keep doing is DODGING it.

DAVID: Adler and I believe God's primary purpose was to create humans by evolving them.

You have specified that the creation of humans plus food was your God’s one and only purpose. If “primary”, what were his other purposes?

DAVID: Method and purpose are now covered, not dodged.

The method you have specified up to now is that your God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food, and you have no idea why he would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient system.

DAVID: The […] bold is your strawman invention of a twisted interpretation of God's form of evolution, which is the only form we have.

It is YOUR twisted interpretation of your God’s form of evolution, not mine! Please tell us which part of it you now wish to reject.

Theodicy

DAVID: As for evil, it is a necessary byproduct of God's good works. Simply, you can't have one without the other.

dhw: Your “byproduct” theory is irrelevant. Do you believe that your evil-hating God is all-powerful and all-good, and would only create what he wants to create? If he’s all-powerful, why do you think he is incapable of designing a system which does not produce something he hates? If he only creates what he wants to create, why do you think he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil?

DAVID: Incapable? God created what He could create from available substrates. And byproduct results are relevant.

If he is the first, all-powerful cause of everything, it’s not a question of “available substrates” but of what substrates he wanted to create! If he was capable of designing the “substrates” necessary for a Garden of Eden, why did he choose not to do so? If he is all-knowing, he knew that his system would produce evil, whether you call it a byproduct or not. Now please answer the bolded questions above.

dhw: Why don’t you read the Wikipedia article on the subject? There you will find a huge range of “answers” ancient and modern, none of which mention “proportionality”.

DAVID: Do you really trust Wikipedia?

dhw: I have several dictionaries of religion, philosophy, modern thought etc., all of which agree with my definition of theodicy. The problem “has been on the philosophical agenda for at least 2000 years.” (Fontana Dic. of Modern Thought) The Wikipedia article gives a history of this endless and extremely varied discussion. Like all my reference books, it never even mentions “proportionality” as a factor – the reason being painfully obvious: you can’t solve a problem by pretending that the problem doesn’t exist.

DAVID: We must read different authors. Mine all use proportionality to mitigate the problem.

Then take a look at the Wikipedia article and broaden your horizons. “Mitigation” entails lessening the degree of guilt – it doesn’t solve the problem. So please tell us how your authors (any prominent names you can give us?) answer the two bolded questions above which you are so keen to ignore?

dhw; You have told us that your God “has no self as we view ourselves”. If he thinks, and is interested in our thoughts, how can he do so without having a self, i.e. a personal identity? My question also applies to your belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. How can he be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, enjoying, interested in, wanting and even hating this and that, without having a self? Your next comment contradicts your contention that he has no self:

DAVID: There are agreed upon characteristics among the accepted experts in the theological theories.

So if your so-called experts agree that he has particular characteristics, it is clearly absurd for you to say that “he has no self”.

DAVID: Adler tells pagans how to believe. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion.

dhw: Lots and lots of religious people, including the writers whose works appear in the Bible and all the “authorities” who preside over all the different religions in the world, tell other people how and what to believe. And strange to relate, there are even world-renowned philosophers who tell people not to believe in a God.

DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: So please stop hiding behind Adler as if his opinions are gospel!

DAVID: As a pagan directly addressed by Adler in his book, 'How to Think About God', His instructions represent a theological philosopher's distillation of thoughts by many theists. Certainly, an acceptable teacher for me. Equal to 'The Theology of God's Attributes 101' in college.

Your worship of Adler does not answer any of my questions relating to your illogical theories of evolution and your contradictory views of his nature, as exemplified by your attempts to dodge the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 05, 2023, 18:29 (175 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Adler and I believe God's primary purpose was to create humans by evolving them.

dhw: You have specified that the creation of humans plus food was your God’s one and only purpose. If “primary”, what were his other purposes?

Everything else is secondary and directed to preparing for humans.


DAVID: Method and purpose are now covered, not dodged.

dhw: The method you have specified up to now is that your God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food, and you have no idea why he would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient system.

God had His own reasons. Unfortunately for you I am not His psychoanalyst.


DAVID: The […] bold is your strawman invention of a twisted interpretation of God's form of evolution, which is the only form we have.

dhw: It is YOUR twisted interpretation of your God’s form of evolution, not mine! Please tell us which part of it you now wish to reject.

Your idiotic exclusion of 99% of evolution as unnecessary.


Theodicy

dhw: Your “byproduct” theory is irrelevant. Do you believe that your evil-hating God is all-powerful and all-good, and would only create what he wants to create? If he’s all-powerful, why do you think he is incapable of designing a system which does not produce something he hates? If he only creates what he wants to create, why do you think he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil?

DAVID: Incapable? God created what He could create from available substrates. And byproduct results are relevant.

dhw: If he is the first, all-powerful cause of everything, it’s not a question of “available substrates” but of what substrates he wanted to create! If he was capable of designing the “substrates” necessary for a Garden of Eden, why did he choose not to do so? If he is all-knowing, he knew that his system would produce evil, whether you call it a byproduct or not. Now please answer the bolded questions above.

God produced what He thought was best to produce. Eden was a simple place compared to this reality. Why do you endorse a biblical place in this discussion of this reality and God's role in it? Must I repeat the evils are byproducts of His good works.

dhw: I have several dictionaries of religion, philosophy, modern thought etc., all of which agree with my definition of theodicy. The problem “has been on the philosophical agenda for at least 2000 years.” (Fontana Dic. of Modern Thought) The Wikipedia article gives a history of this endless and extremely varied discussion. Like all my reference books, it never even mentions “proportionality” as a factor – the reason being painfully obvious: you can’t solve a problem by pretending that the problem doesn’t exist.

DAVID: We must read different authors. Mine all use proportionality to mitigate the problem.

DAVID: Adler tells pagans how to believe. He is a world-renowned philosopher of religion.

dhw: Lots and lots of religious people, including the writers whose works appear in the Bible and all the “authorities” who preside over all the different religions in the world, tell other people how and what to believe. And strange to relate, there are even world-renowned philosophers who tell people not to believe in a God.

DAVID: Agreed.

dhw: So please stop hiding behind Adler as if his opinions are gospel!

DAVID: As a pagan directly addressed by Adler in his book, 'How to Think About God', His instructions represent a theological philosopher's distillation of thoughts by many theists. Certainly, an acceptable teacher for me. Equal to 'The Theology of God's Attributes 101' in college.

dhw: Your worship of Adler does not answer any of my questions relating to your illogical theories of evolution and your contradictory views of his nature, as exemplified by your attempts to dodge the problem of theodicy.

I have not dodged theodicy. I am the one who first raised the issue, please remember.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, October 06, 2023, 11:45 (174 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Adler and I believe God's primary purpose was to create humans by evolving them.

dhw: You have specified that the creation of humans plus food was your God’s one and only purpose. If “primary”, what were his other purposes?

DAVID: Everything else is secondary and directed to preparing for humans.

And this belief of yours leads to the following absurd theory:
dhw: The method you have specified up to now is that your God specially designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food, and you have no idea why he would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient system.

DAVID: God had His own reasons. Unfortunately for you I am not His psychoanalyst.

So once more you admit that your theory (it’s not a fact) makes no sense to you. Since you can’t make any sense of it, why do you refuse to admit that it might be wrong?

DAVID: The […] bold is your strawman invention of a twisted interpretation of God's form of evolution, which is the only form we have.

dhw: It is YOUR twisted interpretation of your God’s form of evolution, not mine! Please tell us which part of it you now wish to reject.

DAVID: Your idiotic exclusion of 99% of evolution as unnecessary.

It is YOUR idiotic exclusion, because it is you who say they had no connection with (= were not necessary for) his one and only purpose, and only he knows why he designed them and then had to get rid of them! You simply refuse to believe that your God may have had a different purpose, which might explain why he designed them or why he created a free-for-all in which he gave them the means to design themselves.

Theodicy

dhw: Your “byproduct” theory is irrelevant. Do you believe that your evil-hating God is all-powerful and all-good, and would only create what he wants to create? If he’s all-powerful, why do you think he is incapable of designing a system which does not produce something he hates? If he only creates what he wants to create, why do you think he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil?

DAVID: Incapable? God created what He could create from available substrates. And byproduct results are relevant.

dhw: If he is the first, all-powerful cause of everything, it’s not a question of “available substrates” but of what substrates he wanted to create! If he was capable of designing the “substrates” necessary for a Garden of Eden, why did he choose not to do so? If he is all-knowing, he knew that his system would produce evil, whether you call it a byproduct or not. Now please answer the bolded questions above.

DAVID: God produced what He thought was best to produce.

I would suggest that if he is all-powerful, he would have produced what he wanted to produce.

DAVID: Eden was a simple place compared to this reality.

Agreed. So maybe he wanted the complexities of good and evil, which would make life more interesting for us to lead and for him to watch. But then you have this wretched problem of theodicy: how can a God who wants a mixture of good and evil be all-good?

DAVID: Why do you endorse a biblical place in this discussion of this reality and God's role in it?

Sorry, I thought you’d realized that Eden is just an image for a place without evil.

DAVID: Must I repeat the evils are byproducts of His good works.

I’d rather you didn’t, since it does not offer a single contribution to the discussion on how/why an all-good and all powerful God, who would only create what he wanted to create, can design a system which he knows will result in evil – whether it’s a byproduct or not.

dhw: Your worship of Adler does not answer any of my questions relating to your illogical theories of evolution and your contradictory views of his nature, as exemplified by your attempts to dodge the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: I have not dodged theodicy. I am the one who first raised the issue, please remember.

Your repeated solution to the problem of theodicy is to pretend that the proportion of evil to good is so small that there isn’t a problem. I call that dodging.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, October 06, 2023, 18:34 (174 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God had His own reasons. Unfortunately for you I am not His psychoanalyst.

So once more you admit that your theory (it’s not a fact) makes no sense to you. Since you can’t make any sense of it, why do you refuse to admit that it might be wrong?

Your absurd view of my thought processes comes from the fact that I cannot read God's mind. We both know what God did in using an evolutionary process to create humans, and we agree, based on the Cambrin Explosion, God is capable of direct creation. I make perfect sense to propose God chose to evolve us for HIS OWN REASONS.


DAVID: The […] bold is your strawman invention of a twisted interpretation of God's form of evolution, which is the only form we have.

dhw: It is YOUR twisted interpretation of your God’s form of evolution, not mine! Please tell us which part of it you now wish to reject.

DAVID: Your idiotic exclusion of 99% of evolution as unnecessary.

dhw: It is YOUR idiotic exclusion, because it is you who say they had no connection with (= were not necessary for) his one and only purpose, and only he knows why he designed them and then had to get rid of them! You simply refuse to believe that your God may have had a different purpose, which might explain why he designed them or why he created a free-for-all in which he gave them the means to design themselves.

An evolutionary process (as evidenced by ours) requires a 99.9% loss rate. Therefore, it is necessary.


Theodicy

dhw: I would suggest that if he is all-powerful, he would have produced what he wanted to produce.

Agreed. He produced good in giving us free will which allows us to produce evil. Both bacteria and viruses are necessary but can produce disease if in the wrong places. Biproducts of His good works.

DAVID: Must I repeat the evils are byproducts of His good works.

dhw: I’d rather you didn’t, since it does not offer a single contribution to the discussion on how/why an all-good and all powerful God, who would only create what he wanted to create, can design a system which he knows will result in evil – whether it’s a byproduct or not.

Please tell us what your God would produce in a system with no evil.


dhw: Your worship of Adler does not answer any of my questions relating to your illogical theories of evolution and your contradictory views of his nature, as exemplified by your attempts to dodge the problem of theodicy.

DAVID: I have not dodged theodicy. I am the one who first raised the issue, please remember.

dhw: Your repeated solution to the problem of theodicy is to pretend that the proportion of evil to good is so small that there isn’t a problem. I call that dodging.

I produced it as a problem!!! You won't accept my answers, because you have an imagined view of an enormous problem. Believers in God accept the problem as part of their belief. Their approach is to accept that God's good works allow evil to appear as byproducts. I await your description of a non-evil-causing system.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, October 07, 2023, 12:10 (173 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God had His own reasons. Unfortunately for you I am not His psychoanalyst.

dhw: So once more you admit that your theory (it’s not a fact) makes no sense to you. Since you can’t make any sense of it, why do you refuse to admit that it might be wrong?

DAVID: Your absurd view of my thought processes comes from the fact that I cannot read God's mind. We both know what God did in using an evolutionary process to create humans, and we agree, based on the Cambrin Explosion, God is capable of direct creation. I make perfect sense to propose God chose to evolve us for HIS OWN REASONS.

But you pretend that you CAN read God’s mind! You pretend you know that his sole purpose for creating life was to design us and our food. But since you believe he is capable of direct design, and since you also believe he individually designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose, you admit that you cannot make sense of this combination of theories. Of course your God, if he exists, would have had his own reasons for creating life’s history. But life’s history does not include your made-up version of his single purpose or the messy, cumbersome, inefficient method you impose on him. The only “perfect sense” you offer us with your combination of theories is that it is so illogical that it makes no more sense to you than it does to me.

DAVID: The […] bold is your strawman invention of a twisted interpretation of God's form of evolution, which is the only form we have.

dhw: It is YOUR twisted interpretation of your God’s form of evolution, not mine! Please tell us which part of it you now wish to reject.

DAVID: Your idiotic exclusion of 99% of evolution as unnecessary.

dhw: It is YOUR idiotic exclusion, because it is you who say they had no connection with (= were not necessary for) his one and only purpose, and only he knows why he designed them and then had to get rid of them! […]

DAVID: An evolutionary process (as evidenced by ours) requires a 99.9% loss rate. Therefore, it is necessary.

The only evolution of life that we know of has resulted in the extinction of 99.9% of species. This loss can only have been “necessary” if there was some particular goal which could not be achieved without their loss, in which case it makes no sense for your God to have designed the "unnecessary" 99.9% in the first place! Hence the fact that you can’t find a single reason why your God would act in such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient manner. But you refuse to believe that your personal, totally irrational interpretation of the history might be wrong.

Theodicy

dhw: I would suggest that if he is all-powerful, he would have produced what he wanted to produce.

DAVID: Agreed. He produced good in giving us free will which allows us to produce evil. Both bacteria and viruses are necessary but can produce disease if in the wrong places. Biproducts of His good works.

What you have agreed is that if he is all powerful, he would have wanted to create the system which he knew would produce both good and evil. How does that make him all-good?

DAVID: Must I repeat the evils are byproducts of His good works.

dhw: I’d rather you didn’t, since it does not offer a single contribution to the discussion on how/why an all-good and all powerful God, who would only create what he wanted to create, would design a system which he knew would result in evil – whether it’s a byproduct or not.

DAVID: Please tell us what your God would produce in a system with no evil.

A garden of Eden, or what many religious folk imagine to be paradise or heaven, in which all life forms, including humans, live at peace with one another, and even in communion with their God...This is irrelevant to the problem of theodicy, so now please tell us how your God can conceive of evil and knowingly build it into the system which, as first cause, he created out of himself, and yet be all-good.

DAVID: I have not dodged theodicy. […]

dhw: Your repeated solution to the problem of theodicy is to pretend that the proportion of evil to good is so small that there isn’t a problem. I call that dodging.

DAVID: I produced it as a problem!!! You won't accept my answers, because you have an imagined view of an enormous problem.

It’s you who keep using words like “enormous” and “proportionality”, and I keep telling you that they are irrelevant. Evil exists, no matter what percentages you like to manufacture. So please answer the bold.

DAVID: Believers in God accept the problem as part of their belief. Their approach is to accept that God's good works allow evil to appear as byproducts. I await your description of a non-evil-causing system.

Acceptance that there is a problem is not a solution, which is why the debate has continued for centuries. My description is irrelevant to the problem, as it does not explain how your first-cause God can conceive of evil, and deliberately build a system which he knows will cause evil, and yet be “all good”.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 07, 2023, 18:22 (173 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your absurd view of my thought processes comes from the fact that I cannot read God's mind. We both know what God did in using an evolutionary process to create humans, and we agree, based on the Cambrin Explosion, God is capable of direct creation. I make perfect sense to propose God chose to evolve us for HIS OWN REASONS.

dhw: But you pretend that you CAN read God’s mind! You pretend you know that his sole purpose for creating life was to design us and our food. But since you believe he is capable of direct design, and since you also believe he individually designed 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose, you admit that you cannot make sense of this combination of theories. Of course your God, if he exists, would have had his own reasons for creating life’s history. But life’s history does not include your made-up version of his single purpose or the messy, cumbersome, inefficient method you impose on him. The only “perfect sense” you offer us with your combination of theories is that it is so illogical that it makes no more sense to you than it does to me.

Same weird psychoanalysis of my mind. Creating humans and their food supply by evolution is what happened. Assuming God did it is my belief, which means it makes perfect sense to me if
not to you.


Theodicy

dhw: I would suggest that if he is all-powerful, he would have produced what he wanted to produce.

DAVID: Agreed. He produced good in giving us free will which allows us to produce evil. Both bacteria and viruses are necessary but can produce disease if in the wrong places. Biproducts of His good works.

dhw: What you have agreed is that if he is all powerful, he would have wanted to create the system which he knew would produce both good and evil. How does that make him all-good?

God is separated from evil. All of it is byproducts of His good works:


DAVID: Must I repeat the evils are byproducts of His good works.

dhw: I’d rather you didn’t, since it does not offer a single contribution to the discussion on how/why an all-good and all powerful God, who would only create what he wanted to create, would design a system which he knew would result in evil – whether it’s a byproduct or not.

DAVID: Please tell us what your God would produce in a system with no evil.

dhw: A garden of Eden, or what many religious folk imagine to be paradise or heaven, in which all life forms, including humans, live at peace with one another, and even in communion with their God...This is irrelevant to the problem of theodicy, so now please tell us how your God can conceive of evil and knowingly build it into the system which, as first cause, he created out of himself, and yet be all-good.

Same answer: God is separated from evil. All of it is byproducts of His good works


DAVID: I have not dodged theodicy. […]

dhw: Your repeated solution to the problem of theodicy is to pretend that the proportion of evil to good is so small that there isn’t a problem. I call that dodging.

DAVID: I produced it as a problem!!! You won't accept my answers, because you have an imagined view of an enormous problem.

It’s you who keep using words like “enormous” and “proportionality”, and I keep telling you that they are irrelevant. Evil exists, no matter what percentages you like to manufacture. So please answer the bold.

DAVID: Believers in God accept the problem as part of their belief. Their approach is to accept that God's good works allow evil to appear as byproducts. I await your description of a non-evil-causing system.

dhw: Acceptance that there is a problem is not a solution, which is why the debate has continued for centuries. My description is irrelevant to the problem, as it does not explain how your first-cause God can conceive of evil, and deliberately build a system which he knows will cause evil, and yet be “all good”.

I'm sorry you don't see it as I do. The fact you cannot offer a solution by your God shows there can only be the current reality.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, October 08, 2023, 11:35 (173 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Same weird psychoanalysis of my mind. Creating humans and their food supply by evolution is what happened. Assuming God did it is my belief, which means it makes perfect sense to me if not to you.

But according to your weird theory, creating humans plus food was his one and only purpose, and so he deliberately created and then had to get rid of 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with his one and only purpose. The existence and extinction of what you think were unnecessary species is also “what happened”, and you cannot think of a single reason why he would choose what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve his one and only purpose. That is why you simply leave it out of your replies in an endless attempt to dodge the fact that you admit your combination of theories makes no sense even to you.

Theodicy
dhw: What you have agreed is that if he is all powerful, he would have wanted to create the system which he knew would produce both good and evil. How does that make him all-good?
And:

dhw: please tell us how your God can conceive of evil and knowingly build it into the system which, as first cause, he created out of himself, and yet be all-good.

DAVID: God is separated from evil. All of it is byproducts of His good works.

How can your all-powerful, all-knowing God be “separated” from it if as first cause he deliberately created a system which he knew would produce it?
Your other solution to the problem of theodicy is to pretend that the proportion of evil to good is so small that there isn’t a problem. But evil exists, no matter what percentages you like to manufacture. So please answer the bold.

DAVID: Believers in God accept the problem as part of their belief. Their approach is to accept that God's good works allow evil to appear as byproducts. I await your description of a non-evil-causing system.

dhw: Acceptance that there is a problem is not a solution, which is why the debate has continued for centuries. My description is irrelevant to the problem, as it does not explain how your first-cause God can conceive of evil, and deliberately build a system which he knows will cause evil, and yet be “all good”[/b].

DAVID: I'm sorry you don't see it as I do. The fact you cannot offer a solution by your God shows there can only be the current reality.

Your sorrow does not explain the bold. You asked me to describe an alternative to a world containing evil, and I gave you one. I’m not disputing the reality of our current world with all its evil, and am not even complaining about it. I’m asking the straightforward question posed by theodicy, which is how your first-cause God could create out of himself a system which he knew would produce evil (regardless of all his good works) and yet still be “all good”.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 08, 2023, 16:15 (172 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same weird psychoanalysis of my mind. Creating humans and their food supply by evolution is what happened. Assuming God did it is my belief, which means it makes perfect sense to me if not to you.

dhw: But according to your weird theory, creating humans plus food was his one and only purpose, and so he deliberately created and then had to get rid of 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with his one and only purpose. The existence and extinction of what you think were unnecessary species is also “what happened”, and you cannot think of a single reason why he would choose what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve his one and only purpose. That is why you simply leave it out of your replies in an endless attempt to dodge the fact that you admit your combination of theories makes no sense even to you.

Same old cook-booked response. Let's move on.


Theodicy
dhw: What you have agreed is that if he is all powerful, he would have wanted to create the system which he knew would produce both good and evil. How does that make him all-good?
And:

dhw: please tell us how your God can conceive of evil and knowingly build it into the system which, as first cause, he created out of himself, and yet be all-good.

DAVID: God is separated from evil. All of it is byproducts of His good works.

dhw: How can your all-powerful, all-knowing God be “separated” from it if as first cause he deliberately created a system which he knew would produce it?
Your other solution to the problem of theodicy is to pretend that the proportion of evil to good is so small that there isn’t a problem. But evil exists, no matter what percentages you like to manufacture. So please answer the bold.

The problem for God is in producing good, evil appears. To quote the old song: you can't have one without the other. I've asked you to supply a satisfactory alternate system and you couldn't


DAVID: Believers in God accept the problem as part of their belief. Their approach is to accept that God's good works allow evil to appear as byproducts. I await your description of a non-evil-causing system.

dhw: Acceptance that there is a problem is not a solution, which is why the debate has continued for centuries. My description is irrelevant to the problem, as it does not explain how your first-cause God can conceive of evil, and deliberately build a system which he knows will cause evil, and yet be “all good”[/b].

DAVID: I'm sorry you don't see it as I do. The fact you cannot offer a solution by your God shows there can only be the current reality.

dhw: Your sorrow does not explain the bold. You asked me to describe an alternative to a world containing evil, and I gave you one. I’m not disputing the reality of our current world with all its evil, and am not even complaining about it. I’m asking the straightforward question posed by theodicy, which is how your first-cause God could create out of himself a system which he knew would produce evil (regardless of all his good works) and yet still be “all good”.

Your so-called alternative was no real answer.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, October 09, 2023, 11:15 (172 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Same weird psychoanalysis of my mind. Creating humans and their food supply by evolution is what happened. Assuming God did it is my belief, which means it makes perfect sense to me if not to you.

dhw: But according to your weird theory, creating humans plus food was his one and only purpose, and so he deliberately created and then had to get rid of 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with his one and only purpose. The existence and extinction of what you think were unnecessary species is also “what happened”, and you cannot think of a single reason why he would choose what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve his one and only purpose. That is why you simply leave it out of your replies in an endless attempt to dodge the fact that you admit your combination of theories makes no sense even to you.

DAVID: Same old cook-booked response. Let's move on.

It is the same old response to your continued efforts to dodge the implications of your theory of evolution: you simply leave out those sections which do not make sense. Of course you want to move on! But until you acknowledge the illogicality and hence the extreme unlikelihood of your combined theories, you will remain immobile.

Theodicy

dhw: please tell us how your God can conceive of evil and knowingly build it into the system which, as first cause, he created out of himself, and yet be all-good.

DAVID: The problem for God is in producing good, evil appears. To quote the old song: you can't have one without the other. I've asked you to supply a satisfactory alternate system and you couldn't.

You asked me what my God would produce in a system with no evil, and I responded: “a garden of Eden […] in which all life forms, including humans, live at peace with one another, and even in communion with their God.” However, this is totally irrelevant to the question posed by theodicy. There is no “problem for God” if, being all-powerful, he created the system he wanted to create. The problem is for people like you, who insist that your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good etc., and then find that the history of life on Earth does not support your theories. 1) Why would an all-powerful God who has only one purpose proceed to design 100 species and then find he must eliminate 99 of them because they are unnecessary for his purpose? 2) How can a first-cause, all-good God conceive of evil and deliberately design a system which he knows will produce evil?

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, October 09, 2023, 16:54 (171 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Same weird psychoanalysis of my mind. Creating humans and their food supply by evolution is what happened. Assuming God did it is my belief, which means it makes perfect sense to me if not to you.

dhw: But according to your weird theory, creating humans plus food was his one and only purpose, and so he deliberately created and then had to get rid of 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with his one and only purpose. The existence and extinction of what you think were unnecessary species is also “what happened”, and you cannot think of a single reason why he would choose what you call such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve his one and only purpose. That is why you simply leave it out of your replies in an endless attempt to dodge the fact that you admit your combination of theories makes no sense even to you.

DAVID: Same old cook-booked response. Let's move on.

dhw: It is the same old response to your continued efforts to dodge the implications of your theory of evolution: you simply leave out those sections which do not make sense. Of course you want to move on! But until you acknowledge the illogicality and hence the extreme unlikelihood of your combined theories, you will remain immobile.

My combined theories make perfect sense. Assuming God created our reality, we appeared through an evolutionary process. Therefore, God evolved us knowing He would have a loss of 99.9% of the forms. As the endpoint we were the purpose. God chose this method for His own reasons. Reasons we do not HAVE to know although you demand them. What sections are left out??


Theodicy

dhw: please tell us how your God can conceive of evil and knowingly build it into the system which, as first cause, he created out of himself, and yet be all-good.

DAVID: The problem for God is in producing good, evil appears. To quote the old song: you can't have one without the other. I've asked you to supply a satisfactory alternate system and you couldn't.

dhw: You asked me what my God would produce in a system with no evil, and I responded: “a garden of Eden […] in which all life forms, including humans, live at peace with one another, and even in communion with their God.” However, this is totally irrelevant to the question posed by theodicy.

An Eden-like existence would be a boring, stagnant form of living. I believe God wanted us challenged. Thus it is relevant to this discussion.

dhw: There is no “problem for God” if, being all-powerful, he created the system he wanted to create. The problem is for people like you, who insist that your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good etc., and then find that the history of life on Earth does not support your theories. 1) Why would an all-powerful God who has only one purpose proceed to design 100 species and then find he must eliminate 99 of them because they are unnecessary for his purpose?

God did not 'find' He must lose 99.9%!! He knew that would happen as He evolved us.

dhw: 2) How can a first-cause, all-good God conceive of evil and deliberately design a system which he knows will produce evil?

I have offered you the reasonable responses to your question that have been presented by theologians. I am happy to believe in God despite your complaint, because of those reasonable responses.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, October 09, 2023, 19:06 (171 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Monday, October 09, 2023, 19:14

A Christian reply to theodicy:

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo17/suffering-defeated

Jill: there is evil in the world, so it seems clear that God doesn't exist. In fact, I think this shows that the Christian view is a contradiction: God and evil cannot both exist.


Dr. Shepherd: ...I, too, have struggled with the problem, but I've come to a different conclusion. I believe they can coexist and there are also good reasons to think that they do.

First, consider this scenario: God exists, and evil is the result of human freedom. The Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga says that God might not have been able to create a universe that contained human free will and, at the same time, contained no evil. Maybe in creating creatures capable of making evil choices, he cannot prevent them from doing so.

Jill: But that assumes that human beings have free will...I tend to think that we don't have free will; it is just an illusion to think that we do.


Dr. Shepherd: Well, it's possible that we don't have free will, but I don't think we need to prove that we have it in order to avoid the logical problem of evil, which is what we call the problem that you raised, that God and evil cannot (logically) coexist. To answer this specific problem, we only need to determine whether it is merely possible that they coexist, which will prove that there is no logical contradiction.

***

Jill: ...if the free will defense is successful, you've only solved the problem of moral evil. You haven't addressed the problem of natural evil—things like earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanoes. If an all-powerful, all-good God exists, he would be able and willing to prevent those things from occurring and from causing so much needless suffering.

***

Dr. Shepherd: I see your point, but it is possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil in the world—for example, to form our characters. This might be something that could not take place in a world without evil, and I think God will ultimately use this world and the evil in it to destroy evil itself, a strategy that requires tolerating evil for some time in order to defeat it...I think it is at least possible that no better balance of good and evil is feasible for God among all the possible worlds that contain free creatures. If this response to your concern is even remotely possible, then the logical problem of evil can be answered. Remember, the reasons I've mentioned do not have to be true, or even plausible. As long as they are possible responses, the logical problem of evil has been solved, meaning that Christian belief does not entail a contradiction. Does that make sense?

Jill: Well, I guess I see how it is possible that God and evil coexist, but I don't think it is very likely. I guess I would say that the existence of evil makes the existence of God less believable to me.

***

Jill: But as I pointed out in class, the being that is the best explanation for the facts above is not necessarily the omnipotent, omni-benevolent God that the problem of evil is directed at.

Dr. Shepherd: Well, if we just take omnipotence for a moment, the being that is offered as an explanation for these problems is obviously very powerful, and it seems plausible that a being that powerful is omnipotent in the relevant sense, don't you think?

***
Dr. Shepherd: But back to your point about God not having a morally sufficient reason for allowing suffering, as in the case of the five-year-old girl. Do you think that our finite and limited perspective is a good one from which to assess the probability that God—an all-knowing being—lacks morally sufficient reasons for allowing evils like these?

Jill: Well, if the bad things in the world do not count as evidence against God's existence, then you can't appeal to the good things in the world as evidence for his existence, which is what the arguments for the existence of God seem to be doing.4


Dr. Shepherd: Good point. It does seem right that a Christian must admit that the problem of evil counts as evidence against God's existence even if he doesn't find the evidence persuasive.

...under Christian theology, we see God actively implementing an overarching plan to destroy evil and completely remove it in the long term. Solving the "problem of evil" is in fact exactly what the Christian God is all about.

Comment: all of this parallels the points I've presented.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, October 10, 2023, 12:01 (170 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My combined theories make perfect sense. Assuming God created our reality, we appeared through an evolutionary process.

True, whether God created our reality or not. What is also true is that every other life form extant and extinct, except the very first, appeared through an evolutionary process.

DAVID: As the endpoint we were the purpose.

We are the endpoint so far, but that does not mean that we were his one and only purpose right from the start or indeed at any time. And it makes nonsense of the next section of your theory:

DAVID: Therefore, God evolved us knowing He would have a loss of 99.9% of the forms.

But according to you he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species, knowing that they were unnecessary and he would have to get rid of them (or rely on luck to get rid of them). This method is so messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your words) that even you can’t think of any reason why he would use it – as you acknowledge next:

DAVID: God chose this method for His own reasons. Reasons we do not HAVE to know although you demand them. What sections are left out??

It is your baseless assumption that he chose this messy, cumbersome and inefficient method for which you cannot find a single reason, so how can you say your combined theories make perfect sense although even you can’t find an explanation?

Theodicy
dhw: please tell us how your God can conceive of evil and knowingly build it into the system which, as first cause, he created out of himself, and yet be all-good.

DAVID: The problem for God is in producing good, evil appears. To quote the old song: you can't have one without the other. I've asked you to supply a satisfactory alternate system and you couldn't.

dhw: You asked me what my God would produce in a system with no evil, and I responded: “a garden of Eden […]

DAVID: An Eden-like existence would be a boring, stagnant form of living. I believe God wanted us challenged. […]

So now you have your God deliberately creating evil in order to challenge us. I’ve got no objection to that, but if he did so, how does that make him, as the creator of evil, all-good?

dhw: There is no “problem for God” if, being all-powerful, he created the system he wanted to create. The problem is for people like you, who insist that your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good etc., and then find that the history of life on Earth does not support your theories. 1) Why would an all-powerful God who has only one purpose proceed to design 100 species and then find he must eliminate 99 of them because they are unnecessary for his purpose?

DAVID: God did not 'find' He must lose 99.9%!! He knew that would happen as He evolved us.

Even worse, then: he deliberately designed them, knowing that they were unnecessary and he would have to get rid of them. Talk about messy, cumbersome and inefficient!

dhw: 2) How can a first-cause, all-good God conceive of evil and deliberately design a system which he knows will produce evil?

DAVID: I have offered you the reasonable responses to your question that have been presented by theologians.

You have offered me three responses now: 1) evil is so minor that we shouldn’t bother to discuss it; 2 your first-cause, all-powerful God did not have the power to prevent evil, because you can’t have good without evil, so he had to invent evil as well as good, and this means he is all-good. 3) He deliberately invented evil in order to challenge us, and this means he is all-good.

DAVID: I am happy to believe in God despite your complaint, because of those reasonable responses.

I have no objection to your belief in God, and your second and third responses are perfectly reasonable except that they directly contradict the theory that your God is all-powerful and all-good.

A Christian reply to theodicy:

Jill: there is evil in the world, so it seems clear that God doesn't exist. In fact, I think this shows that the Christian view is a contradiction: God and evil cannot both exist.

This is a non-starter. The problem of evil does not count against God’s existence but against the concept of God as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Most of the article rests on Jill’s basic premise, which Dr Shepherd for some reason seems to accept:

Dr. Shepherd: It does seem right that a Christian must admit that the problem of evil counts as evidence against God's existence even if he doesn't find the evidence persuasive.

There are good arguments against the existence of God, but evil is not one of them! In between, Jill does say “the being that is the best explanation for the facts above is not necessarily the omnipotent, omni-benevolent God that the problem of evil is directed at.” But this is never developed.

DAVID: all of this parallels the points I've presented.

There is no mention of your daft “proportionality” argument, and you have never argued that the existence of evil is evidence against God’s existence. Dr Shepherd does “parallel” your second and third theories, but like you, neither he nor Jill even touches on their implications concerning the possible nature of your supposedly all-powerful, all-good God.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 10, 2023, 18:13 (170 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Tuesday, October 10, 2023, 18:39

DAVID: God evolved us knowing He would have a loss of 99.9% of the forms.

dhw: But according to you he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species, knowing that they were unnecessary and he would have to get rid of them (or rely on luck to get rid of them). This method is so messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your words) that even you can’t think of any reason why he would use it – as you acknowledge next:

DAVID: God chose this method for His own reasons. Reasons we do not HAVE to know although you demand them. What sections are left out??

dhw: It is your baseless assumption that he chose this messy, cumbersome and inefficient method for which you cannot find a single reason, so how can you say your combined theories make perfect sense although even you can’t find an explanation?

Not baseless. We are debating about a God-produced evolution. What happened are His Works. The explanation is simple. God chose to evolve the whole current bush of life, which includes us, and our food supply, and we are made/prepared to be dominant.


Theodicy

dhw: You asked me what my God would produce in a system with no evil, and I responded: “a garden of Eden […]

DAVID: An Eden-like existence would be a boring, stagnant form of living. I believe God wanted us challenged. […]

dhw: So now you have your God deliberately creating evil in order to challenge us. I’ve got no objection to that, but if he did so, how does that make him, as the creator of evil, all-good?

dhw: There is no “problem for God” if, being all-powerful, he created the system he wanted to create. The problem is for people like you, who insist that your God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good etc., and then find that the history of life on Earth does not support your theories. 1) Why would an all-powerful God who has only one purpose proceed to design 100 species and then find he must eliminate 99 of them because they are unnecessary for his purpose?

DAVID: God did not 'find' He must lose 99.9%!! He knew that would happen as He evolved us.

dhw: Even worse, then: he deliberately designed them, knowing that they were unnecessary and he would have to get rid of them. Talk about messy, cumbersome and inefficient!

Not unnecessary but required for a culling process which creates advancing evolution.


dhw: 2) How can a first-cause, all-good God conceive of evil and deliberately design a system which he knows will produce evil?

We have God-given free will. To be productive we need free will. Evil is a by-product, not God's.


DAVID: I have offered you the reasonable responses to your question that have been presented by theologians.

dhw: You have offered me three responses now: 1) evil is so minor that we shouldn’t bother to discuss it; 2 your first-cause, all-powerful God did not have the power to prevent evil, because you can’t have good without evil, so he had to invent evil as well as good, and this means he is all-good. 3) He deliberately invented evil in order to challenge us, and this means he is all-good.

DAVID: I am happy to believe in God despite your complaint, because of those reasonable responses.

dhw: I have no objection to your belief in God, and your second and third responses are perfectly reasonable except that they directly contradict the theory that your God is all-powerful and all-good.

See below:


A Christian reply to theodicy:

Jill: there is evil in the world, so it seems clear that God doesn't exist. In fact, I think this shows that the Christian view is a contradiction: God and evil cannot both exist.

dhw: This is a non-starter. The problem of evil does not count against God’s existence but against the concept of God as all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Most of the article rests on Jill’s basic premise, which Dr Shepherd for some reason seems to accept:

I'm with Shepherd. If we posit a God, His attributes will be our concepts of His personality.


Dr. Shepherd: It does seem right that a Christian must admit that the problem of evil counts as evidence against God's existence even if he doesn't find the evidence persuasive.

dhw: There are good arguments against the existence of God, but evil is not one of them! In between, Jill does say “the being that is the best explanation for the facts above is not necessarily the omnipotent, omni-benevolent God that the problem of evil is directed at.” But this is never developed.

It doesn't have to be developed as it concerns a belief in God.


DAVID: all of this parallels the points I've presented.

dhw: There is no mention of your daft “proportionality” argument,

Yes, in the article: "Jill: Well, I can see how suffering sometimes can make us stronger, but really, I wonder whether the amount and horrific nature of the evil in this world is compatible with a benevolent God or character formation. Just consider any of the recent mind-numbing murders in the news, or the Holocaust.

"Dr. Shepherd: So it comes down to a matter of the amount? I think it is at least possible that no better balance of good and evil is feasible for God among all the possible worlds that contain free creatures. (my bold)

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, October 11, 2023, 13:44 (169 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God evolved us knowing He would have a loss of 99.9% of the forms.

dhw: But according to you he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species, knowing that they were unnecessary and he would have to get rid of them (or rely on luck to get rid of them). This method is so messy, cumbersome and inefficient (your words) that even you can’t think of any reason why he would use it – as you acknowledge next:

DAVID: God chose this method for His own reasons. Reasons we do not HAVE to know although you demand them. What sections are left out??

dhw: It is your baseless assumption that he chose this messy, cumbersome and inefficient method for which you cannot find a single reason, so how can you say your combined theories make perfect sense although even you can’t find an explanation?

DAVID: Not baseless. We are debating about a God-produced evolution. What happened are His Works. The explanation is simple. God chose to evolve the whole current bush of life, which includes us, and our food supply, and we are made/prepared to be dominant.

You never stop dodging. If God exists, yes, he produced evolution. According to you, he chose to evolve (by which you mean individually design) countless bushes of life, 99.9% of which had no connection with us or our bush. You can’t think of a single reason why he would have done so, because you believe that we plus our food were his one and only purpose from the very beginning.

dhw: [...] he deliberately designed them, knowing that they were unnecessary and he would have to get rid of them. Talk about messy, cumbersome and inefficient!

DAVID: Not unnecessary but required for a culling process which creates advancing evolution.

So 99.9% of species that had no connection with us and our food had to be designed and killed, because he couldn’t have designed us without first designing and killing them (or leaving it to chance to kill them – you can never quite make up your mind about that). How does killing species create anything?

Theodicy

dhw How can a first-cause, all-good God conceive of evil and deliberately design a system which he knows will produce evil?

DAVID: We have God-given free will. To be productive we need free will. Evil is a by-product, not God's.

I’m glad you acknowledge that productivity requires free will. I use the same argument in support of the theory of autonomous cellular intelligence, which would solve all the problems surrounding your unnecessary 99.9% of species. In the context of theodicy, however, there is no escaping the fact that your first-cause, all-powerful, all-knowing version of God knew in advance that he was creating a system which would produce evil. I don’t have a problem with that. It only becomes a problem if you insist that your God is all-good.

A Christian reply to theodicy:

dhw: There are good arguments against the existence of God, but evil is not one of them! In between, Jill does say “the being that is the best explanation for the facts above is not necessarily the omnipotent, omni-benevolent God that the problem of evil is directed at.” But this is never developed.

DAVID: It doesn't have to be developed as it concerns a belief in God.

Again:Theodicy concerns the belief that God is all-good. It does not question his existence.

dhw: There is no mention of your daft “proportionality” argument,

DAVID: Yes, in the article: "Jill: Well, I can see how suffering sometimes can make us stronger, but really, I wonder whether the amount and horrific nature of the evil in this world is compatible with a benevolent God or character formation. Just consider any of the recent mind-numbing murders in the news, or the Holocaust.

"Dr. Shepherd: So it comes down to a matter of the amount? I think it is at least possible that no better balance of good and evil is feasible for God among all the possible worlds that contain free creatures. (David’s bold)

Thank you. For some reason this was not quoted by you in the version you presented to us. You are right, then, and like yourself, Dr Shepherd (and to a lesser degree Jill too) misses the whole point of theodicy. It already assumes God’s existence. If we also assume human free will and take the Holocaust as an example, of course Hitler & Co were responsible for it. Amount is irrelevant. Theodicy asks how your all-knowing God can know he’s designing a system that will lead to the Holocaust and yet at the same time be all-good. If you say he wanted to challenge us, then he created evil deliberately. How does that make him all-good? If he hates evil (and therefore would not have wanted it but couldn’t avoid its production), how does that make him all-powerful? Perhaps this is why you’re so desperate to forget your earlier certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. The enjoyment of creating the system, knowing that the Holocaust was coming, and watching it with interest is hard to reconcile with the concept of an all-good God.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 11, 2023, 18:12 (169 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God chose this method for His own reasons. Reasons we do not HAVE to know although you demand them. What sections are left out??


dhw: It is your baseless assumption that he chose this messy, cumbersome and inefficient method for which you cannot find a single reason, so how can you say your combined theories make perfect sense although even you can’t find an explanation?

DAVID: Not baseless. We are debating about a God-produced evolution. What happened are His Works. The explanation is simple. God chose to evolve the whole current bush of life, which includes us, and our food supply, and we are made/prepared to be dominant.

dhw: You never stop dodging. If God exists, yes, he produced evolution. According to you, he chose to evolve (by which you mean individually design) countless bushes of life, 99.9% of which had no connection with us or our bush. You can’t think of a single reason why he would have done so, because you believe that we plus our food were his one and only purpose from the very beginning.

If all current branches help to fill out our food supply, why do you see no connection?


dhw: So 99.9% of species that had no connection with us and our food had to be designed and killed, because he couldn’t have designed us without first designing and killing them (or leaving it to chance to kill them – you can never quite make up your mind about that). How does killing species create anything?

No one killed anything! A failure to survive, called bad luck by Raup, resulted in new advanced species appearing, a process called evolution. Each advance of complexity led to our present bush of life.


Theodicy

DAVID: We have God-given free will. To be productive we need free will. Evil is a by-product, not God's.

dhw: I’m glad you acknowledge that productivity requires free will. I use the same argument in support of the theory of autonomous cellular intelligence, which would solve all the problems surrounding your unnecessary 99.9% of species. In the context of theodicy, however, there is no escaping the fact that your first-cause, all-powerful, all-knowing version of God knew in advance that he was creating a system which would produce evil. I don’t have a problem with that. It only becomes a problem if you insist that your God is all-good.

An all-good God had to allow evil if He granted us free will. Good bacteria and viruses are necessary for ecosystems. Yes, they get in bad places, because they have to act independently of any controls.


A Christian reply to theodicy:

dhw: There is no mention of your daft “proportionality” argument,

DAVID: Yes, in the article: "Jill: Well, I can see how suffering sometimes can make us stronger, but really, I wonder whether the amount and horrific nature of the evil in this world is compatible with a benevolent God or character formation. Just consider any of the recent mind-numbing murders in the news, or the Holocaust.

"Dr. Shepherd: So it comes down to a matter of the amount? I think it is at least possible that no better balance of good and evil is feasible for God among all the possible worlds that contain free creatures. (David’s bold)

Thank you. For some reason this was not quoted by you in the version you presented to us. You are right, then, and like yourself, Dr Shepherd (and to a lesser degree Jill too) misses the whole point of theodicy. It already assumes God’s existence. If we also assume human free will and take the Holocaust as an example, of course Hitler & Co were responsible for it. Amount is irrelevant. Theodicy asks how your all-knowing God can know he’s designing a system that will lead to the Holocaust and yet at the same time be all-good. If you say he wanted to challenge us, then he created evil deliberately. How does that make him all-good? If he hates evil (and therefore would not have wanted it but couldn’t avoid its production), how does that make him all-powerful? Perhaps this is why you’re so desperate to forget your earlier certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. The enjoyment of creating the system, knowing that the Holocaust was coming, and watching it with interest is hard to reconcile with the concept of an all-good God.

Of course, it is right to assume God enjoys creating, because that was His intention. But we are saddled with the problem of not knowing just how the word 'enjoy' actually relates to God. As for being 'interested', the same thinking applies. As for not quoting all of an article, there is not room as Neil designed it. I have to make choices. That is why I give the website address for full review.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, October 12, 2023, 11:50 (168 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God chose to evolve the whole current bush of life, which includes us, and our food supply, and we are made/prepared to be dominant.

dhw: You never stop dodging. If God exists, yes, he produced evolution. According to you, he chose to evolve (by which you mean individually design) countless bushes of life, 99.9% of which had no connection with us or our bush. You can’t think of a single reason why he would have done so, because you believe that we plus our food were his one and only purpose from the very beginning.

DAVID: If all current branches help to fill out our food supply, why do you see no connection?

Because as you keep telling us, only 0.1% of history’s branches have helped to “fill out our food supply”, and the other 99.9% had to be killed off (by him or by chance – never made clear), because they had no connection with us and our food!

DAVID: No one killed anything! A failure to survive, called bad luck by Raup, resulted in new advanced species appearing, a process called evolution. Each advance of complexity led to our present bush of life.

This is the wackiest theory you’ve come up with to date. You have your God designing all species, 99.9% of which had no connection with us plus our food, but their death apparently resulted in us and our food! No it didn’t. According to your theory, only the surviving 0.1% “resulted in us” and our food. So why did he design the unnecessary 99.9%, which then had to die out (although he apparently left it to chance to do the culling)? You admit you can’t think of any reason. But you won’t admit that your irrational theories might be wrong.

Theodicy

DAVID: An all-good God had to allow evil if He granted us free will. Good bacteria and viruses are necessary for ecosystems. Yes, they get in bad places, because they have to act independently of any controls.

I don’t have a problem with the idea that God created a free-for-all. I would even apply it to evolution, but that’s another subject. And unlike Jill and Dr Shepherd, I don’t have a problem with evil and God co-existing. The problem is how and why an all-good, all-powerful God (if he exists), could invent a system he knew would produce evil, which you say he hates. I would have thought this was a crucial question for any believer, since it entails the very nature of the God they believe in.

You have offered three answers; 1) Proportionality, which merely suggests we shouldn’t bother with the problem; 2) we can’t have good without bad (but you won’t apply the same condition to God himself, though as first cause he created everything out of himself), and 3) he wanted to set us a challenge, which means he deliberately worked evil into his invention – hardly commensurate with the work of an all-good God.

I’ll skip now to the final point:

dhw: If he hates evil (and therefore would not have wanted it but couldn’t avoid its production), how does that make him all-powerful? Perhaps this is why you’re so desperate to forget your earlier certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. The enjoyment of creating the system, knowing that the Holocaust was coming, and watching it with interest is hard to reconcile with the concept of an all-good God.

DAVID: Of course, it is right to assume God enjoys creating, because that was His intention. But we are saddled with the problem of not knowing just how the word 'enjoy' actually relates to God. for being 'interested', the same thinking applies.[…]

You and I both know what the terms mean, just as we know what you mean by all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, selfless etc. Do you tell us that God is all-good, but you don’t know how the word relates to God? Now consider your theory that he deliberately created evil in order to challenge us. So he enjoys creating the system, with free will etc., and he is interested in the results, and we mustn’t forget that Eden would be boring. The Holocaust is certainly not boring, and being all-knowing, he knew such things would happen. Would you say his enjoyment of creating a system that would produce such evil, and his interest in the evil his system has produced are commensurate with the term all-good? And if he had no choice but to combine good and evil, though he hated evil, would you say this was commensurate with the term all-powerful?

DAVID: theistic reasoning re theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 12, 2023, 20:11 (168 days ago) @ dhw

Mirrors my view of proportionality:

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/thoughts-of-evil-in-a-designed-world/

"A person who is a theist is not immune to suffering’s pain and the seemingly contradictory insinuations it carries. If the universe is the work of an all-powerful (by definition) being, and if this being is good, how could he allow so many innocent people to suffer?

***

"Averaged over the last ten years, natural disasters were responsible for 0.1 percent of all human deaths.1 This value has decreased dramatically over the last century, not due to less frequent natural disasters but primarily due to humans becoming better at preventing deaths from these disruptive natural events.

***

"What we observe is that for most countries the share of deaths from natural disasters are very low in most years. Often it can be zero — with no loss of life to disasters — or well below 0.01%.

"Those at low incomes are often the most vulnerable to disaster events: improving living standards, infrastructure and response systems in these regions will be key to preventing deaths from natural disasters in the coming decades.

***

"Is it even reasonable to cast blame on God for failing to design a universe wherein no possibility of injury from natural causes could occur? How coherent would it be for someone to say, “If I were God, I would have made it so that no one could ever fall down and get hurt.” No gravity would certainly mean no injury from falling, and no landslides, but it would also be accompanied by additional subtle side-effects, such as no stars or planets, all of which require the force of gravity for their existence. Tinkering with other aspects of nature would lead to other “natural disasters” that would make the worst hurricane pale by comparison.

"Even extremely slight alterations in the values of many independent factors — such as the expansion rate of the universe, the speed of light, the masses of quarks, and the precise strength of gravitational or electromagnetic attraction — would render life impossible.

"Another form of natural evil that often feels more personal is when we’re affected by sickness. We grieve with those who suffer with cancer or any number of various diseases that can affect the human body. Are these afflictions of our physical being more reasonably reconciled with the notion of a purely naturalistic universe or one created by God? Let’s begin by holding in focus the fact that we are beings with physical bodies living in a physical universe. Anyone who is ready to deny God’s existence because we occasionally get sick should first explain the origin of the fantastic complexity and layers of integrated design that our physical bodies manifest in order to be alive at all.5

"As beings with physical bodies, should we be surprised that wear and tear and injury and microbial attack might cause breakdowns? Is getting sick a reason to blame God as unjust or uncaring? Do we think poorly of the auto manufacturer if our car gets a flat tire, or if a headlight goes out? The Second Law of Thermodynamics affects cars and bodies alike with inexorable breakdowns.

***

"Is human evil most consistent with naturalism or with theism? Questions such as these are deep and deserve a careful, in-depth analysis. Here, we’ll bring up just a couple of points. First, if human evil aligns with naturalism, then what is the source of our sense of morality, justice, and evil versus good? If all we are is the result of natural forces, primarily the electromagnetic attraction between charged particles, then how can evil or good have any meaningful referent aside from our opinions? (Indeed, how could a collection of elementary particles even form an opinion?)

***

"Human evil stems from choices that humans are free to make, leading to one proffered “fix” to the problem of evil, namely, removing our freedom to choose. However, as we know, love must be free, and if our love were mechanized, it would become meaningless.

***

"...in the biblical view, giving humans the choice to choose good in the midst of suffering results in a far greater good where even the memory of suffering is wiped away."

Comment: note the appeal to proportionality. Note the reference to our bodies as machines that break down. Note the acceptance that this reality is the only one that can work. dhw fails to answer how his Edenistic reality could work. Where dhw rails at me, he must realize I simply mirror current theistic thinking.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 12, 2023, 20:42 (168 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If all current branches help to fill out our food supply, why do you see no connection?

dhw: Because as you keep telling us, only 0.1% of history’s branches have helped to “fill out our food supply”, and the other 99.9% had to be killed off (by him or by chance – never made clear), because they had no connection with us and our food!

The 99.9% losses created today's bush of life. They had to die to make way for today's survivors. That is simply how evolution works. Your problem is wondering why God chose such a cumbersome way to achieve His goals. It is my problem also, because I don't know God's reasoning either. But I don't need to know as you do. Leading to your wackiest analysis yet:


dhw: This is the wackiest theory you’ve come up with to date. You have your God designing all species, 99.9% of which had no connection with us plus our food, but their death apparently resulted in us and our food! No it didn’t. According to your theory, only the surviving 0.1% “resulted in us” and our food. So why did he design the unnecessary 99.9%, which then had to die out (although he apparently left it to chance to do the culling)? You admit you can’t think of any reason. But you won’t admit that your irrational theories might be wrong.

Do you understand math at all?? The 0.1% is the result of evolution providing a huge current bush of life. It started with Archaea, simple bacterial forms and ended with the most complex forms of today, especially us with our giant brain, an organ like none other on Earth. Understanding the full meaning of 'culling' is the key:

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/culling

"cull
(kŭl)
tr.v. culled, cull·ing, culls
1. To pick out from others; select.
2. To gather; collect.
3. To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).
n.
Something picked out from others, especially something rejected because of inferior quality'
(my bold)


Theodicy

DAVID: An all-good God had to allow evil if He granted us free will. Good bacteria and viruses are necessary for ecosystems. Yes, they get in bad places, because they have to act independently of any controls.

dhw: I don’t have a problem with the idea that God created a free-for-all. I would even apply it to evolution, but that’s another subject. And unlike Jill and Dr Shepherd, I don’t have a problem with evil and God co-existing. The problem is how and why an all-good, all-powerful God (if he exists), could invent a system he knew would produce evil, which you say he hates. I would have thought this was a crucial question for any believer, since it entails the very nature of the God they believe in.

You have offered three answers; 1) Proportionality, which merely suggests we shouldn’t bother with the problem; 2) we can’t have good without bad (but you won’t apply the same condition to God himself, though as first cause he created everything out of himself), and 3) he wanted to set us a challenge, which means he deliberately worked evil into his invention – hardly commensurate with the work of an all-good God.

I accept the God you see. And it is exactly current theistic thought. See today's entry on theodicy analyzed by a theist.


I’ll skip now to the final point:

dhw: If he hates evil (and therefore would not have wanted it but couldn’t avoid its production), how does that make him all-powerful? Perhaps this is why you’re so desperate to forget your earlier certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. The enjoyment of creating the system, knowing that the Holocaust was coming, and watching it with interest is hard to reconcile with the concept of an all-good God.

DAVID: Of course, it is right to assume God enjoys creating, because that was His intention. But we are saddled with the problem of not knowing just how the word 'enjoy' actually relates to God. for being 'interested', the same thinking applies.[…]

dhw: You and I both know what the terms mean, just as we know what you mean by all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, selfless etc. Do you tell us that God is all-good, but you don’t know how the word relates to God? Now consider your theory that he deliberately created evil in order to challenge us. So he enjoys creating the system, with free will etc., and he is interested in the results, and we mustn’t forget that Eden would be boring. The Holocaust is certainly not boring, and being all-knowing, he knew such things would happen. Would you say his enjoyment of creating a system that would produce such evil, and his interest in the evil his system has produced are commensurate with the term all-good? And if he had no choice but to combine good and evil, though he hated evil, would you say this was commensurate with the term all-powerful?

Anyone so powerful to make a universe and invent life is all-powerful by definition. What God created required vast knowledge to create the designs, thus, all-knowing. See today's entry on tbeodicy.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, October 13, 2023, 11:11 (168 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If all current branches help to fill out our food supply, why do you see no connection?

dhw: Because as you keep telling us, only 0.1% of history’s branches have helped to “fill out our food supply”, and the other 99.9% had to be killed off (by him or by chance – never made clear), because they had no connection with us and our food!

DAVID: The 99.9% losses created today's bush of life.

No they didn’t. The 0.1% led to today’s bush of life.

DAVID: They had to die to make way for today's survivors.

What was the point of your God designing them in the first place if they had no connection with his one and only purpose? Why do you yourself call this method messy, cumbersome and inefficient?

DAVID: That is simply how evolution works. Your problem is wondering why God chose such a cumbersome way to achieve His goals. It is my problem also, because I don't know God's reasoning either.

We only know of one evolution of life. You make it sound as if your all-powerful God was subject to some kind of law beyond his control: “If thou wishest to design humans plus food, thou must first design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with humans plus food.” Yes, you have a problem, and it’s not helped by your refusal to believe that your senseless theory might be wrong
.
DAVID: Do you understand math at all?? The 0.1% is the result of evolution providing a huge current bush of life.

So why did your all-powerful God have to design and then cull the unnecessary 99.9%?

DAVID: It started with Archaea, simple bacterial forms and ended with the most complex forms of today, especially us with our giant brain, an organ like none other on Earth.

You don’t need to tell me the history of evolution. Just answer the question.

DAVID: Understanding the full meaning of 'culling' is the key: [dhw: I’ll only repeat your bolds:)

To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).
n. Something picked out from others, especially something rejected because of inferior quality'
(DAVID’s bold)

I know what cull means! Please tell me why he designed them in the first place if he knew they would have to be culled or “removed” or wiped off the face of the Earth.

Theodicy

DAVID: I accept the God you see. And it is exactly current theistic thought. See today's entry on theodicy analyzed by a theist.

Response coming up. But first:

dhw: The Holocaust is certainly not boring, and being all-knowing, he knew such things would happen. Would you say his enjoyment of creating a system that would produce such evil, and his interest in the evil his system has produced are commensurate with the term all-good? And if he had no choice but to combine good and evil, though he hated evil, would you say this was commensurate with the term all-powerful?

DAVID: Anyone so powerful to make a universe and invent life is all-powerful by definition. What God created required vast knowledge to create the designs, thus, all-knowing.

Your generalizations do not provide an answer to my specific questions. Please don’t dodge. As regards today’s entry:

QUOTE: Anyone who is ready to deny God’s existence because we occasionally get sick should first explain the origin of the fantastic complexity and layers of integrated design that our physical bodies manifest in order to be alive at all.

Same silly blunder made by Jill and Shepherd. Theodicy does not deal with the question of God’s existence, but with that of his nature on the assumption that he does exist..

QUOTE:: if human evil aligns with naturalism, then what is the source of our sense of morality, justice, and evil versus good?

What is the source of our sense of evil, self-interest, sadism? If God is the first cause of everything, he is the source of everything! It’s not a matter of aligning with naturalism but of aligning with the view of God as being all-good! How can God be the source of evil and yet be all-good?

QUOTE: in the biblical view, giving humans the choice to choose good in the midst of suffering results in a far greater good where even the memory of suffering is wiped away.

Try telling that to the millions of people who suffer/have suffered from the effects of war, rape, murder, famine, flood, disease...How does a possible loss of memory prove that the source of good and evil is all-good?

DAVID: note the appeal to proportionality. Note the reference to our bodies as machines that break down. Note the acceptance that this reality is the only one that can work. dhw fails to answer how his Edenistic reality could work. Where dhw rails at me, he must realize I simply mirror current theistic thinking.

I don’t rail at you, and I don’t even dispute most of the points you make. But I calmly point out to you that all the above arguments are irrelevant to the problem of theodicy, which is not a question of proving God’s existence, or of how much evil there is in the world, or of what alternatives I can offer. The question concerns the nature of God: if, as first cause – i.e. the source of all the realities we know – he knowingly invented a system which produced evil, how can he be all-good?

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, October 13, 2023, 18:40 (167 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The 99.9% losses created today's bush of life.

dhw: No they didn’t. The 0.1% led to today’s bush of life.

Without evolving the 99.9% the 0.1 % wouldn't exist.


dhw: What was the point of your God designing them in the first place if they had no connection with his one and only purpose? Why do you yourself call this method messy, cumbersome and inefficient?

They are all connected. This the fallacy in your thinking.


dhw: We only know of one evolution of life. You make it sound as if your all-powerful God was subject to some kind of law beyond his control: “If thou wishest to design humans plus food, thou must first design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with humans plus food.” Yes, you have a problem, and it’s not helped by your refusal to believe that your senseless theory might be wrong.

Evolve has only one implication: gradual change from one form to a different form. In living evolution it is generaly a better one.

.
DAVID: Do you understand math at all?? The 0.1% is the result of evolution providing a huge current bush of life.

dhw: So why did your all-powerful God have to design and then cull the unnecessary 99.9%?

God's decision for His own, unknown reasons, which I don't care or need to know.

DAVID: Understanding the full meaning of 'culling' is the key: [dhw: I’ll only repeat your bolds:)

To remove rejected members or parts from (a herd, for example).
n. Something picked out from others, especially something rejected because of inferior quality'
(DAVID’s bold)

dhw: I know what cull means! Please tell me why he designed them in the first place if he knew they would have to be culled or “removed” or wiped off the face of the Earth.

It is a continuous process from simple to complex forms. Your troubled complaint comes from fallacious reasoning.


Theodicy

DAVID: I accept the God you see. And it is exactly current theistic thought. See today's entry on theodicy analyzed by a theist.

Response coming up. But first:

dhw: The Holocaust is certainly not boring, and being all-knowing, he knew such things would happen. Would you say his enjoyment of creating a system that would produce such evil, and his interest in the evil his system has produced are commensurate with the term all-good? And if he had no choice but to combine good and evil, though he hated evil, would you say this was commensurate with the term all-powerful?

DAVID: Anyone so powerful to make a universe and invent life is all-powerful by definition. What God created required vast knowledge to create the designs, thus, all-knowing.

dhw: Your generalizations do not provide an answer to my specific questions. Please don’t dodge. As regards today’s entry:

QUOTE: Anyone who is ready to deny God’s existence because we occasionally get sick should first explain the origin of the fantastic complexity and layers of integrated design that our physical bodies manifest in order to be alive at all.

dhw: Same silly blunder made by Jill and Shepherd. Theodicy does not deal with the question of God’s existence, but with that of his nature on the assumption that he does exist..

QUOTE:: if human evil aligns with naturalism, then what is the source of our sense of morality, justice, and evil versus good?

dhw: What is the source of our sense of evil, self-interest, sadism? If God is the first cause of everything, he is the source of everything! It’s not a matter of aligning with naturalism but of aligning with the view of God as being all-good! How can God be the source of evil and yet be all-good?

QUOTE: in the biblical view, giving humans the choice to choose good in the midst of suffering results in a far greater good where even the memory of suffering is wiped away.

dhw: Try telling that to the millions of people who suffer/have suffered from the effects of war, rape, murder, famine, flood, disease...How does a possible loss of memory prove that the source of good and evil is all-good?

DAVID: note the appeal to proportionality. Note the reference to our bodies as machines that break down. Note the acceptance that this reality is the only one that can work. dhw fails to answer how his Edenistic reality could work. Where dhw rails at me, he must realize I simply mirror current theistic thinking.

dhw: I don’t rail at you, and I don’t even dispute most of the points you make. But I calmly point out to you that all the above arguments are irrelevant to the problem of theodicy, which is not a question of proving God’s existence, or of how much evil there is in the world, or of what alternatives I can offer. The question concerns the nature of God: if, as first cause – i.e. the source of all the realities we know – he knowingly invented a system which produced evil, how can he be all-good?

You fail to accept the point; this is the only system of life that can work. How to create life has limits, which means an all-good God could only find this one system and therefore He is limited in this area, as we humans analyze it.

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, October 14, 2023, 10:19 (167 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: So why did your all-powerful God have to design and then cull the unnecessary 99.9%?

DAVID: God's decision for His own, unknown reasons, which I don't care or need to know.

So you agree that they were unnecessary, and you have no idea why he would have created them. But now comes the next self-contradiction:

DAVID: They are all connected. This the fallacy in your thinking.

Connected to what? Your theory is and always has been that your God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, but he proceeded to design 99.9 out of 100 species that were NOT connected to us or our food, and you have no idea why he would use such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your words).

DAVID: That is how evolution works. Your problem is wondering why God chose such a cumbersome way to achieve his goals. It is my problem also, because I don’t know God’s reasoning either.

Thank you for once again acknowledging that the 99.9% were NOT connected, and you can’t make sense of your theory either.

dhw: We only know of one evolution of life. You make it sound as if your all-powerful God was subject to some kind of law beyond his control: “If thou wishest to design humans plus food, thou must first design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with humans plus food.” Yes, you have a problem, and it’s not helped by your refusal to believe that your senseless theory might be wrong.

DAVID: Evolve has only one implication: gradual change from one form to a different form. In living evolution it is generaly a better one.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Darwin’s gradualism is highly suspect, and you yourself are convinced that some species even came into existence with no precursors at all. In any case, this has nothing to do with the limitations you impose on your all-powerful God, who you normally tell us is perfectly capable of designing species directly but who, for reasons unknown, imposed on himself a method which involved designing and culling 99.9 out of 100 species he didn’t want to design.

DAVID: It is a continuous process from simple to complex forms. Your troubled complaint comes from fallacious reasoning.

There is no doubt that the process led from simple to complex, but that does not mean every single species that ever lived went from simple to complex, or had to be specially designed and culled in order for your God to specially design humans plus food. Fallacious reasoning is your speciality, which is why you always end up pretending your illogical theories were “God’s decision for his own, unknown reasons”.

Theodicy

There is no point in my repeating the detailed responses I gave you yesterday, since you have chosen to ignore them all. I will simply cover the final exchange:

dhw: But I calmly point out to you that all the above arguments are irrelevant to the problem of theodicy, which is not a question of proving God’s existence, or of how much evil there is in the world, or of what alternatives I can offer. The question concerns the nature of God: if, as first cause – i.e. the source of all the realities we know – he knowingly invented a system which produced evil, how can he be all-good? [Please keep this bold in mind throughout all that follows.]

DAVID: You fail to accept the point; this is the only system of life that can work.

Firstly, how do you know? It is the only system of life that we have.

DAVID: How to create life has limits, which means an all-good God could only find this one system and therefore He is limited in this area, as we humans analyze it.

Secondly, any limitation you impose on God by definition contradicts the claim that he is all-powerful. An all-powerful God would create what he wants to create. This fits in nicely with your challenge theory, but that means he deliberately creates evil out of himself, so how can he be all-good? Thirdly, I agree that most of what we humans regard as “evil” is caused by our own behaviour (e.g. war, rape, murder). However, your God is the first cause of EVERYTHING, and you insist that he is all-knowing. So he KNEW about evil before we even arrived, and he KNEW we would produce war, murder, rape etc. How could he have known about something even before he had made it exist? You will no doubt proudly announce that he knew all about good, because he is all-good. But how can he be all-good if he and he alone knew about evil, and then proceeded knowingly to create a system which produced the evil only he knew about?

DAVID: Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 14, 2023, 17:22 (166 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: They are all connected. This the fallacy in your thinking.

dhw: Connected to what? Your theory is and always has been that your God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, but he proceeded to design 99.9 out of 100 species that were NOT connected to us or our food, and you have no idea why he would use such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your words).

DAVID: That is how evolution works. Your problem is wondering why God chose such a cumbersome way to achieve his goals. It is my problem also, because I don’t know God’s reasoning either.

dhw: Thank you for once again acknowledging that the 99.9% were NOT connected, and you can’t make sense of your theory either.

I did not acknowledge your weird contention. The process of evolution is not your distorted version. Early simple forms are gradually turned into more complex forms step by step. What disappears are all the early discarded forms. The small early group becomes an enormous present group. Think of it as a triangle standing on its tip. What survives is the opposite side, actually much larger than the tip. Your 99.9% loss is the area of the triangle. Why God chose this method is God's problem, not ours.


DAVID: It is a continuous process from simple to complex forms. Your troubled complaint comes from fallacious reasoning.

dhw: There is no doubt that the process led from simple to complex, but that does not mean every single species that ever lived went from simple to complex, or had to be specially designed and culled in order for your God to specially design humans plus food. Fallacious reasoning is your speciality, which is why you always end up pretending your illogical theories were “God’s decision for his own, unknown reasons”.

Accepting God's decisions are no illogical.


Theodicy

There is no point in my repeating the detailed responses I gave you yesterday, since you have chosen to ignore them all. I will simply cover the final exchange:

dhw: But I calmly point out to you that all the above arguments are irrelevant to the problem of theodicy, which is not a question of proving God’s existence, or of how much evil there is in the world, or of what alternatives I can offer. The question concerns the nature of God: if, as first cause – i.e. the source of all the realities we know – he knowingly invented a system which produced evil, how can he be all-good? [Please keep this bold in mind throughout all that follows.]

DAVID: You fail to accept the point; this is the only system of life that can work.

dhw: Firstly, how do you know? It is the only system of life that we have.

It is the system an all-knowing God produced, which means it is the best one available:


DAVID: How to create life has limits, which means an all-good God could only find this one system and therefore He is limited in this area, as we humans analyze it.

dhw: Secondly, any limitation you impose on God by definition contradicts the claim that he is all-powerful. An all-powerful God would create what he wants to create. This fits in nicely with your challenge theory, but that means he deliberately creates evil out of himself, so how can he be all-good? Thirdly, I agree that most of what we humans regard as “evil” is caused by our own behaviour (e.g. war, rape, murder). However, your God is the first cause of EVERYTHING, and you insist that he is all-knowing. So he KNEW about evil before we even arrived, and he KNEW we would produce war, murder, rape etc. How could he have known about something even before he had made it exist? You will no doubt proudly announce that he knew all about good, because he is all-good. But how can he be all-good if he and he alone knew about evil, and then proceeded knowingly to create a system which produced the evil only he knew about?

Same simple answer: all the good He created had evil as byproducts not under His control.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, October 15, 2023, 11:35 (166 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: They are all connected. This the fallacy in your thinking.

dhw: Connected to what? Your theory is and always has been that your God’s one and only purpose from the very beginning was to design us and our food, but he proceeded to design 99.9 out of 100 species that were NOT connected to us or our food, and you have no idea why he would use such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your words).

DAVID: I did not acknowledge your weird contention. The process of evolution is not your distorted version. Early simple forms are gradually turned into more complex forms step by step.

Correct. But that does not mean that every simple and every complex form was specially designed by your God for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food.

DAVID: What disappears are all the early discarded forms. The small early group becomes an enormous present group.

Correct. What disappears is what disappears. According to your statistics, 99.9% were discarded, and 0.1% became the present group.

DAVID: Think of it as a triangle standing on its tip. What survives is the opposite side, actually much larger than the tip. Your 99.9% loss is the area of the triangle. Why God chose this method is God's problem, not ours.

It’s not “my” 99.9% loss, and your illogical theory is not God’s problem. All life is part of life’s history, triangle or no triangle, and the problem you can’t solve is why your God would have designed a triangle, 99.9% of whose area was, according to you, unnecessary because all he really wanted to design was the 0.1%. What “weird contention” are you talking about? You have merely repeated the same old problem, which arises from an illogical combination of theories that makes no sense even to you.

DAVID: It is a continuous process from simple to complex forms. Your troubled complaint comes from fallacious reasoning.

dhw: There is no doubt that the process led from simple to complex, but that does not mean every single species that ever lived went from simple to complex, or had to be specially designed and culled in order for your God to specially design humans plus food. Fallacious reasoning is your speciality, which is why you always end up pretending your illogical theories were “God’s decision for his own, unknown reasons”.

DAVID: Accepting God's decisions are no illogical.

You are accepting your illogical interpretation of your God’s decisions. You have no more access to his mind than anyone else, but you choose to impose decisions on him which even you regard (a) as inexplicable, and (b) as messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

Theodicy

DAVID: You fail to accept the point; this is the only system of life that can work.

dhw: Firstly, how do you know? It is the only system of life that we have.

DAVID: It is the system an all-knowing God produced, which means it is the best one available:

What do you mean by “available”? If your God is first cause, he was not presented with facts beyond his control. He invented them all. I can accept, however, that if he is all- powerful, this was the system he wanted to create. But that means he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil. How does that make him all-good?

dhw: Secondly, any limitation you impose on God by definition contradicts the claim that he is all-powerful. An all-powerful God would create what he wants to create. This fits in nicely with your challenge theory, but that means he deliberately creates evil out of himself, so how can he be all-good?

Not answered.

dhw: Thirdly, I agree that most of what we humans regard as “evil” is caused by our own behaviour (e.g. war, rape, murder). However, your God is the first cause of EVERYTHING, and you insist that he is all-knowing. So he KNEW about evil before we even arrived, and he KNEW we would produce war, murder, rape etc. […] You will no doubt proudly announce that he knew all about good, because he is all-good. But how can he be all-good if he and he alone knew about evil, and then proceeded knowingly to create a system which produced the evil only he knew about?

DAVID: Same simple answer: all the good He created had evil as byproducts not under His control.

Not simple at all. You have not answered the bold. An all-powerful God would only create a system out of his control if he wanted to, and an all-knowing God would have known all about evil before he produced the system which in turn produced it. How could he know all about evil and deliberately produce a system which he knew would produce evil if he is all-good?
An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 15, 2023, 17:30 (165 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I did not acknowledge your weird contention. The process of evolution is not your distorted version. Early simple forms are gradually turned into more complex forms step by step.

dhw: Correct. But that does not mean that every simple and every complex form was specially designed by your God for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food.

That is my belief.


DAVID: What disappears are all the early discarded forms. The small early group becomes an enormous present group.

Correct. What disappears is what disappears. According to your statistics, 99.9% were discarded, and 0.1% became the present group.

DAVID: Think of it as a triangle standing on its tip. What survives is the opposite side, actually much larger than the tip. Your 99.9% loss is the area of the triangle. Why God chose this method is God's problem, not ours.

dhw: It’s not “my” 99.9% loss, and your illogical theory is not God’s problem. All life is part of life’s history, triangle or no triangle, and the problem you can’t solve is why your God would have designed a triangle, 99.9% of whose area was, according to you, unnecessary because all he really wanted to design was the 0.1%. What “weird contention” are you talking about? You have merely repeated the same old problem, which arises from an illogical combination of theories that makes no sense even to you.

It is a problem for you, not me. If evolution occurred, and with God in charge, it is logical to assume God chose this system of creation. Perfectly sensible. My explanation of the 99.9% clearly defines your distortion of the statistics. Your problem is your human brain, not thinking at God's level, complains of God's method and thinks He should have done it differently. You questioned years ago, why not direct creation, since God had demonstrated the ability within evolution.


Theodicy

DAVID: You fail to accept the point; this is the only system of life that can work.

dhw: Firstly, how do you know? It is the only system of life that we have.

DAVID: It is the system an all-knowing God produced, which means it is the best one available:

dhw: What do you mean by “available”? If your God is first cause, he was not presented with facts beyond his control. He invented them all. I can accept, however, that if he is all- powerful, this was the system he wanted to create. But that means he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil. How does that make him all-good?

Same answer: His good works came with side effects beyond His controls. As for the system of life, God knew all the 'available' choices He thought of and picked the best.


dhw: Secondly, any limitation you impose on God by definition contradicts the claim that he is all-powerful. An all-powerful God would create what he wants to create. This fits in nicely with your challenge theory, but that means he deliberately creates evil out of himself, so how can he be all-good?

Not answered.

Fully answered in the past. The evil did not come directly from God in all instances.


dhw: Thirdly, I agree that most of what we humans regard as “evil” is caused by our own behaviour (e.g. war, rape, murder). However, your God is the first cause of EVERYTHING, and you insist that he is all-knowing. So he KNEW about evil before we even arrived, and he KNEW we would produce war, murder, rape etc. […] You will no doubt proudly announce that he knew all about good, because he is all-good. But how can he be all-good if he and he alone knew about evil, and then proceeded knowingly to create a system which produced the evil only he knew about?

DAVID: Same simple answer: all the good He created had evil as byproducts not under His control.

dhw: Not simple at all. You have not answered the bold. An all-powerful God would only create a system out of his control if he wanted to, and an all-knowing God would have known all about evil before he produced the system which in turn produced it. How could he know all about evil and deliberately produce a system which he knew would produce evil if he is all-good?

Theism recognizes the theodicy problem. God knew evil would appear, secondhand. The good far outweighed the evil.

dhw: An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

So, if the organisms produce their own next species that makeup the 99.9% loss, how does that solve the problem of the loss? They are following God-given plans of design!!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, October 16, 2023, 12:21 (164 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] The process of evolution is not your distorted version. Early simple forms are gradually turned into more complex forms step by step.

dhw: Correct. But that does not mean that every simple and every complex form was specially designed by your God for the sole purpose of designing sapiens plus food.

DAVID: That is my belief.

I know it is, but the fact that evolution produced increasingly complex forms, 99.9% of which had no connection with us plus food, does not provide any support for your belief, so why mention it?

DAVID: What disappears are all the early discarded forms. The small early group becomes an enormous present group.

dhw: Correct. What disappears is what disappears. According to your statistics, 99.9% were discarded, and 0.1% became the present group.[…]

DAVID: It is a problem for you, not me. If evolution occurred, and with God in charge, it is logical to assume God chose this system of creation. Perfectly sensible.

Of course if he exists, it is logical that he chose evolution for whatever may have been his purpose. That does not mean he chose to design every species individually, or that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food! Stop dodging!

DAVID: My explanation of the 99.9% clearly defines your distortion of the statistics. Your problem is your human brain, not thinking at God's level, complains of God's method and thinks He should have done it differently. You questioned years ago, why not direct creation, since God had demonstrated the ability within evolution.

It is not a complaint about God’s method but about your ridiculous theories concerning his method and purpose! What distortion? You can’t find ANY explanation why he would have chosen to design and then have to cull 99.9% out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. You agree that it doesn’t make sense to you, but you can’t bring yourself to admit that one or other of your theories might be wrong.

Theodicy

dhw: If your God is first cause, he was not presented with facts beyond his control. He invented them all. I can accept, however, that if he is all- powerful, this was the system he wanted to create. But that means he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil. How does that make him all-good?

DAVID: Same answer: His good works came with side effects beyond His controls. As for the system of life, God knew all the 'available' choices He thought of and picked the best.

Beyond his control = he is not all-powerful. If he is all-powerful, he would have picked the one he wanted, which is the one that produced evil. If he wanted to produce evil (as in your theory that he did so in order to challenge humans), how does that make him all-good?

DAVID: The evil did not come directly from God in all instances.

No, but according to your challenge theory, he would have deliberately created a system which he knew would produce evil. How does that make him all-good?

DAVID: […] all the good He created had evil as byproducts not under His control.

dhw: […] An all-powerful God would only create a system out of his control if he wanted to, and an all-knowing God would have known all about evil before he produced the system which in turn produced it. How could he know all about evil and deliberately produce a system which he knew would produce evil if he is all-good?

DAVID: Theism recognizes the theodicy problem. God knew evil would appear, secondhand. The good far outweighed the evil.

Fine. He created a system knowing that it would produce evil. How does that make him all-good? Proportionality does not make evil unreal, regardless of percentages.

dhw: An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: So, if the organisms produce their own next species that makeup the 99.9% loss, how does that solve the problem of the loss? They are following God-given plans of design!!

Because if speciation and survival depend on the varying forms and degrees of intelligence (as possibly designed by your God) of the cell communities, some will not be able to cope with changing conditions. Over the course of thousands of millions of years, with constant changes in conditions, species will come and go. That is what happened to 99.9% - many of which actually lived for millions of years until new conditions arose under which they could not survive. No God-given plan of design other than to create a system that would produce an endlessly changing and even unpredictable variety of species which would come and go. Far more interesting than a puppet show, don't you think?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, October 16, 2023, 17:33 (164 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It is a problem for you, not me. If evolution occurred, and with God in charge, it is logical to assume God chose this system of creation. Perfectly sensible.

dhw: Of course if he exists, it is logical that he chose evolution for whatever may have been his purpose. That does not mean he chose to design every species individually, or that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food! Stop dodging!

But that is the ID theory that God designed all levels of evolution.


DAVID: My explanation of the 99.9% clearly defines your distortion of the statistics. Your problem is your human brain, not thinking at God's level, complains of God's method and thinks He should have done it differently. You questioned years ago, why not direct creation, since God had demonstrated the ability within evolution.

dhw: It is not a complaint about God’s method but about your ridiculous theories concerning his method and purpose! What distortion? You can’t find ANY explanation why he would have chosen to design and then have to cull 99.9% out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. You agree that it doesn’t make sense to you, but you can’t bring yourself to admit that one or other of your theories might be wrong.

It makes perfect sense to me to accept God's choice of action. I don't need to know His reasons, why do you?


Theodicy

dhw: If your God is first cause, he was not presented with facts beyond his control. He invented them all. I can accept, however, that if he is all- powerful, this was the system he wanted to create. But that means he wanted to create a system which he knew would produce evil. How does that make him all-good?

DAVID: Same answer: His good works came with side effects beyond His controls. As for the system of life, God knew all the 'available' choices He thought of and picked the best.

dhw: Beyond his control = he is not all-powerful. If he is all-powerful, he would have picked the one he wanted, which is the one that produced evil. If he wanted to produce evil (as in your theory that he did so in order to challenge humans), how does that make him all-good?

The good God produced far outweighed the secondary appearance of evil.

DAVID: […] all the good He created had evil as byproducts not under His control.

dhw: […] An all-powerful God would only create a system out of his control if he wanted to, and an all-knowing God would have known all about evil before he produced the system which in turn produced it. How could he know all about evil and deliberately produce a system which he knew would produce evil if he is all-good?

DAVID: Theism recognizes the theodicy problem. God knew evil would appear, secondhand. The good far outweighed the evil.

dhw: Fine. He created a system knowing that it would produce evil. How does that make him all-good? Proportionality does not make evil unreal, regardless of percentages.

dhw: An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: So, if the organisms produce their own next species that makeup the 99.9% loss, how does that solve the problem of the loss? They are following God-given plans of design!!

dhw: Because if speciation and survival depend on the varying forms and degrees of intelligence (as possibly designed by your God) of the cell communities, some will not be able to cope with changing conditions. Over the course of thousands of millions of years, with constant changes in conditions, species will come and go. That is what happened to 99.9% - many of which actually lived for millions of years until new conditions arose under which they could not survive. No God-given plan of design other than to create a system that would produce an endlessly changing and even unpredictable variety of species which would come and go. Far more interesting than a puppet show, don't you think?

Evolution with a purpose is not the theatrical sideshow you describe rudderlessly wandering along. For whose interest is it created?? If you are inferring God, He doesn't need to entertain Himself.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, October 17, 2023, 08:10 (164 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If evolution occurred, and with God in charge, it is logical to assume God chose this system of creation. Perfectly sensible.

dhw: Of course if he exists, it is logical that he chose evolution for whatever may have been his purpose. That does not mean he chose to design every species individually, or that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food! Stop dodging!

DAVID: But that is the ID theory that God designed all levels of evolution.

That doesn’t alter the fact that IF he designed all levels of evolution, you are left with the unanswerable question why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would deliberately design and then have to cull the unnecessary 99.9 out of 100 species IF his sole purpose was to design us plus food. You admit it makes no sense to you, but you won’t admit that one or other or both these “IFS” might be wrong.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me to accept God's choice of action. I don't need to know His reasons, why do you?

For the nth time, you “accept” your own senseless theory of what is your God’s action. It is not a fact that his purpose was us, or that he individually designed every species.

Theodicy

DAVID: His good works came with side effects beyond His controls. As for the system of life, God knew all the 'available' choices He thought of and picked the best.

dhw: Beyond his control = he is not all-powerful. If he is all-powerful, he would have picked the one he wanted, which is the one that produced evil. If he wanted to produce evil (as in your theory that he did so in order to challenge humans), how does that make him all-good?

DAVID: The good God produced far outweighed the secondary appearance of evil.

That does not mean evil doesn’t exist, and it is the existence of evil that is the problem. Once more, if your all-powerful God created the evil in the system as a challenge to us (one of your theories), then clearly he did so deliberately. So please answer the bolded question.

DAVID (under “handling stress”): If cells did not operate at these speeds life would not exist. What is important is to recognize God's goodness in giving us life.

The problem of theodicy is not solved by focusing on God’s goodness. If your all-powerful God could not possibly have invented a mechanism that did not break down and cause suffering, then we can all agree that only puts a question mark against his all-powerfulness and not against his goodness. So let’s focus on the most obvious of all evils, which is those perpetrated by us humans, as above. You suggest he was setting us a challenge, so please answer the bolded question.

DAVID: Understanding the logical point of proportionality answers the criticisms in theodicy.

Of course it doesn’t! Evil exists, regardless of percentages, so stop pretending that war, rape, murder – all of which are products of the system your God invented – aren’t a problem for those who believe him to be all-good.

dhw: An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: So, if the organisms produce their own next species that makeup the 99.9% loss, how does that solve the problem of the loss? They are following God-given plans of design!

dhw: Because if speciation and survival depend on the varying forms and degrees of intelligence of the cell communities(as possibly designed by your God), some will not be able to cope with changing conditions. Over the course of thousands of millions of years, with constant changes in conditions, species will come and go. That is what happened to 99.9% - many of which actually lived for millions of years until new conditions arose under which they could not survive. This means there is no God-given plan of design other than to create a system that would produce an endlessly changing and even unpredictable variety of species which would come and go. Far more interesting than a puppet show, don't you think?

DAVID: Evolution with a purpose is not the theatrical sideshow you describe rudderlessly wandering along. For whose interest is it created?? If you are inferring God, He doesn't need to entertain Himself.

But you believe he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and a Garden of Eden would be boring. And under theodicy, you insist that he gave humans the means of “rudderlessly wandering along”, out of his control. Why, if not out of interest in what we might come up with (or how we would meet the challenge)? And why should he not have given the same freedom to speciate for the same reason? If he is interested in his creations, why would he not invent a system which he would find interesting?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 17, 2023, 18:41 (163 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: That doesn’t alter the fact that IF he designed all levels of evolution, you are left with the unanswerable question why an all-powerful, all-knowing God would deliberately design and then have to cull the unnecessary 99.9 out of 100 species IF his sole purpose was to design us plus food. You admit it makes no sense to you, but you won’t admit that one or other or both these “IFS” might be wrong.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me to accept God's choice of action. I don't need to know His reasons, why do you?

dhw: For the nth time, you “accept” your own senseless theory of what is your God’s action. It is not a fact that his purpose was us, or that he individually designed every species.

Of course it is not fact. It is faith and belief.


Theodicy

DAVID: His good works came with side effects beyond His controls. As for the system of life, God knew all the 'available' choices He thought of and picked the best.

dhw: Beyond his control = he is not all-powerful. If he is all-powerful, he would have picked the one he wanted, which is the one that produced evil. If he wanted to produce evil (as in your theory that he did so in order to challenge humans), how does that make him all-good?

DAVID: The good God produced far outweighed the secondary appearance of evil.

dhw: That does not mean evil doesn’t exist, and it is the existence of evil that is the problem. Once more, if your all-powerful God created the evil in the system as a challenge to us (one of your theories), then clearly he did so deliberately. So please answer the bolded question.

I did not say God wanted evil! He didn't want a Gaden of Eden existence with no challenges. As a result, we have free will and the challenges resulted in our current advanced civilization.


DAVID (under “handling stress”): If cells did not operate at these speeds life would not exist. What is important is to recognize God's goodness in giving us life.

dhw: The problem of theodicy is not solved by focusing on God’s goodness. If your all-powerful God could not possibly have invented a mechanism that did not break down and cause suffering, then we can all agree that only puts a question mark against his all-powerfulness and not against his goodness. So let’s focus on the most obvious of all evils, which is those perpetrated by us humans, as above. You suggest he was setting us a challenge, so please answer the bolded question.

See above. No need to repeat.


DAVID: Understanding the logical point of proportionality answers the criticisms in theodicy.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t! Evil exists, regardless of percentages, so stop pretending that war, rape, murder – all of which are products of the system your God invented – aren’t a problem for those who believe him to be all-good.

Our responses show how we can conceive Him as all-good.


dhw: An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: So, if the organisms produce their own next species that makeup the 99.9% loss, how does that solve the problem of the loss? They are following God-given plans of design!

dhw: Because if speciation and survival depend on the varying forms and degrees of intelligence of the cell communities(as possibly designed by your God), some will not be able to cope with changing conditions. Over the course of thousands of millions of years, with constant changes in conditions, species will come and go. That is what happened to 99.9% - many of which actually lived for millions of years until new conditions arose under which they could not survive. This means there is no God-given plan of design other than to create a system that would produce an endlessly changing and even unpredictable variety of species which would come and go. Far more interesting than a puppet show, don't you think?

DAVID: Evolution with a purpose is not the theatrical sideshow you describe rudderlessly wandering along. For whose interest is it created?? If you are inferring God, He doesn't need to entertain Himself.

dhw: But you believe he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and a Garden of Eden would be boring. And under theodicy, you insist that he gave humans the means of “rudderlessly wandering along”, out of his control. Why, if not out of interest in what we might come up with (or how we would meet the challenge)? And why should he not have given the same freedom to speciate for the same reason? If he is interested in his creations, why would he not invent a system which he would find interesting?

Again, your humanized form of God has returned. God does not need to entertain Himself or create entertainment. He creates with purpose to create His goal/goals.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 11:52 (162 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me to accept God's choice of action. I don't need to know His reasons, why do you?

dhw: For the nth time, you “accept” your own senseless theory of what is your God’s action. It is not a fact that his purpose was us, or that he individually designed every species.

DAVID: Of course it is not fact. It is faith and belief.

So you don’t “accept” God’s choice of action, because you don’t know that he designed every species, and you don’t know that he did so with the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% of his designs had no connection with us plus food. You simply have faith and belief in a theory which makes no sense to you. Thank you for this confirmation.

Theodicy

DAVID: The good God produced far outweighed the secondary appearance of evil.

dhw: That does not mean evil doesn’t exist, and it is the existence of evil that is the problem. Once more, if your all-powerful God created the evil in the system as a challenge to us (one of your theories), then clearly he did so deliberately. […]

DAVID: I did not say God wanted evil! He didn't want a Gaden of Eden existence with no challenges. As a result, we have free will and the challenges resulted in our current advanced civilization.

Of course you didn’t say it, because you can’t face the implications of your theory! Take it step by step. Your God is all-powerful. Therefore he would not create a system he did not want. He is all-knowing. Therefore he would know that his system would produce evil, which according to you is his challenge to us (Eden would be boring). Therefore he wanted a system which would produce evil. Question: how does that make him all-good?

DAVID: Understanding the logical point of proportionality answers the criticisms in theodicy.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t! Evil exists, regardless of percentages, so stop pretending that war, rape, murder – all of which are products of the system your God invented – aren’t a problem for those who believe him to be all-good.

DAVID: Our responses show how we can conceive Him as all-good.

Your responses so far have been 1) he is all-good because you only want to think of the good he does and to ignore the evil. 2) Although he is all-powerful, and would therefore only produce a system he wanted to produce, and although he is all-knowing and therefore knew that his system would produce evil, and although as first-cause he is the creator of everything, he had no choice other than knowingly to create a system that would produce evil, over which he has no control. This apparently means he is all-powerful and all-good. 3) Being all-powerful, he deliberately created a system that would produce evil in order to challenge humans, but wanting to produce evil apparently makes him all-good.

dhw: An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose. […] This means there is no God-given plan of design other than to create a system that would produce an endlessly changing and even unpredictable variety of species which would come and go. Far more interesting than a puppet show, don't you think?

DAVID: Evolution with a purpose is not the theatrical sideshow you describe rudderlessly wandering along. For whose interest is it created?? If you are inferring God, He doesn't need to entertain Himself.

dhw: But you believe he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and a Garden of Eden would be boring. And under theodicy, you insist that he gave humans the means of “rudderlessly wandering along”, out of his control. Why, if not out of interest in what we might come up with (or how we would meet the challenge)? And why should he not have given the same freedom to speciate for the same reason? If he is interested in his creations, why would he not invent a system which he would find interesting?

DAVID: Again, your humanized form of God has returned. God does not need to entertain Himself or create entertainment. He creates with purpose to create His goal/goals.

I have rejected the word “entertainment” and stuck rigidly to the two terms you have used: he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. You accept that we would share some of his thought patterns and emotions. I agree that he would create with purpose. The only goal you allow him is us plus food, which makes a mockery of your theory that he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. Why are you so opposed to the idea that a God who enjoys and is interested in his creations might have created them because he wants to create something he will enjoy and be interested in?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 18, 2023, 20:30 (162 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course it is not fact. It is faith and belief.

dhw: So you don’t “accept” God’s choice of action, because you don’t know that he designed every species, and you don’t know that he did so with the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% of his designs had no connection with us plus food. You simply have faith and belief in a theory which makes no sense to you. Thank you for this confirmation.

As a believer, my theory makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't believe in it! Thank you for revealing your muddled way of thinking in this analysis of me.


Theodicy

dhw:...Take it step by step. Your God is all-powerful. Therefore he would not create a system he did not want. He is all-knowing. Therefore he would know that his system would produce evil, which according to you is his challenge to us (Eden would be boring). Therefore he wanted a system which would produce evil. Question: how does that make him all-good?

To use all the enormous good from God both God and humans must accept the small, by comparison, evil byproducts.


DAVID: Understanding the logical point of proportionality answers the criticisms in theodicy.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t! Evil exists, regardless of percentages, so stop pretending that war, rape, murder – all of which are products of the system your God invented – aren’t a problem for those who believe him to be all-good.

DAVID: Our responses show how we can conceive Him as all-good.

dhw: Your responses so far have been 1) he is all-good because you only want to think of the good he does and to ignore the evil. 2) Although he is all-powerful, and would therefore only produce a system he wanted to produce, and although he is all-knowing and therefore knew that his system would produce evil, and although as first-cause he is the creator of everything, he had no choice other than knowingly to create a system that would produce evil, over which he has no control. This apparently means he is all-powerful and all-good. 3) Being all-powerful, he deliberately created a system that would produce evil in order to challenge humans, but wanting to produce evil apparently makes him all-good.

Your brain is muddied by your overemphasis on the amount of evil.


dhw: An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose. […] This means there is no God-given plan of design other than to create a system that would produce an endlessly changing and even unpredictable variety of species which would come and go. Far more interesting than a puppet show, don't you think?

DAVID: Evolution with a purpose is not the theatrical sideshow you describe rudderlessly wandering along. For whose interest is it created?? If you are inferring God, He doesn't need to entertain Himself.

dhw: But you believe he enjoys creating, is interested in his creations, and a Garden of Eden would be boring. And under theodicy, you insist that he gave humans the means of “rudderlessly wandering along”, out of his control. Why, if not out of interest in what we might come up with (or how we would meet the challenge)? And why should he not have given the same freedom to speciate for the same reason? If he is interested in his creations, why would he not invent a system which he would find interesting?

DAVID: Again, your humanized form of God has returned. God does not need to entertain Himself or create entertainment. He creates with purpose to create His goal/goals.

dhw: I have rejected the word “entertainment” and stuck rigidly to the two terms you have used: he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. You accept that we would share some of his thought patterns and emotions. I agree that he would create with purpose. The only goal you allow him is us plus food, which makes a mockery of your theory that he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. Why are you so opposed to the idea that a God who enjoys and is interested in his creations might have created them because he wants to create something he will enjoy and be interested in?

I'm sure God is interested in His own way. But He doesn't create for self-entertainment. He is not such a human-like God, but your limited imagination seems to allow only allow for that species of God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, October 19, 2023, 10:55 (162 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me to accept God’s choice of action. I don’t need to know his reasons.
And:
DAVID: Of course it is not fact. It is faith and belief.

dhw: So you don’t “accept” God’s choice of action, because you don’t know that he designed every species, and you don’t know that he did so with the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% of his designs had no connection with us plus food. You simply have faith and belief in a theory which makes no sense to you. Thank you for this confirmation.

DAVID: As a believer, my theory makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't believe in it! Thank you for revealing your muddled way of thinking in this analysis of me.

You can’t think of any reason why your God would design 99.9 unnecessary species out of 100 etc., but you “don’t need to know his reasons” because this is what you believe. How does your inability to find a reason and your not needing to find a reason come to mean that your theory makes perfect sense to you?

Theodicy

dhw:...Take it step by step. Your God is all-powerful. Therefore he would not create a system he did not want. He is all-knowing. Therefore he would know that his system would produce evil, which according to you is his challenge to us (Eden would be boring). Therefore he wanted a system which would produce evil. Question: how does that make him all-good?

DAVID: To use all the enormous good from God both God and humans must accept the small, by comparison, evil byproducts.

We’re not discussing what humans must accept, but how your first-cause God’s production of evil can square with the theory that he is all-good.

DAVID: Our responses show how we can conceive Him as all-good.

dhw: Your responses so far have been 1) he is all-good because you only want to think of the good he does and to ignore the evil. 2) Although he is all-powerful, and would therefore only produce a system he wanted to produce, and although he is all-knowing and therefore knew that his system would produce evil, and although as first-cause he is the creator of everything, he had no choice other than knowingly to create a system that would produce evil, over which he has no control. This apparently means he is all-powerful and all-good. 3) Being all-powerful, he deliberately created a system that would produce evil in order to challenge humans, but wanting to produce evil apparently makes him all-good.

DAVID: Your brain is muddied by your overemphasis on the amount of evil.

There is no overemphasis. Regardless of proportion, evil exists, and the question is how your first-cause God’s production of evil can square with the theory that he is all-good.

dhw: An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose. […] This means there is no God-given plan of design other than to create a system that would produce an endlessly changing and even unpredictable variety of species which would come and go. Far more interesting than a puppet show, don't you think? […]

DAVID: Again, your humanized form of God has returned. God does not need to entertain Himself or create entertainment. He creates with purpose to create His goal/goals.

dhw: I have rejected the word “entertainment” and stuck rigidly to the two terms you have used: he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. You accept that we would share some of his thought patterns and emotions. I agree that he would create with purpose. The only goal you allow him is us plus food, which makes a mockery of your theory that he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. Why are you so opposed to the idea that a God who enjoys and is interested in his creations might have created them because he wants to create something he will enjoy and be interested in?

DAVID: I'm sure God is interested in His own way. But He doesn't create for self-entertainment.

You were sure that he enjoyed creating. Please stick to “enjoyment”.

DAVID: He is not such a human-like God…..

Please stop talking as if you knew your God personally.

DAVID …but your limited imagination seems to allow only allow for that species of God.

Unlike you, I do not pretend to know your God. I offer alternative theistic theories (experimentation to create one form, experimentation or free-for-all to discover the potential of his invention) to explain life’s history, and although you acknowledge that all of them logically explain the 99.9% which you can’t explain, you reject them because they don’t conform to your preconceived ideas about your God’s nature.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 19, 2023, 18:35 (161 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: It makes perfect sense to me to accept God’s choice of action. I don’t need to know his reasons.
And:
DAVID: Of course it is not fact. It is faith and belief.

dhw: So you don’t “accept” God’s choice of action, because you don’t know that he designed every species, and you don’t know that he did so with the sole purpose of designing us plus food, although 99.9% of his designs had no connection with us plus food. You simply have faith and belief in a theory which makes no sense to you. Thank you for this confirmation.

DAVID: As a believer, my theory makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't believe in it! Thank you for revealing your muddled way of thinking in this analysis of me.

You can’t think of any reason why your God would design 99.9 unnecessary species out of 100 etc., but you “don’t need to know his reasons” because this is what you believe. How does your inability to find a reason and your not needing to find a reason come to mean that your theory makes perfect sense to you?

Your weird question helps explain the way your mind works, requiring absolute facts to make a decision. Juries are told to make life-taking-decisions based on 'information beyond a reasonable doubt'. It works in thinking about a probable God.


Theodicy

DAVID: Our responses show how we can conceive Him as all-good.

dhw: Your responses so far have been 1) he is all-good because you only want to think of the good he does and to ignore the evil. 2) Although he is all-powerful, and would therefore only produce a system he wanted to produce, and although he is all-knowing and therefore knew that his system would produce evil, and although as first-cause he is the creator of everything, he had no choice other than knowingly to create a system that would produce evil, over which he has no control. This apparently means he is all-powerful and all-good. 3) Being all-powerful, he deliberately created a system that would produce evil in order to challenge humans, but wanting to produce evil apparently makes him all-good.

DAVID: Your brain is muddied by your overemphasis on the amount of evil.

dhw: There is no overemphasis. Regardless of proportion, evil exists, and the question is how your first-cause God’s production of evil can square with the theory that he is all-good.

Our explanations square it to our satisfaction.


dhw: An added bonus here concerns your dotty theory of evolution. If your God, for whatever reason, was quite happy to lose control of the system that produced evil, then he might have been happy to lose control of evolution itself (giving life forms the intelligence with which to create their own designs) – a theory which would automatically solve the problem you have created for yourself by making him design 99.9% of species irrelevant to his purpose. […] This means there is no God-given plan of design other than to create a system that would produce an endlessly changing and even unpredictable variety of species which would come and go. Far more interesting than a puppet show, don't you think? […]

DAVID: Again, your humanized form of God has returned. God does not need to entertain Himself or create entertainment. He creates with purpose to create His goal/goals.

dhw: I have rejected the word “entertainment” and stuck rigidly to the two terms you have used: he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. You accept that we would share some of his thought patterns and emotions. I agree that he would create with purpose. The only goal you allow him is us plus food, which makes a mockery of your theory that he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. Why are you so opposed to the idea that a God who enjoys and is interested in his creations might have created them because he wants to create something he will enjoy and be interested in?

DAVID: I'm sure God is interested in His own way. But He doesn't create for self-entertainment.

dhw: You were sure that he enjoyed creating. Please stick to “enjoyment”

If it is for enjoyment, it is entertaining. Look at the definitions that include pleasure.


DAVID …but your limited imagination seems to allow only allow for that species of God.

dhw: Unlike you, I do not pretend to know your God. I offer alternative theistic theories (experimentation to create one form, experimentation or free-for-all to discover the potential of his invention) to explain life’s history, and although you acknowledge that all of them logically explain the 99.9% which you can’t explain, you reject them because they don’t conform to your preconceived ideas about your God’s nature.

I reject them because they define a namby-pamby God who is not all-knowing in how to evolve His purposes.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, October 20, 2023, 12:03 (160 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As a believer, my theory makes perfect sense to me or I wouldn't believe in it! Thank you for revealing your muddled way of thinking in this analysis of me.

dhw: You can’t think of any reason why your God would design 99.9 unnecessary species out of 100 etc., but you “don’t need to know his reasons” because this is what you believe. How does your inability to find a reason and your not needing to find a reason come to mean that your theory makes perfect sense to you?

DAVID: Your weird question helps explain the way your mind works, requiring absolute facts to make a decision. Juries are told to make life-taking-decisions based on 'information beyond a reasonable doubt'. It works in thinking about a probable God.

Yet another dodge. We are not discussing your belief in God's existence, but your belief in the absurd theory that your God had only one purpose (us and our food), and therefore specially designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. It is this combination of theories which you admit makes no sense to you. Stop dodging!

Theodicy

dhw: Your responses so far have been 1) he is all-good because you only want to think of the good he does and to ignore the evil. 2) Although he is all-powerful, and would therefore only produce a system he wanted to produce, and although he is all-knowing and therefore knew that his system would produce evil, and although as first-cause he is the creator of everything, he had no choice other than knowingly to create a system that would produce evil, over which he has no control. This apparently means he is all-powerful and all-good. 3) Being all-powerful, he deliberately created a system that would produce evil in order to challenge humans, but wanting to produce evil apparently makes him all-good.

DAVID: Your brain is muddied by your overemphasis on the amount of evil.

dhw: There is no overemphasis. Regardless of proportion, evil exists, and the question is how your first-cause God’s production of evil can square with the theory that he is all-good.

DAVID: Our explanations square it to our satisfaction.

Why have you started using the royal “we”? If you can’t defend the three explanations you have offered, then just say so.


dhw: Why are you so opposed to the idea that a God who enjoys and is interested in his creations might have created them because he wants to create something he will enjoy and be interested in?

DAVID: I'm sure God is interested in His own way. But He doesn't create for self-entertainment.

dhw: You were sure that he enjoyed creating. Please stick to “enjoyment”

DAVID: If it is for enjoyment, it is entertaining. Look at the definitions that include pleasure.

More dodging. Entertainment sounds trivial - akin to being amused. I enjoy a performance of “King Lear”, but I do not find it entertaining. Now please explain why a God who enjoys (your word) and is interested (your word) in his creations can’t possibly have created them because he wanted to create something he would enjoy and be interested in.

DAVID ...but your limited imagination seems to allow only allow for that species of God.

dhw: Unlike you, I do not pretend to know your God. I offer alternative theistic theories (experimentation to create one form, experimentation or free-for-all to discover the potential of his invention) to explain life’s history, and although you acknowledge that all of them logically explain the 99.9% which you can’t explain, you reject them because they don’t conform to your preconceived ideas about your God’s nature.

DAVID: I reject them because they define a namby-pamby God who is not all-knowing in how to evolve His purposes.

Would you call experimental scientists and inventors namby-pamby? You prefer a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer (your description) who, for totally inexplicable reasons, chooses to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, October 20, 2023, 20:00 (160 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Friday, October 20, 2023, 20:08

DAVID: Your weird question helps explain the way your mind works, requiring absolute facts to make a decision. Juries are told to make life-taking-decisions based on 'information beyond a reasonable doubt'. It works in thinking about a probable God.

dhw: Yet another dodge. We are not discussing your belief in God's existence, but your belief in the absurd theory that your God had only one purpose (us and our food), and therefore specially designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. It is this combination of theories which you admit makes no sense to you. Stop dodging!

Not nonsensible!!! Stop analyzing my mind/thinking capacity. That is why I analyzed yours. It is blatantly obvious evolution requires a massive loss of forms (Raup: 99.9%)


Theodicy

dhw: There is no overemphasis. Regardless of proportion, evil exists, and the question is how your first-cause God’s production of evil can square with the theory that he is all-good.

DAVID: Our explanations square it to our satisfaction.

dhw: Why have you started using the royal “we”? If you can’t defend the three explanations you have offered, then just say so.

That is because I am quoting the theodicy literature you don't read.>


DAVID: I'm sure God is interested in His own way. But He doesn't create for self-entertainment.

dhw: You were sure that he enjoyed creating. Please stick to “enjoyment”

DAVID: If it is for enjoyment, it is entertaining. Look at the definitions that include pleasure.

dhw: More dodging. Entertainment sounds trivial - akin to being amused. I enjoy a performance of “King Lear”, but I do not find it entertaining. Now please explain why a God who enjoys (your word) and is interested (your word) in his creations can’t possibly have created them because he wanted to create something he would enjoy and be interested in.

Why watch King Lear if not entertaining? God may take an interest in His creations. How do we know God might need enjoyment? HE is in no way human.


DAVID ...but your limited imagination seems to allow only allow for that species of God.

dhw: Unlike you, I do not pretend to know your God. I offer alternative theistic theories (experimentation to create one form, experimentation or free-for-all to discover the potential of his invention) to explain life’s history, and although you acknowledge that all of them logically explain the 99.9% which you can’t explain, you reject them because they don’t conform to your preconceived ideas about your God’s nature.

DAVID: I reject them because they define a namby-pamby God who is not all-knowing in how to evolve His purposes.

dhw: Would you call experimental scientists and inventors namby-pamby? You prefer a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer (your description) who, for totally inexplicable reasons, chooses to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose.

Your God is namby-pamby. Scientists and inventors are not this subject!!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, October 21, 2023, 08:49 (160 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are not discussing your belief in God's existence, but your belief in the absurd theory that your God had only one purpose (us and our food), and therefore specially designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. It is this combination of theories which you admit makes no sense to you. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Not nonsensible!!! Stop analyzing my mind/thinking capacity. That is why I analyzed yours. It is blatantly obvious evolution requires a massive loss of forms (Raup: 99.9%)

If God designed evolution, evolution did not require anything - God required it! An all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do. And according to you, his only purpose was to design us plus food, and so according to you, he required, wanted and specially designed 99.9 out of 100 species that would have no connection with his one and only purpose and would therefore have to be culled. Not only can you find no reason for such a process, but you even call it messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Please tell me what sense you have found in it.

Theodicy

dhw: There is no overemphasis. Regardless of proportion, evil exists, and the question is how your first-cause God’s production of evil can square with the theory that he is all-good.

DAVID: Our explanations square it to our satisfaction.

dhw: Why have you started using the royal “we”? If you can’t defend the three explanations you have offered, then just say so.

DAVID: That is because I am quoting the theodicy literature you don't read.

Since you read all this literature, perhaps you would tell me your fellow thinkers’ explanation of how an all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause God, who is the creator of all things, can be all-good if he deliberately creates a system he knows will produce evil (which had never existed before he created it), although he either has no control over his invention (despite his all-powerfulness) or he wants to provide humans with a challenge and therefore actually wants to create evil.

dhw: Please explain why a God who enjoys (your word) and is interested (your word) in his creations can’t possibly have created them because he wanted to create something he would enjoy and be interested in.

DAVID: God may take an interest in His creations. How do we know God might need enjoyment? HE is in no way human.

We don’t “know” anything – even if he exists. Who talked of “need”? You were certain that he enjoyed creation and was interested in his creations. Why should enjoyment and interest not be among the thought patterns and emotions you accept we might share with him? If he set us a challenge, do you think he would not be interested in our response? Do you consider him incapable of love? You’ve told us he hates evil. Love/hate, lack of control, messy, cumbersome, inefficient – but in no way human?

DAVID ...but your limited imagination seems to allow only allow for that species of God.
And:
DAVID: I reject them [alternative theistic theories] because they define a namby-pamby God who is not all-knowing in how to evolve His purposes.

dhw: Would you call experimental scientists and inventors namby-pamby? […]

DAVID: Your God is namby-pamby. Scientists and inventors are not this subject!!

You have said he’s namby-pamby if he designed all 100 species, or gave them the means to design themselves, as an experiment. Why do you consider experimentation to be “namby-pamby” – especially when it leads to success? You prefer what you call his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving his goal. Do you regard inefficiency as less namby-pamby than successful experimentation?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 21, 2023, 20:01 (159 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Stop analyzing my mind/thinking capacity. That is why I analyzed yours. It is blatantly obvious evolution requires a massive loss of forms (Raup: 99.9%)

dhw: If God designed evolution, evolution did not require anything - God required it! An all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do. And according to you, his only purpose was to design us plus food, and so according to you, he required, wanted and specially designed 99.9 out of 100 species that would have no connection with his one and only purpose and would therefore have to be culled. Not only can you find no reason for such a process, but you even call it messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Please tell me what sense you have found in it.

What God does not have to make sense! If He did it, it is the correct thing He wished to do. As a believer I simply accept it. You never understand this point of view.


Theodicy

dhw: There is no overemphasis. Regardless of proportion, evil exists, and the question is how your first-cause God’s production of evil can square with the theory that he is all-good.

DAVID: Our explanations square it to our satisfaction.

dhw: Why have you started using the royal “we”? If you can’t defend the three explanations you have offered, then just say so.

DAVID: That is because I am quoting the theodicy literature you don't read.

dhw: Since you read all this literature, perhaps you would tell me your fellow thinkers’ explanation of how an all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause God, who is the creator of all things, can be all-good if he deliberately creates a system he knows will produce evil (which had never existed before he created it), although he either has no control over his invention (despite his all-powerfulness) or he wants to provide humans with a challenge and therefore actually wants to create evil.

They really don't. Proportionality is what they point out.


dhw: Please explain why a God who enjoys (your word) and is interested (your word) in his creations can’t possibly have created them because he wanted to create something he would enjoy and be interested in.

DAVID: God may take an interest in His creations. How do we know God might need enjoyment? HE is in no way human.

dhw: We don’t “know” anything – even if he exists. Who talked of “need”? You were certain that he enjoyed creation and was interested in his creations. Why should enjoyment and interest not be among the thought patterns and emotions you accept we might share with him? If he set us a challenge, do you think he would not be interested in our response? Do you consider him incapable of love? You’ve told us he hates evil. Love/hate, lack of control, messy, cumbersome, inefficient – but in no way human?

We know what WE believe. Stay outside. It's OK. We can discuss His personality realizing you are correct; we don't really know.


DAVID ...but your limited imagination seems to allow only allow for that species of God.
And:
DAVID: I reject them [alternative theistic theories] because they define a namby-pamby God who is not all-knowing in how to evolve His purposes.

dhw: Would you call experimental scientists and inventors namby-pamby? […]

DAVID: Your God is namby-pamby. Scientists and inventors are not this subject!!

dhw: You have said he’s namby-pamby if he designed all 100 species, or gave them the means to design themselves, as an experiment. Why do you consider experimentation to be “namby-pamby” – especially when it leads to success? You prefer what you call his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving his goal. Do you regard inefficiency as less namby-pamby than successful experimentation?

Namby-pamby refers to a weak God who gives up direct control and HOPES the process achieves His wished for goal.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, October 22, 2023, 09:02 (159 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Stop analyzing my mind/thinking capacity. That is why I analyzed yours. It is blatantly obvious evolution requires a massive loss of forms (Raup: 99.9%)

dhw: If God designed evolution, evolution did not require anything - God required it! An all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do. And according to you, his only purpose was to design us plus food, and so according to you, he required, wanted and specially designed 99.9 out of 100 species that would have no connection with his one and only purpose and would therefore have to be culled. Not only can you find no reason for such a process, but you even call it messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Please tell me what sense you have found in it.

DAVID: What God does not have to make sense! If He did it, it is the correct thing He wished to do. As a believer I simply accept it. You never understand this point of view.

I agree with you that an all-powerful God would do what he wished to do. If he wished to design 99.9 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, he would do so. If he wished to create a free-for-all, or to experiment to find out the potential of his invention, he would do so. If he wished to experiment in order to find out the best way to create a particular form of life, he would do so. What you “simply accept” is your theory that he wished to use a messy, inefficient method to achieve the purpose you impose on him with your theory, although you can’t understand why. The three alternatives have him achieving his purpose in a completely logical and efficient manner. But “you never understand this point of view.”

Theodicy

[…] perhaps you would tell me your fellow thinkers’ explanation of how an all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause God, who is the creator of all things, can be all-good if he deliberately creates a system he knows will produce evil (which had never existed before he created it), although he either has no control over his invention (despite his all-powerfulness) or he wants to provide humans with a challenge and therefore actually wants to create evil.

DAVID: They really don't. Proportionality is what they point out.

So you’ll have to think for yourself. I’ll look forward to your response to the above.

DAVID: God may take an interest in His creations. How do we know God might need enjoyment? HE is in no way human.

dhw: We don’t “know” anything – even if he exists. Who talked of “need”? You were certain that he enjoyed creation and was interested in his creations. Why should enjoyment and interest not be among the thought patterns and emotions you accept we might share with him? If he set us a challenge, do you think he would not be interested in our response? Do you consider him incapable of love? You’ve told us he hates evil. Love/hate, lack of control, messy, cumbersome, inefficient – but in no way human?

DAVID: We know what WE believe. Stay outside. It's OK. We can discuss His personality realizing you are correct; we don't really know.

No, we don’t, and so we discuss the possibilities and the feasibleness of our theories. I don’t understand your “Stay outside”. How can we have any discussions if we stay outside? The following exchange is a simple example:

DAVID: Your God is namby-pamby. […]

dhw: You have said he’s namby-pamby if he designed all 100 species, or gave them the means to design themselves, as an experiment. Why do you consider experimentation to be “namby-pamby” – especially when it leads to success? You prefer what you call his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving his goal. Do you regard inefficiency as less namby-pamby than successful experimentation?

DAVID: Namby-pamby refers to a weak God who gives up direct control and HOPES the process achieves His wished for goal.

In one of your theodicy theories, your God has no control over the evil “by-products” of the system he has invented. How weak and namby-pamby is that? In my free-for-all theory, he does not want control – his purpose is to see what happens if he leaves organisms to design themselves. Why is that weak and namby-pamby? In two of my theories, he doesn’t “hope” he’ll find out the potential of his invention. He knows that what he is doing will reveal the potential. Weak and namby-pamby? Compared to a God who, in one of your own theories, has to create a system which will produce something he hates (evil) but which he is powerless to prevent?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 22, 2023, 16:12 (158 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What God does not have to make sense! If He did it, it is the correct thing He wished to do. As a believer I simply accept it. You never understand this point of view.

dhw: I agree with you that an all-powerful God would do what he wished to do. If he wished to design 99.9 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, he would do so. If he wished to create a free-for-all, or to experiment to find out the potential of his invention, he would do so. If he wished to experiment in order to find out the best way to create a particular form of life, he would do so. What you “simply accept” is your theory that he wished to use a messy, inefficient method to achieve the purpose you impose on him with your theory, although you can’t understand why. The three alternatives have him achieving his purpose in a completely logical and efficient manner. But “you never understand this point of view.”

Your "if God" experiments, uses a free-for-all, but you don't recognize how weak you make your imagined God. An all-powerful God directly creates whatever He wishes directly, not through your very weak methods imposed on Him.


Theodicy

[…] dhw: perhaps you would tell me your fellow thinkers’ explanation of how an all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause God, who is the creator of all things, can be all-good if he deliberately creates a system he knows will produce evil (which had never existed before he created it), although he either has no control over his invention (despite his all-powerfulness) or he wants to provide humans with a challenge and therefore actually wants to create evil.

DAVID: They really don't. Proportionality is what they point out.

dhw: So you’ll have to think for yourself. I’ll look forward to your response to the above.

I had independently arrived at proportionality before reading the theodicy opinions which confirmed my view.


DAVID: We know what WE believe. Stay outside. It's OK. We can discuss His personality realizing you are correct; we don't really know.

dhw: No, we don’t, and so we discuss the possibilities and the feasibleness of our theories. I don’t understand your “Stay outside”. How can we have any discussions if we stay outside? The following exchange is a simple example:

DAVID: Your God is namby-pamby. […]

dhw: You have said he’s namby-pamby if he designed all 100 species, or gave them the means to design themselves, as an experiment. Why do you consider experimentation to be “namby-pamby” – especially when it leads to success? You prefer what you call his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving his goal. Do you regard inefficiency as less namby-pamby than successful experimentation?

DAVID: Namby-pamby refers to a weak God who gives up direct control and HOPES the process achieves His wished for goal.

dhw: In one of your theodicy theories, your God has no control over the evil “by-products” of the system he has invented. How weak and namby-pamby is that? In my free-for-all theory, he does not want control – his purpose is to see what happens if he leaves organisms to design themselves. Why is that weak and namby-pamby? In two of my theories, he doesn’t “hope” he’ll find out the potential of his invention. He knows that what he is doing will reveal the potential. Weak and namby-pamby? Compared to a God who, in one of your own theories, has to create a system which will produce something he hates (evil) but which he is powerless to prevent?

You still don't see your God is not all-powerful. God created a universe from Himself. Developed the perfect planet for life and then invented life. Then suddenly, in your version, He has to experiment or gives over control to a free-for-all so He can be entertained by unexpected results. Dual/split personalities is the weird result.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, October 23, 2023, 11:57 (157 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I agree with you that an all-powerful God would do what he wished to do. If he wished to design 99.9 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, he would do so. If he wished to create a free-for-all, or to experiment to find out the potential of his invention, he would do so. If he wished to experiment in order to find out the best way to create a particular form of life, he would do so. What you “simply accept” is your theory that he wished to use a messy, inefficient method to achieve the purpose you impose on him with your theory, although you can’t understand why. The three alternatives have him achieving his purpose in a completely logical and efficient manner. But “you never understand this point of view.”

DAVID: Your "if God" experiments, uses a free-for-all, but you don't recognize how weak you make your imagined God. An all-powerful God directly creates whatever He wishes directly, not through your very weak methods imposed on Him.

According to you, your God’s one and only wish was to create sapiens plus food, but instead of creating us directly, he created and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 which had no connection with us. You have called his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Now you are calling it weak, but you are telling me that a God who wishes to experiment and to find out the potential of his invention is weak because he experiments and finds out the potential of his invention. Welcome to Wonderland.

Theodicy

dhw: […] perhaps you would tell me your fellow thinkers’ explanation of how an all-powerful, all-knowing first-cause God, who is the creator of all things, can be all-good if he deliberately creates a system he knows will produce evil (which had never existed before he created it), although he either has no control over his invention (despite his all-powerfulness) or he wants to provide humans with a challenge and therefore actually wants to create evil.

DAVID: They really don't. Proportionality is what they point out.

dhw: So you’ll have to think for yourself. I’ll look forward to your response to the above.

DAVID: I had independently arrived at proportionality before reading the theodicy opinions which confirmed my view.

And no doubt you have independently arrived at the conclusion that you had better ignore the above and simply go on pretending that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that there is no problem.

dhw: Do you regard inefficiency as less namby-pamby than successful experimentation?

DAVID: Namby-pamby refers to a weak God who gives up direct control and HOPES the process achieves His wished for goal.

dhw: In one of your theodicy theories, your God has no control over the evil “by-products” of the system he has invented. How weak and namby-pamby is that?

Not answered.

dhw: In my free-for-all theory, he does not want control – his purpose is to see what happens if he leaves organisms to design themselves. Why is that weak and namby-pamby? In two of my theories, he doesn’t “hope” he’ll find out the potential of his invention. He knows that what he is doing will reveal the potential. Weak and namby-pamby? Compared to a God who, in one of your own theories, has to create a system which will produce something he hates (evil) but which he is powerless to prevent?

DAVID: You still don't see your God is not all-powerful.

If "my God" wants to experiment or wants to create a free-for-all, and proceeds to experiment or to create a free-for-all, how does that come to mean he is not all-powerful?

DAVID: God created a universe from Himself. Developed the perfect planet for life and then invented life. Then suddenly, in your version, He has to experiment or gives over control to a free-for-all so He can be entertained by unexpected results. Dual/split personalities is the weird result.

No split at all. He doesn’t “have to” experiment in any of my versions. He creates life because he wants to enjoy creating new things through experimenting or through the same free-for-all that you envisage with your out-of-control bugs and your human free will. The only split personality that has emerged from our discussions is your all-powerful God who directly creates what he wants to create, except that he doesn’t, and your first-cause, all-good God who creates evil out of himself.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, October 23, 2023, 20:47 (157 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your "if God" experiments, uses a free-for-all, but you don't recognize how weak you make your imagined God. An all-powerful God directly creates whatever He wishes directly, not through your very weak methods imposed on Him.

dhw: According to you, your God’s one and only wish was to create sapiens plus food, but instead of creating us directly, he created and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 which had no connection with us. You have called his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Now you are calling it weak, but you are telling me that a God who wishes to experiment and to find out the potential of his invention is weak because he experiments and finds out the potential of his invention. Welcome to Wonderland.

A really powerful all-knowing purposeful God has no need for experimentation as He knows full well how to achieve His purposes. Yes, you are in Alice in Wonderland. A teleological thought process explains God's role and destroys your Darwinism approach which cannot allow a purposeful evolutionary approach as anathema to chance.


Theodicy

DAVID: I had independently arrived at proportionality before reading the theodicy opinions which confirmed my view.

dhw: And no doubt you have independently arrived at the conclusion that you had better ignore the above and simply go on pretending that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that there is no problem.

Do you remember what you read? I raised the theodicy issue years ago specifically to discuss the problem.


dhw: Do you regard inefficiency as less namby-pamby than successful experimentation?

DAVID: Namby-pamby refers to a weak God who gives up direct control and HOPES the process achieves His wished for goal.

dhw: In one of your theodicy theories, your God has no control over the evil “by-products” of the system he has invented. How weak and namby-pamby is that?

Not answered.

God has accepted the byproducts of His good works as necessaary.


dhw: In my free-for-all theory, he does not want control – his purpose is to see what happens if he leaves organisms to design themselves. Why is that weak and namby-pamby? In two of my theories, he doesn’t “hope” he’ll find out the potential of his invention. He knows that what he is doing will reveal the potential. Weak and namby-pamby? Compared to a God who, in one of your own theories, has to create a system which will produce something he hates (evil) but which he is powerless to prevent?

DAVID: You still don't see your God is not all-powerful.

dhw: If "my God" wants to experiment or wants to create a free-for-all, and proceeds to experiment or to create a free-for-all, how does that come to mean he is not all-powerful?

DAVID: God created a universe from Himself. Developed the perfect planet for life and then invented life. Then suddenly, in your version, He has to experiment or gives over control to a free-for-all so He can be entertained by unexpected results. Dual/split personalities is the weird result.

dhw: No split at all. He doesn’t “have to” experiment in any of my versions. He creates life because he wants to enjoy creating new things through experimenting or through the same free-for-all that you envisage with your out-of-control bugs and your human free will. The only split personality that has emerged from our discussions is your all-powerful God who directly creates what he wants to create, except that he doesn’t, and your first-cause, all-good God who creates evil out of himself.

The good bugs must be free of action while under instructions for life to work. God found this the only way possible. We produce evil, not God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, October 24, 2023, 12:37 (156 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your "if God" experiments, uses a free-for-all, but you don't recognize how weak you make your imagined God. An all-powerful God directly creates whatever He wishes directly, not through your very weak methods imposed on Him.

dhw: According to you, your God’s one and only wish was to create sapiens plus food, but instead of creating us directly, he created and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 which had no connection with us. You have called his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Now you are calling it weak, but you are telling me that a God who wishes to experiment and to find out the potential of his invention is weak because he experiments and finds out the potential of his invention. […]

DAVID: A really powerful all-knowing purposeful God has no need for experimentation as He knows full well how to achieve His purposes.

If your all-powerful, all-knowing, purposeful God would “directly create whatever he wishes directly”, and his only purpose was to design us and our food, why would he directly design and then have to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose? Do you call that ”direct” creation? Welcome to Wonderland.

DAVID: Yes, you are in Alice in Wonderland. A teleological thought process explains God's role and destroys your Darwinism approach which cannot allow a purposeful evolutionary approach as anathema to chance.

Our discussion is based on your premise that God exists and is responsible for evolution. A God who experiments or deliberately creates a free-for-all has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin’s theory, so please stop using Darwin as an excuse for dodging your self-contradictions. You keep agreeing that you have no idea why your God would use your messy, cumbersome, inefficient and now “weak” method to achieve the purpose you impose on him. And yet you continue to argue that this version is really powerful, whereas a God who does precisely what he wants to do (experiment, discover, enjoy new creations) is weak. I guess part of being in Wonderland is not believing you’re in Wonderland!:-)

Theodicy

DAVID: I had independently arrived at proportionality before reading the theodicy opinions which confirmed my view.

dhw: And no doubt you have independently arrived at the conclusion that you had better ignore the above and simply go on pretending that the problem of theodicy is solved by pretending that there is no problem.

DAVID: Do you remember what you read? I raised the theodicy issue years ago specifically to discuss the problem.

How does that justify your pretence that the problem is solved by pretending there is no problem?

dhw: Do you regard inefficiency as less namby-pamby than successful experimentation?

DAVID: Namby-pamby refers to a weak God who gives up direct control and HOPES the process achieves His wished for goal.

dhw: In one of your theodicy theories, your God has no control over the evil “by-products” of the system he has invented. How weak and namby-pamby is that?

DAVID: God has accepted the byproducts of His good works as necessaary.

So your all-powerful God has accepted that he must give up direct control (= weak). And since according to you he hates evil, presumably (since he has given us free will) part of his goal is to eliminate the evil he hates – i.e. he HOPES the process will achieve his wished-for goal. Congratulations, your God has now achieved namby-pamby status, as bolded above.

dhw: If "my God" wants to experiment or wants to create a free-for-all, and proceeds to experiment or to create a free-for-all, how does that come to mean he is not all-powerful?

DAVID: God created a universe from Himself. Developed the perfect planet for life and then invented life. Then suddenly, in your version, He has to experiment or gives over control to a free-for-all so He can be entertained by unexpected results. Dual/split personalities is the weird result.

dhw: No split at all. He doesn’t “have to” experiment in any of my versions. He creates life because he wants to enjoy creating new things through experimenting or through the same free-for-all that you envisage with your out-of-control bugs and your human free will. The only split personality that has emerged from our discussions is your all-powerful God who directly creates what he wants to create, except that he doesn’t, and your first-cause, all-good God who creates evil out of himself.

DAVID: The good bugs must be free of action while under instructions for life to work. God found this the only way possible. We produce evil, not God.

See above. Please understand that I’m not accusing God of waging war or committing murder or rape. I’m merely pointing out that your first-cause designer who created all life out of himself, and who deliberately designed a life form which he knew would wage war, or commit murder or rape – none of which ever existed before he designed the life form – can hardly be all-good.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 24, 2023, 18:58 (156 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: A really powerful all-knowing purposeful God has no need for experimentation as He knows full well how to achieve His purposes.

dhw: If your all-powerful, all-knowing, purposeful God would “directly create whatever he wishes directly”, and his only purpose was to design us and our food, why would he directly design and then have to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose? Do you call that ”direct” creation? Welcome to Wonderland.

The all-powerful God examines all choices of method and chooses the best one to achieve His goals.


DAVID: Yes, you are in Alice in Wonderland. A teleological thought process explains God's role and destroys your Darwinism approach which cannot allow a purposeful evolutionary approach as anathema to chance.

dhw: Our discussion is based on your premise that God exists and is responsible for evolution. A God who experiments or deliberately creates a free-for-all has nothing whatsoever to do with Darwin’s theory, so please stop using Darwin as an excuse for dodging your self-contradictions. You keep agreeing that you have no idea why your God would use your messy, cumbersome, inefficient and now “weak” method to achieve the purpose you impose on him. And yet you continue to argue that this version is really powerful, whereas a God who does precisely what he wants to do (experiment, discover, enjoy new creations) is weak. I guess part of being in Wonderland is not believing you’re in Wonderland!:-)

Comparing my view above with this description, it is a direct antithesis of my view. God has no need to experiment, discover, or create for enjoyment. Yours is entirely humanized. It is amazing you can't see that.


Theodicy

DAVID: Do you remember what you read? I raised the theodicy issue years ago specifically to discuss the problem.

dhw: How does that justify your pretence that the problem is solved by pretending there is no problem?

Of course, there is a problem!!! We live with evil.

DAVID: God has accepted the byproducts of His good works as necessaary.

dhw: So your all-powerful God has accepted that he must give up direct control (= weak). And since according to you he hates evil, presumably (since he has given us free will) part of his goal is to eliminate the evil he hates – i.e. he HOPES the process will achieve his wished-for goal. Congratulations, your God has now achieved namby-pamby status, as bolded above.

God has created a powerful form of life, the one we have. I've fully explained how free-to- act bacteria must exist, and unfortunately cause trouble. Free-to-act humans are the same.


dhw: If "my God" wants to experiment or wants to create a free-for-all, and proceeds to experiment or to create a free-for-all, how does that come to mean he is not all-powerful?

DAVID: God created a universe from Himself. Developed the perfect planet for life and then invented life. Then suddenly, in your version, He has to experiment or gives over control to a free-for-all so He can be entertained by unexpected results. Dual/split personalities is the weird result.

dhw: No split at all. He doesn’t “have to” experiment in any of my versions. He creates life because he wants to enjoy creating new things through experimenting or through the same free-for-all that you envisage with your out-of-control bugs and your human free will. The only split personality that has emerged from our discussions is your all-powerful God who directly creates what he wants to create, except that he doesn’t, and your first-cause, all-good God who creates evil out of himself.

DAVID: The good bugs must be free of action while under instructions for life to work. God found this the only way possible. We produce evil, not God.

dhw: See above. Please understand that I’m not accusing God of waging war or committing murder or rape. I’m merely pointing out that your first-cause designer who created all life out of himself, and who deliberately designed a life form which he knew would wage war, or commit murder or rape – none of which ever existed before he designed the life form – can hardly be all-good.

The usual distorted view of an all-good God. The answer: Evil is our fault not God's

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, October 25, 2023, 11:48 (155 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: A really powerful all-knowing purposeful God has no need for experimentation as He knows full well how to achieve His purposes.

You also wrote: “An all-powerful God directly creates whatever he wishes directly, not through your very weak methods imposed on him.

dhw: If your all-powerful, all-knowing, purposeful God would “directly create whatever he wishes directly”, and his only purpose was to design us and our food, why would he directly design and then have to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose? Do you call that ”direct” creation? Welcome to Wonderland.

DAVID: The all-powerful God examines all choices of method and chooses the best one to achieve His goals.

Agreed. I note your plural goals, in contrast to your theory which allows him only one goal: to design us and our food, and I have pointed out that your theory, as bolded above, is the very opposite of direct creation. Since he would “directly create whatever he wishes directly” in order to achieve his goal(s), either your goal theory or your method theory or both of them must therefore be wrong.

dhw: You keep agreeing that you have no idea why your God would use your messy, cumbersome, inefficient and now “weak” method to achieve the purpose you impose on him. And yet you continue to argue that this version is really powerful, whereas a God who does precisely what he wants to do (experiment, discover, enjoy new creations) is weak. I guess part of being in Wonderland is not believing you’re in Wonderland!

DAVID: Comparing my view above with this description, it is a direct antithesis of my view. God has no need to experiment, discover, or create for enjoyment. Yours is entirely humanized. It is amazing you can't see that.

I do not see him as needy. If you enjoy something, does that make you needy? You have said you are certain he enjoys creating (why else would he do it?) and is interested in his creations. Why, all of a sudden, do you reject your own opinion? What is wrong with enjoyment and interest? You think he hates evil, and I suspect that if he can hate, he can also love. Also well-known human characteristics, but do they make him “entirely humanized”?

Theodicy

DAVID: Do you remember what you read? I raised the theodicy issue years ago specifically to discuss the problem.

dhw: How does that justify your pretence that the problem is solved by pretending there is no problem?

DAVID: Of course, there is a problem!!! We live with evil.

How does the fact that we live with evil justify your pretence that the problem is solved by pretending there is no problem?

DAVID: God has accepted the byproducts of His good works as necessaary.

You wrote: “Namby-pamby refers to a weak God who gives up direct control and HOPES the process achieves his wished for goal"

dhw: So your all-powerful God has accepted that he must give up direct control (= weak). And since according to you he hates evil, presumably (since he has given us free will) part of his goal is to eliminate the evil he hates – i.e. he HOPES the process will achieve his wished-for goal. Congratulations, your God has now achieved namby-pamby status, as bolded above.

DAVID: God has created a powerful form of life, the one we have. I've fully explained how free-to- act bacteria must exist, and unfortunately cause trouble. Free-to-act humans are the same.

So your God had to give up control etc., thereby fulfilling your criteria for namby-pambiness, although “an all-powerful God directly creates whatever he wishes”, which ought to mean that he wished to give up control. More of your Wonderland logic.

dhw: Please understand that I’m not accusing God of waging war or committing murder or rape. I’m merely pointing out that your first-cause designer who created all life out of himself, and who deliberately designed a life form which he knew would wage war, or commit murder or rape – none of which ever existed before he designed the life form – can hardly be all-good.

DAVID: The usual distorted view of an all-good God. The answer: Evil is our fault not God's

Do you deny that as first cause he would have created everything out of himself, and knowingly created a system which he knew would produce evil, which had never existed before he designed the system? This is not a “distorted view of an all-good God”. It poses the question of how God can be all-good if he and he alone knowingly created a being who would commit evil.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, October 25, 2023, 19:32 (155 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I do not see him as needy. If you enjoy something, does that make you needy? You have said you are certain he enjoys creating (why else would he do it?) and is interested in his creations. Why, all of a sudden, do you reject your own opinion? What is wrong with enjoyment and interest? You think he hates evil, and I suspect that if he can hate, he can also love. Also well-known human characteristics, but do they make him “entirely humanized”?

In your presentation, yes! The bold is a wrong approach in thinking, comparing my emotions to God's. God is not human. As a personage like no other person, we can only infer God's possible emotions. Love, hate, enjoyment and interest in His creations are all possible characteristics but we do not know if God feels He needs any of these.


Theodicy

DAVID: The usual distorted view of an all-good God. The answer: Evil is our fault not God's

dhw: Do you deny that as first cause he would have created everything out of himself, and knowingly created a system which he knew would produce evil, which had never existed before he designed the system? This is not a “distorted view of an all-good God”. It poses the question of how God can be all-good if he and he alone knowingly created a being who would commit evil.

If God did not create us this discussion would not exist. Are you happy to be here? I am.

Read: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/eric-hedin-on-suffering-in-a-designed-world/

"Dr. Hedin discusses the problem of natural evils like earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, and other natural disasters. He reports that in the last century, the human death toll from such tragedies has dropped as we have learned to mitigate the effects of these natural forces in our lives. Hedin also discusses the impact of sickness on our bodies. “Any complex system can break down,” Hedin reminds us, “because we do live in a world where the second law of thermodynamics applies not just to stars and mountainsides and physical systems but also to our own bodies.” But suffering, tragic as it can be for all of us to endure, is not inconsistent with design.

"There’s the other major cause of suffering in life: human evil...Humans have the gift of rational override: “We’re not just vulnerable or defenseless collections of molecules that are completely at the whim of influences,” he says. “We have rational control that we can actually will to do something that is contrary to every influence that is affecting us at that moment.”

"Dr. Hedin argues that our world is not just designed to support human life, it is also designed for morality too. “Because we can determine what we do or decide not to do, we still have moral responsibility.”

Comment: All the same reasoning I use. I have offered the theodicy reasoning accurately. I accept God's works warts and all.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, October 26, 2023, 12:49 (154 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not see him as needy. If you enjoy something, does that make you needy? You have said you are certain he enjoys creating (why else would he do it?) and is interested in his creations. Why, all of a sudden, do you reject your own opinion? What is wrong with enjoyment and interest? You think he hates evil, and I suspect that if he can hate, he can also love. Also well-known human characteristics, but do they make him “entirely humanized”?

DAVID: In your presentation, yes! The bold is a wrong approach in thinking, comparing my emotions to God's. God is not human. As a personage like no other person, we can only infer God's possible emotions. Love, hate, enjoyment and interest in His creations are all possible characteristics but we do not know if God feels He needs any of these.

Of course an eternal, immaterial being that can create a universe is not a human being, and of course we can only infer his emotions (if he exists). We are not talking of “needs” but of the possibility that he has these emotions. You agree that the above characteristics are possible, and therefore your original certainty that he enjoys and is interested in his creations makes it perfectly feasible that he could have created life because he wanted to create something to enjoy and be interested in.

Theodicy

DAVID: The usual distorted view of an all-good God. The answer: Evil is our fault not God's

dhw: Do you deny that as first cause he would have created everything out of himself, and knowingly created a system which he knew would produce evil, which had never existed before he designed the system? This is not a “distorted view of an all-good God”. It poses the question of how God can be all-good if he and he alone knowingly created a being who would commit evil.

DAVID: If God did not create us this discussion would not exist. Are you happy to be here? I am.

I am happy to be here, God or no God. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of why and how your first cause God, creator of all things, can create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet be all-good. The same applies to the article you have quoted:

Read: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/eric-hedin-on-suffering-in-a-designed-world/

QUOTE: But suffering, tragic as it can be for all of us to endure, is not inconsistent with design.

The problem of theodicy is not the existence of a designer, but the question bolded above.

QUOTE: There’s the other major cause of suffering in life: human evil... "Dr. Hedin argues that our world is not just designed to support human life, it is also designed for morality too. “Because we can determine what we do or decide not to do, we still have moral responsibility.”

DAVID: All the same reasoning I use. I have offered the theodicy reasoning accurately. I accept God's works warts and all.

The question of theodicy has nothing to do with our moral responsibility, and nothing to do with whether you kindly accept God’s works. The fact that you kindly accept God’s “warts”, which in this case entail the deliberate creation of evil (as in your challenge theory) or his inability to prevent the evil he has created (despite his being all-powerful) does not answer the question bolded above. How can a first-cause God, who knowingly creates out of himself a world that contains evil, be all-good?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, October 26, 2023, 17:31 (154 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In your presentation, yes! The bold is a wrong approach in thinking, comparing my emotions to God's. God is not human. As a personage like no other person, we can only infer God's possible emotions. Love, hate, enjoyment and interest in His creations are all possible characteristics but we do not know if God feels He needs any of these.

dhw: Of course an eternal, immaterial being that can create a universe is not a human being, and of course we can only infer his emotions (if he exists). We are not talking of “needs” but of the possibility that he has these emotions. You agree that the above characteristics are possible, and therefore your original certainty that he enjoys and is interested in his creations makes it perfectly feasible that he could have created life because he wanted to create something to enjoy and be interested in.

Our problem is that we do not know what drives God to do anything. In my view God creates with set purposes in mind and any form of enjoyments or interests are secondary events, not primary purposes.


Theodicy

DAVID: The usual distorted view of an all-good God. The answer: Evil is our fault not God's

dhw: Do you deny that as first cause he would have created everything out of himself, and knowingly created a system which he knew would produce evil, which had never existed before he designed the system? This is not a “distorted view of an all-good God”. It poses the question of how God can be all-good if he and he alone knowingly created a being who would commit evil.

DAVID: If God did not create us this discussion would not exist. Are you happy to be here? I am.

dhw: I am happy to be here, God or no God. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of why and how your first cause God, creator of all things, can create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet be all-good. The same applies to the article you have quoted:

Read: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/10/eric-hedin-on-suffering-in-a-designed-world/

QUOTE: But suffering, tragic as it can be for all of us to endure, is not inconsistent with design.

The problem of theodicy is not the existence of a designer, but the question bolded above.

QUOTE: There’s the other major cause of suffering in life: human evil... "Dr. Hedin argues that our world is not just designed to support human life, it is also designed for morality too. “Because we can determine what we do or decide not to do, we still have moral responsibility.”

DAVID: All the same reasoning I use. I have offered the theodicy reasoning accurately. I accept God's works warts and all.

dhw: The question of theodicy has nothing to do with our moral responsibility, and nothing to do with whether you kindly accept God’s works. The fact that you kindly accept God’s “warts”, which in this case entail the deliberate creation of evil (as in your challenge theory) or his inability to prevent the evil he has created (despite his being all-powerful) does not answer the question bolded above. How can a first-cause God, who knowingly creates out of himself a world that contains evil, be all-good?

The evils are byproducts of His good works, which means He is responsible for His good works, which affect us, but we and God have to accept evil that secondarily results and work to mitigate the evil. I agree with you God knew this would happen. Yes, warts and all.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, October 27, 2023, 12:25 (153 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] God is not human. As a personage like no other person, we can only infer God's possible emotions. Love, hate, enjoyment and interest in His creations are all possible characteristics but we do not know if God feels He needs any of these.

dhw: Of course an eternal, immaterial being that can create a universe is not a human being, and of course we can only infer his emotions (if he exists). We are not talking of “needs” but of the possibility that he has these emotions. You agree that the above characteristics are possible, and therefore your original certainty that he enjoys and is interested in his creations makes it perfectly feasible that he could have created life because he wanted to create something to enjoy and be interested in.

DAVID: Our problem is that we do not know what drives God to do anything.

Correct. That is why we can only theorize.

DAVID: In my view God creates with set purposes in mind...

If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have created life with a purpose/purposes in mind. You have limited his purpose to creating us and our food, and I need hardly remind you of the illogical mess this has landed you in.

DAVID: ...and any form of enjoyments or interests are secondary events, not primary purposes.

What is that supposed to mean? Enjoyment and interest are not “events”, and if you do something because you enjoy doing it and you want to create something interesting to watch, then enjoyment and interest are a purpose. You believe he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species in order to design us and our food. Please tell us his “primary purpose” in designing the unnecessary 99.9 species, and his “primary purpose” for designing us and our food. And while you’re at it, following up one of your theories, please tell us his primary purpose for deliberately creating evil as a challenge for us humans.

Theodicy

DAVID: I accept God's works warts and all.

dhw: The fact that you kindly accept God’s “warts”, which in this case entail the deliberate creation of evil (as in your challenge theory) or his inability to prevent the evil he has created (despite his being all-powerful) does not answer the question bolded above. How can a first-cause God, who knowingly creates out of himself a world that contains evil, be all-good?

DAVID: The evils are byproducts of His good works, which means He is responsible for His good works, which affect us, but we and God have to accept evil that secondarily results and work to mitigate the evil. I agree with you God knew this would happen. Yes, warts and all.

I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, who according to you “directly creates whatever he wishes directly”, has to accept the evil which he hates, and which as first cause he and he alone has produced, whether directly (as a challenge to us humans) or indirectly (because he was powerless to prevent it). Warts are blemishes or imperfections. How can a designer deliberately or accidentally produce evil imperfections but still be regarded as all-powerful, all-good and perfect?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, October 27, 2023, 20:03 (153 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In my view God creates with set purposes in mind...

dhw: If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have created life with a purpose/purposes in mind. You have limited his purpose to creating us and our food, and I need hardly remind you of the illogical mess this has landed you in.

Our problem is I do not see your illogicalities. I find them as inventions of your mind. So I am really happy with my theory of God and His goals. I think He has achieved them.


DAVID: ...and any form of enjoyments or interests are secondary events, not primary purposes.

dhw: What is that supposed to mean? Enjoyment and interest are not “events”, and if you do something because you enjoy doing it and you want to create something interesting to watch, then enjoyment and interest are a purpose. You believe he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species in order to design us and our food. Please tell us his “primary purpose” in designing the unnecessary 99.9 species, and his “primary purpose” for designing us and our food. And while you’re at it, following up one of your theories, please tell us his primary purpose for deliberately creating evil as a challenge for us humans.

Humans were His primary purpose. Our free will allows us to create evil, not God's fault. God created a complex system of biochemistry at such high speeds error occur. Not God's fault. God created bacteria and viruses to help our living system. With freedom of action, they sometimes cause disease. Not God's fault. God knew it would happen and we have immune systems.


Theodicy

DAVID: I accept God's works warts and all.

dhw: The fact that you kindly accept God’s “warts”, which in this case entail the deliberate creation of evil (as in your challenge theory) or his inability to prevent the evil he has created (despite his being all-powerful) does not answer the question bolded above. How can a first-cause God, who knowingly creates out of himself a world that contains evil, be all-good?

DAVID: The evils are byproducts of His good works, which means He is responsible for His good works, which affect us, but we and God have to accept evil that secondarily results and work to mitigate the evil. I agree with you God knew this would happen. Yes, warts and all.

dhw: I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, who according to you “directly creates whatever he wishes directly”, has to accept the evil which he hates, and which as first cause he and he alone has produced, whether directly (as a challenge to us humans) or indirectly (because he was powerless to prevent it). Warts are blemishes or imperfections. How can a designer deliberately or accidentally produce evil imperfections but still be regarded as all-powerful, all-good and perfect?

As above evil is the result of mistakes or from human free will, which I am delighted to have.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, October 28, 2023, 13:17 (152 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: In my view God creates with set purposes in mind...

dhw: If your God exists, I have no doubt that he would have created life with a purpose/purposes in mind. You have limited his purpose to creating us and our food, and I need hardly remind you of the illogical mess this has landed you in.

DAVID: Our problem is I do not see your illogicalities. I find them as inventions of your mind. So I am really happy with my theory of God and His goals. I think He has achieved them.

This is a very severe case of amnesia. Year after year you have acknowledged that you have no idea why your all-powerful God, whose only goal (no plural) you believe to have been us and our food, would have designed and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his purpose. Earlier this week, you told us that an all-powerful God “directly creates whatever he wishes directly”, and “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?” You have also repeatedly informed us that you do not need to know God’s reasons, thus confirming that you haven’t a clue why he would use the method you impose on him in order to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. By all means remain happy, but please stop pretending you can’t see the illogicality of the combination of theories which you admit you can’t explain.

DAVID: ...any form of enjoyments or interests are secondary events, not primary purposes.

dhw: What is that supposed to mean? Enjoyment and interest are not “events”, and if you do something because you enjoy doing it and you want to create something interesting to watch, then enjoyment and interest are a purpose. You believe he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species in order to design us and our food. Please tell us his “primary purpose” in designing the unnecessary 99.9 species, and his “primary purpose” for designing us and our food. And while you’re at it, following up one of your theories, please tell us his primary purpose for deliberately creating evil as a challenge for us humans.

DAVID: Humans were His primary purpose. Our free will allows us to create evil, not God's fault. God created a complex system of biochemistry at such high speeds error occur. Not God's fault. God created bacteria and viruses to help our living system. With freedom of action, they sometimes cause disease. Not God's fault. God knew it would happen and we have immune systems.

You have ignored every single point and request that I have made in the paragraph above, which concerned your God’s possible purposes: 1) for designing 99.9 species irrelevant to his purpose of designing us; 2) for designing us and our food; 3) for deliberately creating evil as a challenge to us humans. Your non-response merely repeats your belief that your first-cause, all-powerful God, who would only create what he wished to create, is not responsible for creating out of himself a system which he knew would produce evil, and that means he is all-good. See below. Now please tell us what you think are the “primary purposes” for the three actions you attribute to your God, as listed above.

Theodicy

DAVID: I accept God's works warts and all. […]

dhw: I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, who according to youb“directly creates whatever he wishes directly”, has to accept the evil which he hates, and which as first cause he and he alone has produced, whether directly (as a challenge to us humans) or indirectly (because he was powerless to prevent it). Warts are blemishes or imperfections. How can a designer deliberately or accidentally produce evil imperfections but still be regarded as all-powerful, all-good and perfect?

DAVID: As above evil is the result of mistakes or from human free will, which I am delighted to have.

More dodging. How can an all-powerful, all-knowing God make mistakes, and how can a first-cause God create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet be all-good?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 28, 2023, 18:57 (152 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: In my view God creates with set purposes in mind...

DAVID: Our problem is I do not see your illogicalities. I find them as inventions of your mind. So I am really happy with my theory of God and His goals. I think He has achieved them.

dhw: This is a very severe case of amnesia. Year after year you have acknowledged that you have no idea why your all-powerful God, whose only goal (no plural) you believe to have been us and our food, would have designed and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his purpose. Earlier this week, you told us that an all-powerful God “directly creates whatever he wishes directly”, and “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?” You have also repeatedly informed us that you do not need to know God’s reasons, thus confirming that you haven’t a clue why he would use the method you impose on him in order to fulfil the purpose you impose on him. By all means remain happy, but please stop pretending you can’t see the illogicality of the combination of theories which you admit you can’t explain.

What you wish explained cannot be explained! The reasons in God's mind are hidden to us. We can only analyze what God produced. He produced us! We conjecture why. We see only two ways to create us, evolve or direct creation. Obviously, God chose evolution which by analysis resulted in a required 99.9% loss rate. You turn all of this on its head and complain about the necessarily lost forms. And then state I am illogical!!! We are here. God succeeded in His intentions!


DAVID: ...any form of enjoyments or interests are secondary events, not primary purposes.

dhw: What is that supposed to mean? Enjoyment and interest are not “events”, and if you do something because you enjoy doing it and you want to create something interesting to watch, then enjoyment and interest are a purpose. You believe he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species in order to design us and our food. Please tell us his “primary purpose” in designing the unnecessary 99.9 species, and his “primary purpose” for designing us and our food. And while you’re at it, following up one of your theories, please tell us his primary purpose for deliberately creating evil as a challenge for us humans.

DAVID: Humans were His primary purpose. Our free will allows us to create evil, not God's fault. God created a complex system of biochemistry at such high speeds error occur. Not God's fault. God created bacteria and viruses to help our living system. With freedom of action, they sometimes cause disease. Not God's fault. God knew it would happen and we have immune systems.

You have ignored every single point and request that I have made in the paragraph above, which concerned your God’s possible purposes: 1) for designing 99.9 species irrelevant to his purpose of designing us; 2) for designing us and our food; 3) for deliberately creating evil as a challenge to us humans. Your non-response merely repeats your belief that your first-cause, all-powerful God, who would only create what he wished to create, is not responsible for creating out of himself a system which he knew would produce evil, and that means he is all-good. See below. Now please tell us what you think are the “primary purposes” for the three actions you attribute to your God, as listed above.

I've answered above about your irrational analysis of evolution as invented by God. You've raised theodicy issues before we've reached that discussion. Let's look below.


Theodicy

DAVID: I accept God's works warts and all. […]

dhw: I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, who according to youb“directly creates whatever he wishes directly”, has to accept the evil which he hates, and which as first cause he and he alone has produced, whether directly (as a challenge to us humans) or indirectly (because he was powerless to prevent it). Warts are blemishes or imperfections. How can a designer deliberately or accidentally produce evil imperfections but still be regarded as all-powerful, all-good and perfect?

DAVID: As above evil is the result of mistakes or from human free will, which I am delighted to have.

dhw: More dodging. How can an all-powerful, all-knowing God make mistakes, and how can a first-cause God create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet be all-good?

I've answered before; the good greatly outweighs the secondary evil which results. Translated: you can't have one without the other.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, October 29, 2023, 11:01 (151 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Our problem is I do not see your illogicalities. I find them as inventions of your mind. So I am really happy with my theory of God and His goals. I think He has achieved them.

dhw: This is a very severe case of amnesia. Year after year you have acknowledged that you have no idea why your all-powerful God, whose only goal (no plural) you believe to have been us and our food, would have designed and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his purpose. […] By all means remain happy, but please stop pretending you can’t see the illogicality of the combination of theories which you admit you can’t explain.

DAVID: What you wish explained cannot be explained! The reasons in God's mind are hidden to us. We can only analyze what God produced. He produced us!

And according to you, we and our food were his one and only purpose, but he also deliberately produced and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with us and our food, and you cannot explain why!

DAVID: We conjecture why. We see only two ways to create us, evolve or direct creation. Obviously, God chose evolution which by analysis resulted in a required 99.9% loss rate. You turn all of this on its head and complain about the necessarily lost forms. And then state I am illogical!!! We are here. God succeeded in His intentions!

What analysis tells you that your God’s only purpose was us and therefore he had to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had nothing to do with us? If God exists, he designed evolution. According to you “he directly creates what he wishes directly”. He did not create us directly, but for reasons you can’t explain, he also directly created 99.9 species that had no connection with us. In your own words: ““We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?” Well,there is an alternative to his creating some weird law that “if thou wishest to create humans, thou must first create and cull 99.9 out of 100 unnecessary species.“ The alternative is that he wished to create them. Why might he have wished to create them? Surprisingly perhaps, you yourself have provided one perfectly logical motive, because you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

DAVID: ...any form of enjoyments or interests are secondary events, not primary purposes.

dhw: What is that supposed to mean? Enjoyment and interest are not “events”, and if you do something because you enjoy doing it and you want to create something interesting to watch, then enjoyment and interest are a purpose. Please tell us his “primary purpose” in designing the unnecessary 99.9 species, and his “primary purpose” for designing us and our food.

DAVID: I've answered above about your irrational analysis of evolution as invented by God.

Dealt with above. Now please tell us the two primary purposes I’ve asked for.

Theodicy

DAVID: I accept God's works warts and all. […]

Your acceptance is irrelevant to the problem of theodicy.

dhw: I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, who according to you “directly creates whatever he wishes directly”, has to accept the evil which he hates, and which as first cause he and he alone has produced, whether directly (as a challenge to us humans) or indirectly (because he was powerless to prevent it). Warts are blemishes or imperfections. How can a designer deliberately or accidentally produce evil imperfections but still be regarded as all-powerful, all-good and perfect?

DAVID: I've answered before; the good greatly outweighs the secondary evil which results. Translated: you can't have one without the other.

Proportionality does not explain the existence of evil. If you can’t have one without the other, then quite clearly your God can’t be all good. Let us not forget that as first cause he is supposed to have created all of our reality out of himself. There was no such thing as evil until he produced it.

You and I are highly sceptical about claims that the Bible is the word of God, but there are many who believe it is. I wonder what they make of an all-good God’s instructions concerning those who do not believe in him. If it’s an individual: “But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be the first upon him to put him to death.” (Deuteronomy 13,9) And if it’s a whole community: “Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein.” (Deuteronomy 13,15) I suggest that for some believers, the problem of theodicy is not solved by proportionality.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, October 29, 2023, 17:40 (151 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What you wish explained cannot be explained! The reasons in God's mind are hidden to us. We can only analyze what God produced. He produced us!

dhw: And according to you, we and our food were his one and only purpose, but he also deliberately produced and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with us and our food, and you cannot explain why!

Continuously asking for God's reasoning to use evolution is nonsense!


DAVID: We conjecture why. We see only two ways to create us, evolve or direct creation. Obviously, God chose evolution which by analysis resulted in a required 99.9% loss rate. You turn all of this on its head and complain about the necessarily lost forms. And then state I am illogical!!! We are here. God succeeded in His intentions!

dhw: What analysis tells you that your God’s only purpose was us and therefore he had to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had nothing to do with us?

God's own analysis! Revealed by Raup.

dhw: If God exists, he designed evolution. According to you “he directly creates what he wishes directly”. He did not create us directly, but for reasons you can’t explain, he also directly created 99.9 species that had no connection with us. In your own words: ““We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?” Well,there is an alternative to his creating some weird law that “if thou wishest to create humans, thou must first create and cull 99.9 out of 100 unnecessary species.“ The alternative is that he wished to create them. Why might he have wished to create them? Surprisingly perhaps, you yourself have provided one perfectly logical motive, because you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations.

All this palaver puzzling over God's decision to evolve us. It is starting with simple forms and bit by bit ending up with today's complexity in the bush of life.


DAVID: ...any form of enjoyments or interests are secondary events, not primary purposes.

dhw: What is that supposed to mean? Enjoyment and interest are not “events”, and if you do something because you enjoy doing it and you want to create something interesting to watch, then enjoyment and interest are a purpose. Please tell us his “primary purpose” in designing the unnecessary 99.9 species, and his “primary purpose” for designing us and our food.

DAVID: I've answered above about your irrational analysis of evolution as invented by God.

dhw: Dealt with above. Now please tell us the two primary purposes I’ve asked for.

It is all one purpose, evolve humans from simple forms in stages requiring 99.9% loss along the way.


Theodicy

DAVID: I accept God's works warts and all. […]

Your acceptance is irrelevant to the problem of theodicy.

dhw: I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, who according to you “directly creates whatever he wishes directly”, has to accept the evil which he hates, and which as first cause he and he alone has produced, whether directly (as a challenge to us humans) or indirectly (because he was powerless to prevent it). Warts are blemishes or imperfections. How can a designer deliberately or accidentally produce evil imperfections but still be regarded as all-powerful, all-good and perfect?

DAVID: I've answered before; the good greatly outweighs the secondary evil which results. Translated: you can't have one without the other.

dhw: Proportionality does not explain the existence of evil. If you can’t have one without the other, then quite clearly your God can’t be all good. Let us not forget that as first cause he is supposed to have created all of our reality out of himself. There was no such thing as evil until he produced it.

You and I are highly sceptical about claims that the Bible is the word of God, but there are many who believe it is. I wonder what they make of an all-good God’s instructions concerning those who do not believe in him. If it’s an individual: “But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be the first upon him to put him to death.” (Deuteronomy 13,9) And if it’s a whole community: “Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein.” (Deuteronomy 13,15) I suggest that for some believers, the problem of theodicy is not solved by proportionality.

That is why I do not follow Biblical discussions of God. What GOOD God produced secondarily produced evil. God allowed evil to appear because there was no other alternative. Proportionality is a way to accept it.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, October 30, 2023, 11:05 (150 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What you wish explained cannot be explained! The reasons in God's mind are hidden to us. We can only analyze what God produced. He produced us!

dhw: And according to you, we and our food were his one and only purpose, but he also deliberately produced and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with us and our food, and you cannot explain why!

DAVID: Continuously asking for God's reasoning to use evolution is nonsense!

If God exists, then of course he invented and used evolution. But that does not mean his only goal was to design us and our food, and it does not explain why, being all-knowing and all-powerful, he would have designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only ones he wanted. Stop dodging!

dhw: What analysis tells you that your God’s only purpose was us and therefore he had to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had nothing to do with us?

DAVID: God's own analysis! Revealed by Raup.

Does Raup also tell us when and where God revealed to him that his only purpose was us and therefore he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us?

dhw: If God exists, he designed evolution. According to you “he directly creates what he wishes directly”. He did not create us directly, but for reasons you can’t explain, he also directly created 99.9 species that had no connection with us. In your own words: ““We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

DAVID: All this palaver puzzling over God's decision to evolve us. It is starting with simple forms and bit by bit ending up with today's complexity in the bush of life.

A correct description of the history of evolution, and a blatant dodge of the fact that your combined theories of your God’s purpose and method make no sense to you, as is abundantly clear from your two bolded statements above.

DAVID: ...any form of enjoyments or interests are secondary events, not primary purposes.

dhw: […] Enjoyment and interest are not “events”, and if you do something because you enjoy doing it and you want to create something interesting to watch, then enjoyment and interest are a purpose. Please tell us his “primary purpose” in designing the unnecessary 99.9 species, and his “primary purpose” for designing us and our food.

DAVID: It is all one purpose, evolve humans from simple forms in stages requiring 99.9% loss along the way.

His purpose for specially designing and culling 99.9 out of 100 unnecessary species was to design one species, and that is supposed to make sense. And his purpose for designing us plus our food was…?

Theodicy

DAVID: I accept God's works warts and all. […]

dhw: Your acceptance is irrelevant to the problem of theodicy.

dhw: I don’t understand why an all-powerful God, who according to you “directly creates whatever he wishes directly”, has to accept the evil which he hates, and which as first cause he and he alone has produced, whether directly (as a challenge to us humans) or indirectly (because he was powerless to prevent it). Warts are blemishes or imperfections. How can a designer deliberately or accidentally produce evil imperfections but still be regarded as all-powerful, all-good and perfect?

DAVID: I've answered before; the good greatly outweighs the secondary evil which results. Translated: you can't have one without the other.

dhw: Proportionality does not explain the existence of evil. If you can’t have one without the other, then quite clearly your God can’t be all good. Let us not forget that as first cause he is supposed to have created all of our reality out of himself. There was no such thing as evil until he produced it.

[No need for me to repeat the biblical command to kill all non-believers, since neither of us accepts the Bible as “the word of God”.]

DAVID: What GOOD God produced secondarily produced evil. God allowed evil to appear because there was no other alternative. Proportionality is a way to accept it.

Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good? We don’t need proportionality to “accept” evil. Every war, murder and rape confirms that evil exists, and theodicy asks us to explain it, not accept it.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, October 30, 2023, 16:52 (150 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Continuously asking for God's reasoning to use evolution is nonsense!

dhw: If God exists, then of course he invented and used evolution. But that does not mean his only goal was to design us and our food, and it does not explain why, being all-knowing and all-powerful, he would have designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only ones he wanted. Stop dodging!

Nonsense! Evolution means a 99.9% loss, as shown by Raup. God's success: humans and food supply are here.


dhw: What analysis tells you that your God’s only purpose was us and therefore he had to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had nothing to do with us?

DAVID: God's own analysis! Revealed by Raup.

dhw: Does Raup also tell us when and where God revealed to him that his only purpose was us and therefore he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us?

More nonsense. Raup did not discuss purposes. Raup studied history, not God.


dhw: If God exists, he designed evolution. According to you “he directly creates what he wishes directly”. He did not create us directly, but for reasons you can’t explain, he also directly created 99.9 species that had no connection with us. In your own words: ““We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

DAVID: All this palaver puzzling over God's decision to evolve us. It is starting with simple forms and bit by bit ending up with today's complexity in the bush of life.

dhw: A correct description of the history of evolution, and a blatant dodge of the fact that your combined theories of your God’s purpose and method make no sense to you, as is abundantly clear from your two bolded statements above.

God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. He chose direct design where He wished as shown in the Cambrian.


DAVID: ...any form of enjoyments or interests are secondary events, not primary purposes.

dhw: […] Enjoyment and interest are not “events”, and if you do something because you enjoy doing it and you want to create something interesting to watch, then enjoyment and interest are a purpose. Please tell us his “primary purpose” in designing the unnecessary 99.9 species, and his “primary purpose” for designing us and our food.

DAVID: It is all one purpose, evolve humans from simple forms in stages requiring 99.9% loss along the way.

dhw: His purpose for specially designing and culling 99.9 out of 100 unnecessary species was to design one species, and that is supposed to make sense. And his purpose for designing us plus our food was…?

The required cull resulted in a current huge bush of life, our food, plus us.


Theodicy

DAVID: I've answered before; the good greatly outweighs the secondary evil which results. Translated: you can't have one without the other.

dhw: Proportionality does not explain the existence of evil. If you can’t have one without the other, then quite clearly your God can’t be all good. Let us not forget that as first cause he is supposed to have created all of our reality out of himself. There was no such thing as evil until he produced it.

[No need for me to repeat the biblical command to kill all non-believers, since neither of us accepts the Bible as “the word of God”.]

Thank you.


DAVID: What GOOD God produced secondarily produced evil. God allowed evil to appear because there was no other alternative. Proportionality is a way to accept it.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good? We don’t need proportionality to “accept” evil. Every war, murder and rape confirms that evil exists, and theodicy asks us to explain it, not accept it.

All of the theodicy essays I've read use the same approach, the good far outweighs the evil that appears secondarily.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, October 31, 2023, 07:55 (150 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Continuously asking for God's reasoning to use evolution is nonsense!

dhw: If God exists, then of course he invented and used evolution. But that does not mean his only goal was to design us and our food, and it does not explain why, being all-knowing and all-powerful, he would have designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only ones he wanted. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Nonsense! Evolution means a 99.9% loss, as shown by Raup. God's success: humans and food supply are here.

The only evolution of life that we know entailed a 99.9% loss. How on earth does that come to mean that your all-powerful God, “who directly creates what he wishes directly” and whose only wish was to design us plus food, therefore had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food?

DAVID: God's own analysis! Revealed by Raup.

dhw: Does Raup also tell us when and where God revealed to him that his only purpose was us and therefore he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us?

DAVID: More nonsense. Raup did not discuss purposes. Raup studied history, not God.

Then what is this nonsense about your theory being God’s own analysis revealed by Raup? The 99.9% loss is history, the rest is your wacky interpretation of history. It’s lucky for you that Raup, sadly, is no longer with us. Otherwise, he could have sued you for dragging him into your nonsensical version of your God’s purpose and method.

dhw: If God exists, he designed evolution. According to you “he directly creates what he wishes directly”. He did not create us directly, but for reasons you can’t explain, he did directly create 99.9 species that had no connection with us. In your own words: ““We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

DAVID: God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. He chose direct design where He wished as shown in the Cambrian.

So he wished to design and then cull 99.9 unnecessary species, although he could have directly created us if he had wished to. You do not know why, but it makes perfect sense, although you can’t make sense of it.

Theodicy

DAVID: What GOOD God produced secondarily produced evil. God allowed evil to appear because there was no other alternative. Proportionality is a way to accept it.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good? We don’t need proportionality to “accept” evil. Every war, murder and rape confirms that evil exists, and theodicy asks us to explain it, not accept it.

DAVID: All of the theodicy essays I've read use the same approach, the good far outweighs the evil that appears secondarily.

Your reading list does not answer any of the points that I have made. I suggest you start thinking for yourself, accept that evil exists in no matter what proportion, that theodicy attempts to reconcile evil with the theory that your God is all good, and try to find an answer to the bold above.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, October 31, 2023, 18:40 (149 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Nonsense! Evolution means a 99.9% loss, as shown by Raup. God's success: humans and food supply are here.

dhw: The only evolution of life that we know entailed a 99.9% loss. How on earth does that come to mean that your all-powerful God, “who directly creates what he wishes directly” and whose only wish was to design us plus food, therefore had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food?

Not "had to design and cull"!! God is not forced to do anything. God chose His method.


DAVID: God's own analysis! Revealed by Raup.

dhw: Does Raup also tell us when and where God revealed to him that his only purpose was us and therefore he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us?

DAVID: More nonsense. Raup did not discuss purposes. Raup studied history, not God.

dhw: Then what is this nonsense about your theory being God’s own analysis revealed by Raup? The 99.9% loss is history, the rest is your wacky interpretation of history. It’s lucky for you that Raup, sadly, is no longer with us. Otherwise, he could have sued you for dragging him into your nonsensical version of your God’s purpose and method.

Raup's analysis of God's evolution revealed 99.9% were ancestors of the 0.1% alive today. What is your problem?


DAVID: God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. He chose direct design where He wished as shown in the Cambrian.

dhw: So he wished to design and then cull 99.9 unnecessary species, although he could have directly created us if he had wished to. You do not know why, but it makes perfect sense, although you can’t make sense of it.

It makes perfect sense for the rational. God chose this method. I assume your version of God can't make choices.


Theodicy

DAVID: What GOOD God produced secondarily produced evil. God allowed evil to appear because there was no other alternative. Proportionality is a way to accept it.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good? We don’t need proportionality to “accept” evil. Every war, murder and rape confirms that evil exists, and theodicy asks us to explain it, not accept it.

DAVID: All of the theodicy essays I've read use the same approach, the good far outweighs the evil that appears secondarily.

dhw: Your reading list does not answer any of the points that I have made. I suggest you start thinking for yourself, accept that evil exists in no matter what proportion, that theodicy attempts to reconcile evil with the theory that your God is all good, and try to find an answer to the bold above.

I thought for myself before reading the essays on theodicy which all agree with me. The good outweighs the evil, all of which appear secondarily to God's good works: free will for us, and good bacteria and viruses necessary for the ecosystems of life.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, November 01, 2023, 11:42 (148 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution means a 99.9% loss, as shown by Raup. God's success: humans and food supply are here.

dhw: The only evolution of life that we know entailed a 99.9% loss. How on earth does that come to mean that your all-powerful God, “who directly creates what he wishes directly” and whose only wish was to design us plus food, therefore had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food?

DAVID: Not "had to design and cull"!! God is not forced to do anything. God chose His method.

You have used “had to” in the past, on the grounds that for some unknown reason evolution requires a 99.9% loss. But by all means withdraw that argument and stick to your belief that your God, who “directly creates what he wishes directly”, wished to create 99.9 out of 100 species what had no connection with his one and only purpose. Then you can repeat: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

DAVID: God's own analysis! Revealed by Raup.

dhw: Does Raup also tell us when and where God revealed to him that his only purpose was us and therefore he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us?

DAVID: More nonsense. Raup did not discuss purposes. Raup studied history, not God.

dhw: Then what is this nonsense about your theory being God’s own analysis revealed by Raup? The 99.9% loss is history, the rest is your wacky interpretation of history. […]

DAVID: Raup's analysis of God's evolution revealed 99.9% were ancestors of the 0.1% alive today. What is your problem?

This is a complete volte face, regardless of Raup. For I don’t know how many years, you have accepted that 99.9% of species were NOT connected with humans plus food (your God’s only purpose), and that has been the subject of this whole discussion: why would your God design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, if we were his only purpose? Now, suddenly. you are saying that only 0.1% of past species were not connected. Make up your mind!

DAVID: God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. He chose direct design where He wished as shown in the Cambrian.

dhw: So he wished to design and then cull 99.9 unnecessary species, although he could have directly created us if he had wished to. You do not know why, but it makes perfect sense, although you can’t make sense of it.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense for the rational. God chose this method. I assume your version of God can't make choices.

And here you agree that God chose to design and cull 99.9 unnecessary species, but you find this rational. My God is the same as your God in so far as he would only create what he wished to create. It is therefore irrational to claim that he would only have wished to create us plus food and therefore chose to create 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. Hence your cry: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

Theodicy

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good? We don’t need proportionality to “accept” evil. Every war, murder and rape confirms that evil exists, and theodicy asks us to explain it, not accept it.

DAVID: All of the theodicy essays I've read use the same approach, the good far outweighs the evil that appears secondarily.

dhw: Your reading list does not answer any of the points that I have made. I suggest you start thinking for yourself, accept that evil exists in no matter what proportion, that theodicy attempts to reconcile evil with the theory that your God is all good, and try to find an answer to the bold above.

DAVID: I thought for myself before reading the essays on theodicy which all agree with me. The good outweighs the evil, all of which appear secondarily to God's good works: free will for us, and good bacteria and viruses necessary for the ecosystems of life.

And still you ignore the bold.
.
Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: note the need for friendly bacteria in the uterus and the gut. These same bacteria, accidently in the wrong place, can be unfriendly. That is not God's fault.

Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer designs bacteria. Sometimes they do good, and sometimes they do bad. Apparently that means he is responsible for the good but he is not responsible for the bad. And you think that’s logical. The builders build your house and part of the roof falls in. Do you congratulate them because the walls are still standing?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 01, 2023, 17:00 (148 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The only evolution of life that we know entailed a 99.9% loss. How on earth does that come to mean that your all-powerful God, “who directly creates what he wishes directly” and whose only wish was to design us plus food, therefore had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food?

DAVID: Not "had to design and cull"!! God is not forced to do anything. God chose His method.

dhw: You have used “had to” in the past, on the grounds that for some unknown reason evolution requires a 99.9% loss.

It is not unknown why evolution causes such a loss!!! That amount must be culled out to have what exists today.

dhw: But by all means withdraw that argument and stick to your belief that your God, who “directly creates what he wishes directly”, wished to create 99.9 out of 100 species what had no connection with his one and only purpose. Then you can repeat: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

God chose to evolve us. No other answer possible.


DAVID: God's own analysis! Revealed by Raup.

dhw: Does Raup also tell us when and where God revealed to him that his only purpose was us and therefore he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with us?

DAVID: Raup's analysis of God's evolution revealed 99.9% were ancestors of the 0.1% alive today. What is your problem?

dhw: This is a complete volte face, regardless of Raup. For I don’t know how many years, you have accepted that 99.9% of species were NOT connected with humans plus food (your God’s only purpose), and that has been the subject of this whole discussion: why would your God design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food, if we were his only purpose? Now, suddenly. you are saying that only 0.1% of past species were not connected. Make up your mind!

View evolution as an upside-down triangle: Archaea are the original tip and the present survivors represented by the line of the hypotenuse. The area of the triangle is Raup's loss.

I've never accepted the 99.9% were unconnected to God's purpose. All of evolution is connected to the past. The food is the entire bush of life.


DAVID: God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. He chose direct design where He wished as shown in the Cambrian.

dhw: So he wished to design and then cull 99.9 unnecessary species, although he could have directly created us if he had wished to. You do not know why, but it makes perfect sense, although you can’t make sense of it.

DAVID: It makes perfect sense for the rational. God chose this method. I assume your version of God can't make choices.

dhw: And here you agree that God chose to design and cull 99.9 unnecessary species, but you find this rational. My God is the same as your God in so far as he would only create what he wished to create. It is therefore irrational to claim that he would only have wished to create us plus food and therefore chose to create 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. Hence your cry: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

We do not know why is correct.


Theodicy

dhw: Your reading list does not answer any of the points that I have made. I suggest you start thinking for yourself, accept that evil exists in no matter what proportion, that theodicy attempts to reconcile evil with the theory that your God is all good, and try to find an answer to the bold above.

DAVID: I thought for myself before reading the essays on theodicy which all agree with me. The good outweighs the evil, all of which appear secondarily to God's good works: free will for us, and good bacteria and viruses necessary for the ecosystems of life.

And still you ignore the bold.

Not ignored. God chose to evolve us.

.
Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: note the need for friendly bacteria in the uterus and the gut. These same bacteria, accidently in the wrong place, can be unfriendly. That is not God's fault.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer designs bacteria. Sometimes they do good, and sometimes they do bad. Apparently that means he is responsible for the good but he is not responsible for the bad. And you think that’s logical. The builders build your house and part of the roof falls in. Do you congratulate them because the walls are still standing?

God knew the secondhand problem. There are editing systems everywhere. The roof fell in because a meteorite hit it is a true comparison to the problem.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, November 02, 2023, 11:20 (147 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The only evolution of life that we know entailed a 99.9% loss. How on earth does that come to mean that your all-powerful God, “who directly creates what he wishes directly” and whose only wish was to design us plus food, therefore had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food?

DAVID: Not "had to design and cull"!! God is not forced to do anything. God chose His method.

dhw: You have used “had to” in the past, on the grounds that for some unknown reason evolution requires a 99.9% loss.

DAVID: It is not unknown why evolution causes such a loss!!! That amount must be culled out to have what exists today.

Not “had to” but “must”! If your God is first cause, he designed evolution – it didn’t tell him what to do! You tell us he “directly creates what he wishes directly”, and you tell us he only wished to design us and our food. But instead he designed 99.9 out of 100 species which then had to be culled. You don’t know why, and so you cry: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?” And you have no answer.
Your next dodge is to perform a complete volte face:

DAVID: Raup's analysis of God's evolution revealed 99.9% were ancestors of the 0.1% alive today. […] View evolution as an upside-down triangle: Archaea are the original tip and the present survivors represented by the line of the hypotenuse. The area of the triangle is Raup's loss. (dhw's bold)

The line of the hypotenuse is the line from archaea to us and current species (our food). The rest of the triangle (the loss) is all the species that evolved away from that line and did not lead to us. Hence the 99.9% (the area of the triangle) that did not lead to us and our food.

DAVID: I've never accepted the 99.9% were unconnected to God's purpose. All of evolution is connected to the past. The food is the entire bush of life.

Your acceptance that 99.9% of species did not lead to us and our food (your God’s one and only purpose) has been the subject of this dispute for years, and your triangle confirms the point. Of course if all life forms evolved from the first life forms, they are all connected to the original past tip, but that does not mean that all life forms led to us and our food! (We are confined to the line of the hypotenuse.) This is your silliest dodge so far.

DAVID: God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. He chose direct design where He wished as shown in the Cambrian.

dhw: So he wished to design and then cull 99.9 unnecessary species, although he could have directly created us if he had wished to. You do not know why, but it makes perfect sense, although you can’t make sense of it. […]In your own words: We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

DAVID: We do not know why is correct.

So how can you claim that your theory makes perfect sense if you can’t think of any reason for such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your own description)?

Theodicy

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good?

dhw: And still you ignore the bold.

DAVID: Not ignored. God chose to evolve us.

You chose to leave the bold out of your response. Here it is again. Nothing to do with your God’s choice to evolve us.

Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: note the need for friendly bacteria in the uterus and the gut. These same bacteria, accidently in the wrong place, can be unfriendly. That is not God's fault.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer designs bacteria. Sometimes they do good, and sometimes they do bad. Apparently that means he is responsible for the good but he is not responsible for the bad. And you think that’s logical. The builders build your house and part of the roof falls in. Do you congratulate them because the walls are still standing?

DAVID: God knew the secondhand problem. There are editing systems everywhere.

Your all-powerful, all-knowing God knew that his bacteria and his humans would produce evil as well as good. (Is the good “secondhand”?) He creates what he wishes to create, remember? Editing systems? Even if he did create such systems, the evil consists in those “bads” which despite his alleged hatred of evil and his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to prevent – though according to one of your theories he actually invented the “bads” as a challenge to us humans. What a mess!

DAVID: The roof fell in because a meteorite hit it is a true comparison to the problem.

According to you, your God designed the bacteria with the freedom to do their dirty deeds, and he knew they would do them. The responsibility for the design is his. There was no unexpected intervention from outside what he had designed.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 02, 2023, 22:42 (147 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Not “had to” but “must”! If your God is first cause, he designed evolution – it didn’t tell him what to do! You tell us he “directly creates what he wishes directly”, and you tell us he only wished to design us and our food. But instead he designed 99.9 out of 100 species which then had to be culled. You don’t know why, and so you cry: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?” And you have no answer.
Your next dodge is to perform a complete volte face:

DAVID: Raup's analysis of God's evolution revealed 99.9% were ancestors of the 0.1% alive today. […] View evolution as an upside-down triangle: Archaea are the original tip and the present survivors represented by the line of the hypotenuse. The area of the triangle is Raup's loss. (dhw's bold)

dhw: The line of the hypotenuse is the line from archaea to us and current species (our food). The rest of the triangle (the loss) is all the species that evolved away from that line and did not lead to us. Hence the 99.9% (the area of the triangle) that did not lead to us and our food.

For some unknown paradoxical reason, the tringle example makes no sense to you. Evolution makes a triangle in its eventual developed shape. Any jhigh school child would understand the comparison.


DAVID: I've never accepted the 99.9% were unconnected to God's purpose. All of evolution is connected to the past. The food is the entire bush of life.

dhw: Your acceptance that 99.9% of species did not lead to us and our food (your God’s one and only purpose) has been the subject of this dispute for years, and your triangle confirms the point.

What are you smoking? I have always said all of evolution was connected. Your misunderstanding of the triangle example continues.

dhw: Of course if all life forms evolved from the first life forms, they are all connected to the original past tip, but that does not mean that all life forms led to us and our food! (We are confined to the line of the hypotenuse.) This is your silliest dodge so far.

All life forms included the lines to us and those that provided our food.


DAVID: God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. He chose direct design where He wished as shown in the Cambrian.

dhw: So he wished to design and then cull 99.9 unnecessary species, although he could have directly created us if he had wished to. You do not know why, but it makes perfect sense, although you can’t make sense of it. […]In your own words: We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

DAVID: We do not know why is correct.

dhw:n So how can you claim that your theory makes perfect sense if you can’t think of any reason for such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your own description)?

Still don 't understand I accept Godansd His works without explanations you need.


Theodicy

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good?

dhw: And still you ignore the bold.

DAVID: Not ignored. God chose to evolve us.

dhw: You chose to leave the bold out of your response. Here it is again. Nothing to do with your God’s choice to evolve us.

Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: note the need for friendly bacteria in the uterus and the gut. These same bacteria, accidently in the wrong place, can be unfriendly. That is not God's fault.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer designs bacteria. Sometimes they do good, and sometimes they do bad. Apparently that means he is responsible for the good but he is not responsible for the bad. And you think that’s logical. The builders build your house and part of the roof falls in. Do you congratulate them because the walls are still standing?

DAVID: God knew the secondhand problem. There are editing systems everywhere.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God knew that his bacteria and his humans would produce evil as well as good. (Is the good “secondhand”?) He creates what he wishes to create, remember? Editing systems? Even if he did create such systems, the evil consists in those “bads” which despite his alleged hatred of evil and his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to prevent – though according to one of your theories he actually invented the “bads” as a challenge to us humans. What a mess!

Your perceived mess.


DAVID: The roof fell in because a meteorite hit it is a true comparison to the problem.

dhw: According to you, your God designed the bacteria with the freedom to do their dirty deeds, and he knew they would do them. The responsibility for the design is his. There was no unexpected intervention from outside what he had designed.

True. All evil is secondhand. And should be viewed with proportionality.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, November 03, 2023, 11:09 (146 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Not “had to design and cull”!! God is not forced to do anything.

In today’s post: DAVID: They had to be lost to get to us by culling.

If your God designed and controlled evolution, it's still he "had to".

dhw: […] you tell us he only wished to design us and our food. But instead he designed 99.9 out of 100 species which then had to be culled. You don’t know why, and so you cry: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?” And you have no answer.

DAVID: God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. […] We do not know why is correct.

dhw: So how can you claim that your theory makes perfect sense if you can’t think of any reason for such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your own description)?

DAVID: Still don't understand I accept God and His works without explanations you need. […] You have never understood God's works need no explanation for me.

Still don’t understand: it is your illogical theories about your God’s purpose and methods that you cannot explain. There follows your absurd volte face:

DAVID: Raup's analysis of God's evolution revealed 99.9% were ancestors of the 0.1% alive today. […] View evolution as an upside-down triangle: Archaea are the original tip and the present survivors represented by the line of the hypotenuse. The area of the triangle is Raup's loss. (dhw's bold)

dhw: The line of the hypotenuse is the line from archaea to us and current species (our food). The area of the triangle (the 99.9% loss) is all the species that evolved away from that line and did not lead to us. […] (You confirm this later, as bolded)

DAVID: For some unknown paradoxical reason, the triangle example makes no sense to you. Evolution makes a triangle in its eventual developed shape. Any high school child would understand the comparison.

The triangle illustrates the degree of loss, not the shape of evolution, which you rightly describe as a bush. 99% of its branches grew away from the roots, and had no connection with those branches which have survived (us and our food). Any high school child would understand the comparison with a bush.

DAVID: I've never accepted the 99.9% were unconnected to God's purpose. All of evolution is connected to the past. The food is the entire bush of life.

Obviously all species at all times and on all branches had to have food. But the food for us is the current bush, so stop trying to mix the two concepts.

DAVID: What are you smoking? I have always said all of evolution was connected. Your misunderstanding of the triangle example continues.

Of course evolution was connected, since all species are descended from the very first form(s) of life, but that does not mean that all species and food supplies were connected to one another – which is why, if you stop smoking, you will realize that the history of life has formed a bush and not a triangle. Your triangle only illustrates the percentage of loss.

dhw: We are confined to the line of the hypotenuse.

DAVID: All life forms included the lines to us and those that provided our food.

Of course they didn’t! And you have corrected yourself in your second post:

DAVID: The hypotenuse is us and our food.

The line of the hypotenuse is from archaea to us and our food, and the area of the triangle is the 99.9% which did not include us and our food. Once more: the history of life is a bush, not a triangle.

Theodicy

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good?

dhw: And still you ignore the bold.

Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer designs bacteria. Sometimes they do good, and sometimes they do bad. Apparently that means he is responsible for the good but he is not responsible for the bad. And you think that’s logical.

DAVID: God knew the secondhand problem. There are editing systems everywhere.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God knew that his bacteria and his humans would produce evil as well as good. (Is the good “secondhand”?) He creates what he wishes to create, remember? Editing systems? Even if he did create such systems, the evil consists in those “bads” which despite his alleged hatred of evil and his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to prevent – though according to one of your theories he actually invented the “bads” as a challenge to us humans. What a mess!

DAVID: Your perceived mess. […] Your view of a mess, not mine. Proportionality is the right view. […] God knew secondhand evil would happen, and knew the good outweighed it.

War, murder, rape etc. exist. What percentage of reality they form is irrelevant to the question why and how a first-cause God can knowingly create a system that will produce such evil and yet be called all-good.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, November 03, 2023, 19:38 (146 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The line of the hypotenuse is the line from archaea to us and current species (our food). The area of the triangle (the 99.9% loss) is all the species that evolved away from that line and did not lead to us. […] (You confirm this later, as bolded)

DAVID: For some unknown paradoxical reason, the triangle example makes no sense to you. Evolution makes a triangle in its eventual developed shape. Any high school child would understand the comparison.

dhw: The triangle illustrates the degree of loss, not the shape of evolution, which you rightly describe as a bush. 99% of its branches grew away from the roots, and had no connection with those branches which have survived (us and our food). Any high school child would understand the comparison with a bush.

Fine, the bush can be illustrated by a triangular shape very naturally.


DAVID: I've never accepted the 99.9% were unconnected to God's purpose. All of evolution is connected to the past. The food is the entire bush of life.

dhw: Obviously all species at all times and on all branches had to have food. But the food for us is the current bush, so stop trying to mix the two concepts.

They are mixed. Note today's entries on vegetation and ecosystems and how vital it is for us to maintain them.

dhw: We are confined to the line of the hypotenuse.

DAVID: All life forms included the lines to us and those that provided our food.

Of course they didn’t! And you have corrected yourself in your second post:

DAVID: The hypotenuse is us and our food.

dhw: The line of the hypotenuse is from archaea to us and our food, and the area of the triangle is the 99.9% which did not include us and our food. Once more: the history of life is a bush, not a triangle.

The bush can resemble/be imagined as a triangle in its shape. Let's argue concepts please.


Theodicy

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good?

dhw: And still you ignore the bold.

It is obvious an all-powerful God chose to use this method, or perhaps it was the only method available with evil as a secondhand effect.


Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer designs bacteria. Sometimes they do good, and sometimes they do bad. Apparently that means he is responsible for the good but he is not responsible for the bad. And you think that’s logical.

DAVID: God knew the secondhand problem. There are editing systems everywhere.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God knew that his bacteria and his humans would produce evil as well as good. (Is the good “secondhand”?) He creates what he wishes to create, remember? Editing systems? Even if he did create such systems, the evil consists in those “bads” which despite his alleged hatred of evil and his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to prevent – though according to one of your theories he actually invented the “bads” as a challenge to us humans. What a mess!

DAVID: Your perceived mess. […] Your view of a mess, not mine. Proportionality is the right view. […] God knew secondhand evil would happen, and knew the good outweighed it.

dhw: War, murder, rape etc. exist. What percentage of reality they form is irrelevant to the question why and how a first-cause God can knowingly create a system that will produce such evil and yet be called all-good.

The good God gave us far outweighs the evil side effect. Are you happy to be living??

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, November 04, 2023, 08:25 (146 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The line of the hypotenuse is the line from archaea to us and current species (our food). The area of the triangle (the 99.9% loss) is all the species that evolved away from that line and did not lead to us. [You confirmed this later, as follows:]

DAVID: The hypotenuse is us and our food.

dhw: Correct. And the rest is the 99.9% that has no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: For some unknown paradoxical reason, the triangle example makes no sense to you. Evolution makes a triangle in its eventual developed shape. Any high school child would understand the comparison.

dhw: The triangle illustrates the degree of loss, not the shape of evolution, which you rightly describe as a bush. 99% of its branches grew away from the roots, and had no connection with those branches which have survived (us and our food). Any high school child would understand the comparison with a bush.

DAVID: Fine, the bush can be illustrated by a triangular shape very naturally.

The sides of the triangle are joined together, but the branches of a bush do not swing back to join one another – they grow away from one another. The triangle image has the line of the hypotenuse as the line from archaea to us and our food, and the rest of the triangle is the 99.9% of life forms that had no connection to that line. You have always accepted that our line = 0.1% of the species that have lived and died.

DAVID: I've never accepted the 99.9% were unconnected to God's purpose. All of evolution is connected to the past. The food is the entire bush of life.

Under.”dhw's obsession” you agree that the “entire bush of life” is not our food:
DAVID: The CURRENT bush is our food supply, all of it.

dhw: So stop this silly obfuscation! The 99.9% had nothing to do with us and our food supply. Our current bush descended from the 0.1%. It is therefore sheer nonsense to claim that every species that ever lived was specially designed as preparation for us and our food.

DAVID: I do not make that nonsensical claim. The 99.9% are the ancient but direct ancestors of Humans plus food.

This is your latest volte face. For years now, I’ve been asking why you think your God would have designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with us or our food. Here are two of your most frequent answers: “My defense is whatever God does is OK with me, I don’t need his reasons, only you do.” And “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” (Both in August this year.) You have never till now claimed that 99.9% were direct ancestors of us plus our food. Please tell me which humans/foods are direct descendants of the brontosaurus. Even it were true, it still leaves unanswered the question why an all-powerful God whose only purpose was us plus food, and who is perfectly capable of directly designing what he wishes, chose not to directly design what he wished to design. But first I’d like to know where you get this extraordinary new theory from, and why it’s taken you so long to propose it.

dhw: Obviously all species at all times and on all branches had to have food. But the food for us is the current bush, so stop trying to mix the two concepts.

DAVID: They are mixed. Note today's entries on vegetation and ecosystems and how vital it is for us to maintain them.

According to you and Raup, current vegetation and ecosystems represent 0.1% of life forms that ever lived, the other 99.9% having had to be “culled”. This has nothing to do with the vital need for humans to maintain the current ecosystems that feed them. (See “Miscellany Part Two). Will you never stop dodging?

Theodicy

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good?

DAVID: It is obvious an all-powerful God chose to use this method, or perhaps it was the only method available with evil as a secondhand effect.

And so theodicy asks how a God who chooses a method which produces evil can possibly be all-good, and I have asked how a first-cause God, who has no choice but to produce a system which produces the evil he hates, can be all-powerful?

Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: The good God gave us far outweighs the evil side effect. Are you happy to be living??

dhw: War, murder, rape etc. exist. What percentage of reality they form is irrelevant to the question why and how a first-cause God can knowingly create a system that will produce such evil and yet be called all-good.
The fact that I am happy to be living does not explain how an all-good God can produce a system that he knows will lead to evil, regardless of proportion. Please stop asking silly, irrelevant questions.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 04, 2023, 19:47 (145 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Fine, the bush can be illustrated by a triangular shape very naturally.

dhw: The sides of the triangle are joined together, but the branches of a bush do not swing back to join one another – they grow away from one another. The triangle image has the line of the hypotenuse as the line from archaea to us and our food, and the rest of the triangle is the 99.9% of life forms that had no connection to that line. You have always accepted that our line = 0.1% of the species that have lived and died.

DAVID: I've never accepted the 99.9% were unconnected to God's purpose. All of evolution is connected to the past. The food is the entire bush of life.

Under.”dhw's obsession” you agree that the “entire bush of life” is not our food:
DAVID: The CURRENT bush is our food supply, all of it.

dhw: So stop this silly obfuscation! The 99.9% had nothing to do with us and our food supply. Our current bush descended from the 0.1%. It is therefore sheer nonsense to claim that every species that ever lived was specially designed as preparation for us and our food.

DAVID: I do not make that nonsensical claim. The 99.9% are the ancient but direct ancestors of Humans plus food.

dhw: This is your latest volte face. For years now, I’ve been asking why you think your God would have designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with us or our food. Here are two of your most frequent answers: “My defense is whatever God does is OK with me, I don’t need his reasons, only you do.” And “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” (Both in August this year.) You have never till now claimed that 99.9% were direct ancestors of us plus our food. Please tell me which humans/foods are direct descendants of the brontosaurus. Even it were true, it still leaves unanswered the question why an all-powerful God whose only purpose was us plus food, and who is perfectly capable of directly designing what he wishes, chose not to directly design what he wished to design. But first I’d like to know where you get this extraordinary new theory from, and why it’s taken you so long to propose it.

Preposterous misunderstanding. The present 0.1% living represent the present population of humans and their food. The brontosaurus had mouse-like mammals as neighbors which are on a direct line to us. You know evolution is fan-shaped of developing lines in related ecosystems.. All that are left alive now are (0.1%) lines of our food and humans. We have the power to eat anything that is alive. For example we eat lion meat:
https://www.organicauthority.com/buzz-news/you-can-still-eat-african-lion-meat-in-the-u...


dhw: Obviously all species at all times and on all branches had to have food. But the food for us is the current bush, so stop trying to mix the two concepts.

DAVID: They are mixed. Note today's entries on vegetation and ecosystems and how vital it is for us to maintain them.

dhw: According to you and Raup, current vegetation and ecosystems represent 0.1% of life forms that ever lived, the other 99.9% having had to be “culled”. This has nothing to do with the vital need for humans to maintain the current ecosystems that feed them. (See “Miscellany Part Two). Will you never stop dodging?

Your dodge is to not understand the current human food supply is not globally adequate.


Theodicy

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good?

DAVID: It is obvious an all-powerful God chose to use this method, or perhaps it was the only method available with evil as a secondhand effect.

dhw: And so theodicy asks how a God who chooses a method which produces evil can possibly be all-good, and I have asked how a first-cause God, who has no choice but to produce a system which produces the evil he hates, can be all-powerful?

An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.


Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: The good God gave us far outweighs the evil side effect. Are you happy to be living??

dhw: War, murder, rape etc. exist. What percentage of reality they form is irrelevant to the question why and how a first-cause God can knowingly create a system that will produce such evil and yet be called all-good.
The fact that I am happy to be living does not explain how an all-good God can produce a system that he knows will lead to evil, regardless of proportion. Please stop asking silly, irrelevant questions.

Not simple. God gave you your life. Do you wish he would take it away? The presence of evil is the price you pay. Eden does not, cannot exist.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, November 05, 2023, 11:30 (144 days ago) @ David Turell

I shall take each point separately in the hope of establishing a series of corrections that will clarify the picture.

DAVID: The food is the entire bush of life.
Thank you for correcting this to:
DAVID: The CURRENT bush is our food supply, all of it.

dhw: The 99.9% had nothing to do with us and our food supply. Our current bush descended from the 0.1%. It is therefore sheer nonsense to claim that every species that ever lived was specially designed as preparation for us and our food.

DAVID: I do not make that nonsensical claim. The 99.9% are the ancient but direct ancestors of Humans plus food.

dhw:[…]. For years now, I’ve been asking why you think your God would have designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with us or our food. Here are two of your most frequent answers: “My defense is whatever God does is OK with me, I don’t need his reasons, only you do.” And “The only answer I do not have is why God chose this method of creation.” […] Please tell me which humans/foods are direct descendants of the brontosaurus.[…] I’d like to know where you get this extraordinary new theory from, and why it’s taken you so long to propose it.

DAVID: Preposterous misunderstanding. The present 0.1% living represent the present population of humans and their food.

Correct.

DAVID:The brontosaurus had mouse-like mammals as neighbors which are on a direct line to us.

Correct. But apart from birds, there are no direct descendants from the dinosaurs, just as there are no direct descendants from 99.9% of species that ever lived (if Raup’s figures are correct).

DAVID: You know evolution is fan-shaped of developing lines in related ecosystems.

Your bush has now become a fan, but the same principle applies: the developing lines diverge from the base of the fan, and 99.9% percent of them do not lead to us or our food. Ecosystems come and go, but that does not alter the fact that 99.9% of the lines do not lead directly to us and our food.

DAVID: All that are left alive now are (0.1%) lines of our food and humans.

Correct. Our evolution (plus) food represents 0.1% of life forms that ever lived. We are NOT directly descended from the other 99.9%.

DAVID: We have the power to eat anything that is alive. For example we eat lion meat.

Totally irrelevant to your claim that “the 99.9% are the ancient but direct ancestors of Humans plus food.” Please withdraw it.

DAVID: Note today's entries on vegetation and ecosystems and how vital it is for us to maintain them.

dhw: According to you and Raup, current vegetation and ecosystems represent 0.1% of life forms that ever lived, the other 99.9% having had to be “culled”. This has nothing to do with the vital need for humans to maintain the current ecosystems that feed them!

DAVID: Your dodge is to not understand the current human food supply is not globally adequate.

My reply to that entry was:
dhw: climate change and alien plant invasion are largely caused by human activity, and we are rapidly destroying the very resources that provide us with our food. These studies are indeed of vital importance for our future, and this is one area of our discussions on which we are in complete agreement.
What have I dodged?

Theodicy

dhw: […] theodicy asks how a God who chooses a method which produces evil can possibly be all-good, and I have asked how a first-cause God, who has no choice but to produce a system which produces the evil he hates, can be all-powerful?

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

When discussing your theories of evolution, you wrote “not had to design and cull!! God is not forced to do anything.” Now your first-cause, all-powerful God “had to” create a system which involved producing evil. I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.

Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: The good God gave us far outweighs the evil side effect. Are you happy to be living??

dhw: War, murder, rape etc. exist. What percentage of reality they form is irrelevant to the question why and how a first-cause God can knowingly create a system that will produce such evil and yet be called all-good.
The fact that I am happy to be living does not explain how an all-good God can produce a system that he knows will lead to evil,

DAVID: God gave you your life. Do you wish he would take it away?

Of course not.

DAVID: The presence of evil is the price you pay. Eden does not, cannot exist.

I accept the presence/price of evil. But I’m asking you the question asked by theodicy: how can the presence of evil - which you say he hates and which stems from the system your first cause God (if he exists) chose to use in creating life out of himself - fit in with the theory that he is all-powerful and all-good?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 05, 2023, 17:53 (144 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Preposterous misunderstanding. The present 0.1% living represent the present population of humans and their food.

dhw: Correct.

DAVID:The brontosaurus had mouse-like mammals as neighbors which are on a direct line to us.

dhw: Correct. But apart from birds, there are no direct descendants from the dinosaurs, just as there are no direct descendants from 99.9% of species that ever lived (if Raup’s figures are correct).

DAVID: You know evolution is fan-shaped of developing lines in related ecosystems.

dhw: Your bush has now become a fan, but the same principle applies: the developing lines diverge from the base of the fan, and 99.9% percent of them do not lead to us or our food. Ecosystems come and go, but that does not alter the fact that 99.9% of the lines do not lead directly to us and our food.

Yes, the lines do lead to food: brontosaurus equals chickens.


DAVID: All that are left alive now are (0.1%) lines of our food and humans.

dhw: Correct. Our evolution (plus) food represents 0.1% of life forms that ever lived. We are NOT directly descended from the other 99.9%.

The 99.9% are not direct or indirect lines, they are cumulative extinctions.


DAVID: We have the power to eat anything that is alive. For example we eat lion meat.

dhw: Totally irrelevant to your claim that “the 99.9% are the ancient but direct ancestors of Humans plus food.” Please withdraw it.

Why? It is a reasonable example.


DAVID: Note today's entries on vegetation and ecosystems and how vital it is for us to maintain them.

dhw: According to you and Raup, current vegetation and ecosystems represent 0.1% of life forms that ever lived, the other 99.9% having had to be “culled”. This has nothing to do with the vital need for humans to maintain the current ecosystems that feed them!

DAVID: Your dodge is to not understand the current human food supply is not globally adequate.

My reply to that entry was:
dhw: climate change and alien plant invasion are largely caused by human activity, and we are rapidly destroying the very resources that provide us with our food. These studies are indeed of vital importance for our future, and this is one area of our discussions on which we are in complete agreement.
What have I dodged?

Your humans plus food is said in derision.


Theodicy

dhw: […] theodicy asks how a God who chooses a method which produces evil can possibly be all-good, and I have asked how a first-cause God, who has no choice but to produce a system which produces the evil he hates, can be all-powerful?

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

dhw: When discussing your theories of evolution, you wrote “not had to design and cull!! God is not forced to do anything.” Now your first-cause, all-powerful God “had to” create a system which involved producing evil. I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.

It is the only system that works.


Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: The good God gave us far outweighs the evil side effect. Are you happy to be living??

dhw: War, murder, rape etc. exist. What percentage of reality they form is irrelevant to the question why and how a first-cause God can knowingly create a system that will produce such evil and yet be called all-good.
The fact that I am happy to be living does not explain how an all-good God can produce a system that he knows will lead to evil,

DAVID: God gave you your life. Do you wish he would take it away?

dhw: Of course not.

DAVID: The presence of evil is the price you pay. Eden does not, cannot exist.

dhw: I accept the presence/price of evil. But I’m asking you the question asked by theodicy: how can the presence of evil - which you say he hates and which stems from the system your first cause God (if he exists) chose to use in creating life out of himself - fit in with the theory that he is all-powerful and all-good?

Constant answer: Evil is a byproduct of good. We accept proportionality.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, November 06, 2023, 09:30 (144 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] apart from birds, there are no direct descendants from the dinosaurs, just as there are no direct descendants from 99.9% of species that ever lived (if Raup’s figures are correct).

DAVID: You know evolution is fan-shaped of developing lines in related ecosystems.

dhw: Your bush has now become a fan, but the same principle applies: the developing lines diverge from the base of the fan, and 99.9% percent of them do not lead to us or our food. Ecosystems come and go, but that does not alter the fact that 99.9% of the lines do not lead directly to us and our food.

DAVID: Yes, the lines do lead to food: brontosaurus equals chickens.

I have just said that apart from birds there are no descendants from the dinosaurs, so you promptly name a bird, as if that proved your point. (Actually, I thought the latest research made T.rex the chicken's ancestor.)

DAVID: All that are left alive now are (0.1%) lines of our food and humans.

dhw: Correct. Our evolution (plus) food represents 0.1% of life forms that ever lived. We are NOT directly descended from the other 99.9%.

DAVID: The 99.9% are not direct or indirect lines, they are cumulative extinctions.

Of course they are extinct, and they did NOT lead to us or our food. That is the whole point! You wrote: “The 99.9% are the ancient but direct ancestors of Humans plus food.” They were not, and so your statement was nonsense. You have finally confirmed this under “ecosystem importance":

DAVID: What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.

dhw: Correct. We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes.

So let's forget the theory that 99.9% were direct ancestors, shall we? And while you are disposed to giving a direct answer, let’s see if we can also have a direct confirmation of the fact that the following is your own theory, and it makes no sense to you: that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose (us and our food), your all-powerful God had to specially design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

I’m a little reluctant to deal with the rest of your post on this subject, as it is embarrassingly off target. I’ll keep it brief:

DAVID: We have the power to eat anything that is alive. For example we eat lion meat.

How can the fact that we eat lion meat prove that 99% of extinct species were direct ancestors of humans plus food?

DAVID: Your dodge is to not understand the current human food supply is not globally adequate.

I agreed with everything you wrote about humans destroying our own sources of food.

DAVID: Your humans plus food is said in derision.

How can it possibly be derisive? You even use a similar term yourself, as above: “What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.” And I agree. I disagree, however, when you say every species that ever lived was specially designed as preparation for us and our food. What is supposed to be "derisive"?

Theodicy

dhw: […] theodicy asks how a God who chooses a method which produces evil can possibly be all-good, and I have asked how a first-cause God, who has no choice but to produce a system which produces the evil he hates, can be all-powerful?

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

dhw: When discussing your theories of evolution, you wrote “…not had to design and cull!! God is not forced to do anything.” Now your first-cause, all-powerful God “had to” create a system which involved producing evil. I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.

DAVID: It is the only system that works.

Even if that were true (how many unsuccessful systems do you know of?), it still doesn’t explain how the first-cause creator of evil can be all-good. Stop dodging.

DAVID: The presence of evil is the price you pay. Eden does not, cannot exist.

dhw: I accept the presence/price of evil. But I’m asking you the question asked by theodicy: how can the presence of evil - which you say he hates and which stems from the system your first cause God (if he exists) chose to use in creating life out of himself - fit in with the theory that he is all-powerful and all-good?

DAVID: Constant answer: Evil is a byproduct of good. We accept proportionality.

Proportionality is irrelevant. No matter what may be the proportion of evil to good, the question is how an all-powerful God who hates evil can produce evil out of himself (first cause) and yet be all-good. Stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, November 06, 2023, 19:09 (143 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.

dhw: Correct. We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: So let's forget the theory that 99.9% were direct ancestors, shall we? And while you are disposed to giving a direct answer, let’s see if we can also have a direct confirmation of the fact that the following is your own theory, and it makes no sense to you: that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose (us and our food), your all-powerful God had to specially design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

God created the evolutionary history we see, which makes perfect sense to me. God chose to do it for His own reasons I DO NOT NEED to know. Our direct ancestors were small mouse-sized mammals living with dinosaurs. Everything else now alive had their own lines of ancestors. Those ancient lines are the 99.9% now extinct. All of the non-human living organisms can be or are our current food.


dhw: I agreed with everything you wrote about humans destroying our own sources of food.

DAVID: Your humans plus food is said in derision.

dhw: How can it possibly be derisive? You even use a similar term yourself, as above: “What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.” And I agree. I disagree, however, when you say every species that ever lived was specially designed as preparation for us and our food. What is supposed to be "derisive"?

You have neatly backpedaled from the tone of much earlier posts.


Theodicy

dhw: […] theodicy asks how a God who chooses a method which produces evil can possibly be all-good, and I have asked how a first-cause God, who has no choice but to produce a system which produces the evil he hates, can be all-powerful?

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

dhw: When discussing your theories of evolution, you wrote “…not had to design and cull!! God is not forced to do anything.” Now your first-cause, all-powerful God “had to” create a system which involved producing evil. I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.

DAVID: It is the only system that works.

dhw: Even if that were true (how many unsuccessful systems do you know of?), it still doesn’t explain how the first-cause creator of evil can be all-good. Stop dodging.

I brought up the topic of Theodicy!!


DAVID: The presence of evil is the price you pay. Eden does not, cannot exist.

dhw: I accept the presence/price of evil. But I’m asking you the question asked by theodicy: how can the presence of evil - which you say he hates and which stems from the system your first cause God (if he exists) chose to use in creating life out of himself - fit in with the theory that he is all-powerful and all-good?

DAVID: Constant answer: Evil is a byproduct of good. We accept proportionality.

dhw: Proportionality is irrelevant. No matter what may be the proportion of evil to good, the question is how an all-powerful God who hates evil can produce evil out of himself (first cause) and yet be all-good. Stop dodging.

You are dodging the answer: when I read Theodicy essays to offer an answer, it turns out to be the proportion of evil to good is small. That there can be no evil is not possible, since it is all=a secondhand resulte of God's good works.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, November 07, 2023, 11:48 (142 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.

dhw: Correct. We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: So let's forget the theory that 99.9% were direct ancestors, shall we? And while you are disposed to giving a direct answer, let’s see if we can also have a direct confirmation of the fact that the following is your own theory, and it makes no sense to you: that in order to fulfil his one and only purpose (us and our food), your all-powerful God had to specially design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: God created the evolutionary history we see, which makes perfect sense to me. God chose to do it for His own reasons I DO NOT NEED to know. Our direct ancestors were small mouse-sized mammals living with dinosaurs. Everything else now alive had their own lines of ancestors.

If God exists, we can agree on all of this. The evolutionary history is what we see. That does not mean the evolutionary history is that God’s one and only purpose was us plus our food and therefore he created 99.9 out of 100 species that were not connected with us or our food.

DAVID: Those ancient lines are the 99.9% now extinct.

Until last week, you had always accepted that 99.9% of species had no connection with us and our food, and you have just agreed with a yes, which I have bolded, that we and our food have descended from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: All of the non-human living organisms can be or are our current food.

Agreed. We can eat anything. Regardless of your absurd jump from 0.1% to 99.9% of direct ancestry, you are still mystified by your own theory that your God could have created us plus our food directly but he didn’t, yet you refuse to even consider the possibility that it is your theory that makes no sense. An all-powerful God would create what he wished to create. So why can’t you accept that for whatever reasons, he wished to create (whether directly or indirectly) the vast variety of life forms extant and extinct, as opposed to being forced by the system he invented to create and cull forms he didn't want? (Please don’t make me list the quotes in which you say he “had to do” it that way.)

dhw: I agreed with everything you wrote about humans destroying our own sources of food.

DAVID: Your humans plus food is said in derision.

dhw: How can it possibly be derisive? You even use a similar term yourself, as above: “What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.” And I agree.

DAVID: You have neatly backpedaled from the tone of much earlier posts.

Daft! The discussion has always revolved round your God’s supposed preparations for us and our food, and of course we had to have food. How can that possibly be derisive?

Theodicy

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

dhw: When discussing your theories of evolution, you wrote “…not had to design and cull!! God is not forced to do anything.” Now your first-cause, all-powerful God “had to” create a system which involved producing evil. I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.[…]

DAVID: I brought up the topic of Theodicy!!

And now you are dodging all its implications.

DAVID: Constant answer: Evil is a byproduct of good. We accept proportionality.

dhw: Proportionality is irrelevant. No matter what may be the proportion of evil to good, the question is how an all-powerful God who hates evil can produce evil out of himself (first cause) and yet be all-good. Stop dodging.

DAVID: You are dodging the answer: when I read Theodicy essays to offer an answer, it turns out to be the proportion of evil to good is small. That there can be no evil is not possible, since it is all=a secondhand resulte of God's good works.

The proportion does not change the reality of such evils as war, murder, rape etc. And since your all-knowing God creates what he wishes to create, and knew in advance that the system he created would lead to war, murder and rape, the question is how one can equate his deliberate creation of that system with the belief that he himself – the first- cause creator of everything – can be all-good. This is not a criticism of the system, which may be Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds”, but an inquiry into the nature of the being you and he believe knowingly created both the good and the evil out of himself.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 07, 2023, 19:03 (142 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God created the evolutionary history we see, which makes perfect sense to me. God chose to do it for His own reasons I DO NOT NEED to know. Our direct ancestors were small mouse-sized mammals living with dinosaurs. Everything else now alive had their own lines of ancestors.

dhw: If God exists, we can agree on all of this. The evolutionary history is what we see. That does not mean the evolutionary history is that God’s one and only purpose was us plus our food and therefore he created 99.9 out of 100 species that were not connected with us or our food.

DAVID: Those ancient lines are the 99.9% now extinct.

dhw: Until last week, you had always accepted that 99.9% of species had no connection with us and our food, and you have just agreed with a yes, which I have bolded, that we and our food have descended from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: All of the non-human living organisms can be or are our current food.

Agreed. We can eat anything. Regardless of your absurd jump from 0.1% to 99.9% of direct ancestry, you are still mystified by your own theory that your God could have created us plus our food directly but he didn’t, yet you refuse to even consider the possibility that it is your theory that makes no sense. An all-powerful God would create what he wished to create. So why can’t you accept that for whatever reasons, he wished to create (whether directly or indirectly) the vast variety of life forms extant and extinct, as opposed to being forced by the system he invented to create and cull forms he didn't want? (Please don’t make me list the quotes in which you say he “had to do” it that way.)

The 'had to' refers to required culling over millions of years. God wasn't forced to do anything but evolve what exists now. The fallacy in your above answer is that the 0.1% survivors are us and our food which is everything living on Earth today. This was God's wish as you state.


dhw: How can it possibly be derisive? You even use a similar term yourself, as above: “What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.” And I agree.

DAVID: You have neatly backpedaled from the tone of much earlier posts.

dhw: Daft! The discussion has always revolved round your God’s supposed preparations for us and our food, and of course we had to have food. How can that possibly be derisive?

Tone of past responses was my impression of derisive. Go back and read some.


Theodicy

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

dhw: When discussing your theories of evolution, you wrote “…not had to design and cull!! God is not forced to do anything.” Now your first-cause, all-powerful God “had to” create a system which involved producing evil. I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.[…]

DAVID: I brought up the topic of Theodicy!!

dhw: And now you are dodging all its implications.

Not dodging. You don't like my statements of Theodicy positions I've read.


DAVID: Constant answer: Evil is a byproduct of good. We accept proportionality.

dhw: Proportionality is irrelevant. No matter what may be the proportion of evil to good, the question is how an all-powerful God who hates evil can produce evil out of himself (first cause) and yet be all-good. Stop dodging.

DAVID: You are dodging the answer: when I read Theodicy essays to offer an answer, it turns out to be the proportion of evil to good is small. That there can be no evil is not possible, since it is all=a secondhand result of God's good works.

dhw: The proportion does not change the reality of such evils as war, murder, rape etc. And since your all-knowing God creates what he wishes to create, and knew in advance that the system he created would lead to war, murder and rape, the question is how one can equate his deliberate creation of that system with the belief that he himself – the first- cause creator of everything – can be all-good. This is not a criticism of the system, which may be Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds”, but an inquiry into the nature of the being you and he believe knowingly created both the good and the evil out of himself.

Obviously, God knew the secondhand evil would appear, but the benefits of the good works far outweigh the evil that would appear. Leibniz had a correct view. No matter how you criticize God, those of us who believe in Him see Him as all-good based on all we are given.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, November 08, 2023, 12:02 (141 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: Until last week, you had always accepted that 99.9% of species had no connection with us and our food, and you have just agreed with a yes, which I have bolded, that we and our food have descended from 0.1% of evolution’s products. […]An all-powerful God would create what he wished to create. So why can’t you accept that for whatever reasons, he wished to create (whether directly or indirectly) the vast variety of life forms extant and extinct, as opposed to being forced by the system he invented to create and cull forms he didn't want? (Please don’t make me list the quotes in which you say he “had to do” it that way.)

DAVID: The 'had to' refers to required culling over millions of years.

So why would your all-powerful God have created and had to cull millions of species not connected with us and our food when, according to you, all he wanted to create was us and our food? It doesn't make sense!

DAVID: God wasn't forced to do anything but evolve what exists now. The fallacy in your above answer is that the 0.1% survivors are us and our food which is everything living on Earth today. This was God's wish as you state.

What fallacy? Your theories are 1) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but 2) he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 of his designs, which had no connection with us and our food. You have no idea why he would choose such a method to achieve such a purpose, and so maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

Humans plus food

dhw: How can it [the term “humans plus food”] possibly be derisive? You even use a similar term yourself, as above: “What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.” And I agree.

DAVID: Tone of past responses was my impression of derisive. Go back and read some.

This is simply daft. Please find one quote in which you think I’ve used the words derisively.

Theodicy

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

dhw: When discussing your theories of evolution, you wrote “...not had to design and cull!! God is not forced to do anything.” Now your first-cause, all-powerful God “had to” create a system which involved producing evil. I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.[...]

DAVID: I brought up the topic of Theodicy!!

dhw: And now you are dodging all its implications.

DAVID: Not dodging. You don't like my statements of Theodicy positions I've read.

And I have explained why, as below:

DAVID: Constant answer: Evil is a byproduct of good. We accept proportionality.

dhw: The proportion does not change the reality of such evils as war, murder, rape etc. And since your all-knowing God creates what he wishes to create, and knew in advance that the system he created would lead to war, murder and rape, the question is how one can equate his deliberate creation of that system with the belief that he himself – the first- cause creator of everything – can be all-good. This is not a criticism of the system, which may be Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds”, but an inquiry into the nature of the being you and he believe knowingly created both the good and the evil out of himself.

DAVID: Obviously, God knew the secondhand evil would appear, but the benefits of the good works far outweigh the evil that would appear. Leibniz had a correct view. No matter how you criticize God, those of us who believe in Him see Him as all-good based on all we are given.

You simply ignore what I write, so I will repeat it. 1) The evil exists, regardless of “proportion”. Theodicy asks how an all-good God can produce evil, not how much good God has produced in proportion to evil. 2) It may well be that Leibniz’s view is correct. But this does not tell us anything about God’s own nature. You, just like many religious people, tend to label God’s attributes: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good etc. Theodicy asks how the first-cause creator of all things can produce evil out of himself and yet be all-good? The fact that you see him as all-good is not an answer to the question!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 08, 2023, 20:17 (141 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Until last week, you had always accepted that 99.9% of species had no connection with us and our food, and you have just agreed with a yes, which I have bolded, that we and our food have descended from 0.1% of evolution’s products. […]An all-powerful God would create what he wished to create. So why can’t you accept that for whatever reasons, he wished to create (whether directly or indirectly) the vast variety of life forms extant and extinct, as opposed to being forced by the system he invented to create and cull forms he didn't want?

DAVID: The 'had to' refers to required culling over millions of years.

dhw: So why would your all-powerful God have created and had to cull millions of species not connected with us and our food when, according to you, all he wanted to create was us and our food? It doesn't make sense!

DAVID: God wasn't forced to do anything but evolve what exists now. The fallacy in your above answer is that the 0.1% survivors are us and our food which is everything living on Earth today. This was God's wish as you state.

dhw: What fallacy? Your theories are 1) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but 2) he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 of his designs, which had no connection with us and our food. You have no idea why he would choose such a method to achieve such a purpose, and so maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

I do not need to know God's reasoning.

Humans plus food

dhw: How can it [the term “humans plus food”] possibly be derisive? You even use a similar term yourself, as above: “What now exists living on Earth is the result of evolution: humans and their food.” And I agree.

DAVID: Tone of past responses was my impression of derisive. Go back and read some.

dhw: This is simply daft. Please find one quote in which you think I’ve used the words derisively.

Here from 2021

" DAVID: My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.

" dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!"

We can eat anything on Earth. Purposely arranged by God.


Theodicy

DAVID: An all-powerful God made the universe, created life, and had to do it with side effects making evil.

dhw: ... I’m not complaining. I merely ask how he can be forced to create out of himself a system which will produce evil (which you say he hates) and yet be considered all-powerful and all good.[...]

DAVID: I brought up the topic of Theodicy!!

dhw: And now you are dodging all its implications.

DAVID: Not dodging. You don't like my statements of Theodicy positions I've read.

dhw: And I have explained why, as below:

DAVID: Constant answer: Evil is a byproduct of good. We accept proportionality.

dhw: The proportion does not change the reality of such evils as war, murder, rape etc. And since your all-knowing God creates what he wishes to create, and knew in advance that the system he created would lead to war, murder and rape, the question is how one can equate his deliberate creation of that system with the belief that he himself – the first- cause creator of everything – can be all-good. This is not a criticism of the system, which may be Leibniz’s “best of all possible worlds”, but an inquiry into the nature of the being you and he believe knowingly created both the good and the evil out of himself.

DAVID: Obviously, God knew the secondhand evil would appear, but the benefits of the good works far outweigh the evil that would appear. Leibniz had a correct view. No matter how you criticize God, those of us who believe in Him see Him as all-good based on all we are given.

dhw: You simply ignore what I write, so I will repeat it. 1) The evil exists, regardless of “proportion”. Theodicy asks how an all-good God can produce evil, not how much good God has produced in proportion to evil. 2) It may well be that Leibniz’s view is correct. But this does not tell us anything about God’s own nature. You, just like many religious people, tend to label God’s attributes: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good etc. Theodicy asks how the first-cause creator of all things can produce evil out of himself and yet be all-good? The fact that you see him as all-good is not an answer to the question!

I've read all your complaining answers. I'm with Leibniz. We have to live with what we have. God does not produce firsthand evil! God can't control freewill humans or free-willed bacteria and viruses. In living biochemistry there are many editing systems God designed.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, November 09, 2023, 11:53 (140 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] why would your all-powerful God have created and had to cull millions of species not connected with us and our food when, according to you, all he wanted to create was us and our food? It doesn't make sense!

DAVID: God wasn't forced to do anything but evolve what exists now. The fallacy in your above answer is that the 0.1% survivors are us and our food which is everything living on Earth today. This was God's wish as you state.

dhw: What fallacy? Your theories are 1) that his one and only purpose was to design us and our food, but 2) he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 of his designs, which had no connection with us and our food. You have no idea why he would choose such a method to achieve such a purpose, and so maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

DAVID: I do not need to know God's reasoning.

It is not a fact that we and our food were your God’s one and only purpose, and it is not a fact that your God individually designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. (The only fact is that 99.9 out of 100 species have become extinct and did not lead to us or our food.) These are your theories, and you ought to know your own reasoning for coming up with your theories.

Humans plus food

dhw: How can it [the term “humans plus food”] possibly be derisive? […] Please find one quote in which you think I’ve used the words derisively.

DAVID: Here from 2021
" DAVID: My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”

This is you speaking, not me, and my complaint is your two theories, as described above after “What fallacy”? You have constantly said that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. How is this term “derisive”? The next quote clearly illustrates why I “complain”:
"dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!"

Beautifully put! Where is the derisive use of “humans plus food”? This is exactly the same argument that you continue to dodge year after year, as in your next remark:

DAVID: We can eat anything on Earth. Purposely arranged by God.

You mean we can eat anything currently on Earth. How does that explain why your God purposely designed and had to cull the millions of species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose (us humans and our food)? Stop dodging!

Theodicy

dhw: You simply ignore what I write, so I will repeat it. 1) The evil exists, regardless of “proportion”. Theodicy asks how an all-good God can produce evil, not how much good God has produced in proportion to evil. 2) It may well be that Leibniz’s view is correct. But this does not tell us anything about God’s own nature. You, just like many religious people, tend to label God’s attributes: all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good etc. Theodicy asks how the first-cause creator of all things can produce evil out of himself and yet be all-good? The fact that you see him as all-good is not an answer to the question!

DAVID: I've read all your complaining answers. I'm with Leibniz. We have to live with what we have.
Of course we do. How does that answer the question posed by theodicy?

DAVID: God does not produce firsthand evil! God can't control freewill humans or free-willed bacteria and viruses. In living biochemistry there are many editing systems God designed.

Your all-knowing God produced the system which he knew would lead to war, murder, rape etc. Your all-powerful God only creates what he wants to create, so he must have wanted to create freewill humans and bacteria and viruses and NOT wanted to control them. No problem. Leibniz may be right. But none of this answers the question posed by theodicy: how can the first-cause creator of all things have deliberately and knowingly created evil and yet be all-good?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 09, 2023, 19:21 (140 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I do not need to know God's reasoning.

dhw: It is not a fact that we and our food were your God’s one and only purpose, and it is not a fact that your God individually designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. (The only fact is that 99.9 out of 100 species have become extinct and did not lead to us or our food.) These are your theories, and you ought to know your own reasoning for coming up with your theories.

My reasons: the complexity of biochemistry requires a designer; therefore, God exists. Evolution was designed by God. From a natural occurrence standpoint, the appearance of humans is so unexpected and unusual, it proves God existence (ADLER). A simple progression of thought. The bold, I've added, is a gross misinterpretation of Raup. The 0.1% living today are the result of 99.9% that ever lived becoming extinct in the process. The 0.1% now includes 8+ billion humans and their food sources. Each existing species can be traced back in time to their origin. The original bacterial species are still here, and we trace every species b back to them.

Humans plus food

dhw: How can it [the term “humans plus food”] possibly be derisive? […] Please find one quote in which you think I’ve used the words derisively.

DAVID: Here from 2021
" DAVID: My bold enhances the point that this is an answer to dhw's complaint that all God wanted was 'humans and food'. The complaint is thoughtless, and points out how incompletely dhw has thought through the issue. Every tiny organism is required to sustain the Earth in balance for huge human population.”

This is you speaking, not me, and my complaint is your two theories, as described above after “What fallacy”? You have constantly said that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. How is this term “derisive”? The next quote clearly illustrates why I “complain”:
"dhw: The bold and the whole of your comment reveal either confusion or distortion. The bold emphasizes the importance of small things for the planet. Humans are just one species on the planet. Different forms of life are required for different ecosystems, and throughout history, big and small forms have lived and died – all required to sustain the ecosystems that existed at the time. I’m sorry, but I find it absurd to argue that every extinct ecosystem and every extinct big or small thing for the last 3.X billion years was required “for huge human population”!"

What was required were the lines that arrived at the present.


Beautifully put! Where is the derisive use of “humans plus food”? This is exactly the same argument that you continue to dodge year after year, as in your next remark:

DAVID: We can eat anything on Earth. Purposely arranged by God.

dhw: You mean we can eat anything currently on Earth. How does that explain why your God purposely designed and had to cull the millions of species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose (us humans and our food)? Stop dodging!

In one weird statement you make the process of evolution disappear!!! What is here now are the necessary species for our food and us. 0.1% of all that previously lived to evolve them.


Theodicy

DAVID: I've read all your complaining answers. I'm with Leibniz. We have to live with what we have.

dhw: Of course we do. How does that answer the question posed by theodicy?

DAVID: God does not produce firsthand evil! God can't control freewill humans or free-willed bacteria and viruses. In living biochemistry there are many editing systems God designed.

dhw: Your all-knowing God produced the system which he knew would lead to war, murder, rape etc. Your all-powerful God only creates what he wants to create, so he must have wanted to create freewill humans and bacteria and viruses and NOT wanted to control them. No problem. Leibniz may be right. But none of this answers the question posed by theodicy: how can the first-cause creator of all things have deliberately and knowingly created evil and yet be all-good?

Believers consider God all-good. We fully understand human evil is secondhand to God giving us free will. There are secondhand mistakes made by proteins, for which God put in editing systems. Required good bacteria and viruses occasionally end up in the wrong place, again, a secondhand effect. We happily live with it.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, November 10, 2023, 10:58 (139 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I do not need to know God's reasoning.

dhw: It is not a fact that we and our food were your God’s one and only purpose, and it is not a fact that your God individually designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. (The only fact is that 99.9 out of 100 species have become extinct and did not lead to us or our food.) These are your theories, and you ought to know your own reasoning for coming up with your theories.

Your response is a mini-masterpiece of evasion. Not one single comment even mentions the theories above!

DAVID: My reasons: the complexity of biochemistry requires a designer; therefore, God exists. Evolution was designed by God.

I have not disputed this argument for the existence of God, and if he exists, of course he designed evolution.

DAVID: From a natural occurrence standpoint, the appearance of humans is so unexpected and unusual, it proves God existence (ADLER). A simple progression of thought.

Same as with the complexity of biochemistry, but our disagreement on this thread concerns your God’s purpose and method, not his existence.

DAVID: The bold, I've added, is a gross misinterpretation of Raup. The 0.1% living today are the result of 99.9% that ever lived becoming extinct in the process. The 0.1% now includes 8+ billion humans and their food sources.

They are not the result of 99.9% becoming extinct! They are the product of the 0.1% that survived, and the question you never stop dodging is why your all-powerful God would have specially designed and then had to cull the 99.9% if all he ever wanted to design was the 0.1%.

DAVID: Each existing species can be traced back in time to their origin. The original bacterial species are still here, and we trace every species back to them.

Correct. We trace every existing species back to the 0.1%, and you admit that you have no idea why your all-powerful God would have deliberately designed the 99.9% which had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging!

Humans plus food

dhw: How can it [the term “humans plus food”] possibly be derisive? […] Please find one quote in which you think I’ve used the words derisively.

You quoted an exchange in which I didn’t even mention those words, let alone say anything derisive. Now all you can do is respond to the content!

DAVID: What was required were the lines that arrived at the present.
And later:
DAVID: In one weird statement you make the process of evolution disappear!!! What is here now are the necessary species for our food and us. 0.1% of all that previously lived to evolve them.

And the rest were not required if we and our food were your God’s one and only purpose, so why do you think he would have bothered to design them? Your combined theories make no sense! The process of evolution does not disappear if God did NOT deliberately design the 99.9%, or if he designed the 99.9% for a different purpose than the one you impose on him, but you are so firmly stuck with your preconceived ideas that you cannot imagine they might be wrong.

Theodicy

dhw: Your all-knowing God produced the system which he knew would lead to war, murder, rape etc. Your all-powerful God only creates what he wants to create, so he must have wanted to create freewill humans and bacteria and viruses and NOT wanted to control them. No problem. Leibniz may be right. But none of this answers the question posed by theodicy: how can the first-cause creator of all things have deliberately and knowingly created evil and yet be all-good?

DAVID: Believers consider God all-good. We fully understand human evil is secondhand to God giving us free will. There are secondhand mistakes made by proteins, for which God put in editing systems. Required good bacteria and viruses occasionally end up in the wrong place, again, a secondhand effect. We happily live with it.

Same dodging technique as above, with your dislocated theories about evolution. The fact that believers believe and that you happily live with it, and that evil is produced by humans and bacteria and viruses, does not explain how your first-cause, all-knowing God can deliberately create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet at the same time be all-good. Evil did not exist until he knowingly and deliberately created the system that produced it!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, November 10, 2023, 17:57 (139 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Same as with the complexity of biochemistry, but our disagreement on this thread concerns your God’s purpose and method, not his existence.

Of course, we disagree about God's purpose: we agree He ran an evolutionary process with humans as an endpoint. With that result why can't that be His purpose?


DAVID: The bold, I've added, is a gross misinterpretation of Raup. The 0.1% living today are the result of 99.9% that ever lived becoming extinct in the process. The 0.1% now includes 8+ billion humans and their food sources.

dhw: They are not the result of 99.9% becoming extinct! They are the product of the 0.1% that survived, and the question you never stop dodging is why your all-powerful God would have specially designed and then had to cull the 99.9% if all he ever wanted to design was the 0.1%.

Same refrain from you. I don't read God's mind. God evolved us for His own reasons.


DAVID: Each existing species can be traced back in time to their origin. The original bacterial species are still here, and we trace every species back to them.

dhw: Correct. We trace every existing species back to the 0.1%, and you admit that you have no idea why your all-powerful God would have deliberately designed the 99.9% which had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging!

We don't trace backward to the 0.1%!! We and our food are the existing 0.1%. In tracing back to bacteria, we find the missing extinct 99.9%.


Humans plus food

dhw: How can it [the term “humans plus food”] possibly be derisive? […] Please find one quote in which you think I’ve used the words derisively.

You quoted an exchange in which I didn’t even mention those words, let alone say anything derisive. Now all you can do is respond to the content!

DAVID: What was required were the lines that arrived at the present.
And later:
DAVID: In one weird statement you make the process of evolution disappear!!! What is here now are the necessary species for our food and us. 0.1% of all that previously lived to evolve them.

dhw: And the rest were not required if we and our food were your God’s one and only purpose, so why do you think he would have bothered to design them? Your combined theories make no sense! The process of evolution does not disappear if God did NOT deliberately design the 99.9%, or if he designed the 99.9% for a different purpose than the one you impose on him, but you are so firmly stuck with your preconceived ideas that you cannot imagine they might be wrong.

Your weird math approach to evolution refuses to recognize what God did. God evolved us and food from bacteria. It required 3.5+ billon years with a loss of 99.9% now extinct. The current endpoint is the only evidence of purpose we have. Your preconceived ideas are creating a confusion in your mind. Live with current facts, accepting that God is not a fact.


Theodicy

dhw: Your all-knowing God produced the system which he knew would lead to war, murder, rape etc. Your all-powerful God only creates what he wants to create, so he must have wanted to create freewill humans and bacteria and viruses and NOT wanted to control them. No problem. Leibniz may be right. But none of this answers the question posed by theodicy: how can the first-cause creator of all things have deliberately and knowingly created evil and yet be all-good?

DAVID: Believers consider God all-good. We fully understand human evil is secondhand to God giving us free will. There are secondhand mistakes made by proteins, for which God put in editing systems. Required good bacteria and viruses occasionally end up in the wrong place, again, a secondhand effect. We happily live with it.

dhw: Same dodging technique as above, with your dislocated theories about evolution. The fact that believers believe and that you happily live with it, and that evil is produced by humans and bacteria and viruses, does not explain how your first-cause, all-knowing God can deliberately create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet at the same time be all-good. Evil did not exist until he knowingly and deliberately created the system that produced it!

True, and live with it. We have covered all factual considerations.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, November 11, 2023, 08:16 (139 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Same as with the complexity of biochemistry, but our disagreement on this thread concerns your God’s purpose and method, not his existence.

DAVID: Of course, we disagree about God's purpose: we agree He ran an evolutionary process with humans as an endpoint. With that result why can't that be His purpose?

More dodging! It can be his purpose, but then as usual you have left out the problem that if we and our food were, as you claim, his one and only purpose, why would he have designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose (us and our food?)

DAVID: […] The 0.1% living today are the result of 99.9% that ever lived becoming extinct in the process. The 0.1% now includes 8+ billion humans and their food sources.

dhw: They are not the result of 99.9% becoming extinct! They are the product of the 0.1% that survived.
And still you go on dodging the bolded question.

DAVID: Same refrain from you. I don't read God's mind. God evolved us for His own reasons.

The bolded question is not why he evolved us but why, if we were his only purpose, he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Each existing species can be traced back in time to their origin. The original bacterial species are still here, and we trace every species back to them.

dhw: Correct. We trace every existing species back to the 0.1%, and you admit that you have no idea why your all-powerful God would have deliberately designed the 99.9% which had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging!

DAVID: We don't trace backward to the 0.1%!! We and our food are the existing 0.1%. In tracing back to bacteria, we find the missing extinct 99.9%.
Followed by:
DAVID: What is here now are the necessary species for our food and us. 1% of all that previously lived to evolve them.

In view of your recent vacillations and obfuscations, please give me a straight answer: do you believe that 99.9% of extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, or that we humans and our food are directly descended from 0.1% of extinct species?

DAVID: Your weird math approach to evolution refuses to recognize what God did. God evolved us and food from bacteria. It required 3.5+ billon years with a loss of 99.9% now extinct. The current endpoint is the only evidence of purpose we have. Your preconceived ideas are creating a confusion in your mind. Live with current facts, accepting that God is not a fact.

The current endpoint is NOT the only evidence of purpose! There are 99.9 out of 100 extinct species which for years now you have been saying your purposeful God designed but for which with your dislocated theories you cannot find a purpose! I have offered you three alternative theories, all of which denote purpose for the 99.9, and you have accepted that they are all logical. But they conflict with your preconceived ideas, so those are what you stick to. By all means reject the three alternatives, but please don’t pretend that your combined theories make any sense, even to you, since all you can come up with is that God must have his reasons though you can't imagine what they might be.

Theodicy

DAVID: Believers consider God all-good. We fully understand human evil is secondhand to God giving us free will. There are secondhand mistakes made by proteins, for which God put in editing systems. Required good bacteria and viruses occasionally end up in the wrong place, again, a secondhand effect. We happily live with it.

dhw: Same dodging technique as above, with your dislocated theories about evolution. The fact that believers believe and that you happily live with it, and that evil is produced by humans and bacteria and viruses, does not explain how your first-cause, all-knowing God can deliberately create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet at the same time be all-good. Evil did not exist until he knowingly and deliberately created the system that produced it!

DAVID: True, and live with it. We have covered all factual considerations.

You raised the subject, and you have no answer to the question theodicy poses, so your answer is to live with it. You'd make a good agnostic.:-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 11, 2023, 15:57 (138 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, November 11, 2023, 16:04

DAVID: Of course, we disagree about God's purpose: we agree He ran an evolutionary process with humans as an endpoint. With that result why can't that be His purpose?

dhw: More dodging! It can be his purpose, but then as usual you have left out the problem that if we and our food were, as you claim, his one and only purpose, why would he have designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose (us and our food?)

'Round and 'round we go. Your question is unanswerable as to God's reasons. So we are left with God CHOSE to evolve us. I'm comfortable with that response. You are not:


dhw: The bolded question is not why he evolved us but why, if we were his only purpose, he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Each existing species can be traced back in time to their origin. The original bacterial species are still here, and we trace every species back to them.

dhw: Correct. We trace every existing species back to the 0.1%, and you admit that you have no idea why your all-powerful God would have deliberately designed the 99.9% which had no connection with the one and only purpose you impose on him. Stop dodging!

DAVID: We don't trace backward to the 0.1%!! We and our food are the existing 0.1%. In tracing back to bacteria, we find the missing extinct 99.9%.
Followed by:
DAVID: What is here now are the necessary species for our food and us. 1% of all that previously lived to evolve them.

dhw: In view of your recent vacillations and obfuscations, please give me a straight answer: do you believe that 99.9% of extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, or that we humans and our food are directly descended from 0.1% of extinct species?

Humans and our food are the remaining 0.1% survivors. The 99.9% are ancestors. The reason I say 'humans plus food' is a recognition we run the Earth now with total control of what we eat.


DAVID: Your weird math approach to evolution refuses to recognize what God did. God evolved us and food from bacteria. It required 3.5+ billon years with a loss of 99.9% now extinct. The current endpoint is the only evidence of purpose we have. Your preconceived ideas are creating a confusion in your mind. Live with current facts, accepting that God is not a fact.

dhw: The current endpoint is NOT the only evidence of purpose! There are 99.9 out of 100 extinct species which for years now you have been saying your purposeful God designed but for which with your dislocated theories you cannot find a purpose! I have offered you three alternative theories, all of which denote purpose for the 99.9, and you have accepted that they are all logical. But they conflict with your preconceived ideas, so those are what you stick to. By all means reject the three alternatives, but please don’t pretend that your combined theories make any sense, even to you, since all you can come up with is that God must have his reasons though you can't imagine what they might be.

The reasons you offered created a very humanized God whose main purpose was to enjoy Himself, watching what might be created since He was not in full control. I'm happy because I don't need God's reasoning and I'm grateful for God's gifts to us.


Theodicy

DAVID: Believers consider God all-good. We fully understand human evil is secondhand to God giving us free will. There are secondhand mistakes made by proteins, for which God put in editing systems. Required good bacteria and viruses occasionally end up in the wrong place, again, a secondhand effect. We happily live with it.

dhw: Same dodging technique as above, with your dislocated theories about evolution. The fact that believers believe and that you happily live with it, and that evil is produced by humans and bacteria and viruses, does not explain how your first-cause, all-knowing God can deliberately create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet at the same time be all-good. Evil did not exist until he knowingly and deliberately created the system that produced it!

DAVID: True, and live with it. We have covered all factual considerations.

dhw: You raised the subject, and you have no answer to the question theodicy poses, so your answer is to live with it. You'd make a good agnostic.:-)

I was an agnostic until I discovered the true facts leading to a conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, God exists. Sorry you didn't ;-).

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, November 12, 2023, 08:18 (138 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course, we disagree about God's purpose: we agree He ran an evolutionary process with humans as an endpoint. With that result why can't that be His purpose?

dhw: More dodging! It can be his purpose, but then as usual you have left out the problem that if we and our food were, as you claim, his one and only purpose, why would he have designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose (us and our food?)

DAVID: 'Round and 'round we go. Your question is unanswerable as to God's reasons. So we are left with God CHOSE to evolve us. I'm comfortable with that response. You are not.

We go round and round because your combined theories as bolded above make no sense even to you, but you refuse to consider the possibility that one or both might be wrong.

dhw: In view of your recent vacillations and obfuscations, please give me a straight answer: do you believe that 99.9% of extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, or that we humans and our food are directly descended from 0.1% of extinct species?

DAVID: Humans and our food are the remaining 0.1% survivors. The 99.9% are ancestors. […]

I specifically used the term “direct ancestors of us and our food”. Bolded above, you don’t know why he designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food (as you have agreed throughout all the years of this discussion), and a minute later you claim they were all direct ancestors of us and our food! And we shouldn't forget that according to you, the majority of our direct ancestors and those of other animals now in existence were designed by your God without any precursors during the Cambrian period, which leaves us with pre-Cambrian life forms stretching back around 3000,000,000 years. Please stop shooting yourself in the foot.

dhw: There are 99.9 out of 100 extinct species which for years now you have been saying your purposeful God designed but for which with your dislocated theories you cannot find a purpose! I have offered you three alternative theories, all of which denote purpose for the 99.9, and you have accepted that they are all logical. But they conflict with your preconceived ideas, so those are what you stick to. By all means reject the three alternatives, but please don’t pretend that your combined theories make any sense, even to you, since all you can come up with is that God must have his reasons though you can't imagine what they might be.

DAVID: The reasons you offered created a very humanized God whose main purpose was to enjoy Himself, watching what might be created since He was not in full control.

In two of them he was experimenting – but that doesn’t matter. I don’t mind you rejecting them. My objection is to your constant insistence that your completely illogical theory makes sense to you, although you can’t find any reason why your God would act in the manner or for the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: I'm happy because I don't need God's reasoning and I'm grateful for God's gifts to us.

Your happiness and gratitude do not contribute one iota of reason to your theories. You could be just as happy and grateful without them.

Theodicy

DAVID: Believers consider God all-good. We fully understand human evil is secondhand to God giving us free will. There are secondhand mistakes made by proteins, for which God put in editing systems. Required good bacteria and viruses occasionally end up in the wrong place, again, a secondhand effect. We happily live with it.

dhw: Same dodging technique as above, with your dislocated theories about evolution. The fact that believers believe and that you happily live with it, and that evil is produced by humans and bacteria and viruses, does not explain how your first-cause, all-knowing God can deliberately create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet at the same time be all-good. Evil did not exist until he knowingly and deliberately created the system that produced it!

DAVID: True, and live with it. We have covered all factual considerations.

dhw: You raised the subject, and you have no answer to the question theodicy poses, so your answer is to live with it. You'd make a good agnostic. :-)
DAVID: I was an agnostic until I discovered the true facts leading to a conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, God exists. Sorry you didn't .;-)

You have of course missed the point. Your inability to answer the fundamental question of theodicy after considering all the known facts, as well as your willingness to live with your ignorance, mirrors that of the agnostic’s approach to the fundamental question of God’s existence.:-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 12, 2023, 16:52 (137 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 'Round and 'round we go. Your question is unanswerable as to God's reasons. So we are left with God CHOSE to evolve us. I'm comfortable with that response. You are not.

dhw: We go round and round because your combined theories as bolded above make no sense even to you, but you refuse to consider the possibility that one or both might be wrong.

dhw: In view of your recent vacillations and obfuscations, please give me a straight answer: do you believe that 99.9% of extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, or that we humans and our food are directly descended from 0.1% of extinct species?

DAVID: Humans and our food are the remaining 0.1% survivors. The 99.9% are ancestors. […]

dhw: I specifically used the term “direct ancestors of us and our food”. Bolded above, you don’t know why he designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food (as you have agreed throughout all the years of this discussion), and a minute later you claim they were all direct ancestors of us and our food! And we shouldn't forget that according to you, the majority of our direct ancestors and those of other animals now in existence were designed by your God without any precursors during the Cambrian period, which leaves us with pre-Cambrian life forms stretching back around 3000,000,000 years. Please stop shooting yourself in the foot.

You keep ignoring my major point that everything on Earth exists to be eaten by us or used by us. Therefore, everything that was evolved was purposefully created by God as He evolved every organism ever living. Everything is connected to us!!!


DAVID: I'm happy because I don't need God's reasoning and I'm grateful for God's gifts to us.

dhw: Your happiness and gratitude do not contribute one iota of reason to your theories. You could be just as happy and grateful without them.

It depends how one views eh qualities of living.


Theodicy

DAVID: Believers consider God all-good. We fully understand human evil is secondhand to God giving us free will. There are secondhand mistakes made by proteins, for which God put in editing systems. Required good bacteria and viruses occasionally end up in the wrong place, again, a secondhand effect. We happily live with it.

dhw: Same dodging technique as above, with your dislocated theories about evolution. The fact that believers believe and that you happily live with it, and that evil is produced by humans and bacteria and viruses, does not explain how your first-cause, all-knowing God can deliberately create out of himself a system which he knows will produce evil, and yet at the same time be all-good. Evil did not exist until he knowingly and deliberately created the system that produced it!

DAVID: True, and live with it. We have covered all factual considerations.

dhw: You raised the subject, and you have no answer to the question theodicy poses, so your answer is to live with it. You'd make a good agnostic. :-)
DAVID: I was an agnostic until I discovered the true facts leading to a conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, God exists. Sorry you didn't .;-)

dhw: You have of course missed the point. Your inability to answer the fundamental question of theodicy after considering all the known facts, as well as your willingness to live with your ignorance, mirrors that of the agnostic’s approach to the fundamental question of God’s existence.:-)

The agnostic lives with ignorance? :-|

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, November 13, 2023, 11:22 (136 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In view of your recent vacillations and obfuscations, please give me a straight answer: do you believe that 99.9% of extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, or that we humans and our food are directly descended from 0.1% of extinct species?

DAVID: Humans and our food are the remaining 0.1% survivors. The 99.9% are ancestors. […]

dhw: I specifically used the term “direct ancestors of us and our food”. Bolded above, you don’t know why he designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food (as you have agreed throughout all the years of this discussion), and a minute later you claim they were all direct ancestors of us and our food! And we shouldn't forget that according to you, the majority of our direct ancestors and those of other animals now in existence were designed by your God without any precursors during the Cambrian period, which leaves us with pre-Cambrian life forms stretching back around 3000,000,000 years. Please stop shooting yourself in the foot.

DAVID: You keep ignoring my major point that everything on Earth exists to be eaten by us or used by us. Therefore, everything that was evolved was purposefully created by God as He evolved every organism ever living. Everything is connected to us!!!

You keep ignoring every self-contradiction listed above, and it’s becoming painful. The fact that we late-coming humans can use everything on Earth does not explain why your God would have specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species over 3.X thousand million years before we arrived. And the fact that we can use everything on Earth does not mean that 99.9 organisms out of 100 species that ever lived on Earth were the direct ancestors of us and of those species which we now eat. And “everything is connected to us!!!” has nothing to do with direct ancestry, and is only true because everything is connected to everything else on Planet Earth because everything on Planet Earth depends on Planet Earth for its existence. Will you never stop dodging?

DAVID: I'm happy because I don't need God's reasoning and I'm grateful for God's gifts to us.

dhw: Your happiness and gratitude do not contribute one iota of reason to your theories. You could be just as happy and grateful without them.

DAVID: It depends how one views eh qualities of living.

I hope your happiness and gratitude don’t depend on your illogical and self-contradictory theories about your God’s nature, purposes and methods.

dhw: Your inability to answer the fundamental question of theodicy after considering all the known facts, as well as your willingness to live with your ignorance, mirrors that of the agnostic’s approach to the fundamental question of God’s existence. :-)

DAVID: The agnostic lives with ignorance? :-|

Of course. Just as you live with your inability to answer all the fundamental questions I keep asking you – theodicy being just one of them. (You are happy and grateful although you are ignorant of “God’s reasoning” to explain your own self-contradictory theories.) :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, November 13, 2023, 20:27 (136 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You keep ignoring my major point that everything on Earth exists to be eaten by us or used by us. Therefore, everything that was evolved was purposefully created by God as He evolved every organism ever living. Everything is connected to us!!!

dhw: You keep ignoring every self-contradiction listed above, and it’s becoming painful. The fact that we late-coming humans can use everything on Earth does not explain why your God would have specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species over 3.X thousand million years before we arrived. And the fact that we can use everything on Earth does not mean that 99.9 organisms out of 100 species that ever lived on Earth were the direct ancestors of us and of those species which we now eat. And “everything is connected to us!!!” has nothing to do with direct ancestry, and is only true because everything is connected to everything else on Planet Earth because everything on Planet Earth depends on Planet Earth for its existence. Will you never stop dodging?

Sorry for your pain. Will you never stop complaining about the fact God evolved us. We are the current and probably the final endpoint of evolution. All of Earth's contents are for our resources now. Believing God evolved us allows that conclusion. We know our direct line as we look back from our place among the 0.1% surviving.


dhw: Your inability to answer the fundamental question of theodicy after considering all the known facts, as well as your willingness to live with your ignorance, mirrors that of the agnostic’s approach to the fundamental question of God’s existence. :-)

DAVID: The agnostic lives with ignorance? :-|

dhw: Of course. Just as you live with your inability to answer all the fundamental questions I keep asking you – theodicy being just one of them. (You are happy and grateful although you are ignorant of “God’s reasoning” to explain your own self-contradictory theories.) :-)

Welcome to the wonders of faith.;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, November 14, 2023, 08:26 (136 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You keep ignoring my major point that everything on Earth exists to be eaten by us or used by us. Therefore, everything that was evolved was purposefully created by God as He evolved every organism ever living. Everything is connected to us!!!

dhw: You keep ignoring every self-contradiction listed above, and it’s becoming painful. 1) The fact that we late-coming humans can use everything on Earth does not explain why your God would have specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species over 3.X thousand million years before we arrived. 2) And the fact that we can use everything on Earth does not mean that 99.9 organisms out of 100 species that ever lived on Earth were the direct ancestors of us and of those species which we now eat. And “everything is connected to us!!!” has nothing to do with direct ancestry, and is only true because everything is connected to everything else on Planet Earth because everything on Planet Earth depends on Planet Earth for its existence. Will you never stop dodging?

DAVID: Sorry for your pain. Will you never stop complaining about the fact God evolved us. We are the current and probably the final endpoint of evolution. All of Earth's contents are for our resources now. Believing God evolved us allows that conclusion.

If God exists, I have no complaint about his evolving us, and as there has been no further evolution so far, I have no complaint at our being called the current endpoint, or about the contents of the Earth being resources that we can use. Even if God does not exist, the same can be said about us and the contents of the Earth. My pain is caused by the fact that you continue to repeat general truths and to ignore all the details that make your theories so totally irrational and self-contradictory. See points 1 and 2 which I have now bolded and am forced to repeat below:

DAVID: We know our direct line as we look back from our place among the 0.1% surviving.

Again, no disagreement. That does not mean that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food! You have been agreeing for years that 99.9 out of 100 species had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow your God to have (us and our food), and for years you have agreed that you have no idea why he would have specially designed and then had to cull them. But of course you can believe whatever you want to believe. It’s the constant dodging that is becoming so painful.

dhw: Your inability to answer the fundamental question of theodicy after considering all the known facts, as well as your willingness to live with your ignorance, mirrors that of the agnostic’s approach to the fundamental question of God’s existence. :-)

DAVID: The agnostic lives with ignorance? :-|

dhw: Of course. Just as you live with your inability to answer all the fundamental questions I keep asking you – theodicy being just one of them. (You are happy and grateful although you are ignorant of “God’s reasoning” to explain your own self-contradictory theories.) :-)

DAVID: Welcome to the wonders of faith. ;-)

We both live happily with our ignorance. The only difference is that I acknowledge mine, whereas you either hide from it or try to kid yourself that you know the truth! :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 14, 2023, 19:17 (135 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You keep ignoring my major point that everything on Earth exists to be eaten by us or used by us. Therefore, everything that was evolved was purposefully created by God as He evolved every organism ever living. Everything is connected to us!!!

dhw: You keep ignoring every self-contradiction listed above, and it’s becoming painful. 1) The fact that we late-coming humans can use everything on Earth does not explain why your God would have specially designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species over 3.X thousand million years before we arrived. 2) And the fact that we can use everything on Earth does not mean that 99.9 organisms out of 100 species that ever lived on Earth were the direct ancestors of us and of those species which we now eat. And “everything is connected to us!!!” has nothing to do with direct ancestry, and is only true because everything is connected to everything else on Planet Earth because everything on Planet Earth depends on Planet Earth for its existence. Will you never stop dodging?

DAVID: Sorry for your pain. Will you never stop complaining about the fact God evolved us. We are the current and probably the final endpoint of evolution. All of Earth's contents are for our resources now. Believing God evolved us allows that conclusion.

dhw: If God exists, I have no complaint about his evolving us, and as there has been no further evolution so far, I have no complaint at our being called the current endpoint, or about the contents of the Earth being resources that we can use. Even if God does not exist, the same can be said about us and the contents of the Earth. My pain is caused by the fact that you continue to repeat general truths and to ignore all the details that make your theories so totally irrational and self-contradictory. See points 1 and 2 which I have now bolded and am forced to repeat below:

DAVID: We know our direct line as we look back from our place among the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Again, no disagreement. That does not mean that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food! You have been agreeing for years that 99.9 out of 100 species had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow your God to have (us and our food), and for years you have agreed that you have no idea why he would have specially designed and then had to cull them. But of course you can believe whatever you want to believe. It’s the constant dodging that is becoming so painful.

I have not dodged. Since I accept reality is God's work, therefore, He evolved us and everything else on Earth. We are part of the surviving 0.1%, but a part of the 99.9% were human ancestors, and the remainder were ancestors of every other organism now living. Part of your confusion is not understanding Raup's statistics for evolution. He analyzed the process to determine why extinction happened and concluded it was mainly luck. As a side effect He offered a total for extinctions since life started as 99.1%. The fact that we now run the Earth in every way we can means what exists on Earth can be used any way we wish. From a purpose standpoint, this is exactly what a designing God would create for a big brained primate.


dhw: Your inability to answer the fundamental question of theodicy after considering all the known facts, as well as your willingness to live with your ignorance, mirrors that of the agnostic’s approach to the fundamental question of God’s existence. :-)

DAVID: The agnostic lives with ignorance? :-|

dhw: Of course. Just as you live with your inability to answer all the fundamental questions I keep asking you – theodicy being just one of them. (You are happy and grateful although you are ignorant of “God’s reasoning” to explain your own self-contradictory theories.) :-)

DAVID: Welcome to the wonders of faith. ;-)

dhw: We both live happily with our ignorance. The only difference is that I acknowledge mine, whereas you either hide from it or try to kid yourself that you know the truth! :-)

I know our reality and am satisfied with it, while you are uncomfortably not. :-( I accept God's work as is. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, November 15, 2023, 12:06 (134 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We know our direct line as we look back from our place among the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Again, no disagreement. That does not mean that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food! You have been agreeing for years that 99.9 out of 100 species had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow your God to have (us and our food), and for years you have agreed that you have no idea why he would have specially designed and then had to cull them. But of course you can believe whatever you want to believe. It’s the constant dodging that is becoming so painful.

DAVID: I have not dodged. Since I accept reality is God's work, therefore, He evolved us and everything else on Earth.

If God exists, this is a perfectly reasonable argument, except that by evolved you actually mean he individually designed every species, plus every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc.

DAVID: We are part of the surviving 0.1%, but a part of the 99.9% were human ancestors, and the remainder were ancestors of every other organism now living.

The surviving 0.1% include our fellow life forms. Until a week or two ago, you had always accepted that the 99.9% of extinct life forms had no connection with us or our food. Now you are claiming that 99.9% of extinct life forms were the direct ancestors of us and our fellow live organisms. At the same time, you claim that we and our fellow animals arrived without any precursors during the Cambrian period. Can you trace a direct line from, say, cats and dogs and crocodiles and lizards to all the life forms that existed during the 3000,000,000 years before the Cambrian (most of which are probably unknown to us anyway)? Even dinosaurs have disappeared without any connections with the present apart from birds.

DAVID: Part of your confusion is not understanding Raup's statistics for evolution. He analyzed the process to determine why extinction happened and concluded it was mainly luck.

Irrelevant to your claim that your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100.

DAVID: As a side effect He offered a total for extinctions since life started as 99.1%. The fact that we now run the Earth in every way we can means what exists on Earth can be used any way we wish. From a purpose standpoint, this is exactly what a designing God would create for a big brained primate.

I thought it was 99.9%. How does all that prove that every living form is directly descended from all 99.9% of extinct forms? You never stop dodging. All life forms are descended from the first cells, but the bush of life (your image) evolved into a vast number of branches, which grew away from one another, were not connected, and eventually came literally to a dead end. Regardless of percentages, you have no idea why your God deliberately designed all those branches which did not lead to us and our food, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Please stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 15, 2023, 18:10 (134 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We are part of the surviving 0.1%, but a part of the 99.9% were human ancestors, and the remainder were ancestors of every other organism now living.

dhw: The surviving 0.1% include our fellow life forms. Until a week or two ago, you had always accepted that the 99.9% of extinct life forms had no connection with us or our food.

That was always your claim which I thought I clearly rejected.

dhw: Now you are claiming that 99.9% of extinct life forms were the direct ancestors of us and our fellow live organisms. At the same time, you claim that we and our fellow animals arrived without any precursors during the Cambrian period.

Not a claim, but currently factual. The evidence of a gap is stronger now than in Darwin's time.

dhw: Can you trace a direct line from, say, cats and dogs and crocodiles and lizards to all the life forms that existed during the 3000,000,000 years before the Cambrian (most of which are probably unknown to us anyway)? Even dinosaurs have disappeared without any connections with the present apart from birds.

Per Gould there lots of smaller gaps than the Cambrian.


DAVID: Part of your confusion is not understanding Raup's statistics for evolution. He analyzed the process to determine why extinction happened and concluded it was mainly luck.

dhw: Irrelevant to your claim that your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100.

DAVID: As a side effect He offered a total for extinctions since life started as 99.1%. The fact that we now run the Earth in every way we can means what exists on Earth can be used any way we wish. From a purpose standpoint, this is exactly what a designing God would create for a big brained primate.

dhw: I thought it was 99.9%. How does all that prove that every living form is directly descended from all 99.9% of extinct forms? You never stop dodging. All life forms are descended from the first cells, but the bush of life (your image) evolved into a vast number of branches, which grew away from one another, were not connected, and eventually came literally to a dead end. Regardless of percentages, you have no idea why your God deliberately designed all those branches which did not lead to us and our food, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Please stop dodging.

Sorry, misprint and is 99.9% extinct. I have clearly shown you our dominion over the Earth allows us to use anything we choose as our diet. A purposeful God would have done exactly this result. You have repeated your foolish complaint about God using evolution. Evolution is a fact. God is a belief. You cannot complain about the results of evolution, and you can complain irrationally about my belief in God's actions. For the last time (I hope) my straight logic: God exists and created our reality, evolved us and an Earth and a bush of life prepared for our use.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, November 16, 2023, 10:47 (133 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We are part of the surviving 0.1%, but a part of the 99.9% were human ancestors, and the remainder were ancestors of every other organism now living.

dhw: The surviving 0.1% include our fellow life forms. Until a week or two ago, you had always accepted that the 99.9% of extinct life forms had no connection with us or our food.

DAVID: That was always your claim which I thought I clearly rejected.

Ten days ago, after you had first proposed and also contradicted your new theory that 99.9% of extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, I pinned you down with a simple exchange:

dhw: We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes.

Not 99.9%, but 0.1%.

dhw: Now you are claiming that 99.9% of extinct life forms were the direct ancestors of us and our fellow live organisms. At the same time, you claim that we and our fellow animals arrived without any precursors during the Cambrian period.

DAVID: Not a claim, but currently factual. The evidence of a gap is stronger now than in Darwin's time.

So how can you claim that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of species that ever lived if we and our fellow mammals are descended from species that arrived 540 million years ago without any precursors?

dhw: Can you trace a direct line from, say, cats and dogs and crocodiles and lizards to all the life forms that existed during the 3000,000,000 years before the Cambrian (most of which are probably unknown to us anyway)? Even dinosaurs have disappeared without any connections with the present apart from birds.

DAVID: Per Gould there lots of smaller gaps than the Cambrian.

Now please tell us if you can trace a direct line etc. etc., as bolded above.

DAVID: Part of your confusion is not understanding Raup's statistics for evolution. He analyzed the process to determine why extinction happened and concluded it was mainly luck.

dhw: Irrelevant to your claim that your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species unconnected with his purpose.

DAVID: As a side effect He offered a total for extinctions since life started as 99.1%. The fact that we now run the Earth in every way we can means what exists on Earth can be used any way we wish. From a purpose standpoint, this is exactly what a designing God would create for a big brained primate.

dhw: […] Regardless of percentages, you have no idea why your God deliberately designed all those branches which did not lead to us and our food, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Please stop dodging.

DAVID:[…]. I have clearly shown you our dominion over the Earth allows us to use anything we choose as our diet. A purposeful God would have done exactly this result.

Not disputed. Irrelevant to the bold.

DAVID: You have repeated your foolish complaint about God using evolution. Evolution is a fact. God is a belief. You cannot complain about the results of evolution…..

I have never complained about your God using evolution or about the results of evolution, and I agree that evolution is a fact and God is a belief. My complaint is about your theory that your all-powerful God’s only purpose was us and therefore he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with us.

DAVID: ...and you can complain irrationally about my belief in God's actions.

I complain rationally about the irrationality of your theory concerning God’s totally illogical method of achieving the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: For the last time (I hope) my straight logic: God exists and created our reality, evolved us and an Earth and a bush of life prepared for our use.

On the assumption that God exists, your logic is almost straight, but sadly leaves out the combined theories bolded above, which together are so crooked that you can only keep whining that you cannot know your God’s reasons. Added to this is the confusion over your new theory that we and our food are directly descended from the 99.9% of extinct life forms, although at the same time we and our food are only directly descended from 0.1% of extinct life forms.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 16, 2023, 21:02 (133 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Ten days ago, after you had first proposed and also contradicted your new theory that 99.9% of extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, I pinned you down with a simple exchange:

dhw: We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: Not 99.9%, but 0.1%.

The 99.9% are the body of past evolution, now discarded. The 0.1% are the present total products of all evolution, everything on Earth and humans in change of all of it. Your mathematical view of evolution is backwards.


dhw: Now you are claiming that 99.9% of extinct life forms were the direct ancestors of us and our fellow live organisms. At the same time, you claim that we and our fellow animals arrived without any precursors during the Cambrian period.

DAVID: Not a claim, but currently factual. The evidence of a gap is stronger now than in Darwin's time.

dhw: So how can you claim that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of species that ever lived if we and our fellow mammals are descended from species that arrived 540 million years ago without any precursors?

we both recognize the gaps in evolution.


dhw: Can you trace a direct line from, say, cats and dogs and crocodiles and lizards to all the life forms that existed during the 3000,000,000 years before the Cambrian (most of which are probably unknown to us anyway)? Even dinosaurs have disappeared without any connections with the present apart from birds.

DAVID: Per Gould there lots of smaller gaps than the Cambrian.

dhw: Now please tell us if you can trace a direct line etc. etc., as bolded above.

So you have forgotten the famous illustration of Darwin's diagram of evolution. Everything connected to the origin.


DAVID: Part of your confusion is not understanding Raup's statistics for evolution. He analyzed the process to determine why extinction happened and concluded it was mainly luck.

dhw: Irrelevant to your claim that your God deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species unconnected with his purpose.

DAVID: As a side effect He offered a total for extinctions since life started as 99.1%. The fact that we now run the Earth in every way we can means what exists on Earth can be used any way we wish. From a purpose standpoint, this is exactly what a designing God would create for a big brained primate.

dhw: […] Regardless of percentages, you have no idea why your God deliberately designed all those branches which did not lead to us and our food, although you say we and our food were his only purpose. Please stop dodging.

DAVID:[…]. I have clearly shown you our dominion over the Earth allows us to use anything we choose as our diet. A purposeful God would have done exactly this result.

dhw: Not disputed. Irrelevant to the bold.

DAVID: You have repeated your foolish complaint about God using evolution. Evolution is a fact. God is a belief. You cannot complain about the results of evolution…..

dhw: I have never complained about your God using evolution or about the results of evolution, and I agree that evolution is a fact and God is a belief. My complaint is about your theory that your all-powerful God’s only purpose was us and therefore he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with us.

Same baseless complaint about God and His evolution.


DAVID: ...and you can complain irrationally about my belief in God's actions.

dhw:I complain rationally about the irrationality of your theory concerning God’s totally illogical method of achieving the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: For the last time (I hope) my straight logic: God exists and created our reality, evolved us and an Earth and a bush of life prepared for our use.

dhw: On the assumption that God exists, your logic is almost straight, but sadly leaves out the combined theories bolded above, which together are so crooked that you can only keep whining that you cannot know your God’s reasons. Added to this is the confusion over your new theory that we and our food are directly descended from the 99.9% of extinct life forms, although at the same time we and our food are only directly descended from 0.1% of extinct life forms.

NO!!! Still your confused mind. 99.9% of the ancestors of everything on Earth went extinct. The 0.1% surviving is what is here now, human in charge of everything else. And we can use everything else in our food supply.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, November 17, 2023, 13:51 (132 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Ten days ago, after you had first proposed and also contradicted your new theory that 99.9% of extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, I pinned you down with a simple exchange:

dhw: We and our food have evolved from 0.1% of evolution’s products.

DAVID: Yes.

dhw: Not 99.9%, but 0.1%.

DAVID: The 99.9% are the body of past evolution, now discarded. The 0.1% are the present total products of all evolution, everything on Earth and humans in change of all of it. Your mathematical view of evolution is backwards.
And later:
99.9% of the ancestors of everything on Earth went extinct.

It is you (Raup) who have set the figure of 99.9% of past species that have been “discarded” (gone extinct), and 0.1% is what is left! But that does not mean we and our food are directly descended from every single one of those 99.9%! You have previously agreed that we and our food are directly descended from the 0.1%. Your own example 1 of self-contradiction is as follows:

dhw[referring to the Cambrian]: So how can you claim that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of species that ever lived if we and our fellow mammals are descended from species that arrived 540 million years ago without any precursors?

DAVID: we both recognize the gaps in evolution.

Yes. So please answer the question and stop dodging. Example 2:

dhw: Can you trace a direct line from, say, cats and dogs and crocodiles and lizards to all the life forms that existed during the 3000,000,000 years before the Cambrian (most of which are probably unknown to us anyway)? Even dinosaurs have disappeared without any connections with the present apart from birds.

DAVID: So you have forgotten the famous illustration of Darwin's diagram of evolution. Everything connected to the origin.

I keep reminding you that you call it the bush of life (Darwin called it the tree), and 99.9% (your figure) of the branches of the bush/tree did NOT lead to us or our food. Hence your acknowledged inability to find any reason why your God would have designed and discarded them in the first place. Please respond to the examples, and stop dodging!

DAVID: You have repeated your foolish complaint about God using evolution. Evolution is a fact. God is a belief. You cannot complain about the results of evolution…..

dhw: I have never complained about your God using evolution or about the results of evolution, and I agree that evolution is a fact and God is a belief. My complaint is about your theory that your all-powerful God’s only purpose was us and therefore he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with us.

DAVID: Same baseless complaint about God and His evolution.

Same dodge. A complaint about an illogical theory about God and evolution is a complaint about the theory, not about God, unless you now think of yourself as God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, November 17, 2023, 15:56 (132 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: It is you (Raup) who have set the figure of 99.9% of past species that have been “discarded” (gone extinct), and 0.1% is what is left! But that does not mean we and our food are directly descended from every single one of those 99.9%! You have previously agreed that we and our food are directly descended from the 0.1%. Your own example 1 of self-contradiction is as follows:

dhw[referring to the Cambrian]: So how can you claim that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of species that ever lived if we and our fellow mammals are descended from species that arrived 540 million years ago without any precursors?

DAVID: we both recognize the gaps in evolution.

Yes. So please answer the question and stop dodging. Example 2:

dhw: Can you trace a direct line from, say, cats and dogs and crocodiles and lizards to all the life forms that existed during the 3000,000,000 years before the Cambrian (most of which are probably unknown to us anyway)? Even dinosaurs have disappeared without any connections with the present apart from birds.

DAVID: So you have forgotten the famous illustration of Darwin's diagram of evolution. Everything connected to the origin.

dhw: I keep reminding you that you call it the bush of life (Darwin called it the tree), and 99.9% (your figure) of the branches of the bush/tree did NOT lead to us or our food. Hence your acknowledged inability to find any reason why your God would have designed and discarded them in the first place. Please respond to the examples, and stop dodging!

What exists today is the human population and everything else, the 0.1 % surviving from evolution. 99.9% are gone forever and can be forgotten in this discussion. Humans are now making meat from vegetable matter. Everything on Earth is here to be used by us. That is what is meant by humans and their food. We consume all sorts of things: coal, oil, lumber, wool, etc. The point is made.


DAVID: You have repeated your foolish complaint about God using evolution. Evolution is a fact. God is a belief. You cannot complain about the results of evolution…..

dhw: I have never complained about your God using evolution or about the results of evolution, and I agree that evolution is a fact and God is a belief. My complaint is about your theory that your all-powerful God’s only purpose was us and therefore he specially designed and had to cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with us.

DAVID: Same baseless complaint about God and His evolution.

dhw: Same dodge. A complaint about an illogical theory about God and evolution is a complaint about the theory, not about God, unless you now think of yourself as God.

I believe God did it. Not theory to me.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, November 18, 2023, 08:37 (132 days ago) @ David Turell

For years, David, you have theorized that your God’s only purpose was to design sapiens plus food, and you do not know why he would have designed and had to cull the 99.9% of species that were not connected to us or our food. A few weeks ago you suddenly claimed that the 99.9% were the direct ancestors of us and our food. I pointed out that this contradicted your theory that approx. 540 million years ago during the Cambrian we and our fellow animals were created by your God without any predecessors, and of current life forms, only birds are descended from dinosaurs. I asked if you could trace a direct line from, say, cats and dogs and crocodiles and lizards to all the life forms that existed during the 3000,000,000 years before the Cambrian (most of which are probably unknown to us anyway)? All you have done since then is dodge the whole issue, as follows:

DAVID: What exists today is the human population and everything else, the 0.1 % surviving from evolution.

Correct.

DAVID: 99.9% are gone forever and can be forgotten in this discussion.

Yes, they are gone. Why should they be forgotten when this discussion exclusively concerns your theories (a) that your God specially designed them and culled them although they had no connection with the purpose you impose on him (us and our food), and you can’t think of a single reason why he would have done so, but now suddenly (b) they were all our direct ancestors! If only you would stop pretending that it all makes sense to you, and simply acknowledge that this whole theoretical, contradictory mess - you yourself call it messy, cumbersome and inefficient - might just possibly mean that one or both of your theories are wrong, we could move on.

DAVID: Humans are now making meat from vegetable matter. Everything on Earth is here to be used by us. That is what is meant by humans and their food. We consume all sorts of things: coal, oil, lumber, wool, etc. The point is made.

Nobody would contradict the fact that we use everything, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with your dislocated theories of evolution. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Same baseless complaint about God and His evolution.

dhw: Same dodge. A complaint about an illogical theory about God and evolution is a complaint about the theory, not about God, unless you now think of yourself as God.

DAVID: I believe God did it. Not theory to me.

Did what? You could believe God created life and designed evolution without lumbering us and him with your dislocated and self-contradictory versions of his purpose and his means of fulfilling that purpose! But, dear David, I quite understand your desperate desire to forget the 99.9% that have caused you so much trouble! ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 18, 2023, 19:12 (131 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: For years, David, you have theorized that your God’s only purpose was to design sapiens plus food, and you do not know why he would have designed and had to cull the 99.9% of species that were not connected to us or our food. A few weeks ago you suddenly claimed that the 99.9% were the direct ancestors of us and our food. I pointed out that this contradicted your theory that approx. 540 million years ago during the Cambrian we and our fellow animals were created by your God without any predecessors, and of current life forms, only birds are descended from dinosaurs. I asked if you could trace a direct line from, say, cats and dogs and crocodiles and lizards to all the life forms that existed during the 3000,000,000 years before the Cambrian (most of which are probably unknown to us anyway)? All you have done since then is dodge the whole issue, as follows:

DAVID: What exists today is the human population and everything else, the 0.1 % surviving from evolution.

Correct.

DAVID: 99.9% are gone forever and can be forgotten in this discussion.

dhw: Yes, they are gone. Why should they be forgotten when this discussion exclusively concerns your theories (a) that your God specially designed them and culled them although they had no connection with the purpose you impose on him (us and our food), and you can’t think of a single reason why he would have done so, but now suddenly (b) they were all our direct ancestors! If only you would stop pretending that it all makes sense to you, and simply acknowledge that this whole theoretical, contradictory mess - you yourself call it messy, cumbersome and inefficient - might just possibly mean that one or both of your theories are wrong, we could move on.

You are totally confused on how to view evolution. How we arrived is by stages in evolution we can trace fully recognizing there are small and huge gap all throughout the Darwin tree of life. But we can recognize A stage and then B stage and assume it is true jump, since B seems to cone after A. There is nothing but gaps in evolution:

Covered in a new entry: https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fossil-friday-protists-add-to-the-cambrian-explosion/

dhw: Same dodge. A complaint about an illogical theory about God and evolution is a complaint about the theory, not about God, unless you now think of yourself as God.

DAVID: I believe God did it. Not theory to me.

dhw: Did what? You could believe God created life and designed evolution without lumbering us and him with your dislocated and self-contradictory versions of his purpose and his means of fulfilling that purpose! But, dear David, I quite understand your desperate desire to forget the 99.9% that have caused you so much trouble! ;-)

We were part of the 99.9% now extinct. We are part of the 0.1% now existing. But there is no point discussing the 99.9% over and over. I've clearly said I can't know why God did it that way. We are here and as God produced us that way, we were His goal. I know you don't prefer a purposeful form of God based on your proposals of God' personalities, but a purposeful God is my God. My God created the history of evolution we know.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, November 19, 2023, 11:43 (130 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 99.9% are gone forever and can be forgotten in this discussion.

dhw: Yes, they are gone. Why should they be forgotten when this discussion exclusively concerns your theories (a) that your God specially designed them and culled them although they had no connection with the purpose you impose on him (us and our food), and you can’t think of a single reason why he would have done so, but now suddenly (b) they were all our direct ancestors! If only you would stop pretending that it all makes sense to you, and simply acknowledge that this whole theoretical, contradictory mess - you yourself call it messy, cumbersome and inefficient - might just possibly mean that one or both of your theories are wrong, we could move on.

DAVID: You are totally confused on how to view evolution. How we arrived is by stages in evolution we can trace fully recognizing there are small and huge gap all throughout the Darwin tree of life. But we can recognize A stage and then B stage and assume it is true jump, since B seems to cone after A. There is nothing but gaps in evolution […]:

We can trace the stages (or steps) but you call them jumps, which apparently means they are not stages (or steps). And you think I’m confused! (See below re the new entry.)

DAVID: Same baseless complaint about God and His evolution.

dhw: Same dodge. A complaint about an illogical theory about God and evolution is a complaint about the theory, not about God, unless you now think of yourself as God.

DAVID: I believe God did it. Not theory to me.

dhw: Did what? You could believe God created life and designed evolution without lumbering us and him with your dislocated and self-contradictory versions of his purpose and his means of fulfilling that purpose! But, dear David, I quite understand your desperate desire to forget the 99.9% that have caused you so much trouble! ;-)

DAVID: We were part of the 99.9% now extinct. We are part of the 0.1% now existing. But there is no point discussing the 99.9% over and over. I've clearly said I can't know why God did it that way. We are here and as God produced us that way, we were His goal.

We (plus our food) were not part of the 99.9% now extinct. We weren’t there, remember? We (and our food) are descended from the 0.1% that were not dead ends. The 99.9% were not our direct ancestors (exit your latest theory). Thank you for once again admitting that you can’t think of a single reason why he would also have designed the 99.9% that had no connection with us or our food. So please stop pretending you know that this was your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose and it all makes sense to you. Maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

DAVID: I know you don't prefer a purposeful form of God based on your proposals of God' personalities, but a purposeful God is my God. My God created the history of evolution we know.

And please stop pretending that my alternative theistic explanations are not purposeful. Each one of them is fully purposeful. If God exists, yes, he created the history of evolution. That does not in any way confirm your version of why and how he did it.

The missing fossils argument: gaps are everywhere
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fossil-friday-protists-add-to-the-cambrian-explosion/

DAVID: gaps are everywhere. I hope this removes dhw's irrational clinging to stepwise evolution as a dogmatic belief. Gaps mean new organism require design because new irreducible complexity is required.

There are several strands to this argument:

1) I am not disputing the existence of gaps.

2) I’m surprised that you dispute the existence of steps. Your two most direct examples of these are whales and humans (as above). Whether there are gaps or steps, you can still argue for design, which goes back to the complexity of the cell and every organism that ever lived.

3) Design is not synonymous with irreducible complexity! The latter involves a single unit, all of whose parts come into existence simultaneously, are integrated with one another to perform a particular function, and cannot be removed without rendering the unit functionless. Evolution is an ongoing process of CHANGES to existing forms, and by definition those changes cannot in themselves be irreducibly complex, since they depend on existing parts if they are to function. Yes, they must be integrated and may be designed, but no, they are not irreducibly complex.

4) If you think every species is "irreducibly complex" and was created separately with no precursors, you are now a fully fledged Creationist and reject the entire theory of evolution, although you never cease to use the word “evolve” in all your posts. You can only use it if you mean your God was responsible for all the innovations that led to one species developing into another.

When did you decide that God did not use evolution, having just told us your God created the history of evolution?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 19, 2023, 17:59 (130 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We can trace the stages (or steps) but you call them jumps, which apparently means they are not stages (or steps). And you think I’m confused! (See below re the new entry.)

DAVID: Same baseless complaint about God and His evolution.

dhw: Same dodge. A complaint about an illogical theory about God and evolution is a complaint about the theory, not about God, unless you now think of yourself as God.

DAVID: I believe God did it. Not theory to me.

dhw: Did what? You could believe God created life and designed evolution without lumbering us and him with your dislocated and self-contradictory versions of his purpose and his means of fulfilling that purpose! But, dear David, I quite understand your desperate desire to forget the 99.9% that have caused you so much trouble! ;-)

DAVID: We were part of the 99.9% now extinct. We are part of the 0.1% now existing. But there is no point discussing the 99.9% over and over. I've clearly said I can't know why God did it that way. We are here and as God produced us that way, we were His goal.

dhw: We (plus our food) were not part of the 99.9% now extinct. We weren’t there, remember? We (and our food) are descended from the 0.1% that were not dead ends. The 99.9% were not our direct ancestors (exit your latest theory). Thank you for once again admitting that you can’t think of a single reason why he would also have designed the 99.9% that had no connection with us or our food. So please stop pretending you know that this was your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose and it all makes sense to you. Maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

I'm joined by Adler in our thinking. So I'm not just a nut in the wilderness.


DAVID: I know you don't prefer a purposeful form of God based on your proposals of God' personalities, but a purposeful God is my God. My God created the history of evolution we know.

dhw: And please stop pretending that my alternative theistic explanations are not purposeful. Each one of them is fully purposeful. If God exists, yes, he created the history of evolution. That does not in any way confirm your version of why and how he did it.

You can't deny we are a magnificent end point!


The missing fossils argument: gaps are everywhere
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fossil-friday-protists-add-to-the-cambrian-explosion/

DAVID: gaps are everywhere. I hope this removes dhw's irrational clinging to stepwise evolution as a dogmatic belief. Gaps mean new organism require design because new irreducible complexity is required.

dhw: There are several strands to this argument:

1) I am not disputing the existence of gaps.

2) I’m surprised that you dispute the existence of steps. Your two most direct examples of these are whales and humans (as above). Whether there are gaps or steps, you can still argue for design, which goes back to the complexity of the cell and every organism that ever lived.

There are large gaps and smaller ones you can call steps. But step-by-tiny-step doesn't exist as Darwin postuladted.


dhw: 3) Design is not synonymous with irreducible complexity! The latter involves a single unit, all of whose parts come into existence simultaneously, are integrated with one another to perform a particular function, and cannot be removed without rendering the unit functionless.

Nuts! IC requires design!!!

dhw: Evolution is an ongoing process of CHANGES to existing forms, and by definition those changes cannot in themselves be irreducibly complex, since they depend on existing parts if they are to function. Yes, they must be integrated and may be designed, but no, they are not irreducibly complex.

Most of all functional forms are irreducibly complex.


dhw: 4) If you think every species is "irreducibly complex" and was created separately with no precursors, you are now a fully fledged Creationist and reject the entire theory of evolution, although you never cease to use the word “evolve” in all your posts. You can only use it if you mean your God was responsible for all the innovations that led to one species developing into another.

When did you decide that God did not use evolution, having just told us your God created the history of evolution?

God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, November 20, 2023, 09:13 (130 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] please stop pretending you know that this was your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose and it all makes sense to you. Maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

DAVID: I'm joined by Adler in our thinking. So I'm not just a nut in the wilderness.

I do wish you wouldn’t keep cowering behind Adler. You have told us that he uses the uniqueness of humans as proof that God exists. Does he also tell you that we (plus our food) were his God’s one and only purpose, and therefore he specially but incomprehensibly designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food (except that a fortnight ago they all became our direct ancestors, but now they’re not). And that he can’t think of any reason why his God would use such messy, cumbersome, inefficient methods to achieve his one and only goal? And there are no steps in evolution, except when there are steps. And that God’s form of evolution was to create all species without predecessors, but that is still called evolution? If he doesn’t, I’m afraid you are the only nut in the wilderness.

DAVID: I know you don't prefer a purposeful form of God based on your proposals of God' personalities, but a purposeful God is my God. My God created the history of evolution we know.

dhw: And please stop pretending that my alternative theistic explanations are not purposeful. Each one of them is fully purposeful. If God exists, yes, he created the history of evolution. That does not in any way confirm your version of why and how he did it.

DAVID: You can't deny we are a magnificent end point!

How does this come to mean my versions of God are purposeless? Stop dodging. We may be the current end point. I have no idea what life forms will be on this planet in, say, three thousand million years’ time, but we are so “magnificent” that at the present rate, we shall long since have ensured that there are no life forms left.

The missing fossils argument: gaps are everywhere
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fossil-friday-protists-add-to-the-cambrian-explosion/

DAVID: gaps are everywhere. I hope this removes dhw's irrational clinging to stepwise evolution as a dogmatic belief. Gaps mean new organism require design because new irreducible complexity is required.

dhw: There are several strands to this argument:

2) I’m surprised that you dispute the existence of steps. Your two most direct examples of these are whales and humans […]. Whether there are gaps or steps, you can still argue for design, which goes back to the complexity of the cell and every organism that ever lived.

DAVID: There are large gaps and smaller ones you can call steps. But step-by-tiny-step doesn't exist as Darwin postulated.

So there are no steps, but there are steps.

dhw: 3) Design is not synonymous with irreducible complexity! The latter involves a single unit, all of whose parts come into existence simultaneously, are integrated with one another to perform a particular function, and cannot be removed without rendering the unit functionless.

DAVID: Nuts! IC requires design!!!

But design does not require IC!!! You claim that your God designs everything. So does every individual development of every kind entail one complete unit with all its parts created simultaneously and integrated from the very beginning? See my next comment.

dhw: Evolution is an ongoing process of CHANGES to existing forms, and by definition those changes cannot in themselves be irreducibly complex, since they depend on existing parts if they are to function. Yes, they must be integrated and may be designed, but no, they are not irreducibly complex.

DAVID: Most of all functional forms are irreducibly complex.

So if you cut off my leg, it will still carry on walking, will it? (Or if you think the whole body is IC, will the loss of my leg stop me from breathing?) IC refers to a single unit which is complete in itself. See the discussion on the hypothalamus and the female pelvis on the “More miscellany” thread.

dhw: 4) If you think every species is "irreducibly complex" and was created separately with no precursors, you are now a fully fledged Creationist and reject the entire theory of evolution, although you never cease to use the word “evolve” in all your posts. You can only use it if you mean your God was responsible for all the innovations that led to one species developing into another.
When did you decide that God did not use evolution, having just told us your God created the history of evolution?

DAVID: God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

How can you call it evolution or even resembling evolution if you insist that all parts of all species are irreducibly complex (i.e. all parts were created simultaneously, as opposed to most being handed down) and were designed without precursors?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, November 20, 2023, 16:54 (129 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] please stop pretending you know that this was your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose and it all makes sense to you. Maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

DAVID: I'm joined by Adler in our thinking. So I'm not just a nut in the wilderness.

dhw: I do wish you wouldn’t keep cowering behind Adler. You have told us that he uses the uniqueness of humans as proof that God exists. Does he also tell you that we (plus our food) were his God’s one and only purpose, and therefore he specially but incomprehensibly designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food (except that a fortnight ago they all became our direct ancestors, but now they’re not). And that he can’t think of any reason why his God would use such messy, cumbersome, inefficient methods to achieve his one and only goal? And there are no steps in evolution, except when there are steps. And that God’s form of evolution was to create all species without predecessors, but that is still called evolution? If he doesn’t, I’m afraid you are the only nut in the wilderness.

You are now in full distortion. Adler argued his point from the standpoint of accepting Darwin's evolutionary theory. That made humans entirely improbable and therefore God was needed. I am a step further. No Darwin, all God. With God as creator what looks like an evolutionary process is God inventing biologic complexity in stages, for HIS own reasons. We are part of the surviving 0.1% and a tiny part of the 99.9% extinct. What is not us, past or present, is all the rest of life on Earth. Pure logic. Most of the process shows large jumps in form or function, and some huge gaps. Life's forms are so irreducibly complex, tiny Darwinian stepwise evolution does not happen. It is all by design, at times without any predecessors.

The missing fossils argument: gaps are everywhere
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/11/fossil-friday-protists-add-to-the-cambrian-explosion/

DAVID: gaps are everywhere. I hope this removes dhw's irrational clinging to stepwise evolution as a dogmatic belief. Gaps mean new organism require design because new irreducible complexity is required.

dhw: There are several strands to this argument:

2) I’m surprised that you dispute the existence of steps. Your two most direct examples of these are whales and humans […]. Whether there are gaps or steps, you can still argue for design, which goes back to the complexity of the cell and every organism that ever lived.

DAVID: There are large gaps and smaller ones you can call steps. But step-by-tiny-step doesn't exist as Darwin postulated.

dhw: So there are no steps, but there are steps.

Depends on defining step.


dhw: 3) Design is not synonymous with irreducible complexity! The latter involves a single unit, all of whose parts come into existence simultaneously, are integrated with one another to perform a particular function, and cannot be removed without rendering the unit functionless.

DAVID: Nuts! IC requires design!!!

dhw: But design does not require IC!!! You claim that your God designs everything. So does every individual development of every kind entail one complete unit with all its parts created simultaneously and integrated from the very beginning? See my next comment.

Yes, if it is to function.


dhw: Evolution is an ongoing process of CHANGES to existing forms, and by definition those changes cannot in themselves be irreducibly complex, since they depend on existing parts if they are to function. Yes, they must be integrated and may be designed, but no, they are not irreducibly complex.

DAVID: Most of all functional forms are irreducibly complex.

dhw: So if you cut off my leg, it will still carry on walking, will it? (Or if you think the whole body is IC, will the loss of my leg stop me from breathing?) IC refers to a single unit which is complete in itself. See the discussion on the hypothalamus and the female pelvis on the “More miscellany” thread.

The body is an integration of many IC parts.


dhw: 4) If you think every species is "irreducibly complex" and was created separately with no precursors, you are now a fully fledged Creationist and reject the entire theory of evolution, although you never cease to use the word “evolve” in all your posts. You can only use it if you mean your God was responsible for all the innovations that led to one species developing into another.
When did you decide that God did not use evolution, having just told us your God created the history of evolution?

DAVID: God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

dhw: How can you call it evolution or even resembling evolution if you insist that all parts of all species are irreducibly complex (i.e. all parts were created simultaneously, as opposed to most being handed down) and were designed without precursors?

Welcome to evolution by God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, November 21, 2023, 08:35 (129 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] please stop pretending you know that this was your God’s purpose and method of achieving his purpose and it all makes sense to you. Maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

DAVID: I'm joined by Adler in our thinking. So I'm not just a nut in the wilderness.

dhw: I do wish you wouldn’t keep cowering behind Adler. You have told us that he uses the uniqueness of humans as proof that God exists. Does he also tell you that we (plus our food) were his God’s one and only purpose, and therefore he specially but incomprehensibly designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food (except that a fortnight ago they all became our direct ancestors, but now they’re not). And that he can’t think of any reason why his God would use such messy, cumbersome, inefficient methods to achieve his one and only goal? And there are no steps in evolution, except when there are steps. And that God’s form of evolution was to create all species without predecessors, but that is still called evolution? If he doesn’t, I’m afraid you are the only nut in the wilderness.

DAVID: You are now in full distortion. Adler argued his point from the standpoint of accepting Darwin's evolutionary theory. That made humans entirely improbable and therefore God was needed. I am a step further.

Thank you for confirming that Adler does not cover your illogical, dislocated theories, which go several steps further.

DAVID: No Darwin, all God.

And Adler accepted Darwin. Departure, then, from Adler.

DAVID: With God as creator what looks like an evolutionary process is God inventing biologic complexity in stages, for HIS own reasons.

All you and not Adler. But thank you so much for confirming that evolution takes place in stages. Sounds just like Darwin.

DAVID: We are part of the surviving 0.1% and a tiny part of the 99.9% extinct. What is not us, past or present, is all the rest of life on Earth.

Thank you for confirming that we are a tiny part of the 99.9% extinct – namely, the 0.1%. You are quite right that what is not us is all the rest of life, and the 99.9% of extinct forms were also not us or our food, or the ancestors of us and our food. Which is why it is absolutely nonsense for you to claim that your God designed all of them as preparation for us and our food. I’m pleased to hear that this is another of your theories Adler does not support.

DAVID: Pure logic. Most of the process shows large jumps in form or function, and some huge gaps. Life's forms are so irreducibly complex, tiny Darwinian stepwise evolution does not happen. It is all by design, at times without any predecessors.

Pure logic that your God designed 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose, and you don’t know why. Adler obviously disagrees with you about Darwin’s theory, which does not exclude design, but I’m sure he and Darwin would be happy with your statement that biological complexity proceeds in stages. I’m afraid all this leaves you, to use your own expression, as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

dhw: 3) Design is not synonymous with irreducible complexity! The latter involves a single unit, all of whose parts come into existence simultaneously, are integrated with one another to perform a particular function, and cannot be removed without rendering the unit functionless.

DAVID: Nuts! IC requires design!!!

dhw: But design does not require IC!!! You claim that your God designs everything. So does every individual development of every kind entail one complete unit with all its parts created simultaneously and integrated from the very beginning? See my next comment.

DAVID: Yes, if it is to function. [...]

dhw: So if you cut off my leg, it will still carry on walking, will it? (Or if you think the whole body is IC, will the loss of my leg stop me from breathing?) IC refers to a single unit which is complete in itself. See the discussion on the hypothalamus and the female pelvis on the “More miscellany” thread.

DAVID: The body is an integration of many IC parts.

How can each part be a single unit complete in itself if it cannot function without being integrated with other parts?

DAVID: God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

dhw: How can you call it evolution or even resembling evolution if you insist that all parts of all species are irreducibly complex (i.e. all parts were created simultaneously, as opposed to most being handed down from earlier species) and were designed without precursors?

DAVID: Welcome to evolution by God.

It’s called Creationism.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 21, 2023, 15:16 (128 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are now in full distortion. Adler argued his point from the standpoint of accepting Darwin's evolutionary theory. That made humans entirely improbable and therefore God was needed. I am a step further.

Thank you for confirming that Adler does not cover your illogical, dislocated theories, which go several steps further.

DAVID: No Darwin, all God.

dhw: And Adler accepted Darwin. Departure, then, from Adler.

Adler used Darwin theory as it made Adler's point.


DAVID: With God as creator what looks like an evolutionary process is God inventing biologic complexity in stages, for HIS own reasons.

dhw: All you and not Adler. But thank you so much for confirming that evolution takes place in stages. Sounds just like Darwin.

Nothing new.


DAVID: We are part of the surviving 0.1% and a tiny part of the 99.9% extinct. What is not us, past or present, is all the rest of life on Earth.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that we are a tiny part of the 99.9% extinct – namely, the 0.1%. You are quite right that what is not us is all the rest of life, and the 99.9% of extinct forms were also not us or our food, or the ancestors of us and our food. Which is why it is absolutely nonsense for you to claim that your God designed all of them as preparation for us and our food. I’m pleased to hear that this is another of your theories Adler does not support.

All the Earth is our playground, and anything can be our food. That is what evolution by God has given us.


DAVID: Pure logic. Most of the process shows large jumps in form or function, and some huge gaps. Life's forms are so irreducibly complex, tiny Darwinian stepwise evolution does not happen. It is all by design, at times without any predecessors.

dhw:Pure logic that your God designed 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose, and you don’t know why. Adler obviously disagrees with you about Darwin’s theory, which does not exclude design, but I’m sure he and Darwin would be happy with your statement that biological complexity proceeds in stages. I’m afraid all this leaves you, to use your own expression, as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

Welcome to David's theology.


dhw: 3) Design is not synonymous with irreducible complexity! The latter involves a single unit, all of whose parts come into existence simultaneously, are integrated with one another to perform a particular function, and cannot be removed without rendering the unit functionless.

DAVID: Nuts! IC requires design!!!

dhw: But design does not require IC!!! You claim that your God designs everything. So does every individual development of every kind entail one complete unit with all its parts created simultaneously and integrated from the very beginning? See my next comment.

DAVID: Yes, if it is to function. [...]

dhw: So if you cut off my leg, it will still carry on walking, will it? (Or if you think the whole body is IC, will the loss of my leg stop me from breathing?) IC refers to a single unit which is complete in itself. See the discussion on the hypothalamus and the female pelvis on the “More miscellany” thread.

DAVID: The body is an integration of many IC parts.

dhw: How can each part be a single unit complete in itself if it cannot function without being integrated with other parts?

Consider your kidneys, Totally IC. Totally transplantable. Every organ is totally IC within itself and totally integrated with its body.


DAVID: God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

dhw: How can you call it evolution or even resembling evolution if you insist that all parts of all species are irreducibly complex (i.e. all parts were created simultaneously, as opposed to most being handed down from earlier species) and were designed without precursors?

DAVID: Welcome to evolution by God.

dhw: It’s called Creationism.

Is that a dirty word?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, November 22, 2023, 12:58 (127 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I’m Adler in our thinking. So I’m not just a nut in the wilderness.

I listed all the points in your theory which were not covered by Adler. All your answers confirm that you have diverged from Adler, thereby acknowledging that you are the only nut in the wilderness.

DAVID: Adler argued his point from the standpoint of accepting Darwin's evolutionary theory. That made humans entirely improbable and therefore God was needed. I am a step further.

dhw: [..] Adler accepted Darwin. Departure, then, from Adler.

DAVID: Adler used Darwin theory as it made Adler's point.

And you reject Darwin theory, which makes my point that you are not Adler in your thinking.

DAVID: With God as creator what looks like an evolutionary process is God inventing biologic complexity in stages, for HIS own reasons.

dhw: All you and not Adler. But thank you so much for confirming that evolution takes place in stages. Sounds just like Darwin.

DAVID: Nothing new.

But you and Adler do not share your thinking, and now you agree that evolution occurs in stages, as per Darwin, although elsewhere you said that “step-by-step Darwinism was rejected by both of us long ago”. (I never rejected step-by-step, and presumably Adler doesn’t either.)

DAVID: We are part of the surviving 0.1% and a tiny part of the 99.9% extinct. What is not us, past or present, is all the rest of life on Earth.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that we are a tiny part of the 99.9% extinct – namely, the 0.1%. You are quite right that what is not us is all the rest of life, and the 99.9% of extinct forms were also not us or our food, or the ancestors of us and our food. Which is why it is absolute nonsense for you to claim that your God designed all of them as preparation for us and our food. I’m pleased to hear that this is another of your theories Adler does not support.

DAVID: All the Earth is our playground, and anything can be our food. That is what evolution by God has given us.

That does not explain why your God had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, and clearly Adler does not offer you any support for your nutty theory.

dhw: I’m afraid all this leaves you, to use your own expression, as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

DAVID: Welcome to David's theology.

And goodbye to Mr Adler.

Irreducible complexity

dhw: 3) Design is not synonymous with irreducible complexity! The latter involves a single unit, all of whose parts come into existence simultaneously, are integrated with one another to perform a particular function, and cannot be removed without rendering the unit functionless.

DAVID: Nuts! IC requires design!!!

dhw: But design does not require IC!!! […] if you cut off my leg, it will still carry on walking, will it? (Or if you think the whole body is IC, will the loss of my leg stop me from breathing?) IC refers to a single unit which is complete in itself. See the discussion on the hypothalamus and the female pelvis on the “More miscellany” thread.

DAVID: The body is an integration of many IC parts.

dhw: How can each part be a single unit complete in itself if it cannot function without being integrated with other parts?

DAVID: Consider your kidneys, Totally IC. Totally transplantable. Every organ is totally IC within itself and totally integrated with its body.

If you stuck a pair of kidneys of a table, would they function? Of course they wouldn’t. IC denotes a single unit as defined above. If the spring broke on Behe’s mousetrap, it could be replaced, but that does not make the spring IC! It’s the mousetrap that’s IC. A pair of kidneys will be functionless on their own. (Continued under “More Miscellany, Part One").

DAVID: God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

dhw: How can you call it evolution or even resembling evolution if you insist that all parts of all species are irreducibly complex (i.e. all parts were created simultaneously, as opposed to most being handed down from earlier species) and were designed without precursors?

DAVID: Welcome to evolution by God.

dhw: It’s called Creationism.

DAVID: Is that a dirty word?

Of course not. But it's the opposite of evolution, so you should not keep using the term “evolution” in defence of your dislocated theories.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 22, 2023, 15:57 (127 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But you and Adler do not share your thinking, and now you agree that evolution occurs in stages, as per Darwin, although elsewhere you said that “step-by-step Darwinism was rejected by both of us long ago”. (I never rejected step-by-step, and presumably Adler doesn’t either.)

Yes, you and Adler followed strict Darwinism.


DAVID: All the Earth is our playground, and anything can be our food. That is what evolution by God has given us.

dhw: That does not explain why your God had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us, and clearly Adler does not offer you any support for your nutty theory.

dhw: I’m afraid all this leaves you, to use your own expression, as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

DAVID: Welcome to David's theology.

dhw: And goodbye to Mr Adler.

No way. Adler used our arrival to prove God. I'm with Adler.


Irreducible complexity

dhw: 3) Design is not synonymous with irreducible complexity! The latter involves a single unit, all of whose parts come into existence simultaneously, are integrated with one another to perform a particular function, and cannot be removed without rendering the unit functionless.

DAVID: Nuts! IC requires design!!!

dhw: But design does not require IC!!! […] if you cut off my leg, it will still carry on walking, will it? (Or if you think the whole body is IC, will the loss of my leg stop me from breathing?) IC refers to a single unit which is complete in itself. See the discussion on the hypothalamus and the female pelvis on the “More miscellany” thread.

DAVID: The body is an integration of many IC parts.

dhw: How can each part be a single unit complete in itself if it cannot function without being integrated with other parts?

DAVID: Consider your kidneys, Totally IC. Totally transplantable. Every organ is totally IC within itself and totally integrated with its body.

dhw: If you stuck a pair of kidneys of a table, would they function? Of course they wouldn’t. IC denotes a single unit as defined above. If the spring broke on Behe’s mousetrap, it could be replaced, but that does not make the spring IC! It’s the mousetrap that’s IC. A pair of kidneys will be functionless on their own. (Continued under “More Miscellany, Part One").

Why did you ignore kidneys are transplantable and IC as such? Unless the kidney had its highly designed very complex glomeruli, its ascending and descending loops, its specialized blood supply it could not properly function in a body. Like a mousetrap, no kidney can function without all its own parts. Your kidney is not like a spark plug added to a car, which is equivalent to your kidney example.


DAVID: God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

dhw: How can you call it evolution or even resembling evolution if you insist that all parts of all species are irreducibly complex (i.e. all parts were created simultaneously, as opposed to most being handed down from earlier species) and were designed without precursors?

DAVID: Welcome to evolution by God.

dhw: It’s called Creationism.

DAVID: Is that a dirty word?

dhw; Of course not. But it's the opposite of evolution, so you should not keep using the term “evolution” in defence of your dislocated theories.

God created the process we call evolution. I can use the term.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, November 23, 2023, 12:44 (126 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I’m Adler in our thinking. So I’m not just a nut in the wilderness.

Adler follows Darwin, but you don’t. Adler accepts evolution by steps or stages, but you don’t, except when you do. (“What looks like an evolutionary step is God inventing biologic complexity in stages.”) Adler offers no support for your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.
dhw: I’m afraid all this leaves you, to use your own expression, as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

DAVID: Welcome to David's theology.

dhw: And goodbye to Mr Adler.

DAVID: No way. Adler used our arrival to prove God. I'm with Adler.

And that is the only theory you share with him, so stop pretending that the rest of your wacky theories are “with Adler”.

Irreducible complexity

DAVID: Nuts! IC requires design!!!

dhw: But design does not require IC!!! […] if you cut off my leg, it will still carry on walking, will it? (Or if you think the whole body is IC, will the loss of my leg stop me from breathing?) IC refers to a single unit which is complete in itself. […]

DAVID: The body is an integration of many IC parts.

dhw: How can each part be a single unit complete in itself if it cannot function without being integrated with other parts?

DAVID: Consider your kidneys, Totally IC. Totally transplantable. Every organ is totally IC within itself and totally integrated with its body.

dhw: If you stuck a pair of kidneys on a table, would they function? Of course they wouldn’t. IC denotes a single unit as defined above. If the spring broke on Behe’s mousetrap, it could be replaced, but that does not make the spring IC! It’s the mousetrap that’s IC. A pair of kidneys will be functionless on their own.

DAVID: Why did you ignore kidneys are transplantable and IC as such?

Springs are also “transplantable”, as above, but it is the mousetrap that is IC.

DAVID: Unless the kidney had its highly designed very complex glomeruli, its ascending and descending loops, its specialized blood supply it could not properly function in a body.

Agreed. But if it doesn’t have a body to function in, then it cannot function. It is not a single unit complete in itself, but can only function in cooperation with other parts of the body. (See “More Miscellany” for the rest of the discussion.)

DAVID: God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

dhw: How can you call it evolution or even resembling evolution if you insist that all parts of all species are irreducibly complex (i.e. all parts were created simultaneously, as opposed to most being handed down from earlier species) and were designed without precursors?

DAVID: Welcome to evolution by God.

dhw: It’s called Creationism.

DAVID: Is that a dirty word?

dhw: Of course not. But it's the opposite of evolution, so you should not keep using the term “evolution” in defence of your dislocated theories.

DAVID: God created the process we call evolution. I can use the term.

Evolution is the theory that all living organisms except the first are descended from earlier ancestral forms. If you believe that your God created every species individually without precursors, you cannot call the process evolution. But perhaps you should give us your own definition of the word, as we know from other examples that your use of language can be weird to the nth degree (e.g. “all-powerful” means “with limited powers”).:-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 23, 2023, 20:00 (126 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I’m Adler in our thinking. So I’m not just a nut in the wilderness.

dhw: Adler follows Darwin, but you don’t. Adler accepts evolution by steps or stages, but you don’t, except when you do. (“What looks like an evolutionary step is God inventing biologic complexity in stages.”) Adler offers no support for your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.
dhw: I’m afraid all this leaves you, to use your own expression, as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

DAVID: Welcome to David's theology.

dhw: And goodbye to Mr Adler.

DAVID: No way. Adler used our arrival to prove God. I'm with Adler.

dhw: And that is the only theory you share with him, so stop pretending that the rest of your wacky theories are “with Adler”.

I don't, that is your interpretation. Adler says we are God's purpose, exactly my theology.


Irreducible complexity

DAVID: Nuts! IC requires design!!!

dhw: But design does not require IC!!! […] if you cut off my leg, it will still carry on walking, will it? (Or if you think the whole body is IC, will the loss of my leg stop me from breathing?) IC refers to a single unit which is complete in itself. […]

DAVID: The body is an integration of many IC parts.

dhw: How can each part be a single unit complete in itself if it cannot function without being integrated with other parts?

DAVID: Consider your kidneys, Totally IC. Totally transplantable. Every organ is totally IC within itself and totally integrated with its body.

dhw: If you stuck a pair of kidneys on a table, would they function? Of course they wouldn’t. IC denotes a single unit as defined above. If the spring broke on Behe’s mousetrap, it could be replaced, but that does not make the spring IC! It’s the mousetrap that’s IC. A pair of kidneys will be functionless on their own.

DAVID: Why did you ignore kidneys are transplantable and IC as such?

dhw: Springs are also “transplantable”, as above, but it is the mousetrap that is IC.

Agreed. Kidneys are highly complex compared to simple springs. You must separate simple from complex to understand IC. Mouse trap is simplest form of IC. All human organs are highly complex in design and each of them is IC and many are transplantable. Changing a spark plug is not IC.


DAVID: Unless the kidney had its highly designed very complex glomeruli, its ascending and descending loops, its specialized blood supply it could not properly function in a body.

dhw: Agreed. But if it doesn’t have a body to function in, then it cannot function. It is not a single unit complete in itself, but can only function in cooperation with other parts of the body. (See “More Miscellany” for the rest of the discussion.)

See above discussion of IC. Yes, added to a body the kidney performs many sophisticated IC functions: electrolyte balance, body fluid balance, protein waste disposal, hormone production, are the major ones, each one exquisitely designed.


DAVID: God create evolution by His designs. It is a total process by design. God's process resembles an evolutionary development.

dhw: How can you call it evolution or even resembling evolution if you insist that all parts of all species are irreducibly complex (i.e. all parts were created simultaneously, as opposed to most being handed down from earlier species) and were designed without precursors?

DAVID: Welcome to evolution by God.

dhw: It’s called Creationism.

DAVID: Is that a dirty word?

dhw: Of course not. But it's the opposite of evolution, so you should not keep using the term “evolution” in defence of your dislocated theories.

DAVID: God created the process we call evolution. I can use the term.

dhw: Evolution is the theory that all living organisms except the first are descended from earlier ancestral forms. If you believe that your God created every species individually without precursors, you cannot call the process evolution. But perhaps you should give us your own definition of the word, as we know from other examples that your use of language can be weird to the nth degree (e.g. “all-powerful” means “with limited powers”).:-)

God's process imitates evolution. I've stated this idea many times.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, November 24, 2023, 09:14 (126 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I’m Adler in our thinking. So I’m not just a nut in the wilderness.

dhw: Adler follows Darwin, but you don’t. Adler accepts evolution by steps or stages, but you don’t, except when you do. (“What looks like an evolutionary step is God inventing biologic complexity in stages.”) Adler offers no support for your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.
dhw: I’m afraid all this leaves you, to use your own expression, as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

DAVID: Welcome to David's theology.

dhw: And goodbye to Mr Adler.

DAVID: No way. Adler used our arrival to prove God. I'm with Adler.

dhw: And that is the only theory you share with him, so stop pretending that the rest of your wacky theories are “with Adler”.

DAVID: I don't, that is your interpretation. Adler says we are God's purpose, exactly my theology.

When you wrote “I’m Adler in our thinking”, I assumed you meant that you and Adler had the same ideas which we have been discussing ad nauseam on this thread. Until now, you have told us that Adler uses the uniqueness of us humans as proof that God exists. Fair enough. However, if he also argues that evolution means God designs each individual species “de novo”, and that we are God’s one and only purpose and therefore God individually designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species for reasons which he (Adler) cannot understand, then I owe you an apology. You and Adler will then be two nuts in the wilderness. Please confirm.

Irreducible complexity

I am shifting this topic to “More Miscellany Part One” to avoid all the repetition.

Defining evolution

DAVID: God created the process we call evolution. I can use the term.

dhw: Evolution is the theory that all living organisms except the first are descended from earlier ancestral forms. If you believe that your God created every species individually without precursors, you cannot call the process evolution. But perhaps you should give us your own definition of the word, as we know from other examples that your use of language can be weird to the nth degree (e.g. “all-powerful” means “with limited powers”).

DAVID: God's process imitates evolution. I've stated this idea many times.

God created the process we call evolution, but he only imitated it, and somehow this is supposed to explain how individual creation of every species, without precursors, can be called evolution, which is defined as the descent of all species from earlier precursors – the exact opposite of the process you believe your God used. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice might say.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, November 24, 2023, 20:19 (125 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No way. Adler used our arrival to prove God. I'm with Adler.

dhw: And that is the only theory you share with him, so stop pretending that the rest of your wacky theories are “with Adler”.

DAVID: I don't, that is your interpretation. Adler says we are God's purpose, exactly my theology.

dhw: When you wrote “I’m Adler in our thinking”, I assumed you meant that you and Adler had the same ideas which we have been discussing ad nauseam on this thread. Until now, you have told us that Adler uses the uniqueness of us humans as proof that God exists. Fair enough. However, if he also argues that evolution means God designs each individual species “de novo”, and that we are God’s one and only purpose and therefore God individually designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species for reasons which he (Adler) cannot understand, then I owe you an apology. You and Adler will then be two nuts in the wilderness. Please confirm.

No confirmation from the past several days ago:

"DAVID: Adler argued his point from the standpoint of accepting Darwin's evolutionary theory. That made humans entirely improbable and therefore God was needed. I am a step further.

"dhw: [..] Adler accepted Darwin. Departure, then, from Adler.

"DAVID: Adler used Darwin theory as it made Adler's point.

"dhw: And you reject Darwin theory, which makes my point that you are not Adler in your thinking."

I am an autodidact taking ideas from various sources as I accept them. Adler accepted Darwin's form of evolution. It made his point that humans were an unnatural result of the process, therefore God did it. I see the need for a designer from ID material. So, I just logically melded the two. God ran evolution and humans were His final process.


Irreducible complexity

I am shifting this topic to “More Miscellany Part One” to avoid all the repetition.

Defining evolution

DAVID: God created the process we call evolution. I can use the term.

dhw: Evolution is the theory that all living organisms except the first are descended from earlier ancestral forms. If you believe that your God created every species individually without precursors, you cannot call the process evolution. But perhaps you should give us your own definition of the word, as we know from other examples that your use of language can be weird to the nth degree (e.g. “all-powerful” means “with limited powers”).

DAVID: God's process imitates evolution. I've stated this idea many times.

dhw: God created the process we call evolution, but he only imitated it, and somehow this is supposed to explain how individual creation of every species, without precursors, can be called evolution, which is defined as the descent of all species from earlier precursors – the exact opposite of the process you believe your God used. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice might say.

Well, God created our reality. He is the reasonable source of everything. God used precursors when He wished and direct creation when He felt necessary. The history of evolution is filled with anthropologies' secret gaps, per Gould, "“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, November 25, 2023, 13:22 (124 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Adler used our arrival to prove God. I'm with Adler.

dhw: And that is the only theory you share with him, so stop pretending that the rest of your wacky theories are “with Adler”.

DAVID: I don't, that is your interpretation. Adler says we are God's purpose, exactly my theology.

dhw: When you wrote “I’m Adler in our thinking.”, I assumed you meant that you and Adler had the same ideas which we have been discussing ad nauseam on this thread.

I’m referring to your theory that your God’s only purpose was to design us plus food, and therefore he individually designed and had to cull 99 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. You also reject Darwin’s theory, whereas Adler accepts it.

DAVID: Adler used Darwin theory as it made Adler's point.

dhw: And you reject Darwin theory, which makes my point that you are not Adler in your thinking.

DAVID: I am an autodidact taking ideas from various sources as I accept them. Adler accepted Darwin's form of evolution.

And you don’t.

DAVID: It made his point that humans were an unnatural result of the process, therefore God did it.

Adler used the uniqueness of humans as proof of God’s existence, and that is the ONLY example of “I’m Adler in our thinking”.

DAVID: I see the need for a designer from ID material. So, I just logically melded the two. God ran evolution and humans were His final process.

You have, as usual, left out that part of your theory which Adler does not share and which renders your “melded” theories illogical and incomprehensible even to you: namely, since you keep forgetting it, that your God's only purpose was to design us plus food, and so he individually designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with what you think was his one and only purpose. Will you never stop dodging? 1) You are not Adler in your thinking, and 2) your theory of evolution is an illogical mess (even you call your invented process “messy” as well as “inefficient”), and 3) I’m sorry to have to say it, but – to use your own expression - this leaves you as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

Irreducible complexity

I am shifting this topic to “More Miscellany Part One” to avoid all the repetition.

Defining evolution

DAVID: God's process imitates evolution. I've stated this idea many times.

dhw: God created the process we call evolution, but he only imitated it, and somehow this is supposed to explain how individual creation of every species, without precursors, can be called evolution, which is defined as the descent of all species from earlier precursors – the exact opposite of the process you believe your God used. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice might say.

DAVID: Well, God created our reality. He is the reasonable source of everything. God used precursors when He wished and direct creation when He felt necessary. The history of evolution is filled with anthropologies' secret gaps, per Gould, "“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”

More dodging. The dispute between us is not over the existence of gaps, but the fact that you keep referring to evolution but now say that God created evolution as an imitation of evolution! Since he’s supposed to be first cause of everything, what does that mean? He invented evolution, but his evolution was an imitation of his evolution? Or God imitated Darwin? You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc, , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, November 25, 2023, 18:53 (124 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Adler used our arrival to prove God. I'm with Adler.

DAVID: Adler used Darwin theory as it made Adler's point.

dhw: And you reject Darwin theory, which makes my point that you are not Adler in your thinking.

DAVID: I am an autodidact taking ideas from various sources as I accept them. Adler accepted Darwin's form of evolution.

dhw: And you don’t.

Your point?

DAVID: I see the need for a designer from ID material. So, I just logically melded the two. God ran evolution and humans were His final process.

dhw: You have, as usual, left out that part of your theory which Adler does not share and which renders your “melded” theories illogical and incomprehensible even to you: namely, since you keep forgetting it, that your God's only purpose was to design us plus food, and so he individually designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with what you think was his one and only purpose. Will you never stop dodging? 1) You are not Adler in your thinking, and 2) your theory of evolution is an illogical mess (even you call your invented process “messy” as well as “inefficient”), and 3) I’m sorry to have to say it, but – to use your own expression - this leaves you as the only “nut in the wilderness”.

You are daft. I forget nothing. I assume after all these years you know my theories about religion and God, the designer.


Irreducible complexity

I am shifting this topic to “More Miscellany Part One” to avoid all the repetition.

Defining evolution

DAVID: God's process imitates evolution. I've stated this idea many times.

dhw: God created the process we call evolution, but he only imitated it, and somehow this is supposed to explain how individual creation of every species, without precursors, can be called evolution, which is defined as the descent of all species from earlier precursors – the exact opposite of the process you believe your God used. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice might say.

DAVID: Well, God created our reality. He is the reasonable source of everything. God used precursors when He wished and direct creation when He felt necessary. The history of evolution is filled with anthropologies' secret gaps, per Gould, "“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”

dhw: More dodging. The dispute between us is not over the existence of gaps, but the fact that you keep referring to evolution but now say that God created evolution as an imitation of evolution! Since he’s supposed to be first cause of everything, what does that mean? He invented evolution, but his evolution was an imitation of his evolution? Or God imitated Darwin? You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc, , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution.

I agree with your view of my thinking. My creator God designed an evolutionary process to produce us. A meld of Adler and IC theory.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, November 26, 2023, 08:45 (124 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Adler used Darwin theory as it made Adler's point.

dhw: And you reject Darwin theory, which makes my point that you are not Adler in your thinking.

DAVID: I am an autodidact taking ideas from various sources as I accept them. Adler accepted Darwin's form of evolution.

dhw: And you don’t.

DAVID: Your point?

You wrote “I’m Adler in our thinking. So I’m not just a nut in the wilderness.” The only theory of yours that Adler supports is that the uniqueness of humans is evidence for God’s existence. Everything else you have proposed on this thread is unsupported by Adler, including your rejection of Darwin’s theory. You are, to use your own words, the only “nut in the wilderness”.

DAVID: I see the need for a designer from ID material. So, I just logically melded the two. God ran evolution and humans were His final process.

dhw: You have, as usual, left out that part of your theory which Adler does not share and which renders your “melded” theories illogical and incomprehensible even to you: namely, since you keep forgetting it, that your God's only purpose was to design us plus food, and so he individually designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with what you think was his one and only purpose.

DAVID: You are daft. I forget nothing. I assume after all these years you know my theories about religion and God, the designer.

In all your replies, you leave out the crucial part of your theory which renders it so absurd. The need for a designer, God ran evolution, and humans were his “final process” are all feasible theistic statements. You deliberately omit the theory bolded above, which is the totally illogical subject of this whole discussion.

Defining evolution

DAVID: The history of evolution is filled with anthropologies' secret gaps, per Gould, "“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”

dhw: More dodging. The dispute between us is not over the existence of gaps, but the fact that you keep referring to evolution but now say that God created evolution as an imitation of evolution! Since he’s supposed to be first cause of everything, what does that mean? He invented evolution, but his evolution was an imitation of his evolution? Or God imitated Darwin? You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution.

DAVID: I agree with your view of my thinking. My creator God designed an evolutionary process to produce us. A meld of Adler and IC theory.

You say Adler accepted Darwin’s theory, which is that all species are descended from earlier ancestors. You say the history of life is filled with gaps, and every gap denotes de novo design, which is the direct opposite of evolution. IC theory is that certain things are so irreducibly complex that they must have been designed. That does not mean all species were separately designed by God, as opposed to their having descended from earlier ancestors. You agree that you are a Creationist, and not an evolutionist. So be it. You can of course believe whatever you want, but please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

Theodicy

DAVID: My God is all-powerful within some limits.

dhw: Same daft definition as before: sorry, but you can’t be all-powerful if your powers are limited.

DAVID: I don't believe God can invent a workable system of life other than this one. He fine-tuned the universe with rigid limits. The living biochemistry of life is fluid not rigid and cannot proceed in function with rigidity.

dhw: I’m perfectly happy to accept that the existence of life proves that this system has produced life. And I am even perfectly happy to accept that this system of life has produced so-called “natural” evils (diseases, disasters etc.) and human-made evils (wars, murder, rape etc.). And I can accept that God would create what he wishes to create (I believe you proposed that he could actually have invented evil deliberately in order to set humans the task of correcting it). But theodicy asks how a first-cause, all-knowing God, who created everything out of himself, could conceive of, let alone deliberately produce evil, and yet be all-good. Then you have added your theory that his powers are limited (you have told us he couldn’t prevent the evil, though he did sometimes try), but you insist that all-powerful means with limited powers. [Addition: And most of the time, all you want us to focus on is the good and we should ignore the bad.] In brief, your solution to the problem of theodicy is to avoid it.

DAVID: I've never found an essay on theodicy that is any different in approach.

Then why don’t you try thinking for yourself? Alternatively, accept the fact that there is no basis for such assumptions as God being all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing etc.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, November 26, 2023, 16:00 (123 days ago) @ dhw

I've never denied my theology is mine.


DAVID: I see the need for a designer from ID material. So, I just logically melded the two. God ran evolution and humans were His final process.

dhw: You have, as usual, left out that part of your theory which Adler does not share and which renders your “melded” theories illogical and incomprehensible even to you: namely, since you keep forgetting it, that your God's only purpose was to design us plus food, and so he individually designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with what you think was his one and only purpose.

DAVID: You are daft. I forget nothing. I assume after all these years you know my theories about religion and God, the designer.

dhw: In all your replies, you leave out the crucial part of your theory which renders it so absurd. The need for a designer, God ran evolution, and humans were his “final process” are all feasible theistic statements. You deliberately omit the theory bolded above, which is the totally illogical subject of this whole discussion.

Simple logic you refuse to entertain: God as creator established our entire reality, evolution is part of our reality. God created it as you agree. But as soon as I say humans are His purpose, per Adler, your thinking gets all twisted in knots. He didn't cull out what is on Earth now. Culling is a definite part of evolutionary processes. Stop being confused by the past.

Defining evolution

DAVID: The history of evolution is filled with anthropologies' secret gaps, per Gould, "“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.”

dhw: More dodging. The dispute between us is not over the existence of gaps, but the fact that you keep referring to evolution but now say that God created evolution as an imitation of evolution! Since he’s supposed to be first cause of everything, what does that mean? He invented evolution, but his evolution was an imitation of his evolution? Or God imitated Darwin? You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution.

DAVID: I agree with your view of my thinking. My creator God designed an evolutionary process to produce us. A meld of Adler and IC theory.

dhw: You say Adler accepted Darwin’s theory, which is that all species are descended from earlier ancestors. You say the history of life is filled with gaps, and every gap denotes de novo design, which is the direct opposite of evolution. IC theory is that certain things are so irreducibly complex that they must have been designed. That does not mean all species were separately designed by God, as opposed to their having descended from earlier ancestors. You agree that you are a Creationist, and not an evolutionist. So be it. You can of course believe whatever you want, but please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

Not synonymous but mimicking is the word I use.


Theodicy

DAVID: My God is all-powerful within some limits.

dhw: Same daft definition as before: sorry, but you can’t be all-powerful if your powers are limited.

DAVID: I don't believe God can invent a workable system of life other than this one. He fine-tuned the universe with rigid limits. The living biochemistry of life is fluid not rigid and cannot proceed in function with rigidity.

dhw: I’m perfectly happy to accept that the existence of life proves that this system has produced life. And I am even perfectly happy to accept that this system of life has produced so-called “natural” evils (diseases, disasters etc.) and human-made evils (wars, murder, rape etc.). And I can accept that God would create what he wishes to create (I believe you proposed that he could actually have invented evil deliberately in order to set humans the task of correcting it). But theodicy asks how a first-cause, all-knowing God, who created everything out of himself, could conceive of, let alone deliberately produce evil, and yet be all-good. Then you have added your theory that his powers are limited (you have told us he couldn’t prevent the evil, though he did sometimes try), but you insist that all-powerful means with limited powers. [Addition: And most of the time, all you want us to focus on is the good and we should ignore the bad.] In brief, your solution to the problem of theodicy is to avoid it.

DAVID: I've never found an essay on theodicy that is any different in approach.

dhw; Then why don’t you try thinking for yourself? Alternatively, accept the fact that there is no basis for such assumptions as God being all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing etc.

You have your milk-toast God. I prefer mine all-everything.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, November 27, 2023, 12:20 (122 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've never denied my theology is mine.

But you constantly refer back to Adler, as if he supported the wacky theories you keep defending. And you keep omitting the wackiest of them all: that your God's only purpose was to design us plus food, and so he individually designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with what you think was his one and only purpose. And you keep hiding behind generalisations which are clearly logical in order to dodge the illogicality of the above. You use the same dodge in your next comment:

DAVID: Simple logic you refuse to entertain: God as creator established our entire reality...

Obviously logical, assuming God exists.

DAVID: ...evolution is part of our reality.

Creationists might disagree, but I am 100% with you.

DAVID: God created it as you agree.

Not quite. There is always the caveat: if God exists. But if he does, of course I agree with your logic. No problem so far.

DAVID: But as soon as I say humans are His purpose, per Adler, your thinking gets all twisted in knots.

One of my theistic theories (experimentation in order to find the right formula) allows for this possibility. However, it’s important to note that in your theory, humans (plus food) are your God’s one and only purpose, and this is the start of the absurdity you are so desperate to conceal.

DAVID: He didn't cull out what is on Earth now.

Of course he didn’t. We (plus food) are the descendants of the 0.1% of species he did not cull!

DAVID: Culling is a definite part of evolutionary processes. Stop being confused by the past.

This is the final, colossal dodge. How many evolutionary processes for creating and developing life do you know of? The fact that 99.9% of species came to a dead end does not mean that nonsensically your all-powerful God either wanted or had to design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only purpose you allow him to have.

Defining evolution

dhw: More dodging. The dispute between us is not over the existence of gaps, but the fact that you keep referring to evolution but now say that God created evolution as an imitation of evolution! Since he’s supposed to be first cause of everything, what does that mean? He invented evolution, but his evolution was an imitation of his evolution? Or God imitated Darwin? You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution[…] You agree that you are a Creationist, and not an evolutionist. So be it. You can of course believe whatever you want, but please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

DAVID: Not synonymous but mimicking is the word I use.

How can separate creation of species mimic the development of species from earlier ancestors?

Theodicy

DAVID: My God is all-powerful within some limits.

dhw: Same daft definition as before: sorry, but you can’t be all-powerful if your powers are limited.

No need for me to go through all your dodges.

dhw: In brief, your solution to the problem of theodicy is to avoid it.

DAVID: I've never found an essay on theodicy that is any different in approach.

dhw: Then why don’t you try thinking for yourself? Alternatively, accept the fact that there is no basis for such assumptions as God being all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing etc.

DAVID: You have your milk-toast God. I prefer mine all-everything.

My point is not that there is a “milk-toast” God, but that if you can’t find any answer to the problem posed by theodicy, you should stop making assumptions which lead to such absurdities as the definition of all-powerful as power with limitations.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, November 27, 2023, 19:19 (122 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I've never denied my theology is mine.

dhw: But you constantly refer back to Adler, as if he supported the wacky theories you keep defending.

I have never said Adler did anything more than use Darwinian evolution to say humans were such an unusual result, God had to do it. Thus, God is proven.

DAVID: Simple logic you refuse to entertain: God as creator established our entire reality...

dhw: logical, assuming God exists.

DAVID: ...evolution is part of our reality.

dhw: Creationists might disagree, but I am 100% with you.

DAVID: God created it as you agree.

dhw: Not quite. There is always the caveat: if God exists. But if he does, of course I agree with your logic. No problem so far.

DAVID: But as soon as I say humans are His purpose, per Adler, your thinking gets all twisted in knots.

dhw: One of my theistic theories (experimentation in order to find the right formula) allows for this possibility. However, it’s important to note that in your theory, humans (plus food) are your God’s one and only purpose, and this is the start of the absurdity you are so desperate to conceal.

What is now present is humans' control all of the Earth and its contents, a very major part is food,


DAVID: He didn't cull out what is on Earth now.

dhw: Of course he didn’t. We (plus food) are the descendants of the 0.1% of species he did not cull!

DAVID: Culling is a definite part of evolutionary processes. Stop being confused by the past.

dhw: This is the final, colossal dodge. How many evolutionary processes for creating and developing life do you know of? The fact that 99.9% of species came to a dead end does not mean that nonsensically your all-powerful God either wanted or had to design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only purpose you allow him to have.

This is how you fall apart. Accepting God in control, evolution was His choice of creation. Humans are the pinnacle and endpoint. It is Adler's belief and mine. My whole thesis is based upon authorities I've read as I wish to meld them together.


Defining evolution

dhw: More dodging. The dispute between us is not over the existence of gaps, but the fact that you keep referring to evolution but now say that God created evolution as an imitation of evolution! Since he’s supposed to be first cause of everything, what does that mean? He invented evolution, but his evolution was an imitation of his evolution? Or God imitated Darwin? You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution[…] You agree that you are a Creationist, and not an evolutionist. So be it. You can of course believe whatever you want, but please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

DAVID: Not synonymous but mimicking is the word I use.

dhw: How can separate creation of species mimic the development of species from earlier ancestors?

Because we can trace the similarities as how the whale series was established.


Theodicy

DAVID: You have your milk-toast God. I prefer mine all-everything.

dhw: My point is not that there is a “milk-toast” God, but that if you can’t find any answer to the problem posed by theodicy, you should stop making assumptions which lead to such absurdities as the definition of all-powerful as power with limitations.

I've just presented a philosopher who accepted that role as reasonable for God. He thinks it is logical and so do I.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, November 28, 2023, 08:52 (122 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I've never denied my theology is mine.

dhw: But you constantly refer back to Adler, as if he supported the wacky theories you keep defending.

DAVID: I have never said Adler did anything more than use Darwinian evolution to say humans were such an unusual result, God had to do it. Thus, God is proven.

This is good news, because when you wrote “I’m Adler in our thinking. So I’m not just a nut in the wilderness”, I thought you were referring to your wacky theories of evolution. Now it’s clear that the only thinking you share with Adler is that the unusualness of humans is evidence for God’s existence – which of course also applies to the complexities of living things in general. I totally accept the logic of this theory, so now we can forget all about Adler and focus on the wacky theories which Adler does not support.

DAVID: What is now present is humans' control all of the Earth and its contents, a very major part is food.

Correct. This does not explain why your all-powerful God, whose one and only purpose was to design us and our food, wanted to or had to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: He didn't cull out what is on Earth now.

dhw: Of course he didn’t. We (plus food) are the descendants of the 0.1% of species he did not cull!

DAVID: Culling is a definite part of evolutionary processes. Stop being confused by the past.

dhw: This is the final, colossal dodge. How many evolutionary processes for creating and developing life do you know of? The fact that 99.9% of species came to a dead end does not mean that nonsensically your all-powerful God etc. etc., as bolded above..

DAVID: This is how you fall apart. Accepting God in control, evolution was His choice of creation.

If God exists, I agree completely, although you don’t, because according to you he only “imitated” evolution by using the Creationist method of “de novo” design, which is the opposite of evolution.

DAVID: Humans are the pinnacle and endpoint.

So far, we are clearly the dominant species, and I’m certainly not going to deny that we have special qualities. I have no idea what the next thousand million years might produce. Relevance to the wacky theory bolded above?

DAVID: It is Adler's belief and mine. My whole thesis is based upon authorities I've read as I wish to meld them together.

But as usual, you forget to mention the fact that you “meld” two theories together in such a way that they make no sense even to you: God’s one and only purpose was us plus food, and so he wanted to or had to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us or our food. Will you never stop dodging?

Defining evolution

dhw: […] You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution[…] You agree that you are a Creationist, and not an evolutionist. So be it. You can of course believe whatever you want, but please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

DAVID: Not synonymous but mimicking is the word I use.

dhw: How can separate creation of species mimic the development of species from earlier ancestors?

DAVID: Because we can trace the similarities as how the whale series was established.

The whole theory of evolution is based on similarities and “series”, which we also call steps or stages. So clearly your whale series did not entail “de novo” creation, but vividly illustrates the process whereby species develop from earlier ancestors. Thank you for this example.

Theodicy

DAVID: You have your milk-toast God. I prefer mine all-everything.

dhw: My point is not that there is a “milk-toast” God, but that if you can’t find any answer to the problem posed by theodicy, you should stop making assumptions which lead to such absurdities as the definition of all-powerful as power with limitations.

DAVID: I've just presented a philosopher who accepted that role as reasonable for God. He thinks it is logical and so do I.

Sorry, I must have missed something. How did the philosopher explain that all-powerful means with limited powers, or that a first-cause God can deliberately and knowingly create evil out of himself and yet be called all-good?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 28, 2023, 18:27 (121 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have never said Adler did anything more than use Darwinian evolution to say humans were such an unusual result, God had to do it. Thus, God is proven.

This is good news, because when you wrote “I’m Adler in our thinking. So I’m not just a nut in the wilderness”, ... I totally accept the logic of this theory, so now we can forget all about Adler and focus on the wacky theories which Adler does not support.

I meld together many authorities' opinions to create my theology.


DAVID: Culling is a definite part of evolutionary processes. Stop being confused by the past.

dhw: This is the final, colossal dodge. How many evolutionary processes for creating and developing life do you know of? The fact that 99.9% of species came to a dead end does not mean that nonsensically your all-powerful God etc. etc., as bolded above..

DAVID: This is how you fall apart. Accepting God in control, evolution was His choice of creation.

dhw: If God exists, I agree completely, although you don’t, because according to you he only “imitated” evolution by using the Creationist method of “de novo” design, which is the opposite of evolution.

What God did was create a designed evolutionary system in which complexity of life appeared with each new stage with major gaps. Never Darwinian itty-bitty.


DAVID: Humans are the pinnacle and endpoint.

dhw: So far, we are clearly the dominant species, and I’m certainly not going to deny that we have special qualities. I have no idea what the next thousand million years might produce. Relevance to the wacky theory bolded above?

In my opinion evolution has ended, except for extinctions and minor adaptations.


DAVID: It is Adler's belief and mine. My whole thesis is based upon authorities I've read as I wish to meld them together.

dhw: But as usual, you forget to mention the fact that you “meld” two theories together in such a way that they make no sense even to you: God’s one and only purpose was us plus food, and so he wanted to or had to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us or our food. Will you never stop dodging?

Again the same irrational psychoanalysis of my brain. What I propose is entirely rational to me.


Defining evolution

dhw: […] You constantly emphasize the gaps, you categorically state that every gap means separate creation “de novo”, unlike Adler you reject Darwin’s theory, you have your God individually designing not only every species but also every lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder etc. , and you had no problem when I pointed out that your beliefs amounted to Creationism, which is the opposite of evolution[…] You agree that you are a Creationist, and not an evolutionist. So be it. You can of course believe whatever you want, but please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

DAVID: Not synonymous but mimicking is the word I use.

dhw: How can separate creation of species mimic the development of species from earlier ancestors?

DAVID: Because we can trace the similarities as how the whale series was established.

dhw: The whole theory of evolution is based on similarities and “series”, which we also call steps or stages. So clearly your whale series did not entail “de novo” creation, but vividly illustrates the process whereby species develop from earlier ancestors. Thank you for this example.

There are many other fossil series God created.


Theodicy

DAVID: You have your milk-toast God. I prefer mine all-everything.

dhw: My point is not that there is a “milk-toast” God, but that if you can’t find any answer to the problem posed by theodicy, you should stop making assumptions which lead to such absurdities as the definition of all-powerful as power with limitations.

DAVID: I've just presented a philosopher who accepted that role as reasonable for God. He thinks it is logical and so do I.

dhw: Sorry, I must have missed something. How did the philosopher explain that all-powerful means with limited powers, or that a first-cause God can deliberately and knowingly create evil out of himself and yet be called all-good?

Two weeks ago: Goff's opinions: November 16, 2023, 19:43. It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, November 29, 2023, 08:07 (121 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have never said Adler did anything more than use Darwinian evolution to say humans were such an unusual result, God had to do it. Thus, God is proven.

dhw: This is good news, because when you wrote “I’m Adler in our thinking. So I’m not just a nut in the wilderness”, I thought you were referring to your wacky theories of evolution.... I totally accept the logic of this theory, so now we can forget all about Adler and focus on the wacky theories which Adler does not support.

DAVID: I meld together many authorities' opinions to create my theology.

And the result is a composite theory that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. You cannot think of any reason why he would act in what you call this messy, cumbersome, inefficient way, and so when challenged, you simply try to change the subject, as follows:

DAVID: Accepting God in control, evolution was His choice of creation.

dhw: If God exists, I agree completely, although you don’t, because according to you he only “imitated” evolution by using the Creationist method of “de novo” design, which is the opposite of evolution.

DAVID: What God did was create a designed evolutionary system in which complexity of life appeared with each new stage with major gaps. Never Darwinian itty-bitty.

Thank you for acknowledging that evolution proceeds in stages. Have you now withdrawn your Creationist argument that gaps mean de novo speciation? And what has this got to do with the bolded theory above?

DAVID: Humans are the pinnacle and endpoint.

dhw: So far, we are clearly the dominant species, and I’m certainly not going to deny that we have special qualities. I have no idea what the next thousand million years might produce. Relevance to the wacky theory bolded above?

DAVID: In my opinion evolution has ended, except for extinctions and minor adaptations.

You are welcome to your opinion. Relevance to the bolded theory?

DAVID: It is Adler's belief and mine. My whole thesis is based upon authorities I've read as I wish to meld them together.

dhw: But as usual, you forget to mention the fact that you “meld” two theories together in such a way that they make no sense even to you,. (See the bolded theory above.)

DAVID: Again the same irrational psychoanalysis of my brain. What I propose is entirely rational to me.

You have repeatedly admitted that you can’t explain the bolded theory above. If you can’t explain it, how can it be “rational” to you? Please stop dodging!

Defining evolution

dhw: […] [..] please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

DAVID: Not synonymous but mimicking is the word I use.

dhw: How can separate creation of species mimic the development of species from earlier ancestors?

DAVID: Because we can trace the similarities as how the whale series was established.

dhw: The whole theory of evolution is based on similarities and “series”, which we also call steps or stages. So clearly your whale series did not entail “de novo” creation, but vividly illustrates the process whereby species develop from earlier ancestors. Thank you for this example.

DAVID: There are many other fossil series God created.

I’m so pleased that you are aware of the many other fossil series (which you sometimes call steps or stages) which support Darwin’s evolutionary theory that all living organisms develop from earlier ancestral forms. This is the exact opposite of your theory that your God wanted to or had to individually design (and cull) 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food – or do you now believe Shapiro’s theory that they had the intelligence to design themselves?

Theodicy

DAVID: You have your milk-toast God. I prefer mine all-everything.

dhw: My point is not that there is a “milk-toast” God, but that if you can’t find any answer to the problem posed by theodicy, you should stop making assumptions which lead to such absurdities as the definition of all-powerful as power with limitations.

DAVID: I've just presented a philosopher who accepted that role as reasonable for God. He thinks it is logical and so do I.

dhw: Sorry, I must have missed something. How did the philosopher explain that all-powerful means with limited powers, or that a first-cause God can deliberately and knowingly create evil out of himself and yet be called all-good?

DAVID: Two weeks ago: Goff's opinions: November 16, 2023, 19:43. It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

Dealt with comprehensively in my reply of November 17. He opted for the theory that the designer’s powers were limited, which for anyone except you would mean his God is not all-powerful. He argues that evil is necessary for good to take full effect, but he never tackles the question I’ve asked above, which is the question posed by theodicy. However, I’m not saying you are all alone. No doubt millions of religious people prefer to dodge the problem as you do.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 29, 2023, 18:51 (120 days ago) @ dhw

dhw; And the result is a composite theory that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. You cannot think of any reason why he would act in what you call this messy, cumbersome, inefficient way, and so when challenged, you simply try to change the subject, as follows:

DAVID: Accepting God in control, evolution was His choice of creation.

dhw: If God exists, I agree completely, although you don’t, because according to you he only “imitated” evolution by using the Creationist method of “de novo” design, which is the opposite of evolution.

DAVID: What God did was create a designed evolutionary system in which complexity of life appeared with each new stage with major gaps. Never Darwinian itty-bitty.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that evolution proceeds in stages. Have you now withdrawn your Creationist argument that gaps mean de novo speciation? And what has this got to do with the bolded theory above?

If you accept God ran the evolutionary process, it is obvious He chose to.


DAVID: Humans are the pinnacle and endpoint.

dhw: So far, we are clearly the dominant species, and I’m certainly not going to deny that we have special qualities. I have no idea what the next thousand million years might produce. Relevance to the wacky theory bolded above?

DAVID: It is Adler's belief and mine. My whole thesis is based upon authorities I've read as I wish to meld them together.

dhw: But as usual, you forget to mention the fact that you “meld” two theories together in such a way that they make no sense even to you,. (See the bolded theory above.)

DAVID: Again the same irrational psychoanalysis of my brain. What I propose is entirely rational to me.

dhw: You have repeatedly admitted that you can’t explain the bolded theory above. If you can’t explain it, how can it be “rational” to you? Please stop dodging!

Wrong, wrong, wrong!! My specific response is God chose the method, which I defend. That is the full defense of my views. God's prime purpose was to create us. No explantion needed.


Defining evolution

dhw: […] [..] please don’t tell us separate creation is synonymous with evolution.

DAVID: Not synonymous but mimicking is the word I use.

dhw: How can separate creation of species mimic the development of species from earlier ancestors?

DAVID: Because we can trace the similarities as how the whale series was established.

dhw: The whole theory of evolution is based on similarities and “series”, which we also call steps or stages. So clearly your whale series did not entail “de novo” creation, but vividly illustrates the process whereby species develop from earlier ancestors. Thank you for this example.

DAVID: There are many other fossil series God created.

dhw: I’m so pleased that you are aware of the many other fossil series (which you sometimes call steps or stages) which support Darwin’s evolutionary theory that all living organisms develop from earlier ancestral forms. This is the exact opposite of your theory that your God wanted to or had to individually design (and cull) 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food – or do you now believe Shapiro’s theory that they had the intelligence to design themselves?

See today's entries. Never Shapiro. God speciates all forms of evolution with designs for
future use.


Theodicy

DAVID: I've just presented a philosopher who accepted that role as reasonable for God. He thinks it is logical and so do I.

dhw: Sorry, I must have missed something. How did the philosopher explain that all-powerful means with limited powers, or that a first-cause God can deliberately and knowingly create evil out of himself and yet be called all-good?

DAVID: Two weeks ago: Goff's opinions: November 16, 2023, 19:43. It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

dhw; Dealt with comprehensively in my reply of November 17. He opted for the theory that the designer’s powers were limited, which for anyone except you would mean his God is not all-powerful. He argues that evil is necessary for good to take full effect, but he never tackles the question I’ve asked above, which is the question posed by theodicy. However, I’m not saying you are all alone. No doubt millions of religious people prefer to dodge the problem as you do.

Great recognition of the rest of us.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, November 30, 2023, 12:39 (119 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I meld together many authorities’ opinions to create my theology.

dhw: And the result is a composite theory thatyour all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. You cannot think of any reason why he would act in what you call this messy, cumbersome, inefficient way, and so when challenged, you simply try to change the subject, as follows:

DAVID: What God did was create a designed evolutionary system in which complexity of life appeared with each new stage with major gaps. Never Darwinian itty-bitty.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that evolution proceeds in stages. Have you now withdrawn your Creationist argument that gaps mean de novo speciation? And what has this got to do with the bolded theory above?

DAVID: If you accept God ran the evolutionary process, it is obvious He chose to.

Of course he did, if he exists. But it is far from obvious that he chose to run it in the messy, inefficient manner you have inflicted on him, as bolded above.

DAVID: My whole thesis is based upon authorities I've read as I wish to meld them together.

dhw: But as usual, you forget to mention the fact that you “meld” two theories together in such a way that they make no sense even to you,. (See the bolded theory above.)

DAVID: Again the same irrational psychoanalysis of my brain. What I propose is entirely rational to me.

dhw: You have repeatedly admitted that you can’t explain the bolded theory above. If you can’t explain it, how can it be “rational” to you? Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Wrong, wrong, wrong!! My specific response is God chose the method, which I defend. That is the full defense of my views. God's prime purpose was to create us. No explantion needed.

I know your response is that your nonsensical theory is correct, but you admit that you cannot explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose (which you sometimes try to modify with “prime”, though you reject any other possible purpose) was to design us plus food, he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. Stop dodging!

Defining evolution

DAVID: There are many other fossil series God created.

dhw: I’m so pleased that you are aware of the many other fossil series (which you sometimes call steps or stages) which support Darwin’s evolutionary theory that all living organisms develop from earlier ancestral forms. This is the exact opposite of your theory that your God wanted to or had to individually design (and cull) 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food – or do you now believe Shapiro’s theory that they had the intelligence to design themselves?

DAVID: See today's entries. Never Shapiro. God speciates all forms of evolution with designs for future use.

These latest dodges are dealt with on the “more miscellany” threads.

Theodicy

dhw: How did the philosopher explain that all-powerful means with limited powers, or that a first-cause God can deliberately and knowingly create evil out of himself and yet be called all-good?

DAVID: Two weeks ago: Goff's opinions: November 16, 2023, 19:43. It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

dhw: Dealt with comprehensively in my reply of November 17. He opted for the theory that the designer’s powers were limited, which for anyone except you would mean his God is not all-powerful. He argues that evil is necessary for good to take full effect, but he never tackles the question I’ve asked above, which is the question posed by theodicy. However, I’m not saying you are all alone. No doubt millions of religious people prefer to dodge the problem as you do.

DAVID: Great recognition of the rest of us.

It is a common human trait to put one’s head in the sand if one cannot deal with a problem.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 30, 2023, 20:27 (119 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I meld together many authorities’ opinions to create my theology.

dhw: And the result is a composite theory thatyour all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. You cannot think of any reason why he would act in what you call this messy, cumbersome, inefficient way, and so when challenged, you simply try to change the subject, as follows:

DAVID: What God did was create a designed evolutionary system in which complexity of life appeared with each new stage with major gaps. Never Darwinian itty-bitty.

dhw: Thank you for acknowledging that evolution proceeds in stages. Have you now withdrawn your Creationist argument that gaps mean de novo speciation? And what has this got to do with the bolded theory above?

The bolded is an irrational analysis. My analyses: God designs each new species as He did the existing ones. Some have obvious predecessors, others don't. All God's choice of action. I accept them. The presumed imperfections that we see from our human analysis can only show we understand His methods at our level of mentation. So, I fully accept them without trying to answer your baseless questions.

dhw: But as usual, you forget to mention the fact that you “meld” two theories together in such a way that they make no sense even to you,. (See the bolded theory above.)

DAVID: Again the same irrational psychoanalysis of my brain. What I propose is entirely rational to me.

dhw: You have repeatedly admitted that you can’t explain the bolded theory above. If you can’t explain it, how can it be “rational” to you? Please stop dodging!

DAVID: Wrong, wrong, wrong!! My specific response is God chose the method, which I defend. That is the full defense of my views. God's prime purpose was to create us. No explantion needed.

dhw: I know your response is that your nonsensical theory is correct, but you admit that you cannot explain why, if your God’s one and only purpose (which you sometimes try to modify with “prime”, though you reject any other possible purpose) was to design us plus food, he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. Stop dodging!

You describe evolution, admit for this discussion God did it, and then complain about His method. Talk about irrational dodging.


Theodicy

dhw: How did the philosopher explain that all-powerful means with limited powers, or that a first-cause God can deliberately and knowingly create evil out of himself and yet be called all-good?

DAVID: Two weeks ago: Goff's opinions: November 16, 2023, 19:43. It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

dhw: Dealt with comprehensively in my reply of November 17. He opted for the theory that the designer’s powers were limited, which for anyone except you would mean his God is not all-powerful. He argues that evil is necessary for good to take full effect, but he never tackles the question I’ve asked above, which is the question posed by theodicy. However, I’m not saying you are all alone. No doubt millions of religious people prefer to dodge the problem as you do.

DAVID: Great recognition of the rest of us.

It is a common human trait to put one’s head in the sand if one cannot deal with a problem.

It is not a dodge. It is a grateful acceptance of all of God's good works. The bad is the price which had to be paid.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, December 01, 2023, 11:18 (118 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I meld together many authorities’ opinions to create my theology.

dhw: And the result is a composite theory that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. You cannot think of any reason why he would act in what you call this messy, cumbersome, inefficient way […]

DAVID: The bolded is an irrational analysis.

It is not an analysis. It is a summary of your theory of evolution.

DAVID: My analyses: God designs each new species as He did the existing ones.

Thank you for confirming your belief that he designs every species, including all those that have no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him.

DAVID: Some have obvious predecessors, others don't. All God's choice of action.

So we have a mixture of Darwinism and Creationism, but in the context of your bolded theory, this makes no difference since your God designs them all, 99.9% of which have no connection with the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: I accept them. The presumed imperfections that we see from our human analysis can only show we understand His methods at our level of mentation. So, I fully accept them without trying to answer your baseless questions.

And here you veer off into a vague generalization that has nothing whatsoever to do with the bolded theory above. We’re not talking about imperfections, but the sheer illogicality of an all-powerful God with a single purpose who individually designs and then has to cull 99.9 species out of 100 which have no connection with his purpose. You are not accepting his method. You are accepting your theory about his purpose and his method, which even you regard as messy, cumbersome and inefficient and for which you yourself can find no reason. If you cannot find any reason in your theory, then maybe your theory is wrong.

DAVID: You describe evolution, admit for this discussion God did it, and then complain about His method. Talk about irrational dodging.

No, I complain about your illogical theories that impose a purpose and method on your God which make him seem like a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer (your words).

Theodicy

DAVID: It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

dhw: […] I’m not saying you are all alone. No doubt millions of religious people prefer to dodge the problem as you do.

DAVID: Great recognition of the rest of us.

dhw: It is a common human trait to put one’s head in the sand if one cannot deal with a problem.

DAVID: It is not a dodge. It is a grateful acceptance of all of God's good works. The bad is the price which had to be paid.

If God exists, I am all in favour of us gratefully accepting his good works, and I have no trouble accepting that the bad is the price which has to be paid. Just like you, I love life (goody, goody) but accept the fact that one day I must die (baddy, baddy). But this does not offer even one syllable to explain how your God can create evil either deliberately, yet be all-good, or reluctantly, yet be all-powerful.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, December 01, 2023, 16:22 (118 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I meld together many authorities’ opinions to create my theology.

dhw: And the result is a composite theory that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. You cannot think of any reason why he would act in what you call this messy, cumbersome, inefficient way […]

DAVID: The bolded is an irrational analysis.

dhw: It is not an analysis. It is a summary of your theory of evolution.

What is irrational is that we exist now as 0.1%, which includes us and everything else on Earth which is here for our use including food. I don't care why God did it this way. 99.9% is just an historical fact of God's work.


DAVID: My analyses: God designs each new species as He did the existing ones.

dhw: Thank you for confirming your belief that he designs every species, including all those that have no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him.

DAVID: Some have obvious predecessors, others don't. All God's choice of action.

dhw: So we have a mixture of Darwinism and Creationism, but in the context of your bolded theory, this makes no difference since your God designs them all, 99.9% of which have no connection with the purpose you impose on him.

See above for the irrationality.


DAVID: I accept them. The presumed imperfections that we see from our human analysis can only show we understand His methods at our level of mentation. So, I fully accept them without trying to answer your baseless questions.

dhw: And here you veer off into a vague generalization that has nothing whatsoever to do with the bolded theory above. We’re not talking about imperfections, but the sheer illogicality of an all-powerful God with a single purpose who individually designs and then has to cull 99.9 species out of 100 which have no connection with his purpose. You are not accepting his method. You are accepting your theory about his purpose and his method, which even you regard as messy, cumbersome and inefficient and for which you yourself can find no reason. If you cannot find any reason in your theory, then maybe your theory is wrong.

I don't need God's reasoning for His use of an evolutionary system. The imperfections are really in our weak human reasoning about God's intentions and methods.

DAVID: You describe evolution, admit for this discussion God did it, and then complain about His method. Talk about irrational dodging.

dhw: No, I complain about your illogical theories that impose a purpose and method on your God which make him seem like a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer (your words).

Amazing, I accept God, warts and all.


Theodicy

DAVID: It is amazing how other folks think as I do. I am not all alone.

dhw: […] I’m not saying you are all alone. No doubt millions of religious people prefer to dodge the problem as you do.

DAVID: Great recognition of the rest of us.

dhw: It is a common human trait to put one’s head in the sand if one cannot deal with a problem.

DAVID: It is not a dodge. It is a grateful acceptance of all of God's good works. The bad is the price which had to be paid.

dhw: If God exists, I am all in favour of us gratefully accepting his good works, and I have no trouble accepting that the bad is the price which has to be paid. Just like you, I love life (goody, goody) but accept the fact that one day I must die (baddy, baddy). But this does not offer even one syllable to explain how your God can create evil either deliberately, yet be all-good, or reluctantly, yet be all-powerful.

Goff's limits on all-powerful is a reasonable view.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, December 02, 2023, 11:37 (117 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I meld together many authorities’ opinions to create my theology.

dhw: And the result is a composite theory that your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he wanted or had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. You cannot think of any reason why he would act in what you call this messy, cumbersome, inefficient way […]

DAVID: The bolded is an irrational analysis.

dhw: It is not an analysis. It is a summary of your theory of evolution.

DAVID: What is irrational is that we exist now as 0.1%, which includes us and everything else on Earth which is here for our use including food. I don't care why God did it this way. 99.9% is just an historical fact of God's work.

There is nothing irrational about the existence of ourselves and our food as the survivors of life’s past history. That is simply a known fact, not a theory, as is the disappearance of the vast majority of life forms that preceded us. The existence of God is not a fact, but as we do not have an atheist contributing to these discussions, I am challenging your theistic interpretation of life’s history, and it is NOT a fact that even if your God exists, (a) his one and only purpose was to produce us, and b) he designed every species individually. The combination of these two theories makes no sense, as it has your all-powerful, all-purposeful God individually designing and then culling 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. But you don’t care if it makes no sense. You simply assume that your illogical theory is the only possible truth, and you leave it to God to explain the mess you have imposed on him.

DAVID: I don't need God's reasoning for His use of an evolutionary system. The imperfections are really in our weak human reasoning about God's intentions and methods.

Please speak for yourself. It is your own weak human reasoning that has conjured up the messy imperfections. The evolutionary system we both acknowledge can be explained in a manner that relieves God of the messy, cumbersome, inefficient image you impose on him.

DAVID: Amazing, I accept God, warts and all.

I’m sure your God will feel honoured by your acceptance of the warts you have planted on him (though I seem to remember you also talking of him being “perfect”, but perhaps my memory is at fault).

Theodicy

dhw: If God exists, I am all in favour of us gratefully accepting his good works, and I have no trouble accepting that the bad is the price which has to be paid. Just like you, I love life (goody, goody) but accept the fact that one day I must die (baddy, baddy). But this does not offer even one syllable to explain how your God can create evil either deliberately, yet be all-good, or reluctantly, yet be all-powerful.

DAVID: Goff's limits on all-powerful is a reasonable view.

I agree. But I don’t agree with your belief that all-powerful can be defined as power with limits.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 02, 2023, 18:24 (117 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: It is not an analysis. It is a summary of your theory of evolution.

DAVID: What is irrational is that we exist now as 0.1%, which includes us and everything else on Earth which is here for our use including food. I don't care why God did it this way. 99.9% is just an historical fact of God's work.

dhw: There is nothing irrational about the existence of ourselves and our food as the survivors of life’s past history. That is simply a known fact, not a theory, as is the disappearance of the vast majority of life forms that preceded us. The existence of God is not a fact, but as we do not have an atheist contributing to these discussions, I am challenging your theistic interpretation of life’s history, and it is NOT a fact that even if your God exists, (a) his one and only purpose was to produce us, and b) he designed every species individually. The combination of these two theories makes no sense, as it has your all-powerful, all-purposeful God individually designing and then culling 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. But you don’t care if it makes no sense. You simply assume that your illogical theory is the only possible truth, and you leave it to God to explain the mess you have imposed on him.

From my side it makes perfect sense. I simply view a designing God who wished to produce humans, a perfect fit with the historical result of evolution.


DAVID: I don't need God's reasoning for His use of an evolutionary system. The imperfections are really in our weak human reasoning about God's intentions and methods.

dhw: Please speak for yourself. It is your own weak human reasoning that has conjured up the messy imperfections. The evolutionary system we both acknowledge can be explained in a manner that relieves God of the messy, cumbersome, inefficient image you impose on him.

I still feel evolution was a messy way to produce us,

Theodicy

dhw: If God exists, I am all in favour of us gratefully accepting his good works, and I have no trouble accepting that the bad is the price which has to be paid. Just like you, I love life (goody, goody) but accept the fact that one day I must die (baddy, baddy). But this does not offer even one syllable to explain how your God can create evil either deliberately, yet be all-good, or reluctantly, yet be all-powerful.

DAVID: Goff's limits on all-powerful is a reasonable view.

dhw: I agree. But I don’t agree with your belief that all-powerful can be defined as power with limits.

Well Goff can, so I can.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy: addendum

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 02, 2023, 19:31 (117 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: It is not an analysis. It is a summary of your theory of evolution.

DAVID: What is irrational is that we exist now as 0.1%, which includes us and everything else on Earth which is here for our use including food. I don't care why God did it this way. 99.9% is just an historical fact of God's work.

dhw: There is nothing irrational about the existence of ourselves and our food as the survivors of life’s past history. That is simply a known fact, not a theory, as is the disappearance of the vast majority of life forms that preceded us. The existence of God is not a fact, but as we do not have an atheist contributing to these discussions, I am challenging your theistic interpretation of life’s history, and it is NOT a fact that even if your God exists, (a) his one and only purpose was to produce us, and b) he designed every species individually. The combination of these two theories makes no sense, as it has your all-powerful, all-purposeful God individually designing and then culling 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. But you don’t care if it makes no sense. You simply assume that your illogical theory is the only possible truth, and you leave it to God to explain the mess you have imposed on him.

From my side it makes perfect sense. I simply view a designing God who wished to produce humans, a perfect fit with the historical result of evolution.


DAVID: I don't need God's reasoning for His use of an evolutionary system. The imperfections are really in our weak human reasoning about God's intentions and methods.

dhw: Please speak for yourself. It is your own weak human reasoning that has conjured up the messy imperfections. The evolutionary system we both acknowledge can be explained in a manner that relieves God of the messy, cumbersome, inefficient image you impose on him.

I still feel evolution was a messy way to produce us.

Bechly has produced a huge technical piece in which he is considering deciding common descent is not correct. He is like many in ID who are still in this position. They know God is needed for design but haven't reached my point that God does everything, and the process mimics what we call evolution. I feel you can't have natural processes and God working together, in which God is not also in charge of the natural side. Natural might not give Him the results He wants.

https://evolutionnews.org/2023/12/fossil-friday-the-mess-of-arachnid-phylogeny-and-why-...

Included for anyone interested in his view.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy: addendum

by dhw, Sunday, December 03, 2023, 12:05 (116 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I am challenging your theistic interpretation of life’s history, and it is NOT a fact that even if your God exists, (a) his one and only purpose was to produce us, and b) he designed every species individually. The combination of these two theories makes no sense, as it has your all-powerful, all-purposeful God individually designing and then culling 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. But you don’t care if it makes no sense. You simply assume that your illogical theory is the only possible truth, and you leave it to God to explain the mess you have imposed on him.

DAVID: From my side it makes perfect sense. I simply view a designing God who wished to produce humans, a perfect fit with the historical result of evolution.

But you don’t keep it simple. You insist that he designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with humans (plus food), and you cannot think of a single reason why he would have done so. Stop dodging!

DAVID: I don't need God's reasoning for His use of an evolutionary system. The imperfections are really in our weak human reasoning about God's intentions and methods.

dhw: Please speak for yourself. It is your own weak human reasoning that has conjured up the messy imperfections. The evolutionary system we both acknowledge can be explained in a manner that relieves God of the messy, cumbersome, inefficient image you impose on him.

DAVID: I still feel evolution was a messy way to produce us.

So why do you refuse to consider the possibility that instead of your God being a messy and inefficient designer, he is - for instance - a highly efficient experimental scientist, trying new things, eager to make new discoveries, or to give himself new ideas?

Theodicy

dhw: If God exists, I am all in favour of us gratefully accepting his good works, and I have no trouble accepting that the bad is the price which has to be paid. Just like you, I love life (goody, goody) but accept the fact that one day I must die (baddy, baddy). But this does not offer even one syllable to explain how your God can create evil either deliberately, yet be all-good, or reluctantly, yet be all-powerful.

DAVID: Goff's limits on all-powerful is a reasonable view.

dhw: I agree. But I don’t agree with your belief that all-powerful can be defined as power with limits.

DAVID: Well Goff can, so I can.

His preference for a God with limited powers does not mean that he defines all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

DAVID (under "microbiomes in vaginas”): You see the bugs are good. The reality we live in includes bad bugs.

dhw: I’ve never denied that there are good and bad things. Theodicy asks how the bad can mean that your first-cause Creator of everything that exists can be all-good.

DAVID: It is an answer in its proportionality.
And:
The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

dhw: Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good versus bad. It asks how the bad…. etc. as above.

DAVID: Bechly has produced a huge technical piece in which he is considering deciding common descent is not correct. […] I feel you can't have natural processes and God working together, in which God is not also in charge of the natural side. Natural might not give Him the results He wants.

That depends on what results he wants. Since the history of life is one of an ever changing variety of life forms, may I suggest that he wanted an ever-changing variety of life forms. If he wanted to create a being in his own image, may I suggest that the large variety of life forms leading to the wide variety of hominins and homos, which in turn led to us and our food, might be the work of a God experimenting in order to find the best formula. Or maybe he wanted a free-for-all (best achieved by giving autonomy to his invention of the intelligent cell) but allowed himself to dabble – humans figuring as an idea that occurred to him late on in the process.

As for Bechly, after an almost interminable study of such items as the the tail filament of certain spiders (I felt like shouting “Get a life!”) he comes to the following conclusions:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/12/fossil-friday-the-mess-of-arachnid-phylogeny-and-why-...

We were not there to watch what happened and simply don’t know, so that every reconstruction of past events is a hypothetical inference to the best explanation based on circumstantial evidence and a lot of theoretical guesswork based on shaky assumptions.”

Agreed.

This does not necessarily mean that “God diddit,” but it also means that nothing has been refuted and we should not a priori exclude alternative explanations like intelligent agency. […] For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities...

All agreed. It's a good "agnostic" approach. But I’m surprised that he doesn’t mention Shapiro’s alternative “intelligent agency”, namely the intelligent cell, which allows for both Nature diddit and God diddit.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy: addendum

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 03, 2023, 17:00 (116 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: From my side it makes perfect sense. I simply view a designing God who wished to produce humans, a perfect fit with the historical result of evolution.

dhw: But you don’t keep it simple. You insist that he designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with humans (plus food), and you cannot think of a single reason why he would have done so. Stop dodging!

Old cookbook repeat. You are simply describing the process of evolution and then complaining about it. God's choice, and I don't need to know why. If I didn't consider humans God's goal you would stop complaining. I won't change.

DAVID: I still feel evolution was a messy way to produce us.

dhw: So why do you refuse to consider the possibility that instead of your God being a messy and inefficient designer, he is - for instance - a highly efficient experimental scientist, trying new things, eager to make new discoveries, or to give himself new ideas?

More God humanizing. My God is purposeful. knows exactly what He wishes to do and does it.


Theodicy

dhw: If God exists, I am all in favour of us gratefully accepting his good works, and I have no trouble accepting that the bad is the price which has to be paid. Just like you, I love life (goody, goody) but accept the fact that one day I must die (baddy, baddy). But this does not offer even one syllable to explain how your God can create evil either deliberately, yet be all-good, or reluctantly, yet be all-powerful.

DAVID: Goff's limits on all-powerful is a reasonable view.

dhw: I agree. But I don’t agree with your belief that all-powerful can be defined as power with limits.

DAVID: Well Goff can, so I can.

His preference for a God with limited powers does not mean that he defines all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

DAVID (under "microbiomes in vaginas”): You see the bugs are good. The reality we live in includes bad bugs.

dhw: I’ve never denied that there are good and bad things. Theodicy asks how the bad can mean that your first-cause Creator of everything that exists can be all-good.

DAVID: It is an answer in its proportionality.
And:
The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

dhw: Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good versus bad. It asks how the bad…. etc. as above.

DAVID: Bechly has produced a huge technical piece in which he is considering deciding common descent is not correct. […] I feel you can't have natural processes and God working together, in which God is not also in charge of the natural side. Natural might not give Him the results He wants.

dhw: That depends on what results he wants. Since the history of life is one of an ever changing variety of life forms, may I suggest that he wanted an ever-changing variety of life forms. If he wanted to create a being in his own image, may I suggest that the large variety of life forms leading to the wide variety of hominins and homos, which in turn led to us and our food, might be the work of a God experimenting in order to find the best formula. Or maybe he wanted a free-for-all (best achieved by giving autonomy to his invention of the intelligent cell) but allowed himself to dabble – humans figuring as an idea that occurred to him late on in the process.

I think God prefers to evolve everything He created. He had the universe evolve, the current Earth evolve, and life evolve, all under His guidance.


dhw: As for Bechly, after an almost interminable study of such items as the the tail filament of certain spiders (I felt like shouting “Get a life!”) he comes to the following conclusions:
https://evolutionnews.org/2023/12/fossil-friday-the-mess-of-arachnid-phylogeny-and-why-...

We were not there to watch what happened and simply don’t know, so that every reconstruction of past events is a hypothetical inference to the best explanation based on circumstantial evidence and a lot of theoretical guesswork based on shaky assumptions.”

dhw: Agreed.

This does not necessarily mean that “God diddit,” but it also means that nothing has been refuted and we should not a priori exclude alternative explanations like intelligent agency. […] For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities...

dhw: All agreed. It's a good "agnostic" approach. But I’m surprised that he doesn’t mention Shapiro’s alternative “intelligent agency”, namely the intelligent cell, which allows for both Nature diddit and God diddit.

Not many scientists follow Shapiro closely as you do. You are narrowly wedded to his ideas.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, December 04, 2023, 11:23 (115 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: From my side it makes perfect sense. I simply view a designing God who wished to produce humans, a perfect fit with the historical result of evolution.

dhw: But you don’t keep it simple. You insist that [his one and only purpose was to design humans plus food, and so], he designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with humans (plus food), and you cannot think of a single reason why he would have done so. Stop dodging![/i] (Square brackets added for clarity)

DAVID: Old cookbook repeat. You are simply describing the process of evolution and then complaining about it. God's choice, and I don't need to know why. If I didn't consider humans God's goal you would stop complaining. I won't change.

Old cookbook dodge, dodge, dodge. I accept the process of evolution. I do not accept the totally illogical theory bolded above. Either you’ve got the wrong purpose, or you’ve got the wrong method, or both, or your all-powerful, all-knowing God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. You opt for the latter, and refuse to consider any other possibility.

DAVID: I still feel evolution was a messy way to produce us.

dhw: So why do you refuse to consider the possibility that instead of your God being a messy and inefficient designer, he is - for instance - a highly efficient experimental scientist, trying new things, eager to make new discoveries, or to give himself new ideas?

DAVID: More God humanizing. My God is purposeful, knows exactly what He wishes to do and does it.

The God I have described above is purposeful, knows exactly what he wishes to do, and does it. And this alternative removes the humanizing image of an inefficient God who actually knows what a mess he’s making in pursuit of his one and only goal. (See also “More miscellany, Part One.)

Theodicy

dhw: […] I don’t agree with your belief that all-powerful can be defined as power with limits.

DAVID: Well Goff can, so I can.

dhw: His preference for a God with limited powers does not mean that he defines all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

No response.

DAVID (under "microbiomes in vaginas”): You see the bugs are good. The reality we live in includes bad bugs.

dhw: I’ve never denied that there are good and bad things. Theodicy asks how the bad can mean that your first-cause Creator of everything that exists can be all-good.

DAVID: The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

dhw: Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good versus bad. It asks how the bad…. etc. as above.

No response.

DAVID: […] I feel you can't have natural processes and God working together, in which God is not also in charge of the natural side. Natural might not give Him the results He wants.

dhw: That depends on what results he wants. Since the history of life is one of an ever changing variety of life forms, may I suggest that he wanted an ever-changing variety of life forms. If he wanted to create a being in his own image, may I suggest that the large variety of life forms leading to the wide variety of hominins and homos, which in turn led to us and our food, might be the work of a God experimenting in order to find the best formula. Or maybe he wanted a free-for-all (best achieved by giving autonomy to his invention of the intelligent cell) but allowed himself to dabble – humans figuring as an idea that occurred to him late on in the process.

DAVID: I think God prefers to evolve everything He created. He had the universe evolve, the current Earth evolve, and life evolve, all under His guidance.

Everything I have suggested above has your God using evolution as his method of achieving his goal(s). The only difference between us is the completely illogical theory bolded at the start of this post, which makes God a messy, inefficient designer.

Bechly: “This does not necessarily mean that “God diddit,” but it also means that nothing has been refuted and we should not a priori exclude alternative explanations like intelligent agency. […] For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities..."

dhw: All agreed. It's a good "agnostic" approach. But I’m surprised that he doesn’t mention Shapiro’s alternative “intelligent agency”, namely the intelligent cell, which allows for both Nature diddit and God diddit.

DAVID: Not many scientists follow Shapiro closely as you do. You are narrowly wedded to his ideas.

My own approach is not “narrowly wedded”. Like Bechly, I favour one theory but remain open to others. For instance, the view of your God experimenting in order to find the right formula to create a being like himself has nothing to do with Shapiro. Why don’t you follow Bechly’s example and open that closed mind of yours? (See “More Miscellany, Part One” for your astonishing confession.)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, December 04, 2023, 16:53 (115 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Old cookbook repeat. You are simply describing the process of evolution and then complaining about it. God's choice, and I don't need to know why. If I didn't consider humans God's goal you would stop complaining. I won't change.

dhw: Old cookbook dodge, dodge, dodge. I accept the process of evolution. I do not accept the totally illogical theory bolded above. Either you’ve got the wrong purpose, or you’ve got the wrong method, or both, or your all-powerful, all-knowing God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. You opt for the latter, and refuse to consider any other possibility.

Not the wrong method. You accept evolution!


DAVID: I still feel evolution was a messy way to produce us.

dhw: So why do you refuse to consider the possibility that instead of your God being a messy and inefficient designer, he is - for instance - a highly efficient experimental scientist, trying new things, eager to make new discoveries, or to give himself new ideas?

DAVID: More God humanizing. My God is purposeful, knows exactly what He wishes to do and does it.

dhw: The God I have described above is purposeful, knows exactly what he wishes to do, and does it. And this alternative removes the humanizing image of an inefficient God who actually knows what a mess he’s making in pursuit of his one and only goal. (See also “More miscellany, Part One.)

Note an 'experimental scientist' doesn't know the outcomes. Not God-like at all.


Theodicy

dhw: […] I don’t agree with your belief that all-powerful can be defined as power with limits.

DAVID: Well Goff can, so I can.

dhw: His preference for a God with limited powers does not mean that he defines all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

No response.

That is what Goff and I accept.


DAVID (under "microbiomes in vaginas”): You see the bugs are good. The reality we live in includes bad bugs.

dhw: I’ve never denied that there are good and bad things. Theodicy asks how the bad can mean that your first-cause Creator of everything that exists can be all-good.

DAVID: The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

dhw: Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good versus bad. It asks how the bad…. etc. as above.

No response.

It is an answer to theodicy.


DAVID: I think God prefers to evolve everything He created. He had the universe evolve, the current Earth evolve, and life evolve, all under His guidance.

dhw: Everything I have suggested above has your God using evolution as his method of achieving his goal(s). The only difference between us is the completely illogical theory bolded at the start of this post, which makes God a messy, inefficient designer.

It is my view evolution is a messy way to create rather than instant. God used evolution, but that doesn't mean God is a messy designer. His designs in evolution are brilliant.


Bechly: “This does not necessarily mean that “God diddit,” but it also means that nothing has been refuted and we should not a priori exclude alternative explanations like intelligent agency. […] For this reason, I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities..."

dhw: All agreed. It's a good "agnostic" approach. But I’m surprised that he doesn’t mention Shapiro’s alternative “intelligent agency”, namely the intelligent cell, which allows for both Nature diddit and God diddit.

DAVID: Not many scientists follow Shapiro closely as you do. You are narrowly wedded to his ideas.

dhw: My own approach is not “narrowly wedded”. Like Bechly, I favour one theory but remain open to others. For instance, the view of your God experimenting in order to find the right formula to create a being like himself has nothing to do with Shapiro. Why don’t you follow Bechly’s example and open that closed mind of yours? (See “More Miscellany, Part One” for your astonishing confession.)

Bechly's thoughts are still evolving. He accepts a designer!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, December 05, 2023, 14:07 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

I have done some more telescoping.

dhw: I accept the process of evolution. I do not accept the totally illogical theory bolded above. Either you’ve got the wrong purpose, or you’ve got the wrong method, or both, or your all-powerful, all-knowing God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. You opt for the latter, and refuse to consider any other possibility.

DAVID: Not the wrong method. You accept evolution!

Of course I do. But you claim that your God’s method of fulfilling his one and only purpose (us plus food) was to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. You yourself cannot find any explanation for this combination, so either you’ve got the purpose or the method wrong etc., as above.

DAVID: It is my view evolution is a messy way to create rather than instant. God used evolution, but that doesn't mean God is a messy designer. His designs in evolution are brilliant.

If your God uses a messy way to fulfil his one and only purpose, then he is a messy designer. I am the one who emphasizes the brilliance of his designs, and who rejects your claim of messiness by suggesting that instead of designing the wrong things and having to get rid of them, he designs precisely what he wants to design.

Bechly

QUOTE: "I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities..."_

dhw: All agreed. It's a good agnostic approach. But I’m surprised that he doesn’t mention Shapiro’s alternative “intelligent agency”, namely the intelligent cell, which allows for both Nature "diddit" and God "diddit".

DAVID: Not many scientists follow Shapiro closely as you do. You are narrowly wedded to his ideas.

dhw: My own approach is not “narrowly wedded”. Like Bechly, I favour one theory but remain open to others. For instance, the view of your God experimenting in order to find the right formula to create a being like himself has nothing to do with Shapiro. Why don’t you follow Bechly’s example and open that closed mind of yours?

And:

dhw: why do you refuse to consider the possibility that instead of your God being a messy and inefficient designer, he is - for instance - a highly efficient experimental scientist, trying new things, eager to make new discoveries, or to give himself new ideas?

DAVID: Note an 'experimental scientist' doesn't know the outcomes. Not God-like at all.

Messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency are hardly “god-like”. Nobody knows what God is like – or even if he exists – so please stop pretending you know. (But see Part One of “More Miscellany", in which you kindly explain the reason for your prejudice.)

Theodicy

dhw: [Goff’s] preference for a God with limited powers does not mean that he defines all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

DAVID: That is what Goff and I accept.

He opts for limited powers. He does not define “all-powerful” as meaning “with limited powers”. You are making a mockery of language. I can’t believe that Goff would do the same.

DAVID: (under "microbiomes in vaginas”): You see the bugs are good. The reality we live in includes bad bugs.

dhw: I’ve never denied that there are good and bad things. Theodicy asks how the bad can mean that your first-cause Creator of everything that exists can be all-good.

DAVID: The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

Question: how can a first-cause, all-good God be the creator of evil? Your answer: by creating 90% good and only creating 10% evil. (Use whatever percentage you like, and then go and stand in the corner for giving such a silly answer. :-( )

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 05, 2023, 17:44 (114 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not the wrong method. You accept evolution!

dhw: Of course I do. But you claim that your God’s method of fulfilling his one and only purpose (us plus food) was to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. You yourself cannot find any explanation for this combination, so either you’ve got the purpose or the method wrong etc., as above.

Your thinking about evolution is always backwards. Evolution is a culling process. What is present now are humans running the entire Earth to their benefit. And enough food is a major issue. Humans were God's final goal, and you won't accept that point.


DAVID: It is my view evolution is a messy way to create rather than instant. God used evolution, but that doesn't mean God is a messy designer. His designs in evolution are brilliant.

dhw: If your God uses a messy way to fulfil his one and only purpose, then he is a messy designer. I am the one who emphasizes the brilliance of his designs, and who rejects your claim of messiness by suggesting that instead of designing the wrong things and having to get rid of them, he designs precisely what he wants to design.

Don't distort what is presented here. I have constantly presented God's brilliant designs.


Bechly

QUOTE: "I currently and provisionally still think that the total evidence of all lines of data favors common descent as the most parsimonious and most elegant explanation. However, I definitely remain open (and now more sympathetic) to alternatives like progressive creation combined with other explanations for the pattern of biological similarities..."_

dhw: All agreed. It's a good agnostic approach. But I’m surprised that he doesn’t mention Shapiro’s alternative “intelligent agency”, namely the intelligent cell, which allows for both Nature "diddit" and God "diddit".

DAVID: Not many scientists follow Shapiro closely as you do. You are narrowly wedded to his ideas.

dhw: My own approach is not “narrowly wedded”. Like Bechly, I favour one theory but remain open to others. For instance, the view of your God experimenting in order to find the right formula to create a being like himself has nothing to do with Shapiro. Why don’t you follow Bechly’s example and open that closed mind of yours?

And:

dhw: why do you refuse to consider the possibility that instead of your God being a messy and inefficient designer, he is - for instance - a highly efficient experimental scientist, trying new things, eager to make new discoveries, or to give himself new ideas?

DAVID: Note an 'experimental scientist' doesn't know the outcomes. Not God-like at all.

dhw: Messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency are hardly “god-like”. Nobody knows what God is like – or even if he exists – so please stop pretending you know. (But see Part One of “More Miscellany", in which you kindly explain the reason for your prejudice.)

I have my own God-personality view. My belief stems from that view of a highly purposeful God.


Theodicy

dhw: [Goff’s] preference for a God with limited powers does not mean that he defines all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

DAVID: That is what Goff and I accept.

He opts for limited powers. He does not define “all-powerful” as meaning “with limited powers”. You are making a mockery of language. I can’t believe that Goff would do the same.

DAVID: (under "microbiomes in vaginas”): You see the bugs are good. The reality we live in includes bad bugs.

dhw: I’ve never denied that there are good and bad things. Theodicy asks how the bad can mean that your first-cause Creator of everything that exists can be all-good.

DAVID: The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

dhw: Question: how can a first-cause, all-good God be the creator of evil? Your answer: by creating 90% good and only creating 10% evil. (Use whatever percentage you like, and then go and stand in the corner for giving such a silly answer. :-( )

Depends on a glass half full or half empty. You concentrate on the empty. God's good works far outweigh the small bad side effects. 'Dayenu' is the way I think. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, December 06, 2023, 08:01 (114 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your thinking about evolution is always backwards. Evolution is a culling process.

Evolution is a process which has resulted in the disappearance of 99.9 out of 100 species. It is your proposal that there is an all-powerful God who only wished to create one species plus its food, and therefore knowingly designed and culled 99.9 species that had no connection with his purpose. As this is an absurdly illogical thing to do, you continually edit your theory to leave out the dislocated thinking, or you blame God for using such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method, rather than face the possibility that part or all of your theory might be wrong.

DAVID: What is present now are humans running the entire Earth to their benefit. And enough food is a major issue.

Correct. And what was present in the past was lots of other life forms that had no connection with humans and our food.

DAVID: Humans were God's final goal, and you won't accept that point.

Nobody knows how it will all end, but even if humans really were your God’s “final goal”, it wouldn’t explain why, according to you, he had to design and cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: It is my view evolution is a messy way to create rather than instant. God used evolution, but that doesn't mean God is a messy designer. His designs in evolution are brilliant.

dhw: If your God uses a messy way to fulfil his one and only purpose, then he is a messy designer. I am the one who emphasizes the brilliance of his designs, and who rejects your claim of messiness by suggesting that instead of designing the wrong things and having to get rid of them, he designs precisely what he wants to design.

DAVID: Don't distort what is presented here. I have constantly presented God's brilliant designs.

We are both right, but we are talking on two different levels. If you commissioned an architect to design a bungalow for you, and he designed a magnificent five-storey house but then had to remove four of the five storeys from his design, you could argue that he is brilliant but also inefficient. But you are obviously quite happy to call your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God inefficient, rather than acknowledge that it is your theory that makes him inefficient, and that it is possible your theory is wrong.

dhw (under “Bechly”): : why do you refuse to consider the possibility that instead of your God being a messy and inefficient designer, he is - for instance - a highly efficient experimental scientist, trying new things, eager to make new discoveries, or to give himself new ideas?

DAVID: Note an 'experimental scientist' doesn't know the outcomes. Not God-like at all.

dhw: Messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency are hardly “god-like”. Nobody knows what God is like – or even if he exists – so please stop pretending you know. (But see Part One of “More Miscellany", in which you kindly explain the reason for your prejudice.)

DAVID: I have my own God-personality view. My belief stems from that view of a highly purposeful God.

The “experimental scientist” is just an alternative proposal, but why do you consider wanting to try new things, making discoveries, getting new ideas as a “low” purpose or no purpose at all? Ah, but your belief springs from prejudices formed when you were a boy (see “More Miscellany, Part One”), so of course you think your view must be right.

Theodicy

dhw: [Goff’s] preference for a God with limited powers does not mean that he defines all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

DAVID: That is what Goff and I accept.

dhw: He opts for limited powers. He does not define “all-powerful” as meaning “with limited powers”. You are making a mockery of language. I can’t believe that Goff would do the same.

Your silence would seem to confirm that you are, to echo your own lovely description, “the only nut in the wilderness”! :-)

DAVID: The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

dhw: Question: how can a first-cause, all-good God be the creator of evil? Your answer: by creating 90% good and only creating 10% evil. (Use whatever percentage you like, and then go and stand in the corner for giving such a silly answer.

DAVID: Depends on a glass half full or half empty. You concentrate on the empty. God's good works far outweigh the small bad side effects. 'Dayenu' is the way I think.

You really don’t get it, do you? Evil exists! Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good and bad, or tell us how happy we should be because warmongers, murders and rapists are only a small minority! It asks how the one and only, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of all things could have created a system which he knew would result in evil, and yet himself be all-good.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 06, 2023, 17:32 (113 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Evolution is a process which has resulted in the disappearance of 99.9 out of 100 species. It is your proposal that there is an all-powerful God who only wished to create one species plus its food, and therefore knowingly designed and culled 99.9 species that had no connection with his purpose. As this is an absurdly illogical thing to do, you continually edit your theory to leave out the dislocated thinking, or you blame God for using such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method, rather than face the possibility that part or all of your theory might be wrong.

Nothing is left out. Your correct proportion of 99.9 out of 100 creates a wrong impression of reality. Many billions disappeared while the 0.1 percent remaining i also in the billions.


DAVID: What is present now are humans running the entire Earth to their benefit. And enough food is a major issue.

dhw: Correct. And what was present in the past was lots of other life forms that had no connection with humans and our food.

Wrong. What is here now is in great part out food supply.


DAVID: Humans were God's final goal, and you won't accept that point.

dhw: Nobody knows how it will all end, but even if humans really were your God’s “final goal”, it wouldn’t explain why, according to you, he had to design and cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only goal.

You condemn God for evolving us. I accept it as His goal.


DAVID: Don't distort what is presented here. I have constantly presented God's brilliant designs.

dhw: We are both right, but we are talking on two different levels. If you commissioned an architect to design a bungalow for you, and he designed a magnificent five-storey house but then had to remove four of the five storeys from his design, you could argue that he is brilliant but also inefficient. But you are obviously quite happy to call your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God inefficient, rather than acknowledge that it is your theory that makes him inefficient, and that it is possible your theory is wrong.

Wrong analogy. In real evolution the five storys are still here in the surviving 0.1%. What is lost in the past is really here in the present. You misconstrue Raup's point.


dhw: Messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency are hardly “god-like”. Nobody knows what God is like – or even if he exists – so please stop pretending you know. (But see Part One of “More Miscellany", in which you kindly explain the reason for your prejudice.)

DAVID: I have my own God-personality view. My belief stems from that view of a highly purposeful God.

dhw: The “experimental scientist” is just an alternative proposal, but why do you consider wanting to try new things, making discoveries, getting new ideas as a “low” purpose or no purpose at all? Ah, but your belief springs from prejudices formed when you were a boy (see “More Miscellany, Part One”), so of course you think your view must be right.

I can only conceive a God as highly purposeful, who needs no experimentation, unlioke your humanized form.


Theodicy

DAVID: The theodicy answers point out proportionality.

dhw: Question: how can a first-cause, all-good God be the creator of evil? Your answer: by creating 90% good and only creating 10% evil. (Use whatever percentage you like, and then go and stand in the corner for giving such a silly answer.

DAVID: Depends on a glass half full or half empty. You concentrate on the empty. God's good works far outweigh the small bad side effects. 'Dayenu' is the way I think.

dhw: You really don’t get it, do you? Evil exists! Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good and bad, or tell us how happy we should be because warmongers, murders and rapists are only a small minority! It asks how the one and only, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of all things could have created a system which he knew would result in evil, and yet himself be all-good.

I sure do get it. I started this stream of discussion. Goff's limited God is a reasonable answer.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, December 07, 2023, 11:33 (112 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Evolution is a process which has resulted in the disappearance of 99.9 out of 100 species. It is your proposal that there is an all-powerful God who only wished to create one species plus its food, and therefore knowingly designed and culled 99.9 species that had no connection with his purpose. As this is an absurdly illogical thing to do, you continually edit your theory to leave out the dislocated thinking, or you blame God for using such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method, rather than face the possibility that part or all of your theory might be wrong.

DAVID: Nothing is left out. Your correct proportion of 99.9 out of 100 creates a wrong impression of reality. Many billions disappeared while the 0.1 percent remaining i also in the billions.

And the question which you simply go on dodging is why your God, whose one and only aim according to you was the remaining 0.1%, should have deliberately designed and then had to cull the 99.9%. This messy, inefficient way makes no sense even to you, but it is your fixed belief.

DAVID: What is present now are humans running the entire Earth to their benefit. And enough food is a major issue.

dhw: Correct. And what was present in the past was lots of other life forms that had no connection with humans and our food.

DAVID: Wrong. What is here now is in great part out food supply.

Of course what is here now is mainly our food. And what was here in the past was mainly not us or our food! What is “wrong”?

DAVID: Humans were God's final goal, and you won't accept that point.

dhw: Nobody knows how it will all end, but even if humans really were your God’s “final goal”, it wouldn’t explain why, according to you, he had to design and cull 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: You condemn God for evolving us. I accept it as His goal.

Stop making things up! What I condemn is not your God but your insistence that he chose a method which turns him into a bumbling fool who deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the only species (plus food) that he wanted to design. [...]

DAVID: Don't distort what is presented here. I have constantly presented God's brilliant designs.

dhw: We are both right, but we are talking on two different levels. If you commissioned an architect to design a bungalow for you, and he designed a magnificent five-storey house but then had to remove four of the five storeys from his design, you could argue that he is brilliant but also inefficient. But you are obviously quite happy to call your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God inefficient, rather than acknowledge that it is your theory that makes him inefficient, and that it is possible your theory is wrong.

DAVID: Wrong analogy. In real evolution the five storys are still here in the surviving 0.1%. What is lost in the past is really here in the present. You misconstrue Raup's point.

The “surviving” 0.1% is the single floor of the bungalow. The other storeys are not here. In your theory, 99.9% of the past is lost and is NOT here in the present! That’s why your theory is such a mess.

dhw: Messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency are hardly “god-like”. […]

DAVID: I have my own God-personality view. My belief stems from that view of a highly purposeful God.

dhw: The “experimental scientist” is just an alternative proposal, but why do you consider wanting to try new things, making discoveries, getting new ideas as a “low” purpose or no purpose at all? Ah, but your belief springs from prejudices formed when you were a boy (see “More Miscellany, Part One”), so of course you think your view must be right.

DAVID: I can only conceive a God as highly purposeful, who needs no experimentation, unlioke your humanized form.

As usual, you ignore my now bolded question, and your messy, inefficient designer is no less human than a highly successful experimental scientist.

Theodicy

DAVID: [Theodicy] depends on a glass half full or half empty. You concentrate on the empty. God's good works far outweigh the small bad side effects. 'Dayenu' is the way I think.

dhw: You really don’t get it, do you? Evil exists! Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good and bad, or tell us how happy we should be because warmongers, murders and rapists are only a small minority! It asks how the one and only, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of all things could have created a system which he knew would result in evil, and yet himself be all-good.

DAVID: I sure do get it. I started this stream of discussion. Goff's limited God is a reasonable answer.

You were trying to defend your non-answer of proportionality! Yes, Goff’s answer is reasonable, and it presents us with a God who is not all-powerful, though in order to defend your own prejudiced view of God, you have tried to define all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 07, 2023, 17:31 (112 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Nothing is left out. Your correct proportion of 99.9 out of 100 creates a wrong impression of reality. Many billions disappeared while the 0.1 percent remaining is also in the billions.

dhw: And the question which you simply go on dodging is why your God, whose one and only aim according to you was the remaining 0.1%, should have deliberately designed and then had to cull the 99.9%. This messy, inefficient way makes no sense even to you, but it is your fixed belief.

Same wrong question. Evolution is solid history. If God is posited as in charge He did it. Makes perfect sense to me. Sorry you are so confused.


DAVID: What is present now are humans running the entire Earth to their benefit. And enough food is a major issue.

dhw: Correct. And what was present in the past was lots of other life forms that had no connection with humans and our food.

DAVID: Wrong. What is here now is in great part out food supply.

dhw: Of course what is here now is mainly our food. And what was here in the past was mainly not us or our food! What is “wrong”?

Your confusion. The past became the present. Evolution was purpose driven.


DAVID: You condemn God for evolving us. I accept it as His goal.

dhw: Stop making things up! What I condemn is not your God but your insistence that he chose a method which turns him into a bumbling fool who deliberately designed and had to cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with the only species (plus food) that he wanted to design. [...]

DAVID: Don't distort what is presented here. I have constantly presented God's brilliant designs.

dhw: We are both right, but we are talking on two different levels. If you commissioned an architect to design a bungalow for you, and he designed a magnificent five-storey house but then had to remove four of the five storeys from his design, you could argue that he is brilliant but also inefficient. But you are obviously quite happy to call your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God inefficient, rather than acknowledge that it is your theory that makes him inefficient, and that it is possible your theory is wrong.

DAVID: Wrong analogy. In real evolution the five storys are still here in the surviving 0.1%. What is lost in the past is really here in the present. You misconstrue Raup's point.

dhw: The “surviving” 0.1% is the single floor of the bungalow. The other storeys are not here. In your theory, 99.9% of the past is lost and is NOT here in the present! That’s why your theory is such a mess.

Your totally redefine evolution. The 99.9% have to be gone in the process.


dhw: Messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency are hardly “god-like”. […]

DAVID: I can only conceive a God as highly purposeful, who needs no experimentation, unlioke your humanized form.

dhw:As usual, you ignore my now bolded question, and your messy, inefficient designer is no less human than a highly successful experimental scientist.

"A highly successful experimental scientist" is a humanized God, you are stuck with.


Theodicy

DAVID: [Theodicy] depends on a glass half full or half empty. You concentrate on the empty. God's good works far outweigh the small bad side effects. 'Dayenu' is the way I think.

dhw: You really don’t get it, do you? Evil exists! Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good and bad, or tell us how happy we should be because warmongers, murders and rapists are only a small minority! It asks how the one and only, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of all things could have created a system which he knew would result in evil, and yet himself be all-good.

DAVID: I sure do get it. I started this stream of discussion. Goff's limited God is a reasonable answer.

dhw: You were trying to defend your non-answer of proportionality! Yes, Goff’s answer is reasonable, and it presents us with a God who is not all-powerful, though in order to defend your own prejudiced view of God, you have tried to define all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

Makes sense to me. God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, December 08, 2023, 11:49 (111 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] the question which you simply go on dodging is why your God, whose one and only aim according to you was the remaining 0.1%, should have deliberately designed and then had to cull the 99.9%. This messy, inefficient way makes no sense even to you, but it is your fixed belief.

DAVID: Same wrong question. Evolution is solid history. If God is posited as in charge He did it. Makes perfect sense to me. Sorry you are so confused.

You are utterly determined to exclude your theory from these discussions. I agree that evolution is solid history, and if God exists, he set it up. What is not history is the theory that (a) his one and only goal was us plus food, and (b) he fulfilled his goal by deliberately designing 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his goal. And you have admitted that you don’t know why he would use such a messy, inefficient method. Your dodging technique is becoming a parody of itself.

DAVID: What is here now is in great part out food supply.

dhw: Of course what is here now is mainly our food. And what was here in the past was mainly not us or our food!

DAVID:Your confusion. The past became the present. Evolution was purpose driven.

According to you, only 0.1% of the past became the present. And you have no idea why your God would have specially designed the other 99.9%. Maybe he didn’t. Or maybe his purpose was not the purpose you have imposed on him.

DAVID: You totally redefine evolution. The 99.9% have to be gone in the process.

Where on earth did you find a definition of evolution which specifies that God’s one and only goal was us plus food, and in order to achieve his goal, he had to design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with it? You know it makes no sense!

dhw: Messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency are hardly “god-like”. […]

DAVID: I can only conceive a God as highly purposeful, who needs no experimentation, unlioke your humanized form.

dhw: […] your messy, inefficient designer is no less human than a highly successful experimental scientist.

DAVID: "A highly successful experimental scientist" is a humanized God, you are stuck with.

It’s just one of three alternative theories which provide a logical explanation for the vast variety of species extinct and extant. Why do you regard your blundering, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer as less human than a successful scientist?

Theodicy
DAVID: [Theodicy] depends on a glass half full or half empty. You concentrate on the empty. God's good works far outweigh the small bad side effects. 'Dayenu' is the way I think.

dhw: You really don’t get it, do you? Evil exists! Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good and bad, or tell us how happy we should be because warmongers, murders and rapists are only a small minority! It asks how the one and only, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of all things could have created a system which he knew would result in evil, and yet himself be all-good.

DAVID: I sure do get it. I started this stream of discussion. Goff's limited God is a reasonable answer.

dhw: You were trying to defend your non-answer of proportionality! Yes, Goff’s answer is reasonable, and it presents us with a God who is not all-powerful, though in order to defend your own prejudiced view of God, you have tried to define all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

DAVID: Makes sense to me. God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

At least you’ve now realized that proportionality does not answer the theodicy question. God having limited powers provides a feasible answer to that question. What is not feasible is a definition of “all-powerful” as “having limited powers.” Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, December 08, 2023, 19:15 (111 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] the question which you simply go on dodging is why your God, whose one and only aim according to you was the remaining 0.1%, should have deliberately designed and then had to cull the 99.9%. This messy, inefficient way makes no sense even to you, but it is your fixed belief.

DAVID: Same wrong question. Evolution is solid history. If God is posited as in charge He did it. Makes perfect sense to me. Sorry you are so confused.

dhw: You are utterly determined to exclude your theory from these discussions. I agree that evolution is solid history, and if God exists, he set it up. What is not history is the theory that (a) his one and only goal was us plus food, and (b) he fulfilled his goal by deliberately designing 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his goal. And you have admitted that you don’t know why he would use such a messy, inefficient method. Your dodging technique is becoming a parody of itself.

I'm not dodging. Your contorted criticism of the way God evolved us is not answerable. Adler and I and I'm sure many others feel humans were God's intended goal. You won't accept that goal concept for unknown reasons on your part. So please explain y90ur position.


DAVID: What is here now is in great part out food supply.

dhw: Of course what is here now is mainly our food. And what was here in the past was mainly not us or our food!

DAVID:Your confusion. The past became the present. Evolution was purpose driven.

dhw: According to you, only 0.1% of the past became the present. And you have no idea why your God would have specially designed the other 99.9%. Maybe he didn’t. Or maybe his purpose was not the purpose you have imposed on him.

Again, the same strange distortion. 0.1% is the present created by a necessary 99.9% eliminated in the evolution process in which better organisms are created by design. Whatever God wanted, He purposely created. Your lack of vision about a purposeful God confuses you about God's actions.


DAVID: You totally redefine evolution. The 99.9% have to be gone in the process.

dhw: Where on earth did you find a definition of evolution which specifies that God’s one and only goal was us plus food, and in order to achieve his goal, he had to design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with it? You know it makes no sense!

No sense only to you since you cannot conceive of a purposeful God.


dhw: Messiness, cumbersomeness and inefficiency are hardly “god-like”. […]

DAVID: I can only conceive a God as highly purposeful, who needs no experimentation, unlioke your humanized form.

dhw: […] your messy, inefficient designer is no less human than a highly successful experimental scientist.

DAVID: "A highly successful experimental scientist" is a humanized God, you are stuck with.

dhw: It’s just one of three alternative theories which provide a logical explanation for the vast variety of species extinct and extant. Why do you regard your blundering, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer as less human than a successful scientist?

Another humanizing allusion.


Theodicy
DAVID: [Theodicy] depends on a glass half full or half empty. You concentrate on the empty. God's good works far outweigh the small bad side effects. 'Dayenu' is the way I think.

dhw: You really don’t get it, do you? Evil exists! Theodicy does not ask what is the percentage of good and bad, or tell us how happy we should be because warmongers, murders and rapists are only a small minority! It asks how the one and only, all-powerful, all-knowing, first-cause creator of all things could have created a system which he knew would result in evil, and yet himself be all-good.

DAVID: I sure do get it. I started this stream of discussion. Goff's limited God is a reasonable answer.

dhw: You were trying to defend your non-answer of proportionality! Yes, Goff’s answer is reasonable, and it presents us with a God who is not all-powerful, though in order to defend your own prejudiced view of God, you have tried to define all-powerful as meaning with limited powers!

DAVID: Makes sense to me. God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: At least you’ve now realized that proportionality does not answer the theodicy question. God having limited powers provides a feasible answer to that question. What is not feasible is a definition of “all-powerful” as “having limited powers.” Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument. Sorry you don't like the limited powers aspect.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, December 09, 2023, 12:16 (110 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your dodging technique is becoming a parody of itself.

DAVID: I'm not dodging. Your contorted criticism of the way God evolved us is not answerable. Adler and I and I'm sure many others feel humans were God's intended goal. You won't accept that goal concept for unknown reasons on your part. So please explain your position.

You never stop dodging. Your technique is always to leave out one part of your theory, and it is getting tiresome. There is nothing illogical in the theory that humans were your God’s intended goal. What is illogical is the combination of this theory with the theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God also deliberately designed and then had to get rid of 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with this goal. Why would he do that? You have no idea. You simply call it a messy, cumbersome, inefficient design, and try to forget about it.

DAVID: […] 0.1% is the present created by a necessary 99.9% eliminated in the evolution process in which better organisms are created by design.

The 0.1% were not created by the 99.9%! According to you, your God created the 100% and then had to cull the 99.9% which had no connection with his goal. But you have accidentally hit upon ONE of my theories, by having him “creating better organisms by design”. If he consciously designed and got rid of inferior organisms in his quest to create a being like himself (humans), he was clearly experimenting. But you won’t even consider that idea, although you’ve just suggested it yourself.

DAVID: Whatever God wanted, He purposely created. Your lack of vision about a purposeful God confuses you about God's actions.

If he exists, of course he would have purposely created what he wanted to create. And instead of ridiculing your God as having created a messy, cumbersome and inefficient design, I have offered you three alternative explanations, all of which have him purposely and efficiently creating what he wanted to create.

DAVID: You totally redefine evolution. The 99.9% have to be gone in the process.

dhw: Where on earth did you find a definition of evolution which specifies that God’s one and only goal was us plus food, and in order to achieve his goal, he had to design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with it? You know it makes no sense!

DAVID: No sense only to you since you cannot conceive of a purposeful God.

All my alternatives involve a purposeful God, but you cannot conceive of any purpose or any method other than those which you wish to impose on him.

dhw: [Experimentation is] just one of three alternative theories which provide a logical explanation for the vast variety of species extinct and extant. Why do you regard your blundering, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer as less human than a successful scientist?

DAVID: Another humanizing allusion.

And your blundering, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is less human and more godlike than my designer who does precisely what he wants to do?

Theodicy

DAVID: God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: At least you’ve now realized that proportionality does not answer the theodicy question. God having limited powers provides a feasible answer to that question. What is not feasible is a definition of “all-powerful” as “having limited powers.” Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

DAVID: Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument.

There is no measuring involved in the second theory. Stop twisting.

DAVID: Sorry you don't like the limited powers aspect.

I do like it. Why don’t you read what I write? I find it feasible. But if you believe it is correct, you will have to stop your ridiculous distortion of language, pretending that “all-powerful” means “with limited powers”.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 09, 2023, 14:04 (110 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I'm not dodging. Your contorted criticism of the way God evolved us is not answerable. Adler and I and I'm sure many others feel humans were God's intended goal. You won't accept that goal concept for unknown reasons on your part. So please explain your position.

dhw: You never stop dodging. Your technique is always to leave out one part of your theory, and it is getting tiresome. There is nothing illogical in the theory that humans were your God’s intended goal. What is illogical is the combination of this theory with the theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God also deliberately designed and then had to get rid of 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with this goal. Why would he do that? You have no idea. You simply call it a messy, cumbersome, inefficient design, and try to forget about it.

Your crazy response is that God should not have evolved us.


DAVID: […] 0.1% is the present created by a necessary 99.9% eliminated in the evolution process in which better organisms are created by design.

dhw: The 0.1% were not created by the 99.9%!


Of course, they were. They are the current survivors.

dhw: According to you, your God created the 100% and then had to cull the 99.9% which had no connection with his goal. But you have accidentally hit upon ONE of my theories, by having him “creating better organisms by design”. If he consciously designed and got rid of inferior organisms in his quest to create a being like himself (humans), he was clearly experimenting. But you won’t even consider that idea, although you’ve just suggested it yourself.

Concepts of God do not need experimentation.


DAVID: You totally redefine evolution. The 99.9% have to be gone in the process.

dhw: Where on earth did you find a definition of evolution which specifies that God’s one and only goal was us plus food, and in order to achieve his goal, he had to design and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with it? You know it makes no sense!

DAVID: No sense only to you since you cannot conceive of a purposeful God.

dhw: All my alternatives involve a purposeful God, but you cannot conceive of any purpose or any method other than those which you wish to impose on him.

dhw: [Experimentation is] just one of three alternative theories which provide a logical explanation for the vast variety of species extinct and extant. Why do you regard your blundering, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer as less human than a successful scientist?

DAVID: Another humanizing allusion.

dhw: And your blundering, messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is less human and more godlike than my designer who does precisely what he wants to do?

You forget your God e experiments, allows free-for-alls.


Theodicy

DAVID: God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: At least you’ve now realized that proportionality does not answer the theodicy question. God having limited powers provides a feasible answer to that question. What is not feasible is a definition of “all-powerful” as “having limited powers.” Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

DAVID: Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument.

dhw: There is no measuring involved in the second theory. Stop twisting.

DAVID: Sorry you don't like the limited powers aspect.

dhw: I do like it. Why don’t you read what I write? I find it feasible. But if you believe it is correct, you will have to stop your ridiculous distortion of language, pretending that “all-powerful” means “with limited powers”.

I think all-powerful with limits is a feasible concept.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, December 10, 2023, 10:10 (110 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You never stop dodging. Your technique is always to leave out one part of your theory, and it is getting tiresome. There is nothing illogical in the theory that humans were your God’s intended goal. What is illogical is the combination of this theory with the theory that your all-powerful, all-knowing God also deliberately designed and then had to get rid of 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with this goal. Why would he do that? You have no idea. You simply call it a messy, cumbersome, inefficient design, and try to forget about it.

DAVID: Your crazy response is that God should not have evolved us.

Where on earth have you dredged that idea from? If your God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to his using the process of evolution for whatever his purpose may have been, and I have no objection whatsoever to the fact that this process produced us. I object only to the sheer illogicality of your combined theories, as bolded above, and I’m surprised that you should insist on a theory that makes your God into a messy, inefficient designer. My own view is that if God exists, he would have had good reason for designing whatever he designed, and would not have found himself having to design and then get rid of 99.9 of his designs because they were irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

DAVID: […] 0.1% is the present created by a necessary 99.9% eliminated in the evolution process in which better organisms are created by design.

dhw: The 0.1% were not created by the 99.9%!

DAVID: Of course, they were. They are the current survivors.

They are the current survivors of the 0.1% of species that did not come to a dead end during the history of evolution.

dhw: According to you, your God created the 100% and then had to cull the 99.9% which had no connection with his goal. But you have accidentally hit upon ONE of my theories, by having him “creating better organisms by design”. If he consciously designed and got rid of inferior organisms in his quest to create a being like himself (humans), he was clearly experimenting. But you won’t even consider that idea, although you’ve just suggested it yourself.

DAVID: Concepts of God do not need experimentation.

Who decides on what is "needed"? In fact, we do not “need” any concepts of God at all, since nobody can possibly know him. But you insist that you know his purpose, and that you know his method of achieving that purpose was messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Why are you now disowning your own suggestion that he got rid of earlier, inferior designs and “created better organisms by design”, which clearly amounts to experimentation.

DAVID (later in the post): You forget your God experiments, allows free-for-alls.

I’ve just pointed out that you yourself have suggested experimentation without realizing it. That was experimentation with a particular purpose. A free-for-all would have a different purpose – the enjoyment of discovery, seeing how his invention produces new delights (or horrors!) and possibly giving him new ideas of his own (he can always dabble, and humans might well have been such a product, since they came so late on the scene). But your mind is closed to any such alternatives.

Theodicy

DAVID: God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: At least you’ve now realized that proportionality does not answer the theodicy question. God having limited powers provides a feasible answer to that question. What is not feasible is a definition of “all-powerful” as “having limited powers.” Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

DAVID: Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument.

dhw: There is no measuring involved in the second theory. Stop twisting.

DAVID: Sorry you don't like the limited powers aspect.

dhw: I do like it. Why don’t you read what I write? I find it feasible. But if you believe it is correct, you will have to stop your ridiculous distortion of language, pretending that “all-powerful” means “with limited powers”.

DAVID: I think all-powerful with limits is a feasible concept.

If your powers are limited, you cannot be ALL-powerful.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 10, 2023, 16:16 (109 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your crazy response is that God should not have evolved us.

dhw: Where on earth have you dredged that idea from? If your God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to his using the process of evolution for whatever his purpose may have been, and I have no objection whatsoever to the fact that this process produced us. I object only to the sheer illogicality of your combined theories, as bolded above, and I’m surprised that you should insist on a theory that makes your God into a messy, inefficient designer. My own view is that if God exists, he would have had good reason for designing whatever he designed, and would not have found himself having to design and then get rid of 99.9 of his designs because they were irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

DAVID: […] 0.1% is the present created by a necessary 99.9% eliminated in the evolution process in which better organisms are created by design.

dhw: The 0.1% were not created by the 99.9%!

DAVID: Of course, they were. They are the current survivors.

dhw: They are the current survivors of the 0.1% of species that did not come to a dead end during the history of evolution.

Correct!!! 99.9% are simply ancestors of the currently living.


dhw: According to you, your God created the 100% and then had to cull the 99.9% which had no connection with his goal. But you have accidentally hit upon ONE of my theories, by having him “creating better organisms by design”. If he consciously designed and got rid of inferior organisms in his quest to create a being like himself (humans), he was clearly experimenting. But you won’t even consider that idea, although you’ve just suggested it yourself.

DAVID: Concepts of God do not need experimentation.

dhw: Who decides on what is "needed"? In fact, we do not “need” any concepts of God at all, since nobody can possibly know him. But you insist that you know his purpose, and that you know his method of achieving that purpose was messy, cumbersome and inefficient. Why are you now disowning your own suggestion that he got rid of earlier, inferior designs and “created better organisms by design”, which clearly amounts to experimentation.

Not experimentation if purposely designed in a series.


DAVID (later in the post): You forget your God experiments, allows free-for-alls.

dhw: I’ve just pointed out that you yourself have suggested experimentation without realizing it. That was experimentation with a particular purpose. A free-for-all would have a different purpose – the enjoyment of discovery, seeing how his invention produces new delights (or horrors!) and possibly giving him new ideas of his own (he can always dabble, and humans might well have been such a product, since they came so late on the scene). But your mind is closed to any such alternatives.

Again we are presented with a God who experiments for unexpected results, suddenly is guided to new ideas, has no specific goal and stumbles upon the thought of humans. Not A form of God I recognize.


Theodicy

DAVID: God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: At least you’ve now realized that proportionality does not answer the theodicy question. God having limited powers provides a feasible answer to that question. What is not feasible is a definition of “all-powerful” as “having limited powers.” Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

DAVID: Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument.

dhw: There is no measuring involved in the second theory. Stop twisting.

DAVID: Sorry you don't like the limited powers aspect.

dhw: I do like it. Why don’t you read what I write? I find it feasible. But if you believe it is correct, you will have to stop your ridiculous distortion of language, pretending that “all-powerful” means “with limited powers”.

DAVID: I think all-powerful with limits is a feasible concept.

dhw: If your powers are limited, you cannot be ALL-powerful.

Yes, can be. All-powerful in every aspect but one. Inventing biochemical reactions that require freely acting molecules in which tightly restrictive controls won't work.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Monday, December 11, 2023, 12:06 (108 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your crazy response is that God should not have evolved us.

dhw: Where on earth have you dredged that idea from? If your God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to his using the process of evolution for whatever his purpose may have been, and I have no objection whatsoever to the fact that this process produced us. I object only to the sheer illogicality of your combined theories, as bolded above, and I’m surprised that you should insist on a theory that makes your God into a messy, inefficient designer.

As usual, you skip this whole section. No, I don’t say God should not have evolved us. My only objection is to your “crazy” theory which makes your God into a messy, inefficient designer.

DAVID: […] 0.1% is the present created by a necessary 99.9% eliminated in the evolution process in which better organisms are created by design.

dhw: The 0.1% were not created by the 99.9%!

DAVID: Of course, they were. They are the current survivors.

dhw: They are the current survivors of the 0.1% of species that did not come to a dead end during the history of evolution.

DAVID: Correct!!! 99.9% are simply ancestors of the currently living.

Wrong. 99.9% were dead ends. Only 0.1% were ancestors of the currently living. For instance, are you telling us that 99.9% of dinosaurs evolved into us and our food? You have accepted the image of evolution as a bush of life forms. Bushes branch out from their roots, and the branches do not meet. It's called diversification. 99.9% became dead ends.To make matters worse, according to you, all the species from which we and our food have descended were created "de novo" during the Cambrian, so according to you, how can we be descended from 99.9% of all the species that preceded the Cambrian?

dhw: [..] you have accidentally hit upon ONE of my theories, by having him “creating better organisms by design”. If he consciously designed and got rid of inferior organisms in his quest to create a being like himself (humans), he was clearly experimenting. But you won’t even consider that idea, although you’ve just suggested it yourself.

DAVID: Concepts of God do not need experimentation.

dhw: Who decides on what is "needed"? […] Why are you now disowning your own suggestion that he got rid of earlier, inferior designs and “created better organisms by design”, which clearly amounts to experimentation.

DAVID: Not experimentation if purposely designed in a series.

So now you have an all-powerful, all-knowing God who knowingly designs and then gets rid of a series of inferior organisms in order to design better organisms. Just as messy and inefficient as your first version.

dhw: […] A free-for-all would have a different purpose – the enjoyment of discovery, seeing how his invention produces new delights (or horrors!) and possibly giving him new ideas of his own (he can always dabble, and humans might well have been such a product, since they came so late on the scene). But your mind is closed to any such alternatives.

DAVID: Again we are presented with a God who experiments for unexpected results, suddenly is guided to new ideas, has no specific goal and stumbles upon the thought of humans. Not A form of God I recognize.

The goal I have described entails enjoyment, discovery, learning new things, getting new ideas. The God you have described knows exactly what he wants from the start, and deliberately designs 100 life forms of which 99.9 have no connection with what he wants and have to be culled. I doubt if many of your fellow believers would recognize such a bumbling, inefficient designer.

Theodicy

DAVID: God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: At least you’ve now realized that proportionality does not answer the theodicy question. God having limited powers provides a feasible answer to that question. What is not feasible is a definition of “all-powerful” as “having limited powers.” Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

DAVID: Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument.

dhw: There is no measuring involved in the second theory. Stop twisting.

Ignored.

DAVID: I think all-powerful with limits is a feasible concept.

dhw: If your powers are limited, you cannot be ALL-powerful.

DAVID: Yes, can be. All-powerful in every aspect but one. Inventing biochemical reactions that require freely acting molecules in which tightly restrictive controls won't work.

All-powerful , then, except when he's not all-powerful. You also harp on about his attempts to provide counter-measures, but still the mistakes continue to have their devastating effects, as you know from your experiences as a physician. We won’t bother to go into the source of other forms of non-human evil, such as the different types of natural disaster which he may or may not control.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, December 11, 2023, 18:23 (108 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your crazy response is that God should not have evolved us.

dhw: Where on earth have you dredged that idea from? If your God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to his using the process of evolution for whatever his purpose may have been, and I have no objection whatsoever to the fact that this process produced us. I object only to the sheer illogicality of your combined theories, as bolded above, and I’m surprised that you should insist on a theory that makes your God into a messy, inefficient designer.

As usual, you skip this whole section. No, I don’t say God should not have evolved us. My only objection is to your “crazy” theory which makes your God into a messy, inefficient designer.

I skip it because we have two locked positions that don't need constant repetition.


DAVID: […] 0.1% is the present created by a necessary 99.9% eliminated in the evolution process in which better organisms are created by design.

dhw: The 0.1% were not created by the 99.9%!

DAVID: Of course, they were. They are the current survivors.

dhw: They are the current survivors of the 0.1% of species that did not come to a dead end during the history of evolution.

DAVID: Correct!!! 99.9% are simply ancestors of the currently living.

dhw: Wrong. 99.9% were dead ends.

That is not Raup's meaning in any sense. He was describing a cumulative process of disappearance as evolution proceeded to the present. Raup: "extinction provides new opportunities for different organisms that can explore new habitats and modes of life. This process "keeps the pots boiling" and may be necessary to achieve the variety of life forms. past and present." (pg.20)..."Keyfitz estimated in 1966 that about four percent of all the people who had every lived were alive then. Again, newness and population growth". (pg.3)

The last point shows the past loss of 96% of ancestor humans in our direct line of descent. That loss is not the end of a species, as in your interpretation.

DAVID: Not experimentation if purposely designed in a series.

dhw: So now you have an all-powerful, all-knowing God who knowingly designs and then gets rid of a series of inferior organisms in order to design better organisms. Just as messy and inefficient as your first version.

It is the same version.

Theodicy

DAVID: God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: At least you’ve now realized that proportionality does not answer the theodicy question. God having limited powers provides a feasible answer to that question. What is not feasible is a definition of “all-powerful” as “having limited powers.” Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

DAVID: Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument.

dhw: There is no measuring involved in the second theory. Stop twisting.

Ignored.

I admit you stated a good point about the value of evil examples.


DAVID: I think all-powerful with limits is a feasible concept.

dhw: If your powers are limited, you cannot be ALL-powerful.

DAVID: Yes, can be. All-powerful in every aspect but one. Inventing biochemical reactions that require freely acting molecules in which tightly restrictive controls won't work.

dhw: All-powerful , then, except when he's not all-powerful. You also harp on about his attempts to provide counter-measures, but still the mistakes continue to have their devastating effects, as you know from your experiences as a physician. We won’t bother to go into the source of other forms of non-human evil, such as the different types of natural disaster which he may or may not control.

See today's entry on molecular reaction rates.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, December 12, 2023, 08:59 (108 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your crazy response is that God should not have evolved us.

I gave you a full reply to this totally false remark.

dhw: As usual, you skip this whole section. No, I don’t say God should not have evolved us. My only objection is to your “crazy” theory which makes your God into a messy, inefficient designer.

DAVID: I skip it because we have two locked positions that don't need constant repetition.

I do not have a “locked position”. I ask you why YOU have a locked position, although you can find no logical foundation for it. The constant repetition is because you constantly change the subject, introduce logical generalizations which ignore the illogical parts of your theory, or admit you can’t understand it either and I will have to ask God why he chose what you call his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: […] 0.1% is the present created by a necessary 99.9% eliminated in the evolution process in which better organisms are created by design. (dhw’s bold. See later)

dhw: The 0.1% were not created by the 99.9%! […]

DAVID: 99.9% are simply ancestors of the currently living.

dhw: Wrong. 99.9% were dead ends.

DAVID: That is not Raup's meaning in any sense. He was describing a cumulative process of disappearance as evolution proceeded to the present. Raup: "extinction provides new opportunities for different organisms that can explore new habitats and modes of life. This process "keeps the pots boiling" and may be necessary to achieve the variety of life forms. past and present." (pg.20)...

This is a perfectly rational interpretation of how extinctions may have led to the great variety, past and present. Nowhere does it indicate that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food! And nowhere does it say that God’s sole purpose was to design us and therefore he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 soecies that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: "Keyfitz estimated in 1966 that about four percent of all the people who had every lived were alive then. Again, newness and population growth". (pg.3)
The last point shows the past loss of 96% of ancestor humans in our direct line of descent. That loss is not the end of a species, as in your interpretation.

All totally irrelevant! Of course our ancestor humans were our ancestors! They were part of the 0.1% that survived! Why have you left out my next comment?

dhw: 99.9% were dead ends. Only 0.1% were ancestors of the currently living. For instance, are you telling us that 99.9% of dinosaurs evolved into us and our food? You have accepted the image of evolution as a bush of life forms. Bushes branch out from their roots, and the branches do not meet. It's called diversification. 99.9% became dead ends. To make matters worse, according to you, all the species from which we and our food have descended were created "de novo" during the Cambrian, so according to you, how can we be descended from 99.9% of all the species that preceded the Cambrian?

All ignored. STOP DODGING! Your comment (bolded) about “better designs” fits in perfectly with the theory that your God was experimenting.

DAVID: Not experimentation if purposely designed in a series.

dhw: So now you have an all-powerful, all-knowing God who knowingly designs and then gets rid of a series of inferior organisms in order to design better organisms. Just as messy and inefficient as your first version.

DAVID: It is the same version.

Oh well, same problem then.

Theodicy

DAVID: God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: […] Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

DAVID: Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument.

dhw: There is no measuring involved in the second theory. Stop twisting.

Ignored.

DAVID: I admit you stated a good point about the value of evil examples.

It’s a possible explanation of why your God might have invented evil. It does not explain how a first-cause God can create evil out himself and yet be all-good.

DAVID: I think all-powerful with limits is a feasible concept.

dhw: If your powers are limited, you cannot be ALL-powerful.[…]

DAVID: See today's entry on molecular reaction rates.

It does not explain how an all-powerful God can have limited powers.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 12, 2023, 17:00 (107 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your crazy response is that God should not have evolved us.

dhw: I gave you a full reply to this totally false remark.

You, years ago wondered why God used evolution instead of direct creation.


dhw: As usual, you skip this whole section. No, I don’t say God should not have evolved us. My only objection is to your “crazy” theory which makes your God into a messy, inefficient designer.

DAVID: I skip it because we have two locked positions that don't need constant repetition.

dhw: I do not have a “locked position”. I ask you why YOU have a locked position, although you can find no logical foundation for it. The constant repetition is because you constantly change the subject, introduce logical generalizations which ignore the illogical parts of your theory, or admit you can’t understand it either and I will have to ask God why he chose what you call his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve the purpose you impose on him.

My locked position is based upon many years of research reading books on the subject of God, and reasons for concluding His existence. That plus my knowledge of the complexity of living biochemistry.

DAVID: That is not Raup's meaning in any sense. He was describing a cumulative process of disappearance as evolution proceeded to the present. Raup: "extinction provides new opportunities for different organisms that can explore new habitats and modes of life. This process "keeps the pots boiling" and may be necessary to achieve the variety of life forms. past and present." (pg.20)...

dhw: This is a perfectly rational interpretation of how extinctions may have led to the great variety, past and present. Nowhere does it indicate that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food! And nowhere does it say that God’s sole purpose was to design us and therefore he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

99.9% are the past losses directly leading to the existing 0.1%. That loss rate occurred in our lineage as in every other. You continue with a weird mathematical view of evolution.


DAVID: "Keyfitz estimated in 1966 that about four percent of all the people who had every lived were alive then. Again, newness and population growth". (pg.3)
The last point shows the past loss of 96% of ancestor humans in our direct line of descent. That loss is not the end of a species, as in your interpretation.

All totally irrelevant! Of course our ancestor humans were our ancestors! They were part of the 0.1% that survived! Why have you left out my next comment?

dhw: 99.9% were dead ends. Only 0.1% were ancestors of the currently living. For instance, are you telling us that 99.9% of dinosaurs evolved into us and our food? You have accepted the image of evolution as a bush of life forms. Bushes branch out from their roots, and the branches do not meet. It's called diversification. 99.9% became dead ends. To make matters worse, according to you, all the species from which we and our food have descended were created "de novo" during the Cambrian, so according to you, how can we be descended from 99.9% of all the species that preceded the Cambrian?

My position is God produced evolution and the speciation required. As for a dino related example, don't we eat birds? And our math discussion is all post Cambrian.


Theodicy

DAVID: God knows exactly how to proceed within rigid limits.

dhw: […] Likewise, God wanting to create the mixture of good and bad because the latter brings out the full value of the former would also be a feasible explanation for evil, but that doesn’t solve the problem of how he can be called all-good.

DAVID: Using evil as a measuring aspect of the good is a reasonable approach. That is the proportionality argument.

dhw: There is no measuring involved in the second theory. Stop twisting.

Ignored.

The example of evil, as an example of 'wrong' is directly answered by proportionality.


DAVID: I admit you stated a good point about the value of evil examples.

dhw: It’s a possible explanation of why your God might have invented evil. It does not explain how a first-cause God can create evil out himself and yet be all-good.

I take the approach God knows the correct things to create. Evil is not directly created. It takes human actions and in biochemistry, molecular mistakes. Do you want God to take back free will?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, December 13, 2023, 13:34 (106 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your crazy response is that God should not have evolved us.

dhw: I gave you a full reply to this totally false remark.

DAVID: You, years ago wondered why God used evolution instead of direct creation.

As usual, you leave out the illogicality of your theory. I have no problem whatsoever with God using evolution (if he exists)! The problem is your all-powerful God having only one purpose (us and our food) and therefore deliberately designing 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. This is not a criticism of God but of a theory that makes no sense. And you agree that it makes no sense, because I should ask God why he did it that way, but your position is what you call “locked”.

DAVID: My locked position is based upon many years of research reading books on the subject of God, and reasons for concluding His existence. That plus my knowledge of the complexity of living biochemistry.

If all your qualifications have led you to the conclusion that your God’s only goal was us and our food and therefore he messily, clumsily and inefficiently (your description) designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his purpose and you have no idea why, may I suggest that there might just be something wrong with this conclusion. NB This is not a discussion of God’s existence but of his possible purpose and methods. Once more, you are dodging the issue.

DAVID: That is not Raup's meaning in any sense. He was describing a cumulative process of disappearance as evolution proceeded to the present. Raup: "extinction provides new opportunities for different organisms that can explore new habitats and modes of life. This process "keeps the pots boiling" and may be necessary to achieve the variety of life forms. past and present." (pg.20)...

dhw: This is a perfectly rational interpretation of how extinctions may have led to the great variety, past and present. Nowhere does it indicate that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food! And nowhere does it say that God’s sole purpose was to design us and therefore he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: 99.9% are the past losses directly leading to the existing 0.1%. That loss rate occurred in our lineage as in every other. You continue with a weird mathematical view of evolution.

I answered this in the paragraph you ignored:

dhw: 99.9% were dead ends. Only 0.1% were ancestors of the currently living. For instance, are you telling us that 99.9% of dinosaurs evolved into us and our food? You have accepted the image of evolution as a bush of life forms. Bushes branch out from their roots, and the branches do not meet. It's called diversification. 99.9% became dead ends. To make matters worse, according to you, all the species from which we and our food have descended were created "de novo" during the Cambrian, so according to you, how can we be descended from 99.9% of all the species that preceded the Cambrian?

DAVID: My position is God produced evolution and the speciation required. As for a dino related example, don't we eat birds? And our math discussion is all post Cambrian.

We are talking about your absurd theory that your God deliberately designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him from the very beginning of life: us and our food. Our math discussion is from the very beginning, not from the Cambrian, and birds represent the 0.1% that survived from the dino era. (But crocodiles may also be descendants. Maybe 0.2% survived.)

Theodicy

DAVID: The example of evil, as an example of 'wrong' is directly answered by proportionality.
What does this mean? An example is not a question! Evil exists, and the question is how your first cause God could have invented evil and yet be all-good. It is not answered by saying there’s only 10% (or whatever) evil compared to 90% (or whatever) good!

DAVID: I take the approach God knows the correct things to create.

“Correct”? Your all-powerful God would create whatever he wanted to create!

DAVID: Evil is not directly created. It takes human actions and in biochemistry, molecular mistakes. Do you want God to take back free will?

We are not talking about what we want! Obviously if your all-powerful, all-knowing God knowingly designs molecules that cause disease and humans who wage war and commit murder, rape etc., he doesn’t do the dirty himself, but he is responsible for their existence. And so we are left with the question how your all-powerful, all-knowing God, no matter whether he WANTED to create these causes of evil or was powerless to prevent the molecular ones, can be all good.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 13, 2023, 18:23 (106 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: As usual, you leave out the illogicality of your theory. I have no problem whatsoever with God using evolution (if he exists)! The problem is your all-powerful God having only one purpose (us and our food) and therefore deliberately designing 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. This is not a criticism of God but of a theory that makes no sense. And you agree that it makes no sense, because I should ask God why he did it that way, but your position is what you call “locked”.

The method God chose, evolving us results in exactly what you decry! We feed on the entire bush of life. I do not feel it makes no sense. God produces exactly what He chooses to produce, and I accept His works as entirely necessary. Sorry you can't. I cannot know His reasons. But I view Him as fully purposeful.


DAVID: My locked position is based upon many years of research reading books on the subject of God, and reasons for concluding His existence. That plus my knowledge of the complexity of living biochemistry.

dhw: If all your qualifications have led you to the conclusion that your God’s only goal was us and our food and therefore he messily, clumsily and inefficiently (your description) designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with his purpose and you have no idea why, may I suggest that there might just be something wrong with this conclusion. NB This is not a discussion of God’s existence but of his possible purpose and methods.

God's purpose is to produce humans and their dominion over the Earth to provide our food, today's actual situation.


DAVID: That is not Raup's meaning in any sense. He was describing a cumulative process of disappearance as evolution proceeded to the present. Raup: "extinction provides new opportunities for different organisms that can explore new habitats and modes of life. This process "keeps the pots boiling" and may be necessary to achieve the variety of life forms. past and present." (pg.20)...

dhw: This is a perfectly rational interpretation of how extinctions may have led to the great variety, past and present. Nowhere does it indicate that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food! And nowhere does it say that God’s sole purpose was to design us and therefore he deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: 99.9% are the past losses directly leading to the existing 0.1%. That loss rate occurred in our lineage as in every other. You continue with a weird mathematical view of evolution.

I answered this in the paragraph you ignored:

dhw: 99.9% were dead ends. Only 0.1% were ancestors of the currently living. For instance, are you telling us that 99.9% of dinosaurs evolved into us and our food? You have accepted the image of evolution as a bush of life forms. Bushes branch out from their roots, and the branches do not meet. It's called diversification. 99.9% became dead ends. To make matters worse, according to you, all the species from which we and our food have descended were created "de novo" during the Cambrian, so according to you, how can we be descended from 99.9% of all the species that preceded the Cambrian?

DAVID: My position is God produced evolution and the speciation required. As for a dino related example, don't we eat birds? And our math discussion is all post Cambrian.

dhw: Our math discussion is from the very beginning, not from the Cambrian, and birds represent the 0.1% that survived from the dino era. (But crocodiles may also be descendants. Maybe 0.2% survived.)

Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today. That is how Raup analyzed the math of evolution. In any evolution there is loss leading to the present. You are still complaining about God's method.


Theodicy

DAVID: The example of evil, as an example of 'wrong' is directly answered by proportionality.

dhw: What does this mean? An example is not a question! Evil exists, and the question is how your first cause God could have invented evil and yet be all-good. It is not answered by saying there’s only 10% (or whatever) evil compared to 90% (or whatever) good![/i]

Proportionality is 99.9% good, 0.1% evil.

DAVID: I take the approach God knows the correct things to create.

dhw: “Correct”? Your all-powerful God would create whatever he wanted to create!

Agreed.


DAVID: Evil is not directly created. It takes human actions and in biochemistry, molecular mistakes. Do you want God to take back free will?

dhw: We are not talking about what we want! Obviously if your all-powerful, all-knowing God knowingly designs molecules that cause disease and humans who wage war and commit murder, rape etc., he doesn’t do the dirty himself, but he is responsible for their existence. And so we are left with the question how your all-powerful, all-knowing God, no matter whether he WANTED to create these causes of evil or was powerless to prevent the molecular ones, can be all good.

Back to faith you refuse to consider. We like God as He is. Not the answer you want. We fully recognize the points you make and are satisfied with our responses. It is a Dayenu position.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, December 14, 2023, 13:05 (105 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The problem is your all-powerful God having only one purpose (us and our food) and therefore deliberately designing 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose. […] You agree that it makes no sense, because I should ask God why he did it that way, but your position is what you call “locked”.

DAVID: The method God chose, evolving us results in exactly what you decry! We feed on the entire bush of life.

We feed on the CURRENT bush of life. We do not feed on the 99.9 species you say your God designed and had to cull because they had no connection with us or our food. Please stop playing silly word games.

DAVID: I do not feel it makes no sense. God produces exactly what He chooses to produce, and I accept His works as entirely necessary. […] I cannot know His reasons. […]

It makes sense to you though you can’t think of any reasons for such inefficiency. I agree that your God, if he exists, would produce exactly what he chooses to produce for whatever his purpose might be. This is your dodging technique of using vague generalisations in order to hide the absurdity of a theory which makes no sense even to you.

DAVID: God's purpose is to produce humans and their dominion over the Earth to provide our food, today's actual situation.

I’m aware of today’s situation, but like you, I can make no sense of the bolded theory above that he designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species in order to reach it. And so since “he produces exactly what he chooses to produce”, he may have had a different purpose for designing the 99.9 species, or he didn’t design them at all, but enabled them to design themselves (e.g. see the article on extremophiles in “More Miscellany, Part Two).

dhw: 99.9% were dead ends. Only 0.1% were ancestors of the currently living. For instance, are you telling us that 99.9% of dinosaurs evolved into us and our food? […] To make matters worse, according to you, all the species from which we and our food have descended were created "de novo" during the Cambrian, so according to you, how can we be descended from 99.9% of all the species that preceded the Cambrian?

DAVID: My position is God produced evolution and the speciation required. As for a dino related example, don't we eat birds? And our math discussion is all post Cambrian.

dhw: Our math discussion is from the very beginning, not from the Cambrian, and birds represent the 0.1% that survived from the dino era. (But crocodiles may also be descendants. Maybe 0.2% survived.)

DAVID: Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today.

How can dead ends produce anything? The 0.1% (if the figures are correct) of today are the descendants from the lines of the 0.1% that survived extinction. And you in particular have vehemently opposed the very idea that we and our food are descended from the 99.9% through your insistence that the life forms from which we and our food are descended were all created “de novo”, i.e. without precursors, during the Cambrian.

DAVID: That is how Raup analyzed the math of evolution. In any evolution there is loss leading to the present. You are still complaining about God's method.

Your Raup quote made no mention of the 99.9% being direct ancestors of us and our food. We only know of one evolution of life, so I don’t know what other evolutions you’re talking about. But I’m not denying loss, and I’m not complaining about your God’s method. If your God exists, I’ve offered three logical explanations for the loss, and my complaint is entirely about your illogical theory concerning your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your description of it).

Theodicy
dhw: Evil exists, and the question is how your first cause God could have invented evil and yet be all-good. It is not answered by saying there’s only 10% (or whatever) evil compared to 90% (or whatever) good!

DAVID: Proportionality is 99.9% good, 0.1% evil.

I have no idea where you got such figures from, but they are irrelevant anyway. Whatever the proportion, evil exists, and percentages do not answer the question posed above.

DAVID: I take the approach God knows the correct things to create.

dhw: “Correct”? Your all-powerful God would create whatever he wanted to create!

DAVID: Agreed.

And so we are left with the question how your all-powerful, all-knowing God, no matter whether he WANTED to create these causes of evil or was powerless to prevent the molecular ones, can be all good.

DAVID: Back to faith you refuse to consider. We like God as He is. Not the answer you want. We fully recognize the points you make and are satisfied with our responses. It is a Dayenu position.

The question is not about whether you like him or not, but about his nature. Your solution to the theodicy problem is to say you know there’s a problem but it doesn’t matter (a) because there’s more good than evil, or (b) because in spite of the problem you still believe he’s all-good, or (c) even if he’s part evil, you like him as he is.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 14, 2023, 17:41 (105 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We feed on the CURRENT bush of life. We do not feed on the 99.9 species you say your God designed and had to cull because they had no connection with us or our food. Please stop playing silly word games.

Your view of evolution is totally backwards and baseless. Whether you realize it or not, your view is God should not have used evolution to create us.

DAVID: God's purpose is to produce humans and their dominion over the Earth to provide our food, today's actual situation.

dhw: I’m aware of today’s situation, but like you, I can make no sense of the bolded theory above that he designed and had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species in order to reach it. And so since “he produces exactly what he chooses to produce”, he may have had a different purpose for designing the 99.9 species, or he didn’t design them at all, but enabled them to design themselves (e.g. see the article on extremophiles in “More Miscellany, Part Two).

Same point is simply God should not have evolved us. Don't invent a present which does not exist. The facts reasonably reach the conclusion God wanted us to appear and rule the Earth.


dhw: Our math discussion is from the very beginning, not from the Cambrian, and birds represent the 0.1% that survived from the dino era. (But crocodiles may also be descendants. Maybe 0.2% survived.)

DAVID: Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today.

dhw: How can dead ends produce anything? The 0.1% (if the figures are correct) of today are the descendants from the lines of the 0.1% that survived extinction. And you in particular have vehemently opposed the very idea that we and our food are descended from the 99.9% through your insistence that the life forms from which we and our food are descended were all created “de novo”, i.e. without precursors, during the Cambrian.

The 'dead ends' are culled branches from the direct lines that led to all on Earth now. If it were all 'dead ends', nothing would be alive today. You are upside down and backwards in your crazy analysis.


DAVID: That is how Raup analyzed the math of evolution. In any evolution there is loss leading to the present. You are still complaining about God's method.

dhw: Your Raup quote made no mention of the 99.9% being direct ancestors of us and our food. We only know of one evolution of life, so I don’t know what other evolutions you’re talking about. But I’m not denying loss, and I’m not complaining about your God’s method. If your God exists, I’ve offered three logical explanations for the loss, and my complaint is entirely about your illogical theory concerning your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your description of it).

Your three explanations create a humanized God. Evolution is a cumbersome method compared to dierct creation like the Cambrian.


Theodicy
dhw: Evil exists, and the question is how your first cause God could have invented evil and yet be all-good. It is not answered by saying there’s only 10% (or whatever) evil compared to 90% (or whatever) good!

DAVID: Proportionality is 99.9% good, 0.1% evil.

I have no idea where you got such figures from, but they are irrelevant anyway. Whatever the proportion, evil exists, and percentages do not answer the question posed above.

DAVID: I take the approach God knows the correct things to create.

dhw: “Correct”? Your all-powerful God would create whatever he wanted to create!

DAVID: Agreed.

And so we are left with the question how your all-powerful, all-knowing God, no matter whether he WANTED to create these causes of evil or was powerless to prevent the molecular ones, can be all good.

DAVID: Back to faith you refuse to consider. We like God as He is. Not the answer you want. We fully recognize the points you make and are satisfied with our responses. It is a Dayenu position.

dhw: The question is not about whether you like him or not, but about his nature. Your solution to the theodicy problem is to say you know there’s a problem but it doesn’t matter (a) because there’s more good than evil, or (b) because in spite of the problem you still believe he’s all-good, or (c) even if he’s part evil, you like him as he is.

Good analysis of the theodicy position of believers, but you left out: Evil exists secondary to God's good works.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Friday, December 15, 2023, 13:01 (104 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We feed on the entire bush of life.

dhw: We feed on the CURRENT bush of life. We do not feed on the 99.9 species you say your God designed and had to cull because they had no connection with us or our food. Please stop playing silly word games.

DAVID: Your view of evolution is totally backwards and baseless. Whether you realize it or not, your view is God should not have used evolution to create us.

This is one of your favourite dodges. If God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to his use of evolution to create us and everything else that ever lived. BUT...We do not feed on the 99.9% of species that had no connection with us or our food. If God exists and designed the 99.9%, then his motive for doing so could not have been exclusively to design us and our food. Therefore either we were not his one and only goal, or he had to experiment to get what he wanted, or he did not design the 99.9%.

DAVID: God's purpose is to produce humans and their dominion over the Earth to provide our food, today's actual situation.

dhw: I’m aware of today’s situation, but like you, I can make no sense of the bolded theory above.

DAVID: […]. Don't invent a present which does not exist. The facts reasonably reach the conclusion God wanted us to appear and rule the Earth.

I accept that we exist and are the dominant species. And if he exists, your God may have wanted us to appear and rule the Earth. I do not accept that in order to create us, he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. I have offered you alternative explanations for the 99.9%, but you prefer to stick with a theory that makes no sense to you and which ridicules your God’s method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

DAVID: Your three explanations create a humanized God. Evolution is a cumbersome method compared to direct creation like the Cambrian.

See below for the implications of the Cambrian. Your “humanization” argument is plain silly, since you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and why wouldn’t the designs reflect aspects of the designer? Your own versions of an inefficient God who wants us to admire his work, hates evil, would like to have a relationship with us, is powerless to prevent some of the evil for which he’s responsible etc. etc. is no less “human” than my alternatives.

DAVID: Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today.

dhw: How can dead ends produce anything? […]

DAVID: The 'dead ends' are culled branches from the direct lines that led to all on Earth now. If it were all 'dead ends', nothing would be alive today. You are upside down and backwards in your crazy analysis.

More obfuscation. The branches were not ALL dead ends. 0.1% of them led to us and our food. It’s only you who make nonsense of the figures by insisting that we and our food (or perhaps just most of our food) are directly descended from Cambrian life forms that were designed “de novo”, i.e. had no precursors. In which case, it was 100% of pre-Cambrian life that had no connection with us plus our food. Plus all the post-Cambrians, such as non-avian dinosaurs.

Theodicy

dhw: And so we are left with the question how your all-powerful, all-knowing God, no matter whether he WANTED to create these causes of evil or was powerless to prevent the molecular ones, can be all good.

DAVID: Back to faith you refuse to consider. We like God as He is. Not the answer you want. We fully recognize the points you make and are satisfied with our responses. It is a Dayenu position.

dhw: The question is not about whether you like him or not, but about his nature. Your solution to the theodicy problem is to say you know there’s a problem but it doesn’t matter (a) because there’s more good than evil, or (b) because in spite of the problem you still believe he’s all-good, or (c) even if he’s part evil, you like him as he is.

DAVID: Good analysis of the theodicy position of believers, but you left out: Evil exists secondary to God's good works.

Meaningless. Diseases, natural disasters, war, murder, rape are all the direct result of your first-cause, all-powerful, all-knowing God’s designs. You agree that none of your three responses solves the problem, and “secondary” waffle doesn’t solve it either. Other theories remove the attributes of omnipotence of omniscience, so that’s probably as far as we can go in this discussion.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, December 15, 2023, 18:05 (104 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your view of evolution is totally backwards and baseless. Whether you realize it or not, your view is God should not have used evolution to create us.

dhw: This is one of your favourite dodges. If God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to his use of evolution to create us and everything else that ever lived. BUT...We do not feed on the 99.9% of species that had no connection with us or our food. If God exists and designed the 99.9%, then his motive for doing so could not have been exclusively to design us and our food. Therefore either we were not his one and only goal, or he had to experiment to get what he wanted, or he did not design the 99.9%.

Back to your favorite form of a humanized God. God ended up with 0.1% designed and here now, not 99.9%! Your concept of our current food supply is 0.1% of what is on Earth. Your authority for that ratio is what??? I believe in this country ten percent are farming and in animal husbandry. There is the fishing industry with massive aquiculture production. You can't deny we use the whole Earth for our food supply. And the stability of our food supply, especially if wild, depends upon stable ecosystems.


dhw: I accept that we exist and are the dominant species. And if he exists, your God may have wanted us to appear and rule the Earth. I do not accept that in order to create us, he had to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. I have offered you alternative explanations for the 99.9%, but you prefer to stick with a theory that makes no sense to you and which ridicules your God’s method as messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

Same answer. Assuming God exists and evolved us, you are denying the actual history of what occurred as God created it. Totally illogical. You approach is you don't like the way God did it.


DAVID: Your three explanations create a humanized God. Evolution is a cumbersome method compared to direct creation like the Cambrian.

dhw: See below for the implications of the Cambrian. Your “humanization” argument is plain silly, since you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and why wouldn’t the designs reflect aspects of the designer? Your own versions of an inefficient God who wants us to admire his work, hates evil, would like to have a relationship with us, is powerless to prevent some of the evil for which he’s responsible etc. etc. is no less “human” than my alternatives.

The difference is I see a powerful God who knows exactly what He wishes and creates it.


DAVID: Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today.

dhw: How can dead ends produce anything? […]

DAVID: The 'dead ends' are culled branches from the direct lines that led to all on Earth now. If it were all 'dead ends', nothing would be alive today. You are upside down and backwards in your crazy analysis.

dhw: More obfuscation. The branches were not ALL dead ends. 0.1% of them led to us and our food. It’s only you who make nonsense of the figures by insisting that we and our food (or perhaps just most of our food) are directly descended from Cambrian life forms that were designed “de novo”, i.e. had no precursors. In which case, it was 100% of pre-Cambrian life that had no connection with us plus our food. Plus all the post-Cambrians, such as non-avian dinosaurs.

The pre-Cambrian set up a biochemical form of life which was used in the Cambrian forms. Full connection biochemically.


Theodicy

dhw: And so we are left with the question how your all-powerful, all-knowing God, no matter whether he WANTED to create these causes of evil or was powerless to prevent the molecular ones, can be all good.

DAVID: Back to faith you refuse to consider. We like God as He is. Not the answer you want. We fully recognize the points you make and are satisfied with our responses. It is a Dayenu position.

dhw: The question is not about whether you like him or not, but about his nature. Your solution to the theodicy problem is to say you know there’s a problem but it doesn’t matter (a) because there’s more good than evil, or (b) because in spite of the problem you still believe he’s all-good, or (c) even if he’s part evil, you like him as he is.

DAVID: Good analysis of the theodicy position of believers, but you left out: Evil exists secondary to God's good works.

dhw: Meaningless. Diseases, natural disasters, war, murder, rape are all the direct result of your first-cause, all-powerful, all-knowing God’s designs. You agree that none of your three responses solves the problem, and “secondary” waffle doesn’t solve it either. Other theories remove the attributes of omnipotence of omniscience, so that’s probably as far as we can go in this discussion.

I agree,

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, December 16, 2023, 08:49 (104 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: If God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to his use of evolution to create us and everything else that ever lived. BUT...We do not feed on the 99.9% of species that had no connection with us or our food. If God exists and designed the 99.9%, then his motive for doing so could not have been exclusively to design us and our food. Therefore either we were not his one and only goal, or he had to experiment to get what he wanted, or he did not design the 99.9%.

DAVID: Back to your favorite form of a humanized God. God ended up with 0.1% designed and here now, not 99.9%!

That is the whole point! Only 0.1% of past life forms evolved into the life forms that are here now. 99.9%, according to you, were designed by your God and had to be culled by your God because they had no connection with his one and only purpose! And you don’t know why he would have designed them in the first place, as that would have been a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way of fulfilling the goal you impose on him.

DAVID: Your concept of our current food supply is 0.1% of what is on Earth. […] You can't deny we use the whole Earth for our food supply.

What on Earth are you talking about? This is your most outrageous distortion of my "concepts"! The current food supply is descended from 0.1% of past life forms. Of course we use the whole Earth for our food supply. Stop manufacturing straw men!

DAVID: And the stability of our food supply, especially if wild, depends upon stable ecosystems.

Of course it does.

DAVID: Assuming God exists and evolved us, you are denying the actual history of what occurred as God created it. Totally illogical. You approach is you don't like the way God did it.

There is no denial of what occurred: the history generally agreed is that 99.9% of past life forms became extinct, and current life forms evolved from the 0.1% of life forms that survived. It is NOT history that your God designed every species, or that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. Both of these are your theories, which you yourself ridicule as messy and inefficient when combined. No, I don’t like the way you say God did it. The history could have been created in different ways and for different reasons, but you are locked into a theory that makes no sense even to you.

DAVID: Your three explanations create a humanized God. Evolution is a cumbersome method compared to direct creation like the Cambrian.

dhw: See below for the implications of the Cambrian. Your “humanization” argument is plain silly, since you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and why wouldn’t the designs reflect aspects of the designer?

DAVID: The difference is I see a powerful God who knows exactly what He wishes and creates it.

Strangely enough, I see the same. And my vision is no more human than yours.

DAVID: Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today.

dhw: How can dead ends produce anything? […]

DAVID: The 'dead ends' are culled branches from the direct lines that led to all on Earth now. If it were all 'dead ends', nothing would be alive today. […]

dhw: More obfuscation. The branches were not ALL dead ends. 0.1% of them led to us and our food. It’s only you who make nonsense of the figures by insisting that we and our food (or perhaps just most of our food) are directly descended from Cambrian life forms that were designed “de novo”, i.e. had no precursors. In which case, it was 100% of pre-Cambrian life that had no connection with us plus our food. Plus all the post-Cambrians, such as non-avian dinosaurs.

DAVID: The pre-Cambrian set up a biochemical form of life which was used in the Cambrian forms. Full connection biochemically.

Biochemistry is common to all forms of life, but according to you, the forms of life that existed pre-Cambrian were not the forms from which we are descended. Stop dodging.

Theodicy

dhw: Diseases, natural disasters, war, murder, rape are all the direct result of your first-cause, all-powerful, all-knowing God’s designs. You agree that none of your three responses solves the problem, and “secondary” waffle doesn’t solve it either. Other theories remove the attributes of omnipotence of omniscience, so that’s probably as far as we can go in this discussion.

DAVID: I agree.

Then I shall only bring it up again if you start pontificating about how good God is, and the diseases and evils he is responsible for are only secondary.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 16, 2023, 15:24 (103 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Back to your favorite form of a humanized God. God ended up with 0.1% designed and here now, not 99.9%!

dhw: That is the whole point! Only 0.1% of past life forms evolved into the life forms that are here now. 99.9%, according to you, were designed by your God and had to be culled by your God because they had no connection with his one and only purpose! And you don’t know why he would have designed them in the first place, as that would have been a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way of fulfilling the goal you impose on him.

I have no way of knowing why God evolved us! Your complaint is He should have done it more efficiently.


DAVID: And the stability of our food supply, especially if wild, depends upon stable ecosystems.

dhw: Of course it does.

DAVID: Assuming God exists and evolved us, you are denying the actual history of what occurred as God created it. Totally illogical. You approach is you don't like the way God did it.

dhw: There is no denial of what occurred: the history generally agreed is that 99.9% of past life forms became extinct, and current life forms evolved from the 0.1% of life forms that survived. It is NOT history that your God designed every species, or that your God’s one and only purpose was to design us and our food. Both of these are your theories, which you yourself ridicule as messy and inefficient when combined. No, I don’t like the way you say God did it. The history could have been created in different ways and for different reasons, but you are locked into a theory that makes no sense even to you.

My theory makes perfect sense to me. We are here, the most unusual result imaginable. Evolution is over. It is illogical to claim we were not God's goal.


DAVID: Your three explanations create a humanized God. Evolution is a cumbersome method compared to direct creation like the Cambrian.

dhw: See below for the implications of the Cambrian. Your “humanization” argument is plain silly, since you agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and why wouldn’t the designs reflect aspects of the designer?

DAVID: The difference is I see a powerful God who knows exactly what He wishes and creates it.

dhw: Strangely enough, I see the same. And my vision is no more human than yours.

Your God is not strongly purposeful.


DAVID: Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today.

dhw: How can dead ends produce anything? […]

DAVID: The 'dead ends' are culled branches from the direct lines that led to all on Earth now. If it were all 'dead ends', nothing would be alive today. […]

dhw: More obfuscation. The branches were not ALL dead ends. 0.1% of them led to us and our food. It’s only you who make nonsense of the figures by insisting that we and our food (or perhaps just most of our food) are directly descended from Cambrian life forms that were designed “de novo”, i.e. had no precursors. In which case, it was 100% of pre-Cambrian life that had no connection with us plus our food. Plus all the post-Cambrians, such as non-avian dinosaurs.

DAVID: The pre-Cambrian set up a biochemical form of life which was used in the Cambrian forms. Full connection biochemically.

dhw: Biochemistry is common to all forms of life, but according to you, the forms of life that existed pre-Cambrian were not the forms from which we are descended. Stop dodging.

Forms and biochemistry are two ways to study evolution. Biochemistry evolved from the start allowing more complex forms.


Theodicy

dhw: Diseases, natural disasters, war, murder, rape are all the direct result of your first-cause, all-powerful, all-knowing God’s designs. You agree that none of your three responses solves the problem, and “secondary” waffle doesn’t solve it either. Other theories remove the attributes of omnipotence of omniscience, so that’s probably as far as we can go in this discussion.

DAVID: I agree.

dhw: Then I shall only bring it up again if you start pontificating about how good God is, and the diseases and evils he is responsible for are only secondary.

Fine.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, December 17, 2023, 11:47 (102 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Back to your favorite form of a humanized God. God ended up with 0.1% designed and here now, not 99.9%!

dhw: That is the whole point! Only 0.1% of past life forms evolved into the life forms that are here now. 99.9%, according to you, were designed by your God and had to be culled by your God because they had no connection with his one and only purpose! And you don’t know why he would have designed them in the first place, as that would have been a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way of fulfilling the goal you impose on him.

DAVID: I have no way of knowing why God evolved us! Your complaint is He should have done it more efficiently.

There is no end to your dodging. The question is not why he evolved us. The problem is the bolded theory above! And it’s you who ridicule your own theory by saying how messy, cumbersome and inefficient your God must be, and you have no idea why he “evolved” us in this manner.

DAVID: My theory makes perfect sense to me. We are here, the most unusual result imaginable. Evolution is over. It is illogical to claim we were not God's goal.

1) No one on Earth would deny that we’re here. Yes, our advanced intelligence is extraordinary, but this doesn’t explain the illogicality of your bolded theory.
2) I have no idea what life will be like, say, a million years from now.
3) If God is all-purposeful and all-powerful, then it is logical to assume he would only design what he wished to design. So back we go to the bolded theory. You can’t think of a single reason. So either we and our food were not his one and only goal, or he was experimenting to find the right formula, or he hit on the concept of humans late on in the process, or he didn’t design every species but deliberately created a free-for-all – though leaving himself the option to dabble if he felt like it. Can you think of any other explanations?

DAVID: The difference is I see a powerful God who knows exactly what He wishes and creates it.

dhw: Strangely enough, I see the same. And my vision is no more human than yours.

DAVID: Your God is not strongly purposeful.

I have no idea what you mean by “strongly”. Your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations offers as strong a purpose as one could wish for. I asked you about purposes under “Extremophiles”:

DAVID: We control the whole shebang. That is what God wanted, because that is what evolved.

dhw: Yes, we control most of the shebang (but there are natural disasters we certainly don’t control). So please tell us your God’s purpose for the extremophiles, the irrelevant 99.9%, and your God’s sole wish to design us so that we could control the shebang. If he wanted to control it before we came along, why did he want to give up control?

DAVID: A mental gift He gave us. He has His reasons.

You go on and on about your strongly purposeful God, and when I ask you what his purpose might have been, you reply “he has his reasons”. How do you know he is your “strongly” purposeful and not my alternative “strongly” purposeful(s) if you don’t know the reasons for his actions?

DAVID: Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today.

dhw: How can dead ends produce anything? […]

DAVID: The 'dead ends' are culled branches from the direct lines that led to all on Earth now. If it were all 'dead ends', nothing would be alive today. […]

dhw: More obfuscation. The branches were not ALL dead ends. 0.1% of them led to us and our food. It’s only you who make nonsense of the figures by insisting that we and our food (or perhaps just most of our food) are directly descended from Cambrian life forms that were designed “de novo”, i.e. had no precursors. In which case, it was 100% of pre-Cambrian life that had no connection with us plus our food. Plus all the post-Cambrians, such as non-avian dinosaurs.

DAVID: The pre-Cambrian set up a biochemical form of life which was used in the Cambrian forms. Full connection biochemically.

dhw: Biochemistry is common to all forms of life, but according to you, the forms of life that existed pre-Cambrian were not the forms from which we are descended. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Forms and biochemistry are two ways to study evolution. Biochemistry evolved from the start allowing more complex forms.

Correct. Species are different forms of life, and according to you, our species were designed “de novo”, i.e. they were not descended from any earlier form of life, i.e. all previous forms of life were irrelevant to the designing of ourselves. And you have no idea why he would have designed them. Maybe he didn’t. Or maybe...See my other alternatives, and stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 17, 2023, 16:10 (102 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have no way of knowing why God evolved us! Your complaint is He should have done it more efficiently.

dhw: There is no end to your dodging. The question is not why he evolved us. The problem is the bolded theory above! And it’s you who ridicule your own theory by saying how messy, cumbersome and inefficient your God must be, and you have no idea why he “evolved” us in this manner.

The constant bold is simply a mathematical description of the actual loss of forms in evolution, a process which produced us. It has no other meaning with the exception of your irrational interpretation, which is easily seen as a complaint about God's method.


DAVID: My theory makes perfect sense to me. We are here, the most unusual result imaginable. Evolution is over. It is illogical to claim we were not God's goal.

dhw: 1) No one on Earth would deny that we’re here. Yes, our advanced intelligence is extraordinary, but this doesn’t explain the illogicality of your bolded theory.
2) I have no idea what life will be like, say, a million years from now.
3) If God is all-purposeful and all-powerful, then it is logical to assume he would only design what he wished to design. So back we go to the bolded theory. You can’t think of a single reason. So either we and our food were not his one and only goal, or he was experimenting to find the right formula, or he hit on the concept of humans late on in the process, or he didn’t design every species but deliberately created a free-for-all – though leaving himself the option to dabble if he felt like it. Can you think of any other explanations?

Number 3 is your usual attempt to tell us about a humanized directionless form of a God who doesn't know how to evolve what He thinks He might wish to evolve.

DAVID: Your God is not strongly purposeful.

I have no idea what you mean by “strongly”. Your own belief that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations offers as strong a purpose as one could wish for. I asked you about purposes under “Extremophiles”:

DAVID: A mental gift He gave us. He has His reasons.

dhw: You go on and on about your strongly purposeful God, and when I ask you what his purpose might have been, you reply “he has his reasons”. How do you know he is your “strongly” purposeful and not my alternative “strongly” purposeful(s) if you don’t know the reasons for his actions?

No one can know His reasons, can you? All we can do is theorize from what He created.


DAVID: Mathematically, 0.1% is every living form on Earth now. Death of 99.9% of all predecessors produced the 0.1% living today.

dhw: How can dead ends produce anything? […]

DAVID: The 'dead ends' are culled branches from the direct lines that led to all on Earth now. If it were all 'dead ends', nothing would be alive today. […]

dhw: More obfuscation. The branches were not ALL dead ends. 0.1% of them led to us and our food. It’s only you who make nonsense of the figures by insisting that we and our food (or perhaps just most of our food) are directly descended from Cambrian life forms that were designed “de novo”, i.e. had no precursors. In which case, it was 100% of pre-Cambrian life that had no connection with us plus our food. Plus all the post-Cambrians, such as non-avian dinosaurs.

DAVID: The pre-Cambrian set up a biochemical form of life which was used in the Cambrian forms. Full connection biochemically.

dhw: Biochemistry is common to all forms of life, but according to you, the forms of life that existed pre-Cambrian were not the forms from which we are descended. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Forms and biochemistry are two ways to study evolution. Biochemistry evolved from the start allowing more complex forms.

dhw: Correct. Species are different forms of life, and according to you, our species were designed “de novo”, i.e. they were not descended from any earlier form of life, i.e. all previous forms of life were irrelevant to the designing of ourselves. And you have no idea why he would have designed them. Maybe he didn’t. Or maybe...See my other alternatives, and stop dodging.

God designed the huge bush of life for our use. Assuming God in charge, that is obvious. So, stop complaining about a necessary 99.9% loss from the process. It is simply a complaint God used the wrong method.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, December 18, 2023, 08:51 (102 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have no way of knowing why God evolved us! Your complaint is He should have done it more efficiently.

dhw: There is no end to your dodging. The question is not why he evolved us. The problem is the bolded theory above! [dhw: now bolded below.] And it’s you who ridicule your own theory by saying how messy, cumbersome and inefficient your God must be, and you have no idea why he “evolved” us in this manner.

DAVID: The constant bold is simply a mathematical description of the actual loss of forms in evolution, a process which produced us. It has no other meaning with the exception of your irrational interpretation, which is easily seen as a complaint about God's method.

The mathematical description is the general consensus that 99.9% of life forms are extinct, and current life forms are the descendants of the 0.1% that led to us and our food. You are absolutely right. It has no other meaning. And the irrational interpretation we’re discussing is YOURS: namely, that your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with his one and only purpose. You can’t get much more irrational than that.

DAVID: My theory makes perfect sense to me. We are here, the most unusual result imaginable. Evolution is over. It is illogical to claim we were not God's goal.

dhw: 1) No one on Earth would deny that we’re here. Yes, our advanced intelligence is extraordinary, but this doesn’t explain the illogicality of your bolded theory.
2) I have no idea what life will be like, say, a million years from now.
3) If God is all-purposeful and all-powerful, then it is logical to assume he would only design what he wished to design. So back we go to the bolded theory. You can’t think of a single reason. So either we and our food were not his one and only goal, or he was experimenting to find the right formula, or he hit on the concept of humans late on in the process, or he didn’t design every species but deliberately created a free-for-all – though leaving himself the option to dabble if he felt like it. Can you think of any other explanations?

DAVID: Number 3 is your usual attempt to tell us about a humanized directionless form of a God who doesn't know how to evolve what He thinks He might wish to evolve.

A God who designs and has to cull 99.9% species irrelevant to his purpose doesn’t sounds like one who knows how to get what he wants. That’s why you call his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. None of my alternatives are any more human than your version, none are directionless, and only the first has him not knowing how to get what he wants, but I find targeted experimentation rather more efficient than deliberately designing and having to kill off 99.9 mistakes.

dhw: You go on and on about your strongly purposeful God, and when I ask you what his purpose might have been, you reply “he has his reasons”. How do you know he is your “strongly” purposeful and not my alternative “strongly” purposeful(s) if you don’t know the reasons for his actions?

DAVID: No one can know His reasons, can you? All we can do is theorize from what He created.

Correct. And some theories are more reasonable than others. Yours makes no sense even to you! All of mine fit in logically with the history of life. You even believe we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors, thus hammering home your belief that he wasted his time designing all the life forms that preceded the Cambrian.

DAVID: The pre-Cambrian set up a biochemical form of life which was used in the Cambrian forms. Full connection biochemically.

dhw: Biochemistry is common to all forms of life, but according to you, the forms of life that existed pre-Cambrian were not the forms from which we are descended. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Forms and biochemistry are two ways to study evolution. Biochemistry evolved from the start allowing more complex forms.

dhw: Correct. Species are different forms of life, and according to you, our species were designed “de novo”, […] i.e. all previous forms of life were irrelevant to the designing of ourselves. And you have no idea why he would have designed them. Maybe he didn’t. Or maybe...See my other alternatives. […]

DAVID: God designed the huge bush of life for our use.

That is no answer to the above! And 99.9% of history’s huge bush is extinct and was NOT designed for our use. Hence the question why he bothered to design it if he only wanted to design OUR bush.

DAVID: Assuming God in charge, that is obvious. So, stop complaining about a necessary 99.9% loss from the process. It is simply a complaint God used the wrong method.

Stop dodging. I complain that you are imposing a purpose and method on your God that make him look like a bumbling idiot (though you confine yourself to terms like messy, cumbersome and inefficient.)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, December 18, 2023, 15:42 (101 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The constant bold is simply a mathematical description of the actual loss of forms in evolution, a process which produced us. It has no other meaning with the exception of your irrational interpretation, which is easily seen as a complaint about God's method.

dhw: The mathematical description is the general consensus that 99.9% of life forms are extinct, and current life forms are the descendants of the 0.1% that led to us and our food. You are absolutely right. It has no other meaning. And the irrational interpretation we’re discussing is YOURS: namely, that your all-powerful, all-knowing God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with his one and only purpose. You can’t get much more irrational than that.

Our only difference is I recognize God's purpose to produce us by His choice method of evolution, and you offer God's who don't make choices or seem to not have any goals.


DAVID: My theory makes perfect sense to me. We are here, the most unusual result imaginable. Evolution is over. It is illogical to claim we were not God's goal.

dhw: 1) No one on Earth would deny that we’re here. Yes, our advanced intelligence is extraordinary, but this doesn’t explain the illogicality of your bolded theory.
2) I have no idea what life will be like, say, a million years from now.
3) If God is all-purposeful and all-powerful, then it is logical to assume he would only design what he wished to design. So back we go to the bolded theory. You can’t think of a single reason. So either we and our food were not his one and only goal, or he was experimenting to find the right formula, or he hit on the concept of humans late on in the process, or he didn’t design every species but deliberately created a free-for-all – though leaving himself the option to dabble if he felt like it. Can you think of any other explanations?

DAVID: Number 3 is your usual attempt to tell us about a humanized directionless form of a God who doesn't know how to evolve what He thinks He might wish to evolve.

dhw: A God who designs and has to cull 99.9% species irrelevant to his purpose doesn’t sounds like one who knows how to get what he wants. That’s why you call his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. None of my alternatives are any more human than your version, none are directionless, and only the first has him not knowing how to get what he wants, but I find targeted experimentation rather more efficient than deliberately designing and having to kill off 99.9 mistakes.

A God who could create a universe and then start life, is not then going to use the inefficient form of creating by experimentation, a method that must look for answers.


DAVID: No one can know His reasons, can you? All we can do is theorize from what He created.

dhw: Correct. And some theories are more reasonable than others. Yours makes no sense even to you! All of mine fit in logically with the history of life. You even believe we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors, thus hammering home your belief that he wasted his time designing all the life forms that preceded the Cambrian.

Easily explained: pre-Cambrian forms developed the necessary biochemistry for Cambrian forms.


DAVID: The pre-Cambrian set up a biochemical form of life which was used in the Cambrian forms. Full connection biochemically.

dhw: Biochemistry is common to all forms of life, but according to you, the forms of life that existed pre-Cambrian were not the forms from which we are descended. Stop dodging.

DAVID: Forms and biochemistry are two ways to study evolution. Biochemistry evolved from the start allowing more complex forms.

dhw: Correct. Species are different forms of life, and according to you, our species were designed “de novo”, […] i.e. all previous forms of life were irrelevant to the designing of ourselves. And you have no idea why he would have designed them. Maybe he didn’t. Or maybe...See my other alternatives. […]

DAVID: God designed the huge bush of life for our use.

dhw: That is no answer to the above! And 99.9% of history’s huge bush is extinct and was NOT designed for our use. Hence the question why he bothered to design it if he only wanted to design OUR bush.

Foolish response. The 0.1% that survived is the issue. Everything on Earth is for our use.


DAVID: Assuming God in charge, that is obvious. So, stop complaining about a necessary 99.9% loss from the process. It is simply a complaint God used the wrong method.

dhw: Stop dodging. I complain that you are imposing a purpose and method on your God that make him look like a bumbling idiot (though you confine yourself to terms like messy, cumbersome and inefficient.)

Stop attacking my God. I like Him just as He is. What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, December 19, 2023, 08:53 (101 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Our only difference is I recognize God's purpose to produce us by His choice method of evolution, and you offer God's who don't make choices or seem to not have any goals.

According to you, his one and only goal was to produce us plus our food, and his choice of method to produce us was to produce and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. This you describe as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. In all my theistic alternatives, God has a very specific goal (not necessarily the same as yours) and chooses a logical method to achieve his goal.

dhw: 3) If God is all-purposeful and all-powerful, then it is logical to assume he would only design what he wished to design. So back we go to the bolded theory. You can’t think of a single reason. So either we and our food were not his one and only goal, or he was experimenting to find the right formula, or he hit on the concept of humans late on in the process, or he didn’t design every species but deliberately created a free-for-all – though leaving himself the option to dabble if he felt like it. Can you think of any other explanations?

DAVID: Number 3 is your usual attempt to tell us about a humanized directionless form of a God who doesn't know how to evolve what He thinks He might wish to evolve.

dhw: A God who designs and has to cull 99.9% species irrelevant to his purpose doesn’t sound like one who knows how to get what he wants. That’s why you call his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. None of my alternatives are any more human than your version, none are directionless, and only the first has him not knowing how to get what he wants, but I find targeted experimentation rather more efficient than deliberately designing and having to kill off 99.9 mistakes.

DAVID: A God who could create a universe and then start life, is not then going to use the inefficient form of creating by experimentation, a method that must look for answers. (dhw’s bold)

So instead you have him deliberately designing 99.9 mistakes and then culling them – a method you call messy, cumbersome and INEFFICIENT. And of course you ignore the other alternatives.

dhw: You even believe we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors, thus hammering home your belief that he wasted his time designing all the life forms that preceded the Cambrian.

DAVID: Easily explained: pre-Cambrian forms developed the necessary biochemistry for Cambrian forms.

Biochemistry is common to all life forms. Evolution is the history of life forms, and if your all-powerful God only wanted us plus food right from the start and knew how to design us, why did he have to design all the pre-Cambrian forms that had no connection with us plus food? Might it be that he had to experiment first in order to “develop the necessary biochemistry”?

DAVID: God designed the huge bush of life for our use.

dhw: And 99.9% of history’s huge bush is extinct and was NOT designed for our use. Hence the question why he bothered to design it if he only wanted to design OUR bush.

DAVID: Foolish response. The 0.1% that survived is the issue. Everything on Earth is for our use.

So why did he design the 99.9% that did not lead to the 0.1% which evolved into our present bush?

DAVID: […] stop complaining about a necessary 99.9% loss from the process. It is simply a complaint God used the wrong method.

dhw: Stop dodging. I complain that you are imposing a purpose and method on your God that make him look like a bumbling idiot (though you confine yourself to terms like messy, cumbersome and inefficient.)

DAVID: Stop attacking my God. I like Him just as He is. What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.

You know perfectly well that I’m not attacking your God but I’m attacking your illogical theories of evolution, for which you admit you can find no possible reason. There is no “myopic contortion” unless you now wish to deny that you believe your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. Are you now withdrawing this “myopic contortion” of history? (I wish you would. ;-) )

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 19, 2023, 17:00 (100 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Our only difference is I recognize God's purpose to produce us by His choice method of evolution, and you offer God's who don't make choices or seem to not have any goals.

dhw: According to you, his one and only goal was to produce us plus our food, and his choice of method to produce us was to produce and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. This you describe as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. In all my theistic alternatives, God has a very specific goal (not necessarily the same as yours) and chooses a logical method to achieve his goal.

There is only one method which culls 99.9%. All you present is alternative motives for the same events. Those motives all humanize a picture of God.


DAVID: A God who could create a universe and then start life, is not then going to use the inefficient form of creating by experimentation, a method that must look for answers. (dhw’s bold)

dhw: So instead you have him deliberately designing 99.9 mistakes and then culling them – a method you call messy, cumbersome and INEFFICIENT. And of course you ignore the other alternatives.

With only one method historically available, your God culls 99.9% also.


dhw: You even believe we and our foods are descended from Cambrian species that had no precursors, thus hammering home your belief that he wasted his time designing all the life forms that preceded the Cambrian.

DAVID: Easily explained: pre-Cambrian forms developed the necessary biochemistry for Cambrian forms.

dhw: Biochemistry is common to all life forms. Evolution is the history of life forms, and if your all-powerful God only wanted us plus food right from the start and knew how to design us, why did he have to design all the pre-Cambrian forms that had no connection with us plus food? Might it be that he had to experiment first in order to “develop the necessary biochemistry”?

Only your humanized form of God needs to experiment. My God makes a pre-planned designed evolution.


DAVID: God designed the huge bush of life for our use.

dhw: And 99.9% of history’s huge bush is extinct and was NOT designed for our use. Hence the question why he bothered to design it if he only wanted to design OUR bush.

DAVID: Foolish response. The 0.1% that survived is the issue. Everything on Earth is for our use.

dhw: So why did he design the 99.9% that did not lead to the 0.1% which evolved into our present bush?

Because He prefers to evolve His creations.


DAVID: […] stop complaining about a necessary 99.9% loss from the process. It is simply a complaint God used the wrong method.

dhw: Stop dodging. I complain that you are imposing a purpose and method on your God that make him look like a bumbling idiot (though you confine yourself to terms like messy, cumbersome and inefficient.)

DAVID: Stop attacking my God. I like Him just as He is. What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I’m not attacking your God but I’m attacking your illogical theories of evolution, for which you admit you can find no possible reason. There is no “myopic contortion” unless you now wish to deny that you believe your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. Are you now withdrawing this “myopic contortion” of history? (I wish you would. ;-) )

I can't let you make a mockery of God. with your weird humanizing attempts. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, December 20, 2023, 12:21 (99 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Our only difference is I recognize God's purpose to produce us by His choice method of evolution, and you offer God's who don't make choices or seem to not have any goals.

dhw: According to you, his one and only goal was to produce us plus our food, and his choice of method to produce us was to produce and then cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us. This you describe as messy, cumbersome and inefficient. In all my theistic alternatives, God has a very specific goal (not necessarily the same as yours) and chooses a logical method to achieve his goal.

DAVID: There is only one method which culls 99.9%. All you present is alternative motives for the same events. Those motives all humanize a picture of God.

The history is the loss of 99.9%, and I present alternative reasons for the loss. We have dealt over and over again with your silly “humanizing” objection, in defence of a theory which makes your God a blundering idiot (messy, cumbersome and inefficient) and ignores your own agreement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and enjoys creating things that interest him.

DAVID: With only one method historically available, your God culls 99.9% also.

There is no debate about the loss of 99.9%, but only in one of my theistic versions does he start out with the sole intention of designing us and our food and experiments to find the best way to do it, as opposed to your blunderer who for some unfathomable reason deliberately creates species irrelevant to his goal.

dhw: […] if your all-powerful God only wanted us plus food right from the start and knew how to design us, why did he have to design all the pre-Cambrian forms that had no connection with us plus food? Might it be that he had to experiment first in order to “develop the necessary biochemistry”?

DAVID: Only your humanized form of God needs to experiment. My God makes a pre-planned designed evolution.

So he carefully plans to design 100 out of 100 pre-Cambrian species that are irrelevant to his purpose, and then designs our ancestors and food supply “de novo”, plus another 99.9% of irrelevant species. Great planning!

DAVID: God designed the huge bush of life for our use.

dhw: And 99.9% of history’s huge bush is extinct and was NOT designed for our use. Hence the question why he bothered to design it if he only wanted to design OUR bush.

DAVID: Because He prefers to evolve His creations.

According to you he designs all his creations, and so he designed 99.9 out of 100 that had no connection with us or our bush of food supplies.

DAVID: Stop attacking my God. I like Him just as He is. What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I’m not attacking your God but I’m attacking your illogical theories of evolution, for which you admit you can find no possible reason. There is no “myopic contortion” unless you now wish to deny that you believe your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. Are you now withdrawing this “myopic contortion” of history? (I wish you would. );-)

DAVID: I can't let you make a mockery of God. with your weird humanizing attempts. ;-)

What is the “myopic contortion”? Are you denying the bolded theory which mocks your God’s messy, cumbersome, inefficient designing method?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 20, 2023, 15:37 (99 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: There is only one method which culls 99.9%. All you present is alternative motives for the same events. Those motives all humanize a picture of God.

dhw: The history is the loss of 99.9%, and I present alternative reasons for the loss. We have dealt over and over again with your silly “humanizing” objection, in defence of a theory which makes your God a blundering idiot (messy, cumbersome and inefficient) and ignores your own agreement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and enjoys creating things that interest him.

That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God's. Why He chose to evolve us is for His unknown reasons to us.


DAVID: With only one method historically available, your God culls 99.9% also.

dhw: There is no debate about the loss of 99.9%, but only in one of my theistic versions does he start out with the sole intention of designing us and our food and experiments to find the best way to do it, as opposed to your blunderer who for some unfathomable reason deliberately creates species irrelevant to his goal.

Nothing God evolved was irrelevant to His goals. Humans dominate the Earth and use all of it.


dhw: […] if your all-powerful God only wanted us plus food right from the start and knew how to design us, why did he have to design all the pre-Cambrian forms that had no connection with us plus food? Might it be that he had to experiment first in order to “develop the necessary biochemistry”?

DAVID: Only your humanized form of God needs to experiment. My God makes a pre-planned designed evolution.

dhw: So he carefully plans to design 100 out of 100 pre-Cambrian species that are irrelevant to his purpose, and then designs our ancestors and food supply “de novo”, plus another 99.9% of irrelevant species. Great planning!

Pre-Camrian prepared for Cambrian forms.


DAVID: God designed the huge bush of life for our use.

dhw: And 99.9% of history’s huge bush is extinct and was NOT designed for our use. Hence the question why he bothered to design it if he only wanted to design OUR bush.

The existing bush is for our use. Nothing God evolved was irrelevant to His goals. Humans dominate the Earth and use all of it.

DAVID: Stop attacking my God. I like Him just as He is. What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I’m not attacking your God but I’m attacking your illogical theories of evolution, for which you admit you can find no possible reason. There is no “myopic contortion” unless you now wish to deny that you believe your God’s only purpose was to design us and our food, and therefore he designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose. Are you now withdrawing this “myopic contortion” of history? (I wish you would. );-)

DAVID: I can't let you make a mockery of God. with your weird humanizing attempts. ;-)

dhw: What is the “myopic contortion”? Are you denying the bolded theory which mocks your God’s messy, cumbersome, inefficient designing method?

You first pointed out evolution was inefficient compared to direct creation. I agree. ;-)

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, December 21, 2023, 10:39 (99 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There is only one method which culls 99.9%. All you present is alternative motives for the same events. Those motives all humanize a picture of God.

dhw: The history is the loss of 99.9%, and I present alternative reasons for the loss. We have dealt over and over again with your silly “humanizing” objection, in defence of a theory which makes your God a blundering idiot (messy, cumbersome and inefficient) and ignores your own agreement that he probably has thought patterns and emotions similar to ours, and enjoys creating things that interest him.

DAVID: That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God's. Why He chose to evolve us is for His unknown reasons to us.

For the thousandth time, the absurdity of your theory is not that he chose to evolve us, but that according to you he chose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose of designing us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Nothing God evolved was irrelevant to His goals. Humans dominate the Earth and use all of it.

Why have you referred to “goals”, when you insist that he only had one? 99.9% of what he designed was irrelevant to us and our food. The fact that we are dominant and use the current bush does not explain why your God would have designed the millions of organisms and bushes that preceded us and our bush, since only 0.1% of them evolved into us and our bush. Stop dodging!

dhw: […] if your all-powerful God only wanted us plus food right from the start and knew how to design us, why did he have to design all the pre-Cambrian forms that had no connection with us plus food?

DAVID: Pre-Cambrian prepared for Cambrian forms.

Not according to you, because you insist that Cambrian forms were designed “de novo”, which means they had no predecessors
.
DAVID: Stop attacking my God. I like Him just as He is. What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I’m not attacking your God but I’m attacking your illogical theories of evolution, for which you admit you can find no possible reason. […]

DAVID: I can't let you make a mockery of God. with your weird humanizing attempts.

dhw: What is the “myopic contortion”? Are you denying the bolded theory which mocks your God’s messy, cumbersome, inefficient designing method?

DAVID: You first pointed out evolution was inefficient compared to direct creation. I agree.

It’s only inefficient if you insist that we (plus food) were your God’s only purpose and that he was perfectly capable of creating us directly but instead chose to design and cull the 99.9% of irrelevant life forms. What is the “myopic contortion”? Please stop all this dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 21, 2023, 16:31 (98 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Thursday, December 21, 2023, 16:52

DAVID: There is only one method which culls 99.9%. All you present is alternative

DAVID: That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God's. Why He chose to evolve us is for His unknown reasons to us.

dhw: For the thousandth time, the absurdity of your theory is not that he chose to evolve us, but that according to you he chose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose of designing us and our food. Stop dodging!

Your millionth dodge is to distort history. Assuming God exists and creates reality, evolution was His method of producing humans. Humans are now in charge and the whole of Earth's living forms can be used by humans. Your absurd proposal is He should have only have evolved us and not the rest?


DAVID: Nothing God evolved was irrelevant to His goals. Humans dominate the Earth and use all of it.

dhw: Why have you referred to “goals”, when you insist that he only had one? 99.9% of what he designed was irrelevant to us and our food. The fact that we are dominant and use the current bush does not explain why your God would have designed the millions of organisms and bushes that preceded us and our bush, since only 0.1% of them evolved into us and our bush. Stop dodging!

Do you know of another form of evolution? It takes time and is a very slow way compared to direct evolution of a desired form, which you seem to prefer. The historical record of evolution resulted in 99.9% disappearance of predecessors to reach the current living forms. Because I theorize humans were God's major goal you complain and distort the whole picture of evolution. Evolution remains the same with or without a 'goal' for God.


DAVID: Stop attacking my God. I like Him just as He is. What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.

dhw: You know perfectly well that I’m not attacking your God but I’m attacking your illogical theories of evolution, for which you admit you can find no possible reason. […]

DAVID: I can't let you make a mockery of God. with your weird humanizing attempts.

dhw: What is the “myopic contortion”? Are you denying the bolded theory which mocks your God’s messy, cumbersome, inefficient designing method?

DAVID: You first pointed out evolution was inefficient compared to direct creation. I agree.

dhw: It’s only inefficient if you insist that we (plus food) were your God’s only purpose and that he was perfectly capable of creating us directly but instead chose to design and cull the 99.9% of irrelevant life forms. What is the “myopic contortion”? Please stop all this dodging.

Humans were such an unexpected result from natural evolution, Adler used the point to prove God existed. If a highly respected philosopher of religion chose this position, I have great support for my theology. Humans were God's goal in evolution. Whatever else God's evolution produced was for humans to use.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, December 22, 2023, 11:15 (97 days ago) @ David Turell

This whole post consists of one Davidian dodge after another. I shall answer each dodge, in the hope that the message will finally sink in, but I hope your future posts will stick to the point!

DAVID: That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God's.

Thank you for this confirmation, which I will refer to whenever your repeat your silly “humanization” objection to my alternative theories.

DAVID: Why He chose to evolve us is for His unknown reasons to us.

dhw: For the thousandth time, the absurdity of your theory is not that he chose to evolve us, but that according to you he chose to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose of designing us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Your millionth dodge is to distort history. Assuming God exists and creates reality, evolution was His method of producing humans.

If God exists, evolution was his method of producing all life forms that ever lived, including all the life forms that had no connection with humans or their food. NB: When you say evolution, you mean your God designed every individual species.

DAVID: Humans are now in charge and the whole of Earth's living forms can be used by humans.

Agreed.

DAVID: Your absurd proposal is He should have only have evolved us and not the rest?

I have made no such proposal. I have always, as in the bold above, coupled humans and our food (= us and Earth’s other living forms). But we and they have evolved from 0.1% of earlier forms, and our dispute is over your ridiculous theory that in order to produce us and our food, he specially designed and had to cull the other 99.9% which had no connection with us and our food. Please stop dodging and stop putting up these silly straw men!

DAVID: Nothing God evolved was irrelevant to His goals. Humans dominate the Earth and use all of it.

dhw: Why have you referred to “goals”, when you insist that he only had one? 99.9% of what he designed was irrelevant to us and our food. The fact that we are dominant and use the current bush does not explain why your God would have designed the millions of organisms and bushes that preceded us and our bush, since only 0.1% of them evolved into us and our bush. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Do you know of another form of evolution? It takes time and is a very slow way compared to direct evolution of a desired form, which you seem to prefer. The historical record of evolution resulted in 99.9% disappearance of predecessors to reach the current living forms.

Sheer obfuscation. You are glossing over your belief that your God designed every species, and you are juggling with the word “predecessor”. 99.9% of the life forms that preceded us were not our ancestors or the ancestors of our food. And so you have your God specially designing them although they had no connection with his “desired form”.

DAVID: Because I theorize humans were God's major goal you complain and distort the whole picture of evolution. Evolution remains the same with or without a 'goal' for God.

Your last comment is spot on. The history is confined to the fact that 99.9% of species have disappeared, and we and our food are descended from only 0.1%. YOU impose a “goal”, YOU insist that God designed every species, and YOU insist that designing and culling 99.9% of irrelevant species was his messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving the goal you impose on him.

DAVID: […] What you view is a myopic contortion of my theology.[…]

dhw: What is the “myopic contortion”? Are you denying the bolded theory which mocks your God’s messy, cumbersome, inefficient designing method?

DAVID: You first pointed out evolution was inefficient compared to direct creation. I agree.

dhw: It’s only inefficient if you insist that we (plus food) were your God’s only purpose and that he was perfectly capable of creating us directly but instead chose to design and cull the 99.9% of irrelevant life forms. What is the “myopic contortion”? Please stop all this dodging.

DAVID: Humans were such an unexpected result from natural evolution, Adler used the point to prove God existed. If a highly respected philosopher of religion chose this position, I have great support for my theology.

Our dispute has nothing whatsoever to do with proving the existence of God, because it only concerns your absurd theory, bolded above, concerning your God’s goal and method of achieving it.

DAVID: Humans were God's goal in evolution. Whatever else God's evolution produced was for humans to use.

But 99.9% of what you say he designed throughout the history of evolution was not for humans to use, and you admit that you have no idea why he produced it. So perhaps as well as being totally illogical, and insulting your God as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, your combined theories are wrong.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, December 22, 2023, 17:27 (97 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: This whole post consists of one Davidian dodge after another. I shall answer each dodge, in the hope that the message will finally sink in, but I hope your future posts will stick to the point!

DAVID: That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God's.

Thank you for this confirmation, which I will refer to whenever your repeat your silly “humanization” objection to my alternative theories.

The problem is you do not recognize how humanized your God is.


DAVID: Humans are now in charge and the whole of Earth's living forms can be used by humans.

dhw: Agreed.

DAVID: Your absurd proposal is He should have only have evolved us and not the rest?

dhw: I have made no such proposal...our dispute is over your ridiculous theory that in order to produce us and our food, he specially designed and had to cull the other 99.9% which had no connection with us and our food. Please stop dodging and stop putting up these silly straw men!

If God is considered in charge, of course He did exactly what history shows: evolution in just the way you describe!!!.


DAVID: Do you know of another form of evolution? It takes time and is a very slow way compared to direct evolution of a desired form, which you seem to prefer. The historical record of evolution resulted in 99.9% disappearance of predecessors to reach the current living forms.

dhw: Sheer obfuscation. You are glossing over your belief that your God designed every species, and you are juggling with the word “predecessor”. 99.9% of the life forms that preceded us were not our ancestors or the ancestors of our food. And so you have your God specially designing them although they had no connection with his “desired form”.

Sheer distortion. The result of evolution is humans in charge of and using all the living resources and material resources of the Earth, as God planned. A loss of 99.9% of all predecessors is a mathematical description of evolution's results from a culling process.


DAVID: Because I theorize humans were God's major goal you complain and distort the whole picture of evolution. Evolution remains the same with or without a 'goal' for God.

dhw: Your last comment is spot on. The history is confined to the fact that 99.9% of species have disappeared, and we and our food are descended from only 0.1%. YOU impose a “goal”, YOU insist that God designed every species, and YOU insist that designing and culling 99.9% of irrelevant species was his messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving the goal you impose on him.

I theorized a goal. Viewing naturally caused evolution a la Darwin, humans are a most amazing result. A theistic philosophic view of evolution uses humans as proof of God, and of His goal.

dhw: Our dispute has nothing whatsoever to do with proving the existence of God, because it only concerns your absurd theory, bolded above, concerning your God’s goal and method of achieving it.

DAVID: Humans were God's goal in evolution. Whatever else God's evolution produced was for humans to use.

dhw: But 99.9% of what you say he designed throughout the history of evolution was not for humans to use, and you admit that you have no idea why he produced it. So perhaps as well as being totally illogical, and insulting your God as being messy, cumbersome and inefficient, your combined theories are wrong.

Your analysis from a Godless point of view totally distorts your conclusion. In the past developing humans only used what was easiest to obtain. Now with our current abilities we use everything on Earth, as God planned. What is present now is God's obvious goal. I don't know why God evolved us, but a study of God's actions showed a steady pattern of evolution. He evolved the universe from the Big Bang; He started life and evolved it; He made the Earth and evolved it to be life friendly. Undeniable proof of His pattern of method. I await your answer.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, December 23, 2023, 11:26 (96 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: This whole post consists of one Davidian dodge after another. I shall answer each dodge, in the hope that the message will finally sink in, but I hope your future posts will stick to the point!

DAVID: That God would be interested in His creations is reasonable as are our logical thought patterns similar to God's.

Thank you for this confirmation, which I will refer to whenever your repeat your silly “humanization” objection to my alternative theories.

DAVID: The problem is you do not recognize how humanized your God is.

My different theories entail different human patterns of thought. One of them coincides completely with your certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, which provides a perfectly acceptable motive for creating. You can hardly complain about that. Another is I have him experimenting and/or getting new ideas as he goes along, which I would not regard as any more human than having him achieving his one and only purpose by messily, clumsily and inefficiently designing and culling 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose. Why do you think a 99.9 per cent failure rate is more godlike than a successful exploration of potentials?

DAVID: If God is considered in charge, of course He did exactly what history shows: evolution in just the way you describe!!!.

I have described three different ways in which your God might have produced the history: experimentation to achieve a specific goal (e.g. your version: a being like himself, plus food); experimentation to explore the potential of his invention, leading to new ideas; a free-for-all as a different way of exploring the potential. Motivation: the enjoyment and interest you are certain are among his thought patterns.

DAVID: The result of evolution is humans in charge of and using all the living resources and material resources of the Earth, as God planned.

This is the current result. Agreed.

DAVID: A loss of 99.9% of all predecessors is a mathematical description of evolution's results from a culling process.

Also agreed. But you don’t stick to the mathematical description! You add on your theory that your God deliberately, messily and inefficiently designed the 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his only purpose (us plus food). Stop dodging!!!

DAVID: I theorized a goal. Viewing naturally caused evolution a la Darwin, humans are a most amazing result. A theistic philosophic view of evolution uses humans as proof of God, and of His goal.

All life is an amazing result, but I agree humans are unique in their intelligence and degrees of consciousness. A theistic view of evolution can use humans and all the complexities of life as “proof of God”, but since you also believe that he is all-purposeful, you have no idea why, if humans plus food were his only goal, he would have designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans plus food. So perhaps he didn’t design them, or perhaps his goal was not confined to designing humans plus food.

DAVID: Your analysis from a Godless point of view totally distorts your conclusion.

It is not godless, and there is no conclusion. All my alternatives allow for God, but they do not turn him into the messy blunderer described by your combined theories.

DAVID: In the past developing humans only used what was easiest to obtain. Now with our current abilities we use everything on Earth, as God planned.

Off you go, careering away from the subject, which is not human progress and abilities but the sheer illogicality of a God who messily and inefficiently designs and then has to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: What is present now is God's obvious goal. I don't know why God evolved us, but a study of God's actions showed a steady pattern of evolution. He evolved the universe from the Big Bang; He started life and evolved it; He made the Earth and evolved it to be life friendly. Undeniable proof of His pattern of method. I await your answer.

If God exists, this is all a perfectly acceptable theory. I believe in evolution. Our dispute only concerns your illogical theory that your purposeful God designed the universe, Earth and life for the sole purpose of creating us and our food, and therefore he designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with us or our food (and in any case, he designed our Cambrian ancestors “de novo”, which would make it 100 out of 100 irrelevant designs prior to the Cambrian). That has been my answer throughout the years of this dispute, and still you continue to dodge the issue.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 23, 2023, 17:12 (96 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The problem is you do not recognize how humanized your God is.

dhw: My different theories entail different human patterns of thought. One of them coincides completely with your certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, which provides a perfectly acceptable motive for creating. You can hardly complain about that. Another is I have him experimenting and/or getting new ideas as he goes along, which I would not regard as any more human than having him achieving his one and only purpose by messily, clumsily and inefficiently designing and culling 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose. Why do you think a 99.9 per cent failure rate is more godlike than a successful exploration of potentials?

Your experimenting God has the same 99.9% failure rate from the same evolution process! An omnipotent God does not need to experiment or change His mind.


DAVID: If God is considered in charge, of course He did exactly what history shows: evolution in just the way you describe!!!.

dhw: I have described three different ways in which your God might have produced the history: experimentation to achieve a specific goal (e.g. your version: a being like himself, plus food); experimentation to explore the potential of his invention, leading to new ideas; a free-for-all as a different way of exploring the potential. Motivation: the enjoyment and interest you are certain are among his thought patterns.

All a fully humanized personality you would invent as a God. Philosophers of religion would reject Him, as in 'How to think about God', Adler's book.

DAVID: I theorized a goal. Viewing naturally caused evolution a la Darwin, humans are a most amazing result. A theistic philosophic view of evolution uses humans as proof of God, and of His goal.

dhw: All life is an amazing result, but I agree humans are unique in their intelligence and degrees of consciousness. A theistic view of evolution can use humans and all the complexities of life as “proof of God”, but since you also believe that he is all-purposeful, you have no idea why, if humans plus food were his only goal, he would have designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans plus food. So perhaps he didn’t design them, or perhaps his goal was not confined to designing humans plus food.

My inability to know God's reasons for evolving us does not negate my conclusions that humans were His goal.


DAVID: Your analysis from a Godless point of view totally distorts your conclusion.

dhw: It is not godless, and there is no conclusion. All my alternatives allow for God, but they do not turn him into the messy blunderer described by your combined theories.

God is not a blunderer. He used a messy evolutionary system to successfully produce us.


DAVID: In the past developing humans only used what was easiest to obtain. Now with our current abilities we use everything on Earth, as God planned.

dhw: Off you go, careering away from the subject, which is not human progress and abilities but the sheer illogicality of a God who messily and inefficiently designs and then has to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose.

Your usual complaint that God should not have evolved us. But He didn't use direct creation, did He, reserving that for the Cambrian?


DAVID: What is present now is God's obvious goal. I don't know why God evolved us, but a study of God's actions showed a steady pattern of evolution. He evolved the universe from the Big Bang; He started life and evolved it; He made the Earth and evolved it to be life friendly. Undeniable proof of His pattern of method. I await your answer.

dhw: If God exists, this is all a perfectly acceptable theory. I believe in evolution. Our dispute only concerns your illogical theory that your purposeful God designed the universe, Earth and life for the sole purpose of creating us and our food, and therefore he designed 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with us or our food (and in any case, he designed our Cambrian ancestors “de novo”, which would make it 100 out of 100 irrelevant designs prior to the Cambrian). That has been my answer throughout the years of this dispute, and still you continue to dodge the issue.

Your constant dodge is to complain about how God did it. We both see the same process. The difference is I see humans as a specific goal, and that bends you all out of shape. The result is your invention of an unrecognizable type of a humanized form of God's personality.
Adler's book is my guide in rejecting your theology.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, December 28, 2023, 09:30 (92 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The problem is you do not recognize how humanized your God is.

dhw: My different theories entail different human patterns of thought. One of them coincides completely with your certainty that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, which provides a perfectly acceptable motive for creating. You can hardly complain about that. Another is I have him experimenting and/or getting new ideas as he goes along, which I would not regard as any more human than having him achieving his one and only purpose by messily, clumsily and inefficiently designing and culling 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose. Why do you think a 99.9 per cent failure rate is more godlike than a successful exploration of potentials?

DAVID: Your experimenting God has the same 99.9% failure rate from the same evolution process! An omnipotent God does not need to experiment or change His mind.

More and more dodging. 1) Your complaint was about humanization, but you agree that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That is a possible motive. Ignored. 2) If God’s purpose was to create us plus food, you have him deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose. Daft. I have him experimenting in order to get the right formula. His designs all worked, so I wouldn’t call them failures, but you are right, he is not all-knowing and all-powerful. In my view, that is nothing like as daft as deliberately doing the wrong thing. Ignored. 3) Experimenting or creating a free-for-all in order to enjoy generating new ideas and making interesting new discoveries explains the whole history of evolution, and is neither messy nor cumbersome nor inefficient. And it has been completely successful. Ignored.

DAVID: All a fully humanized personality you would invent as a God. Philosophers of religion would reject Him, as in 'How to think about God', Adler's book.

How can an immaterial, eternal creator of a universe and of life be “fully humanized”? You make a mockery of language. No philosopher of religion KNOWS how to think about God, and I wish you would stop hiding behind Adler, who according to you does not even deal with your totally illogical theory of evolution other than to use human uniqueness as proof of God’s existence (not proof of your theory).

DAVID: My inability to know God's reasons for evolving us does not negate my conclusions that humans were His goal.

Your inability refers to your not being able to find a single reason to justify your illogical theory that an all-knowing, all-powerful God would deliberately design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: Your analysis from a Godless point of view totally distorts your conclusion.

dhw: It is not godless, and there is no conclusion. All my alternatives allow for God, but they do not turn him into the messy blunderer described by your combined theories.

DAVID: God is not a blunderer. He used a messy evolutionary system to successfully produce us.

I agree that God would not be a blunderer, and that is why I question a theory that makes him into a “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” designer.

DAVID: In the past developing humans only used what was easiest to obtain. Now with our current abilities we use everything on Earth, as God planned.

dhw: Off you go, careering away from the subject, which is not human progress and abilities but the sheer illogicality of a God who messily and inefficiently designs and then has to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose.

DAVID: Your usual complaint that God should not have evolved us. But He didn't use direct creation, did He, reserving that for the Cambrian?

I have never said he should not have evolved us. I regard evolution as a fact. Your insistence that he directly designed our ancestors during the Cambrian simply tells us that every pre-Cambrian species was irrelevant to his purpose.

The rest of your post is repetition.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 28, 2023, 17:48 (91 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your experimenting God has the same 99.9% failure rate from the same evolution process! An omnipotent God does not need to experiment or change His mind.

dhw: More and more dodging. 1) Your complaint was about humanization, but you agree that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That is a possible motive. Ignored. 2) If God’s purpose was to create us plus food, you have him deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose. Daft. I have him experimenting in order to get the right formula. His designs all worked, so I wouldn’t call them failures, but you are right, he is not all-knowing and all-powerful. In my view, that is nothing like as daft as deliberately doing the wrong thing. Ignored. 3) Experimenting or creating a free-for-all in order to enjoy generating new ideas and making interesting new discoveries explains the whole history of evolution, and is neither messy nor cumbersome nor inefficient. And it has been completely successful. Ignored.

Never ignored. Your bumbling God does not know His goals if any. Experimenting is a blind process amazingly just like your favorite Darwin's chance process. We see a fixed evolutionary process in two opposite ways. Your God drifts along, while my purposeful God knows exactly what to do and does it.


DAVID: All a fully humanized personality you would invent as a God. Philosophers of religion would reject Him, as in 'How to think about God', Adler's book.

dhw: How can an immaterial, eternal creator of a universe and of life be “fully humanized”? You make a mockery of language. No philosopher of religion KNOWS how to think about God, and I wish you would stop hiding behind Adler, who according to you does not even deal with your totally illogical theory of evolution other than to use human uniqueness as proof of God’s existence (not proof of your theory).

Adler accepts and uses Darwin's chance evolution theory exactly.


DAVID: My inability to know God's reasons for evolving us does not negate my conclusions that humans were His goal.

dhw: Your inability refers to your not being able to find a single reason to justify your illogical theory that an all-knowing, all-powerful God would deliberately design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose.

If God is in charge, He created the evolutionary history we follow with a demonstrated 99.9% extinct.


DAVID: God is not a blunderer. He used a messy evolutionary system to successfully produce us.

dhw: I agree that God would not be a blunderer, and that is why I question a theory that makes him into a “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” designer.

My view of God is my view.


DAVID: Your usual complaint that God should not have evolved us. But He didn't use direct creation, did He, reserving that for the Cambrian?

dhw: I have never said he should not have evolved us. I regard evolution as a fact. Your insistence that he directly designed our ancestors during the Cambrian simply tells us that every pre-Cambrian species was irrelevant to his purpose.

That pre-Cambrian forms developed necessary biochemistry for the Cambrian is totally ignored as usual.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, December 29, 2023, 11:15 (90 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: More and more dodging. 1) Your complaint was about humanization, but you agree that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That is a possible motive. Ignored. 2) If God’s purpose was to create us plus food, you have him deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose. Daft. I have him experimenting in order to get the right formula. His designs all worked, so I wouldn’t call them failures, but you are right, he is not all-knowing and all-powerful. In my view, that is nothing like as daft as deliberately doing the wrong thing. Ignored. 3) Experimenting or creating a free-for-all in order to enjoy generating new ideas and making interesting new discoveries explains the whole history of evolution, and is neither messy nor cumbersome nor inefficient. And it has been completely successful. Ignored.

DAVID: Never ignored. Your bumbling God does not know His goals if any. Experimenting is a blind process amazingly just like your favorite Darwin's chance process. We see a fixed evolutionary process in two opposite ways. Your God drifts along, while my purposeful God knows exactly what to do and does it.

All of these theories allow for the existence of your purposeful God, but you have ignored 1) and 3). Experimenting is not a blind process, since even in 2) I have allowed for the fixed goal of creating the right formula for a being with some of his own attributes. I had already rejected Darwin’s chance process 16 years ago when I opened this website. Your purposeful, messy and inefficient designer God apparently knows that he must design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him. In 3) my God has a different purpose from yours (see 1), knows exactly what to do in order to achieve his purpose, and does it directly. Stop dodging!

DAVID: All a fully humanized personality you would invent as a God. Philosophers of religion would reject Him, as in 'How to think about God', Adler's book.

dhw: How can an immaterial, eternal creator of a universe and of life be “fully humanized”? You make a mockery of language. No philosopher of religion KNOWS how to think about God, and I wish you would stop hiding behind Adler, who according to you does not even deal with your totally illogical theory of evolution other than to use human uniqueness as proof of God’s existence (not proof of your theory).

DAVID: Adler accepts and uses Darwin's chance evolution theory exactly.

So there is no point in your even mentioning him as you struggle to defend your illogical theories of evolution. […]

DAVID: My view of God is my view.

No one will disagree with that! And as you so honestly informed us three weeks ago: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” Your mind is closed, even when your theories make no sense to you.

dhw: Your insistence that he directly designed our ancestors during the Cambrian simply tells us that every pre-Cambrian species was irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: That pre-Cambrian forms developed necessary biochemistry for the Cambrian is totally ignored as usual.

It has been dealt with repeatedly. All life depends on necessary biochemistry. We are trying to account for all the different FORMS of life. According to you, your God designed 99.9 out of 100 FORMS of life (species) that had no connection with us plus our food (his one and only purpose), and actually designed OUR life form “de novo”, without any predecessors, thereby rendering all preceding FORMS of life irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, December 29, 2023, 17:32 (90 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: More and more dodging. 1) Your complaint was about humanization, but you agree that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That is a possible motive. Ignored. 2) If God’s purpose was to create us plus food, you have him deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose. Daft. I have him experimenting in order to get the right formula. His designs all worked, so I wouldn’t call them failures, but you are right, he is not all-knowing and all-powerful. In my view, that is nothing like as daft as deliberately doing the wrong thing. Ignored. 3) Experimenting or creating a free-for-all in order to enjoy generating new ideas and making interesting new discoveries explains the whole history of evolution, and is neither messy nor cumbersome nor inefficient. And it has been completely successful. Ignored.

DAVID: Never ignored. Your bumbling God does not know His goals if any. Experimenting is a blind process amazingly just like your favorite Darwin's chance process. We see a fixed evolutionary process in two opposite ways. Your God drifts along, while my purposeful God knows exactly what to do and does it.

dhw: All of these theories allow for the existence of your purposeful God, but you have ignored 1) and 3). Experimenting is not a blind process, since even in 2) I have allowed for the fixed goal of creating the right formula for a being with some of his own attributes. I had already rejected Darwin’s chance process 16 years ago when I opened this website. Your purposeful, messy and inefficient designer God apparently knows that he must design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him. In 3) my God has a different purpose from yours (see 1), knows exactly what to do in order to achieve his purpose, and does it directly. Stop dodging!

I agreed about 1) long ago. I answered 3): " Experimenting is a blind process amazingly just like your favorite Darwin's chance process. We see a fixed evolutionary process in two opposite ways. Your God drifts along." (2) is your constantly stated objection to my theory, which I have fully refuted in the past. Assuming God exists, He evolved us. When I state humans were His goal is when you distort evolution's culling process by complaining about it.


DAVID: Adler accepts and uses Darwin's chance evolution theory exactly.

dhw: So there is no point in your even mentioning him as you struggle to defend your illogical theories of evolution. […]

Illogical only to you. Adler assumes humans were God's goal.


dhw: Your insistence that he directly designed our ancestors during the Cambrian simply tells us that every pre-Cambrian species was irrelevant to his purpose.

DAVID: That pre-Cambrian forms developed necessary biochemistry for the Cambrian is totally ignored as usual.

dhw: It has been dealt with repeatedly. All life depends on necessary biochemistry. We are trying to account for all the different FORMS of life. According to you, your God designed 99.9 out of 100 FORMS of life (species) that had no connection with us plus our food (his one and only purpose), and actually designed OUR life form “de novo”, without any predecessors, thereby rendering all preceding FORMS of life irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

Foolish point. All forms require an active biochemistry which first evolves so forms can evolve.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, December 30, 2023, 08:48 (90 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: More and more dodging. 1) Your complaint was about humanization, but you agree that your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That is a possible motive. Ignored. 2) If God’s purpose was to create us plus food, you have him deliberately creating 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his purpose. Daft. I have him experimenting in order to get the right formula. His designs all worked, so I wouldn’t call them failures, but you are right, he is not all-knowing and all-powerful. In my view, that is nothing like as daft as deliberately doing the wrong thing. Ignored. 3) Experimenting or creating a free-for-all in order to enjoy generating new ideas and making interesting new discoveries explains the whole history of evolution, and is neither messy nor cumbersome nor inefficient. And it has been completely successful. Ignored.

DAVID: I agreed about 1) long ago.

But you still pooh-pooh the idea that a being who enjoys and is interested in doing something might actually be motivated by his enjoyment and interest in doing it.

DAVID: I answered 3): " Experimenting is a blind process amazingly just like your favorite Darwin's chance process.”

If your God deliberately designed different life forms, or if he deliberately gave them the means to design their own forms because his motive was to enjoy creating things, or to enjoy watching things use the talents he had given them, the process is neither blind nor left to chance. He gets what he wants – the vast and ever changing variety of life’s history. As opposed to your version of 2) - the totally incomprehensible theory that your all-powerful God only wanted us plus food, and therefore knowingly designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: (2) is your constantly stated objection to my theory, which I have fully refuted in the past. Assuming God exists, He evolved us. When I state humans were His goal is when you distort evolution's culling process by complaining about it.

You have never ever refuted it. There is no dispute or complaint over our shared belief that we evolved and that 99.9% of organisms have disappeared. But when I challenge the absurd illogicality of an all-powerful God deliberately doing something that has no connection with what he wants to do, your “refutation” is always that you can’t know your God’s reasons for sticking to the theoretical purpose and method you have imposed on him. i.e. it makes no sense to you.

DAVID: Adler accepts and uses Darwin's chance evolution theory exactly.

dhw: So there is no point in your even mentioning him as you struggle to defend your illogical theories of evolution. […]

DAVID: Illogical only to you. Adler assumes humans were God's goal.

But apparently he does not assume that your God deliberately and incomprehensibly designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with us or our food.

DAVID: That pre-Cambrian forms developed necessary biochemistry for the Cambrian is totally ignored as usual.

dhw: It has been dealt with repeatedly. All life depends on necessary biochemistry. We are trying to account for all the different FORMS of life. According to you, your God designed 99.9 out of 100 FORMS of life (species) that had no connection with us plus our food (his one and only purpose), and actually designed OUR life form “de novo”, without any predecessors, thereby rendering all preceding FORMS of life irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Foolish point. All forms require an active biochemistry which first evolves so forms can evolve.

But by “evolve” you always mean that God designs it. And the only “forms” he wants to design are us plus our food, so he designs lots and lots of pre-Cambrian forms before designing us “de novo”, but even then he goes on designing lots and lots of forms that have no connection with us plus food, and you don’t know why. Round we go in the same circles because although your theories make no sense to you, you start with what you wish to believe (I am quoting you), and the messy, cumbersome, inefficient rest follows.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 30, 2023, 17:23 (89 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I agreed about 1) long ago.

dhw: But you still pooh-pooh the idea that a being who enjoys and is interested in doing something might actually be motivated by his enjoyment and interest in doing it.

You always equate God's motivations exactly as ours, when they must be considered allegorically. The pooh-pooh is for your humanizing of God.


DAVID: I answered 3): " Experimenting is a blind process amazingly just like your favorite Darwin's chance process.”

dhw: If your God deliberately designed different life forms, or if he deliberately gave them the means to design their own forms because his motive was to enjoy creating things, or to enjoy watching things use the talents he had given them, the process is neither blind nor left to chance. He gets what he wants – the vast and ever changing variety of life’s history. As opposed to your version of 2) - the totally incomprehensible theory that your all-powerful God only wanted us plus food, and therefore knowingly designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 life forms that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: (2) is your constantly stated objection to my theory, which I have fully refuted in the past. Assuming God exists, He evolved us. When I state humans were His goal is when you distort evolution's culling process by complaining about it.

Once again you describe a God in partial control of progress.


dhw: You have never ever refuted it. There is no dispute or complaint over our shared belief that we evolved and that 99.9% of organisms have disappeared. But when I challenge the absurd illogicality of an all-powerful God deliberately doing something that has no connection with what he wants to do, your “refutation” is always that you can’t know your God’s reasons for sticking to the theoretical purpose and method you have imposed on him. i.e. it makes no sense to you.

All of evolution is designed by God to create a huge population of humans controlling all of Earth and its resources. Where did the bush of life come from? Nothing is unintended. All purposely exists. Your problem is you are blind to the teleology of evolutionary processes.


DAVID: Adler accepts and uses Darwin's chance evolution theory exactly.

dhw: So there is no point in your even mentioning him as you struggle to defend your illogical theories of evolution. […]

DAVID: Illogical only to you. Adler assumes humans were God's goal.

dhw: But apparently he does not assume that your God deliberately and incomprehensibly designed and then had to cull 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with us or our food.

See above. God's purposefullness is obvious.


DAVID: That pre-Cambrian forms developed necessary biochemistry for the Cambrian is totally ignored as usual.

dhw: It has been dealt with repeatedly. All life depends on necessary biochemistry. We are trying to account for all the different FORMS of life. According to you, your God designed 99.9 out of 100 FORMS of life (species) that had no connection with us plus our food (his one and only purpose), and actually designed OUR life form “de novo”, without any predecessors, thereby rendering all preceding FORMS of life irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: Foolish point. All forms require an active biochemistry which first evolves so forms can evolve.

dhw: But by “evolve” you always mean that God designs it. And the only “forms” he wants to design are us plus our food, so he designs lots and lots of pre-Cambrian forms before designing us “de novo”, but even then he goes on designing lots and lots of forms that have no connection with us plus food, and you don’t know why. Round we go in the same circles because although your theories make no sense to you, you start with what you wish to believe (I am quoting you), and the messy, cumbersome, inefficient rest follows.

My view of God is that He designed evolution to produce us for His own unknown reasons. Yes, I consider evolution a cumbersome way to do it, but Dayenu, I am happy to exist. I won't change that viewpoint. It all makes sense if a person sees proof of God beyond a reasonable doubt. You want God revealed on a silver platter. It doesn't work that way.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, December 31, 2023, 12:54 (88 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: But you still pooh-pooh the idea that a being who enjoys and is interested in doing something might actually be motivated by his enjoyment and interest in doing it.

DAVID: You always equate God's motivations exactly as ours, when they must be considered allegorically. The pooh-pooh is for your humanizing of God.

You have stated categorically that you are certain your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That provides a motive for all his actions. The words “enjoy” and “interest” are not allegories.

dhw: If your God deliberately designed different life forms, or if he deliberately gave them the means to design their own forms because his motive was to enjoy creating things, or to enjoy watching things use the talents he had given them, the process is neither blind nor left to chance. He gets what he wants – the vast and ever changing variety of life’s history. […]

DAVID: Once again you describe a God in partial control of progress.

Your all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do, and if he wanted to give freedom to his creations, he would do so. Your own examples of this are bacteria and viruses, which are free to kill us if they want to, and human free will.

DAVID: All of evolution is designed by God to create a huge population of humans controlling all of Earth and its resources. Where did the bush of life come from? Nothing is unintended. All purposely exists. Your problem is you are blind to the teleology of evolutionary processes.

Your problem is that you are blind to the fact that 99.9% of the vast bush of past life had no connection with what you claim was our God’s one and only purpose from the beginning, as repeated here, and so you make him into a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. As this is what you wish him to be (your self-confessed starting point for your concept of God), you absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that he might have created precisely what he wanted to create because he did NOT start out with us plus food as his one and only purpose.

DAVID: All forms require an active biochemistry which first evolves so forms can evolve.

dhw: But by “evolve” you always mean that God designs it. And the only “forms” he wants to design are us plus our food, so he designs lots and lots of pre-Cambrian forms before designing us “de novo”, but even then he goes on designing lots and lots of forms that have no connection with us plus food, and you don’t know why. Round we go in the same circles because although your theories make no sense to you, you start with what you wish to believe (I am quoting you), and the messy, cumbersome, inefficient rest follows.

DAVID: My view of God is that He designed evolution to produce us for His own unknown reasons.

Your usual response: you can’t think of a single reason why your God should use such an illogical method to achieve the purpose you impose on him, but still you stick to it.

DAVID: Yes, I consider evolution a cumbersome way to do it, but Dayenu, I am happy to exist. I won't change that viewpoint. It all makes sense if a person sees proof of God beyond a reasonable doubt. You want God revealed on a silver platter. It doesn't work that way.

Your usual silly dodge away from your illogical theories of evolution to your enjoyment of your life, and to proving the existence of your God. I am also happy to exist, and all my alternative theories allow for the existence of your God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 31, 2023, 16:51 (88 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: But you still pooh-pooh the idea that a being who enjoys and is interested in doing something might actually be motivated by his enjoyment and interest in doing it.

DAVID: You always equate God's motivations exactly as ours, when they must be considered allegorically. The pooh-pooh is for your humanizing of God.

dhw: You have stated categorically that you are certain your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That provides a motive for all his actions. The words “enjoy” and “interest” are not allegories.

I said treat the meanings of the words allegorically. A standard teaching in theology by many authors.


dhw: If your God deliberately designed different life forms, or if he deliberately gave them the means to design their own forms because his motive was to enjoy creating things, or to enjoy watching things use the talents he had given them, the process is neither blind nor left to chance. He gets what he wants – the vast and ever changing variety of life’s history. […]

DAVID: Once again you describe a God in partial control of progress.

dhw: Your all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do, and if he wanted to give freedom to his creations, he would do so. Your own examples of this are bacteria and viruses, which are free to kill us if they want to, and human free will.

I was referring to evolutionary progress to a purposeful goal, not pursued by your humanized God.


DAVID: All of evolution is designed by God to create a huge population of humans controlling all of Earth and its resources. Where did the bush of life come from? Nothing is unintended. All purposely exists. Your problem is you are blind to the teleology of evolutionary processes.

dhw: Your problem is that you are blind to the fact that 99.9% of the vast bush of past life had no connection with what you claim was our God’s one and only purpose from the beginning, as repeated here, and so you make him into a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. As this is what you wish him to be (your self-confessed starting point for your concept of God), you absolutely refuse to consider the possibility that he might have created precisely what he wanted to create because he did NOT start out with us plus food as his one and only purpose.

What God achieved with the remaining 0.1% is what I described above. You distort evolution backwards from the result.


DAVID: My view of God is that He designed evolution to produce us for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: Your usual response: you can’t think of a single reason why your God should use such an illogical method to achieve the purpose you impose on him, but still you stick to it.

DAVID: Yes, I consider evolution a cumbersome way to do it, but Dayenu, I am happy to exist. I won't change that viewpoint. It all makes sense if a person sees proof of God beyond a reasonable doubt. You want God revealed on a silver platter. It doesn't work that way.

dhw: Your usual silly dodge away from your illogical theories of evolution to your enjoyment of your life, and to proving the existence of your God. I am also happy to exist, and all my alternative theories allow for the existence of your God.

None of your humanizing theories remotely resemble My God.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, January 01, 2024, 13:42 (87 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You have stated categorically that you are certain your God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. That provides a motive for all his actions. The words “enjoy” and “interest” are not allegories.

DAVID: I said treat the meanings of the words allegorically. A standard teaching in theology by many authors.

Your usual silly word games, on a par with all-powerful means with limited powers. When you wrote that you were certain your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, what did YOU mean by those words if you didn’t mean that creating gave him pleasure and he wanted to pay attention to what he had created? Please answer. (NB: an allegory is a symbol that stands for some kind of truth or moral. The words enjoy and interest don't symbolize anything!)

dhw: If your God deliberately designed different life forms, or if he deliberately gave them the means to design their own forms because his motive was to enjoy creating things, or to enjoy watching things use the talents he had given them, the process is neither blind nor left to chance. He gets what he wants – the vast and ever changing variety of life’s history. […]

DAVID: Once again you describe a God in partial control of progress.

dhw: Your all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do, and if he wanted to give freedom to his creations, he would do so. Your own examples of this are bacteria and viruses, which are free to kill us if they want to, and human free will.

DAVID: I was referring to evolutionary progress to a purposeful goal, not pursued by your humanized God.

The first of my alternative theories has him experimenting in order to find the right formula for a being in his own image. The other two alternatives have him 1) purposefully “progressing” through new ideas and discoveries, and 2) endowing his invention with the means of “progressing”. However, if you want to confine your view of evolution to “progress”, you will need to define what you mean by the term. Do you regard a mouse as progress compared to a dinosaur? You are obviously thinking only of humans, but we are descended from just 0.1% of evolution’s products. Were the other 99.9% all progressive? And if you believe in free will, we represent the supreme example of your God’s willingness to give up control. If he lets us create our own progress, what makes you so certain that he could not possibly have let cells/cell communities create their various means of survival, which for them would also signify progress compared to the threat of extinction?

DAVID: All of evolution is designed by God to create a huge population of humans controlling all of Earth and its resources. Where did the bush of life come from? Nothing is unintended. All purposely exists. Your problem is you are blind to the teleology of evolutionary processes.

dhw: Your problem is that you are blind to the fact that 99.9% of the vast bush of past life had no connection with what you claim was our God’s one and only purpose from the beginning. [...]

DAVID: What God achieved with the remaining 0.1% is what I described above. You distort evolution backwards from the result.

As usual, you ignore your own statement: “ALL OF EVOLUTION is designed to create (a huge population of ) humans"etc. No it’s not. Only 0.1% of evolution led to humans etc.

DAVID: My view of God is that He designed evolution to produce us for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: Your usual response: you can’t think of a single reason why your God should use such an illogical method to achieve the purpose you impose on him, but still you stick to it

DAVID: None of your humanizing theories remotely resemble My God.

Your God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer, and you confess that you have no idea (unknown reasons) why he would choose such an absurd method to achieve the goal you impose on him. But apparently his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of design makes him more godlike than my three alternatives, in which he does precisely what he wants to do, and achieves precisely what he wants to achieve.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 01, 2024, 17:37 (87 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I said treat the meanings of the words allegorically. A standard teaching in theology by many authors.

dhw: Your usual silly word games, on a par with all-powerful means with limited powers. When you wrote that you were certain your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, what did YOU mean by those words if you didn’t mean that creating gave him pleasure and he wanted to pay attention to what he had created? Please answer. (NB: an allegory is a symbol that stands for some kind of truth or moral. The words enjoy and interest don't symbolize anything!)

I am only following theologians' rules for describing God.

dhw: Your all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do, and if he wanted to give freedom to his creations, he would do so. Your own examples of this are bacteria and viruses, which are free to kill us if they want to, and human free will.

DAVID: I was referring to evolutionary progress to a purposeful goal, not pursued by your humanized God.

dhw: The first of my alternative theories has him experimenting in order to find the right formula for a being in his own image. The other two alternatives have him 1) purposefully “progressing” through new ideas and discoveries, and 2) endowing his invention with the means of “progressing”. However, if you want to confine your view of evolution to “progress”, you will need to define what you mean by the term. Do you regard a mouse as progress compared to a dinosaur? You are obviously thinking only of humans, but we are descended from just 0.1% of evolution’s products. Were the other 99.9% all progressive? And if you believe in free will, we represent the supreme example of your God’s willingness to give up control. If he lets us create our own progress, what makes you so certain that he could not possibly have let cells/cell communities create their various means of survival, which for them would also signify progress compared to the threat of extinction?

God does not discover. He creates what He expects to create. The 99.9% led to the exiting life which we control now. There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.


DAVID: All of evolution is designed by God to create a huge population of humans controlling all of Earth and its resources. Where did the bush of life come from? Nothing is unintended. All purposely exists. Your problem is you are blind to the teleology of evolutionary processes.

dhw: Your problem is that you are blind to the fact that 99.9% of the vast bush of past life had no connection with what you claim was our God’s one and only purpose from the beginning. [...]

DAVID: What God achieved with the remaining 0.1% is what I described above. You distort evolution backwards from the result.

dhw: As usual, you ignore your own statement: “ALL OF EVOLUTION is designed to create (a huge population of ) humans"etc. No it’s not. Only 0.1% of evolution led to humans etc.

Another distortion. 0.1% is a remaining group after the culling process of evolution. We are in charge; it is all for us to use.


DAVID: My view of God is that He designed evolution to produce us for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: Your usual response: you can’t think of a single reason why your God should use such an illogical method to achieve the purpose you impose on him, but still you stick to it

DAVID: None of your humanizing theories remotely resemble My God.

dhw: Your God is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer, and you confess that you have no idea (unknown reasons) why he would choose such an absurd method to achieve the goal you impose on him. But apparently his messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of design makes him more godlike than my three alternatives, in which he does precisely what he wants to do, and achieves precisely what he wants to achieve.

My God is a fabulous purposeful designer using a messy system of creation with absolute goals in sight at all times. Very unlike your humanized experimenter.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, January 02, 2024, 10:48 (86 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I said treat the meanings of the words allegorically. A standard teaching in theology by many authors.

dhw: Your usual silly word games, on a par with all-powerful means with limited powers. When you wrote that you were certain your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, what did YOU mean by those words if you didn’t mean that creating gave him pleasure and he wanted to pay attention to what he had created? Please answer. (NB: an allegory is a symbol that stands for some kind of truth or moral. The words enjoy and interest don't symbolize anything!)

DAVID: I am only following theologians' rules for describing God.

Once more: When you wrote that you were certain your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, what did YOU mean by those words?[/i]

dhw: Your all-powerful God would do what he wanted to do, and if he wanted to give freedom to his creations, he would do so. Your own examples of this are bacteria and viruses, which are free to kill us if they want to, and human free will.

DAVID: I was referring to evolutionary progress to a purposeful goal, not pursued by your humanized God.

dhw: The first of my alternative theories has him experimenting in order to find the right formula for a being in his own image. The other two alternatives have him 1) purposefully “progressing” through new ideas and discoveries, and 2) endowing his invention with the means of “progressing”. […]

DAVID: God does not discover.

How the heck do you know?

DAVID: He creates what He expects to create.

If he exists, and if he wanted to create the vast variety of past and present life forms we know of, then he would have expected his work to produce the vast variety of life forms we know of. This may have been done deliberately, through ongoing experimentation, or by giving cells the autonomy to produce their own variety. Why would he deliberately produce 99.9 out of 100 species that had no purpose whatsoever (if his one and only purpose was to produce us and our food)? Your usual answer is that you haven’t a clue, but God must have his reasons for his messy inefficiency.

DAVID: The 99.9% led to the exiting life which we control now.
And earlier: :
DAVID: “ALL OF EVOLUTION is designed to create (a huge population of ) humans"

No they didn’t, and no it wasn’t. How many more times? Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: Another distortion. 0.1% is a remaining group after the culling process of evolution. We are in charge; it is all for us to use.

No distortion. If your God controlled evolution, he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. We and our food are the product of the remaining 0.1%. This is not changed by the fact that we are in charge and use our fellow creatures for food.

DAVID: There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.

There is no evidence that some unknown, eternal, sourceless mind preprogrammed or dabbled every species, innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in the whole of life’s history. That is why we can only theorise.

DAVID: My view of God is that He designed evolution to produce us for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: Your usual response: you can’t think of a single reason why your God should use such an illogical method to achieve the purpose you impose on him, but still you stick to it.

DAVID: My God is a fabulous purposeful designer using a messy system of creation with absolute goals in sight at all times. Very unlike your humanized experimenter.

More of your silly language games: your all-powerful God has limited powers; your God is all good, provided you ignore the bad; your theory of evolution makes perfect sense to you, although only your God can understand it; and now your designer is fabulous and purposeful though his method of designing is messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And what are all these plural absolute goals? You only allow him one (us and our food). And when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you don’t mean he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and so his enjoyment and interest cannot possibly provide a motive for his creating things that will interest him.

Language should be a means of communication, not obfuscation.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 02, 2024, 17:18 (86 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am only following theologians' rules for describing God.

dhw: Once more: When you wrote that you were certain your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, what did YOU mean by those words?[/i]

Exactly the meaning you know, but applied to God must be seen as allegorical.


dhw: The first of my alternative theories has him experimenting in order to find the right formula for a being in his own image. The other two alternatives have him 1) purposefully “progressing” through new ideas and discoveries, and 2) endowing his invention with the means of “progressing”. […]

DAVID: God does not discover.

dhw: How the heck do you know?

By definition. God is all-knowing.


DAVID: He creates what He expects to create.

dhw: If he exists, and if he wanted to create the vast variety of past and present life forms we know of, then he would have expected his work to produce the vast variety of life forms we know of. This may have been done deliberately, through ongoing experimentation, or by giving cells the autonomy to produce their own variety. Why would he deliberately produce 99.9 out of 100 species that had no purpose whatsoever (if his one and only purpose was to produce us and our food)? Your usual answer is that you haven’t a clue, but God must have his reasons for his messy inefficiency.

Logic: God creates reality. God evolved us over time as His choice of creation. 99.9% loss is simply a mathematical analysis of His process. It gave us the surviving 0.1% of everything living on Earth.


dhw: No they didn’t, and no it wasn’t. How many more times? Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

We agree.

DAVID: There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.

dhw: There is no evidence that some unknown, eternal, sourceless mind preprogrammed or dabbled every species, innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in the whole of life’s history. That is why we can only theorise.

A difference. You theorize, I believe.


DAVID: My view of God is that He designed evolution to produce us for His own unknown reasons.

dhw: Your usual response: you can’t think of a single reason why your God should use such an illogical method to achieve the purpose you impose on him, but still you stick to it.

DAVID: My God is a fabulous purposeful designer using a messy system of creation with absolute goals in sight at all times. Very unlike your humanized experimenter.

dhw: More of your silly language games: your all-powerful God has limited powers; your God is all good, provided you ignore the bad; your theory of evolution makes perfect sense to you, although only your God can understand it; and now your designer is fabulous and purposeful though his method of designing is messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And what are all these plural absolute goals? You only allow him one (us and our food). And when you say he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you don’t mean he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and so his enjoyment and interest cannot possibly provide a motive for his creating things that will interest him.

Language should be a means of communication, not obfuscation.

Your obfuscation. Allegorical meaning must be used in discussions of God. Ask any true theologian.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, January 03, 2024, 12:14 (85 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Once more: When you wrote that you were certain your God enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, what did YOU mean by those words?

DAVID: Exactly the meaning you know, but applied to God must be seen as allegorical.

And at the end of this post, when I listed some of your linguistic absurdities (“all-powerful” means with limited power, “all-good” provided we ignore the bad, “makes perfect sense” but you can’t understand it, “fabulous” designer whose designs are messy and inefficient) you wrote:

DAVID: Allegorical meaning must be used in discussions of God. Ask any true theologian.

I don’t know what qualifications one needs in order to be a “true” theologian, but it makes no difference. YOU mean the same as I do, and so YOU believe he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations - no further definition necessary. And this offers us a perfectly credible purpose for creating the history of life as we know it. Thank you.

dhw: The first of my alternative theories has him experimenting in order to find the right formula for a being in his own image. The other two alternatives have him 1) purposefully “progressing” through new ideas and discoveries, and 2) endowing his invention with the means of “progressing”. [...]

DAVID: God does not discover.

dhw: How the heck do you know?

DAVID: By definition. God is all-knowing.

That is not a definition. It is the assumption of attributes. Nobody even knows that God exists, let alone what he is like. Why would an all-knowing God deliberately create and have to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his only purpose? You have no idea. Why should a God who is interested in his creations only be interested in what he already knows?

DAVID: He creates what He expects to create.

dhw: If he exists, and if he wanted to create the vast variety of past and present life forms we know of, then he would have expected his work to produce the vast variety of life forms we know of. This may have been done deliberately, through ongoing experimentation, or by giving cells the autonomy to produce their own variety.[...]

DAVID: Logic: God creates reality.

Agreed (if he exists).

DAVID: God evolved us over time as His choice of creation.

By “evolved” you mean specially designed. What do you mean by “choice of creation”? Are you telling us that the 99.9 irrelevant species which he designed were NOT his “choice of creation”?

DAVID: 99.9% loss is simply a mathematical analysis of His process. It gave us the surviving 0.1% of everything living on Earth.

According to you, 99.9% is the number of species he designed which had no relevance to his one and only goal,. The 99.9%, according to you, gave us nothing. Only the 0.1% gave us the survivors currently living on Earth. Stop dodging!

dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

So why have you contradicted yourself by telling us the 99.9% gave us the surviving 0.1%?

DAVID: There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.

dhw: There is no evidence that some unknown, eternal, sourceless mind preprogrammed or dabbled every species, innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in the whole of life’s history. That is why we can only theorise.

DAVID: A difference. You theorize, I believe.

You theorize and believe your theory and close your mind to its illogicality and to any other theory. That is the difference.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 03, 2024, 17:45 (85 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Allegorical meaning must be used in discussions of God. Ask any true theologian.

dhw: I don’t know what qualifications one needs in order to be a “true” theologian, but it makes no difference. YOU mean the same as I do, and so YOU believe he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations - no further definition necessary. And this offers us a perfectly credible purpose for creating the history of life as we know it. Thank you.

I have read theological theory and teachings in how to think about God. But we do understand each other.


dhw: The first of my alternative theories has him experimenting in order to find the right formula for a being in his own image. The other two alternatives have him 1) purposefully “progressing” through new ideas and discoveries, and 2) endowing his invention with the means of “progressing”. [...]

DAVID: God does not discover.

dhw: How the heck do you know?

DAVID: By definition. God is all-knowing.

dhw: That is not a definition. It is the assumption of attributes. Nobody even knows that God exists, let alone what he is like. Why would an all-knowing God deliberately create and have to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his only purpose? You have no idea. Why should a God who is interested in his creations only be interested in what he already knows?

Your fallacy again. God does not create to find interests. That is humanizing Him. God does not need interests!


DAVID: He creates what He expects to create.

dhw: If he exists, and if he wanted to create the vast variety of past and present life forms we know of, then he would have expected his work to produce the vast variety of life forms we know of. This may have been done deliberately, through ongoing experimentation, or by giving cells the autonomy to produce their own variety.[...]

DAVID: Logic: God creates reality.

dhw: Agreed (if he exists).

DAVID: God evolved us over time as His choice of creation.

dhw: By “evolved” you mean specially designed. What do you mean by “choice of creation”? Are you telling us that the 99.9 irrelevant species which he designed were NOT his “choice of creation”?

Everything in the history of evolution is God's creation.


DAVID: 99.9% loss is simply a mathematical analysis of His process. It gave us the surviving 0.1% of everything living on Earth.

dhw: According to you, 99.9% is the number of species he designed which had no relevance to his one and only goal,. The 99.9%, according to you, gave us nothing. Only the 0.1% gave us the survivors currently living on Earth. Stop dodging!

dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

dhw: So why have you contradicted yourself by telling us the 99.9% gave us the surviving 0.1%?

The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant.


DAVID: There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.

dhw: There is no evidence that some unknown, eternal, sourceless mind preprogrammed or dabbled every species, innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in the whole of life’s history. That is why we can only theorise.

DAVID: A difference. You theorize, I believe.

dhw: You theorize and believe your theory and close your mind to its illogicality and to any other theory. That is the difference.

Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, January 04, 2024, 09:12 (85 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Allegorical meaning must be used in discussions of God. Ask any true theologian.

dhw: I don’t know what qualifications one needs in order to be a “true” theologian, but it makes no difference. YOU mean the same as I do, and so YOU believe he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations - no further definition necessary. And this offers us a perfectly credible purpose for creating the history of life as we know it. Thank you.

DAVID: I have read theological theory and teachings in how to think about God. But we do understand each other.

Congratulations on your wide reading. That does not alter the fact that you and I use the words “enjoy” and “interested” with the same meaning, and since you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you have no grounds for dismissing the theory that his purpose might be to enjoy creating things he will be interested in.

DAVID: Your fallacy again. God does not create to find interests. That is humanizing Him. God does not need interests!

I don’t regard your God as “needy”. Your whole theory of evolution is based on him wanting to create humans. Why is it godlike to want to create something, but enjoying creating something interesting is only for humans, even though you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations? Yet another example of your self-contradiction.

DAVID: Logic: God creates reality.

dhw: Agreed (if he exists).

DAVID: God evolved us over time as His choice of creation.

dhw: By “evolved” you mean specially designed. What do you mean by “choice of creation”? Are you telling us that the 99.9 irrelevant species which he designed were NOT his “choice of creation”?

DAVID: Everything in the history of evolution is God's creation.

And you have no idea why he would have specially created 99.9 species out of 100 that had nothing to do with the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: 99.9% loss is simply a mathematical analysis of His process. It gave us the surviving 0.1% of everything living on Earth.

dhw: According to you, 99.9% is the number of species he designed which had no relevance to his one and only goal,. The 99.9%, according to you, gave us nothing. Only the 0.1% gave us the survivors currently living on Earth. Stop dodging!

dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

dhw: So why have you contradicted yourself by telling us the 99.9% gave us the surviving 0.1%?

DAVID: The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant.

You have just agreed that only 0.1% led to current forms, and now you say 99.9% produced current forms. They didn’t. Only 0.1% produced current forms. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.

dhw: There is no evidence that some unknown, eternal, sourceless mind preprogrammed or dabbled every species, innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in the whole of life’s history. That is why we can only theorise.

DAVID: A difference. You theorize, I believe.

dhw: You theorize and believe your theory and close your mind to its illogicality and to any other theory. That is the difference.

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 04, 2024, 18:01 (84 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I have read theological theory and teachings in how to think about God. But we do understand each other.

dhw: Congratulations on your wide reading. That does not alter the fact that you and I use the words “enjoy” and “interested” with the same meaning, and since you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you have no grounds for dismissing the theory that his purpose might be to enjoy creating things he will be interested in.

I dismissed nothing. I just warn you of the allegorical use of those words. Enjoy and interest do not change their meaning.


DAVID: Your fallacy again. God does not create to find interests. That is humanizing Him. God does not need interests!

dhw: I don’t regard your God as “needy”. Your whole theory of evolution is based on him wanting to create humans. Why is it godlike to want to create something, but enjoying creating something interesting is only for humans, even though you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations? Yet another example of your self-contradiction.

Yes, God enjoys and is interested, but He does not create to subserve His "needs'. He isn't needy in that sense as is your humanized form of God.


DAVID: Everything in the history of evolution is God's creation.

dhw: And you have no idea why he would have specially created 99.9 species out of 100 that had nothing to do with the purpose you impose on him.

It is simply the mathematical result of the evolutionary method He successfully employed:


DAVID: 99.9% loss is simply a mathematical analysis of His process. It gave us the surviving 0.1% of everything living on Earth.

dhw: According to you, 99.9% is the number of species he designed which had no relevance to his one and only goal,. The 99.9%, according to you, gave us nothing. Only the 0.1% gave us the survivors currently living on Earth. Stop dodging!

dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

dhw: So why have you contradicted yourself by telling us the 99.9% gave us the surviving 0.1%?

DAVID: The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant.

dhw: You have just agreed that only 0.1% led to current forms, and now you say 99.9% produced current forms. They didn’t. Only 0.1% produced current forms. Please stop contradicting yourself.

Since we agreed, your comment is unnecessary. 'The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant' is correct.


DAVID: There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.

dhw: There is no evidence that some unknown, eternal, sourceless mind preprogrammed or dabbled every species, innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in the whole of life’s history. That is why we can only theorise.

DAVID: A difference. You theorize, I believe.

dhw: You theorize and believe your theory and close your mind to its illogicality and to any other theory. That is the difference.

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

dhw: Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature.

Well, the theologians write books about God's nature.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, January 05, 2024, 13:57 (83 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I have read theological theory and teachings in how to think about God. But we do understand each other.

dhw: Congratulations on your wide reading. That does not alter the fact that you and I use the words “enjoy” and “interested” with the same meaning, and since you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, you have no grounds for dismissing the theory that his purpose might be to enjoy creating things he will be interested in.

DAVID: I dismissed nothing. I just warn you of the allegorical use of those words. Enjoy and interest do not change their meaning.

Thank you for not dismissing the theory that your God’s purpose for creating life might be his own enjoyment of creating things that might interest him. That is all I ask of you, so we can forget all your objections.

DAVID: Your fallacy again. God does not create to find interests. That is humanizing Him. God does not need interests!

dhw: I don’t regard your God as “needy”. […]

DAVID: Yes, God enjoys and is interested, but He does not create to subserve His "needs'. He isn't needy in that sense as is your humanized form of God.

I have just told you I reject the term “needy”, and in the omitted text I have explained that he does what he wants to do. Enjoyment and interest do not denote a defect of any kind.

DAVID: Everything in the history of evolution is God's creation.

dhw: And you have no idea why he would have specially created 99.9 species out of 100 that had nothing to do with the purpose you impose on him.

DAVID: It is simply the mathematical result of the evolutionary method He successfully employed.

In your theory it is the mathematical result of his designing 99.9 out of 100 species which had no connection with his one and only purpose – a method which you describe as messy, cumbersome and inefficient!

dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

dhw: So why have you contradicted yourself by telling us the 99.9% gave us the surviving 0.1%?

DAVID: The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant.

dhw: You have just agreed that only 0.1% led to current forms, and now you say 99.9% produced current forms. They didn’t. Only 0.1% produced current forms. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: Since we agreed, your comment is unnecessary. 'The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant' is correct.

How can it be correct if you agree that only the 0.1% led to current life forms? You are biting your own tail. Do you really believe that 99.9% of all extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, and only 0.1% constituted a dead end?

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: There is no evidence cell committees can do more than tiny adaptations.

dhw: There is no evidence that some unknown, eternal, sourceless mind preprogrammed or dabbled every species, innovation, lifestyle, strategy, natural wonder in the whole of life’s history. That is why we can only theorise. […]

The brain: patterns of neurons (now cellular intelligence)
dhw: You have agreed that bacteria and the immune system offer examples of cells that do their own designing as and when conditions demand it.

DAVID: The immune system requires cells designed that way. Only bacteria still edit of all existing organisms. Interestingly, cancer cells can edit.

Thank you for increasing the number of examples of cellular autonomy. Each one provides additional support for Shapiro’s theory.

Theodicy

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

dhw: Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature.

DAVID: Well, the theologians write books about God's nature.

And atheists write books about God’s non-existence. Does that mean we must believe them?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, January 05, 2024, 17:31 (83 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don’t regard your God as “needy”. […]

DAVID: Yes, God enjoys and is interested, but He does not create to subserve His "needs'. He isn't needy in that sense as is your humanized form of God.

dhw: I have just told you I reject the term “needy”, and in the omitted text I have explained that he does what he wants to do. Enjoyment and interest do not denote a defect of any kind.

As a purposeful creation to satisfactorily supply enjoyment or interest needs is not what a purposeful God primarily does. The enjoyment and interest are secondary.


dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

dhw: So why have you contradicted yourself by telling us the 99.9% gave us the surviving 0.1%?

DAVID: The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant.

dhw: You have just agreed that only 0.1% led to current forms, and now you say 99.9% produced current forms. They didn’t. Only 0.1% produced current forms. Please stop contradicting yourself.

DAVID: Since we agreed, your comment is unnecessary. 'The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant' is correct.

dhw: How can it be correct if you agree that only the 0.1% led to current life forms? You are biting your own tail. Do you really believe that 99.9% of all extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food, and only 0.1% constituted a dead end?

As before, Imagine evolution as a triangle. The tip is Archaea, the hypotenuse is the existing 0.1% and the area of the tringle is the 99.9%, all lost on the way. The 99.9% were required to produce the hypotenuse. Nothing unnecessary appeared along the way as every step was required to produce next steps.


Cellular intelligence

DAVID: The immune system requires cells designed that way. Only bacteria still edit of all existing organisms. Interestingly, cancer cells can edit.

dhw: Thank you for increasing the number of examples of cellular autonomy. Each one provides additional support for Shapiro’s theory.

Still just theory.


Theodicy

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

dhw: Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature.

DAVID: Well, the theologians write books about God's nature.

dhw: And atheists write books about God’s non-existence. Does that mean we must believe them?

Everyone develops a set of beliefs.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, January 06, 2024, 09:49 (83 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don’t regard your God as “needy”. […]

DAVID: Yes, God enjoys and is interested, but He does not create to subserve His "needs'. He isn't needy in that sense as is your humanized form of God.

dhw: I have just told you I reject the term “needy”, and in the omitted text I have explained that he does what he wants to do. Enjoyment and interest do not denote a defect of any kind.

DAVID: As a purposeful creation to satisfactorily supply enjoyment or interest needs is not what a purposeful God primarily does. The enjoyment and interest are secondary.

How many times do I have to repeat that enjoyment and interest do not denote need? And when did your God inform you that a purposeful God’s purpose is not to enjoy creating something interesting? While you’re at it, please tell us your God’s primary purpose for designing humans. Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us?

dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.

DAVID: We agree.

DAVID: 'The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant' is correct.

dhw: How can it be correct if you agree that only the 0.1% led to current life forms? You are biting your own tail. Do you really believe that 99.9% of all extinct species were the direct ancestors of us and our food and only 0.1% constituted a dead end?

DAVID: As before, Imagine evolution as a triangle. The tip is Archaea, the hypotenuse is the existing 0.1% and the area of the tringle is the 99.9%, all lost on the way. The 99.9% were required to produce the hypotenuse. Nothing unnecessary appeared along the way as every step was required to produce next steps.

As before: ever since you joined this discussion, you have used the image of life as a bush. Archaea are the root of the bush, which then diversifies into countless branches which do not join together in a triangle. 0.1% of the branches led to us and our food, and the rest (the 99.9%) led to dead ends. You keep agreeing, and then disagreeing. This is becoming a distressing characteristic in several of our discussions.

Cellular intelligence

DAVID: The immune system requires cells designed that way. Only bacteria still edit of all existing organisms. Interestingly, cancer cells can edit.

dhw: Thank you for increasing the number of examples of cellular autonomy. Each one provides additional support for Shapiro’s theory.

DAVID: Still just theory.

Of course – as are your God’s existence, and your faith in your God’s single purpose and messy, cumbersome, inefficient method of achieving it.

Newly found bacterial weapon

DAVID: This newly found mechanism adds to the knowledge that some bacteria use a piercing weapon to attack other bacteria.

Another example of the astonishing, inventive intelligence of these tiny, single-celled organisms. And yet for some reason, you cannot conceive of multiple cells pooling their intelligence to create yet more inventions.

Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

dhw: Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature.

DAVID: Well, the theologians write books about God's nature.

dhw: And atheists write books about God’s non-existence. Does that mean we must believe them?

DAVID: Everyone develops a set of beliefs.

Some of us keep an open mind on certain subjects. I have no idea why you think we need to be told that theologians write books about God. Is this supposed to provide evidence for your beliefs?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 06, 2024, 17:52 (82 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I don’t regard your God as “needy”. […]

DAVID: As a purposeful creation to satisfactorily supply enjoyment or interest needs is not what a purposeful God primarily does. The enjoyment and interest are secondary.

dhw: How many times do I have to repeat that enjoyment and interest do not denote need? And when did your God inform you that a purposeful God’s purpose is not to enjoy creating something interesting? While you’re at it, please tell us your God’s primary purpose for designing humans. Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us?

If interest and enjoyment are driving forces for creation, they are a need. The conjectures you present are all reasonable as to why we were created. Also, all may be wrong.


DAVID: As before, Imagine evolution as a triangle. The tip is Archaea, the hypotenuse is the existing 0.1% and the area of the tringle is the 99.9%, all lost on the way. The 99.9% were required to produce the hypotenuse. Nothing unnecessary appeared along the way as every step was required to produce next steps.

dhw: As before: ever since you joined this discussion, you have used the image of life as a bush. Archaea are the root of the bush, which then diversifies into countless branches which do not join together in a triangle. 0.1% of the branches led to us and our food, and the rest (the 99.9%) led to dead ends. You keep agreeing, and then disagreeing. This is becoming a distressing characteristic in several of our discussions.

The 99.9% are the ancestors of the 0.1%. They are not dead ends but form a logical progression to what exists here today. They form the area of my imaginary triangle.


Newly found bacterial weapon

DAVID: This newly found mechanism adds to the knowledge that some bacteria use a piercing weapon to attack other bacteria.

dhw: Another example of the astonishing, inventive intelligence of these tiny, single-celled organisms. And yet for some reason, you cannot conceive of multiple cells pooling their intelligence to create yet more inventions.

They are not bright enough to create the complex designs we see today.


Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

dhw: Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature.

DAVID: Well, the theologians write books about God's nature.

dhw: And atheists write books about God’s non-existence. Does that mean we must believe them?

DAVID: Everyone develops a set of beliefs.

dhw: Some of us keep an open mind on certain subjects. I have no idea why you think we need to be told that theologians write books about God. Is this supposed to provide evidence for your beliefs?

Since we discuss God, it is fair to review their thinking and instructions as to how to think about God. I need the guidance, but you don't?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, January 07, 2024, 13:30 (81 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don’t regard your God as “needy”. […]

DAVID: As a purposeful creation to satisfactorily supply enjoyment or interest needs is not what a purposeful God primarily does. The enjoyment and interest are secondary.

dhw: How many times do I have to repeat that enjoyment and interest do not denote need? And when did your God inform you that a purposeful God’s purpose is not to enjoy creating something interesting? While you’re at it, please tell us your God’s primary purpose for designing humans. Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us?

DAVID: If interest and enjoyment are driving forces for creation, they are a need. The conjectures you present are all reasonable as to why we were created. Also, all may be wrong.

More language games. If your God’s only purpose was to create us, according to you he “needed” to design 99.9 out of 100 irrelevant species. Does that make him needy? The conjectures were once yours, and they all come under your category of need. If enjoyment and interest can be a purpose in themselves, they are no more “needy” than any purpose you can come up with. I suggest you drop this silly objection.

DAVID: As before, Imagine evolution as a triangle. The tip is Archaea, the hypotenuse is the existing 0.1% and the area of the tringle is the 99.9%, all lost on the way. The 99.9% were required to produce the hypotenuse. Nothing unnecessary appeared along the way as every step was required to produce next steps.

dhw: As before: ever since you joined this discussion, you have used the image of life as a bush. Archaea are the root of the bush, which then diversifies into countless branches which do not join together in a triangle. 0.1% of the branches led to us and our food, and the rest (the 99.9%) led to dead ends. You keep agreeing, and then disagreeing. This is becoming a distressing characteristic in several of our discussions.

DAVID: The 99.9% are the ancestors of the 0.1%. They are not dead ends but form a logical progression to what exists here today. They form the area of my imaginary triangle.

January 2nd 2024:
dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree.
You agreed on January 2nd, and you disagreed with yourself on January 3rd.

December 30th 2023
DAVID: Where did the bush of life come from?

It has always been a bush. There is no triangle. It is absurd to claim that 99.9% per cent of every species that ever lived evolved directly into us and our food. Your own bush image gives you a precise description of why it is absurd. The branches of the bush grow away from the roots and from one another. They don’t grow away and then back again to join up! Please stop contradicting yourself. Back to January 2nd 2024 and for months if not years before that: you have agreed that evolution has produced the BUSH of life, and only 0.1% led to current forms.

Newly found bacterial weapon

DAVID: This newly found mechanism adds to the knowledge that some bacteria use a piercing weapon to attack other bacteria.

dhw: Another example of the astonishing, inventive intelligence of these tiny, single-celled organisms. And yet for some reason, you cannot conceive of multiple cells pooling their intelligence to create yet more inventions.

DAVID: They are not bright enough to create the complex designs we see today.

It is your belief that intelligent single cells lose their intelligence when they form communities, except when they combine into an immune system. Do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells that could design their own adaptations and innovations?

Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

dhw: Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature. […]

DAVID: Since we discuss God, it is fair to review their [theologians’] thinking and instructions as to how to think about God. I need the guidance, but you don't?

If it is “fair” to read their thinking and instructions, then it is also “fair” to read all the books written about all religions, and to read all the books that debunk religion, but you and I are engaged in a one-to-one discussion, exchanging opinions and defending or criticizing those opinions. It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 07, 2024, 17:06 (81 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If interest and enjoyment are driving forces for creation, they are a need. The conjectures you present are all reasonable as to why we were created. Also, all may be wrong.

dhw: More language games. If your God’s only purpose was to create us, according to you he “needed” to design 99.9 out of 100 irrelevant species. Does that make him needy? The conjectures were once yours, and they all come under your category of need. If enjoyment and interest can be a purpose in themselves, they are no more “needy” than any purpose you can come up with. I suggest you drop this silly objection.

Not a game but a concept of what is pure purpose as related to a God. God produces His creations without any personal requirements that need to be satisfied. Enjoyment or interest are secondary events for a God. I am trying to help you see how you humanize your God.


DAVID: The 99.9% are the ancestors of the 0.1%. They are not dead ends but form a logical progression to what exists here today. They form the area of my imaginary triangle.

January 2nd 2024:
dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree.
You agreed on January 2nd, and you disagreed with yourself on January 3rd.

December 30th 2023
DAVID: Where did the bush of life come from?

dhw: It has always been a bush. There is no triangle. It is absurd to claim that 99.9% per cent of every species that ever lived evolved directly into us and our food. Your own bush image gives you a precise description of why it is absurd. The branches of the bush grow away from the roots and from one another. They don’t grow away and then back again to join up! Please stop contradicting yourself. Back to January 2nd 2024 and for months if not years before that: you have agreed that evolution has produced the BUSH of life, and only 0.1% led to current forms.


Raup was interested in explaining extinction during evolution. He gave the number as 99.9%. What is present are the 0.1% surviving. 99.9% are the area of my imaginary triangle. My triangle is my image of the bush of life. Humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%.


Newly found bacterial weapon

DAVID: This newly found mechanism adds to the knowledge that some bacteria use a piercing weapon to attack other bacteria.

dhw: Another example of the astonishing, inventive intelligence of these tiny, single-celled organisms. And yet for some reason, you cannot conceive of multiple cells pooling their intelligence to create yet more inventions.

DAVID: They are not bright enough to create the complex designs we see today.

dhw: It is your belief that intelligent single cells lose their intelligence when they form communities, except when they combine into an immune system. Do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells that could design their own adaptations and innovations?

God could have done that if He wished. He obviously had reasons not to, because there is no evidence. The immune system is fully automatic.


Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect.

dhw: Is Godel a pseudonym for God? Note: Dawkins tells us God is a delusion. Is that supposed to convince you? NOBODY knows whether God exists, and if he does, NOBODY knows his nature. […]

DAVID: Since we discuss God, it is fair to review their [theologians’] thinking and instructions as to how to think about God. I need the guidance, but you don't?

dhw: If it is “fair” to read their thinking and instructions, then it is also “fair” to read all the books written about all religions, and to read all the books that debunk religion, but you and I are engaged in a one-to-one discussion, exchanging opinions and defending or criticizing those opinions. It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).

A non-answer. What guides you? I have given answers in theodicy summarizing the literature's responses. You can't accept those answers, but I do.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, January 08, 2024, 12:23 (80 days ago) @ David Turell

I have juxtaposed some posts in order to avoid repetition.

DAVID: As a purposeful creation to satisfactorily supply enjoyment or interest needs is not what a purposeful God primarily does. The enjoyment and interest are secondary.

dhw: How many times do I have to repeat that enjoyment and interest do not denote need? And when did your God inform you that a purposeful God’s purpose is not to enjoy creating something interesting? While you’re at it, please tell us your God’s primary purpose for designing humans. Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us?
And:
dhw: If your God’s only purpose was to create us, according to you he “needed” to design 99.9 out of 100 irrelevant species. Does that make him needy?

DAVID: If interest and enjoyment are driving forces for creation, they are a need. The conjectures you present are all reasonable as to why we were created. Also, all may be wrong.
And:
DAVID: I am trying to help you see how you humanize your God.

Of course – all theories, including that of your God’s existence, might be wrong, but why do you think your own reasonable theories listed above are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory of enjoyment and interest – of which you once wrote that you were certain?

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: The 99.9% are the ancestors of the 0.1%. They are not dead ends but form a logical progression to what exists here today. They form the area of my imaginary triangle.

January 2nd 2024:
dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.

DAVID: We agree.
You agreed on January 2nd, and you disagreed with yourself on January 3rd.

December 30th 2023
DAVID: Where did the bush of life come from?

dhw: It has always been a bush. There is no triangle. […] You have agreed that evolution has produced the BUSH of life, and only 0.1% led to current forms.

DAVID: Raup was interested in explaining extinction during evolution. He gave the number as 99.9%. What is present are the 0.1% surviving.

Correct.

DAVID: 99.9% are the area of my imaginary triangle. My triangle is my image of the bush of life. Humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%.

Since when was a triangle the same as a bush? A bush branches out. The branches don't join up once they grow away from the roots! Yes, humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%, because the 0.1% constitute all the extant species. The 99.9% constitute all the life forms that did not evolve into the extant species. You have agreed. Why are you now trying to disagree?

Newly found bacterial weapon

DAVID: This newly found mechanism adds to the knowledge that some bacteria use a piercing weapon to attack other bacteria.

dhw: Another example of the astonishing, inventive intelligence of these tiny, single-celled organisms. And yet for some reason, you cannot conceive of multiple cells pooling their intelligence to create yet more inventions.

DAVID: They are not bright enough to create the complex designs we see today.

dhw: It is your belief that intelligent single cells lose their intelligence when they form communities, except when they combine into an immune system. Do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells that could design their own adaptations and innovations?

DAVID: God could have done that if He wished. He obviously had reasons not to, because there is no evidence.

There is no evidence that 3.8 billion years ago your God compiled a list of instructions for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy etc. in life’s history, or that he popped in to perform ad hoc operations or issue instructions. Try again.

DAVID: The immune system is fully automatic.

There seems to be no end to your talent for disagreeing with yourself.
Dec. 22:
DAVID: The immune system is designed for a specific purpose, fight any infection that comes along. Only the immune system has this 'brain' that you wish for in other cells.

Dec. 28
dhw: We know that single-celled organisms have an autonomous system, and immune cells have an autonomous system, but until new conditions result in new species, we have no evidence that cells or God himself (if he exists) have done the designing.

DAVID: Agreed.

Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: […] It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).

DAVID: A non-answer. What guides you? I have given answers in theodicy summarizing the literature's responses. You can't accept those answers, but I do.

We had agreed to drop this subject, but now you want to go over all the same arguments again! If God is perfect but is the all-powerful, all-knowing first cause of everything, he must knowingly and deliberately have created evil. Does your definition of perfection include the deliberate and knowing creation of evil?
If you prefer to drop the subject, which we have already discussed ad nauseam, please let’s do so.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 08, 2024, 16:25 (80 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: If interest and enjoyment are driving forces for creation, they are a need. The conjectures you present are all reasonable as to why we were created. Also, all may be wrong.
And:
DAVID: I am trying to help you see how you humanize your God.

dhw: Of course – all theories, including that of your God’s existence, might be wrong, but why do you think your own reasonable theories listed above are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory of enjoyment and interest – of which you once wrote that you were certain?

Please note what I have bolded. You had no answer.


99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: 99.9% are the area of my imaginary triangle. My triangle is my image of the bush of life. Humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%.

dhw: Since when was a triangle the same as a bush? A bush branches out. The branches don't join up once they grow away from the roots! Yes, humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%, because the 0.1% constitute all the extant species. The 99.9% constitute all the life forms that did not evolve into the extant species. You have agreed. Why are you now trying to disagree?

I'm not disagreeing. My triangle resembles a bush shape, and is simply another way to view it conceptually.


Newly found bacterial weapon

dhw: It is your belief that intelligent single cells lose their intelligence when they form communities, except when they combine into an immune system. Do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells that could design their own adaptations and innovations?

DAVID: God could have done that if He wished. He obviously had reasons not to, because there is no evidence.

dhw: There is no evidence that 3.8 billion years ago your God compiled a list of instructions for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy etc. in life’s history, or that he popped in to perform ad hoc operations or issue instructions. Try again.

Don't need to. Explain the design you see that keeps you agnostic.


DAVID: The immune system is fully automatic.

dhw: There seems to be no end to your talent for disagreeing with yourself.
Dec. 22:
DAVID: The immune system is designed for a specific purpose, fight any infection that comes along. Only the immune system has this 'brain' that you wish for in other cells.

Dec. 28
dhw: We know that single-celled organisms have an autonomous system, and immune cells have an autonomous system, but until new conditions result in new species, we have no evidence that cells or God himself (if he exists) have done the designing.

DAVID: Agreed.

You have the ability to go back take comments out of context. The immune system follows DNA instructions to automatically make new antibodies as necessary.


Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: […] It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).

DAVID: A non-answer. What guides you? I have given answers in theodicy summarizing the literature's responses. You can't accept those answers, but I do.

dhw: We had agreed to drop this subject, but now you want to go over all the same arguments again! If God is perfect but is the all-powerful, all-knowing first cause of everything, he must knowingly and deliberately have created evil. Does your definition of perfection include the deliberate and knowing creation of evil?
If you prefer to drop the subject, which we have already discussed ad nauseam, please let’s do so.

You have been given the answers theodicy offers. You don't accept them. End of story.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, January 09, 2024, 10:51 (79 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: If interest and enjoyment are driving forces for creation, they are a need. The conjectures you present are all reasonable as to why we were created. Also, all may be wrong.
And:
DAVID: I am trying to help you see how you humanize your God.

dhw: Of course – all theories, including that of your God’s existence, might be wrong, but why do you think your own reasonable theories listed above are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory of enjoyment and interest – of which you once wrote that you were certain?

DAVID: Please note what I have bolded. You had no answer.

Language games again. Cart before horse. Creation then becomes the purpose, and God’s enjoyment etc. is needed if it is to happen. That does not mean that God “needs” the enjoyment of creation. You have not responded to my own question, which was: “Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us” – all of which you have posited in the past? Why do you think they are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory that he creates out of enjoyment and interest?

99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: 99.9% are the area of my imaginary triangle. My triangle is my image of the bush of life. Humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%.

dhw: Since when was a triangle the same as a bush? A bush branches out. The branches don't join up once they grow away from the roots! Yes, humans are a tiny percent of the 0.1%, because the 0.1% constitute all the extant species. The 99.9% constitute all the life forms that did not evolve into the extant species. You have agreed. Why are you now trying to disagree?

DAVID: I'm not disagreeing. My triangle resembles a bush shape, and is simply another way to view it conceptually.

If you are not disagreeing, then please stop telling us that 99.9% of species led to us and our food because the bush of life is a triangle. 0.1% of species led to us plus our food, and 99.9% were branches of the bush that did not lead to us or our food.

Newly found bacterial weapon
dhw: It is your belief that intelligent single cells lose their intelligence when they form communities, except when they combine into an immune system. Do you believe your all-powerful God was incapable of designing cells that could design their own adaptations and innovations?

DAVID: God could have done that if He wished. He obviously had reasons not to, because there is no evidence.

dhw: There is no evidence that 3.8 billion years ago your God compiled a list of instructions for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy etc. in life’s history, or that he popped in to perform ad hoc operations or issue instructions. Try again.

DAVID: Don't need to. Explain the design you see that keeps you agnostic.

The complexity of all living things, right down to the individual cell, points to design. Evolution by way of cellular intelligence does not preclude design! Speciation has stopped for the time being – we are going through a period of stasis – and so if you reject Shapiro's theory because there is no evidence, you will have also to reject your own theory of divine pre-preprogramming and dabbling because there is no evidence.

DAVID: The immune system is fully automatic.

dhw: There seems to be no end to your talent for disagreeing with yourself.
Dec. 22:
DAVID: The immune system is designed for a specific purpose, fight any infection that comes along. Only the immune system has this 'brain' that you wish for in other cells.
Dec. 28
dhw: We know that single-celled organisms have an autonomous system, and immune cells have an autonomous system, but until new conditions result in new species, we have no evidence that cells or God himself (if he exists) have done the designing.

DAVID: Agreed.

DAVID: You have the ability to go back take comments out of context. The immune system follows DNA instructions to automatically make new antibodies as necessary.

There is absolutely no context which can nullify your clear statement that “only the immune system has this ‘brain’ that you wish for in other cells.” I’m sorry, but my aim in all these discussions is to discuss possible solutions to all the unsolved problems of our existence. The discussions should clarify these ideas, but there is no clarification if from one week to the next (sometimes one day to the next) you state the exact opposite of what you have already agreed to.

Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: […] It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).[…]

DAVID: You have been given the answers theodicy offers. You don't accept them. End of story.

Theodicy asks a question. It doesn’t offer answers. I don’t accept the answers that you have given, and I suggest there is no point in your raising the subject again just because somebody has said that God is perfect. I might as well say: Dawkins calls God a delusion. Does that really get us anywhere?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 09, 2024, 17:51 (79 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Language games again. Cart before horse. Creation then becomes the purpose, and God’s enjoyment etc. is needed if it is to happen. That does not mean that God “needs” the enjoyment of creation. You have not responded to my own question, which was: “Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us” – all of which you have posited in the past? Why do you think they are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory that he creates out of enjoyment and interest?

More word games. God created what He wished without needing recognition, worship, relationship as driving forces. In the past I have offered God MIGHT have secondarily had thoughts in those regards.


99.9% v 0.1%

DAVID: I'm not disagreeing. My triangle resembles a bush shape, and is simply another way to view it conceptually.

dhw: If you are not disagreeing, then please stop telling us that 99.9% of species led to us and our food because the bush of life is a triangle. 0.1% of species led to us plus our food, and 99.9% were branches of the bush that did not lead to us or our food.

The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%


Newly found bacterial weapon

dhw: There is no evidence that 3.8 billion years ago your God compiled a list of instructions for every innovation, lifestyle, strategy etc. in life’s history, or that he popped in to perform ad hoc operations or issue instructions. Try again.

DAVID: Don't need to. Explain the design you see that keeps you agnostic.

dhw: The complexity of all living things, right down to the individual cell, points to design. Evolution by way of cellular intelligence does not preclude design! Speciation has stopped for the time being – we are going through a period of stasis – and so if you reject Shapiro's theory because there is no evidence, you will have also to reject your own theory of divine pre-preprogramming and dabbling because there is no evidence.

Shapiro's theory is subject to real study. God's existence is another form of study. Your comparison fails.


DAVID: The immune system is fully automatic.

DAVID: You have the ability to go back take comments out of context. The immune system follows DNA instructions to automatically make new antibodies as necessary.

dhw: There is absolutely no context which can nullify your clear statement that “only the immune system has this ‘brain’ that you wish for in other cells.” I’m sorry, but my aim in all these discussions is to discuss possible solutions to all the unsolved problems of our existence. The discussions should clarify these ideas, but there is no clarification if from one week to the next (sometimes one day to the next) you state the exact opposite of what you have already agreed to.

I guess I need to spend more time to be sure I am clear in my answers. I said the immune system is automatic. My cell brain comment was meant to be taken as sarcasm. I should have used the word with the sentence. My fixed beliefs don't change. The biochemistry of life is automatic.


Theodicy
DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: […] It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).[…]

DAVID: You have been given the answers theodicy offers. You don't accept them. End of story.

dhw: Theodicy asks a question. It doesn’t offer answers. I don’t accept the answers that you have given, and I suggest there is no point in your raising the subject again just because somebody has said that God is perfect. I might as well say: Dawkins calls God a delusion. Does that really get us anywhere?

Faith in God is amazing isn't it. Theodicy is your problem, not mine.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, January 10, 2024, 09:14 (79 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] “Did he, in your opinion, “need” to have his work recognized, “need” to be worshipped, “need” to have a relationship with us” – all of which you have posited in the past? Why do you think they are less “needy” and less “human” than the theory that he creates out of enjoyment and interest?

DAVID: More word games. God created what He wished without needing recognition, worship, relationship as driving forces. In the past I have offered God MIGHT have secondarily had thoughts in those regards.

Please stop making these official announcements, as if you knew that your opinions were facts! It’s all MIGHT-bes! Even the existence of God. You suggested that the above might be possible motives for his creation of humans, and I suggest that his enjoyment of creation and interest in his creations, of which you are certain, might be his motive for creating life, including huimans. Why are your might-be’s less “needy” and less “human” than mine?

99.9% v 0.1%
January 2nd:
dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.
DAVID: We agree.

January 8th/9th
dhw:The 99.9% constitute all the life forms that did not evolve into the extant species. You have agreed. Why are you now trying to disagree?

DAVID: I'm not disagreeing.

dhw: If you are not disagreeing, then please stop telling us that 99.9% of species led to us and our food

DAVID: The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%.

In one and the same post, you agree and proceed to disagree. Let's try again.
Some experts believe there were about 1000 species of dinosaur. Do you believe that 990 of these led directly to us and current species? You believe your God created all the vertebrates “de novo” during the Cambrian, so according to you not one of today’s vertebrates, including us, could possibly be directly descended from any of the species that existed before the Cambrian. Do you believe that 990 out of 1000 pre-Cambrian species led directly to us and our contemporary species?

Newly found bacterial weapon

DAVID: explain the design you see that keeps you agnostic.

dhw: The complexity of all living things, right down to the individual cell, points to design. Evolution by way of cellular intelligence does not preclude design! Speciation has stopped for the time being – we are going through a period of stasis – and so if you reject Shapiro's theory because there is no evidence, you will have also to reject your own theory of divine pre-preprogramming and dabbling because there is no evidence.

DAVID: Shapiro's theory is subject to real study. God's existence is another form of study. Your comparison fails.

The above does not question God’s existence but questions the theory that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every species, as opposed to possibly inventing intelligent cells to do the job. Since speciation has stopped for the time being, neither theory can be supported by evidence. Your attempt to change the subject has failed.

The immune system

DAVID: You have the ability to go back take comments out of context. The immune system follows DNA instructions to automatically make new antibodies as necessary.

dhw: There is absolutely no context which can nullify your clear statement that “only the immune system has this ‘brain’ that you wish for in other cells.” […][/b]

DAVID: I guess I need to spend more time to be sure I am clear in my answers. I said the immune system is automatic. My cell brain comment was meant to be taken as sarcasm.

Clear answers have become a rarity, as illustrated by all your self-contradictions during discussions on your God’s motives, the 0.1% v 99.9% dispute, crystal ball speciation, and “irreducible complexity”.

Theodicy

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: […] It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).[…]

DAVID: Faith in God is amazing isn't it. Theodicy is your problem, not mine.

I don’t find faith in God amazing. It’s perfectly understandable. You raised the problem of theodicy in the first place, came up with the daft “solution” that there’s no problem so long as you ignore the evil, agreed to drop the subject, but for some reason decided to raise it again because Godel thinks God is perfect.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 10, 2024, 18:44 (78 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: More word games. God created what He wished without needing recognition, worship, relationship as driving forces. In the past I have offered God MIGHT have secondarily had thoughts in those regards.

Please stop making these official announcements, as if you knew that your opinions were facts! It’s all MIGHT-bes! Even the existence of God. You suggested that the above might be possible motives for his creation of humans, and I suggest that his enjoyment of creation and interest in his creations, of which you are certain, might be his motive for creating life, including humans. Why are your might-be’s less “needy” and less “human” than mine?

What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

DAVID: The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%.

dhw: In one and the same post, you agree and proceed to disagree. Let's try again.
Some experts believe there were about 1000 species of dinosaur. Do you believe that 990 of these led directly to us and current species? You believe your God created all the vertebrates “de novo” during the Cambrian, so according to you not one of today’s vertebrates, including us, could possibly be directly descended from any of the species that existed before the Cambrian. Do you believe that 990 out of 1000 pre-Cambrian species led directly to us and our contemporary species?

Raup dealt with evolution from the Cambrian on. Ediacaran's are our ancestors, 100% dead. Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now. Why do you try to slice up fully departed species into Raup's findings? The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%, of which we are a tiny portion.


Newly found bacterial weapon

DAVID: explain the design you see that keeps you agnostic.

dhw: The complexity of all living things, right down to the individual cell, points to design. Evolution by way of cellular intelligence does not preclude design! Speciation has stopped for the time being – we are going through a period of stasis – and so if you reject Shapiro's theory because there is no evidence, you will have also to reject your own theory of divine pre-preprogramming and dabbling because there is no evidence.

DAVID: Shapiro's theory is subject to real study. God's existence is another form of study. Your comparison fails.

dhw: The above does not question God’s existence but questions the theory that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every species, as opposed to possibly inventing intelligent cells to do the job. Since speciation has stopped for the time being, neither theory can be supported by evidence. Your attempt to change the subject has failed.

But research into how evolution works is continuing, so I don't understand your negative answer.


The immune system

DAVID: I guess I need to spend more time to be sure I am clear in my answers. I said the immune system is automatic. My cell brain comment was meant to be taken as sarcasm.

dhw: Clear answers have become a rarity, as illustrated by all your self-contradictions during discussions on your God’s motives, the 0.1% v 99.9% dispute, crystal ball speciation, and “irreducible complexity”.

Your math for evolution is confused by slicing and dicing family groups; IC totally confuses you; and you still don't understand the ID view of speciation by a designing mind.


Theodicy

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: […] It’s no use you telling me that you’ve read a book which says God is perfect if you can’t respond to arguments that suggest God is not perfect (whatever “perfect” may mean).[…]

DAVID: Faith in God is amazing isn't it. Theodicy is your problem, not mine.

dhw: I don’t find faith in God amazing. It’s perfectly understandable. You raised the problem of theodicy in the first place, came up with the daft “solution” that there’s no problem so long as you ignore the evil, agreed to drop the subject, but for some reason decided to raise it again because Godel thinks God is perfect.

Godel should be of interest in this website.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, January 11, 2024, 12:01 (77 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] God created what He wished without needing recognition, worship, relationship as driving forces. In the past I have offered God MIGHT have secondarily had thoughts in those regards.

dhw: Please stop making these official announcements, as if you knew that your opinions were facts! It’s all MIGHT-bes! Even the existence of God. You suggested that the above might be possible motives for his creation of humans, and I suggest that his enjoyment of creation and interest in his creations, of which you are certain, might be his motive for creating life, including humans. Why are your might-be’s less “needy” and less “human” than mine?

DAVID: What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest.

99.9% v 0.1%
Jan. 2nd:
dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current life forms.
DAVID: We agree.
And Jan 9th: I am not disagreeing.

And also Jan. 9th:
DAVID: The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%.

dhw: In one and the same post, you agree and proceed to disagree. Let's try again.

My second effort was a waste of space, as it has produced the following response:

DAVID: Raup dealt with evolution from the Cambrian on. Ediacaran's are our ancestors, 100% dead. Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now. Why do you try to slice up fully departed species into Raup's findings? The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%, of which we are a tiny portion.

Incoherent! 99.9% of what, if not of every organism that ever lived? Having agreed last week that we plus food are descended from 0.1% of past species, you now tell us that we plus food are descended from 990 out of 1000 Ediacarans, but maybe from NONE of the 1000 dinosaurs. Simple question: do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived? Yes or no?

Newly found bacterial weapon
dhw: […] if you reject Shapiro's theory because there is no evidence, you will have also to reject your own theory of divine pre-preprogramming and dabbling because there is no evidence.

DAVID: Shapiro's theory is subject to real study. God's existence is another form of study. Your comparison fails.

dhw: The above does not question God’s existence but questions the theory that your God preprogrammed or dabbled every species, as opposed to possibly inventing intelligent cells to do the job. Since speciation has stopped for the time being, neither theory can be supported by evidence. Your attempt to change the subject has failed.

DAVID: But research into how evolution works is continuing, so I don't understand your negative answer.

What negative answer? You rejected Shapiro’s theory of evolution because there was no evidence. I have pointed out to you that the same criticism can be applied to your theory of evolution because there is no evidence. Yes, maybe continued research will supply us with evidence.

The immune system

DAVID: I guess I need to spend more time to be sure I am clear in my answers. I said the immune system is automatic. My cell brain comment was meant to be taken as sarcasm.

dhw: Clear answers have become a rarity, as illustrated by all your self-contradictions during discussions on your God’s motives, the 0.1% v 99.9% dispute, crystal ball speciation, and “irreducible complexity”.

DAVID: Your math for evolution is confused by slicing and dicing family groups; IC totally confuses you; and you still don't understand the ID view of speciation by a designing mind.

Your confusion over 99.9% ancestry is dealt with above; IC had you so totally confused that you invalidated your own definition; and I understand your belief that speciation was designed directly by your God, but you still don’t understand that design by intelligent cells (perhaps themselves designed by your God) is also intelligent design, though not by a single mind.

Theodicy

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: (...)You raised the problem of theodicy in the first place, came up with the daft “solution” that there’s no problem so long as you ignore the evil, agreed to drop the subject, but for some reason decided to raise it again because Godel thinks God is perfect.

DAVID: Godel should be of interest in this website.

See “Miscellany Part Two” for his daft hypothesis concerning an afterlife. I still don’t know why, after we had agreed not to repeat the discussion on theodicy, you decided to start it again by telling us Godel thinks God is perfect.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 11, 2024, 16:29 (77 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

dhw: Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest?

More evidence God must be like humans, in your mind.

dhw: My second effort was a waste of space, as it has produced the following response:

DAVID: Raup dealt with evolution from the Cambrian on. Ediacaran's are our ancestors, 100% dead. Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now. Why do you try to slice up fully departed species into Raup's findings? The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%, of which we are a tiny portion.

dhw: Incoherent! 99.9% of what, if not of every organism that ever lived? Having agreed last week that we plus food are descended from 0.1% of past species, you now tell us that we plus food are descended from 990 out of 1000 Ediacarans, but maybe from NONE of the 1000 dinosaurs. Simple question: do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived? Yes or no?

No. From the 0.1% surviving. The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%, of which we are a tiny portion.


The immune system

DAVID: I guess I need to spend more time to be sure I am clear in my answers. I said the immune system is automatic. My cell brain comment was meant to be taken as sarcasm.

dhw: Clear answers have become a rarity, as illustrated by all your self-contradictions during discussions on your God’s motives, the 0.1% v 99.9% dispute, crystal ball speciation, and “irreducible complexity”.

DAVID: Your math for evolution is confused by slicing and dicing family groups; IC totally confuses you; and you still don't understand the ID view of speciation by a designing mind.

dhw: Your confusion over 99.9% ancestry is dealt with above; IC had you so totally confused that you invalidated your own definition; and I understand your belief that speciation was designed directly by your God, but you still don’t understand that design by intelligent cells (perhaps themselves designed by your God) is also intelligent design, though not by a single mind.

Totally rejected. Design requires consciousness. Are your cell committees' conscious?


Theodicy

DAVID: Note Godel tells us God must be considered as perfect in every aspect. […]

dhw: (...)You raised the problem of theodicy in the first place, came up with the daft “solution” that there’s no problem so long as you ignore the evil, agreed to drop the subject, but for some reason decided to raise it again because Godel thinks God is perfect.

DAVID: Godel should be of interest in this website.

dhw: See “Miscellany Part Two” for his daft hypothesis concerning an afterlife. I still don’t know why, after we had agreed not to repeat the discussion on theodicy, you decided to start it again by telling us Godel thinks God is perfect.

Godel is a famous thinker in logic. Note his incompleteness theorem. His opinions are worth something to those with open minds.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, January 12, 2024, 12:28 (76 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

dhw: Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest?

DAVID: More evidence God must be like humans, in your mind.

Not “like” humans (how many humans can design universes or create life from scratch?) but with certain thought patterns and emotions in common with his, just as you yourself have indicated in the past. The above list of might-be’s was yours, as was your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but as usual you have dodged every single question I have asked above.

99.9& versus 0.1%

dhw: Having agreed last week that we plus food are descended from 0.1% of past species, you now tell us that we plus food are descended from 990 out of 1000 Ediacarans, but maybe from NONE of the 1000 dinosaurs. Simple question: do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived? Yes or no?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving. The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%, of which we are a tiny portion.

I’m getting worried about you, as these self-contradictions are becoming embarrassing. You do not believe that we (plus food) are directly descended from the 99.9%, and yet the 99.9% are our ancestors. Don’t you realize that “ancestors” are the line of life forms from which we are descended? You have just answered my question with no and yes!

The immune system

DAVID: […] you still don't understand the ID view of speciation by a designing mind.

dhw: […] you still don’t understand that design by intelligent cells (perhaps themselves designed by your God) is also intelligent design, though not by a single mind.

DAVID: Totally rejected. Design requires consciousness. Are your cell committees' conscious?

There are different degrees of consciousness. Obviously our own consciousness is vastly greater than that of our fellow animals: we can assume that your dog does not psychoanalyse his own behaviour, or wonder how the universe began, concoct theories about it, write books about it etc. But do you think he goes through life with no consciousness of you or of his environment or of his needs? You have accepted that single celled organisms such as bacteria are conscious of the conditions in which they find themselves, and respond accordingly. Of course that is not human consciousness, but without being conscious of those conditions, how could they possibly respond to them? The cell communities of all organisms respond to conditions. Shapiro says they are cognitive (sentient) beings which possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. We have no idea of the precise degree of their consciousness (which is why Shapiro's theory is still theory, not fact), but my answer to your question is a resounding yes.

Theodicy
DAVID: Godel should be of interest in this website.

dhw: See “Miscellany Part Two” for his daft hypothesis concerning an afterlife. I still don’t know why, after we had agreed not to repeat the discussion on theodicy, you decided to start it again by telling us Godel thinks God is perfect.

DAVID: Godel is a famous thinker in logic. Note his incompleteness theorem. His opinions are worth something to those with open minds.

I can only comment on what you tell us, and even you could not accept the so-called logic of his theory that our failure to fulfil our potential in this life means there MUST be an afterlife in which we can do so. And do you really want to re-open the discussion on theodicy, just because Godel says God is perfect?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, January 12, 2024, 17:01 (76 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

dhw: Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest?

DAVID: More evidence God must be like humans, in your mind.

dhw: Not “like” humans (how many humans can design universes or create life from scratch?) but with certain thought patterns and emotions in common with his, just as you yourself have indicated in the past. The above list of might-be’s was yours, as was your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but as usual you have dodged every single question I have asked above.

Not a dodge. I won't be drawn into a discussion of a human-like God. We can guess at God's motives as I have and they remain guesses, while not considering any of them as self-serving.


99.9& versus 0.1%

dhw: Having agreed last week that we plus food are descended from 0.1% of past species, you now tell us that we plus food are descended from 990 out of 1000 Ediacarans, but maybe from NONE of the 1000 dinosaurs. Simple question: do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the creatures that ever lived? Yes or no?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving. The 99.9% are the ancestors of the currently living 0.1%, of which we are a tiny portion.

dhw: I’m getting worried about you, as these self-contradictions are becoming embarrassing. You do not believe that we (plus food) are directly descended from the 99.9%, and yet the 99.9% are our ancestors. Don’t you realize that “ancestors” are the line of life forms from which we are descended? You have just answered my question with no and yes!

I have Raup's view of evolution: it took 99.9% dying to produce the 0.1% living. Don't twist it as you do.>

The immune system

DAVID: […] you still don't understand the ID view of speciation by a designing mind.

dhw: […] you still don’t understand that design by intelligent cells (perhaps themselves designed by your God) is also intelligent design, though not by a single mind.

DAVID: Totally rejected. Design requires consciousness. Are your cell committees' conscious?

dhw: There are different degrees of consciousness. Obviously our own consciousness is vastly greater than that of our fellow animals: we can assume that your dog does not psychoanalyse his own behaviour, or wonder how the universe began, concoct theories about it, write books about it etc. But do you think he goes through life with no consciousness of you or of his environment or of his needs? You have accepted that single celled organisms such as bacteria are conscious of the conditions in which they find themselves, and respond accordingly. Of course that is not human consciousness, but without being conscious of those conditions, how could they possibly respond to them? The cell communities of all organisms respond to conditions. Shapiro says they are cognitive (sentient) beings which possess sensory, communication, information-processing and decision-making capabilities. We have no idea of the precise degree of their consciousness (which is why Shapiro's theory is still theory, not fact), but my answer to your question is a resounding yes.

And my answer is cells are fully automatic automatons,


Theodicy
DAVID: Godel should be of interest in this website.

dhw: See “Miscellany Part Two” for his daft hypothesis concerning an afterlife. I still don’t know why, after we had agreed not to repeat the discussion on theodicy, you decided to start it again by telling us Godel thinks God is perfect.

DAVID: Godel is a famous thinker in logic. Note his incompleteness theorem. His opinions are worth something to those with open minds.

dhw: I can only comment on what you tell us, and even you could not accept the so-called logic of his theory that our failure to fulfil our potential in this life means there MUST be an afterlife in which we can do so. And do you really want to re-open the discussion on theodicy, just because Godel says God is perfect?

No, let's not. But God is perfect.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, January 13, 2024, 08:33 (76 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

dhw: Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest?

DAVID: More evidence God must be like humans, in your mind.

dhw: Not “like” humans (how many humans can design universes or create life from scratch?) but with certain thought patterns and emotions in common with his, just as you yourself have indicated in the past. The above list of might-be’s was yours, as was your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but as usual you have dodged every single question I have asked above.

DAVID: Not a dodge. I won't be drawn into a discussion of a human-like God. We can guess at God's motives as I have and they remain guesses, while not considering any of them as self-serving.

In the first post above,, you categorically stated: “God simply creates with no motives”, although you continually tell us he is all-purposeful, and for 15 years you have insisted that his motive for creating life was to design us and our food. In previous posts you have stated your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Now would you please answer the bolded questions above.

99.9& versus 0.1%

We can now end this discussion, thanks to a fossil skin 290 million years old! Previously you have claimed that “The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant” This clearly means that 99.9% of all species produced us. Your closed triangle image was meant to reinforce this - the “area” being the 99.9% of all species – as opposed to the bush, which diverges into countless branches that never meet. But now, praise be, we have a revelation:

dhw: Perhaps worth pointing out that the different groups diverged and developed. They did not all link up with one another in a straight line from themselves to us and our food. 99.9% of them were not our ancestors.

DAVID: Our direct human line had a loss of ancestors at the 99.9% level, per Raup.

Yes! Of course the loss of 99.9% of our direct human line(= our ancestors) fits the history. And so we can now dismiss all the nonsense about the 99.9% of evolution producing us, and accept that only 0.1% of past species led to us (plus food). And we remain stuck with 99.9% of past species which you believe your God deliberately designed and culled, and which had no connection with us or our food but came to a dead end. Agreed at last?

The immune system

DAVID: […] you still don't understand the ID view of speciation by a designing mind.

dhw: […] you still don’t understand that design by intelligent cells (perhaps themselves designed by your God) is also intelligent design, though not by a single mind.

DAVID: Totally rejected. Design requires consciousness. Are your cell committees' conscious?

dhw: There are different degrees of consciousness. [I gave your dog and bacteria as examples.] […]. Of course that is not human consciousness, but without being conscious of those conditions, how could they possibly respond to them? […] We have no idea of the precise degree of their consciousness (which is why Shapiro's theory is still theory, not fact), but my answer to your question is a resounding yes.

DAVID: And my answer is cells are fully automatic automatons.

You asked if cells were conscious, and I gave you examples, plus Shapiro’s criteria for consciousness, plus the vital point that there are different degrees. You simply ignore the whole of my response, and repeat your fixed opinion. I’ll try to get an answer out of you: do you believe that the cell communities of which all multicellular organisms consist can respond to the demands of their environment without being conscious of their environment? Yes or no, please.

Theodicy
DAVID: Godel is a famous thinker in logic. Note his incompleteness theorem. His opinions are worth something to those with open minds.

dhw: I can only comment on what you tell us, and even you could not accept the so-called logic of his theory that our failure to fulfil our potential in this life means there MUST be an afterlife in which we can do so. And do you really want to re-open the discussion on theodicy, just because Godel says God is perfect?

DAVID: No, let's not. But God is perfect.

You just won’t let it rest, will you? Since your God is all powerful, then of course he sets the criteria for perfection. If he decides to design murderous viruses, or to chuck an asteroid at you and me, he can still call himself perfect. And you and Godel can pretend you know all about God’s attributes, while at the same time you tell us at the start of this thread that it’s all guesses, so how the heck do you “KNOW” he is whatever you want him to be?
X

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 13, 2024, 18:05 (75 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

dhw: Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest?

DAVID: More evidence God must be like humans, in your mind.

dhw: Not “like” humans (how many humans can design universes or create life from scratch?) but with certain thought patterns and emotions in common with his, just as you yourself have indicated in the past. The above list of might-be’s was yours, as was your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but as usual you have dodged every single question I have asked above.

DAVID: Not a dodge. I won't be drawn into a discussion of a human-like God. We can guess at God's motives as I have and they remain guesses, while not considering any of them as self-serving.

dhw: In the first post above,, you categorically stated: “God simply creates with no motives”, although you continually tell us he is all-purposeful, and for 15 years you have insisted that his motive for creating life was to design us and our food. In previous posts you have stated your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Now would you please answer the bolded questions above.

Let's be clear, purpose is not motive. We know God purposely produced humans through a process we call evolution. We don't know why God chose that method, since we know He can create directly (the Cambrian). Whatever motive God had it was not self-serving. Our emotions mimic His, so we can only guess at His. I still firmly reject your humanizing approach.


99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: Our direct human line had a loss of ancestors at the 99.9% level, per Raup.

dhw: Yes! Of course the loss of 99.9% of our direct human line(= our ancestors) fits the history. And so we can now dismiss all the nonsense about the 99.9% of evolution producing us, and accept that only 0.1% of past species led to us (plus food). And we remain stuck with 99.9% of past species which you believe your God deliberately designed and culled, and which had no connection with us or our food but came to a dead end. Agreed at last?

What we are stuck with is a history of evolution produced by God, in which 3.8 billion years of life resulted in survivors in mathematical terms are 0.1% of all who ever lived.


The immune system

DAVID: And my answer is cells are fully automatic automatons.

dhw: You asked if cells were conscious, and I gave you examples, plus Shapiro’s criteria for consciousness, plus the vital point that there are different degrees. You simply ignore the whole of my response, and repeat your fixed opinion. I’ll try to get an answer out of you: do you believe that the cell communities of which all multicellular organisms consist can respond to the demands of their environment without being conscious of their environment? Yes or no, please.

Yes, they automatically respond to stimuli they receive.


Theodicy
DAVID: Godel is a famous thinker in logic. Note his incompleteness theorem. His opinions are worth something to those with open minds.

dhw: I can only comment on what you tell us, and even you could not accept the so-called logic of his theory that our failure to fulfil our potential in this life means there MUST be an afterlife in which we can do so. And do you really want to re-open the discussion on theodicy, just because Godel says God is perfect?

DAVID: No, let's not. But God is perfect.

dhw: You just won’t let it rest, will you? Since your God is all powerful, then of course he sets the criteria for perfection. If he decides to design murderous viruses, or to chuck an asteroid at you and me, he can still call himself perfect. And you and Godel can pretend you know all about God’s attributes, while at the same time you tell us at the start of this thread that it’s all guesses, so how the heck do you “KNOW” he is whatever you want him to be?

Welcome to the vagaries of faith.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 13, 2024, 18:08 (75 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: What driving emotional force made God create, if there was one? That is our discussion. My answer for your might-be's is no force. God simply creates with no motives. He has secondary responses.

dhw: Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest?

DAVID: More evidence God must be like humans, in your mind.

dhw: Not “like” humans (how many humans can design universes or create life from scratch?) but with certain thought patterns and emotions in common with his, just as you yourself have indicated in the past. The above list of might-be’s was yours, as was your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but as usual you have dodged every single question I have asked above.

DAVID: Not a dodge. I won't be drawn into a discussion of a human-like God. We can guess at God's motives as I have and they remain guesses, while not considering any of them as self-serving.

dhw: In the first post above,, you categorically stated: “God simply creates with no motives”, although you continually tell us he is all-purposeful, and for 15 years you have insisted that his motive for creating life was to design us and our food. In previous posts you have stated your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Now would you please answer the bolded questions above.


Let's be clear, purpose is not motive. We know God purposely produced humans through a process we call evolution. We don't know why God chose that method, since we know He can create directly (the Cambrian). Whatever motive God had it was not self-serving. Our emotions mimic His, so we can only guess at His. I still firmly reject your humanizing approach. God has no needs or personal wants since He is perfect.


99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: Our direct human line had a loss of ancestors at the 99.9% level, per Raup.

dhw: Yes! Of course the loss of 99.9% of our direct human line(= our ancestors) fits the history. And so we can now dismiss all the nonsense about the 99.9% of evolution producing us, and accept that only 0.1% of past species led to us (plus food). And we remain stuck with 99.9% of past species which you believe your God deliberately designed and culled, and which had no connection with us or our food but came to a dead end. Agreed at last?


What we are stuck with is a history of evolution produced by God, in which 3.8 billion years of life resulted in survivors in mathematical terms are 0.1% of all who ever lived.


The immune system

DAVID: And my answer is cells are fully automatic automatons.

dhw: You asked if cells were conscious, and I gave you examples, plus Shapiro’s criteria for consciousness, plus the vital point that there are different degrees. You simply ignore the whole of my response, and repeat your fixed opinion. I’ll try to get an answer out of you: do you believe that the cell communities of which all multicellular organisms consist can respond to the demands of their environment without being conscious of their environment? Yes or no, please.


Yes, they automatically respond to stimuli they receive.


Theodicy
DAVID: Godel is a famous thinker in logic. Note his incompleteness theorem. His opinions are worth something to those with open minds.

dhw: I can only comment on what you tell us, and even you could not accept the so-called logic of his theory that our failure to fulfil our potential in this life means there MUST be an afterlife in which we can do so. And do you really want to re-open the discussion on theodicy, just because Godel says God is perfect?

DAVID: No, let's not. But God is perfect.

dhw: You just won’t let it rest, will you? Since your God is all powerful, then of course he sets the criteria for perfection. If he decides to design murderous viruses, or to chuck an asteroid at you and me, he can still call himself perfect. And you and Godel can pretend you know all about God’s attributes, while at the same time you tell us at the start of this thread that it’s all guesses, so how the heck do you “KNOW” he is whatever you want him to be?


Welcome to the vagaries of faith.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, January 14, 2024, 12:18 (74 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your once all-purposeful God is now a purposeless zombie. If God had no motive for creating life, why did he bother? And if he had no motive, how could his motive have been to design us and our food? And you still haven’t told us why your earlier might-be purposes (to be worshipped, recognized, have a relationship with us) are less “needy” and less “human” than the purpose of enjoyment and interest? […]

DAVID: Let's be clear, purpose is not motive.

More silly language games. Both purpose and motive are the reason why you do something. According to you, your God’s purpose for creating life was to design humans plus our food. His motive for creating life was his desire to design humans plus food.

DAVID: We know God purposely produced humans through a process we call evolution.

Assuming your God exists, we can assume that he produced ALL life forms through a process we call evolution. Once more: According to you, his purpose for producing all life was to produce humans, and his motive was the desire to produce humans.

DAVID: We don't know why God chose that method, since we know He can create directly (the Cambrian). (dhw's bold)

We don't "know" that your God chose your purpose or your method! And your two theories combined - purpose/motive = us plus food, method = to design 99.9 out of 100 species with no connection to us, though you “know” he can create directly - make absolutely no sense to you.

DAVID: Whatever motive God had it was not self-serving.

And there you go again, with your pretence that you know exactly what and how your God thinks. Back to the bolded questions you refuse to answer.

DAVID: Our emotions mimic His, so we can only guess at His. I still firmly reject your humanizing approach.

Of course we can only guess, but you believe our emotions mimic his, and yet you firmly reject even your own humanizing guesses in which our emotions mimic his.

99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: Our [direct human line had a loss of ancestors at the 99.9% level, per Raup.

dhw: Yes! Of course the loss of 99.9% of our direct human line (= our ancestors) fits the history. And so we can now dismiss all the nonsense about the 99.9% of evolution producing us, and accept that only 0.1% of past species led to us (plus food). And we remain stuck with 99.9% of past species which you believe your God deliberately designed and culled, and which had no connection with us or our food but came to a dead end. Agreed at last?

DAVID: What we are stuck with is a history of evolution produced by God, in which 3.8 billion years of life resulted in survivors in mathematical terms are 0.1% of all who ever lived.

Thank hou for confirming that humans plus food are not the descendants of 99.9% of organisms that ever lived, and yes, we are stuck with your absurd theory that your God deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose/motive you impose on him.

DAVID: Note this new approach:
https://phys.org/news/2024-01-life-earth.html

QUOTES: "[…] how much life has inhabited this planet since the first cell on Earth? And how much life will ever exist on Earth?
In the end, we were able to estimate that about 10^30 (10 noninillion) cells exist today, and that between 10^39 (a duodecillion) and 10^40 cells have ever existed on Earth."

Estimating the number of cells that exist and existed has absolutely nothing to do with your nonsensical theories of evolution, and I’m sorry, but I do not believe there is any reliable method for counting the number of individual specimens of every species that ever lived in the course of 3.8 billion years.

The immune system

dhw:do you believe that the cell communities of which all multicellular organisms consist can respond to the demands of their environment without being conscious of their environment? Yes or no, please.

DAVID: Yes, they automatically respond to stimuli they receive.

(See “Miscellany Parts One & Two".)

Theodicy

DAVID: […] God is perfect.

dhw: […] Since your God is all powerful, then of course he sets the criteria for perfection. If he decides to design murderous viruses, or to chuck an asteroid at you and me, he can still call himself perfect. And you and Godel can pretend you know all about God’s attributes, while at the same time you tell us at the start of this thread that it’s all guesses, so how the heck do you “KNOW” he is whatever you want him to be?

DAVID: Welcome to the vagaries of faith.

The vagaries of faith lead you into presenting illogical guesses as if they were facts, and then you reject logical alternative guesses on the grounds that they contradict your own illogical guesses. This approach is harmless in the context of theodicy, but has alarming practical repercussions in other contexts, since it is the foundation of all prejudice: you have an opinion, and no matter how illogical it may be, you stick to it. I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 14, 2024, 18:06 (74 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: We know God purposely produced humans through a process we call evolution.

Assuming your God exists, we can assume that he produced ALL life forms through a process we call evolution. Once more: According to you, his purpose for producing all life was to produce humans, and his motive was the desire to produce humans.

DAVID: We don't know why God chose that method, since we know He can create directly (the Cambrian). (dhw's bold)

dhw: We don't "know" that your God chose your purpose or your method! And your two theories combined - purpose/motive = us plus food, method = to design 99.9 out of 100 species with no connection to us, though you “know” he can create directly - make absolutely no sense to you.

Since I believe God exists, He evolved humans for His own reasons. It all makes sense to me if not to you.


DAVID: Our emotions mimic His, so we can only guess at His. I still firmly reject your humanizing approach.

dhw: Of course we can only guess, but you believe our emotions mimic his, and yet you firmly reject even your own humanizing guesses in which our emotions mimic his.

I make a strong attempt not to humanize my God.


99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: What we are stuck with is a history of evolution produced by God, in which 3.8 billion years of life resulted in survivors in mathematical terms are 0.1% of all who ever lived.

dhw: Thank hou for confirming that humans plus food are not the descendants of 99.9% of organisms that ever lived, and yes, we are stuck with your absurd theory that your God deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose/motive you impose on him.

I remind you, God provided an Earth where everything is for our use.

Theodicy

DAVID: […] God is perfect.

dhw: […] Since your God is all powerful, then of course he sets the criteria for perfection. If he decides to design murderous viruses, or to chuck an asteroid at you and me, he can still call himself perfect. And you and Godel can pretend you know all about God’s attributes, while at the same time you tell us at the start of this thread that it’s all guesses, so how the heck do you “KNOW” he is whatever you want him to be?

DAVID: Welcome to the vagaries of faith.

dhw: The vagaries of faith lead you into presenting illogical guesses as if they were facts, and then you reject logical alternative guesses on the grounds that they contradict your own illogical guesses. This approach is harmless in the context of theodicy, but has alarming practical repercussions in other contexts, since it is the foundation of all prejudice: you have an opinion, and no matter how illogical it may be, you stick to it. I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.

Your fixed humanizing of God is also the result of your prejudices.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, January 15, 2024, 09:24 (74 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: We don't know why God chose that method, since we know He can create directly (the Cambrian). (dhw's bold)

dhw: We don't "know" that your God chose your purpose or your method! And your two theories combined - purpose/motive = us plus food, method = to design 99.9 out of 100 species with no connection to us, though you “know” he can create directly - make absolutely no sense to you.

DAVID: Since I believe God exists, He evolved humans for His own reasons. It all makes sense to me if not to you.

If God exists, he evolved all life for his own reasons. But you have imposed ONE purpose and ONE method on him (see above), and can’t think of any reason why he would use such an absurd method to achieve such a purpose. How can it make sense to you if you can’t find a single reason for it? Maybe one or other of these two theories is wrong, but you can’t bear such a thought.

DAVID: Our emotions mimic His, so we can only guess at His. I still firmly reject your humanizing approach.

dhw: Of course we can only guess, but you believe our emotions mimic his, and yet you firmly reject even your own humanizing guesses in which our emotions mimic his.

DAVID: I make a strong attempt not to humanize my God.

Your strong attempt included your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and your guesses that his reasons for creating humans were to be worshipped, recognized, and perhaps to form a relationship. Why are these strong attempts of yours less human and less self-serving than my suggestion that perhaps one of them (enjoyment and interest) might be his reason for creating life? (I have repeatedly bolded this question and asked you to answer it, and your answer now is to leave it out altogether.)

99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: What we are stuck with is a history of evolution produced by God, in which 3.8 billion years of life resulted in survivors in mathematical terms are 0.1% of all who ever lived.

dhw: Thank you for confirming that humans plus food are not the descendants of 99.9% of organisms that ever lived, and yes, we are stuck with your absurd theory that your God deliberately designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose/motive you impose on him.

DAVID: I remind you, God provided an Earth where everything is for our use.

If God exists, I remind you that he provided an Earth where everything was and still is for the use of every species in their various econiches throughout the last 3.8 billion years. See the next article on stick insects and ecosystems:

DAVID: ecosystems support all of life on Earth. Everything living is here for a purpose. Those who do not understand that viewpoint have a confused view as to why species exist.

A lovely article. Your comment is presumably meant to be provocative, so I’ll rise to the bait. Of course every ecosystem supports the life of those organisms that live in it, and ecosystems come and go as conditions change. What is the purpose of everything living? The only purpose that emerges from all these articles is survival, but 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived have eventually failed to survive, and every ecosystem has changed accordingly. Apart from the purpose of survival, please tell us the purpose for which the 99.9% of extinct species existed and for which the current 0.1% exist.

Theodicy

DAVID: Welcome to the vagaries of faith.

dhw: The vagaries of faith lead you into presenting illogical guesses as if they were facts, and then you reject logical alternative guesses on the grounds that they contradict your own illogical guesses. This approach is harmless in the context of theodicy, but has alarming practical repercussions in other contexts, since it is the foundation of all prejudice: you have an opinion, and no matter how illogical it may be, you stick to it. I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.

DAVID: Your fixed humanizing of God is also the result of your prejudices.

I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he may have. I have offered you ALTERNATIVE theistic theories to explain the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth. Nothing fixed. But as you explained earlier, you start with what you wish to believe, and even though you can’t find a single reason to support your combined theories, you stick to them. That is a pretty good description of prejudice.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 15, 2024, 16:02 (73 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Since I believe God exists, He evolved humans for His own reasons. It all makes sense to me if not to you.

dhw: If God exists, he evolved all life for his own reasons. But you have imposed ONE purpose and ONE method on him (see above), and can’t think of any reason why he would use such an absurd method to achieve such a purpose. How can it make sense to you if you can’t find a single reason for it? Maybe one or other of these two theories is wrong, but you can’t bear such a thought.

I don't need reasons for God's actions. God is all knowing so therefoe His reasons are correct.

DAVID: I make a strong attempt not to humanize my God.

dhw: Your strong attempt included your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and your guesses that his reasons for creating humans were to be worshipped, recognized, and perhaps to form a relationship. Why are these strong attempts of yours less human and less self-serving than my suggestion that perhaps one of them (enjoyment and interest) might be his reason for creating life? (I have repeatedly bolded this question and asked you to answer it, and your answer now is to leave it out altogether.)

My constant answer is God does not create for self-serving purposes.


99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: I remind you, God provided an Earth where everything is for our use.

dhw: If God exists, I remind you that he provided an Earth where everything was and still is for the use of every species in their various econiches throughout the last 3.8 billion years. See the next article on stick insects and ecosystems:

DAVID: ecosystems support all of life on Earth. Everything living is here for a purpose. Those who do not understand that viewpoint have a confused view as to why species exist.

dhw: A lovely article. Your comment is presumably meant to be provocative, so I’ll rise to the bait. Of course every ecosystem supports the life of those organisms that live in it, and ecosystems come and go as conditions change. What is the purpose of everything living? The only purpose that emerges from all these articles is survival, but 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived have eventually failed to survive, and every ecosystem has changed accordingly. Apart from the purpose of survival, please tell us the purpose for which the 99.9% of extinct species existed and for which the current 0.1% exist.

A production of humans to control the Earth.


Theodicy

DAVID: Welcome to the vagaries of faith.

dhw: The vagaries of faith lead you into presenting illogical guesses as if they were facts, and then you reject logical alternative guesses on the grounds that they contradict your own illogical guesses. This approach is harmless in the context of theodicy, but has alarming practical repercussions in other contexts, since it is the foundation of all prejudice: you have an opinion, and no matter how illogical it may be, you stick to it. I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.

DAVID: Your fixed humanizing of God is also the result of your prejudices.

dhw: I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he may have. I have offered you ALTERNATIVE theistic theories to explain the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth. Nothing fixed. But as you explained earlier, you start with what you wish to believe, and even though you can’t find a single reason to support your combined theories, you stick to them. That is a pretty good description of prejudice.

When I started as an agnostic, so where is the prejudice? That I formed opinions as I read material new to me, shows you an open mind. How closed is yours?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, January 16, 2024, 11:01 (72 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don't need reasons for God's actions. God is all knowing so therefore His reasons are correct.

Of course. if he exists, his reasons must be his reasons, and his methods must be his methods. But if you don’t know the reasons for your God’s actions in creating life, why do you insist that you do know the reason: to create us and our food? And why do you insist that you even know his method: to design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his reason for creating life? Your starting point is always your assumption that you know his reason/motive/purpose and you know his method of fulfilling his one and only desire! You don’t. Either one or both of your theories might be wrong, but your mind is closed to any alternative.

DAVID: I make a strong attempt not to humanize my God.

dhw: Your strong attempt included your certainty that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and your guesses that his reasons for creating humans were to be worshipped, recognized, and perhaps to form a relationship. Why are these strong attempts of yours less human and less self-serving than my suggestion that perhaps one of them (enjoyment and interest) might be his reason for creating life? (I have repeatedly bolded this question and asked you to answer it, and your answer now is to leave it out altogether.)

DAVID: My constant answer is God does not create for self-serving purposes.

So although all your guesses, as listed above, are clearly self-serving, your strong answer is that all your guesses are wrong, and you blame me if I propose that one of your guesses might be right.

99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: ecosystems support all life on Earth. Everything living is here for a purpose. Those who do not understand that viewpoint have a confused view as to why species exist.

dhw: […] Of course every ecosystem supports the life of those organisms that live in it, and ecosystems come and go as conditions change. What is the purpose of everything living? The only purpose that emerges from all these articles is survival, but 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived have eventually failed to survive, and every ecosystem has changed accordingly. Apart from the purpose of survival, please tell us the purpose for which the 99.9% of extinct species existed and for which the current 0.1% exist.

DAVID: A production of humans to control the Earth.

But as you have now agreed, 99.9% of past species had no connection with humans or our food. They all lived in their respective ecosystems, and they and their ecosystems died out. So what do you think was their purpose? And while we're at it, what might be his purpose for giving humans control of the Earth?

Theodicy

dhw: I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.

DAVID: Your fixed humanizing of God is also the result of your prejudices.

dhw: I don’t even know if God exists, let alone what attributes he may have. I have offered you ALTERNATIVE theistic theories to explain the higgledy-piggledy history of life on Earth. Nothing fixed. But as you explained earlier, you start with what you wish to believe, and even though you can’t find a single reason to support your combined theories, you stick to them. That is a pretty good description of prejudice.

DAVID: When I started as an agnostic, so where is the prejudice? That I formed opinions as I read material new to me, shows you an open mind. How closed is yours?

Prejudice always has a root in the past. You form an opinion, and from then on you stick to it even if it doesn’t make sense. For some reason, you became convinced at some time in the past that your God’s only possible purpose was to create humans plus food. You also became convinced that your God specially designed every species. And now, in the present, even though you cannot find a single reason why your God should have designed 99/9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only purpose you are prepared to believe in, your opinion remains fixed. You have closed your mind. As for me, I can’t decide whether God exists or not. If he does, I consider different hypotheses about his possible purposes, nature and methods. I find some more convincing than others (and try to explain why), but none are convincing enough for me to form a firm belief. Somewhere along the line, I am wrong, but I do not see my personal indecisiveness as prejudice.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 16, 2024, 19:50 (72 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Of course. if he exists, his reasons must be his reasons, and his methods must be his methods. But if you don’t know the reasons for your God’s actions in creating life, why do you insist that you do know the reason: to create us and our food? And why do you insist that you even know his method: to design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his reason for creating life? Your starting point is always your assumption that you know his reason/motive/purpose and you know his method of fulfilling his one and only desire! You don’t. Either one or both of your theories might be wrong, but your mind is closed to any alternative.

The only way I can know God is studying His works. We are the unexpected result of natural evolution. Therefore, we must have been designed by God, as the only plausible explanation. Pure Adlerism. Life is a miracle and humans even more miraculous. Living in a miracle softens the surprise. Your reaction is extremely soft.

DAVID: My constant answer is God does not create for self-serving purposes.

dhw: So although all your guesses, as listed above, are clearly self-serving, your strong answer is that all your guesses are wrong, and you blame me if I propose that one of your guesses might be right.

Still all guesswork. I propose a strong purposeful God, not producing for His own needs, as your does.


99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: ecosystems support all life on Earth. Everything living is here for a purpose. Those who do not understand that viewpoint have a confused view as to why species exist.

dhw: […] Of course every ecosystem supports the life of those organisms that live in it, and ecosystems come and go as conditions change. What is the purpose of everything living? The only purpose that emerges from all these articles is survival, but 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived have eventually failed to survive, and every ecosystem has changed accordingly. Apart from the purpose of survival, please tell us the purpose for which the 99.9% of extinct species existed and for which the current 0.1% exist.

DAVID: A production of humans to control the Earth.

dhw: But as you have now agreed, 99.9% of past species had no connection with humans or our food. They all lived in their respective ecosystems, and they and their ecosystems died out. So what do you think was their purpose? And while we're at it, what might be his purpose for giving humans control of the Earth?

The 99.9% are all the ancestors of the living beings here today. You seem to have a problem with that estimate. As for control, God have humans the brains to run the show.


Theodicy

DAVID: When I started as an agnostic, so where is the prejudice? That I formed opinions as I read material new to me, shows you an open mind. How closed is yours?

dhw: Prejudice always has a root in the past. You form an opinion, and from then on you stick to it even if it doesn’t make sense. For some reason, you became convinced at some time in the past that your God’s only possible purpose was to create humans plus food. You also became convinced that your God specially designed every species. And now, in the present, even though you cannot find a single reason why your God should have designed 99/9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only purpose you are prepared to believe in, your opinion remains fixed. You have closed your mind. As for me, I can’t decide whether God exists or not. If he does, I consider different hypotheses about his possible purposes, nature and methods. I find some more convincing than others (and try to explain why), but none are convincing enough for me to form a firm belief. Somewhere along the line, I am wrong, but I do not see my personal indecisiveness as prejudice.

Indecisiveness is a state of mind with a cause in your background. You told us you found the God of the OT frightening, or roughly implied that. Did that childhood impression reman as a strong influence?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, January 17, 2024, 12:25 (71 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I don’t need reasons for God’s actions. […[

dhw: But if you don’t know the reasons for your God’s actions in creating life, why do you insist that you do know the reason: to create us and our food? And why do you insist that you even know his method: to design 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his reason for creating life?

DAVID: The only way I can know God is studying His works. We are the unexpected result of natural evolution. Therefore, we must have been designed by God, as the only plausible explanation. Pure Adlerism. Life is a miracle and humans even more miraculous. Living in a miracle softens the surprise. Your reaction is extremely soft.

Your evasions are becoming painful. The miracle of life and of humans is your evidence for design and the existence of God. That is not the subject of our discussion, which is your theistic theories of evolution bolded above which, when combined, make no sense even to you .

DAVID: My constant answer is God does not create for self-serving purposes.

dhw: So although all your guesses [...] are clearly self-serving, your strong answer is that all your guesses are wrong, and you blame me if I propose that one of your guesses might be right.

DAVID: Still all guesswork. I propose a strong purposeful God, not producing for His own needs, as your does.

The guesses I quoted were all yours (enjoyment and interest, desire to be worshipped, have his work recognized, maybe form a relationship with us).

99.9& versus 0.1%

dhw: […] Apart from the purpose of survival, please tell us the purpose for which the 99.9% of extinct species existed and for which the current 0.1% exist.

DAVID: A production of humans to control the Earth.

dhw: But as you have now agreed, 99.9% of past species had no connection with humans or our food. They all lived in their respective ecosystems, and they and their ecosystems died out. So what do you think was their purpose? And while we're at it, what might be his purpose for giving humans control of the Earth?

DAVID: The 99.9% are all the ancestors of the living beings here today. You seem to have a problem with that estimate. As for control, God have humans the brains to run the show.

This is becoming unbearable. Jan. 2nd:
dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree.
And Jan. 9th: I am not disagreeing.

Jan. 11th: dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% o all the creatures that ever lived.
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

You keep agreeing that the 99.9% of extinct organisms are N0T our ancestors, and then you say they are. However, you made a muddled comment after the last agreement, which you finally clarified on Jan.12th:

DAVID: Our direct human line had a loss of ancestors at the 99.9% level, as per Raup.

No problem. But now back you go to the absurd statement that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that have ever lived. You have even suggested that maybe 100% of dinosaurs had no connection with us or our food, i.e. there is not even a 0.1% connection! Please stop prolonging the agony with all these self-contradictions!

I asked you what might be your purposeful God’s purpose for giving humans control of the Earth. Your answer: God gave humans the brains to run the show. Does that tell us his purpose?


Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: Prejudice always has a root in the past. You form an opinion, and from then on you stick to it even if it doesn’t make sense. […] I can’t decide whether God exists or not. If he does, I consider different hypotheses about his possible purposes, nature and methods. I find some more convincing than others (and try to explain why), but none are convincing enough for me to form a firm belief. Somewhere along the line, I am wrong, but I do not see my personal indecisiveness as prejudice.

DAVID: Indecisiveness is a state of mind with a cause in your background. You told us you found the God of the OT frightening, or roughly implied that. Did that childhood impression reman as a strong influence?

I can assure you that my indecisiveness (which is virtually the opposite of prejudice) has arisen not from my dislike of the nasty God of the OT, but from the fact that the more I think about the whole subject, the more I become aware of the pros and cons, of my own ignorance as well as that of others, and the to me obvious fact that unless there is an afterlife in which the truth is revealed, I shall never be in a position to know the truth. And I don’t even know if there is an afterlife. Unlike you, I have no fixed beliefs to which I cling, no matter how illogical they may be. Do you regard this as prejudice?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 17, 2024, 19:22 (71 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The only way I can know God is studying His works. We are the unexpected result of natural evolution. Therefore, we must have been designed by God, as the only plausible explanation. Pure Adlerism. Life is a miracle and humans even more miraculous. Living in a miracle softens the surprise. Your reaction is extremely soft.

dhw: Your evasions are becoming painful. The miracle of life and of humans is your evidence for design and the existence of God. That is not the subject of our discussion, which is your theistic theories of evolution bolded above which, when combined, make no sense even to you .

Your objections are false and painful to constantly have to rebut. God's method of creation was to evolve us as the primary end point. There is no point to constantly complain His method resulted in that 99.9% of all species ancestors are extinct. That is a fact of evolution's results.

99.9& versus 0.1%

DAVID: Our direct human line had a loss of ancestors at the 99.9% level, as per Raup.

dhw: No problem. But now back you go to the absurd statement that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that have ever lived. You have even suggested that maybe 100% of dinosaurs had no connection with us or our food, i.e. there is not even a 0.1% connection! Please stop prolonging the agony with all these self-contradictions!

Everything living is the result of 99.9% loss of ancestors.


dhw: I asked you what might be your purposeful God’s purpose for giving humans control of the Earth. Your answer: God gave humans the brains to run the show. Does that tell us his purpose?

Yes, God wanted us in charge, as we are.

Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: Prejudice always has a root in the past. You form an opinion, and from then on you stick to it even if it doesn’t make sense. […] I can’t decide whether God exists or not. If he does, I consider different hypotheses about his possible purposes, nature and methods. I find some more convincing than others (and try to explain why), but none are convincing enough for me to form a firm belief. Somewhere along the line, I am wrong, but I do not see my personal indecisiveness as prejudice.

DAVID: Indecisiveness is a state of mind with a cause in your background. You told us you found the God of the OT frightening, or roughly implied that. Did that childhood impression reman as a strong influence?

dhw: I can assure you that my indecisiveness (which is virtually the opposite of prejudice) has arisen not from my dislike of the nasty God of the OT, but from the fact that the more I think about the whole subject, the more I become aware of the pros and cons, of my own ignorance as well as that of others, and the to me obvious fact that unless there is an afterlife in which the truth is revealed, I shall never be in a position to know the truth. And I don’t even know if there is an afterlife. Unlike you, I have no fixed beliefs to which I cling, no matter how illogical they may be. Do you regard this as prejudice?

No, you have a reasonable position, since you require proof. But why criticize beliefs based on faith?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, January 18, 2024, 11:33 (70 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Your evasions are becoming painful. The miracle of life and of humans is your evidence for design and the existence of God. That is not the subject of our discussion, which is your theistic theories of evolution bolded above which, when combined, make no sense even to you .

DAVID: Your objections are false and painful to constantly have to rebut. God's method of creation was to evolve us as the primary end point. There is no point to constantly complain His method resulted in that 99.9% of all species ancestors are extinct. That is a fact of evolution's results.
And:
DAVID: Everything living is the result of 99.9% loss of ancestors.

And still you dodge! The loss of 99.9% of the ancestors of current species (assuming that is true) does not mean that 99.9% of ALL species that ever lived were the ancestors of current species. You keep agreeing that we and our “food” (= current species) are descended from only 0.1% of all the species that have been and gone. And you even suggested that maybe not even 0.1% of dinosaurs had any connection with us and current species. You insist that your God designed all species with the sole purpose of producing us plus food, and you have no idea why he would have specially designed the 99.9% which had no connection with us or our food. That remains the point at issue, which is so illogical that you can't think of a single reason why your all-powerful God would choose such an inefficient method. So maybe at least one of your theories is wrong.

dhw: I asked you what might be your purposeful God’s purpose for giving humans control of the Earth. Your answer: God gave humans the brains to run the show. Does that tell us his purpose?

DAVID: Yes, God wanted us in charge, as we are.

You keep harping on about your purposeful God. So what do you think might have been his purpose for putting us in charge?

Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: Unlike you, I have no fixed beliefs to which I cling, no matter how illogical they may be. Do you regard this as prejudice?

DAVID: No, you have a reasonable position, since you require proof. But why criticize beliefs based on faith?

I don’t. I said so quite explicitly: “I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.” The turning point comes when someone has a fixed belief which causes them to ignore any information that might cast doubt on that belief.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 18, 2024, 16:54 (70 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your objections are false and painful to constantly have to rebut. God's method of creation was to evolve us as the primary end point. There is no point to constantly complain His method resulted in that 99.9% of all species ancestors are extinct. That is a fact of evolution's results.
And:
DAVID: Everything living is the result of 99.9% loss of ancestors.

dhw: And still you dodge! The loss of 99.9% of the ancestors of current species (assuming that is true) does not mean that 99.9% of ALL species that ever lived were the ancestors of current species. You keep agreeing that we and our “food” (= current species) are descended from only 0.1% of all the species that have been and gone. And you even suggested that maybe not even 0.1% of dinosaurs had any connection with us and current species. You insist that your God designed all species with the sole purpose of producing us plus food, and you have no idea why he would have specially designed the 99.9% which had no connection with us or our food. That remains the point at issue, which is so illogical that you can't think of a single reason why your all-powerful God would choose such an inefficient method. So maybe at least one of your theories is wrong.

What lives today are the survivors of the culling process of evolution. We can assume every line/branch suffered the same rate of loss. What remains today is humans in charge of everything else. Viewed that way we are left with why did God evolve us? We know He can simply create with no predecessors in the Cambrian. God gives us no hint as to His reasoning. Since God is all-knowing, He has chosen the best method. That reasoning evaporates your complaints.


dhw: I asked you what might be your purposeful God’s purpose for giving humans control of the Earth. Your answer: God gave humans the brains to run the show. Does that tell us his purpose?

DAVID: Yes, God wanted us in charge, as we are.

dhw: You keep harping on about your purposeful God. So what do you think might have been his purpose for putting us in charge?

He gave us the brains to do it and I presume at the end of evolution He wished to have someone in charge.


Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: Unlike you, I have no fixed beliefs to which I cling, no matter how illogical they may be. Do you regard this as prejudice?

DAVID: No, you have a reasonable position, since you require proof. But why criticize beliefs based on faith?

dhw: I don’t. I said so quite explicitly: “I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.” The turning point comes when someone has a fixed belief which causes them to ignore any information that might cast doubt on that belief.

Do you have such factual information?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, January 19, 2024, 13:40 (69 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw:[…] You insist that your God designed all species with the sole purpose of producing us plus food, and you have no idea why he would have specially designed the 99.9% which had no connection with us or our food. That remains the point at issue, which is so illogical that you can't think of a single reason why your all-powerful God would choose such an inefficient method. So maybe at least one of your theories is wrong.

DAVID: What lives today are the survivors of the culling process of evolution.

Obviously. But since you believe your God designed every species individually and was in control of evolution, he must have done the culling.

DAVID: We can assume every line/branch suffered the same rate of loss. What remains today is humans in charge of everything else.

None of this means that we and current species are the descendants of 99.9% of ALL past species. As you have agreed in the past, we are all the descendants of the 0.1% of past species whose lines continued into the present.

DAVID: Viewed that way we are left with why did God evolve us?

That is not the whole issue! We are left with the question why your God would deliberately have designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: We know He can simply create with no predecessors in the Cambrian. God gives us no hint as to His reasoning. Since God is all-knowing, He has chosen the best method. That reasoning evaporates your complaints.

We don’t “know” anything – even whether God exists – but we are now discussing your God’s motives and methods. Your THEORY (it is not knowledge) yet again is that he only wanted to design us plus food, could have done so directly, but instead proceeded NOT ONLY to “evolve” us (designing us in lots of different stages) but also to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. Of course “God gives us no hint of His reasoning”, which applies to all theories, but you can’t give us even a hint of your OWN reasoning for such an illogical theory! The combination makes no sense to YOU. But you cannot bear to acknowledge that this senselessness might indicate that one or both of your theories might be wrong.

dhw: You keep harping on about your purposeful God. So what do you think might have been his purpose for putting us in charge?

DAVID: He gave us the brains to do it and I presume at the end of evolution He wished to have someone in charge.

We don't know if it's the end, but why do you think he might have wished to have someone in charge? After all, life continued for 3.x billion years without us. It’s no use telling us how purposeful God is if you have no idea what his purpose was!

Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: Unlike you, I have no fixed beliefs to which I cling, no matter how illogical they may be. Do you regard this as prejudice?

DAVID: No, you have a reasonable position, since you require proof. But why criticize beliefs based on faith?

dhw: I don’t. I said so quite explicitly: “I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.” The turning point comes when someone has a fixed belief which causes them to ignore any information that might cast doubt on that belief.

DAVID: Do you have such factual information?

I was generalizing. Nobody has factual information about your God’s existence, nature, motives or methods. In this context, however, you have fixed theories which make no sense to you, but you stick to them even when you are offered alternative theories which do make sense to you but which conflict with your preconceptions. That doesn’t mean you must believe any of the alternatives (they are varied anyway), but your embrace of illogical theories which make no sense to you, and your rejection of logical alternatives, indicates that your mind is now closed.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, January 19, 2024, 17:46 (69 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Viewed that way we are left with why did God evolve us?

dhw: That is not the whole issue! We are left with the question why your God would deliberately have designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging!

History tells us what God did, not why. We are the result of His guided evolution.


DAVID: We know He can simply create with no predecessors in the Cambrian. God gives us no hint as to His reasoning. Since God is all-knowing, He has chosen the best method. That reasoning evaporates your complaints.

dhw: We don’t “know” anything – even whether God exists – but we are now discussing your God’s motives and methods. Your THEORY (it is not knowledge) yet again is that he only wanted to design us plus food, could have done so directly, but instead proceeded NOT ONLY to “evolve” us (designing us in lots of different stages) but also to design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus food. Of course “God gives us no hint of His reasoning”, which applies to all theories, but you can’t give us even a hint of your OWN reasoning for such an illogical theory! The combination makes no sense to YOU. But you cannot bear to acknowledge that this senselessness might indicate that one or both of your theories might be wrong.

It is not a theory that evolution produced us. You keep badgering me for a reason God chose this method. I'll repeat from above: Since God is all-knowing, He has chosen the best method. That reasoning evaporates your complaints.


dhw: You keep harping on about your purposeful God. So what do you think might have been his purpose for putting us in charge?

DAVID: He gave us the brains to do it and I presume at the end of evolution He wished to have someone in charge.

dhw: We don't know if it's the end, but why do you think he might have wished to have someone in charge? After all, life continued for 3.x billion years without us. It’s no use telling us how purposeful God is if you have no idea what his purpose was!

His purposed was to put us in charge. Our b rains are the key fact.


Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: Unlike you, I have no fixed beliefs to which I cling, no matter how illogical they may be. Do you regard this as prejudice?

DAVID: No, you have a reasonable position, since you require proof. But why criticize beliefs based on faith?

dhw: I don’t. I said so quite explicitly: “I have no problem with faith so long as it doesn’t turn into prejudice.” The turning point comes when someone has a fixed belief which causes them to ignore any information that might cast doubt on that belief.

DAVID: Do you have such factual information?

dhw: I was generalizing. Nobody has factual information about your God’s existence, nature, motives or methods. In this context, however, you have fixed theories which make no sense to you, but you stick to them even when you are offered alternative theories which do make sense to you but which conflict with your preconceptions. That doesn’t mean you must believe any of the alternatives (they are varied anyway), but your embrace of illogical theories which make no sense to you, and your rejection of logical alternatives, indicates that your mind is now closed.

Closed as to my developing theories. I have seen nothing to change my beliefs.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, January 20, 2024, 13:55 (68 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are left with the question why your God would deliberately have designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: History tells us what God did, not why. We are the result of His guided evolution.

And according to your theory, every extinct life form was also the result of his guided evolution, and according to history, 99.9% of them had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him (to design us and our food), but you cannot think of a single reason why your God would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way to achieve his goal. Maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

DAVID: It is not a theory that evolution produced us.

It IS a theory, but you and I and most people nowadays accept the theory that we evolved. That does not mean that your God designed every species, or that he did so only in order to design us.

DAVID: You keep badgering me for a reason God chose this method. I'll repeat from above: Since God is all-knowing, He has chosen the best method. That reasoning evaporates your complaints.

I do not badger you for a reason why your God (if he exists) chose the method of evolution to produce every species that ever lived, and I wish you would stop pretending that evolution is the issue between us. I accept evolution as a fact. I badger you for a reason why you think your all-knowing, all-powerful God would choose to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. STOP DODGING!

dhw: […] why do you think he might have wished to have someone in charge? After all, life continued for 3.x billion years without us. It’s no use telling us how purposeful God is if you have no idea what his purpose was!

DAVID: His purpose was to put us in charge. Our brains are the key fact.

I have asked what you think his purpose might have been for putting us in charge, and you reply that his purpose was to put us in charge. This is a new technique:
Question: Why did he do it?
Answer: He did it.

Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: your embrace of illogical theories which make no sense to you, and your rejection of logical alternatives, indicates that your mind is now closed.

DAVID: Closed as to my developing theories. I have seen nothing to change my beliefs.

It seems that you have stopped developing your theories, since they have become unchangeable beliefs, even though your theories of evolution, when combined, make no sense even to you. It’s a feature of prejudice that even if a fixed belief goes against all reason, the believer sees nothing to change it. But the word has such nasty associations that I don’t think we should use it in this context. I only wanted to point out the dangers of having unreasonable fixed beliefs. There is nothing nasty in what perhaps we should call your preconceptions. I know what a nice person you really are!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 20, 2024, 16:53 (68 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We are left with the question why your God would deliberately have designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: History tells us what God did, not why. We are the result of His guided evolution.

dhw: And according to your theory, every extinct life form was also the result of his guided evolution, and according to history, 99.9% of them had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him (to design us and our food), but you cannot think of a single reason why your God would use what you call such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way to achieve his goal. Maybe one or both of your theories are wrong.

Maybe not! I have devised my theory. as I have written here, by 'food' I mean dominion over the Earth using all of its resources. I don't know why God used evolution as His method of creation and don't care to know. What do you think His reasons were to evolve us, if you care to tell us.


DAVID: It is not a theory that evolution produced us.

dhw: It IS a theory, but you and I and most people nowadays accept the theory that we evolved. That does not mean that your God designed every species, or that he did so only in order to design us.


If one accepts God, as I do, is in charge, then the evolutionary history we have is the result of His works. We are here in control of the Earth.


DAVID: You keep badgering me for a reason God chose this method. I'll repeat from above: Since God is all-knowing, He has chosen the best method. That reasoning evaporates your complaints.

dhw: I do not badger you for a reason why your God (if he exists) chose the method of evolution to produce every species that ever lived, and I wish you would stop pretending that evolution is the issue between us. I accept evolution as a fact. I badger you for a reason why you think your all-knowing, all-powerful God would choose to design 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose. STOP DODGING!

Same foolishness. 99.9% is the estimated loss of species since evolution began and is a required loss to reach the 0.1% living today. Your same old question is why did God chose to evolve us? Unanswerable! His motive for producing us is what is happening today. We are in charge of the Earth.


dhw: […] why do you think he might have wished to have someone in charge? After all, life continued for 3.x billion years without us. It’s no use telling us how purposeful God is if you have no idea what his purpose was!

DAVID: His purpose was to put us in charge. Our brains are the key fact.

dhw: I have asked what you think his purpose might have been for putting us in charge, and you reply that his purpose was to put us in charge. This is a new technique:
Question: Why did he do it?
Answer: He did it.

We are here with the brains to do it. No further Godly purpose needed.


Theodicy (now "prejudice")

dhw: your embrace of illogical theories which make no sense to you, and your rejection of logical alternatives, indicates that your mind is now closed.

DAVID: Closed as to my developing theories. I have seen nothing to change my beliefs.

dhw: It seems that you have stopped developing your theories, since they have become unchangeable beliefs, even though your theories of evolution, when combined, make no sense even to you. It’s a feature of prejudice that even if a fixed belief goes against all reason, the believer sees nothing to change it. But the word has such nasty associations that I don’t think we should use it in this context. I only wanted to point out the dangers of having unreasonable fixed beliefs. There is nothing nasty in what perhaps we should call your preconceptions. I know what a nice person you really are!

You forget 'reasons beyond a reasonable doubt', per Adler, can lead to a belief in God. You are just as rigid in your disbelief. I have my reasons, you have yours. We both believe in design of organisms, but you reject the obvious need for a designing mind.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, January 21, 2024, 12:23 (67 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are left with the question why your God would deliberately have designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: [...] by 'food' I mean dominion over the Earth using all of its resources.

We are talking about the evolution of species. Our dominion over the Earth’s resources does not explain why your God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and current species, although according to you, we and current species were his only reason for creating life.

DAVID: I don't know why God used evolution as His method of creation and don't care to know. What do you think His reasons were to evolve us, if you care to tell us.

Same old dodge: ignore the bolded issue, pretend it's about the use of evolution, and ask me yet again to repeat my alternative theories! So here we go again. First of all, let us not forget that your idea of evolution is that your God designs every species individually, developing previous species except when he decides to design species “de novo”. Secondly, as you know perfectly well, if your God exists, I have offered you three alternative theistic explanations for the history of evolution which logically explain the 99.9 per cent of species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him: 1) if his purpose really was to design a being in his own image, he was experimenting to find the right formula; 2) if he really did design every species, he was experimenting to find out the full potential of his invention (the living cell) – a learning process which he would have enjoyed; 3) instead of experimenting directly, he endowed his invention (the living cell) with the ability to do its own designing, the progress of which he enjoyed watching. I have answered you, as I have done umpteen times in the past when you have tried to dodge the problem of the 99.9%, so please don’t repeat the next of your dodges, which is to moan about “humanization”. You have agreed that all three provide a logical explanation for the history of evolution. The rest of your post on this subject continues the dodging process, including your refusal to offer any reason why your God should have wanted to put us in charge.

Theodicy (now "prejudice")
I have inserted numbers in your post for the sake of clarity.

DAVID: 1) You forget 'reasons beyond a reasonable doubt', per Adler, can lead to a belief in God. 2) You are just as rigid in your disbelief. I have my reasons, you have yours. 3) We both believe in design of organisms, but you reject the obvious need for a designing mind. 4) xxx

1. I have never disputed the reasonableness of the design argument as evidence for the existence of your God.
2. I do not disbelieve in God. I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.
3. I do not reject the need for a designing mind (I am an agnostic), but I also offer Shapiro’s alternative, which is designing minds, in the form of cellular intelligence (which may have been designed by your God).
4. The preconceptions I was referring to, and which as usual you try to gloss over, concern your combined, self-contradictory theories of evolution (purpose us, method 99.9% not us), and your insistence that you know all about God’s nature, as well as his purpose and method, although the history of life simply doesn’t fit in with your preconceptions (the problem of theodicy).

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 21, 2024, 18:01 (67 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: We are left with the question why your God would deliberately have designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging!

DAVID: [...] by 'food' I mean dominion over the Earth using all of its resources.

dhw: We are talking about the evolution of species. Our dominion over the Earth’s resources does not explain why your God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and current species, although according to you, we and current species were his only reason for creating life.

DAVID: I don't know why God used evolution as His method of creation and don't care to know. What do you think His reasons were to evolve us, if you care to tell us.

dhw: Same old dodge: ignore the bolded issue, pretend it's about the use of evolution, and ask me yet again to repeat my alternative theories! So here we go again. First of all, let us not forget that your idea of evolution is that your God designs every species individually, developing previous species except when he decides to design species “de novo”. Secondly, as you know perfectly well, if your God exists, I have offered you three alternative theistic explanations for the history of evolution which logically explain the 99.9 per cent of species irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him: 1) if his purpose really was to design a being in his own image, he was experimenting to find the right formula; 2) if he really did design every species, he was experimenting to find out the full potential of his invention (the living cell) – a learning process which he would have enjoyed; 3) instead of experimenting directly, he endowed his invention (the living cell) with the ability to do its own designing, the progress of which he enjoyed watching. I have answered you, as I have done umpteen times in the past when you have tried to dodge the problem of the 99.9%, so please don’t repeat the next of your dodges, which is to moan about “humanization”. You have agreed that all three provide a logical explanation for the history of evolution. The rest of your post on this subject continues the dodging process, including your refusal to offer any reason why your God should have wanted to put us in charge.

The only answer I have to your question is God gave us the brains to be in charge, once evolution stopped. I would assume He is sitting back to watch, not gone as deists would propose. Your three views of why God evolved us are obvious humanizing views. A perfect God does not need those intentions. The 99.9% objection is to simply ignore it is statistical fact evolution produces such a result. Your view is God should not have evolved us.


Theodicy (now "prejudice")
dhw: I have inserted numbers in your post for the sake of clarity.

DAVID: 1) You forget 'reasons beyond a reasonable doubt', per Adler, can lead to a belief in God. 2) You are just as rigid in your disbelief. I have my reasons, you have yours. 3) We both believe in design of organisms, but you reject the obvious need for a designing mind. 4) xxx

dhw: 1. I have never disputed the reasonableness of the design argument as evidence for the existence of your God.
2. I do not disbelieve in God. I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am an agnostic, not an atheist.
3. I do not reject the need for a designing mind (I am an agnostic), but I also offer Shapiro’s alternative, which is designing minds, in the form of cellular intelligence (which may have been designed by your God).
4. The preconceptions I was referring to, and which as usual you try to gloss over, concern your combined, self-contradictory theories of evolution (purpose us, method 99.9% not us), and your insistence that you know all about God’s nature, as well as his purpose and method, although the history of life simply doesn’t fit in with your preconceptions (the problem of theodicy).

I've given you the standard answers for theodicy, which is to look at the ratios of good versus bad. Your view of Shapiro's theory is totally overblown in an attempt to show how to get rid of God. " The 99.9% objection is to simply ignore it is statistical fact evolution produces such a result. Your view is God should not have evolved us."

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, January 22, 2024, 12:49 (66 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: We are left with the question why your God would deliberately have designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you say was his one and only purpose: us and our food. Stop dodging! […]

DAVID: The only answer I have to your question is God gave us the brains to be in charge, once evolution stopped.

That does not answer the question why, if his one and only aim was to produce us plus food, he specially designed and then discarded 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only aim. Stop dodging!

DAVID: I would assume He is sitting back to watch, not gone as deists would propose.

That does not answer the question why, if his one and only aim etc. etc.

DAVID: Your three views of why God evolved us are obvious humanizing views. A perfect God does not need those intentions.

You asked me for possible reasons why your God might have evolved us. I repeated my three alternatives, and asked you not to repeat your usual dodge of “humanization”, but of course you have done so. No point in repeating all your own humanizations as you will continue to ignore them.

DAVID: The 99.9% objection is to simply ignore it is statistical fact evolution produces such a result. Your view is God should not have evolved us.

This is the silliest of all your arguments. It is you who try desperately to avoid the fact that the 99.9% had no connection with the purpose you impose on your God, because you cannot find a single reason why he would have designed them! If God exists, of course he used evolution to produce us and every other species. That does not answer the bolded question!

Theodicy (now "prejudice").

dhw: 4. The preconceptions I was referring to, and which as usual you try to gloss over, concern your combined, self-contradictory theories of evolution (purpose us, method 99.9% not us), and your insistence that you know all about God’s nature, as well as his purpose and method, although the history of life simply doesn’t fit in with your preconceptions (the problem of theodicy).

DAVID: I've given you the standard answers for theodicy, which is to look at the ratios of good versus bad.

A non-answer. Evil exists. We not ignore murder and rape just because the majority of people don’t commit murder or rape. Your first-cause, all-knowing God must have known he was creating evil. How does that come to mean that he is all-good?

DAVID: Your view of Shapiro's theory is totally overblown in an attempt to show how to get rid of God.

Another deliberate distortion when you know perfectly well that I accept the possibility that your God may have designed Shapiro’s intelligent cells. I am an agnostic, not an atheist. But you simply cannot bear the thought that your nonsensical combined theories of evolution, which turn your God into a “messy” and “inefficient” designer (your terms), might be wrong.

Bacterial spears (transferred from "More Miscellany, as it deals with "prejudice")

dhw: I offer an alternative to your rigid insistence that God controls everything.[...] I don’t even know if God exists, so I’m not sure why you think my thinking is rigid. I try to consider all possible explanations for why and how life has evolved.

DAVID: You do not see your own prejudices.

I've pin-pointed your preconceptions above, at the start of this section. Now please open my eyes to pin-point my prejudices.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 22, 2024, 16:48 (66 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The only answer I have to your question is God gave us the brains to be in charge, once evolution stopped.


dhw: That does not answer the question why, if his one and only aim was to produce us plus food, he specially designed and then discarded 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only aim. Stop dodging!

Your question is a distortion of evolutionary math. To end with 0.1%, 99.9% died. Evolution happened, and my belief is God did it.

DAVID: The 99.9% objection is to simply ignore it is statistical fact evolution produces such a result. Your view is God should not have evolved us.

dhw: This is the silliest of all your arguments. It is you who try desperately to avoid the fact that the 99.9% had no connection with the purpose you impose on your God, because you cannot find a single reason why he would have designed them! If God exists, of course he used evolution to produce us and every other species. That does not answer the bolded question!

What is silly is your constant distortion of the meaning of evolving. Most have to die!!! God chose to evolve us and provide the Earth with a vast diversity of forms.


Theodicy (now "prejudice").

dhw: 4. The preconceptions I was referring to, and which as usual you try to gloss over, concern your combined, self-contradictory theories of evolution (purpose us, method 99.9% not us), and your insistence that you know all about God’s nature, as well as his purpose and method, although the history of life simply doesn’t fit in with your preconceptions (the problem of theodicy).

DAVID: I've given you the standard answers for theodicy, which is to look at the ratios of good versus bad.

dhw: A non-answer. Evil exists. We not ignore murder and rape just because the majority of people don’t commit murder or rape. Your first-cause, all-knowing God must have known he was creating evil. How does that come to mean that he is all-good?

All evil is secondhand to His good works. Same old answer.


DAVID: Your view of Shapiro's theory is totally overblown in an attempt to show how to get rid of God.

dhw: Another deliberate distortion when you know perfectly well that I accept the possibility that your God may have designed Shapiro’s intelligent cells. I am an agnostic, not an atheist. But you simply cannot bear the thought that your nonsensical combined theories of evolution, which turn your God into a “messy” and “inefficient” designer (your terms), might be wrong.

What is wrong? My theory is based on analyzing God's works assuming God evolved us as His method of creation.


Bacterial spears (transferred from "More Miscellany, as it deals with "prejudice")

dhw: I offer an alternative to your rigid insistence that God controls everything.[...] I don’t even know if God exists, so I’m not sure why you think my thinking is rigid. I try to consider all possible explanations for why and how life has evolved.

DAVID: You do not see your own prejudices.

I've pin-pointed your preconceptions above, at the start of this section. Now please open my eyes to pin-point my prejudices.

Your concocted criticism of the method of creation that resulted in 99.9% loss. It was a success: 0.1% here to populate the Earth.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, January 23, 2024, 10:54 (65 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The only answer I have to your question is God gave us the brains to be in charge, once evolution stopped.

dhw: That does not answer the question why, if his one and only aim was to produce us plus food, he specially designed and then discarded 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only aim. Stop dodging!

DAVID: Your question is a distortion of evolutionary math. To end with 0.1%, 99.9% died. Evolution happened, and my belief is God did it.
Later:
DAVID: My theory is based on analyzing God's works assuming God evolved us as His method of creation.

Yes, evolution happened, and if God exists, he used it as his method of creation. But you simply keep omitting your theory that he did it for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food and yet, according to you, he deliberately designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. What is the “distortion”? Is that your belief or not? Please answer.

DAVID: What is silly is your constant distortion of the meaning of evolving. Most have to die!!! God chose to evolve us and provide the Earth with a vast diversity of forms.

Evolution does not mean that species have to die!!! Evolution means that every species is descended from earlier species. We accept the fact that 99.9% died. But it is not a fact that your God designed them all, or that he designed them for the sole purpose of creating us plus food, or that he had to obey some self-inflicted rule that he must create and cull 99.9 in order to produce 0.1. Stop dodging! However, if he chose to provide the Earth with a vast diversity of forms, extinct and extant, we can joyfully discard your totally illogical combination of theories. Diversity unconnected with us and our food becomes an end in itself, which fits in beautifully with his enjoyment of creation and his interest in his creations. Gone is the single purpose (us plus food) which makes such utter nonsense of your previous theories. This looks promising.

Theodicy (now "prejudice").

dhw: 4. The preconceptions I was referring to, and which as usual you try to gloss over, concern your combined, self-contradictory theories of evolution (purpose us, method 99.9% not us), and your insistence that you know all about God’s nature, as well as his purpose and method, although the history of life simply doesn’t fit in with your preconceptions (the problem of theodicy).

DAVID: I've given you the standard answers for theodicy, which is to look at the ratios of good versus bad.

dhw: A non-answer. Evil exists. We not ignore murder and rape just because the majority of people don’t commit murder or rape. Your first-cause, all-knowing God must have known he was creating evil. How does that come to mean that he is all-good?

DAVID: All evil is secondhand to His good works. Same old answer.

No point in going over the same old non-answers. I have quoted your theodicy theory and your self-contradictory theories of evolution as examples of your preconceptions.

Bacterial spears (transferred from "More Miscellany, as it deals with "prejudice")

dhw: I offer an alternative to your rigid insistence that God controls everything.[...] I don’t even know if God exists, so I’m not sure why you think my thinking is rigid. I try to consider all possible explanations for why and how life has evolved.

DAVID: You do not see your own prejudices.

dhw: I've pin-pointed your preconceptions re evolution and theodicy. Now please open my eyes to pin-point my prejudices.

DAVID: Your concocted criticism of the method of creation that resulted in 99.9% loss. It was a success: 0.1% here to populate the Earth.

“Concocted”? YOUR theory is/was that your God’s method of achieving his one and only purpose was to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose – a method which you called messy and inefficient, and for which you can find no rational explanation. How does this indicate prejudice on my part?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 23, 2024, 16:37 (65 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your question is a distortion of evolutionary math. To end with 0.1%, 99.9% died. Evolution happened, and my belief is God did it.
Later:
DAVID: My theory is based on analyzing God's works assuming God evolved us as His method of creation.

dhw: Yes, evolution happened, and if God exists, he used it as his method of creation. But you simply keep omitting your theory that he did it for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food and yet, according to you, he deliberately designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. What is the “distortion”? Is that your belief or not? Please answer.

I have bolded the false part of your stated objection. I have previously modified my theory. Why do you purposely forget it??? God designed evolution to produce us and the diversity of life on Earth for our use.


DAVID: What is silly is your constant distortion of the meaning of evolving. Most have to die!!! God chose to evolve us and provide the Earth with a vast diversity of forms.

dhw: Evolution does not mean that species have to die!!! Evolution means that every species is descended from earlier species. We accept the fact that 99.9% died. But it is not a fact that your God designed them all, or that he designed them for the sole purpose of creating us plus food, or that he had to obey some self-inflicted rule that he must create and cull 99.9 in order to produce 0.1. Stop dodging! However, if he chose to provide the Earth with a vast diversity of forms, extinct and extant, we can joyfully discard your totally illogical combination of theories. Diversity unconnected with us and our food becomes an end in itself, which fits in beautifully with his enjoyment of creation and his interest in his creations. Gone is the single purpose (us plus food) which makes such utter nonsense of your previous theories. This looks promising.

The bold is promising agreement.

Bacterial spears (transferred from "More Miscellany, as it deals with "prejudice")

dhw: I offer an alternative to your rigid insistence that God controls everything.[...] I don’t even know if God exists, so I’m not sure why you think my thinking is rigid. I try to consider all possible explanations for why and how life has evolved.

DAVID: You do not see your own prejudices.

dhw: I've pin-pointed your preconceptions re evolution and theodicy. Now please open my eyes to pin-point my prejudices.

DAVID: Your concocted criticism of the method of creation that resulted in 99.9% loss. It was a success: 0.1% here to populate the Earth.

dhw: “Concocted”? YOUR theory is/was that your God’s method of achieving his one and only purpose was to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose – a method which you called messy and inefficient, and for which you can find no rational explanation. How does this indicate prejudice on my part?

Same old distortion of evolution's math. The 0.1% survival simply means 99.9%, as ancestors of 0.1% are gone. God achieved His goal. Humans run the Earth and use all its resources.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, January 24, 2024, 12:45 (64 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your question is a distortion of evolutionary math. To end with 0.1%, 99.9% died. Evolution happened, and my belief is God did it.
Later:
DAVID: My theory is based on analyzing God's works assuming God evolved us as His method of creation.

dhw: Yes, evolution happened, and if God exists, he used it as his method of creation. But you simply keep omitting your theory that he did it for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food and yet, according to you, he deliberately designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. What is the “distortion”? Is that your belief or not? Please answer.

DAVID: I have bolded the false part of your stated objection. I have previously modified my theory. Why do you purposely forget it??? God designed evolution to produce us and the diversity of life on Earth for our use.

Your modification does not solve the problem you have created with your insistence that he specially designed and culled 99.9% of diverse past species that had no connection with his sole purpose of designing us so that we could use the current diversity. However:

dhw: if he chose to provide the Earth with a vast diversity of forms, extinct and extant, we can joyfully discard your totally illogical combination of theories. Diversity unconnected with us and our food becomes an end in itself, which fits in beautifully with his enjoyment of creation and his interest in his creations. Gone is the single purpose (us plus food) which makes such utter nonsense of your previous theories. This looks promising.

DAVID: The bold is promising agreement.

And it leads logically to the non-bold as a possible explanation for the vast diversity of past life forms.

Tony: "sole purpose" This is one of those phrases I always took issue with. Why do we (humans) have to be the 'sole purpose' as opposed to 'part of the plan'?

DAVID: Part of the plan is better.
And under “euglenids”:
dhw: Once more, could it possibly be that your God did not want just us and our food, but actually wanted a vast variety of living forms even before our late arrival on the scene?

DAVID: Yes to the now bolded.

We are making huge progress. Many thanks, Tony, for your intervention – and it’s great to hear from you! (I hope you and your family are flourishing. See also “More miscellany, Part Two.) We can now discuss what might be the other parts of the plan. Question to Tony and David: Why do you think your God might have wanted the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans and our use of current resources?

In case you might wonder why this matters, it ultimately concerns the very nature of a possible God if we assume he exists.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 24, 2024, 16:27 (64 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Your question is a distortion of evolutionary math. To end with 0.1%, 99.9% died. Evolution happened, and my belief is God did it.
Later:
DAVID: My theory is based on analyzing God's works assuming God evolved us as His method of creation.

dhw: Yes, evolution happened, and if God exists, he used it as his method of creation. But you simply keep omitting your theory that he did it for the sole purpose of designing us plus our food and yet, according to you, he deliberately designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us and our food. What is the “distortion”? Is that your belief or not? Please answer.

DAVID: I have bolded the false part of your stated objection. I have previously modified my theory. Why do you purposely forget it??? God designed evolution to produce us and the diversity of life on Earth for our use.

dhw: Your modification does not solve the problem you have created with your insistence that he specially designed and culled 99.9% of diverse past species that had no connection with his sole purpose of designing us so that we could use the current diversity. However:

dhw: if he chose to provide the Earth with a vast diversity of forms, extinct and extant, we can joyfully discard your totally illogical combination of theories. Diversity unconnected with us and our food becomes an end in itself, which fits in beautifully with his enjoyment of creation and his interest in his creations. Gone is the single purpose (us plus food) which makes such utter nonsense of your previous theories. This looks promising.

DAVID: The bold is promising agreement.

dhw: And it leads logically to the non-bold as a possible explanation for the vast diversity of past life forms.

Tony: "sole purpose" This is one of those phrases I always took issue with. Why do we (humans) have to be the 'sole purpose' as opposed to 'part of the plan'?

DAVID: Part of the plan is better.
And under “euglenids”:
dhw: Once more, could it possibly be that your God did not want just us and our food, but actually wanted a vast variety of living forms even before our late arrival on the scene?

DAVID: Yes to the now bolded.

dhw: We are making huge progress. Many thanks, Tony, for your intervention – and it’s great to hear from you! (I hope you and your family are flourishing. See also “More miscellany, Part Two.) We can now discuss what might be the other parts of the plan. Question to Tony and David: Why do you think your God might have wanted the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans and our use of current resources?

It is the same distorted question. To provide today's diversity of life a huge number of diverging forms had to develop. The 99.9% are simply the answers of today's living 0.1%.


dhw: In case you might wonder why this matters, it ultimately concerns the very nature of a possible God if we assume he exists.

Well, I believe he exists and planned upon humans having dominion of the Earth.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, January 25, 2024, 11:10 (63 days ago) @ David Turell

Tony: "sole purpose" This is one of those phrases I always took issue with. Why do we (humans) have to be the 'sole purpose' as opposed to 'part of the plan'?

DAVID: Part of the plan is better.
And under “euglenids”:
dhw: Once more, could it possibly be that your God did not want just us and our food, but actually wanted a vast variety of living forms even before our late arrival on the scene?

DAVID: Yes to the now bolded.

dhw: We are making huge progress. […] We can now discuss what might be the other parts of the plan. Question to Tony and David: Why do you think your God might have wanted the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans and our use of current resources?

DAVID: It is the same distorted question. To provide today's diversity of life a huge number of diverging forms had to develop. The 99.9% are simply the answers of today's living 0.1%.

No one will deny that in order to have diverging forms, you have to have diverging forms. I have no idea what you mean by “the answers”.

And from Miscellany Part Two:

DAVID: Same old distortion of evolution's math. The 0.1% survival simply means 99.9%, as ancestors of 0.1% are gone. God achieved His goal. Humans run the Earth and use all its resources.

dhw: 99.9% of past species were not ancestors of the current 0.1%! No distortion. And here you go again: “God achieved his goal” after you’ve just agreed with Tony that “part of his goal” would be better. Back we go: why do you think your God designed the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans who now run the Earth and use its resources? (I also asked why you thought your God wanted us to take charge, but you will no doubt continue to dodge that question too.)

DAVID: The bolded is a GROSS CONFUSION OF MATH. 99.9% plus 0.1% is 100% of all of evolution.

Correct.

DAVID: The 0.1% survival simply means 99.9%, as ancestors of 0.1% are gone.

99.9% of extinct diverging forms were not the ancestors of today’s diverging forms! You have even suggested that maybe 100% of dinosaurs were not the ancestors of today’s diverging forms. Only 0.1% of past diverging forms were the ancestors of today’s diverging forms. Meanwhile, you have agreed with Tony that humans (including their dominance and use of Earth’s resources) were not your God’s sole purpose, so do please tell us what you think was the rest of God’s plan, and in particular why you think he would have wanted to create the 99.9% of living forms that were not connected to us.

dhw: In case you might wonder why this matters, it ultimately concerns the very nature of a possible God if we assume he exists.

DAVID: Well, I believe he exists and planned upon humans having dominion of the Earth.

Yes, but please tell us what you think was the rest of his plan.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, January 25, 2024, 15:49 (63 days ago) @ dhw

Tony: "sole purpose" This is one of those phrases I always took issue with. Why do we (humans) have to be the 'sole purpose' as opposed to 'part of the plan'?

DAVID: Part of the plan is better.
And under “euglenids”:
dhw: Once more, could it possibly be that your God did not want just us and our food, but actually wanted a vast variety of living forms even before our late arrival on the scene?

DAVID: Yes to the now bolded.

dhw: We are making huge progress. […] We can now discuss what might be the other parts of the plan. Question to Tony and David: Why do you think your God might have wanted the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans and our use of current resources?

DAVID: It is the same distorted question. To provide today's diversity of life a huge number of diverging forms had to develop. The 99.9% are simply the answers of today's living 0.1%.

dhw: No one will deny that in order to have diverging forms, you have to have diverging forms. I have no idea what you mean by “the answers”.

Substitute the word ancestors.


And from Miscellany Part Two:

DAVID: Same old distortion of evolution's math. The 0.1% survival simply means 99.9%, as ancestors of 0.1% are gone. God achieved His goal. Humans run the Earth and use all its resources.

dhw: 99.9% of past species were not ancestors of the current 0.1%! No distortion. And here you go again: “God achieved his goal” after you’ve just agreed with Tony that “part of his goal” would be better. Back we go: why do you think your God designed the vast variety of extinct life forms that had no connection with humans who now run the Earth and use its resources? (I also asked why you thought your God wanted us to take charge, but you will no doubt continue to dodge that question too.)

DAVID: The bolded is a GROSS CONFUSION OF MATH. 99.9% plus 0.1% is 100% of all of evolution.

dhw: Correct.

DAVID: The 0.1% survival simply means 99.9%, as ancestors of 0.1% are gone.

dhw: 99.9% of extinct diverging forms were not the ancestors of today’s diverging forms! You have even suggested that maybe 100% of dinosaurs were not the ancestors of today’s diverging forms. Only 0.1% of past diverging forms were the ancestors of today’s diverging forms. Meanwhile, you have agreed with Tony that humans (including their dominance and use of Earth’s resources) were not your God’s sole purpose, so do please tell us what you think was the rest of God’s plan, and in particular why you think he would have wanted to create the 99.9% of living forms that were not connected to us.

Our current huge population needs all the diversity of Earth's living forms for our use. As for your 99.9% confusion, I repeat: 99.9% of all forms make all the ancestors of the 0.1%. From a species standpoint, humans are a tiny fraction of the several million species on Earth.


dhw: In case you might wonder why this matters, it ultimately concerns the very nature of a possible God if we assume he exists.

DAVID: Well, I believe he exists and planned upon humans having dominion of the Earth.

dhw: Yes, but please tell us what you think was the rest of his plan.

It is our future.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, January 26, 2024, 12:13 (62 days ago) @ David Turell

I’m going to try to bring some order into this discussion, which has degenerated almost into farce.

1) David’s current theory, following Tony’s intervention: God designed every species that has ever existed and culled 99.9% of them in order to design humans and our food, and in order to put us in charge of everything on Earth and to use all of its resources. However, this was only part of his plan.

2) David has agreed on numerous occasions that 99.9% of species that ever lived had no connection with us or our food, i.e. current species (I can provide quotes), but also insists that 99.9% of them were the ancestors of ourselves and our food, i.e.current species. Mixed in with this explicit contradiction is the acceptable point that 99.9% of our ancestors and those of current species are extinct. This of course is totally different from saying that we and our contemporary species are directly descended from 99.9% of all extinct organisms.

3) David has agreed on numerous occasions that he has no idea why his God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his goal. (I can provide quotes.) He now agrees with Tony, however, that designing us and our food would only have been part of his God’s purpose or plan.

4) When asked what other purposes or parts of the plan he envisages, David has replied: ”It is our future”.

Assuming the existence of God, here are four points for David to clarify (and for Tony to comment on if he wishes to):

a) Do we now agree that we and our contemporary species are not directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that ever lived, but are descended from only 0.1% of the organisms that ever lived? (We are accepting the current estimates, but they are not set in stone.)

b) We cannot think of a single reason why God should create and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose David imposes on him in 1).

c) It therefore makes sense to consider a different purpose for the creation of the 99.9%.

d) Re other purposes or parts of the plan, planning the future of a species which is supposed to have free will does not provide a purpose for the 99.9 extinct species that had no connection with us and our food.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, January 26, 2024, 17:56 (62 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I’m going to try to bring some order into this discussion, which has degenerated almost into farce.

The farce is your making. Evolution had to cull 99.9% to reach today's surviving 0.1%. From a species standpoint humans are tiny part of the millions of species on Earth.


dhw: 1) David’s current theory, following Tony’s intervention: God designed every species that has ever existed and culled 99.9% of them in order to design humans and our food, and in order to put us in charge of everything on Earth and to use all of its resources. However, this was only part of his plan.

2) David has agreed on numerous occasions that 99.9% of species that ever lived had no connection with us or our food, i.e. current species (I can provide quotes), but also insists that 99.9% of them were the ancestors of ourselves and our food, i.e.current species. Mixed in with this explicit contradiction is the acceptable point that 99.9% of our ancestors and those of current species are extinct. This of course is totally different from saying that we and our contemporary species are directly descended from 99.9% of all extinct organisms.

3) David has agreed on numerous occasions that he has no idea why his God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his goal. (I can provide quotes.) He now agrees with Tony, however, that designing us and our food would only have been part of his God’s purpose or plan.

Here your farce continues. God designed millions of species that are not us. The 0.1%, of which we are a part, are the survivors of the culling process. You have morphed a statistical analysis of extinction into a weird description of evolution. Your continued complaint (You don't like that term but that is what it is) is God shouldn't have evolved us. I needn't repeat I don't know why He chose evolution as His method of creating the present case on Earth.


dhw: 4) When asked what other purposes or parts of the plan he envisages, David has replied: ”It is our future”.

Assuming the existence of God, here are four points for David to clarify (and for Tony to comment on if he wishes to):

a) Do we now agree that we and our contemporary species are not directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that ever lived, but are descended from only 0.1% of the organisms that ever lived? (We are accepting the current estimates, but they are not set in stone.)

Finally, a true point.


dhw: b) We cannot think of a single reason why God should create and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose David imposes on him in 1).

c) It therefore makes sense to consider a different purpose for the creation of the 99.9%.

d) Re other purposes or parts of the plan, planning the future of a species which is supposed to have free will does not provide a purpose for the 99.9 extinct species that had no connection with us and our food.

Again, complaining God evolved us and everything else. Tony and I make the same point, what is here is meant for our use.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, January 27, 2024, 08:32 (62 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I’m going to try to bring some order into this discussion, which has degenerated almost into farce.

DAVID: The farce is your making. Evolution had to cull 99.9% to reach today's surviving 0.1%. From a species standpoint humans are tiny part of the millions of species on Earth.

A farcical opening to start us off. Evolution is a process! If, as you believe, your God controlled evolution and designed every species, then evolution didn’t design and cull anything – your first-cause God did! So what forced him to design and cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with his one and only purpose (more of which later). And of course we are a tiny part. Who said we weren’t?

(I went on to list four points, but will only repeat those you have commented on, since your comments ignore the other points.)

3) David has agreed on numerous occasions that he has no idea why his God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his goal. (I can provide quotes.) He now agrees with Tony, however, that designing us and our food would only have been part of his God’s purpose or plan.

DAVID: Here your farce continues. God designed millions of species that are not us. The 0.1%, of which we are a part, are the survivors of the culling process.

Correct (if we accept God as the designer). That does not mean that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were our ancestors (as you were claiming a few days ago), and it does not explain why your God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what, until two days ago, you believed was his one and only purpose.

DAVID: You have morphed a statistical analysis of extinction into a weird description of evolution. Your continued complaint (You don't like that term but that is what it is) is God shouldn't have evolved us. I needn't repeat I don't know why He chose evolution as His method of creating the present case on Earth.

This is another of your silly dodges. If your God exists, I have no complaint whatsoever about his choosing evolution. My complaint (as you know perfectly well)) is about your theory that in order to evolve (design) us and our contemporary species, you have him designing 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with us and our contemporary species. STOP DODGING!

dhw: a) Do we now agree that we and our contemporary species are not directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that ever lived, but are descended from only 0.1% of the organisms that ever lived? (We are accepting the current estimates, but they are not set in stone.)

DAVID: Finally, a true point.

Yes, finally! So let’s hear no more nonsense about 99.9% being our ancestors. Having got rid of that absurd dodge, we go back to the same bolded complaint, as follows:

dhw: b) We cannot think of a single reason why God should create and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose David imposes on him in 1).
c) It therefore makes sense to consider a different purpose for the creation of the 99.9%.

You replied that the other part of his purpose was “planning our future”.

dhw: d) Re other purposes or parts of the plan, planning the future of a species which is supposed to have free will does not provide a purpose for the 99.9 extinct species that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: Again, complaining God evolved us and everything else. Tony and I make the same point, what is here is meant for our use.

You cannot explain why your God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you consider to be his purpose, you agree with Tony that we could not have been his sole purpose, but you still can’t or won’t come up with any other purpose, and somehow you twist this into a totally baseless proposal that I complain about God using evolution. All my alternative explanations for the vast diversity of extinct species entail God using evolution. How can they be a complaint about God using evolution?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 27, 2024, 17:49 (61 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The farce is your making. Evolution had to cull 99.9% to reach today's surviving 0.1%. From a species standpoint humans are tiny part of the millions of species on Earth.

dhw: A farcical opening to start us off. Evolution is a process! If, as you believe, your God controlled evolution and designed every species, then evolution didn’t design and cull anything – your first-cause God did! So what forced him to design and cull 99.9% of species that had no connection with his one and only purpose (more of which later). And of course we are a tiny part. Who said we weren’t?

You cannot consider the 99.9% who died/extinct realistically. It is possible to say 99.9% of our line is dead/extinct. All of evolution created what we benefit from, as Tony noted.


dhw: (I went on to list four points, but will only repeat those you have commented on, since your comments ignore the other points.)

3) David has agreed on numerous occasions that he has no idea why his God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his goal. (I can provide quotes.) He now agrees with Tony, however, that designing us and our food would only have been part of his God’s purpose or plan.

DAVID: Here your farce continues. God designed millions of species that are not us. The 0.1%, of which we are a part, are the survivors of the culling process.

dhw: Correct (if we accept God as the designer). That does not mean that 99.9 out of 100 extinct species were our ancestors (as you were claiming a few days ago), and it does not explain why your God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what, until two days ago, you believed was his one and only purpose.

Same old repeat. All of evolution is for us. It doesn't separate into your imagined parts.


DAVID: You have morphed a statistical analysis of extinction into a weird description of evolution. Your continued complaint (You don't like that term but that is what it is) is God shouldn't have evolved us. I needn't repeat I don't know why He chose evolution as His method of creating the present case on Earth.

dhw: This is another of your silly dodges. If your God exists, I have no complaint whatsoever about his choosing evolution. My complaint (as you know perfectly well)) is about your theory that in order to evolve (design) us and our contemporary species, you have him designing 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with us and our contemporary species. STOP DODGING!

Stop complaining about the evolution God created. It is all for our use. We run Earth. The fact you don't think teleologically is the problem with your conclusions.


dhw: a) Do we now agree that we and our contemporary species are not directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that ever lived, but are descended from only 0.1% of the organisms that ever lived? (We are accepting the current estimates, but they are not set in stone.)

DAVID: Finally, a true point.

dhw: Yes, finally! So let’s hear no more nonsense about 99.9% being our ancestors.

99.9% of our line are our dead ancestors!!!

dhw: b) We cannot think of a single reason why God should create and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose David imposes on him in 1).
c) It therefore makes sense to consider a different purpose for the creation of the 99.9%.

Yes, we can think of it. What is not us is for our use.


dhw: You replied that the other part of his purpose was “planning our future”.

Our furure is here using all the resources on Earth.


dhw: d) Re other purposes or parts of the plan, planning the future of a species which is supposed to have free will does not provide a purpose for the 99.9 extinct species that had no connection with us and our food.

DAVID: Again, complaining God evolved us and everything else. Tony and I make the same point, what is here is meant for our use.

dhw: You cannot explain why your God would have designed 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with what you consider to be his purpose, you agree with Tony that we could not have been his sole purpose, but you still can’t or won’t come up with any other purpose, and somehow you twist this into a totally baseless proposal that I complain about God using evolution. All my alternative explanations for the vast diversity of extinct species entail God using evolution. How can they be a complaint about God using evolution?

You complain about the form of God's evolution. Our line is a tiny branch, one species against the many millions on Earth today, the 0.1% survivors. Your now bolded statement is nonsense. Look at the purpose of producing us, giving us everything we will need.!! You can't look at purpose, it implies a God. All evolved is God's purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, January 28, 2024, 12:29 (60 days ago) @ David Turell

I am juxtaposing and editing comments from both posts for the sake of clarity and to avoid masses of repetition.

dhw: a) Do we now agree that we and our contemporary species are not directly descended from 99.9% of all the organisms that ever lived, but are descended from only 0.1% of the organisms that ever lived? (We are accepting the current estimates, but they are not set in stone.)

DAVID: Finally, a true point.

dhw: Yes, finally! So let’s hear no more nonsense about 99.9% being our ancestors.

DAVID: 99.9% of our line are our dead ancestors!!!

Correct. But 99.9% of all extinct species were not our ancestors or the ancestors of our contemporary species, and they are the problem, because you have no idea why your God would have created and then culled them if his only purpose was to design us to take charge of the other survivors of the 0.1%.

DAVID: All of evolution created what we benefit from, as Tony noted.
And:
DAVID: All of evolution is for us.
And:
DAVID: What is not us is for our use.

“All of evolution” includes all the species that have existed from the beginning of life, 99.9% of which did not lead to us or to our contemporary species, and you have no idea why your God would have specially designed and culled them. And so you continue to focus solely on the present in order to ignore the incongruence of your theory, with your next (bolded) comment providing the laugh of the day:

DAVID: The survivors are God's intended survivors for our use. Our species is a tiny percentage of all living species which are the 0.1% final survivors. We need to only discuss the 0.1%. It is so simple.

You only want to discuss the 0.1% of today so that you can dodge the absurdity of your theory that he specially and messily and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 extinct species that had no connection with the 0.1% of today, which you say were his sole purpose. Same technique as with the problems of theodicy and your crystal ball: if your theories throw up problems you can’t handle, you want to (and do) ignore the problem.

DAVID: Tony and I view God's purpose as producing an Earth filled with species for our use. Everything on Earth today is here because of God's purpose.

Tony objected to your theory that we and our dominance were God’s sole purpose, and you agreed. Tony can speak for himself. You have spoken: you don’t want to discuss any other possible purpose for the creation of the 99.9% of species irrelevant to the one purpose you impose on your God.

DAVID: Stop complaining about the evolution God created. It is all for our use. We run Earth. The fact you don't think teleologically is the problem with your conclusions.
And:
DAVID: You can't look at purpose, it implies a God. All evolved is God's purpose.

I have no complaints whatsoever about evolution, and if God exists, I have no doubt that he would have designed evolution to run as he wanted it to run in order to serve whatever may have been his purpose. I object only to your absurd theory that he would have specially designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on him. How many more times are you going to dodge the issue? I have offered various theistic explanations for the diversity of past species which you are unable to explain, but you reject them all because they entail different possible purposes and "humanizations" from your preconceptions, i.e. those you “wish to believe in” (see the entry on “Milky Way” under "More Miscellany").

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, January 28, 2024, 17:12 (60 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: 99.9% of our line are our dead ancestors!!!

dhw: Correct. But 99.9% of all extinct species were not our ancestors or the ancestors of our contemporary species, and they are the problem, because you have no idea why your God would have created and then culled them if his only purpose was to design us to take charge of the other survivors of the 0.1%.

WRONG. 0.1% are the surviving result of evolution. That 99.9% went extinct is a result of the culling. The 0.1% are what God wanted on Earth for our use as below:


DAVID: All of evolution created what we benefit from, as Tony noted.
And:
DAVID: All of evolution is for us.
And:
DAVID: What is not us is for our use.

dhw: “All of evolution” includes all the species that have existed from the beginning of life, 99.9% of which did not lead to us or to our contemporary species, and you have no idea why your God would have specially designed and culled them. And so you continue to focus solely on the present in order to ignore the incongruence of your theory, with your next (bolded) comment providing the laugh of the day:

DAVID: The survivors are God's intended survivors for our use. Our species is a tiny percentage of all living species which are the 0.1% final survivors. We need to only discuss the 0.1%. It is so simple.

dhw: You only want to discuss the 0.1% of today so that you can dodge the absurdity of your theory that he specially and messily and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 extinct species that had no connection with the 0.1% of today, which you say were his sole purpose. Same technique as with the problems of theodicy and your crystal ball: if your theories throw up problems you can’t handle, you want to (and do) ignore the problem.

Your usual complaint about how evolution worked. Raup's only point is in the process 99.9% went extinct to produce the 0.1% surviving today. What is here is what God wanted to create.


DAVID: Tony and I view God's purpose as producing an Earth filled with species for our use. Everything on Earth today is here because of God's purpose.

dhw: Tony objected to your theory that we and our dominance were God’s sole purpose, and you agreed. Tony can speak for himself. You have spoken: you don’t want to discuss any other possible purpose for the creation of the 99.9% of species irrelevant to the one purpose you impose on your God.

Your math is impossible to understand!!! God did not create any irrelevant species! All here today is what He wanted to be here. 99.9% is simply the extinction rate to get here. Your muddled brain has totally distorted Raup's point.


DAVID: Stop complaining about the evolution God created. It is all for our use. We run Earth. The fact you don't think teleologically is the problem with your conclusions.
And:
DAVID: You can't look at purpose, it implies a God. All evolved is God's purpose.

dhw: I have no complaints whatsoever about evolution, and if God exists, I have no doubt that he would have designed evolution to run as he wanted it to run in order to serve whatever may have been his purpose. I object only to your absurd theory that he would have specially designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to the single purpose you impose on him. How many more times are you going to dodge the issue? I have offered various theistic explanations for the diversity of past species which you are unable to explain, but you reject them all because they entail different possible purposes and "humanizations" from your preconceptions, i.e. those you “wish to believe in” (see the entry on “Milky Way” under "More Miscellany").

Same totally confused view of evolution as analyzed by Raup. The bold above is irrationally confused. Species were not culled out. The 99.9% are ancestors of all the existing species created as the 0.1% here today. If you could come to understand that, we could move on.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, January 29, 2024, 08:49 (60 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: 99.9% of our line are our dead ancestors!!!

dhw: Correct. But 99.9% of all extinct species were not our ancestors or the ancestors of our contemporary species, and they are the problem, because you have no idea why your God would have created and then culled them if his only purpose was to design us to take charge of the other survivors of the 0.1%.

DAVID: WRONG. 0.1% are the surviving result of evolution. That 99.9% went extinct is a result of the culling. The 0.1% are what God wanted on Earth for our use as below:

What is “WRONG”? Yes, the 0.1% are the survivors of evolution. Yes, the extinction of 99.9% was, according to you, the result of your God’s culling. However, if your God’s only purpose was to design the 0.1% which survived the culling, what was the point of him designing the 99.9% of species that had no connection with the 0.1% of species that led to us and our contemporary species? You have no answer because your theory makes no sense.

DAVID: The survivors are God's intended survivors for our use. Our species is a tiny percentage of all living species which are the 0.1% final survivors. We need to only discuss the 0.1%. It is so simple.

dhw: You only want to discuss the 0.1% of today so that you can dodge the absurdity of your theory that he specially and messily and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 extinct species that had no connection with the 0.1% of today, which you say were his sole purpose. […]

DAVID: Your usual complaint about how evolution worked. Raup's only point is in the process 99.9% went extinct to produce the 0.1% surviving today. What is here is what God wanted to create.

You have agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors. If your God is all-purposeful, what WAS here was also what he wanted to create. So why would he have wanted to create 99.9% of species that had no connection with the only species he wanted to create? This is not a complaint about how evolution worked, but about your absurd theories bolded above. STOP DODGING!


DAVID: Your math is impossible to understand!!! God did not create any irrelevant species! All here today is what He wanted to be here. 99.9% is simply the extinction rate to get here. Your muddled brain has totally distorted Raup's point.

Raup’s point is apparently that 99.9% of species went extinct. YOUR point is that your God’s only purpose was the 0.1% of survivors (us plus our contemporaries), but he personally designed and culled the rest, and you have no idea why.

DAVID: Species were not culled out.

Statements by you:
The 0.1%, of which we are a part, are the survivors of the culling process.”
Evolution had to cull 99.9% to reach today’s surviving 0.1%. (According to you, your God controlled evolution – the process of evolution did not control God. Ergo God had to cull…)
What lives today are the survivors of the culling process of evolution.
And yesterday (bolded above): “That 99.9% went extinct is a result of the culling.”

How do those statements come to mean that species were not culled out? Your “muddled brain” keeps contradicting itself, so please stop it.

DAVID: The 99.9% are ancestors of all the existing species created as the 0.1% here today. If you could come to understand that, we could move on.

You have explicitly agreed that the 99.9% were NOT ancestors of the 0.1% here today!
Jan 2nd: dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree. And Jan 9th: I am not disagreeing.
Jan. 11th: dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.
Jan 10th, in one of your muddled posts: Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now.
Which means it’s possible that not even 0.1% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of current species!

Yes, 99.9% of our ancestors are dead. No, 99% of all species that ever lived were NOT the ancestors of us and our contemporaries. Only 0.1% of them were our ancestors, as you have agreed over and over again. Until you stop contradicting yourself, and dodging the issue (your illogical combination of theories concerning what you call your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient design), it will be impossible to move on.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, January 29, 2024, 16:37 (59 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: WRONG. 0.1% are the surviving result of evolution. That 99.9% went extinct is a result of the culling. The 0.1% are what God wanted on Earth for our use as below:

dhw: What is “WRONG”? Yes, the 0.1% are the survivors of evolution. Yes, the extinction of 99.9% was, according to you, the result of your God’s culling. However, if your God’s only purpose was to design the 0.1% which survived the culling, what was the point of him designing the 99.9% of species that had no connection with the 0.1% of species that led to us and our contemporary species? You have no answer because your theory makes no sense.

Your usual complaint. God evolved us and He shouldn't have.


DAVID: The survivors are God's intended survivors for our use. Our species is a tiny percentage of all living species which are the 0.1% final survivors. We need to only discuss the 0.1%. It is so simple.

dhw: You only want to discuss the 0.1% of today so that you can dodge the absurdity of your theory that he specially and messily and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 extinct species that had no connection with the 0.1% of today, which you say were his sole purpose. […]

DAVID: Your usual complaint about how evolution worked. Raup's only point is in the process 99.9% went extinct to produce the 0.1% surviving today. What is here is what God wanted to create.

dhw: You have agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors. If your God is all-purposeful, what WAS here was also what he wanted to create. So why would he have wanted to create 99.9% of species that had no connection with the only species he wanted to create? This is not a complaint about how evolution worked, but about your absurd theories bolded above. STOP DODGING!

I have not agreed with the bold. 99.9% ARE the ancestors of the 0.1% surviving. Except for the Cambrians and the insectivores noted by Bechly, everything alive today can trace its origin back twig by twig through 99.9% extinct, per Raup.


DAVID: Your math is impossible to understand!!! God did not create any irrelevant species! All here today is what He wanted to be here. 99.9% is simply the extinction rate to get here. Your muddled brain has totally distorted Raup's point.

dhw: Raup’s point is apparently that 99.9% of species went extinct.

No it isn't!! Read my explanation.


DAVID: Species were not culled out.

dhw: Statements by you:
The 0.1%, of which we are a part, are the survivors of the culling process.”
Evolution had to cull 99.9% to reach today’s surviving 0.1%. (According to you, your God controlled evolution – the process of evolution did not control God. Ergo God had to cull…)
What lives today are the survivors of the culling process of evolution.
And yesterday (bolded above): “That 99.9% went extinct is a result of the culling.”

How do those statements come to mean that species were not culled out? Your “muddled brain” keeps contradicting itself, so please stop it.

You are confused. I am not. My quotes are consistent with my point of view.


DAVID: The 99.9% are ancestors of all the existing species created as the 0.1% here today. If you could come to understand that, we could move on.

dhw: You have explicitly agreed that the 99.9% were NOT ancestors of the 0.1% here today!
Jan 2nd: dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree. And Jan 9th: I am not disagreeing.
Jan. 11th: dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.
Jan 10th, in one of your muddled posts: Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now.
Which means it’s possible that not even 0.1% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of current species!

dhw: Yes, 99.9% of our ancestors are dead. No, 99% of all species that ever lived were NOT the ancestors of us and our contemporaries. Only 0.1% of them were our ancestors, as you have agreed over and over again. Until you stop contradicting yourself, and dodging the issue (your illogical combination of theories concerning what you call your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient design), it will be impossible to move on.

Read what I've entered today. It should unconfuse you.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, January 30, 2024, 11:30 (58 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your usual complaint. God evolved us and He shouldn't have.

Your usual ridiculous distortion. If God exists, he would have created the system whereby all species evolved (not just us), and I have no complaint. My complaint is that your theory has him designing 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us or our contemporaries, although you insist that we and our contemporaries were his sole purpose, and you yourself have no idea why he would choose such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method to achieve his purpose. STOP DODGING

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: You have agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors.

DAVID: I have not agreed with the bold. 99.9% ARE the ancestors of the 0.1% surviving. Except for the Cambrians and the insectivores noted by Bechly, everything alive today can trace its origin back twig by twig through 99.9% extinct, per Raup.

Jan 2nd: dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree. And Jan 9th: I am not disagreeing.

Jan. 11th: dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Jan 10th […] DAVID: Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now.

dhw: Which means it’s possible that not even 0.1% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of current species!

Please explain how the above quotes mean that you do not agree that only 0.1% led to current forms.

DAVID: Species were not culled out.

dhw: Statements by you:

“The 0.1%, of which we are a part, are the survivors of the culling process.”

“Evolution had to cull 99.9% to reach today’s surviving 0.1%." (dhw: According to you, your God controlled evolution – the process of evolution did not control God. Ergo God had to cull…)

“What lives today are the survivors of the culling process of evolution.”

And yesterday (bolded above): “That 99.9% went extinct is a result of the culling.”

dhw: How do those statements come to mean that species were not culled out? [...]

DAVID: You are confused. I am not. My quotes are consistent with my point of view.

Please explain how the above statements mean that species were not culled out.

DAVID: Read what I've entered today. It should unconfuse you.

I read everything you write, and this discussion is not about what Raup and Bechly did or didn’t say. I have compared your conclusions of today with your conclusions earlier this month, and they are a direct contradiction of one another. So let’s see if we can get some straight answers:

Do you believe that 99.9% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of species living today?

Do you believe that your all-powerful God designed every species, but had no control over the culling of 99.9% of them?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 30, 2024, 17:35 (58 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: You have agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors.

DAVID: I have not agreed with the bold. 99.9% ARE the ancestors of the 0.1% surviving. Except for the Cambrians and the insectivores noted by Bechly, everything alive today can trace its origin back twig by twig through 99.9% extinct, per Raup.

Jan 2nd: dhw: Only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree. And Jan 9th: I am not disagreeing.

Jan. 11th: dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Jan 10th […] DAVID: Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now.

dhw: Which means it’s possible that not even 0.1% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of current species!

dhw: Please explain how the above quotes mean that you do not agree that only 0.1% led to current forms.

0.1% are the current living forms. 99.9% are their dead ancestors.


DAVID: Species were not culled out.

dhw: Statements by you:

“The 0.1%, of which we are a part, are the survivors of the culling process.”

“Evolution had to cull 99.9% to reach today’s surviving 0.1%." (dhw: According to you, your God controlled evolution – the process of evolution did not control God. Ergo God had to cull…)

“What lives today are the survivors of the culling process of evolution.”

And yesterday (bolded above): “That 99.9% went extinct is a result of the culling.”

dhw: How do those statements come to mean that species were not culled out? [...]

DAVID: You are confused. I am not. My quotes are consistent with my point of view.

dhw: Please explain how the above statements mean that species were not culled out.

All species today can be traced back twig by twig to ancestor forms. The analysis is simply that 99.9% of forms died out to produce today's species, the result of extinctions. The purpose of evolution was to produce today's survivors, the desired species. On the average 99.9% went extinct in the process of producing today's 0.1%, in each twig line as above.


DAVID: Read what I've entered today. It should unconfuse you.

dhw: I read everything you write, and this discussion is not about what Raup and Bechly did or didn’t say. I have compared your conclusions of today with your conclusions earlier this month, and they are a direct contradiction of one another. So let’s see if we can get some straight answers:

You are totally misinterpreting what I write. One more try: we are here from a line of 99.9% dead ancestors. Each other species has the same history. What is here today was planned by God.


dhw: Do you believe that 99.9% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of species living today?

Yes, birds from some branch of dinosaurs, which percentage I don't know.


dhw: Do you believe that your all-powerful God designed every species, but had no control over the culling of 99.9% of them?

Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling. I have found: "could account for the sudden transformation from a 300-pound theropod to the sparrow-size prehistoric bird Iberomesornis."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-dinosaurs-shrank-and-became-birds/

What percentage of dead dinosaurs that is I do not know.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, January 31, 2024, 10:56 (57 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: You have agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors.

(For brevity’s sake I have left out all the quotes in which you agreed that only 0.1% of species had led to current forms. Here are your new statements, with my bolds:)

DAVID: I have not agreed with the bold. 99.9% ARE the ancestors of the 0.1% surviving. Except for the Cambrians and the insectivores noted by Bechly, everything alive today can trace its origin back twig by twig through 99.9% extinct, per Raup.
And:
DAVID: 0.1% are the current living forms. 99.9% are their dead ancestors.
And:
DAVID: All species today can be traced back twig by twig to ancestor forms. The analysis is simply that 99.9% of forms died out to produce today's species, the result of extinctions. [...]

You continue to conflate two separate statistics. 1) Yes, 99.9% of the ancestors of each current species are extinct. 2) No, 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were NOT the ancestors of current species. The example you yourself offered us was: “Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds but that is disputed now.” If they were not the ancestors of birds, then 100% of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of today’s species. And even if some dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds, you are still left with all the other dinosaurs that were not. You have confirmed 1) with your next comment:

DAVID: You are totally misinterpreting what I write. One more try: we are here from a line of 99.9% dead ancestors. Each other species has the same history.

Correct. Totally different from the claim that 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were the direct ancestors of the species that are alive today.

DAVID: Species were not culled out.

(For brevity’s sake I have left out all the quotes in which you stated that 99.9% were culled.)

dhw: I have compared your conclusions of today with your conclusions earlier this month, and they are a direct contradiction of one another. So let’s see if we can get some straight answers:

dhw: Do you believe that 99.9% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of species living today?

DAVID: Yes, birds from some branch of dinosaurs, which percentage I don't know.

As above. You wrote that even the bird theory was disputed now (= 100% were NOT the ancestors of current species). Here (“from some branch” – singular) you have confirmed the obvious fact that at the very least, the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of current species.

dhw: Do you believe that your all-powerful God designed every species, but had no control over the culling of 99.9% of them?

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

You wrote that “species were not culled out”. Thank you for now confirming your view that species were culled out. I don’t know why you are quoting Raup, since you obviously disagree. If your God planned a way of culling them, you are once more left with the absurd theory that he deliberately designed them, knowing they were irrelevant to his purpose, and then cleverly worked out a way of culling them.

Summary: 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. Only 0.1% of all extinct species were the ancestors of current species. You believe current species, with humans in charge, were your God’s one and only goal, and you have no idea why he would have specially created and culled the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with his one and only goal.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, January 31, 2024, 21:30 (57 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: You have agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors.

(For brevity’s sake I have left out all the quotes in which you agreed that only 0.1% of species had led to current forms. Here are your new statements, with my bolds:)

DAVID: I have not agreed with the bold. 99.9% ARE the ancestors of the 0.1% surviving. Except for the Cambrians and the insectivores noted by Bechly, everything alive today can trace its origin back twig by twig through 99.9% extinct, per Raup.
And:
DAVID: 0.1% are the current living forms. 99.9% are their dead ancestors.
And:
DAVID: All species today can be traced back twig by twig to ancestor forms. The analysis is simply that 99.9% of forms died out to produce today's species, the result of extinctions. [...]

dhw: You continue to conflate two separate statistics. 1) Yes, 99.9% of the ancestors of each current species are extinct. 2) No, 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were NOT the ancestors of current species. The example you yourself offered us was: “Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds but that is disputed now.” If they were not the ancestors of birds, then 100% of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of today’s species. And even if some dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds, you are still left with all the other dinosaurs that were not. You have confirmed 1) with your next comment:

Birds come from one branch of dinosaurs and are part of the 0.1% here now. "everything alive today can trace its origin back twig by twig through 99.9% extinct, per Raup."


DAVID: You are totally misinterpreting what I write. One more try: we are here from a line of 99.9% dead ancestors. Each other species has the same history.

dhw: Correct. Totally different from the claim that 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were the direct ancestors of the species that are alive today.

DAVID: Species were not culled out.

(For brevity’s sake I have left out all the quotes in which you stated that 99.9% were culled.)

dhw: I have compared your conclusions of today with your conclusions earlier this month, and they are a direct contradiction of one another. So let’s see if we can get some straight answers:

dhw: Do you believe that 99.9% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of species living today?

DAVID: Yes, birds from some branch of dinosaurs, which percentage I don't know.

dhw: As above. You wrote that even the bird theory was disputed now (= 100% were NOT the ancestors of current species). Here (“from some branch” – singular) you have confirmed the obvious fact that at the very least, the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of current species.

Agreed. They are part of the 99.9% culled.


dhw: Do you believe that your all-powerful God designed every species, but had no control over the culling of 99.9% of them?

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: You wrote that “species were not culled out”. Thank you for now confirming your view that species were culled out.

Again, each species here today came from as long line of ancestors in the past. Based on Raup's statistics I assume each line had 99.9% loss/culling with 0.1% survival. The cumulative 99.9% came from each 0.1% line living.

dhw: I don’t know why you are quoting Raup, since you obviously disagree. If your God planned a way of culling them, you are once more left with the absurd theory that he deliberately designed them, knowing they were irrelevant to his purpose, and then cleverly worked out a way of culling them.

I quote Raup, and everything about his book you have learned from me!


dhw: Summary: 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. Only 0.1% of all extinct species were the ancestors of current species. You believe current species, with humans in charge, were your God’s one and only goal, and you have no idea why he would have specially created and culled the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with his one and only goal.

Stop your repetition of a falsehood. All are connected to humans, since we run the Earth and used all of it. All living forms now are here because God put them here for us.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, February 01, 2024, 08:45 (57 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: You have agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors.

DAVID: I have not agreed with the bold. 99.9% ARE the ancestors of the 0.1% surviving. Except for the Cambrians and the insectivores noted by Bechly, everything alive today can trace its origin back twig by twig through 99.9% extinct, per Raup. (dhw's bold)

dhw: You continue to conflate two separate statistics. 1) Yes, 99.9% of the ancestors of each current species are extinct. 2) No, 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were NOT the ancestors of current species. The example you yourself offered us was: “Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds but that is disputed now.” If they were not the ancestors of birds, then 100% of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of today’s species. And even if some dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds, you are still left with all the other dinosaurs that were not. You have confirmed 1) with your next comment:

DAVID: Birds come from one branch of dinosaurs and are part of the 0.1% here now. "everything alive today can trace its origin back twig by twig through 99.9% extinct, per Raup."

Apparently there is some dispute even over birds, but that doesn’t matter. You keep repeating my 1) above, which is true. And you keep conflating it with 2) which is your claim that 99.9% of all extinct species were the direct ancestors of today’s species.

DAVID: Yes, birds from some branch of dinosaurs, which percentage I don't know.

dhw: As above. You wrote that even the bird theory was disputed now (= 100% were NOT the ancestors of current species). Here (“from some branch” – singular) you have confirmed the obvious fact that at the very least, the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of current species.

DAVID: Agreed. They are part of the 99.9% culled.

And according to your own statements, the same applies to all extinct species: 99.9% of them were NOT the ancestors of current species.

DAVID: Again, each species here today came from as long line of ancestors in the past. Based on Raup's statistics I assume each line had 99.9% loss/culling with 0.1% survival. The cumulative 99.9% came from each 0.1% line living.

Correct. That is statistic No. 1). And you have now agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors.

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: You wrote that “species were not culled out”. Thank you for now confirming your view that species were culled out. I don’t know why you are quoting Raup, since you obviously disagree. If your God planned a way of culling them, you are once more left with the absurd theory that he deliberately designed them, knowing they were irrelevant to his purpose, and then cleverly worked out a way of culling them.

DAVID: I quote Raup, and everything about his book you have learned from me!

Correct. And if Raup says extinction/survival was a matter of luck, and you say no, it was all planned by your God, then you are teaching me that you disagree with Raup.

dhw: Summary: 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. Only 0.1% of all extinct species were the ancestors of current species. You believe current species, with humans in charge, were your God’s one and only goal, and you have no idea why he would have specially created and culled the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: Stop your repetition of a falsehood. All are connected to humans, since we run the Earth and used all of it. All living forms now are here because God put them here for us.

What falsehood? Are you still maintaining that we and our contemporary species are directly descended from 99.9% of extinct species? That every past and present species was/is “connected” to humans, although 99.9% of past species aren’t even here? Please explain which part of my summary is a “falsehood”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 01, 2024, 19:17 (56 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: And according to your own statements, the same applies to all extinct species: 99.9% of them were NOT the ancestors of current species.

DAVID: Again, each species here today came from as long line of ancestors in the past. Based on Raup's statistics I assume each line had 99.9% loss/culling with 0.1% survival. The cumulative 99.9% came from each 0.1% line living.

dhw: Correct. That is statistic No. 1). And you have now agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors.

How did you conclude that? EVERY LINE IN THE BRANCHING BUSH CAME FROM EXTINCT ANCESTORS. I HAVE CONCLUDED that each line can be considered under Raup's statistical analysis as 99.9% of each line's ancestors contributed to their surviving 0.1%. God did not destroy species, but instead purposely created the species humans would need. What was removed were transient forms being perfected into today's excellent results.


DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: You wrote that “species were not culled out”. Thank you for now confirming your view that species were culled out. I don’t know why you are quoting Raup, since you obviously disagree. If your God planned a way of culling them, you are once more left with the absurd theory that he deliberately designed them, knowing they were irrelevant to his purpose, and then cleverly worked out a way of culling them.

DAVID: I quote Raup, and everything about his book you have learned from me!

dhw: Correct. And if Raup says extinction/survival was a matter of luck, and you say no, it was all planned by your God, then you are teaching me that you disagree with Raup.

Of course, Raup is using a Darwinian theory in an atheistic way. I am using my theistic way.


dhw: Summary: 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. Only 0.1% of all extinct species were the ancestors of current species. You believe current species, with humans in charge, were your God’s one and only goal, and you have no idea why he would have specially created and culled the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: Stop your repetition of a falsehood. All are connected to humans, since we run the Earth and used all of it. All living forms now are here because God put them here for us.

dhw: What falsehood? Are you still maintaining that we and our contemporary species are directly descended from 99.9% of extinct species? That every past and present species was/is “connected” to humans, although 99.9% of past species aren’t even here? Please explain which part of my summary is a “falsehood”.

Your view is still totally skewed. Read my bold above. Not your concept!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, February 02, 2024, 08:23 (56 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: you have now agreed that the 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the ancestors of the current 0.1% of survivors.

DAVID: How did you conclude that? EVERY LINE IN THE BRANCHING BUSH CAME FROM EXTINCT ANCESTORS. I HAVE CONCLUDED that each line can be considered under Raup's statistical analysis as 99.9% of each line's ancestors contributed to their surviving 0.1%.


This is what I called the first statistic, which we agree on. But every line in the branching bush did not lead to the species that exist today! The vast majority were dead ends, and you were kind enough to offer us a perfect illustration: “Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds but that is disputed now.” Even if birds did descend from dinosaurs, they would only have descended from one branch. All other dinosaur branches were a dead end that did not lead to contemporary species. Note the exchange between us when I explained this:

dhw: you have confirmed the obvious fact that at the very least, the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of current species.

DAVID: Agreed. They are part of the 99.9% culled.

So you agree your God culled the 99.9% of dinosaurs which were NOT our ancestors. And since you believe that most of our ancestors were designed “de novo” (i.e. with no preceding species) 500 million years ago, you can add approx. 3.3 billion years’ worth of species as more dead ends from which we were not directly descended. And you continue to ignore your repeated agreements of last month, e.g:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Your “no” is your agreement that 99.9% were not the ancestors of current species, so why are you now denying it?

DAVID: God did not destroy species, but instead purposely created the species humans would need. What was removed were transient forms being perfected into today's excellent results.

According to you, he designed every species, which included all the species humans would not need. Or are you now telling us that humans needed all the dinosaurs and all the species that died before the Cambrian? These were species humans would NOT need and which were among the 99.9% which according to you he destroyed/culled as follows:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them by creating challenges he knew they couldn’t handle. Sounds pretty destructive to me.

dhw: Summary: 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. Only 0.1% of all extinct species were the ancestors of current species. You believe current species, with humans in charge, were your God’s one and only goal, and you have no idea why he would have specially created and culled the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: Stop your repetition of a falsehood. All are connected to humans, since we run the Earth and used all of it. All living forms now are here because God put them here for us.

dhw: What falsehood? Are you still maintaining that we and our contemporary species are directly descended from 99.9% of extinct species? That every past and present species was/is “connected” to humans, although 99.9% of past species aren’t even here? Please explain which part of my summary is a “falsehood”.

DAVID: Your view is still totally skewed. Read my bold above. Not your concept!!!

I have replied to your bolds. Now please tell me which part of my summary is a falsehood.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, February 02, 2024, 21:51 (55 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% versus 0.1%

DAVID: How did you conclude that? EVERY LINE IN THE BRANCHING BUSH CAME FROM EXTINCT ANCESTORS. I HAVE CONCLUDED that each line can be considered under Raup's statistical analysis as 99.9% of each line's ancestors contributed to their surviving 0.1%.


dhw: This is what I called the first statistic, which we agree on. But every line in the branching bush did not lead to the species that exist today! The vast majority were dead ends, and you were kind enough to offer us a perfect illustration: “Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds but that is disputed now.” Even if birds did descend from dinosaurs, they would only have descended from one branch. All other dinosaur branches were a dead end that did not lead to contemporary species. Note the exchange between us when I explained this:

dhw: you have confirmed the obvious fact that at the very least, the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of current species.

DAVID: Agreed. They are part of the 99.9% culled.

dhw: So you agree your God culled the 99.9% of dinosaurs which were NOT our ancestors. And since you believe that most of our ancestors were designed “de novo” (i.e. with no preceding species) 500 million years ago, you can add approx. 3.3 billion years’ worth of species as more dead ends from which we were not directly descended. And you continue to ignore your repeated agreements of last month, e.g:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Your “no” is your agreement that 99.9% were not the ancestors of current species, so why are you now denying it?

The 99.9% are the direct ancestors of the 0.1% surviving!!! They represent all the lines of forms that previously existed to get here. Each twig and branch go back to the beginning.


DAVID: God did not destroy species, but instead purposely created the species humans would need. What was removed were transient forms being perfected into today's excellent results.

dhw: According to you, he designed every species, which included all the species humans would not need. Or are you now telling us that humans needed all the dinosaurs and all the species that died before the Cambrian? These were species humans would NOT need and which were among the 99.9% which according to you he destroyed/culled as follows:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them by creating challenges he knew they couldn’t handle. Sounds pretty destructive to me.

Yes, destroyed many.


dhw: Summary: 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. Only 0.1% of all extinct species were the ancestors of current species. You believe current species, with humans in charge, were your God’s one and only goal, and you have no idea why he would have specially created and culled the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: Stop your repetition of a falsehood. All are connected to humans, since we run the Earth and used all of it. All living forms now are here because God put them here for us.

dhw: What falsehood? Are you still maintaining that we and our contemporary species are directly descended from 99.9% of extinct species? That every past and present species was/is “connected” to humans, although 99.9% of past species aren’t even here? Please explain which part of my summary is a “falsehood”.

Your total confusion about the 99.9% statistic from Raup.


DAVID: Your view is still totally skewed. Read my bold above. Not your concept!!!

dhw: I have replied to your bolds. Now please tell me which part of my summary is a falsehood.

Your total confusion is about the 99.9% statistic from Raup Raup simply was telling us that to achieve today's living, 99.9% went extinct along the way. He did not use the word species." Using us as example, I interpret that to mean in our branch back to the very beginning 99.9% of all form were eliminated by extinction. And this applies to each living form on Earth. The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result. Not your turn-about tortured ridiculous interpretation of wasteful loss.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, February 03, 2024, 08:44 (55 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% versus 0.1%

I’ll try to edit out some of the repetitions. There are two sets of statistics that David has offered us: 1) 99.9% of the ancestors of each species are now extinct. This I can well believe. 2) Current species, including humans, are directly descended from 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived. This I hotly dispute, and have produced quotes from David which explicitly contradict this theory. Relevant quotes:

dhw: only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree. (And later: “I am not disagreeing.”)

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

DAVID: Dinosaurs are 100% dead.They might be the ancestors of birds but that is disputed now.
dhw: you have confirmed the obvious fact that at the very least, the vast majority of dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of current species.
DAVID: Agreed. They are part of the 99.9% culled.

Having repeatedly agreed that 99.9% of past species were NOT ancestors of current species, you now attempt to conflate THREE theories:

DAVID: The 99.9% are the direct ancestors of the 0.1% surviving!!!

See all the quotes above. Only 0.1% of past species are the ancestors of current species (who are the survivors). Clearest of your examples: the dinosaurs. Only one branch led to survivors (birds), and even that is in dispute. The remaining 99.9% (or whatever the figure might be) led nowhere.

DAVID: They represent all the lines of forms that previously existed to get here. Each twig and branch go back to the beginning.

99.9% of them were lines that eventually led nowhere. Only 0.1% of lines “got here”. But yes, third theory: all forms of life (twigs and branches) go back to the roots of the bush. But 99.9% of them were dead ends that did not go forward to us and our contemporaries.

God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species, but instead purposely created the species humans would need. What was removed were transient forms being perfected into today's excellent results.

This statement was contradicted by the following:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them by creating challenges he knew they couldn’t handle. Sounds pretty destructive to me.

DAVID: Yes, destroyed many.

So God did not destroy species, but he destroyed many.

dhw: Summary: 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. Only 0.1% of all extinct species were the ancestors of current species. You believe current species, with humans in charge, were your God’s one and only goal, and you have no idea why he would have specially created and culled the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: Stop your repetition of a falsehood. All are connected to humans, since we run the Earth and used all of it. All living forms now are here because God put them here for us.

dhw: What falsehood? […]

DAVID: Your total confusion is about the 99.9% statistic from Raup. Raup simply was telling us that to achieve today's living, 99.9% went extinct along the way. He did not use the word species."

So the rest of the discussion concerns your interpretation of Raup’s statistic. Back we go to your powers of interpretation:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

Bad luck means to you that it was all planned. Just as “God did not destroy species” means “God destroyed many species". And you think I’m confused?

DAVID: The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result. Not your turn-about tortured ridiculous interpretation of wasteful loss.

This is just another way of saying that your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our contemporary species (our food), and so he deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that did not lead to us and our food. The “good reason” is what I keep asking you for, but you admit you can’t think of one. And finally, it is you who ridicule your version of God’s method as “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” (presumably because it is so wasteful), whereas at least two of my alternatives hail his work as wonderfully successful with no wasteful loss at all.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 03, 2024, 16:42 (54 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% versus 0.1%

DAVID: The 99.9% are the direct ancestors of the 0.1% surviving!!!

dhw: See all the quotes above. Only 0.1% of past species are the ancestors of current species (who are the survivors). Clearest of your examples: the dinosaurs. Only one branch led to survivors (birds), and even that is in dispute. The remaining 99.9% (or whatever the figure might be) led nowhere.

DAVID: They represent all the lines of forms that previously existed to get here. Each twig and branch go back to the beginning.

dhw: 99.9% of them were lines that eventually led nowhere. Only 0.1% of lines “got here”. But yes, third theory: all forms of life (twigs and branches) go back to the roots of the bush. But 99.9% of them were dead ends that did not go forward to us and our contemporaries.

The 0.1% surviving lost 99.9% of their ancestors to reach here. Humans are one species of over eight million on Earth. Like humans each one had a line of ancestors. Viewing life as a bush, all species are at the end of twigs at the top of the bush. The body of the bush is the 99.9% lost. Your now-bolded statement is wrong. The 99.9% led here.


God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species, but instead purposely created the species humans would need. What was removed were transient forms being perfected into today's excellent results.

This statement was contradicted by the following:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them by creating challenges he knew they couldn’t handle. Sounds pretty destructive to me.

DAVID: Yes, destroyed many.

dhw: So God did not destroy species, but he destroyed many.

dhw: Summary: 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. Only 0.1% of all extinct species were the ancestors of current species. You believe current species, with humans in charge, were your God’s one and only goal, and you have no idea why he would have specially created and culled the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: Stop your repetition of a falsehood. All are connected to humans, since we run the Earth and used all of it. All living forms now are here because God put them here for us.

dhw: What falsehood? […]

DAVID: Your total confusion is about the 99.9% statistic from Raup. Raup simply was telling us that to achieve today's living, 99.9% went extinct along the way. He did not use the word species."

dhw: So the rest of the discussion concerns your interpretation of Raup’s statistic. Back we go to your powers of interpretation:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: Bad luck means to you that it was all planned. Just as “God did not destroy species” means “God destroyed many species". And you think I’m confused?

DAVID: The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result. Not your turn-about tortured ridiculous interpretation of wasteful loss.

dhw: This is just another way of saying that your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our contemporary species (our food), and so he deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that did not lead to us and our food. The “good reason” is what I keep asking you for, but you admit you can’t think of one. And finally, it is you who ridicule your version of God’s method as “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” (presumably because it is so wasteful), whereas at least two of my alternatives hail his work as wonderfully successful with no wasteful loss at all.

A repeat: The 0.1% surviving lost 99.9% of their ancestors to reach here. Humans are one species of over eight million on Earth. Like humans, each one had a line of ancestors. Viewing life as a bush, all species are at the end of twigs at the top of the bush. The body of the bush is the 99.9% lost. Your now-bolded statement is wrong. The 99.9% led here to over eight million.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Sunday, February 04, 2024, 11:53 (53 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% versus 0.1%

You have ignored all of yesterday’s post, and so I’ll repeat it as preparation for my reply to your single statement. Firstly, your agreement with the following:

dhw: Only 0.1% of past species are the ancestors of current species (who are the survivors). Clearest of your examples: the dinosaurs. Only one branch led to survivors (birds), and even that is in dispute. The remaining 99.9% (or whatever the figure might be) led nowhere.

dhw: ...only the 0.1% led to current forms.
DAVID: We agree. (And later: “I am not disagreeing.”)

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

In your reply (far below), you have ignored all of this.

DAVID: They represent all the lines of forms that previously existed to get here. Each twig and branch go back to the beginning.

dhw: 99.9% of them were lines that eventually led nowhere. Only 0.1% of lines “got here”. But yes, third theory: all forms of life (twigs and branches) go back to the roots of the bush. But 99.9% of them were dead ends that did not go forward to us and our contemporaries.

It is a common device of yours to reproduce what is generally agreed, and to ignore those of your theories that make no sense.

God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species.

Contradicted by:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them by creating challenges he knew they couldn’t handle. Sounds pretty destructive to me.

DAVID: Yes, destroyed many.

Blatant contradiction ignored.

dhw: Summary: 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. Only 0.1% of all extinct species were the ancestors of current species. You believe current species, with humans in charge, were your God’s one and only goal, and you have no idea why he would have specially created and culled the 99.9% of extinct species that had no connection with his one and only goal.

DAVID: Stop your repetition of a falsehood. All are connected to humans, since we run the Earth and used all of it. All living forms now are here because God put them here for us.

dhw: What falsehood? […]

DAVID: Your total confusion is about the 99.9% statistic from Raup.
And:
DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: Bad luck means to you that it was all planned. Just as “God did not destroy species” but he destroyed many species.

Ignored. There is no falsehood – only your own contradictions.And you think I'm confused!

DAVID: The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result. Not your turn-about tortured ridiculous interpretation of wasteful loss.

dhw: This is just another way of saying that your God’s only purpose was to produce us and our contemporary species (our food), and so he deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that did not lead to us and our food. The “good reason” is what I keep asking you for, but you admit you can’t think of one. And finally, it is you who ridicule your version of God’s method as “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” [...], whereas at least two of my alternatives hail his work as wonderfully successful with no wasteful loss at all.

Also ignored. Now to your reply: You have bypassed all these contradictions and gone back to the one part of your theory which we agree on, as follows:

DAVID: A repeat: The 0.1% surviving lost 99.9% of their ancestors to reach here.

Correct. That does not mean 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were the ancestors of today's species. 99.9% of them were dead ends, e.g. the dinosaurs.

DAVID: Humans are one species of over eight million on Earth. Like humans, each one had a line of ancestors.

Correct.

DAVID: Viewing life as a bush, all species are at the end of twigs at the top of the bush.

I presume you mean all current species are at the top of the bush. If so, correct.

DAVID: The body of the bush is the 99.9% lost.

If you mean all the branches and twigs that ended below the top, correct.

DAVID: Your now-bolded statement is wrong. The 99.9% led here to over eight million.

Completely wrong, as you agreed in all the quotes at the start of this post. The 99.9% did NOT lead here, e.g. the dinosaurs. If birds were the only surviving species, then 99.9% of dinosaurs were branches that did NOT lead here. Only 0.1% have reached the top of the bush. The “body” is the 99.9% that didn’t! You have agreed multiple times: current species are descended from the 0.1% of the branches that continued to evolve, i.e. that survived; the 99.9% stopped evolving and became dead ends. Listen to yourself again:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Correct. So please stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 04, 2024, 19:12 (53 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: In your reply (far below), you have ignored all of this.

DAVID: They represent all the lines of forms that previously existed to get here. Each twig and branch go back to the beginning.

dhw: 99.9% of them were lines that eventually led nowhere. Only 0.1% of lines “got here”. But yes, third theory: all forms of life (twigs and branches) go back to the roots of the bush. But 99.9% of them were dead ends that did not go forward to us and our contemporaries.

dhw: It is a common device of yours to reproduce what is generally agreed, and to ignore those of your theories that make no sense.

I continue to dispute what I bolded!! The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!


God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species.

dhw: Contradicted by:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them by creating challenges he knew they couldn’t handle. Sounds pretty destructive to me.

DAVID: Yes, destroyed many.

dhw: Blatant contradiction ignored.

We have two discordant views. See above. I view a purposeful God as evolving desired species over time. Purpose! Thus, I look at each line as protected until it reached the present. A future species was designated to appear, so the intended outcome was always protected.


DAVID: The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result. Not your turn-about tortured ridiculous interpretation of wasteful loss.

DAVID: A repeat: The 0.1% surviving lost 99.9% of their ancestors to reach here.

dhw: Correct. That does not mean 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were the ancestors of today's species. 99.9% of them were dead ends, e.g. the dinosaurs.

God's intended result were birds, the 0.1% from the 99.9% as dinosaurs.


DAVID: Humans are one species of over eight million on Earth. Like humans, each one had a line of ancestors.

dhw: Correct.

DAVID: Viewing life as a bush, all species are at the end of twigs at the top of the bush.

dhw: I presume you mean all current species are at the top of the bush. If so, correct.

DAVID: The body of the bush is the 99.9% lost.

dhw: If you mean all the branches and twigs that ended below the top, correct.

DAVID: Your now-bolded statement is wrong. The 99.9% led here to over eight million.

dhw: Completely wrong, as you agreed in all the quotes at the start of this post. The 99.9% did NOT lead here, e.g. the dinosaurs. If birds were the only surviving species, then 99.9% of dinosaurs were branches that did NOT lead here. Only 0.1% have reached the top of the bush. The “body” is the 99.9% that didn’t! You have agreed multiple times: current species are descended from the 0.1% of the branches that continued to evolve, i.e. that survived; the 99.9% stopped evolving and became dead ends. Listen to yourself again:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Correct. So please stop dodging.

Each evolving line that reached the present 0.1% had a 99.9% loss of ancestors getting here. Yes, the branching twigs disappeared but the intended species are here. True?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Monday, February 05, 2024, 11:51 (52 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% versus 0.1%

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

DAVID: I continue to dispute what I bolded!! The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!

You continue to conflate the two sets of statistics. 1) Yes, all current species are the product of their own line, and 99.9% of their ancestors have disappeared. (Maybe even 100%!) 2) No, 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed were NOT the ancestors of current species but were dead ends, as you agreed above and as vividly illustrated with all your comments on dinosaurs:

DAVID: “God's intended result were birds, the 0.1% from the 99.9% as dinosaurs.”

Admittedly, the syntax of your sentence is hard to follow, but in conjunction with your earlier, repeated agreements, it can only mean that the birds evolved from 0.1% of dinosaurs, and the 99.9% were the dinosaurs that did not evolve into birds. But now what are you telling us? That 99.9% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds??? Once more: 0.1% of dinosaurs evolved into birds. 99.9% of dinosaurs did NOT evolve into birds. Why do you keep denying the obvious truth of your repeated agreements to the second set of statistics?

God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species.

dhw: Contradicted by:

DAVID: Raup considered extinctions bad luck, which means to me God planned for their extinctions by creating new challenges they could not handle, thus culling.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them by creating challenges he knew they couldn’t handle. Sounds pretty destructive to me.

DAVID: Yes, destroyed many.

dhw: Blatant contradiction ignored.

And still ignored.

DAVID: We have two discordant views. See above. I view a purposeful God as evolving desired species over time. Purpose! Thus, I look at each line as protected until it reached the present. A future species was designated to appear, so the intended outcome was always protected.

This has nothing to do with your claim that we and our contemporaries are descended from 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed. Our subject here is not “purpose” (see below for that), but even here you still have your God “protecting” the 0.1% that evolved into current species, and destroying the 99.9% that were not the ancestors of current species and were therefore irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

Later:

DAVID: Each evolving line that reached the present 0.1% had a 99.9% loss of ancestors getting here.

Agreed. That is statistic 1).

DAVID: Yes, the branching twigs disappeared but the intended species are here. True?

“Intended” ties in with your illogical theory of your God's purpose and method. (See below.) Summary: 1) In the context of percentages, yes indeed, the current species are here, and 99.9% of their ancestors have disappeared. 2) 99.9% of all life forms have disappeared, and only the other 0.1% survived and evolved into current species, as you have explicitly agreed:
Repeat:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Please stop dodging.

Intention

DAVID: The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result .[…].
And under “speciation”: you repeat the above comment concerning “two discordant views”, adding “Exactly the purposeful approach you don't understand.”

I understand your approach perfectly: His one and only purpose was to design us and our contemporaries. But as you have agreed, he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were NOT the ancestors of us and our contemporaries. Even if you think he protected the 0.1% of survivors, you can stlll find no “good reason” why he would have adopted such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the one and only purpose you allow him to have. This is the absurd illogicality that you keep dodging with your digressions and self-contradictions.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, February 05, 2024, 17:16 (52 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% versus 0.1%

dhw: You continue to conflate the two sets of statistics. 1) Yes, all current species are the product of their own line, and 99.9% of their ancestors have disappeared. (Maybe even 100%!) 2) No, 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed were NOT the ancestors of current species but were dead ends, as you agreed above and as vividly illustrated with all your comments on dinosaurs:

DAVID: “God's intended result were birds, the 0.1% from the 99.9% as dinosaurs.”

dhw: Admittedly, the syntax of your sentence is hard to follow, but in conjunction with your earlier, repeated agreements, it can only mean that the birds evolved from 0.1% of dinosaurs, and the 99.9% were the dinosaurs that did not evolve into birds. But now what are you telling us? That 99.9% of dinosaurs were the ancestors of birds??? Once more: 0.1% of dinosaurs evolved into birds. 99.9% of dinosaurs did NOT evolve into birds. Why do you keep denying the obvious truth of your repeated agreements to the second set of statistics?

Birds descended from dinosaurs and for dinos the percentage loss is more or less than 99.9%, Raup's average. Each 8 million-plus species now here had a specific line of loss leading to the 99.9% average. This is my view of God's evolution.


God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species.

dhw: Blatant contradiction ignored.

I view how God did it differently than you. Each line for a planned species to be here now was carefully followed. Yes, sub-species fell along the way, but the planned species arrived. I realize I was un-clear before.

DAVID: We have two discordant views. See above. I view a purposeful God as evolving desired species over time. Purpose! Thus, I look at each line as protected until it reached the present. A future species was designated to appear, so the intended outcome was always protected.

dhw: This has nothing to do with your claim that we and our contemporaries are descended from 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed. Our subject here is not “purpose” (see below for that), but even here you still have your God “protecting” the 0.1% that evolved into current species, and destroying the 99.9% that were not the ancestors of current species and were therefore irrelevant to the purpose you impose on him.

Intention

DAVID: The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result .[…].
And under “speciation”: you repeat the above comment concerning “two discordant views”, adding “Exactly the purposeful approach you don't understand.”

dhw: I understand your approach perfectly: His one and only purpose was to design us and our contemporaries. But as you have agreed, he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were NOT the ancestors of us and our contemporaries. Even if you think he protected the 0.1% of survivors, you can stlll find no “good reason” why he would have adopted such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the one and only purpose you allow him to have. This is the absurd illogicality that you keep dodging with your digressions and self-contradictions.

Your analysis is exactly opposite to mine, purposely to project a bumbling God. The 0.1% here are the survivors of 99.9% gone.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Tuesday, February 06, 2024, 11:38 (51 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% versus 0.1%

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

DAVID: I continue to dispute what I bolded!! The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!

dhw: You continue to conflate the two sets of statistics. 1) Yes, all current species are the product of their own line, and 99.9% of their ancestors have disappeared. (Maybe even 100%!) 2) No, 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed were NOT the ancestors of current species but were dead ends, as you agreed above and as vividly illustrated with all your comments on dinosaurs […]

DAVID: Birds descended from dinosaurs and for dinos the percentage loss is more or less than 99.9%, Raup's average. Each 8 million-plus species now here had a specific line of loss leading to the 99.9% average. This is my view of God's evolution.

That is the first statistic, which we agree on. You have totally ignored the second statistic, so may I take it that you are now confirming your previous agreement that 99.9% of all extinct species were NOT ancestors of current species?

God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them […] Sounds pretty destructive to me.

DAVID: Yes, destroyed many.

dhw: Blatant contradiction ignored.

DAVID: I view how God did it differently than you. Each line for a planned species to be here now was carefully followed. Yes, sub-species fell along the way, but the planned species arrived. I realize I was un-clear before.

And you are even more unclear now, since you are totally ignoring all the points we have been debating. This is just a rehash of the first statistic: current species are the ends of the 0.1% of lines that survived your God’s culling process. (You have said earlier that he protected them.) We are still left with him deliberately designing and destroying the 99.9% that had no connection with the 0.1% he apparently planned to design right from the beginning.

Intention

DAVID: The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result .[…].
And under “speciation”: you repeat the above comment concerning “two discordant views”, adding “Exactly the purposeful approach you don't understand.”

dhw: I understand your approach perfectly: His one and only purpose was to design us and our contemporaries. But as you have agreed, he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were NOT the ancestors of us and our contemporaries. Even if you think he protected the 0.1% of survivors, you can still find no “good reason” why he would have adopted such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the one and only purpose you allow him to have. This is the absurd illogicality that you keep dodging with your digressions and self-contradictions.

DAVID: Your analysis is exactly opposite to mine, purposely to project a bumbling God. The 0.1% here are the survivors of 99.9% gone.

More fudging. Yes, 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are gone. But 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were NOT the ancestors of current species, though you have your God specially designing them and then destroying them, and you cannot think of a single reason why he would have done so if his one and only purpose was to design current species. Even you have called this method “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”. Now you can add “bumbling”.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 06, 2024, 16:08 (51 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% versus 0.1%

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

DAVID: I continue to dispute what I bolded!! The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!


DAVID: Birds descended from dinosaurs and for dinos the percentage loss is more or less than 99.9%, Raup's average. Each 8 million-plus species now here had a specific line of loss leading to the 99.9% average. This is my view of God's evolution.

dhw: nThat is the first statistic, which we agree on. You have totally ignored the second statistic, so may I take it that you are now confirming your previous agreement that 99.9% of all extinct species were NOT ancestors of current species?

Note what I write: "The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!" Each line contributed to the 99.9% extinct.


God’s culling

DAVID: God did not destroy species.

dhw: He didn’t destroy them, but he planned to cull them […] Sounds pretty destructive to me.

DAVID: Yes, destroyed many.

dhw: Blatant contradiction ignored.

DAVID: I view how God did it differently than you. Each line for a planned species to be here now was carefully followed. Yes, sub-species fell along the way, but the planned species arrived. I realize I was un-clear before.

dhw: And you are even more unclear now, since you are totally ignoring all the points we have been debating. This is just a rehash of the first statistic: current species are the ends of the 0.1% of lines that survived your God’s culling process. (You have said earlier that he protected them.) We are still left with him deliberately designing and destroying the 99.9% that had no connection with the 0.1% he apparently planned to design right from the beginning.

Note what I write: "The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!" Each line contributed to the 99.9% extinct.


Intention

DAVID: The intent was only to produce all that are here. Losing forms was an intended part of the process. All culled were for good reason, to produce the current result .[…].
And under “speciation”: you repeat the above comment concerning “two discordant views”, adding “Exactly the purposeful approach you don't understand.”

dhw: I understand your approach perfectly: His one and only purpose was to design us and our contemporaries. But as you have agreed, he designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were NOT the ancestors of us and our contemporaries. Even if you think he protected the 0.1% of survivors, you can still find no “good reason” why he would have adopted such a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the one and only purpose you allow him to have. This is the absurd illogicality that you keep dodging with your digressions and self-contradictions.

DAVID: Your analysis is exactly opposite to mine, purposely to project a bumbling God. The 0.1% here are the survivors of 99.9% gone.

dhw: More fudging. Yes, 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are gone. But 99.9% of all the species that ever lived were NOT the ancestors of current species, though you have your God specially designing them and then destroying them, and you cannot think of a single reason why he would have done so if his one and only purpose was to design current species. Even you have called this method “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”. Now you can add “bumbling”.

You are backwards. This is clear: "Note what I write: "The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!" Each line contributed to the 99.9% extinct."

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Wednesday, February 07, 2024, 11:11 (50 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You continue to conflate the two sets of statistics. 1) Yes, all current species are the product of their own line, and 99.9% of their ancestors have disappeared. […] 2) No, 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed were NOT the ancestors of current species, but were dead ends, as you […] vividly illustrated with all your comments on dinosaurs.
Your latest evasion (repeated in your response to all the questions and blatant self-contradictions) is to reproduce the first set of statistics.

DAVID: The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!" Each line contributed to the 99.9% extinct.

Once more: yes, the 0.1% of all life forms that are here now evolved, and 99.9% of their lines are extinct, Those that are here are indeed their descendants. And yes, the 99.9% of their ancestors contributed to the 99.9% extinction of ALL lines, including the vast majority which did NOT lead to the 0.1% that are here. Start from the beginning, and as time passes, you have millions of lines and species that come and go. 99.9% of the lines do NOT lead to contemporary species. They are dead ends. 0.1% do lead to contemporary species, 99.9% of whose ancestors are also extinct but were not dead ends. However, they are also part of the 99.9% that are extinct. All you have done is conflate the two sets of statistics: (1) contemporary lines with their 99.9% extinction rate of ancestors, and (2) EVERY line that ever existed, with a 99.9% extinction rate. Summary: as you agreed in the first place when asked the question:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

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

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 07, 2024, 17:46 (50 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You continue to conflate the two sets of statistics. 1) Yes, all current species are the product of their own line, and 99.9% of their ancestors have disappeared. […] 2) No, 99.9% of all the life forms that ever existed were NOT the ancestors of current species, but were dead ends, as you […] vividly illustrated with all your comments on dinosaurs.
Your latest evasion (repeated in your response to all the questions and blatant self-contradictions) is to reproduce the first set of statistics.

DAVID: The 0.1% here are the result of 99.9% of EACH LINE evolving. 99.9% did not go nowhere!!! Their decedents are all here!" Each line contributed to the 99.9% extinct.

dhw: Once more: yes, the 0.1% of all life forms that are here now evolved, and 99.9% of their lines are extinct, Those that are here are indeed their descendants. And yes, the 99.9% of their ancestors contributed to the 99.9% extinction of ALL lines, including the vast majority which did NOT lead to the 0.1% that are here. Start from the beginning, and as time passes, you have millions of lines and species that come and go. 99.9% of the lines do NOT lead to contemporary species. They are dead ends. 0.1% do lead to contemporary species, 99.9% of whose ancestors are also extinct but were not dead ends. However, they are also part of the 99.9% that are extinct. All you have done is conflate the two sets of statistics: (1) contemporary lines with their 99.9% extinction rate of ancestors, and (2) EVERY line that ever existed, with a 99.9% extinction rate. Summary: as you agreed in the first place when asked the question:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

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

I have never evaded your criticism. I see God as providing the vast bush of life for human use. Thus, there is nothing discarded as you state. Nothing with no connection. Following the assumption of God in charge, God produced the history of evolution we have discovered and in the development of all forms, 99.9% of their ancestors went extinct, the natural culling process of evolution. No dead ends to God's purpose. You have distorted all of this in your amazing statement: "knowingly designed and then culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with that purpose", exactly the opposite to the facts as applied to God. All the species God wanted are here for our use. You see a wasteful process when there is none. I think you deliberately avoid the concept of purpose. As for why God used the method, we call evolution, is obviously unknown. And yes, my description fits.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Thursday, February 08, 2024, 11:30 (49 days ago) @ David Turell

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

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAVID: Again, your humanized God appears […]

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

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 08, 2024, 18:46 (49 days ago) @ dhw

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Friday, February 09, 2024, 13:23 (48 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: […] I see God as providing the vast bush of life for human use. Thus, there is nothing discarded as you state.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dhw: I have never avoided the concept of purpose, and for the umpteenth time I answered you yesterday on the “Miscellany” thread, but you chose to ignore the answer:

dhw: Enjoyment, interest, experimentation, discovery, learning are all purposes that could underlie the creation of a free-for-all, but of course you, who agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, cannot accept the possibility that he might have thought patterns and emotions like ours.

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

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

dhw: Once upon a time, you had him wanting us to recognize his work, worship him, and maybe have a relationship with him. Not ”humanized”? And once upon a time you were certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. It seems to have become an automatic reaction that the moment you find yourself in agreement with me, you try to withdraw your statements!

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

Yes, you did. And they are humanized.

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

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

DAVID: That bold above is your made in our kind sort of God. Mine is purposeful with no intent to satisfy His own 'needs' and has no need to experiment or enjoy a free-for-all.

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

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Friday, February 09, 2024, 17:50 (48 days ago) @ dhw

There are no dead ends. Everything here in the 0.1% was intended to be here, evolving in each line from the beginning. Your culling complaint tells us you think God should have used direct creation. The other implication is He made and destroyed too many unnecessary forms. God evolved us and you are just complaining about the method, distorting it to make God look like an incompetent boob.


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

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

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

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

See from above: " Everything here in the 0.1% was intended to be here, evolving in each line from the beginning. Your culling complaint tells us you think God should have used direct creation. The other implication is He made and destroyed too many unnecessary forms. God evolved us and you are just complaining about the method, distorting it to make God look like an incompetent boob."


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

dhw: I have never avoided the concept of purpose, and for the umpteenth time I answered you yesterday on the “Miscellany” thread, but you chose to ignore the answer:

dhw: Enjoyment, interest, experimentation, discovery, learning are all purposes that could underlie the creation of a free-for-all, but of course you, who agree that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours, cannot accept the possibility that he might have thought patterns and emotions like ours.

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

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

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


dhw: Once upon a time, you had him wanting us to recognize his work, worship him, and maybe have a relationship with him. Not ”humanized”? And once upon a time you were certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. It seems to have become an automatic reaction that the moment you find yourself in agreement with me, you try to withdraw your statements!

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

dhw: Yes, you did. And they are humanized.

No, allegorical examples.


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

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

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


DAVID: That bold above is your made in our kind sort of God. Mine is purposeful with no intent to satisfy His own 'needs' and has no need to experiment or enjoy a free-for-all.

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

Same old distorted version of Raup's simple statical analysis. From above: " Everything here in the 0.1% was intended to be here, evolving in each line from the beginning. Your culling complaint tells us you think God should have used direct creation. The other implication is He made and destroyed too many unnecessary forms. God evolved us and you are just complaining about the method, distorting it to make God look like an incompetent boob." Culling is simply managing lines of descent!!! Stop dodging the truth.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by dhw, Saturday, February 10, 2024, 08:36 (48 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: There are no dead ends. Everything here in the 0.1% was intended to be here, evolving in each line from the beginning.

No dead ends? You have agreed that 99.9% of species did not evolve into the 0.1 that are here now. How many more times?
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Those from which we are not descended are the dead ends. They did not lead to any of the lines that are here now.Will you ever stop contradicting yourself?

DAVID: Your culling complaint tells us you think God should have used direct creation.

No it doesn’t. It tells us that your God must have had another reason for creating the other 99.9%, or alternatively that he didn’t create them (= the free-for-all). 99.9% extinction is the only fact we have. Your God having to cull irrelevant species is entirely your invention.

DAVID: The other implication is He made and destroyed too many unnecessary forms.

That is exactly YOUR theory: one purpose: us. He creates 99.9% of forms that don’t lead to us. So he kills them off.

DAVID: God evolved us and you are just complaining about the method, distorting it to make God look like an incompetent boob.

That is exactly what you have done with your theory. I offer you alternatives: targeted experimentation (the closest to your theory, but although all his experiments are successful, he learns from them as he goes along); a voyage of discovery, either through non-targeted experimentation or through a free-for-all (with any dabbles he feels like making); enjoyment of creating and watching his creations with interest. In none of these is he an incompetent boob whose method of achieving his purpose is messy, cumbersome and inefficient, to use the terms you apply to your own theory.

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

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

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

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

dhw: Once upon a time, you had him wanting us to recognize his work, worship him, and maybe have a relationship with him. Not ”humanized”? And once upon a time you were certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. It seems to have become an automatic reaction that the moment you find yourself in agreement with me, you try to withdraw your statements!

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

dhw: Yes, you did. And they are humanized.

DAVID: Of course, recognizing that in theological thoughts one must learn to understand the words are allegorical when used to describe God.
And:
DAVID: Allegorical means those words relate to God in a special way.

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

DAVID: That bold above is your made in our kind sort of God. Mine is purposeful with no intent to satisfy His own 'needs' and has no need to experiment or enjoy a free-for-all.

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

Your answer to this was an irrelevant repeat of what you wrote on the “evolution thread”, which I have dealt with there. I have always rejected the word “needs”, but I agree that some of your own proposals could make him sound needy. How do you know he doesn’t want us to worship him etc., and doesn’t create because he enjoys creating?

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 10, 2024, 19:27 (47 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Those from which we are not descended are the dead ends. They did not lead to any of the lines that are here now.Will you ever stop contradicting yourself?

There are no dead ends!! Everything living came from the 99.9% now dead.


DAVID: Your culling complaint tells us you think God should have used direct creation.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It tells us that your God must have had another reason for creating the other 99.9%, or alternatively that he didn’t create them (= the free-for-all). 99.9% extinction is the only fact we have. Your God having to cull irrelevant species is entirely your invention.

More confusion. Nothing existing today is irrelevant.


DAVID: The other implication is He made and destroyed too many unnecessary forms.

dhw: That is exactly YOUR theory: one purpose: us. He creates 99.9% of forms that don’t lead to us. So he kills them off.

Everything here is relevant. Their ancestors make up 99.9% extinct in the descendent lines.


DAVID: God evolved us and you are just complaining about the method, distorting it to make God look like an incompetent boob.

dhw: That is exactly what you have done with your theory. I offer you alternatives: targeted experimentation (the closest to your theory, but although all his experiments are successful, he learns from them as he goes along); a voyage of discovery, either through non-targeted experimentation or through a free-for-all (with any dabbles he feels like making); enjoyment of creating and watching his creations with interest. In none of these is he an incompetent boob whose method of achieving his purpose is messy, cumbersome and inefficient, to use the terms you apply to your own theory.

Same old humanized God.


DAVID: Your God example ignores a directly purposeful approach,;-) and you offer your usual humanized God made in our image.

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

The bold is not the meaning of the 99.9%. It is the extinction rate in each line contributed to the resultant 99.9% sum. Open your mind to the true meaning from Raup.


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

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

Your meander about God is from baselessness.

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

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

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


DAVID: That bold above is your made in our kind sort of God. Mine is purposeful with no intent to satisfy His own 'needs' and has no need to experiment or enjoy a free-for-all.

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

dhw: Your answer to this was an irrelevant repeat of what you wrote on the “evolution thread”, which I have dealt with there. I have always rejected the word “needs”, but I agree that some of your own proposals could make him sound needy. How do you know he doesn’t want us to worship him etc., and doesn’t create because he enjoys creating?

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

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Sunday, February 11, 2024, 08:47 (47 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

We agree that approx. 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct. You keep agreeing that 99.9% of all the species that have ever lived were NOT ancestors of current species. I shan’t repeat all the quotes, as this one will suffice:

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Dinosaurs are a clear example. You wrote: “Dinosaurs are 100% dead. They might be the ancestors of birds, but that is disputed now.” If they were the ancestors of birds, then approx. 0.1% of dinosaurs evolved into birds and the rest were dead ends. If dinosaurs were NOT the ancestors of birds, they were 100% dead ends.

DAVID: There are no dead ends!! Everything living came from the 99.9% now dead.

No, everything living came from the 0.1% of extinct species that evolved into current species: in your own words, “from the 0.1% surviving”.

DAVID: Nothing existing today is irrelevant.
And:
DAVID: Everything here is relevant. Their ancestors make up 99.9% extinct in the descendent lines.
And:
DAVID: It is the extinction rate in each line contributed to the resultant 99.9% sum.

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

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

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

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

Purpose

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

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

DAVID: Your meander about God is from baselessness.

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

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

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

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

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

DAVID: God obviously wished us here.

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

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

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

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

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

99.9% and 0.1%

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

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

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

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

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


Purpose

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

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

DAVID: Your meander about God is from baselessness.

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

Evolution is obviously cumbersome.


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

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

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

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

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


DAVID: God obviously wished us here.

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

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


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

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

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

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Monday, February 12, 2024, 13:52 (45 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

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

DAVID: Remember my triangle example. The point is the start of life; the base is the present life, and the area of the triangle is the 99.9%.
My triangle represents the spreading bush. Its' area is the 99.9% ancestors.

A triangle is not a bush! A triangle joins up, and a bush spreads out. The 99.9% are not just the extinct ancestors of today’s species – they are ALL extinct species, of which only 0.1% are our ancestors.

DAVID: Of course, some lines were dead ends, and they part of the 99.9% Raup statistic of extinctions which led to the present surviving life.

Correct. Two days ago you wrote: “There are no dead ends!! Everything living came from the 99.9% now dead.” A direct contradiction of what you have just written, and of the quote you keep trying to avoid:

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

DAVID: Raup's number includes every average extinction in every line and also dead ends. DEAD ENDS WERE NOT GIVEN A SPECIAL STATISTIC.
And:
Same old distortion of Raup's statistic. Millions of species lines were not culled. What is here is exactly what God planned to be here.

I didn’t say dead ends were given a special statistic. Two days ago you denied that there were any dead ends! Current species are the 0.1% of survivors, which means that 99.9% of extinct species were dead ends. There are indeed millions of lines that were not culled. The current estimate is that there are 8.7 million species of plants and animals alive today, compared to 5000,000,000 that were “culled”. (Of course nobody can possibly know the exact figures.) That would be a percentage of 0.18 connected with us. Why would your all-powerful, one-purpose God design and cull 99.82 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose?

Purpose

DAVID: Your meander about God is from baselessness.

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

DAVID: Evolution is obviously cumbersome.

You’ve forgotten “messy” and “inefficient” and that you are talking about your God's work. It’s only so if you insist that he had one special purpose and kept messing it up by designing species irrelevant to his purpose. It’s none of those things if you allow him a different purpose, or if you stop insisting that he deliberately designed every irrelevant species. But you have fixed your beliefs, and refuse to consider the possibility that one or both might be wrong. You’d rather label your God’s work messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

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

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

So stop pretending that the words are “allegorical” and might not MEAN the same to God as they do to us. Of course none of us know what God – if he exists – is like, which is why it is totally ridiculous for you to claim that your God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and has no self-interest - although you think he wants us to worship him – and therefore cannot possibly do something because he enjoys doing it, or because he wants to make new discoveries. Your illogical and frequently contradictory beliefs have no more authority than my speculations.
This covers the rest of the post.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Monday, February 12, 2024, 18:53 (45 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: Remember my triangle example. The point is the start of life; the base is the present life, and the area of the triangle is the 99.9%.
My triangle represents the spreading bush. Its' area is the 99.9% ancestors.

dhw: A triangle is not a bush! A triangle joins up, and a bush spreads out. The 99.9% are not just the extinct ancestors of today’s species – they are ALL extinct species, of which only 0.1% are our ancestors.

I use the triangle which resembles a spreading bush in shape!.


DAVID: Of course, some lines were dead ends, and they part of the 99.9% Raup statistic of extinctions which led to the present surviving life.

Correct. Two days ago you wrote: “There are no dead ends!! Everything living came from the 99.9% now dead.” A direct contradiction of what you have just written, and of the quote you keep trying to avoid:

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

DAVID: Raup's number includes every average extinction in every line and also dead ends. DEAD ENDS WERE NOT GIVEN A SPECIAL STATISTIC.
And:
Same old distortion of Raup's statistic. Millions of species lines were not culled. What is here is exactly what God planned to be here.

dhw: I didn’t say dead ends were given a special statistic. Two days ago you denied that there were any dead ends! Current species are the 0.1% of survivors, which means that 99.9% of extinct species were dead ends. There are indeed millions of lines that were not culled. The current estimate is that there are 8.7 million species of plants and animals alive today, compared to 5000,000,000 that were “culled”. (Of course nobody can possibly know the exact figures.) That would be a percentage of 0.18 connected with us. Why would your all-powerful, one-purpose God design and cull 99.82 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose?

Same old complaint. You have just described how evolution works, the next new species comes from the old one. A purposeful process builds one step upon the last one, resulting in the 8.7 billion species here, with 99.9% of ancestors. Nothing was culled for NO GOOD REASON.


Purpose

DAVID: Your meander about God is from baselessness.

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

DAVID: Evolution is obviously cumbersome.

dhw: You’ve forgotten “messy” and “inefficient” and that you are talking about your God's work. It’s only so if you insist that he had one special purpose and kept messing it up by designing species irrelevant to his purpose. It’s none of those things if you allow him a different purpose, or if you stop insisting that he deliberately designed every irrelevant species. But you have fixed your beliefs, and refuse to consider the possibility that one or both might be wrong. You’d rather label your God’s work messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

Yes, cumbersome and inefficient bur when viewed as a purposeful design, nothing was extraneous. Your implication is God developed unnecessary species and threw them away. He simply culled/trimmed the lines He wanted to be here. I image all ecosystems in evolution were efficient and necessary.


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

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

dhw: So stop pretending that the words are “allegorical” and might not MEAN the same to God as they do to us. Of course none of us know what God – if he exists – is like, which is why it is totally ridiculous for you to claim that your God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, and has no self-interest - although you think he wants us to worship him – and therefore cannot possibly do something because he enjoys doing it, or because he wants to make new discoveries. Your illogical and frequently contradictory beliefs have no more authority than my speculations.

These words are not what they MEAN to God as you phrase it. It is, can they describe God in any meaningful way? My image of God is totally unknown to you, based on your criticisms. I agree all of us has the right to imagine God in their own way,

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Monday, February 12, 2024, 22:04 (45 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

dhw: Current species are the 0.1% of survivors, which means that 99.9% of extinct species were dead ends. There are indeed millions of lines that were not culled. The current estimate is that there are 8.7 million species of plants and animals alive today, compared to 5000,000,000 that were “culled”. That would be a percentage of 0.18 connected with us. Why would your all-powerful, one-purpose God design and cull 99.82 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose?


DAVID: You have just described how evolution works. New species comes from the old one. A purposeful process builds one step upon the last one, resulting in the 8.7 billion species here, with 99.9% of ancestors. Nothing was culled for NO GOOD REASON.

We know that many species of dinosaurs preceded the ones that became birds. In this one instance, God had many become extinct in reaching His goal. Here is an article on feather and flight development:

https://phys.org/news/2024-02-hidden-flight-feathers-reveal-dinosaurs.html

"In a new study in the journal PNAS, scientists examined hundreds of birds in museum collections and discovered a suite of feather characteristics that all flying birds have in common. These "rules" provide clues as to how the dinosaur ancestors of modern birds first evolved the ability to fly, and which dinosaurs were capable of flight.

"Not all dinosaurs evolved into birds, but all living birds are dinosaurs. Birds are members of the group of dinosaurs that survived when an asteroid hit the Earth 66 million years ago. Long before the asteroid hit, some of the members of a group of dinosaurs called Penneraptorans began to evolve feathers and the ability to fly.

"Members of the Penneraptoran group began to develop feathers before they were able to fly; the original purpose of feathers might have been for insulation or to attract mates. For instance, Velociraptor had feathers, but it couldn't fly.

***

"Kiat undertook a study of the feathers of every order of living birds, examining specimens from 346 different species preserved in museums around the world. As he looked at the wings and feathers from hummingbirds and hawks, penguins and pelicans, he noticed a number of consistent traits among species that can fly.

"For instance, in addition to asymmetrical feathers, all the flighted birds had between nine and 11 primary feathers. In flightless birds, the number varies widely— penguins have more than 40, while emus have none. It's a deceptively simple rule that's seemingly gone unnoticed by scientists.

"'It's really surprising, that with so many styles of flight we can find in modern birds, they all share this trait of having between nine and 11 primary feathers," says Kiat. "And I was surprised that no one seems to have found this before."

***

"In addition to modern birds, the researchers also examined 65 fossil specimens representing 35 different species of feathered dinosaurs and extinct birds. By applying the findings from modern birds, the researchers were able to extrapolate information about the fossils. "You can basically look at the overlap of the number of primary feathers and the shape of those feathers to determine if a fossil bird could fly, and whether its ancestors could," says O'Connor.

"For instance, the researchers looked at the feathered dinosaur Caudipteryx. Caudipteryx had nine primary feathers, but those feathers are almost symmetrical, and the proportions of its wings would have made flight impossible. The researchers said it's possible that Caudipteryx had an ancestor that was capable of flight, but that trait was lost by the time Caudipteryx arrived on the scene.

***

"Taken a step further, these data may inform the conversation among scientists about the origins of dinosaurian flight. "It was only recently that scientists realized that birds are not the only flying dinosaurs," says O'Connor.

"'And there have been debates about whether flight evolved in dinosaurs just once, or multiple separate times. Our results here seem to suggest that flight only evolved once in dinosaurs, but we have to really recognize that our understanding of flight in dinosaurs is just beginning, and we're likely still missing some of the earliest stages of feathered wing evolution."

"'Our study, which combines paleontological data based on fossils of extinct species with information from birds that live today, provides interesting insights into feathers and plumage—one of the most interesting evolutionary novelties among vertebrates. Thus, it helps us learn about the evolution of these dinosaurs and highlights the importance of integrating knowledge from different sources for an improved understanding of evolutionary processes," says Kiat.

"'Theropod dinosaurs, including birds, are one of the most successful vertebrate lineages on our planet," says O'Connor.

"'One of the reasons that they're so successful is their flight. One of the other reasons is probably their feathers, because there's such versatile structures. So any information that can help us understand how these two important features co-evolved that led to this enormous success is really important.'"

Comment: that birds are dinosaurs is now obvious. How dinosaurs contributed to the ecosystems of their time may explain their required existence. I view a purposeful God has having a good reason for their prolific population in their time of existence.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Tuesday, February 13, 2024, 13:07 (44 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: My triangle represents the spreading bush. Its' area is the 99.9% ancestors.

The branches of a bush do not join together once they leave their common base. It doesn’t matter anyway. Your so-called area is the 99.9% of extinct species, of which only 0.1% were the ancestors of current species. Stop distorting the figures.

DAVID: Of course, some lines were dead ends, and they part of the 99.9% Raup statistic of extinctions which led to the present surviving life.

Correct. Two days ago you wrote: “There are no dead ends!! Everything living came from the 99.9% now dead.” A direct contradiction of [..] the quote you keep trying to avoid:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

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

DAVID: Same old complaint. You have just described how evolution works, the next new species comes from the old one.

Correct. That is called common descent.

DAVID: A purposeful process builds one step upon the last one, resulting in the 8.7 billion species here, with 99.9% of ancestors. Nothing was culled for NO GOOD REASON.

You need new glasses! The current estimate is 8.7 million (not billion) current species, compared to 5 billion extinct species. 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct, and the rest of the 5 billion species were NOT our ancestors, as you agreed in the quote you keep ignoring. Here it is again:
dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

So stop distorting the figures.

Dinosaurs

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

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

Purpose

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

DAVID: Yes, cumbersome and inefficient bur when viewed as a purposeful design, nothing was extraneous. Your implication is God developed unnecessary species and threw them away.

That is YOUR theory. Purposeful design: current species. Your God designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species unconnected with current species. That’s why you call his method inefficient etc.

DAVID: He simply culled/trimmed the lines He wanted to be here.

The lines he wanted constituted 0.1%, but as you have agreed, he also culled the rest of the 99.9%. His design and culling of all the non-ancestors is the reason why you call your God’s work messy, cumbersome and inefficient, but despite its absurd illogicality and insult to your God, you refuse to countenance the possibility that you might have got it all wrong.

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

DAVID: These words are not what they MEAN to God as you phrase it. It is, can they describe God in any meaningful way?

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

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

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

DAVID: I agree all of us has the right to imagine God in their own way.

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

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 13, 2024, 17:56 (44 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

dhw: Do you believe that we and our food are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?
DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

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

DAVID: Same old complaint. You have just described how evolution works, the next new species comes from the old one.

dhw: Correct. That is called common descent.

DAVID: A purposeful process builds one step upon the last one, resulting in the 8.7 billion species here, with 99.9% of ancestors. Nothing was culled for NO GOOD REASON.

dhw: The current estimate is 8.7 million (not billion) current species, compared to 5 billion extinct species. 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct, and the rest of the 5 billion species were NOT our ancestors, as you agreed in the quote you keep ignoring.

dhw: So stop distorting the figures.

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


Dinosaurs

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

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

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


Purpose

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

DAVID: Yes, cumbersome and inefficient bur when viewed as a purposeful design, nothing was extraneous. Your implication is God developed unnecessary species and threw them away.

dhw: That is YOUR theory. Purposeful design: current species. Your God designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species unconnected with current species. That’s why you call his method inefficient etc.

Not correct!!! God produced what He wanted here. All past lines were intended and the trimming of twigs on the lines produced the 99.9% gone.

dhw: The lines he wanted constituted 0.1%, but as you have agreed, he also culled the rest of the 99.9%. His design and culling of all the non-ancestors is the reason why you call your God’s work messy, cumbersome and inefficient, but despite its absurd illogicality and insult to your God, you refuse to countenance the possibility that you might have got it all wrong.

Wrong!! The 99.9% are the direct ancestors of all the 0.1% living. You cannot split them apart as you state into two disinct separate entities.


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

DAVID: These words are not what they MEAN to God as you phrase it. It is, can they describe God in any meaningful way?

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

Right, therefore allegorical.


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

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

God does not create to satisfy an inner need or self-interest.


DAVID: I agree all of us has the right to imagine God in their own way.

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

Thank you for protecting my God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Wednesday, February 14, 2024, 10:48 (43 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

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

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

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

References:
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Extinction
5 billion
Discovery magazine
https://www/discoverymagazine.com>PlanetEarth
4 billion
Harvard University
https://bionumbers.hms.harvard.edu>bionumbe
4 billion

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

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

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

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

DAVID: God produced what He wanted here. All past lines were intended and the trimming of twigs on the lines produced the 99.9% gone.
And:
DAVID: The 99.9% are the direct ancestors of all the 0.1% living. You cannot split them apart as you state into two disinct separate entities.

How many more times? 99.9% of extinct species were NOT the direct ancestors of the 0.1% now living. Listen to yourself yet again:
dhw: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE AND OUR FOOD ARE DIRECTLY DESCENDED FROM 99.9% OF ALL CREATURES THAT EVER LIVED?
DAVID: NO. FROM THE 0.1% SURVIVING.

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

Purpose

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

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

DAVID: Right, therefore allegorical.

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

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

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

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

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

DAVID: Thank you for protecting my God.

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

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 14, 2024, 16:51 (43 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Still total confusion.


Purpose

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

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

DAVID: Right, therefore allegorical.

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

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

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

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

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

DAVID: Thank you for protecting my God.

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

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

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Thursday, February 15, 2024, 09:18 (43 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

This whole discussion has been a (fairly) successful attempt to divert attention away from the basic question I have been posing for years. Let us end the digression with the all-important quote:

dhw: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE AND OUR FOOD ARE DIRECTLY DESCENDED FROM 99.9% OF ALL CREATURES THAT EVER LIVED?

DAVID: NO. FROM THE 0.1% SURVIVING.

Let us now forget about percentages, and consider each of your theories one by one. You have accepted that there have been species from which we and our food (our contemporary species) are not descended. Your theory is that we and all current species were your God’s purpose from the very beginning. You believe that he individually created every species that ever lived. You believe that he culled all the species that were not going to lead to contemporary species. QUESTION: Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design and then cull species which he knew were not going to lead to the only species he wanted to design?
In the past you have admitted that you don’t know the answer. But you refuse to accept the possibility that one or more of your basic premises might be wrong.

Please pinpoint anything in the above that you disagree with. If you accept its accuracy, we can end the discussion on percentages, which sheds no light on the question.

Purpose

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

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

DAVID: Thank you for protecting my God.

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

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

If your God exists, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have had a purpose in designing life. I’m not questioning your honesty, but I am questioning why you ridicule him by limiting him to one purpose and making out that he devoted himself to messily and inefficiently designing species that had no connection with his purpose. And I question your assumptions about his nature, which frequently contradict your own views of his nature, e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he has no self-interest.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 15, 2024, 18:27 (42 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

This whole discussion has been a (fairly) successful attempt to divert attention away from the basic question I have been posing for years. Let us end the digression with the all-important quote:

dhw: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE AND OUR FOOD ARE DIRECTLY DESCENDED FROM 99.9% OF ALL CREATURES THAT EVER LIVED?

DAVID: NO. FROM THE 0.1% SURVIVING.

dhw: Let us now forget about percentages, and consider each of your theories one by one. You have accepted that there have been species from which we and our food (our contemporary species) are not descended. Your theory is that we and all current species were your God’s purpose from the very beginning. You believe that he individually created every species that ever lived. You believe that he culled all the species that were not going to lead to contemporary species. QUESTION: Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design and then cull species which he knew were not going to lead to the only species he wanted to design?
In the past you have admitted that you don’t know the answer. But you refuse to accept the possibility that one or more of your basic premises might be wrong.

Please pinpoint anything in the above that you disagree with. If you accept its accuracy, we can end the discussion on percentages, which sheds no light on the question.

Again, I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. I see a purposeful God setting out lines of specific organisms to fit His final goals of all the species on the Earth for humans to use.

No lines were ever sacrificed., which is your premise. What God destroyed were twigs/branches of lines He trimmed away. I have the same complaint you have. Evolution is a messy system. How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.

Purpose

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

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

DAVID: Thank you for protecting my God.

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

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

dhw: If your God exists, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have had a purpose in designing life. I’m not questioning your honesty, but I am questioning why you ridicule him by limiting him to one purpose and making out that he devoted himself to messily and inefficiently designing species that had no connection with his purpose. And I question your assumptions about his nature, which frequently contradict your own views of his nature, e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he has no self-interest.

First, my God did not produce us so we would worship Him. That worship might happen was quite a secondary thought. Yes, I limit the possibilities; we are here running the Earth. That is the true endpoint. The bold is your usual distortion. As above, no intended lines were discarded, as you imply. God trimmed the bush of life to reach the present species on Earth.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Friday, February 16, 2024, 11:30 (41 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

This whole discussion has been a (fairly) successful attempt to divert attention away from the basic question I have been posing for years. Let us end the digression with the all-important quote:

dhw: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WE AND OUR FOOD ARE DIRECTLY DESCENDED FROM 99.9% OF ALL CREATURES THAT EVER LIVED?

DAVID: NO. FROM THE 0.1% SURVIVING.

dhw: Let us now forget about percentages, and consider each of your theories one by one. You have accepted that there have been species from which we and our food (our contemporary species) are not descended. Your theory is that we and all current species were your God’s purpose from the very beginning. You believe that he individually created every species that ever lived. You believe that he culled all the species that were not going to lead to contemporary species. QUESTION: Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design and then cull species which he knew were not going to lead to the only species he wanted to design?
In the past you have admitted that you don’t know the answer. But you refuse to accept the possibility that one or more of your basic premises might be wrong.
Please pinpoint anything in the above that you disagree with. If you accept its accuracy, we can end the discussion on percentages, which sheds no light on the question.

DAVID: Again, I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. I see a purposeful God setting out lines of specific organisms to fit His final goals of all the species on the Earth for humans to use.

Here we go again! You also see a purposeful God setting out to design and then cull lines of specific organisms that have nothing to do with all the species currently on Earth, so what might have been his purpose for designing them? You have no idea. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No lines were ever sacrificed., which is your premise. What God destroyed were twigs/branches of lines He trimmed away.

It’s you who say that ALL the lines were deliberately designed and culled (now "sacrificed"), including the millions of “twigs/branches” that did NOT grow into the only ones he wanted to design. Stop dodging!

DAVID: I have the same complaint you have. Evolution is a messy system.

It’s not evolution that’s messy. It’s your interpretation that makes your God's method messy, because you insist on one purpose, and the deliberate design and culling of millions of species unconnected with that purpose. Stop dodging!

DAVID: How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.

This is a welcome concession, except that I have no idea what you mean by “automatic” experimentation. Assuming your God exists, either he would have deliberately experimented with each design, or he would have designed organisms to do their own experimenting. There’s hope yet! Do you now accept both these theories as possible?

Purpose

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

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

dhw: If your God exists, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have had a purpose in designing life. I’m not questioning your honesty, but I am questioning why you ridicule him by limiting him to one purpose and making out that he devoted himself to messily and inefficiently designing species that had no connection with his purpose. And I question your assumptions about his nature, which frequently contradict your own views of his nature, e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he has no self-interest.

DAVID: First, my God did not produce us so we would worship Him. That worship might happen was quite a secondary thought.

How do you know? If you think he wants us to worship him, why do you think it couldn’t have been a prime purpose for his designing us?

DAVID: Yes, I limit the possibilities; we are here running the Earth. That is the true endpoint.

“Endpoint” does not have to mean one and only purpose! We can worship him and still run the Earth. What would have been his purpose anyway, to have us running the Earth?

DAVID: The bold is your usual distortion. As above, no intended lines were discarded, as you imply. God trimmed the bush of life to reach the present species on Earth.

How many more times? You insist that your God only wanted the present species, but intentionally designed every twig, the vast majority of which did NOT grow into the present species on Earth. You tell us that he “culled them” – they were dead ends. So why did he intentionally design dead ends? You know it makes no sense. So stop dodging.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Friday, February 16, 2024, 18:14 (41 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

dhw: Let us now forget about percentages, and consider each of your theories one by one. You have accepted that there have been species from which we and our food (our contemporary species) are not descended. Your theory is that we and all current species were your God’s purpose from the very beginning. You believe that he individually created every species that ever lived. You believe that he culled all the species that were not going to lead to contemporary species. QUESTION: Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design and then cull species which he knew were not going to lead to the only species he wanted to design?
In the past you have admitted that you don’t know the answer. But you refuse to accept the possibility that one or more of your basic premises might be wrong.
Please pinpoint anything in the above that you disagree with. If you accept its accuracy, we can end the discussion on percentages, which sheds no light on the question.

DAVID: Again, I have no idea why God chose to evolve us. I see a purposeful God setting out lines of specific organisms to fit His final goals of all the species on the Earth for humans to use.

dhw: Here we go again! You also see a purposeful God setting out to design and then cull lines of specific organisms that have nothing to do with all the species currently on Earth, so what might have been his purpose for designing them? You have no idea. Stop dodging!

DAVID: No lines were ever sacrificed., which is your premise. What God destroyed were twigs/branches of lines He trimmed away.

dhw: It’s you who say that ALL the lines were deliberately designed and culled (now "sacrificed"), including the millions of “twigs/branches” that did NOT grow into the only ones he wanted to design. Stop dodging!

When one trims a bush, He creates specific branches reaching to the desired tips.


DAVID: I have the same complaint you have. Evolution is a messy system.

dhw: It’s not evolution that’s messy. It’s your interpretation that makes your God's method messy, because you insist on one purpose, and the deliberate design and culling of millions of species unconnected with that purpose. Stop dodging!

DAVID: How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.

dhw: This is a welcome concession, except that I have no idea what you mean by “automatic” experimentation. Assuming your God exists, either he would have deliberately experimented with each design, or he would have designed organisms to do their own experimenting. There’s hope yet! Do you now accept both these theories as possible?

I can see some degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs.


Purpose

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

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

dhw: If your God exists, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have had a purpose in designing life. I’m not questioning your honesty, but I am questioning why you ridicule him by limiting him to one purpose and making out that he devoted himself to messily and inefficiently designing species that had no connection with his purpose. And I question your assumptions about his nature, which frequently contradict your own views of his nature, e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he has no self-interest.

DAVID: First, my God did not produce us so we would worship Him. That worship might happen was quite a secondary thought.

dhw: How do you know? If you think he wants us to worship him, why do you think it couldn’t have been a prime purpose for his designing us?

As above, a secondary event since we have free will to worship or not.


DAVID: Yes, I limit the possibilities; we are here running the Earth. That is the true endpoint.

dhw: “Endpoint” does not have to mean one and only purpose! We can worship him and still run the Earth. What would have been his purpose anyway, to have us running the Earth?

That is what we are doing, running the Earth. As an endpoint, that was His plan.


DAVID: The bold is your usual distortion. As above, no intended lines were discarded, as you imply. God trimmed the bush of life to reach the present species on Earth.

dhw: How many more times? You insist that your God only wanted the present species, but intentionally designed every twig, the vast majority of which did NOT grow into the present species on Earth. You tell us that he “culled them” – they were dead ends. So why did he intentionally design dead ends? You know it makes no sense. So stop dodging.

Not dodged above: "I can see some degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs."

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Saturday, February 17, 2024, 08:36 (41 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

dhw: Let us now forget about percentages, and consider each of your theories one by one. You have accepted that there have been species from which we and our food (our contemporary species) are not descended. Your theory is that we and all current species were your God’s purpose from the very beginning. You believe that he individually created every species that ever lived. You believe that he culled all the species that were not going to lead to contemporary species. QUESTION: Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design and then cull species which he knew were not going to lead to the only species he wanted to design?
In the past you have admitted that you don’t know the answer. But you refuse to accept the possibility that one or more of your basic premises might be wrong.
Please pinpoint anything in the above that you disagree with. If you accept its accuracy, we can end the discussion on percentages, which sheds no light on the question
. […]

DAVID: No lines were ever sacrificed., which is your premise. What God destroyed were twigs/branches of lines He trimmed away.

dhw: It’s you who say that ALL the lines were deliberately designed and culled (now "sacrificed"), including the millions of “twigs/branches” that did NOT grow into the only ones he wanted to design. Stop dodging!

DAVID: When one trims a bush, He creates specific branches reaching to the desired tips.

This is getting silly. In your theory, he creates specific branches reaching to the desired tips, but he also creates millions of branches that don’t reach the required tips, so he cuts them off. Why does he create them in the first place? You have no idea. We must ask God to explain the messy, inefficient method you impose on him.

DAVID: How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.

dhw: This is a welcome concession, except that I have no idea what you mean by “automatic” experimentation. Assuming your God exists, either he would have deliberately experimented with each design, or he would have designed organisms to do their own experimenting. There’s hope yet! Do you now accept both these theories as possible?

DAVID: I can see some degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs.

Please explain what you mean by “automaticity” here? Do you mean that species were given the power to design themselves? Who or what would be conducting the experimentation?

Purpose

dhw: If your God exists, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have had a purpose in designing life. I’m not questioning your honesty, but I am questioning why you ridicule him by limiting him to one purpose and making out that bbbhe devoted himself to messily and inefficiently designing species that had no connection with his purpose. bbbAnd I question your assumptions about his nature, which frequently contradict your own views of his nature, e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he has no self-interest.

DAVID: First, my God did not produce us so we would worship Him. That worship might happen was quite a secondary thought.

dhw: How do you know? If you think he wants us to worship him, why do you think it couldn’t have been a prime purpose for his designing us?

DAVID: As above, a secondary event since we have free will to worship or not.

If he wants us to worship him, he would hardly get any satisfaction if he programmed us to worship him! Why is wanting to be worshipped a “secondary” event?

DAVID: Yes, I limit the possibilities; we are here running the Earth. That is the true endpoint.

dhw: “Endpoint” does not have to mean one and only purpose! We can worship him and still run the Earth. What would have been his purpose anyway, to have us running the Earth?

DAVID: That is what we are doing, running the Earth. As an endpoint, that was His plan.

Please answer my question. Why do you think he wanted us to run the Earth? And why should such a plan exclude the possibility that above all else, he might want us to worship him, and to recognize his wonderful work, and even to have a relationship with him?

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Saturday, February 17, 2024, 17:43 (40 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: No lines were ever sacrificed., which is your premise. What God destroyed were twigs/branches of lines He trimmed away.

dhw: It’s you who say that ALL the lines were deliberately designed and culled (now "sacrificed"), including the millions of “twigs/branches” that did NOT grow into the only ones he wanted to design. Stop dodging!

DAVID: When one trims a bush, He creates specific branches reaching to the desired tips.

dhw: This is getting silly. In your theory, he creates specific branches reaching to the desired tips, but he also creates millions of branches that don’t reach the required tips, so he cuts them off. Why does he create them in the first place? You have no idea. We must ask God to explain the messy, inefficient method you impose on him.

God chose to use this system. No further explanation is needed.


DAVID: How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.

dhw: This is a welcome concession, except that I have no idea what you mean by “automatic” experimentation. Assuming your God exists, either he would have deliberately experimented with each design, or he would have designed organisms to do their own experimenting. There’s hope yet! Do you now accept both these theories as possible?

DAVID: I can see some degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs.

dhw: Please explain what you mean by “automaticity” here? Do you mean that species were given the power to design themselves? Who or what would be conducting the experimentation?

The issue is how much speciation ability organisms had in the past, if any or not. Following your line of thought re brilliant cell committees, that raises the possibility of an organism creating new species for God to judge. Small steps are a possibility.


Purpose

dhw: If your God exists, I have absolutely no doubt that he would have had a purpose in designing life. I’m not questioning your honesty, but I am questioning why you ridicule him by limiting him to one purpose and making out that bbbhe devoted himself to messily and inefficiently designing species that had no connection with his purpose. bbbAnd I question your assumptions about his nature, which frequently contradict your own views of his nature, e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he has no self-interest.

DAVID: First, my God did not produce us so we would worship Him. That worship might happen was quite a secondary thought.

dhw: How do you know? If you think he wants us to worship him, why do you think it couldn’t have been a prime purpose for his designing us?

DAVID: As above, a secondary event since we have free will to worship or not?

If he wants us to worship him, he would hardly get any satisfaction if he programmed us to worship him! Why is wanting to be worshipped a “secondary” event?

DAVID: Yes, I limit the possibilities; we are here running the Earth. That is the true endpoint.

dhw: “Endpoint” does not have to mean one and only purpose! We can worship him and still run the Earth. What would have been his purpose anyway, to have us running the Earth?

DAVID: That is what we are doing, running the Earth. As an endpoint, that was His plan.

dhw: Please answer my question. Why do you think he wanted us to run the Earth? And why should such a plan exclude the possibility that above all else, he might want us to worship him, and to recognize his wonderful work, and even to have a relationship with him?

He created very sentient organisms to do the job. That He wish the relationships you propose is possible. The main purpose was to create us, nothing further.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Sunday, February 18, 2024, 12:20 (39 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: No lines were ever sacrificed., which is your premise. What God destroyed were twigs/branches of lines He trimmed away.

dhw: It’s you who say that ALL the lines were deliberately designed and culled (now "sacrificed"), including the millions of “twigs/branches” that did NOT grow into the only ones he wanted to design. Stop dodging!

DAVID: When one trims a bush, He creates specific branches reaching to the desired tips.

dhw: This is getting silly. In your theory, he creates specific branches reaching to the desired tips, but he also creates millions of branches that don’t reach the required tips, so he cuts them off. Why does he create them in the first place? You have no idea. We must ask God to explain the messy, inefficient method you impose on him.

DAVID: God chose to use this system. No further explanation is needed.

Please stop pretending that you know your God chose a system which you yourself ridicule as being messy and inefficient. If God exists, nobody knows (a) that his one and only purpose was us and our food, (b) that he individually created every species, (c) that he knew he was messing things up by inefficiently designing and then having to cull species which had nothing to do with his one and only purpose. That is all your theory, none of it is factual, and the fact that it makes no sense to you should alert you to the possibility that one or other of your beliefs might be wrong. But there is hope in the next comment:

DAVID: I can see some degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs.

dhw: Please explain what you mean by “automaticity” here? Do you mean that species were given the power to design themselves? Who or what would be conducting the experimentation?

DAVID: The issue is how much speciation ability organisms had in the past, if any or not.

Yes, that is one alternative. Another is the possibility that your God was experimenting.

DAVID: Following your line of thought re brilliant cell committees, that raises the possibility of an organism creating new species for God to judge. Small steps are a possibility.

I don’t know where “judgement” comes into it. Shapiro’s theory is that intelligent cells designed the “novelties” of speciation. If your God gave cells the autonomous ability to make small steps, it must have been possible for him also to give them the autonomous ability to make large steps. (See dualism for the meaning of “autonomy”.)

Purpose

dhw: I question your assumptions about his nature, which frequently contradict your own views of his nature, e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he has no self-interest.[…]

DAVID: […] we are here running the Earth. That is the true endpoint.

dhw: Please answer my question. Why do you think he wanted us to run the Earth? And why should such a plan exclude the possibility that above all else, he might want us to worship him, and to recognize his wonderful work, and even to have a relationship with him?

DAVID: He created very sentient organisms to do the job. That He wish the relationships you propose is possible. The main purpose was to create us, nothing further.

It was you who proposed that he wanted worship, recognition and a relationship! And you may well be right. They would all be very understandable motives for his creating us (if he exists). You keep telling us that your God is all-purposeful, and that his “main purpose” was to create us. But now you refuse to consider the obvious point that he must have had a purpose for wanting to create us (and for wanting us to be the dominant species in charge of the Earth). Your proposals concerning worship etc. are perfectly reasonable, but of course they are a problem for you because they run counter to your preconception of God as being without self-interest.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Sunday, February 18, 2024, 18:21 (39 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: God chose to use this system. No further explanation is needed.

dhw: Please stop pretending that you know your God chose a system which you yourself ridicule as being messy and inefficient. If God exists, nobody knows (a) that his one and only purpose was us and our food, (b) that he individually created every species, (c) that he knew he was messing things up by inefficiently designing and then having to cull species which had nothing to do with his one and only purpose. That is all your theory, none of it is factual, and the fact that it makes no sense to you should alert you to the possibility that one or other of your beliefs might be wrong. But there is hope in the next comment:

DAVID: I can see some degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs.

dhw: Please explain what you mean by “automaticity” here? Do you mean that species were given the power to design themselves? Who or what would be conducting the experimentation?

DAVID: The issue is how much speciation ability organisms had in the past, if any or not.

dhw: Yes, that is one alternative. Another is the possibility that your God was experimenting.

DAVID: Following your line of thought re brilliant cell committees, that raises the possibility of an organism creating new species for God to judge. Small steps are a possibility.

dhw: I don’t know where “judgement” comes into it. Shapiro’s theory is that intelligent cells designed the “novelties” of speciation. If your God gave cells the autonomous ability to make small steps, it must have been possible for him also to give them the autonomous ability to make large steps. (See dualism for the meaning of “autonomy”.)

Anything is possible. God judges evolution as it progresses. Behe shows evolution progresses in small ways without designer intervention. So, the theory becomes: God does large steps and watches as tiny steps happen to be sure they are correct.


Purpose

dhw: I question your assumptions about his nature, which frequently contradict your own views of his nature, e.g. he wants us to worship him, but he has no self-interest.[…]

DAVID: […] we are here running the Earth. That is the true endpoint.

dhw: Please answer my question. Why do you think he wanted us to run the Earth? And why should such a plan exclude the possibility that above all else, he might want us to worship him, and to recognize his wonderful work, and even to have a relationship with him?

DAVID: He created very sentient organisms to do the job. That He wish the relationships you propose is possible. The main purpose was to create us, nothing further.

dhw: It was you who proposed that he wanted worship, recognition and a relationship! And you may well be right. They would all be very understandable motives for his creating us (if he exists). You keep telling us that your God is all-purposeful, and that his “main purpose” was to create us. But now you refuse to consider the obvious point that he must have had a purpose for wanting to create us (and for wanting us to be the dominant species in charge of the Earth). Your proposals concerning worship etc. are perfectly reasonable, but of course they are a problem for you because they run counter to your preconception of God as being without self-interest.

Study the endpoint! God put us here with the brains to run the Earth, His favored planet. All the rest is 'purhaps'! Did He want "worship, recognition and a relationship" is all guesswork I proposed when you questioned His reasons. Guesses you elicited! Not fact!

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Monday, February 19, 2024, 11:27 (38 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I can see some degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs.

dhw: Please explain what you mean by “automaticity” here? Do you mean that species were given the power to design themselves? Who or what would be conducting the experimentation?

DAVID: The issue is how much speciation ability organisms had in the past, if any or not.

dhw: Yes, that is one alternative. Another is the possibility that your God was experimenting.

DAVID: Following your line of thought re brilliant cell committees, that raises the possibility of an organism creating new species for God to judge. Small steps are a possibility.

dhw: I don’t know where “judgement” comes into it. Shapiro’s theory is that intelligent cells designed the “novelties” of speciation. If your God gave cells the autonomous ability to make small steps, it must have been possible for him also to give them the autonomous ability to make large steps. (See dualism for the meaning of “autonomy”.)

DAVID: Anything is possible. God judges evolution as it progresses. Behe shows evolution progresses in small ways without designer intervention. So, the theory becomes: God does large steps and watches as tiny steps happen to be sure they are correct.

I like your first sentence, and I am discussing this with you, not with Behe. First of all, “a degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs” suggests that God did not create all the unwanted twigs, but the word “automaticity” is not clear. In this latest response you say “without designer intervention”, and that means a degree of autonomy, not automaticity. So it is now possible, in your eyes, that your God may have created some kind of free-for-all, and that would account for the vast majority of species which you believe were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. Forget large and small. We know that most dinosaurs did not lead to us and our contemporaries, so he could have watched the free-for-all and then dabbled in order to “cull” them, except perhaps for the birds. So do you now accept the possibility that your God set in motion a free-from-all, with the proviso that he could dabble if he wished to?

You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” We can discuss the implications of “experimentation” next time, but again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps?

Purpose

dhw: It was you who proposed that he wanted worship, recognition and a relationship! And you may well be right. They would all be very understandable motives for his creating us (if he exists). You keep telling us that your God is all-purposeful, and that his “main purpose” was to create us. But now you refuse to consider the obvious point that he must have had a purpose for wanting to create us (and for wanting us to be the dominant species in charge of the Earth). Your proposals concerning worship etc. are perfectly reasonable, but of course they are a problem for you because they run counter to your preconception of God as being without self-interest.

DAVID: Study the endpoint! God put us here with the brains to run the Earth, His favored planet. All the rest is 'purhaps'! Did He want "worship, recognition and a relationship" is all guesswork I proposed when you questioned His reasons. Guesses you elicited! Not fact!

It is not a fact that God put us here to run the Earth, but even if he did, what would his purpose have been? And yes, I asked you why you thought he might have wanted to create us, and worship etc. was your answer. Why are you blaming me for your guesses? But your guesses have landed you with a problem, because they conflict with another of your guesses which is not a fact: that God does not act out of self-interest.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Monday, February 19, 2024, 17:44 (38 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Yes, that is one alternative. Another is the possibility that your God was experimenting.

DAVID: Following your line of thought re brilliant cell committees, that raises the possibility of an organism creating new species for God to judge. Small steps are a possibility.

dhw: I don’t know where “judgement” comes into it. Shapiro’s theory is that intelligent cells designed the “novelties” of speciation. If your God gave cells the autonomous ability to make small steps, it must have been possible for him also to give them the autonomous ability to make large steps. (See dualism for the meaning of “autonomy”.)

DAVID: Anything is possible. God judges evolution as it progresses. Behe shows evolution progresses in small ways without designer intervention. So, the theory becomes: God does large steps and watches as tiny steps happen to be sure they are correct.

dhw: I like your first sentence, and I am discussing this with you, not with Behe.

Stop it!! Behe's thoughts, as an expert in the field, are cogent. All my thinking is based on expert science.

dhw: First of all, “a degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs” suggests that God did not create all the unwanted twigs, but the word “automaticity” is not clear. In this latest response you say “without designer intervention”, and that means a degree of autonomy, not automaticity. So it is now possible, in your eyes, that your God may have created some kind of free-for-all, and that would account for the vast majority of species which you believe were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. Forget large and small. We know that most dinosaurs did not lead to us and our contemporaries, so he could have watched the free-for-all and then dabbled in order to “cull” them, except perhaps for the birds. So do you now accept the possibility that your God set in motion a free-from-all, with the proviso that he could dabble if he wished to?

Free-for-all has the word free in it, free from control! No!


dhw: You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” We can discuss the implications of “experimentation” next time, but again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps?

You and I use autonomous in a different way. A bacteria coded for automatically recoding DNA is then autonomous in my way of understanding the word. I understand how you see the twigs as autonomous.


Purpose

dhw: It was you who proposed that he wanted worship, recognition and a relationship! And you may well be right. They would all be very understandable motives for his creating us (if he exists). You keep telling us that your God is all-purposeful, and that his “main purpose” was to create us. But now you refuse to consider the obvious point that he must have had a purpose for wanting to create us (and for wanting us to be the dominant species in charge of the Earth). Your proposals concerning worship etc. are perfectly reasonable, but of course they are a problem for you because they run counter to your preconception of God as being without self-interest.

DAVID: Study the endpoint! God put us here with the brains to run the Earth, His favored planet. All the rest is 'purhaps'! Did He want "worship, recognition and a relationship" is all guesswork I proposed when you questioned His reasons. Guesses you elicited! Not fact!

dhw: It is not a fact that God put us here to run the Earth, but even if he did, what would his purpose have been? And yes, I asked you why you thought he might have wanted to create us, and worship etc. was your answer. Why are you blaming me for your guesses? But your guesses have landed you with a problem, because they conflict with another of your guesses which is not a fact: that God does not act out of self-interest.

Nothing about God is fact. My God is selfless, does not need anything for Himself and your God is needy as you describe His wants and intentions.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Tuesday, February 20, 2024, 11:10 (37 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Following your line of thought re brilliant cell committees, that raises the possibility of an organism creating new species for God to judge. Small steps are a possibility.

dhw: I don’t know where “judgement” comes into it. Shapiro’s theory is that intelligent cells designed the “novelties” of speciation. If your God gave cells the autonomous ability to make small steps, it must have been possible for him also to give them the autonomous ability to make large steps. (See "dualism" for the meaning of “autonomy”.)

DAVID: Anything is possible. God judges evolution as it progresses. Behe shows evolution progresses in small ways without designer intervention. So, the theory becomes: God does large steps and watches as tiny steps happen to be sure they are correct.

dhw: I like your first sentence, and I am discussing this with you, not with Behe.

DAVID: Stop it!! Behe's thoughts, as an expert in the field, are cogent. All my thinking is based on expert science.

I can only deal with your arguments and discuss what you believe. I have no idea how expert science can tell us that God does large steps etc., and I seem to remember Dawkins also telling us that his views are based on expert science.

dhw: First of all, “a degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs” suggests that God did not create all the unwanted twigs, but the word “automaticity” is not clear. In this latest response you say “without designer intervention”, and that means a degree of autonomy, not automaticity.

An all-important point, which I am now bolding.

dhw: So it is now possible, in your eyes, that your God may have created some kind of free-for-all, and that would account for the vast majority of species which you believe were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. Forget large and small. We know that most dinosaurs did not lead to us and our contemporaries, so he could have watched the free-for-all and then dabbled in order to “cull” them, except perhaps for the birds. So do you now accept the possibility that your God set in motion a free-from-all, with the proviso that he could dabble if he wished to?

DAVID: Free-for-all has the word free in it, free from control! No!

That is why it is important to establish what you meant by “automaticity”. You said “without designer intervention”. That can only mean that your designer relinquished control. But please note my proviso (he could dabble – which = take control – if he wished to). For example, in the context of your anthropocentric theory, dinosaurs, the vast majority of which were dead ends that led nowhere, could be explained as part of the great free-for-all, but then your God decided to “cull” them because he wanted evolution to go in a different direction. Hence the Chixculub “dabble”.

dhw: You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” We can discuss the implications of “experimentation” next time, but again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps?

DAVID: You and I use autonomous in a different way. A bacteria coded for automatically recoding DNA is then autonomous in my way of understanding the word. I understand how you see the twigs as autonomous.

We’ve already covered your attempt to reverse the meaning of “autonomous” elsewhere. What did you mean by “automatic experimentation”? Were the irrelevant species (the dead-end twigs) the product of a free-for-all, i.e. doing their own experimenting (your God having given them the ability to do so)? If God himself was experimenting, then it could hardly have been automatic. I’m just asking what you meant by the term, since experimentation ties in with two of my alternative explanations for the twigs.

Purpose

DAVID: God put us here with the brains to run the Earth, His favored planet. All the rest is 'purhaps'! Did He want "worship, recognition and a relationship" is all guesswork I proposed when you questioned His reasons. Guesses you elicited! Not fact!

dhw: It is not a fact that God put us here to run the Earth, but even if he did, what would his purpose have been? And yes, I asked you why you thought he might have wanted to create us, and worship etc. was your answer. Why are you blaming me for your guesses? But your guesses have landed you with a problem, because they conflict with another of your guesses which is not a fact: that God does not act out of self-interest.

DAVID: Nothing about God is fact. My God is selfless, does not need anything for Himself and your God is needy as you describe His wants and intentions.

Wanting to be worshipped, to have his work recognized, to have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations – these were all YOUR “guesses”, which I find perfectly understandable and reasonable. But they are not selfless. Yet another example of Turellian self-contradiction, for which you are trying to blame me!

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 20, 2024, 19:01 (37 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Anything is possible. God judges evolution as it progresses. Behe shows evolution progresses in small ways without designer intervention. So, the theory becomes: God does large steps and watches as tiny steps happen to be sure they are correct.

dhw: I like your first sentence, and I am discussing this with you, not with Behe.

DAVID: Stop it!! Behe's thoughts, as an expert in the field, are cogent. All my thinking is based on expert science.

dhw: I can only deal with your arguments and discuss what you believe. I have no idea how expert science can tell us that God does large steps etc., and I seem to remember Dawkins also telling us that his views are based on expert science.

The issue is finding the scientists you trust.


dhw: First of all, “a degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs” suggests that God did not create all the unwanted twigs, but the word “automaticity” is not clear. In this latest response you say “without designer intervention”, and that means a degree of autonomy, not automaticity.

See Behe above: automatic small chemical steps not by design.


dhw: An all-important point, which I am now bolding.

dhw: So it is now possible, in your eyes, that your God may have created some kind of free-for-all, and that would account for the vast majority of species which you believe were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. Forget large and small. We know that most dinosaurs did not lead to us and our contemporaries, so he could have watched the free-for-all and then dabbled in order to “cull” them, except perhaps for the birds. So do you now accept the possibility that your God set in motion a free-from-all, with the proviso that he could dabble if he wished to?

DAVID: Free-for-all has the word free in it, free from control! No!

dhw: That is why it is important to establish what you meant by “automaticity”. You said “without designer intervention”. That can only mean that your designer relinquished control. But please note my proviso (he could dabble – which = take control – if he wished to). For example, in the context of your anthropocentric theory, dinosaurs, the vast majority of which were dead ends that led nowhere, could be explained as part of the great free-for-all, but then your God decided to “cull” them because he wanted evolution to go in a different direction. Hence the Chixculub “dabble”.

Behe's small automatic biochemical changes, means he accepts some so-small steps without a
designer, thus 'natural'.


dhw: You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” We can discuss the implications of “experimentation” next time, but again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps?

DAVID: You and I use autonomous in a different way. A bacteria coded for automatically recoding DNA is then autonomous in my way of understanding the word. I understand how you see the twigs as autonomous.

dhw: We’ve already covered your attempt to reverse the meaning of “autonomous” elsewhere. What did you mean by “automatic experimentation”? Were the irrelevant species (the dead-end twigs) the product of a free-for-all, i.e. doing their own experimenting (your God having given them the ability to do so)? If God himself was experimenting, then it could hardly have been automatic. I’m just asking what you meant by the term, since experimentation ties in with two of my alternative explanations for the twigs.

'Autonomous experimentation' is what Behe has described, some small biochemical steps appearing natrually, not designed.


Purpose

DAVID: God put us here with the brains to run the Earth, His favored planet. All the rest is 'purhaps'! Did He want "worship, recognition and a relationship" is all guesswork I proposed when you questioned His reasons. Guesses you elicited! Not fact!

dhw: It is not a fact that God put us here to run the Earth, but even if he did, what would his purpose have been? And yes, I asked you why you thought he might have wanted to create us, and worship etc. was your answer. Why are you blaming me for your guesses? But your guesses have landed you with a problem, because they conflict with another of your guesses which is not a fact: that God does not act out of self-interest.

DAVID: Nothing about God is fact. My God is selfless, does not need anything for Himself and your God is needy as you describe His wants and intentions.

dhw: Wanting to be worshipped, to have his work recognized, to have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations – these were all YOUR “guesses”, which I find perfectly understandable and reasonable. But they are not selfless. Yet another example of Turellian self-contradiction, for which you are trying to blame me!

The self-contradiction is your attempt to humanize/Wilsonize God. Of course, guesses. Remember the word allegorical!! God is not a human in any sense of the word. He is selfless. He understands the emotions we have, and He may not have them Himself. We have desires, He may not. Of course, we understand the way we use words. We have no idea if God uses words when He thinks. Or how any words we use apply to God.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Wednesday, February 21, 2024, 13:17 (36 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Anything is possible. God judges evolution as it progresses. Behe shows evolution progresses in small ways without designer intervention. So, the theory becomes: God does large steps and watches as tiny steps happen to be sure they are correct.

dhw: I like your first sentence, and I am discussing this with you, not with Behe.

DAVID: Stop it!! Behe's thoughts, as an expert in the field, are cogent. All my thinking is based on expert science.

dhw: I can only deal with your arguments and discuss what you believe. I have no idea how expert science can tell us that God does large steps etc., and I seem to remember Dawkins also telling us that his views are based on expert science.

DAVID: The issue is finding the scientists you trust.

In your own immortal words: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” And so the scientists you trust are those who agree with you, and if a scientist proposes any theory different from yours, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

dhw: First of all, “a degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs” suggests that God did not create all the unwanted twigs, but the word “automaticity” is not clear. In this latest response you say “without designer intervention”, and that means a degree of autonomy, not automaticity.

DAVID: See Behe above: automatic small chemical steps not by design.

The vast majority of dinosaur “twigs” did not lead to any of the species which you insist were your God’s one and only goal. Do you believe that your God designed all the dinosaurs, or do you believe that they speciated without designer intervention?

dhw: You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” […] again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps? […]

DAVID: 'Autonomous experimentation' is what Behe has described, some small biochemical steps appearing natrually, not designed.

So “automatic” was a misprint. Regardless of Behe, do you believe that the “irrelevant” dinosaur “twigs” appeared as a result of autonomous experimentation (= by dinosaurs) or by divine experimentation (= God experimenting)?

Purpose

DAVID: Nothing about God is fact. My God is selfless, does not need anything for Himself and your God is needy as you describe His wants and intentions.

dhw: Wanting to be worshipped, to have his work recognized, to have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations – these were all YOUR “guesses”, which I find perfectly understandable and reasonable. But they are not selfless. Yet another example of Turellian self-contradiction, for which you are trying to blame me!

DAVID: The self-contradiction is your attempt to humanize/Wilsonize God. Of course, guesses. Remember the word allegorical!! God is not a human in any sense of the word. He is selfless.

"Allegorical" makes no sense. You have agreed that we both mean the same when we use words like “worship”, “enjoy” etc., and there would be no point in your using them if YOU didn’t mean what you say. I have never claimed that your God is a human being. You have agreed that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you have “guessed” that these patterns include a desire to have his work recognized and to be worshipped etc., and you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have suggested that these thought patterns and emotions could constitute a perfectly reasonable purpose for his creating all of life. But you now reject all your own proposals because you wish to believe that your God is “selfless”.

DAVID: He understands the emotions we have, and He may not have them Himself. We have desires, He may not. Of course, we understand the way we use words. We have no idea if God uses words when He thinks. Or how any words we use apply to God.

And He may exist, and He may not. You have offered your guesses concerning his possible emotions and desires. I have accepted your guesses as perfectly feasible. It’s you who are now trying to wriggle out of them because of your blatant self-contradictions (your guesses involve self-interest).

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 21, 2024, 17:03 (36 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The issue is finding the scientists you trust.

dhw: In your own immortal words: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” And so the scientists you trust are those who agree with you, and if a scientist proposes any theory different from yours, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Not true. I read Darwinist literature all the time


dhw: First of all, “a degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs” suggests that God did not create all the unwanted twigs, but the word “automaticity” is not clear. In this latest response you say “without designer intervention”, and that means a degree of autonomy, not automaticity.

DAVID: See Behe above: automatic small chemical steps not by design.

dhw: The vast majority of dinosaur “twigs” did not lead to any of the species which you insist were your God’s one and only goal. Do you believe that your God designed all the dinosaurs, or do you believe that they speciated without designer intervention?

It may be some minor variations were developed withtout God's designing.


dhw: You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” […] again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps? […]

DAVID: 'Autonomous experimentation' is what Behe has described, some small biochemical steps appearing naturally, not designed.

dhw: So “automatic” was a misprint. Regardless of Behe, do you believe that the “irrelevant” dinosaur “twigs” appeared as a result of autonomous experimentation (= by dinosaurs) or by divine experimentation (= God experimenting)?

As above, I would think minor variations could possibly appear without God.


Purpose

DAVID: Nothing about God is fact. My God is selfless, does not need anything for Himself and your God is needy as you describe His wants and intentions.

dhw: Wanting to be worshipped, to have his work recognized, to have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations – these were all YOUR “guesses”, which I find perfectly understandable and reasonable. But they are not selfless. Yet another example of Turellian self-contradiction, for which you are trying to blame me!

DAVID: The self-contradiction is your attempt to humanize/Wilsonize God. Of course, guesses. Remember the word allegorical!! God is not a human in any sense of the word. He is selfless.

dhw: "Allegorical" makes no sense. You have agreed that we both mean the same when we use words like “worship”, “enjoy” etc., and there would be no point in your using them if YOU didn’t mean what you say. I have never claimed that your God is a human being. You have agreed that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you have “guessed” that these patterns include a desire to have his work recognized and to be worshipped etc., and you are certain that he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations. I have suggested that these thought patterns and emotions could constitute a perfectly reasonable purpose for his creating all of life. But you now reject all your own proposals because you wish to believe that your God is “selfless”.

You still don't understand the very important use of allegorical words as applied only to God, not us! Of course, we understand each other. As for 'selflessness,' interpret it as not self-serving.


DAVID: He understands the emotions we have, and He may not have them Himself. We have desires, He may not. Of course, we understand the way we use words. We have no idea if God uses words when He thinks. Or how any words we use apply to God.

dhw: And He may exist, and He may not. You have offered your guesses concerning his possible emotions and desires. I have accepted your guesses as perfectly feasible. It’s you who are now trying to wriggle out of them because of your blatant self-contradictions (your guesses involve self-interest).

I accept all of those possible descriptions with the allegorical proviso.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 12:16 (30 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The issue is finding the scientists you trust.

dhw: In your own immortal words: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” And so the scientists you trust are those who agree with you, and if a scientist proposes any theory different from yours, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

DAVID: Not true. I read Darwinist literature all the time.

And you attack it at every possible opportunity, preferring the theory you wish to believe in: that your God either preprogrammed or dabbled every species, 99.9% of which were irrelevant to his one and only purpose.

dhw: First of all, “a degree of automaticity in speciation may have created unwanted twigs” suggests that God did not create all the unwanted twigs, but the word “automaticity” is not clear. In this latest response you say “without designer intervention”, and that means a degree of autonomy, not automaticity.[…]

DAVID: It may be some minor variations were developed without God's designing.

There are colossal “variations” between different species of dinosaurs. Bearing in mind your belief that the vast majority of dinosaur species did NOT lead to us or our contemporary species, do you believe your God designed every single species of dinosaur?

dhw: You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” […] again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps? […]

DAVID: 'Autonomous experimentation' is what Behe has described, some small biochemical steps appearing naturally, not designed.

dhw: So “automatic” was a misprint. Regardless of Behe, do you believe that the “irrelevant” dinosaur “twigs” appeared as a result of autonomous experimentation (= by dinosaurs) or by divine experimentation (= God experimenting)?

DAVID: As above, I would think minor variations could possibly appear without God.

As above, please be a little more precise, using the dinosaur example. Would you say the smallest herbivorous dinosaur (Albertadromeus) was a minor variation on the largest carnivorous dinosaur (Spinosaurus)?

DAVID (under “dinosaurs to birds”): this seems to solidify the story. Lots of feathered dinosaurs but only one bird ancestor.

Thank you as always for your integrity in presenting evidence against your own theories. Clearly, the vast majority of dinosaurs had no connection with contemporary species. Was every other species of dinosaur a “minor variation”? If not, do you think your God deliberately designed them all as part of his own experimentation, or did they experiment autonomously?

Purpose
dhw: Wanting to be worshipped, to have his work recognized, to have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations – these were all YOUR “guesses”, which I find perfectly understandable and reasonable. But they are not selfless. Yet another example of Turellian self-contradiction, for which you are trying to blame me!

DAVID: The self-contradiction is your attempt to humanize/Wilsonize God. Of course, guesses. Remember the word allegorical!! God is not a human in any sense of the word. He is selfless.
And:

DAVID: He understands the emotions we have, and He may not have them Himself. We have desires, He may not. Of course, we understand the way we use words. We have no idea if God uses words when He thinks. Or how any words we use apply to God.

dhw: And He may exist, and He may not. You have offered your guesses concerning his possible emotions and desires. I have accepted your guesses as perfectly feasible. It’s you who are now trying to wriggle out of them because of your blatant self-contradictions (your guesses involve self-interest).

DAVID: I accept all of those possible descriptions with the allegorical proviso.

A couple of weeks ago, we established exactly what you mean by “allegorical”. As follows:
DAVID: It is, can they describe God in any meaningful way?

dhw: […] Yes, of course they do. He wants us to recognize him and worship him is perfectly meaningful. The question is whether the description is true or false.

DAVID: Right, therefore allegorical.

Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong? And so when you tell us you think your God wants recognition and worship, you accept your own description on condition that it is right and not wrong! Please stop all these absurd language games, and stop blaming me for your own humanizing and your self-contradictions. And please stop pretending that my alternatives can’t be true because they endow him with certain thought patterns like ours, although you agree that he has certain thought patterns like ours.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 15:39 (30 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: There are colossal “variations” between different species of dinosaurs. Bearing in mind your belief that the vast majority of dinosaur species did NOT lead to us or our contemporary species, do you believe your God designed every single species of dinosaur?

Yes.


dhw: You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” […] again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps? […]

DAVID: 'Autonomous experimentation' is what Behe has described, some small biochemical steps appearing naturally, not designed.

dhw: So “automatic” was a misprint. Regardless of Behe, do you believe that the “irrelevant” dinosaur “twigs” appeared as a result of autonomous experimentation (= by dinosaurs) or by divine experimentation (= God experimenting)?

DAVID: As above, I would think minor variations could possibly appear without God.

dhw: As above, please be a little more precise, using the dinosaur example. Would you say the smallest herbivorous dinosaur (Albertadromeus) was a minor variation on the largest carnivorous dinosaur (Spinosaurus)?

God speciates.


DAVID (under “dinosaurs to birds”): this seems to solidify the story. Lots of feathered dinosaurs but only one bird ancestor.

dhw: Thank you as always for your integrity in presenting evidence against your own theories. Clearly, the vast majority of dinosaurs had no connection with contemporary species. Was every other species of dinosaur a “minor variation”? If not, do you think your God deliberately designed them all as part of his own experimentation, or did they experiment autonomously?

God speciates. End of story.


Purpose
dhw: Wanting to be worshipped, to have his work recognized, to have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations – these were all YOUR “guesses”, which I find perfectly understandable and reasonable. But they are not selfless. Yet another example of Turellian self-contradiction, for which you are trying to blame me!

DAVID: The self-contradiction is your attempt to humanize/Wilsonize God. Of course, guesses. Remember the word allegorical!! God is not a human in any sense of the word. He is selfless.
And:

DAVID: He understands the emotions we have, and He may not have them Himself. We have desires, He may not. Of course, we understand the way we use words. We have no idea if God uses words when He thinks. Or how any words we use apply to God.

dhw: And He may exist, and He may not. You have offered your guesses concerning his possible emotions and desires. I have accepted your guesses as perfectly feasible. It’s you who are now trying to wriggle out of them because of your blatant self-contradictions (your guesses involve self-interest).

DAVID: I accept all of those possible descriptions with the allegorical proviso.

dhw: A couple of weeks ago, we established exactly what you mean by “allegorical”. As follows:
DAVID: It is, can they describe God in any meaningful way?

dhw: […] Yes, of course they do. He wants us to recognize him and worship him is perfectly meaningful. The question is whether the description is true or false.

DAVID: Right, therefore allegorical.

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

The issue is we know how the words apply to us but not to God.

dhw: And so when you tell us you think your God wants recognition and worship, you accept your own description on condition that it is right and not wrong! Please stop all these absurd language games, and stop blaming me for your own humanizing and your self-contradictions. And please stop pretending that my alternatives can’t be true because they endow him with certain thought patterns like ours, although you agree that he has certain thought patterns like ours.

Your vision of your God is a very humanized one. You can't understand it as I do because I have been taught ta very specific way to think about Him.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Wednesday, February 28, 2024, 12:31 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: There are colossal “variations” between different species of dinosaurs. Bearing in mind your belief that the vast majority of dinosaur species did NOT lead to us or our contemporary species, do you believe your God designed every single species of dinosaur?

DAVID: Yes.

Thank you for your straight answer. You therefore believe that your God individually designed and culled the vast majority of dinosaurs although they had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food. And you have no idea why he would use such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving his goal.

dhw: You also wrote: “How much the twigs came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.” […] again I’d like to know what you meant by “automatic”? A misprint for “autonomous” perhaps? […]

DAVID: 'Autonomous experimentation' is what Behe has described, some small biochemical steps appearing naturally, not designed.

dhw: So “automatic” was a misprint. Regardless of Behe, do you believe that the “irrelevant” dinosaur “twigs” appeared as a result of autonomous experimentation (= by dinosaurs) or by divine experimentation (= God experimenting)?

DAVID: As above, I would think minor variations could possibly appear without God.

dhw: As above, please be a little more precise, using the dinosaur example. Would you say the smallest herbivorous dinosaur (Albertadromeus) was a minor variation on the largest carnivorous dinosaur (Spinosaurus)?

DAVID: God speciates.

The “twigs” include the vast majority of dinosaur species which had no connection with your God’s sole purpose, and you say they may have "come from" a degree of "autonomous experimentation". This suggests that the twigs (= species of dinosaur) may be the result of experimentation by the dinosaurs themselves. What else could it mean?

Purpose

dhw: Wanting to be worshipped, to have his work recognized, to have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating and interest in his creations – these were all YOUR “guesses”, which I find perfectly understandable and reasonable. But they are not selfless. Yet another example of Turellian self-contradiction, for which you are trying to blame me! […]

DAVID: I accept all of those possible descriptions with the allegorical proviso.

dhw: A couple of weeks ago, we established exactly what you mean by “allegorical”. As follows:

DAVID: It is, can they describe God in any meaningful way?

dhw: […] Yes, of course they do. He wants us to recognize him and worship him is perfectly meaningful. The question is whether the description is true or false.

DAVID: Right, therefore allegorical.

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

DAVID: The issue is we know how the words apply to us but not to God.

The issue is we don’t know whether God wants us to worship him or not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what the words themselves mean. “Allegorical” does not mean “is the proposal right or wrong?”

dhw: And so when you tell us you think your God wants recognition and worship, you accept your own description on condition that it is right and not wrong! Please stop all these absurd language games, and stop blaming me for your own humanizing and your self-contradictions. And please stop pretending that my alternatives can’t be true because they endow him with certain thought patterns like ours, although you agree that he has certain thought patterns like ours.

DAVID: Your vision of your God is a very humanized one. You can't understand it as I do because I have been taught ta very specific way to think about Him.

I have no objection to YOUR humanized vision of a God who wants to be recognized and worshipped, and who enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or to your belief that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Perfectly feasible. But if you were taught that he wants us to worship him etc., which means he is selfless, and that “allegorical” means either right or wrong, and that he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, because you can't understand why he would adopt the method and purpose you impose on him, I would suggest that perhaps it’s time you stopped relying on your teachers.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Wednesday, February 28, 2024, 21:09 (29 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: There are colossal “variations” between different species of dinosaurs. Bearing in mind your belief that the vast majority of dinosaur species did NOT lead to us or our contemporary species, do you believe your God designed every single species of dinosaur?

DAVID: Yes.

Thank you for your straight answer. You therefore believe that your God individually designed and culled the vast majority of dinosaurs although they had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food. And you have no idea why he would use such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving his goal.

Why should I know exactly the ideas in God's mind?


DAVID: God speciates.

dhw: The “twigs” include the vast majority of dinosaur species which had no connection with your God’s sole purpose, and you say they may have "come from" a degree of "autonomous experimentation". This suggests that the twigs (= species of dinosaur) may be the result of experimentation by the dinosaurs themselves. What else could it mean?

At the level of speciation God does it.


Purpose

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?


DAVID: The issue is we know how the words apply to us but not to God.

dhw: The issue is we don’t know whether God wants us to worship him or not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what the words themselves mean. “Allegorical” does not mean “is the proposal right or wrong?”

Dictionary: "a figurative or symbolic way of representing ideas or emotions." This is my use.


dhw: And so when you tell us you think your God wants recognition and worship, you accept your own description on condition that it is right and not wrong! Please stop all these absurd language games, and stop blaming me for your own humanizing and your self-contradictions. And please stop pretending that my alternatives can’t be true because they endow him with certain thought patterns like ours, although you agree that he has certain thought patterns like ours.

DAVID: Your vision of your God is a very humanized one. You can't understand it as I do because I have been taught ta very specific way to think about Him.

dhw: I have no objection to YOUR humanized vision of a God who wants to be recognized and worshipped, and who enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or to your belief that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Perfectly feasible. But if you were taught that he wants us to worship him etc., which means he is selfless, and that “allegorical” means either right or wrong, and that he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, because you can't understand why he would adopt the method and purpose you impose on him, I would suggest that perhaps it’s time you stopped relying on your teachers.

I had no idea how to think ab out God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not s personage.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Thursday, February 29, 2024, 08:47 (29 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You therefore believe that your God individually designed and culled the vast majority of dinosaurs although they had no connection with his one and only purpose, which was to design us and our food. And you have no idea why he would use such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way of achieving his goal.

DAVID: Why should I know exactly the ideas in God's mind?

You don’t. But you should be able to find some kind of reason for believing in the ideas you try to insert into your God’s mind, e.g. your fixed belief that he only wanted us and our food and therefore messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species (e.g. dinosaurs) that had nothing to do with us and our food.

DAVID: How much the twigs [referring to dinosaurs] came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.”

“Automatic” turned out to be a misprint for “autonomous”.

dhw: The “twigs” include the vast majority of dinosaur species which had no connection with your God’s sole purpose, and you say they may have "come from" a degree of "autonomous experimentation". This suggests that the twigs (= species of dinosaur) may be the result of experimentation by the dinosaurs themselves. What else could it mean?

DAVID: At the level of speciation God does it.

So are you saying that God designed each species of dinosaur as an experiment? If not, in what way could the dinosaurs have “come from” a degree of “autonomous experimentation”.

Purpose

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

DAVID: The issue is we know how the words apply to us but not to God.

dhw: The issue is we don’t know whether God wants us to worship him or not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what the words themselves mean. “Allegorical” does not mean “is the proposal right or wrong?”

DAVID: Dictionary: "a figurative or symbolic way of representing ideas or emotions." This is my use.

It’s NOT your use! The words “worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy, interest” are not figurative or symbolic. They have fixed meanings which we both know, and you have agreed that the issue is whether your God does or doesn’t enjoy, have an interest, want us to worship, recognize, have a relationship. Please stop making a mockery of language.

DAVID: Your vision of your God is a very humanized one. You can't understand it as I do because I have been taught ta very specific way to think about Him.

dhw: I have no objection to YOUR humanized vision of a God who wants to be recognized and worshipped, and who enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or to your belief that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Perfectly feasible. But if you were taught that he wants us to worship him etc., which means he is selfless, and that “allegorical” means either right or wrong, and that he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, because you can't understand why he would adopt the method and purpose you impose on him, I would suggest that perhaps it’s time you stopped relying on your teachers.

DAVID: I had no idea how to think ab out God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not s personage.

I have just agreed that all your above suggestions are perfectly feasible. I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. Please stop blaming Adler for your illogical attempts to justify your various self-contradictions.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Thursday, February 29, 2024, 21:48 (28 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why should I know exactly the ideas in God's mind?

dhw: You don’t. But you should be able to find some kind of reason for believing in the ideas you try to insert into your God’s mind, e.g. your fixed belief that he only wanted us and our food and therefore messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species (e.g. dinosaurs) that had nothing to do with us and our food.

My purposes for God's actions are that He wished to produced humans and all the recourses they would need. He then evolved every organism on Earth. A very logical conclusion based on current populations of species.


DAVID: How much the twigs [referring to dinosaurs] came from some degree of automatic experimentation I see as a possibility.”

dhw: “Automatic” turned out to be a misprint for “autonomous”.

dhw: The “twigs” include the vast majority of dinosaur species which had no connection with your God’s sole purpose, and you say they may have "come from" a degree of "autonomous experimentation". This suggests that the twigs (= species of dinosaur) may be the result of experimentation by the dinosaurs themselves. What else could it mean?

DAVID: At the level of speciation God does it.

dhw: So are you saying that God designed each species of dinosaur as an experiment? If not, in what way could the dinosaurs have “come from” a degree of “autonomous experimentation”.

Same problem: I don't know why God would produce so many species.


Purpose

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

DAVID: The issue is we know how the words apply to us but not to God.

dhw: The issue is we don’t know whether God wants us to worship him or not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what the words themselves mean. “Allegorical” does not mean “is the proposal right or wrong?”

DAVID: Dictionary: "a figurative or symbolic way of representing ideas or emotions." This is my use.

dhw: It’s NOT your use! The words “worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy, interest” are not figurative or symbolic. They have fixed meanings which we both know, and you have agreed that the issue is whether your God does or doesn’t enjoy, have an interest, want us to worship, recognize, have a relationship. Please stop making a mockery of language.

The dictionary tells us we must use the words in a "figurative or symbolic way"!!!


DAVID: Your vision of your God is a very humanized one. You can't understand it as I do because I have been taught ta very specific way to think about Him.

dhw: I have no objection to YOUR humanized vision of a God who wants to be recognized and worshipped, and who enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or to your belief that he probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. Perfectly feasible. But if you were taught that he wants us to worship him etc., which means he is selfless, and that “allegorical” means either right or wrong, and that he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer, because you can't understand why he would adopt the method and purpose you impose on him, I would suggest that perhaps it’s time you stopped relying on your teachers.

DAVID: I had no idea how to think ab out God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not s personage.

dhw: I have just agreed that all your above suggestions are perfectly feasible. I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. Please stop blaming Adler for your illogical attempts to justify your various self-contradictions.

The theology I developed is based on Adler's instructions. I doubt Adler and I fully agree on a theology itself.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Friday, March 01, 2024, 13:50 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why should I know exactly the ideas in God's mind?

dhw: You don’t. But you should be able to find some kind of reason for believing in the ideas you try to insert into your God’s mind, e.g. your fixed belief that he only wanted us and our food and therefore messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species (e.g. dinosaurs) that had nothing to do with us and our food.

DAVID: My purposes for God's actions are that He wished to produced humans and all the recourses they would need. He then evolved every organism on Earth. A very logical conclusion based on current populations of species.

You are simply repeating your theory that his one and only purpose was to produce us and current species, and so he proceeded to produce every species that ever lived, 99.9% of which had no connection with us and current species. So he culled them. Where is the “logic”? You can’t find any, but this is your fixed belief, and you say you can’t be expected to know why your God would choose the messy, cumbersome, inefficient method you impose on him in order to achieve the purpose you impose on him, as you admit in your next entry:

dhw: So are you saying that God designed each species of dinosaur as an experiment? If not, in what way could the dinosaurs have “come from” a degree of “autonomous experimentation”.

DAVID: Same problem: I don't know why God would produce so many species.

And furthermore, having told us that dinosaurs may have come from a degree of “autonomous experimentation”, you are trying to dodge the implications, which of course link up with two of the alternative theistic theories I have offered you in order to explain the 99.9% of species which make your own theory so illogical.

Purpose

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

DAVID: Dictionary: "a figurative or symbolic way of representing ideas or emotions." This is my use.

dhw: It’s NOT your use! The words “worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy, interest” are not figurative or symbolic. They have fixed meanings which we both know, and you have agreed that the issue is whether your God does or doesn’t enjoy, have an interest, want us to worship, recognize, have a relationship. Please stop making a mockery of language.

DAVID: The dictionary tells us we must use the words in a "figurative or symbolic way"!!!

This is getting really silly. “Worshipping God” would mean showing him respect, love admiration etc. There is no symbol, no figurative meaning. A pilgrim named Christian finds himself in the Slough of Despond (= swamp of depression) - that is an example of allegory: the character is a symbol for all Christians, his "Pilgrim's Progress" symbolizes the struggle for salvation, the swamp symbolizes the despair of folk who recognize how inadequate they are. Please stop your absurd distortions of language.

DAVID: I had no idea how to think ab out God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not s personage.

dhw: I have just agreed that all your above suggestions are perfectly feasible. I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. Please stop blaming Adler for your illogical attempts to justify your various self-contradictions.

DAVID: The theology I developed is based on Adler's instructions. I doubt Adler and I fully agree on a theology itself.

I can only discuss the theology you propose, regardless of who taught you what. So please stop hiding behind Adler – he is irrelevant if he does not offer support for the above absurdities.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Friday, March 01, 2024, 17:16 (27 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: My purposes for God's actions are that He wished to produced humans and all the recourses they would need. He then evolved every organism on Earth. A very logical conclusion based on current populations of species.

dhw: You are simply repeating your theory that his one and only purpose was to produce us and current species, and so he proceeded to produce every species that ever lived, 99.9% of which had no connection with us and current species.

Same illogical complaint. The 99.9% are all the ancestors of what lives on Earth now. How are they not connected?

dhw: So he culled them. Where is the “logic”? You can’t find any, but this is your fixed belief, and you say you can’t be expected to know why your God would choose the messy, cumbersome, inefficient method you impose on him in order to achieve the purpose you impose on him, as you admit in your next entry:

dhw: So are you saying that God designed each species of dinosaur as an experiment? If not, in what way could the dinosaurs have “come from” a degree of “autonomous experimentation”.

DAVID: Same problem: I don't know why God would produce so many species.

dhw: And furthermore, having told us that dinosaurs may have come from a degree of “autonomous experimentation”, you are trying to dodge the implications, which of course link up with two of the alternative theistic theories I have offered you in order to explain the 99.9% of species which make your own theory so illogical.

Still your total confusion about 99.9% as real ancestors of the living.


Purpose

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

DAVID: Dictionary: "a figurative or symbolic way of representing ideas or emotions." This is my use.

dhw: It’s NOT your use! The words “worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy, interest” are not figurative or symbolic. They have fixed meanings which we both know, and you have agreed that the issue is whether your God does or doesn’t enjoy, have an interest, want us to worship, recognize, have a relationship. Please stop making a mockery of language.

DAVID: The dictionary tells us we must use the words in a "figurative or symbolic way"!!!

dhw: This is getting really silly. “Worshipping God” would mean showing him respect, love admiration etc. There is no symbol, no figurative meaning. A pilgrim named Christian finds himself in the Slough of Despond (= swamp of depression) - that is an example of allegory: the character is a symbol for all Christians, his "Pilgrim's Progress" symbolizes the struggle for salvation, the swamp symbolizes the despair of folk who recognize how inadequate they are. Please stop your absurd distortions of language.

We are not discussing the worship of God, but the attempt to understand His personality, and as a non-person, a personage like no other person, what the words mean to us may not apply to God.


DAVID: I had no idea how to think about God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not s personage.

dhw: I have just agreed that all your above suggestions are perfectly feasible. I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. Please stop blaming Adler for your illogical attempts to justify your various self-contradictions.

DAVID: The theology I developed is based on Adler's instructions. I doubt Adler and I fully agree on a theology itself.

dhw: I can only discuss the theology you propose, regardless of who taught you what. So please stop hiding behind Adler – he is irrelevant if he does not offer support for the above absurdities.

How I reached my theology is by using Adler's teachings. You have no idea what ideas he imparts.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Saturday, March 02, 2024, 08:50 (27 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: My purposes for God's actions are that He wished to produced humans and all the recourses they would need. He then evolved every organism on Earth. A very logical conclusion based on current populations of species.

dhw: You are simply repeating your theory that his one and only purpose was to produce us and current species, and so he proceeded to produce every species that ever lived, 99.9% of which had no connection with us and current species.

DAVID: Same illogical complaint. The 99.9% are all the ancestors of what lives on Earth now. How are they not connected?

Must we go over all this again? It was settled weeks ago. You had been conflating two statistics: 99.9 of our ancestors are dead, and 99.9% of all species were not our ancestors – which you confirmed as follows:

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

Our prime example was the dinosaurs: only one group of dinosaurs is believed to have been the ancestors of birds, whereas no other dinosaurs were the ancestors of any current species. Even in this post you confess:
DAVID: I don't know why God would produce so many species.

If they were all our past ancestors or our current food, you would know why he produced them.

Experimentation

dhw: So are you saying that God designed each species of dinosaur as an experiment? If not, in what way could the dinosaurs have “come from” a degree of “autonomous experimentation”.

DAVID: Still your total confusion about 99.9% as real ancestors of the living.

See above. I am now asking you what you meant when you said it was possible that twigs (referring to dinosaurs) may have come from some degree of autonomous experimentation. If dinosaurs did not do the experimenting, are you saying that your God was experimenting?

Purpose

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

DAVID: Dictionary: "a figurative or symbolic way of representing ideas or emotions." This is my use.

dhw: It’s NOT your use! The words “worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy, interest” are not figurative or symbolic. […]

DAVID: We are not discussing the worship of God, but the attempt to understand His personality, and as a non-person, a personage like no other person, what the words mean to us may not apply to God.

You suggested that your God might want us to recognize his work and worship him. The words are not “allegorical” - they do not symbolize anything, and we both know what they mean. The question is whether your suggestion is true or not. And if your suggestion is true, it contradicts your suggestion that he is selfless and has no self-interest.

DAVID: I had no idea how to think about God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not s personage.

I regard all your guesses concerning God’s desire to be worshipped etc. as perfectly feasible. It’s you who are attacking your own suggestions – having realized that they contradict your view of God as acting without self-interest.

DAVID: The theology I developed is based on Adler's instructions. I doubt Adler and I fully agree on a theology itself.
And:
DAVID: How I reached my theology is by using Adler's teachings. You have no idea what ideas he imparts

dhw: I can only discuss the theology you propose, regardless of who taught you what.
And:
I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. But even if he did impart those ideas to you, that does not make them any the less absurd.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 02, 2024, 19:29 (26 days ago) @ dhw

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Our prime example was the dinosaurs: only one group of dinosaurs is believed to have been the ancestors of birds, whereas no other dinosaurs were the ancestors of any current species. Even in this post you confess:
DAVID: I don't know why God would produce so many species.

dhw: If they were all our past ancestors or our current food, you would know why he produced them.

Still at different views. 0.1% survived and their ancestors makeup the 99.9% extinct. Our line produced us, and all other lines produced Earth's living resources for our use.


Experimentation

dhw: So are you saying that God designed each species of dinosaur as an experiment? If not, in what way could the dinosaurs have “come from” a degree of “autonomous experimentation”.

DAVID: Still your total confusion about 99.9% as real ancestors of the living.

dhw: See above. I am now asking you what you meant when you said it was possible that twigs (referring to dinosaurs) may have come from some degree of autonomous experimentation. If dinosaurs did not do the experimenting, are you saying that your God was experimenting?

I still think God speciated all forms. Some dinosauric twigs were the result of in-species adaptation.


Purpose

dhw: Quite uniquely, disregarding any definition you will find in any dictionary, by “allegorical” you mean: is the description right or wrong?

DAVID: Dictionary: "a figurative or symbolic way of representing ideas or emotions." This is my use.

dhw: It’s NOT your use! The words “worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy, interest” are not figurative or symbolic. […]

DAVID: We are not discussing the worship of God, but the attempt to understand His personality, and as a non-person, a personage like no other person, what the words mean to us may not apply to God.

dhw: You suggested that your God might want us to recognize his work and worship him. The words are not “allegorical” - they do not symbolize anything, and we both know what they mean. The question is whether your suggestion is true or not. And if your suggestion is true, it contradicts your suggestion that he is selfless and has no self-interest.

You refuse to see in our realm our words are perfect in meaning for us. When those words enter God's realm, we don't know whether they work or not to fit God's personality. God creates from His purposes without consideration aforehand of his personal reactions.


DAVID: I had no idea how to think about God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not a personage.

dhw: I regard all your guesses concerning God’s desire to be worshipped etc. as perfectly feasible. It’s you who are attacking your own suggestions – having realized that they contradict your view of God as acting without self-interest.

See above.


DAVID: The theology I developed is based on Adler's instructions. I doubt Adler and I fully agree on a theology itself.
And:
DAVID: How I reached my theology is by using Adler's teachings. You have no idea what ideas he imparts

dhw: I can only discuss the theology you propose, regardless of who taught you what.
And:
I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. But even if he did impart those ideas to you, that does not make them any the less absurd.

Your absurdist interpretation of my theology implying God should not have evolved us, ignores reality. God evolved us and He culled 99.9% dead for the 0.1% living to do it, arriving at an Earth dominated by humans using all the resources He provided for us on our privileged planet.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Sunday, March 03, 2024, 11:42 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

We settled this issue when for once you gave me a straight answer:

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: Our prime example was the dinosaurs: only one group of dinosaurs is believed to have been the ancestors of birds, whereas no other dinosaurs were the ancestors of any current species. Even in this post you confess:

DAVID: I don't know why God would produce so many species.

dhw: If they were all our past ancestors or our current food, you would know why he produced them.

DAVID: Still at different views. 0.1% survived and their ancestors makeup the 99.9% extinct. Our line produced us, and all other lines produced Earth's living resources for our use.

The ancestors of current species do NOT make up the 99.9% extinct. The vast majority of dinosaurs did not evolve into any current descendants. You have agreed that we and our food (= living resources) are descended from the 0.1% of survivors, and not from all the creatures that ever lived. Why do you keep contradicting yourself? Please stop it.

Experimentation

dhw: I am now asking you what you meant when you said it was possible that twigs (referring to species of dinosaurs) may have come from some degree of autonomous experimentation. If dinosaurs did not do the experimenting, are you saying that your God was experimenting?

DAVID: I still think God speciated all forms. Some dinosauric twigs were the result of in-species adaptation.

The twigs ARE the different species. You used the words “autonomous experimentation”. So did dinosaur speciation occur through their autonomous ability to make experiments, or are you saying that God did the experimenting?

Purpose

dhw: You suggested that your God might want us to recognize his work and worship him. The words are not “allegorical” - they do not symbolize anything, and we both know what they mean. The question is whether your suggestion is true or not. And if your suggestion is true, it contradicts your suggestion that he is selfless and has no self-interest.

DAVID: You refuse to see in our realm our words are perfect in meaning for us. When those words enter God's realm, we don't know whether they work or not to fit God's personality.

Correct. Nothing to do with “allegory” but simply a question of whether your God does or doesn’t want us to worship him.

DAVID: God creates from His purposes without consideration aforehand of his personal reactions.

Spoken with your usual tone of authority. But if God DOES want us to worship him – as in one of your suggestions – it is absurd to say that he has no self-interest. Please stop these silly language games.

DAVID: I had no idea how to think about God until I read Adler. You and I don't think alike now at all about God's possible personality, especially because He is not a personage.

dhw: I regard all your guesses concerning God’s desire to be worshipped etc. as perfectly feasible. It’s you who are attacking your own suggestions – having realized that they contradict your view of God as acting without self-interest.

DAVID: See above.

Yes, see above.

DAVID: How I reached my theology is by using Adler's teachings. You have no idea what ideas he imparts

dhw: I can only discuss the theology you propose, regardless of who taught you what.
And:
dhw: I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. But even if he did impart those ideas to you, that does not make them any the less absurd.

DAVID: Your absurdist interpretation of my theology implying God should not have evolved us, ignores reality. God evolved us and He culled 99.9% dead for the 0.1% living to do it, arriving at an Earth dominated by humans using all the resources He provided for us on our privileged planet.

Another of your absurd digressions/distortions. I have never ever at any time on any occasion (do you like my tautologies?) implied that God should not have evolved us. I have objected to your theory that an all-powerful God would deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design and then have to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him to have, which is to create us and our food (which you now call our resources). Now please tell us if Adler taught you this and all the other wacky theories listed above.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 03, 2024, 16:55 (25 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: Still at different views. 0.1% survived and their ancestors makeup the 99.9% extinct. Our line produced us, and all other lines produced Earth's living resources for our use.

dhw: The ancestors of current species do NOT make up the 99.9% extinct. The vast majority of dinosaurs did not evolve into any current descendants. You have agreed that we and our food (= living resources) are descended from the 0.1% of survivors, and not from all the creatures that ever lived. Why do you keep contradicting yourself? Please stop it.

The contradiction is yours. The 0.1% ARE the survivors living today. Their ancestors are the 99.9% now extinct. Your dinosaur example proves the point: birds 0.1% from all those dinos.


Experimentation

dhw: I am now asking you what you meant when you said it was possible that twigs (referring to species of dinosaurs) may have come from some degree of autonomous experimentation. If dinosaurs did not do the experimenting, are you saying that your God was experimenting?

DAVID: I still think God speciated all forms. Some dinosauric twigs were the result of in-species adaptation.

dhw: The twigs ARE the different species. You used the words “autonomous experimentation”. So did dinosaur speciation occur through their autonomous ability to make experiments, or are you saying that God did the experimenting?

I'm stuck with God designs species. Is some of it experimentation? Your God needs it, not mine.


Purpose

DAVID: You refuse to see in our realm our words are perfect in meaning for us. When those words enter God's realm, we don't know whether they work or not to fit God's personality.

dhw: Correct. Nothing to do with “allegory” but simply a question of whether your God does or doesn’t want us to worship him.

We don't know for a fact.


DAVID: God creates from His purposes without consideration aforehand of his personal reactions.

dhw: Spoken with your usual tone of authority. But if God DOES want us to worship him – as in one of your suggestions – it is absurd to say that he has no self-interest. Please stop these silly language games.

How do you know His desires for Himself? My tone of authority comes from my view of Him. You, on the other hand, have many soft views of a nebulous form of God.


DAVID: How I reached my theology is by using Adler's teachings. You have no idea what ideas he imparts

dhw: I can only discuss the theology you propose, regardless of who taught you what.
And:
dhw: I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. But even if he did impart those ideas to you, that does not make them any the less absurd.

DAVID: Your absurdist interpretation of my theology implying God should not have evolved us, ignores reality. God evolved us and He culled 99.9% dead for the 0.1% living to do it, arriving at an Earth dominated by humans using all the resources He provided for us on our privileged planet.

dhw: Another of your absurd digressions/distortions. I have never ever at any time on any occasion (do you like my tautologies?) implied that God should not have evolved us. I have objected to your theory that an all-powerful God would deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently design and then have to cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow him to have, which is to create us and our food (which you now call our resources). Now please tell us if Adler taught you this and all the other wacky theories listed above.

Why don't you realize your entire complaint says God should not have evolved us. Repeat: Adler's book has one purpose: "How to Thin About God". Interpretation to teach you the real truth about Adler. He teaches the reader to think about God's personality as a true theologian.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Monday, March 04, 2024, 09:00 (25 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: 0.1% survived and their ancestors makeup the 99.9% extinct. Our line produced us, and all other lines produced Earth's living resources for our use.

dhw: The ancestors of current species do NOT make up the 99.9% extinct. The vast majority of dinosaurs did not evolve into any current descendants. You have agreed that we and our food (= living resources) are descended from the 0.1% of survivors, and not from all the creatures that ever lived. Why do you keep contradicting yourself? Please stop it.

DAVID: The contradiction is yours. The 0.1% ARE the survivors living today.

Yes.

DAVID: Their ancestors are the 99.9% now extinct. Your dinosaur example proves the point: birds 0.1% from all those dinos.

You agreed categorically that we and our food descended from the 0.1% of survivors and not from all the creatures that ever lived. The ancestors of birds were a single tiny group of dinosaurs, not “all those dinos”! The other 99.9% (or whatever the figure) did NOT evolve into any current species. Stop contradicting yourself!

Experimentation

DAVID: I still think God speciated all forms. Some dinosauric twigs were the result of in-species adaptation.

dhw: The twigs ARE the different species. You used the words “autonomous experimentation”. So did dinosaur speciation occur through their autonomous ability to make experiments, or are you saying that God did the experimenting?

DAVID: I'm stuck with God designs species. Is some of it experimentation? Your God needs it, not mine.

This is becoming a habit: you make a comment, I ask a question, and you proceed either to contradict what you said or to ignore it. YOU said it was possible that the twigs (dinosaurs) came from some degree of autonomous experimentation, and now, when I ask what you meant, you try to turn YOUR idea against me!

Purpose

DAVID: You refuse to see in our realm our words are perfect in meaning for us. When those words enter God's realm, we don't know whether they work or not to fit God's personality.

dhw: Correct. Nothing to do with “allegory” but simply a question of whether your God does or doesn’t want us to worship him.

DAVID: We don't know for a fact.

Of course we don’t. It’s all theory, including God’s existence. Nothing to do with “allegory”. I have no objection to your suggestion that God might want us to worship him. But your suggestion contradicts your other suggestion, which is that he has no self-interest. No facts involved – just two suggestions of yours that contradict each other.

DAVID: How do you know His desires for Himself? My tone of authority comes from my view of Him. You, on the other hand, have many soft views of a nebulous form of God.

As above, neither of us knows. It’s all suggestions. I find all of your suggestions – desire to be recognized and worshipped, have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating, interest in his creations – perfectly feasible, and it is you who are questioning them because they conflict with another of your suggestions, which is that your God is selfless and has no self-interest. It’s not my fault if you tie yourself in knots with your self-contradictions.

dhw: I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. But even if he did impart those ideas to you, that does not make them any the less absurd.

DAVID: Why don't you realize your entire complaint says God should not have evolved us.

Because that is not my complaint, and you are clutching at straws in order to dodge the sheer absurdity of the theories listed above. I have offered three possible theistic explanations for the course of evolution, none of which even remotely hint that God should not have evolved us and every other species: two entail experimentation, and the third entails a free-for-all.

DAVID: Repeat: Adler's book has one purpose: "How to Think About God". Interpretation to teach you the real truth about Adler. He teaches the reader to think about God's personality as a true theologian.

How do you define a “true” theologian? Thank you for indirectly admitting that Adler did not teach you any of the illogical theories you have come up with. I hope he taught you the truth which you have admitted – that all speculation about God’s nature etc. is just that: speculation, guesswork, theory, and not fact. And that anyone who expresses his personal views “with a tone of authority” is kidding himself.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Monday, March 04, 2024, 16:54 (24 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

dhw: You agreed categorically that we and our food descended from the 0.1% of survivors and not from all the creatures that ever lived. The ancestors of birds were a single tiny group of dinosaurs, not “all those dinos”! The other 99.9% (or whatever the figure) did NOT evolve into any current species. Stop contradicting yourself!

99.9% culled produced today's 0.1% surviving, in lines we can trace which means the 99.9% are the direct ancestors of the survivors. Of course, the 'other 99.9% DID evolve into today's species'. Evolution is a constant gain in the number of exiting of species, not a reduction!


Experimentation

DAVID: I still think God speciated all forms. Some dinosauric twigs were the result of in-species adaptation.

dhw: The twigs ARE the different species. You used the words “autonomous experimentation”. So did dinosaur speciation occur through their autonomous ability to make experiments, or are you saying that God did the experimenting?

DAVID: I'm stuck with God designs species. Is some of it experimentation? Your God needs it, not mine.

dhw: This is becoming a habit: you make a comment, I ask a question, and you proceed either to contradict what you said or to ignore it. YOU said it was possible that the twigs (dinosaurs) came from some degree of autonomous experimentation, and now, when I ask what you meant, you try to turn YOUR idea against me!

A purposeful God does not need experimentation like your so-called God. Some minor variations in Dinos forms could be adaptations not new species, remembering the human tendency to be splitters not lumpers. For example, some different Homo fossils may be variations, not separate species.


Purpose

DAVID: You refuse to see in our realm our words are perfect in meaning for us. When those words enter God's realm, we don't know whether they work or not to fit God's personality.

dhw: Correct. Nothing to do with “allegory” but simply a question of whether your God does or doesn’t want us to worship him.

DAVID: We don't know for a fact.

dhw: Of course we don’t. It’s all theory, including God’s existence. Nothing to do with “allegory”. I have no objection to your suggestion that God might want us to worship him. But your suggestion contradicts your other suggestion, which is that he has no self-interest. No facts involved – just two suggestions of yours that contradict each other.

DAVID: How do you know His desires for Himself? My tone of authority comes from my view of Him. You, on the other hand, have many soft views of a nebulous form of God.

dhw: As above, neither of us knows. It’s all suggestions. I find all of your suggestions – desire to be recognized and worshipped, have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating, interest in his creations – perfectly feasible, and it is you who are questioning them because they conflict with another of your suggestions, which is that your God is selfless and has no self-interest. It’s not my fault if you tie yourself in knots with your self-contradictions.

Not contradictions! I don't question my thoughts about God's possible desires, because I recognize God's selflessness overrides the issue, which means those are secondary to His creations. He is not us in any sense of personality.


dhw: I doubt very much that Adler taught you that “autonomous” means dependent on God’s instructions, “allegorical” means correct or incorrect, “wanting to be worshipped” means without self-interest, God is all good so long as we ignore the problem of evil, and God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had nothing to do with the only species he wanted to design. But even if he did impart those ideas to you, that does not make them any the less absurd.

DAVID: Why don't you realize your entire complaint says God should not have evolved us.

dhw: Because that is not my complaint, and you are clutching at straws in order to dodge the sheer absurdity of the theories listed above. I have offered three possible theistic explanations for the course of evolution, none of which even remotely hint that God should not have evolved us and every other species: two entail experimentation, and the third entails a free-for-all.

All humanized suggestions for God.


DAVID: Repeat: Adler's book has one purpose: "How to Think About God". Interpretation to teach you the real truth about Adler. He teaches the reader to think about God's personality as a true theologian.

dhw: How do you define a “true” theologian? Thank you for indirectly admitting that Adler did not teach you any of the illogical theories you have come up with. I hope he taught you the truth which you have admitted – that all speculation about God’s nature etc. is just that: speculation, guesswork, theory, and not fact. And that anyone who expresses his personal views “with a tone of authority” is kidding himself.

Adler's book's subtitle applies to you: "A Guide for Twentieth Century Pagans". Why is he a true theologian? He was a recognized philosopher of religion. At no point did Adler offer any opinion about God's personal reasons for producing us.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Tuesday, March 05, 2024, 09:21 (24 days ago) @ David Turell

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: 99.9% culled produced today's 0.1% surviving, in lines we can trace which means the 99.9% are the direct ancestors of the survivors. Of course, the 'other 99.9% DID evolve into today's species'. Evolution is a constant gain in the number of exiting of species, not a reduction!***

This is becoming farcical.

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

This means we and our contemporary species are descended from the 0.1% of species that survived, and not from the 99.9% that did not survive. Example: dinosaurs. Only birds are descendants from one small group. No other contemporary species is descended from dinosaurs. Therefore the vast majority of dinosaurs were not the ancestors of contemporary species. Here is the same question again, and let’s see if you agree or disagree with yourself:

Do you believe that we and our food (= contemporary species) are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

(*** See Miscellaneous Part One under “Bad luck”)

Experimentation

DAVID: How much the twigs [dinosaur species] came from some degree of automatic [misprint for autonomous] experimentation I see as a possibility.” […]

dhw: So did dinosaur speciation occur through their autonomous ability to make experiments, or are you saying that God did the experimenting?

DAVID: A purposeful God does not need experimentation like your so-called God.

There’s no reason why a purposeful God should not experiment in order to achieve his purpose! Why do you think (a) experimenting in order to find the best way of implementing a purpose, or (b) experimenting in order to make new discoveries, is less god-like than messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designing 99.9 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to the purpose?

DAVID: Some minor variations in Dinos forms could be adaptations not new species, remembering the human tendency to be splitters not lumpers. For example, some different Homo fossils may be variations, not separate species.

All agreed. But you talked of possible “autonomous experimentation”. Do you mean that the dinos were able to make changes to themselves to see if those changes would work?

Purpose

DAVID: How do you know His desires for Himself? My tone of authority comes from my view of Him. You, on the other hand, have many soft views of a nebulous form of God.

dhw: As above, neither of us knows. It’s all suggestions. I find all of your suggestions – desire to be recognized and worshipped, have a relationship with us, enjoyment of creating, interest in his creations – perfectly feasible, and it is you who are questioning them because they conflict with another of your suggestions, which is that your God is selfless and has no self-interest. It’s not my fault if you tie yourself in knots with your self-contradictions.

DAVID: Not contradictions! I don't question my thoughts about God's possible desires, because I recognize God's selflessness overrides the issue, which means those are secondary to His creations. He is not us in any sense of personality.

You think he might want us to worship and recognize him, and he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he is selfless. This apparently is not a contradiction. And although he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours, this cannot mean that he might have thought patterns and emotions like ours. But this is not a contradiction.

DAVID: Why don't you realize your entire complaint says God should not have evolved us.

dhw: Because that is not my complaint. […] I have offered three possible theistic explanations for the course of evolution, none of which even remotely hint that God should not have evolved us and every other species: two entail experimentation, and the third entails a free-for-all.

DAVID: All humanized suggestions for God.

How do these thought patterns come to mean that God should not have evolved us? And why are they less god-like than your theory that for unknown reasons he used a messy, cumbersome and inefficient way to achieve the purpose you impose on him?


Adler

DAVID: Repeat: Adler's book has one purpose: "How to Think About God". Interpretation to teach you the real truth about Adler. He teaches the reader to think about God's personality as a true theologian.

dhw: How do you define a “true” theologian? […] I hope he taught you the truth which you have admitted – that all speculation about God’s nature etc. is just that: speculation, guesswork, theory, and not fact. And that anyone who expresses his personal views “with a tone of authority” is kidding himself.

DAVID: Adler's book's subtitle applies to you: "A Guide for Twentieth Century Pagans". Why is he a true theologian? He was a recognized philosopher of religion. At no point did Adler offer any opinion about God's personal reasons for producing us.

And we all recognize Dawkins as a philosopher of atheism. So what? Does “recognition” mean omniscience? It’s clear that all your self-contradictory theories about God’s purpose, methods and nature have nothing whatsoever to do with Adler, so I don’t know why you keep hiding behind him.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 06, 2024, 16:46 (22 days ago) @ dhw

99.9% and 0.1%

DAVID: 99.9% culled produced today's 0.1% surviving, in lines we can trace which means the 99.9% are the direct ancestors of the survivors. Of course, the 'other 99.9% DID evolve into today's species'. Evolution is a constant gain in the number of exiting of species, not a reduction!***

dhw: This is becoming farcical.

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: This means we and our contemporary species are descended from the 0.1% of species that survived, and not from the 99.9% that did not survive. Example: dinosaurs. Only birds are descendants from one small group. No other contemporary species is descended from dinosaurs. Therefore the vast majority of dinosaurs were not the ancestors of contemporary species. Here is the same question again, and let’s see if you agree or disagree with yourself:

Do you believe that we and our food (= contemporary species) are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

Yes. All existing lines contributed to the 99.9% total loss.


(*** See Miscellaneous Part One under “Bad luck”)

Experimentation

DAVID: How much the twigs [dinosaur species] came from some degree of automatic [misprint for autonomous] experimentation I see as a possibility.” […]

dhw: So did dinosaur speciation occur through their autonomous ability to make experiments, or are you saying that God did the experimenting?

DAVID: A purposeful God does not need experimentation like your so-called God.

dhw: There’s no reason why a purposeful God should not experiment in order to achieve his purpose! Why do you think (a) experimenting in order to find the best way of implementing a purpose, or (b) experimenting in order to make new discoveries, is less god-like than messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designing 99.9 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to the purpose?

An all-knowing omniscient God has no need to experiment!!!


DAVID: Some minor variations in Dinos forms could be adaptations not new species, remembering the human tendency to be splitters not lumpers. For example, some different Homo fossils may be variations, not separate species.

dhw: All agreed. But you talked of possible “autonomous experimentation”. Do you mean that the dinos were able to make changes to themselves to see if those changes would work?

Not to experiment, but adapt.


Purpose

DAVID: Not contradictions! I don't question my thoughts about God's possible desires, because I recognize God's selflessness overrides the issue, which means those are secondary to His creations. He is not us in any sense of personality.

dhw: You think he might want us to worship and recognize him, and he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he is selfless. This apparently is not a contradiction. And although he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours, this cannot mean that he might have thought patterns and emotions like ours. But this is not a contradiction.

You are still trying to humanize God. Put another way, nothing God does is self-service. You don't like the work allegorical to discuss these meanings of words for God, how about metaphorical?>


Adler

DAVID: Adler's book's subtitle applies to you: "A Guide for Twentieth Century Pagans". Why is he a true theologian? He was a recognized philosopher of religion. At no point did Adler offer any opinion about God's personal reasons for producing us.

dhw: And we all recognize Dawkins as a philosopher of atheism. So what? Does “recognition” mean omniscience? It’s clear that all your self-contradictory theories about God’s purpose, methods and nature have nothing whatsoever to do with Adler, so I don’t know why you keep hiding behind him.

I used his instructions to form my own theology. If I wanted to recognize God, I needed to know how to do it from a theologian's standpoint.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by dhw, Thursday, March 07, 2024, 08:22 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: This means we and our contemporary species are descended from the 0.1% of species that survived, and not from the 99.9% that did not survive. Example: dinosaurs. Only birds are descendants from one small group. No other contemporary species is descended from dinosaurs. Therefore the vast majority of dinosaurs were not the ancestors of contemporary species. Here is the same question again, and let’s see if you agree or disagree with yourself:

Do you believe that we and our food (= contemporary species) are directly descended from 99.9% of all creatures that ever lived?

DAVID: Yes. All existing lines contributed to the 99.9% total loss.

You are incorrigible! That is not an answer to the question. We agree that 99.9% of the ancestors of existing lines are extinct and are part of the 99.9% of all extinct species, but you have also agreed that existing species are NOT descended from all the species that ever lived – they are only descended from the 0.1% of survivors. Even you cannot pretend that your initial "no" actually means "yes". STOP DODGING! It is the lines that did NOT evolve into us and our contemporaries that render your anthropocentric theory of evolution so absurdly illogical that even you condemn it as messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

Experimentation

DAVID: How much the twigs [dinosaur species] came from some degree of automatic [misprint for autonomous] experimentation I see as a possibility.” […]

dhw: So did dinosaur speciation occur through their autonomous ability to make experiments, or are you saying that God did the experimenting?

DAVID: A purposeful God does not need experimentation like your so-called God.

dhw: There’s no reason why a purposeful God should not experiment in order to achieve his purpose! Why do you think (a) experimenting in order to find the best way of implementing a purpose, or (b) experimenting in order to make new discoveries, is less god-like than messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designing 99.9 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to the purpose?

DAVID: An all-knowing omniscient God has no need to experiment!!!

Obviously. So in order to understand why he would design and cull 99.9 irrelevant species, we should consider the possibility that we plus our food were NOT his one and only purpose, or that he is not omniscient but is a God who likes to try out new ideas, make discoveries, or even give his creations the freedom to do their own inventing (as indeed you believe he has done with humans).

DAVID: Some minor variations in Dinos forms could be adaptations not new species, [,,,] For example, some Homo fossils may be variations, not separate species.

dhw: All agreed. But you talked of possible “autonomous experimentation”. Do you mean that the dinos were able to make changes to themselves to see if those changes would work?

DAVID: Not to experiment, but adapt.

So do please explain at last what sort of “autonomous experimentation” you meant!

Purpose

DAVID: Not contradictions! I don't question my thoughts about God's possible desires, because I recognize God's selflessness overrides the issue, which means those are secondary to His creations. He is not us in any sense of personality.

dhw: You think he might want us to worship and recognize him, and he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he is selfless. This apparently is not a contradiction. And although he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours, this cannot mean that he might have thought patterns and emotions like ours. But this is not a contradiction.

DAVID: You are still trying to humanize God. Put another way, nothing God does is self-service. You don't like the work allegorical to discuss these meanings of words for God, how about metaphorical?

I accept your perfectly feasible proposal that your God may have thought patterns and emotions like ours. But a God who wants to be worshipped can hardly be called selfless or not self-serving. The words worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy and interest are not metaphors or allegories. They do not symbolize anything, and you have agreed that the question is whether your God does or doesn’t – not whether he disagrees with the dictionary definitions.

Adler

DAVID: I used his instructions to form my own theology. If I wanted to recognize God, I needed to know how to do it from a theologian's standpoint.

And apparently his instructions have led you to a raft of illogical conclusions and self-contradictions. Thank you for agreeing that these are your own theology and not his. So we can now leave him out of all our discussions on your theories, except for the theory that God exists.

Return to David's theory of evolution and purpose

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 07, 2024, 18:04 (21 days ago) @ dhw

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

DAVID: Yes. All existing lines contributed to the 99.9% total loss.

dhw: You are incorrigible! That is not an answer to the question. We agree that 99.9% of the ancestors of existing lines are extinct and are part of the 99.9% of all extinct species, but you have also agreed that existing species are NOT descended from all the species that ever lived – they are only descended from the 0.1% of survivors. Even you cannot pretend that your initial "no" actually means "yes". STOP DODGING! It is the lines that did NOT evolve into us and our contemporaries that render your anthropocentric theory of evolution so absurdly illogical that even you condemn it as messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

Incorrigibility is yours. The 0.1% survivors came from the 99.9% ancestors, which magically makes 100% of all that ever lived. (Pure Raup) What is here is purposely here: humans and the Earth's resources which includes their food supplies. And yes, It is a messy way to do it. Your complaint cannot obscure the result.


Experimentation

DAVID: How much the twigs [dinosaur species] came from some degree of automatic [misprint for autonomous] experimentation I see as a possibility.” […]

dhw: So did dinosaur speciation occur through their autonomous ability to make experiments, or are you saying that God did the experimenting?

DAVID: A purposeful God does not need experimentation like your so-called God.

dhw: There’s no reason why a purposeful God should not experiment in order to achieve his purpose! Why do you think (a) experimenting in order to find the best way of implementing a purpose, or (b) experimenting in order to make new discoveries, is less god-like than messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designing 99.9 out of 100 species that are irrelevant to the purpose?

DAVID: An all-knowing omniscient God has no need to experiment!!!

dhw: Obviously. So in order to understand why he would design and cull 99.9 irrelevant species, we should consider the possibility that we plus our food were NOT his one and only purpose, or that he is not omniscient but is a God who likes to try out new ideas, make discoveries, or even give his creations the freedom to do their own inventing (as indeed you believe he has done with humans).

See new theodicy article which shows how you don't understand how to basically consider God.


DAVID: Some minor variations in Dinos forms could be adaptations not new species, [,,,] For example, some Homo fossils may be variations, not separate species.

dhw: All agreed. But you talked of possible “autonomous experimentation”. Do you mean that the dinos were able to make changes to themselves to see if those changes would work?

DAVID: Not to experiment, but adapt.

dhw: So do please explain at last what sort of “autonomous experimentation” you meant!

I said automatic, look above. The ability to make adaptions as all species do.


Purpose

DAVID: Not contradictions! I don't question my thoughts about God's possible desires, because I recognize God's selflessness overrides the issue, which means those are secondary to His creations. He is not us in any sense of personality.

dhw: You think he might want us to worship and recognize him, and he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, but he is selfless. This apparently is not a contradiction. And although he may have thought patterns and emotions like ours, this cannot mean that he might have thought patterns and emotions like ours. But this is not a contradiction.

DAVID: You are still trying to humanize God. Put another way, nothing God does is self-service. You don't like the work allegorical to discuss these meanings of words for God, how about metaphorical?

dhw: I accept your perfectly feasible proposal that your God may have thought patterns and emotions like ours. But a God who wants to be worshipped can hardly be called selfless or not self-serving. The words worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy and interest are not metaphors or allegories. They do not symbolize anything, and you have agreed that the question is whether your God does or doesn’t – not whether he disagrees with the dictionary definitions.

See theodicy article today.


Adler

DAVID: I used his instructions to form my own theology. If I wanted to recognize God, I needed to know how to do it from a theologian's standpoint.

dhw: And apparently his instructions have led you to a raft of illogical conclusions and self-contradictions. Thank you for agreeing that these are your own theology and not his. So we can now leave him out of all our discussions on your theories, except for the theory that God exists.

But! He tells how we have to properly think about God!

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Friday, March 08, 2024, 11:31 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

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

DAVID (a few days ago): No. From the 0.1% surviving.
And yesterday:
DAVID: Yes. All existing lines contributed to the 99.9% total loss.

dhw: You are incorrigible! That is not an answer to the question.

DAVID: Incorrigibility is yours. The 0.1% survivors came from the 99.9% ancestors, which magically makes 100% of all that ever lived.

There is no such magic. 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct, but our ancestors only comprise 0.1% of all the creatures that ever lived, as you agreed in your first answer. Example: one small group of dinosaurs evolved into current species (birds), and the rest were dead ends. i.e. had no descendants. And you have no idea why your God would messily and inefficiently have designed the dead ends. STOP DODGING!

Experimentation

DAVID: An all-knowing omniscient God has no need to experiment!!!

dhw: Obviously. So in order to understand why he would design and cull 99.9 irrelevant species, we should consider the possibility that we plus our food were NOT his one and only purpose, or that he is not omniscient but is a God who likes to try out new ideas, make discoveries, or even give his creations the freedom to do their own inventing (as indeed you believe he has done with humans).

DAVID: See new theodicy article which shows how you don't understand how to basically consider God.

See below.

dhw: [...] please explain at last what sort of “autonomous experimentation” you meant!

DAVID: I said automatic, look above. The ability to make adaptions as all species do.

I asked if that was a misprint, and you replied: ‘Autonomous experimentation’ is what Behe has described. And you thought it was possible that the twigs (dinosaurs) came from some degree of autonomous experimentation. You obviously agreed with Behe, and you must know what you agreed with. Does Behe believe dinosaurs might have speciated by means of autonomous adaptation, and that adaptation is synonymous with experimentation?

Purpose

dhw: I accept your perfectly feasible proposal that your God may have thought patterns and emotions like ours. But a God who wants to be worshipped can hardly be called selfless or not self-serving. The words worship, recognize, relationship, enjoy and interest are not metaphors or allegories. They do not symbolize anything, and you have agreed that the question is whether your God does or doesn’t – not whether he disagrees with the dictionary definitions.

DAVID: See theodicy article today.

See below

Adler

dhw: And apparently his instructions have led you to a raft of illogical conclusions and self-contradictions.

DAVID: But! He tells how we have to properly think about God!

The article below, which you support, makes it clear that nobody knows how to “properly” think about God.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

QUOTE: "Given that God has exhaustive knowledge and is much wiser than we are, it would not at all be surprising if God has knowledge that we lack access to — knowledge that is relevant to one or more of his decisions. (David’s bold).This has applicability to the problem of evil, since it is difficult for us to evaluate, from our limited vantagepoint, whether God plausibly might have morally sufficient justification for allowing natural and personal evil to exist in the world. This is not to say that the problem of evil has no evidential force against theism (dhw’s bold), but, rather, that we should be cautious about overstating what we can assert with confidence about what God would or would not do or allow to happen.

He is anything but a skeptical theist! Your bold alone shows he has total faith, and his skepticism applies purely to human pronouncements about the nature of God. My bold shows how confused he is. The problem of evil (theodicy) only arises if there is a God! It has nothing to do with theism (belief in God). “Overstating with confidence” applies just as much to his proposal that God might plausibly have knowledge which justifies evil as to the proposal that God’s powers might plausibly be limited, or that God plausibly couldn’t care less about the damage his invention has caused. It also applies to every theory that you have not only proposed but actually believe in.

DAVID: Note my bold. With God's vast knowledge how can we humans outguess His motives? Or worse, give Him obviously human motives?

The only safe approach will therefore be to stop theorizing altogether. For instance, don’t tell us his only motive for creating life was to design humans and our food, that his messy, inefficient method of doing so was to design 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to his purpose, that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, that he might want us to recognize us and worship him, have a relationship with him, enjoy creating and be interested in his creations. Just say God exists and we cannot “assert with confidence” what he would or wouldn’t do, or what he wants, or what he is like. And we should get rid of most religions, because they are based on confident but overstated assertions – e.g. his omnipotence, omniscience, all- goodness and wish to be worshipped.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, March 08, 2024, 19:47 (20 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Incorrigibility is yours. The 0.1% survivors came from the 99.9% ancestors, which magically makes 100% of all that ever lived.

dhw: There is no such magic. 99.9% of the ancestors of current species are extinct, but our ancestors only comprise 0.1% of all the creatures that ever lived, as you agreed in your first answer. Example: one small group of dinosaurs evolved into current species (birds), and the rest were dead ends. i.e. had no descendants. And you have no idea why your God would messily and inefficiently have designed the dead ends. STOP DODGING!

Raup's estimate of loss of organisms is a cumulative total, which cannot be assumed is the same rate of loss for every living species. The human tree may be more or less! Back to the same question, why did God evolve us over 3.5 billion years +/-?


Experimentation

DAVID: An all-knowing omniscient God has no need to experiment!!!

dhw: Obviously. So in order to understand why he would design and cull 99.9 irrelevant species, we should consider the possibility that we plus our food were NOT his one and only purpose, or that he is not omniscient but is a God who likes to try out new ideas, make discoveries, or even give his creations the freedom to do their own inventing (as indeed you believe he has done with humans).

DAVID: See new theodicy article which shows how you don't understand how to basically consider God.

See below.

dhw: [...] please explain at last what sort of “autonomous experimentation” you meant!

DAVID: I said automatic, look above. The ability to make adaptions as all species do.

dhw: I asked if that was a misprint, and you replied: ‘Autonomous experimentation’ is what Behe has described. And you thought it was possible that the twigs (dinosaurs) came from some degree of autonomous experimentation. You obviously agreed with Behe, and you must know what you agreed with. Does Behe believe dinosaurs might have speciated by means of autonomous adaptation, and that adaptation is synonymous with experimentation?

Stop applying my thoughts to Behe. I quote what he exactly offers, and occasionally he uses a species for example. He's offered polar bears previously.


Adler

dhw: And apparently his instructions have led you to a raft of illogical conclusions and self-contradictions.

DAVID: But! He tells how we have to properly think about God!

dhw: The article below, which you support, makes it clear that nobody knows how to “properly” think about God.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

QUOTE: "Given that God has exhaustive knowledge and is much wiser than we are, it would not at all be surprising if God has knowledge that we lack access to — knowledge that is relevant to one or more of his decisions. (David’s bold).This has applicability to the problem of evil, since it is difficult for us to evaluate, from our limited vantagepoint, whether God plausibly might have morally sufficient justification for allowing natural and personal evil to exist in the world. This is not to say that the problem of evil has no evidential force against theism (dhw’s bold), but, rather, that we should be cautious about overstating what we can assert with confidence about what God would or would not do or allow to happen.

dhw: He is anything but a skeptical theist! Your bold alone shows he has total faith, and his skepticism applies purely to human pronouncements about the nature of God. My bold shows how confused he is. The problem of evil (theodicy) only arises if there is a God! It has nothing to do with theism (belief in God). “Overstating with confidence” applies just as much to his proposal that God might plausibly have knowledge which justifies evil as to the proposal that God’s powers might plausibly be limited, or that God plausibly couldn’t care less about the damage his invention has caused. It also applies to every theory that you have not only proposed but actually believe in.

The now-bolded part of your response is the key to thinking about God. We are analyzing guesswork every time we describe God's personality, His possible motives, His personal feelings, etc. ad nauseum.


DAVID: Note my bold. With God's vast knowledge how can we humans outguess His motives? Or worse, give Him obviously human motives?

dhw: The only safe approach will therefore be to stop theorizing altogether. For instance, don’t tell us his only motive for creating life was to design humans and our food, that his messy, inefficient method of doing so was to design 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to his purpose, that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, that he might want us to recognize us and worship him, have a relationship with him, enjoy creating and be interested in his creations. Just say God exists and we cannot “assert with confidence” what he would or wouldn’t do, or what he wants, or what he is like. And we should get rid of most religions, because they are based on confident but overstated assertions – e.g. his omnipotence, omniscience, all- goodness and wish to be worshipped.

Try leaping the chasm as I have. Suddenly lots of the so-called problems make perfect sense.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, March 09, 2024, 08:27 (20 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Raup's estimate of loss of organisms is a cumulative total, which cannot be assumed is the same rate of loss for every living species. The human tree may be more or less! Back to the same question, why did God evolve us over 3.5 billion years +/-?

That is only part of the question. Will you never stop dodging? This whole discussion revolves around the fact that the vast majority of species (regardless of exact figures at particular times) did not lead to us and our contemporary species, as you explicitly agreed in the following exchange, which you keep trying to ignore:

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

And the question is why, if your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, as you claim, he designed and then culled the vast majority of species that had no connection with that purpose. You have no idea. You ridicule it as being a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way of achieving the purpose you impose on him, but you refuse to consider any alternative explanation of evolution’s history.

Experimentation

DAVID: An all-knowing omniscient God has no need to experiment!!!

dhw: Obviously. So in order to understand why he would design and cull 99.9 irrelevant species, we should consider the possibility that we plus our food were NOT his one and only purpose, or that he is not omniscient but is a God who likes to try out new ideas, make discoveries, or even give his creations the freedom to do their own inventing (as indeed you believe he has done with humans).

DAVID: See new theodicy article which shows how you don't understand how to basically consider God.

See below.

DAVID (re “experimentation”): Stop applying my thoughts to Behe. I quote what he exactly offers, and occasionally he uses a species for example. He's offered polar bears previously.

After correction of the misquote (automatic instead of autonomous), your statement was: “How much the twigs [dinosaurs] came from some degree of autonomous experimentation I see as a possibility.” Although strangely phrased, it is clear that you believe in the possibility of autonomous experimentation. If Behe means it can result in speciation, and you think it is possible, then perhaps you and he are heading towards acceptance of Shapiro’s theory that organisms do their own designing. If that is not what you mean, then please explain what you DO mean.

Adler

dhw: […] apparently his instructions have led you to a raft of illogical conclusions and self-contradictions.

DAVID: But! He tells how we have to properly think about God!

dhw: The article below, which you support, makes it clear that nobody knows how to “properly” think about God.

No reply. It seems that we agree, so apart from Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence, he becomes irrelevant to our discussions.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

QUOTE: "Given that God has exhaustive knowledge and is much wiser than we are, it would not at all be surprising if God has knowledge that we lack access to — knowledge that is relevant to one or more of his decisions. (David’s bold).[…] we should be cautious about overstating what we can assert with confidence about what God would or would not do or allow to happen.”

dhw: He is anything but a skeptical theist! Your bold alone shows he has total faith, and his skepticism applies purely to human pronouncements about the nature of God. […] “Overstating with confidence” applies just as much to his proposal that God might plausibly have knowledge which justifies evil as to the proposal that God’s powers might plausibly be limited, or that God plausibly couldn’t care less about the damage his invention has caused. It also applies to every theory that you have not only proposed but actually believe in.

DAVID: The now-bolded part of your response is the key to thinking about God. We are analyzing guesswork every time we describe God's personality, His possible motives, His personal feelings, etc. ad nauseum.

Correct. Hence my next comment:

dhw: The only safe approach will therefore be to stop theorizing altogether. For instance, don’t tell us his only motive for creating life was to design humans and our food, that his messy, inefficient method of doing so was to design 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to his purpose, that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, that he might want us to recognize us and worship him, have a relationship with him, enjoy creating and be interested in his creations. Just say God exists and we cannot “assert with confidence” what he would or wouldn’t do, or what he wants, or what he is like. And we should get rid of most religions, because they are based on confident but overstated assertions – e.g. his omnipotence, omniscience, all- goodness and wish to be worshipped.

DAVID: Try leaping the chasm as I have. Suddenly lots of the so-called problems make perfect sense.

You are advocating precisely what the article (perhaps unwittingly) condemns: you think we should accept all the baseless, confidently overstated assumptions listed above – and reject any other guesses which you disapprove of.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 09, 2024, 19:40 (19 days ago) @ dhw

dhw; That is only part of the question. Will you never stop dodging? This whole discussion revolves around the fact that the vast majority of species (regardless of exact figures at particular times) did not lead to us and our contemporary species, as you explicitly agreed in the following exchange, which you keep trying to ignore:

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: And the question is why, if your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, as you claim, he designed and then culled the vast majority of species that had no connection with that purpose. You have no idea. You ridicule it as being a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way of achieving the purpose you impose on him, but you refuse to consider any alternative explanation of evolution’s history.

All your alternatives humanize God. Your theories torture the obvious role of evolution to cull twigs and advance complexity, arriving at our brain.


Experimentation

DAVID: An all-knowing omniscient God has no need to experiment!!!

dhw: Obviously. So in order to understand why he would design and cull 99.9 irrelevant species, we should consider the possibility that we plus our food were NOT his one and only purpose, or that he is not omniscient but is a God who likes to try out new ideas, make discoveries, or even give his creations the freedom to do their own inventing (as indeed you believe he has done with humans).

DAVID: See new theodicy article which shows how you don't understand how to basically consider God.

See below.

DAVID (re “experimentation”): Stop applying my thoughts to Behe. I quote what he exactly offers, and occasionally he uses a species for example. He's offered polar bears previously.

dhw: as experimentation I see as a possibility.[/i]” Although strangely phrased, it is clear that you believe in the possibility of autonomous experimentation. If Behe means it can result in speciation, and you think it is possible, then perhaps you and he are heading towards acceptance of Shapiro’s theory that organisms do their own designing. If that is not what you mean, then please explain what you DO mean.

Shapiro's reasonable theory has no proof. Behe sees minor biochemical adaptations.


Adler

dhw: […] apparently his instructions have led you to a raft of illogical conclusions and self-contradictions.

DAVID: But! He tells how we have to properly think about God!

dhw: The article below, which you support, makes it clear that nobody knows how to “properly” think about God.

No reply. It seems that we agree, so apart from Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence, he becomes irrelevant to our discussions.

Not irrelevant. He tought me.


Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

QUOTE: "Given that God has exhaustive knowledge and is much wiser than we are, it would not at all be surprising if God has knowledge that we lack access to — knowledge that is relevant to one or more of his decisions. (David’s bold).[…] we should be cautious about overstating what we can assert with confidence about what God would or would not do or allow to happen.”

dhw: He is anything but a skeptical theist! Your bold alone shows he has total faith, and his skepticism applies purely to human pronouncements about the nature of God. […] “Overstating with confidence” applies just as much to his proposal that God might plausibly have knowledge which justifies evil as to the proposal that God’s powers might plausibly be limited, or that God plausibly couldn’t care less about the damage his invention has caused. It also applies to every theory that you have not only proposed but actually believe in.

DAVID: The now-bolded part of your response is the key to thinking about God. We are analyzing guesswork every time we describe God's personality, His possible motives, His personal feelings, etc. ad nauseum.

Correct. Hence my next comment:

dhw: The only safe approach will therefore be to stop theorizing altogether. For instance, don’t tell us his only motive for creating life was to design humans and our food, that his messy, inefficient method of doing so was to design 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to his purpose, that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, that he might want us to recognize us and worship him, have a relationship with him, enjoy creating and be interested in his creations. Just say God exists and we cannot “assert with confidence” what he would or wouldn’t do, or what he wants, or what he is like. And we should get rid of most religions, because they are based on confident but overstated assertions – e.g. his omnipotence, omniscience, all- goodness and wish to be worshipped.

DAVID: Try leaping the chasm as I have. Suddenly lots of the so-called problems make perfect sense.

dhw: You are advocating precisely what the article (perhaps unwittingly) condemns: you think we should accept all the baseless, confidently overstated assumptions listed above – and reject any other guesses which you disapprove of.

Faith does that!!

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, March 10, 2024, 11:47 (18 days ago) @ David Turell

David's theory of evolution

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

DAVID: No. From the 0.1% surviving.

dhw: And the question is why, if your God’s sole purpose was to design us and our food, as you claim, he designed and then culled the vast majority of species that had no connection with that purpose. You have no idea. You ridicule it as being a messy, cumbersome, inefficient way of achieving the purpose you impose on him, but you refuse to consider any alternative explanation of evolution’s history.

DAVID: All your alternatives humanize God. Your theories torture the obvious role of evolution to cull twigs and advance complexity, arriving at our brain.

God is not a human being, but you accept the possibility that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you load him with attributes whose existence – like his own – cannot be proved. Evolution is a process, and according to you it is directed by your God, who deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were not connected with the purpose you impose on him. And you have no idea why he would have done so. It makes no sense. Stop dodging.

Experimentation

DAVID: How much the twigs [dinosaurs] came from some degree of automatic [corrected to autonomous] experimentation I see as a possibility.”

dhw: Although strangely phrased, it is clear that you believe in the possibility of autonomous experimentation. If Behe means it can result in speciation, and you think it is possible, then perhaps you and he are heading towards acceptance of Shapiro’s theory that organisms do their own designing. If that is not what you mean, then please explain what you DO mean.

DAVID: Shapiro's reasonable theory has no proof. Behe sees minor biochemical adaptations.

The God theory, the divine dabble theory, and the 3.8-billion-year-old instruction book theory have no proof, but you think autonomous experimentation is a possibility, and I keep asking what you meant by it. You keep refusing to answer. However, you contradict yourself so often that if you wish to retract your belief in the possibility of autonomous experimentation, please do so, and I’ll stop asking what you meant.

Adler

dhw: […] apparently his instructions have led you to a raft of illogical conclusions and self-contradictions.

DAVID: But! He tells how we have to properly think about God!

dhw: The article below, which you support, makes it clear that nobody knows how to “properly” think about God.

No reply. It seems that we agree, so apart from Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence, he becomes irrelevant to our discussions.

DAVID: Not irrelevant. He tought me.

Apart from the one exception above, he did not teach you any of the theories you propose, including those in which you contradict yourself. Stop hiding behind him.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

QUOTE: "Given that God has exhaustive knowledge and is much wiser than we are, it would not at all be surprising if God has knowledge that we lack access to — knowledge that is relevant to one or more of his decisions. (David’s bold).[…] we should be cautious about overstating what we can assert with confidence about what God would or would not do or allow to happen.” […]

dhw: The only safe approach will therefore be to stop theorizing altogether. For instance, don’t tell us his only motive for creating life was to design humans and our food, that his messy, inefficient method of doing so was to design 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to his purpose, that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, that he might want us to recognize him and worship him, have a relationship with him, enjoy creating and be interested in his creations. Just say God exists and we cannot “assert with confidence” what he would or wouldn’t do, or what he wants, or what he is like. And we should get rid of most religions, because they are based on confident but overstated assertions – e.g. his omnipotence, omniscience, all-goodness and wish to be worshipped.

DAVID: Try leaping the chasm as I have. Suddenly lots of the so-called problems make perfect sense.

dhw: You are advocating precisely what the article (perhaps unwittingly) condemns: you think we should accept all the baseless, confidently overstated assumptions listed above – and reject any other guesses which you disapprove of.

DAVID: Faith does that!!

Yes, it makes you overstate what you can “assert with confidence about” what your God might do, want and be. Atheists go so far as to assert with confidence that God does not exist. Try leaping their chasm, and suddenly lots of the so-called problems will make perfect sense (e.g. your God’s apparent inefficiency in designing and culling 99.9 irrelevant species out of 100; why God would have to create zillions of stars in order to design one planet suitable for life; how an all-good God can design evil; how an immaterial conscious mind can simply “be” there for ever, without having any source).

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 10, 2024, 19:24 (18 days ago) @ dhw

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: All your alternatives humanize God. Your theories torture the obvious role of evolution to cull twigs and advance complexity, arriving at our brain.

dhw: God is not a human being, but you accept the possibility that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you load him with attributes whose existence – like his own – cannot be proved. Evolution is a process, and according to you it is directed by your God, who deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were not connected with the purpose you impose on him. And you have no idea why he would have done so. It makes no sense. Stop dodging.

The humanized versions of God's actions, proposed by you, make no sense to me. God is not human as you state, and then promptly forget when you put God is charge of evolution.


Experimentation

DAVID: How much the twigs [dinosaurs] came from some degree of automatic [corrected to autonomous] experimentation I see as a possibility.”

dhw: Although strangely phrased, it is clear that you believe in the possibility of autonomous experimentation. If Behe means it can result in speciation, and you think it is possible, then perhaps you and he are heading towards acceptance of Shapiro’s theory that organisms do their own designing. If that is not what you mean, then please explain what you DO mean.

DAVID: Shapiro's reasonable theory has no proof. Behe sees minor biochemical adaptations.

dhw: The God theory, the divine dabble theory, and the 3.8-billion-year-old instruction book theory have no proof, but you think autonomous experimentation is a possibility, and I keep asking what you meant by it. You keep refusing to answer. However, you contradict yourself so often that if you wish to retract your belief in the possibility of autonomous experimentation, please do so, and I’ll stop asking what you meant.

Why keep asking? I don't use the word autonomous as you insist upon doing. Species adapt autonomously using God's DNA guidelines!


Adler

dhw: It seems that we agree, so apart from Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence, he becomes irrelevant to our discussions.

DAVID: Not irrelevant. He taught me.

dhw: Apart from the one exception above, he did not teach you any of the theories you propose, including those in which you contradict yourself. Stop hiding behind him.

I developed those thories by following Adler's guidelines.


Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

QUOTE: "Given that God has exhaustive knowledge and is much wiser than we are, it would not at all be surprising if God has knowledge that we lack access to — knowledge that is relevant to one or more of his decisions. (David’s bold).[…] we should be cautious about overstating what we can assert with confidence about what God would or would not do or allow to happen.” […]

dhw: The only safe approach will therefore be to stop theorizing altogether. For instance, don’t tell us his only motive for creating life was to design humans and our food, that his messy, inefficient method of doing so was to design 99.9% of species that were irrelevant to his purpose, that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good, that he might want us to recognize him and worship him, have a relationship with him, enjoy creating and be interested in his creations. Just say God exists and we cannot “assert with confidence” what he would or wouldn’t do, or what he wants, or what he is like. And we should get rid of most religions, because they are based on confident but overstated assertions – e.g. his omnipotence, omniscience, all-goodness and wish to be worshipped.

DAVID: Try leaping the chasm as I have. Suddenly lots of the so-called problems make perfect sense.

dhw: You are advocating precisely what the article (perhaps unwittingly) condemns: you think we should accept all the baseless, confidently overstated assumptions listed above – and reject any other guesses which you disapprove of.

DAVID: Faith does that!!

dhw: Yes, it makes you overstate what you can “assert with confidence about” what your God might do, want and be. Atheists go so far as to assert with confidence that God does not exist. Try leaping their chasm, and suddenly lots of the so-called problems will make perfect sense (e.g. your God’s apparent inefficiency in designing and culling 99.9 irrelevant species out of 100; why God would have to create zillions of stars in order to design one planet suitable for life; how an all-good God can design evil; how an immaterial conscious mind can simply “be” there for ever, without having any source).

Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Monday, March 11, 2024, 13:10 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: All your alternatives humanize God. Your theories torture the obvious role of evolution to cull twigs and advance complexity, arriving at our brain.

dhw: God is not a human being, but you accept the possibility that he has thought patterns and emotions like ours, and you load him with attributes whose existence – like his own – cannot be proved. Evolution is a process, and according to you it is directed by your God, who deliberately, messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were not connected with the purpose you impose on him. And you have no idea why he would have done so. It makes no sense. Stop dodging.

DAVID: The humanized versions of God's actions, proposed by you, make no sense to me. God is not human as you state, and then promptly forget when you put God is charge of evolution.

Your usual attempt to dodge the total illogicality of your theory bolded above. You have acknowledged the logic of my alternative theories (two forms of experimentation or a free-for-all), and your only objection is that these turn him into a human being, which is manifest nonsense. A God who experiments and learns and enjoys is still an eternal, immaterial and sourceless being who can create a universe. And he is no more human than a God who messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designs and then culls 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose.

Experimentation

dhw: […] you think autonomous experimentation is a possibility, and I keep asking what you meant by it. You keep refusing to answer. However, you contradict yourself so often that if you wish to retract your belief in the possibility of autonomous experimentation, please do so, and I’ll stop asking what you meant.

DAVID: Why keep asking? I don't use the word autonomous as you insist upon doing. Species adapt autonomously using God's DNA guidelines!

“Autonomous” means having the ability to work, design, make decisions etc. independently of any outside control. That means without guidelines/instructions/directions from outside. Species don’t just adapt – they also innovate. You have not withdrawn the word “experimentation”, so in effect you have now agreed that organisms might possibly conduct their own experiments. I have also offered you an alternative: that God conducts experiments. But since you think autonomous means the exact opposite of autonomous, maybe you think experimentation means the exact opposite of experimentation. You’d have been better off simply retracting your belief that autonomous experimentation is a possibility.

Adler

dhw: It seems that we agree, so apart from Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence, he becomes irrelevant to our discussions.

DAVID: Not irrelevant. He taught me.

dhw: Apart from the one exception above, he did not teach you any of the theories you propose, including those in which you contradict yourself. Stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: I developed those thories by following Adler's guidelines.

Then I suspect he’ll be turning in his grave at all the contradictions and illogicalities you ascribe to his guidelines.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

DAVID: Try leaping the chasm as I have. Suddenly lots of the so-called problems make perfect sense.

dhw: You are advocating precisely what the article (perhaps unwittingly) condemns: you think we should accept all the baseless, confidently overstated assumptions listed above – and reject any other guesses which you disapprove of.

DAVID: Faith does that!!

dhw: Yes, it makes you overstate what you can “assert with confidence about” what your God might do, want and be. Atheists go so far as to assert with confidence that God does not exist. Try leaping their chasm, and suddenly lots of the so-called problems will make perfect sense (e.g. your God’s apparent inefficiency in designing and culling 99.9 irrelevant species out of 100; why God would have to create zillions of stars in order to design one planet suitable for life; how an all-good God can design evil; how an immaterial conscious mind can simply “be” there for ever, without having any source.)

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. Your “sceptical theist” has perhaps unwittingly condemned the overstated assumptions that arise from your leap over what you admit is a chasm.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, March 11, 2024, 22:58 (17 days ago) @ dhw

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: The humanized versions of God's actions, proposed by you, make no sense to me. God is not human as you state, and then promptly forget when you put God is charge of evolution.

dhw: Your usual attempt to dodge the total illogicality of your theory bolded above. You have acknowledged the logic of my alternative theories (two forms of experimentation or a free-for-all), and your only objection is that these turn him into a human being, which is manifest nonsense. A God who experiments and learns and enjoys is still an eternal, immaterial and sourceless being who can create a universe. And he is no more human than a God who messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designs and then culls 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose.

I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it. The culling described by Raup is not the way it should be stated in your distorted way: Raup says 99.9% of all organisms died to produce today's 0.1% survivors. Never a word about species, which you have purposely added to create a view of God as an experimenting, humanized unrecognizable form of a God.


Experimentation

dhw: […] you think autonomous experimentation is a possibility, and I keep asking what you meant by it. You keep refusing to answer. However, you contradict yourself so often that if you wish to retract your belief in the possibility of autonomous experimentation, please do so, and I’ll stop asking what you meant.

DAVID: Why keep asking? I don't use the word autonomous as you insist upon doing. Species adapt autonomously using God's DNA guidelines!

dhw" “Autonomous” means having the ability to work, design, make decisions etc. independently of any outside control. That means without guidelines/instructions/directions from outside. Species don’t just adapt – they also innovate. You have not withdrawn the word “experimentation”, so in effect you have now agreed that organisms might possibly conduct their own experiments. I have also offered you an alternative: that God conducts experiments. But since you think autonomous means the exact opposite of autonomous, maybe you think experimentation means the exact opposite of experimentation. You’d have been better off simply retracting your belief that autonomous experimentation is a possibility.

Behe has quoted minor biochemical variations that organisms do invent. As for 'autonomous', do you consider yourself autonomous?


Adler

dhw: It seems that we agree, so apart from Adler’s “proof” of God’s existence, he becomes irrelevant to our discussions.

DAVID: Not irrelevant. He taught me.

dhw: Apart from the one exception above, he did not teach you any of the theories you propose, including those in which you contradict yourself. Stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: I developed those thories by following Adler's guidelines.

Then I suspect he’ll be turning in his grave at all the contradictions and illogicalities you ascribe to his guidelines.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

DAVID: Try leaping the chasm as I have. Suddenly lots of the so-called problems make perfect sense.

dhw: You are advocating precisely what the article (perhaps unwittingly) condemns: you think we should accept all the baseless, confidently overstated assumptions listed above – and reject any other guesses which you disapprove of.

DAVID: Faith does that!!

dhw: Yes, it makes you overstate what you can “assert with confidence about” what your God might do, want and be. Atheists go so far as to assert with confidence that God does not exist. Try leaping their chasm, and suddenly lots of the so-called problems will make perfect sense (e.g. your God’s apparent inefficiency in designing and culling 99.9 irrelevant species out of 100; why God would have to create zillions of stars in order to design one planet suitable for life; how an all-good God can design evil; how an immaterial conscious mind can simply “be” there for ever, without having any source.)

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. Your “sceptical theist” has perhaps unwittingly condemned the overstated assumptions that arise from your leap over what you admit is a chasm.

So, we are left with existing here without a first cause. You are here, with all of your magnificent biochemistry, from a series of chance contingencies. Glad you made it against all the odds!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, March 12, 2024, 09:20 (17 days ago) @ David Turell

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: The humanized versions of God's actions, proposed by you, make no sense to me. God is not human as you state, and then promptly forget when you put God is charge of evolution.

dhw: Your usual attempt to dodge the total illogicality of your theory bolded above. You have acknowledged the logic of my alternative theories (two forms of experimentation or a free-for-all), and your only objection is that these turn him into a human being, which is manifest nonsense. A God who experiments and learns and enjoys is still an eternal, immaterial and sourceless being who can create a universe. And he is no more human than a God who messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently designs and then culls 99.9 out of 100 species that have no connection with his one and only purpose.

DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

Process theology rejects the theory of divine omnipotence and omniscience, and since God doesn’t know the future, he must be capable of learning and is not immutable. Deists propose that your God initiated creation and then allowed it to run its own course (free-or-all). Many theologians, including the Pope, accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, but please tell me which theologians preach that an omnipotent, omniscient God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently and incomprehensibly designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species in order to fulfil his sole purpose of designing us and our contemporary species.

DAVID: The culling described by Raup is not the way it should be stated in your distorted way: Raup says 99.9% of all organisms died to produce today's 0.1% survivors. Never a word about species, which you have purposely added to create a view of God as an experimenting, humanized unrecognizable form of a God.

It’s not the 99.9% of extinct organisms that produced today’s 0.1% survivors. You have agreed that we and our food were produced by the 0.1% of organisms that survived all the extinctions. I’m not arguing with Raup. I’m trying to find an explanation for YOUR illogical theory bolded above. Experimentation or a free-for-all would explain the 99.9%.

Experimentation
dhw: […] you think autonomous experimentation is a possibility, and I keep asking what you meant by it. You keep refusing to answer. […]

DAVID: Why keep asking? I don't use the word autonomous as you insist upon doing. Species adapt autonomously using God's DNA guidelines!

dhw" “Autonomous” means having the ability to work, design, make decisions etc. independently of any outside control. That means without guidelines/instructions/directions from outside. Species don’t just adapt – they also innovate. […] in effect you have now agreed that organisms might possibly conduct their own experiments. I have also offered you an alternative: that God conducts experiments. But [...] maybe you think experimentation means the exact opposite of experimentation. […]

DAVID: Behe has quoted minor biochemical variations that organisms do invent.

I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.

DAVID: As for 'autonomous', do you consider yourself autonomous?

You have tried to reverse the meaning of autonomous, refuse to explain what you were referring to, and now ask a totally irrelevant question, which would lead to a discussion on free will. I remain neutral on the subject, which we have discussed ad nauseam. Please stop dodging.

Adler

dhw: Apart from the one exception above, he did not teach you any of the theories you propose, including those in which you contradict yourself. Stop hiding behind him.

DAVID: I developed those thories by following Adler's guidelines.

dhw: Then I suspect he’ll be turning in his grave at all the contradictions and illogicalities you ascribe to his guidelines.

I’m pleased to see you have not responded. I trust this is the last we shall hear of Adler’s role in your wacky theories.

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. Your “sceptical theist” has perhaps unwittingly condemned the overstated assumptions that arise from your leap over what you admit is a chasm.

DAVID: So, we are left with existing here without a first cause. You are here, with all of your magnificent biochemistry, from a series of chance contingencies. Glad you made it against all the odds!!!

We are not left here without a first cause! The choice lies between a mysterious, unknowable, supremely conscious mind without a source and an infinite mass of energy and matter which in the course of eternity eventually chanced to produce a rudimentary form of life and consciousness that evolved into us and every other species. I find both equally difficult to believe, because each produces what you call a chasm, and you must abandon all reason if you choose to leap over it.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 12, 2024, 19:02 (16 days ago) @ dhw

David's theory of evolution

DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

dhw: Process theology rejects the theory of divine omnipotence and omniscience, and since God doesn’t know the future, he must be capable of learning and is not immutable. Deists propose that your God initiated creation and then allowed it to run its own course (free-or-all). Many theologians, including the Pope, accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, but please tell me which theologians preach that an omnipotent, omniscient God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently and incomprehensibly designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species in order to fulfil his sole purpose of designing us and our contemporary species.

Process and deist theologies are not mainstream, and not worth using. My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other.


DAVID: The culling described by Raup is not the way it should be stated in your distorted way: Raup says 99.9% of all organisms died to produce today's 0.1% survivors. Never a word about species, which you have purposely added to create a view of God as an experimenting, humanized unrecognizable form of a God.

dhw: It’s not the 99.9% of extinct organisms that produced today’s 0.1% survivors. You have agreed that we and our food were produced by the 0.1% of organisms that survived all the extinctions. I’m not arguing with Raup. I’m trying to find an explanation for YOUR illogical theory bolded above. Experimentation or a free-for-all would explain the 99.9%.

Experimentation and free-for-all concepts fit process and deist views which you seem to follow in your catch-all views of any sorts of Gods are possible. Mine is a purposeful God, who culled 99.9% of forms to reach now.


Experimentation

DAVID: I don't use the word autonomous as you insist upon doing. Species adapt autonomously using God's DNA guidelines!

dhw" “Autonomous” means having the ability to work, design, make decisions etc. independently of any outside control. That means without guidelines/instructions/directions from outside. Species don’t just adapt – they also innovate. […] in effect you have now agreed that organisms might possibly conduct their own experiments. I have also offered you an alternative: that God conducts experiments. But [...] maybe you think experimentation means the exact opposite of experimentation. […]

DAVID: Behe has quoted minor biochemical variations that organisms do invent.

dhw: I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.

DAVID: As for 'autonomous', do you consider yourself autonomous?

dhw: You have tried to reverse the meaning of autonomous, refuse to explain what you were referring to, and now ask a totally irrelevant question, which would lead to a discussion on free will. I remain neutral on the subject, which we have discussed ad nauseam. Please stop dodging.

Nonsense! Do you act everyday as if you have free will is a simple question. You can't tell me you don't act autonomously every day. Eash AM do your past influences dictate how you dress?


Adler

dhw: Then I suspect he’ll be turning in his grave at all the contradictions and illogicalities you ascribe to his guidelines.

I’m pleased to see you have not responded. I trust this is the last we shall hear of Adler’s role in your wacky theories.

He will undoubtedly be back.


Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. Your “sceptical theist” has perhaps unwittingly condemned the overstated assumptions that arise from your leap over what you admit is a chasm.

DAVID: So, we are left with existing here without a first cause. You are here, with all of your magnificent biochemistry, from a series of chance contingencies. Glad you made it against all the odds!!!

dhw: We are not left here without a first cause! The choice lies between a mysterious, unknowable, supremely conscious mind without a source and an infinite mass of energy and matter which in the course of eternity eventually chanced to produce a rudimentary form of life and consciousness that evolved into us and every other species. I find both equally difficult to believe, because each produces what you call a chasm, and you must abandon all reason if you choose to leap over it.

The bold tells me you favor chance. The mind (God)' chanced' says so.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, March 13, 2024, 11:24 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

dhw: Process theology rejects the theory of divine omnipotence and omniscience, and since God doesn’t know the future, he must be capable of learning and is not immutable. Deists propose that your God initiated creation and then allowed it to run its own course (free-for-all). Many theologians, including the Pope, accept Darwin’s theory of evolution, but please tell me which theologians preach that an omnipotent, omniscient God deliberately, messily, cumbersomely, inefficiently and incomprehensibly designed and culled 99.9 irrelevant species out of 100 in order to fulfil his sole purpose of designing us and our contemporary species.

DAVID: Process and deist theologies are not mainstream, and not worth using. My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other.

You have never found the sort of God I describe in any theology. I have enlightened you. And your absurd theory of evolution – painting your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer – is not mainstream but it’s yours, and so you argue that even if a theory is not mainstream, that doesn’t mean it’s “not worth using”, and one view “is just as valid as any other”. Stop shooting yourself in the foot.

DAVID: The culling described by Raup is not the way it should be stated in your distorted way: Raup says 99.9% of all organisms died to produce today's 0.1% survivors. Never a word about species, which you have purposely added to create a view of God as an experimenting, humanized unrecognizable form of a God.

dhw: It’s not the 99.9% of extinct organisms that produced today’s 0.1% survivors. You have agreed that we and our food were produced by the 0.1% of organisms that survived all the extinctions. I’m not arguing with Raup. I’m trying to find an explanation for YOUR illogical theory bolded above. Experimentation or a free-for-all would explain the 99.9%.

DAVID: Experimentation and free-for-all concepts fit process and deist views which you seem to follow in your catch-all views of any sorts of Gods are possible. Mine is a purposeful God, who culled 99.9% of forms to reach now.

Nobody knows the correct view of God. Yours is a purposeful God who used a messy, cumbersome, inefficient, inexplicable and illogical way to achieve the goal you impose on him. My alternatives suggest a purposeful God who achieved his purpose by one of two possible forms of experimentation and/or the invention of a free-for-all. These views of God are ”just as valid as any other” and, unlike your own, have the great advantage of making sense.

Experimentation

dhw: I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.

DAVID: As for 'autonomous', do you consider yourself autonomous?

dhw: You have tried to reverse the meaning of autonomous, refuse to explain what you were referring to, and now ask a totally irrelevant question, which would lead to a discussion on free will. I remain neutral on the subject, which we have discussed ad nauseam. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Nonsense! Do you act everyday as if you have free will is a simple question. You can't tell me you don't act autonomously every day. Eash AM do your past influences dictate how you dress?

You are desperately changing the subject from your nonsensical use of the word “autonomous”, and your recognition of “experimentation” as a possibility, to a debate on free will. We concluded this debate long ago: if it means freedom from the chain of cause and effect, we do not have it; if it means freedom from influences outside ourselves, we have it (since prior causes and effects are still part of “us” and nobody else). Will you now please explain the nature of your “autonomous experimentation”, or do you wish to retract that “possibility”?

Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. […]

DAVID: So, we are left with existing here without a first cause. […]

dhw: We are not left here without a first cause! The choice lies between a mysterious, unknowable, supremely conscious mind without a source and an infinite mass of energy and matter which in the course of eternity eventually chanced to produce (David’s bold) a rudimentary form of life and consciousness that evolved into us and every other species I find both equally difficult to believe, because each produces what you call a chasm, and you must abandon all reason if you choose to leap over it (dhw's bold)
.
DAVID: The bold tells me you favor chance. The mind (God)' chanced' says so.

You have misread it, but perhaps I should have made it clearer that the difference is between a conscious mind and non-conscious matter etc.So the choice is between 1) a conscious mind and 2) a mass of non-conscious energy and matter which chanced etc.…..And I find both equally difficult to believe.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 13, 2024, 15:16 (15 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Process and deist theologies are not mainstream, and not worth using. My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other.

dhw: You have never found the sort of God I describe in any theology. I have enlightened you. And your absurd theory of evolution – painting your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer – is not mainstream but it’s yours, and so you argue that even if a theory is not mainstream, that doesn’t mean it’s “not worth using”, and one view “is just as valid as any other”. Stop shooting yourself in the foot.

Yes, I follow a mainstream philosopher, Adler. Your God-forms are not mainstream. And, yes, one view is just as valid as any other since no-one can know the factual truth. And, once again, way back you raised the issue of why God used evolution when direct creation was more efficient. I used your point to analyze evolution the way I have done.


DAVID: Experimentation and free-for-all concepts fit process and deist views which you seem to follow in your catch-all views of any sorts of Gods are possible. Mine is a purposeful God, who culled 99.9% of forms to reach now.

dhw: Nobody knows the correct view of God. Yours is a purposeful God who used a messy, cumbersome, inefficient, inexplicable and illogical way to achieve the goal you impose on him. My alternatives suggest a purposeful God who achieved his purpose by one of two possible forms of experimentation and/or the invention of a free-for-all. These views of God are ”just as valid as any other” and, unlike your own, have the great advantage of making sense.

Ah, you make more sense than God! Human sense is not equal to God sense at any time. God logic is not human logic when it comes to how to create.


Experimentation

dhw: I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.

DAVID: As for 'autonomous', do you consider yourself autonomous?

dhw: You have tried to reverse the meaning of autonomous, refuse to explain what you were referring to, and now ask a totally irrelevant question, which would lead to a discussion on free will. I remain neutral on the subject, which we have discussed ad nauseam. Please stop dodging.

DAVID: Nonsense! Do you act everyday as if you have free will is a simple question. You can't tell me you don't act autonomously every day. Eash AM do your past influences dictate how you dress?

dhw: You are desperately changing the subject from your nonsensical use of the word “autonomous”, and your recognition of “experimentation” as a possibility, to a debate on free will. We concluded this debate long ago: if it means freedom from the chain of cause and effect, we do not have it; if it means freedom from influences outside ourselves, we have it (since prior causes and effects are still part of “us” and nobody else). Will you now please explain the nature of your “autonomous experimentation”, or do you wish to retract that “possibility”?

Once again, you have avoided the obvious. In simple everyday activities all of us act with free will, not colored by your jump into philosophy of free will. Behe has described some small autonomous alterations in biochemical processes that fit the term autonomous experimentation.


Theodicy: skeptical theist view of God

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. […]

DAVID: So, we are left with existing here without a first cause. […]

dhw: We are not left here without a first cause! The choice lies between a mysterious, unknowable, supremely conscious mind without a source and an infinite mass of energy and matter which in the course of eternity eventually chanced to produce (David’s bold) a rudimentary form of life and consciousness that evolved into us and every other species I find both equally difficult to believe, because each produces what you call a chasm, and you must abandon all reason if you choose to leap over it (dhw's bold)
.
DAVID: The bold tells me you favor chance. The mind (God)' chanced' says so.

dhw: You have misread it, but perhaps I should have made it clearer that the difference is between a conscious mind and non-conscious matter etc. So the choice is between 1) a conscious mind and 2) a mass of non-conscious energy and matter which chanced etc.…..And I find both equally difficult to believe.

Back to equally probable on the uncomfortable picket fence.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, March 14, 2024, 08:33 (15 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Process and deist theologies are not mainstream, and not worth using. My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other.

dhw: You have never found the sort of God I describe in any theology. I have enlightened you. And your absurd theory of evolution – painting your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer – is not mainstream but it’s yours, and so you argue that even if a theory is not mainstream, that doesn’t mean it’s “not worth using”, and one view “is just as valid as any other”. Stop shooting yourself in the foot.

DAVID: Yes, I follow a mainstream philosopher, Adler. Your God-forms are not mainstream. And, yes, one view is just as valid as any other since no-one can know the factual truth. And, once again, way back you raised the issue of why God used evolution when direct creation was more efficient. I used your point to analyze evolution the way I have done.

Your analysis of God’s use of evolution (in order to achieve his one and only purpose, he “messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently” – your words, not mine - designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose) has nothing to do with Adler, is not mainstream, and does not even make sense to you. Only your God knows why he would act so inefficiently. But as far as you are concerned, even if your theory makes no sense and is not mainstream, it is just as valid as anyone else’s. My alternatives suggest a purposeful God who achieved his purpose by one of two possible forms of experimentation and/or the invention of a free-for-all. These make perfect sense, are not mainstream, but are just as valid as yours.

DAVID: Ah, you make more sense than God! Human sense is not equal to God sense at any time. God logic is not human logic when it comes to how to create.

Stop pretending that your senseless theory is the objective truth! My theories make more sense than yours (unless you think you are God), because each one offers a logical reason for the 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with current species. Your theory makes your God look messy and inefficient. Maybe he is. Whereabouts in mainstream theology did you find that? Nobody knows the objective truth!

Experimentation

dhw: I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.

DAVID: Behe has described some small autonomous alterations in biochemical processes that fit the term autonomous experimentation.

I’m discussing this with you, not Behe. All speciation entails biochemical processes. If cell communities (organisms) make changes autonomously, then they must have the intelligence to know what they’re doing. What small alterations do you consider they are intelligent enough to make, and why do you think their intelligence cannot possibly extend to making large alterations? If you wish to drop the theory that organisms are intelligent enough to do some of their own designing/experimenting, and you insist that your God did it all, you are once again faced with the question of why he produced all the species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him – the question you assiduously dodge except when you admit you have no idea.

Free will
I have reluctantly shifted this deliberate digression to the “More Miscellany” post.

First cause

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. […]

DAVID: So, we are left with existing here without a first cause. […]

dhw: We are not left here without a first cause! The choice lies between a mysterious, unknowable, supremely conscious mind without a source and an infinite mass of [non-conscious] energy and matter which in the course of eternity eventually chanced to produce a rudimentary form of life and consciousness that evolved into us and every other species I find both equally difficult to believe, because each produces what you call a chasm, and you must abandon all reason if you choose to leap over it

DAVID: Back to equally probable on the uncomfortable picket fence.

Equally improbable, and nothing like as uncomfortable as trying to leap over a chasm and realizing midway that there is no solid ground to land on. But fortunately, if you are wrong, you will never know it, just as the atheist can never know that he/she was right. Keep your faith. Just stop pretending that you know all your God’s thought patterns, emotions, purposes, methods and attributes, and remember that if your views are as valid as any others, mainstream or not, their views are as valid as yours, mainstream or not.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 14, 2024, 17:51 (14 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Yes, I follow a mainstream philosopher, Adler. Your God-forms are not mainstream. And, yes, one view is just as valid as any other since no-one can know the factual truth. And, once again, way back you raised the issue of why God used evolution when direct creation was more efficient. I used your point to analyze evolution the way I have done.

dhw: Your analysis of God’s use of evolution (in order to achieve his one and only purpose, he “messily, cumbersomely and inefficiently” – your words, not mine - designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his purpose) has nothing to do with Adler, is not mainstream, and does not even make sense to you. Only your God knows why he would act so inefficiently. But as far as you are concerned, even if your theory makes no sense and is not mainstream, it is just as valid as anyone else’s. My alternatives suggest a purposeful God who achieved his purpose by one of two possible forms of experimentation and/or the invention of a free-for-all. These make perfect sense, are not mainstream, but are just as valid as yours.

Of course, any God is valid. Mine is from my teachings from mainstream Adler. Yours follows process and deistic theologies, not mainstream. We will always disagree about God.


DAVID: Ah, you make more sense than God! Human sense is not equal to God sense at any time. God logic is not human logic when it comes to how to create.

dhw: Stop pretending that your senseless theory is the objective truth! My theories make more sense than yours (unless you think you are God), because each one offers a logical reason for the 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with current species. Your theory makes your God look messy and inefficient. Maybe he is. Whereabouts in mainstream theology did you find that? Nobody knows the objective truth!

Agreed above.


Experimentation

dhw: I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.

DAVID: Behe has described some small autonomous alterations in biochemical processes that fit the term autonomous experimentation.

dhw: I’m discussing this with you, not Behe. All speciation entails biochemical processes. If cell communities (organisms) make changes autonomously, then they must have the intelligence to know what they’re doing. What small alterations do you consider they are intelligent enough to make, and why do you think their intelligence cannot possibly extend to making large alterations? If you wish to drop the theory that organisms are intelligent enough to do some of their own designing/experimenting, and you insist that your God did it all, you are once again faced with the question of why he produced all the species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him – the question you assiduously dodge except when you admit you have no idea.

Why do you forget I forge my theories based on what scientists present, thus a Behe sample on the exact subject. I know your theologies are various and based on some experts in the field. As for cellular intelligence, it is all coded into DNA as instructions for necessary actions, so cells LOOK as if intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop conceptual material?


First cause

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. […]

DAVID: So, we are left with existing here without a first cause. […]

dhw: We are not left here without a first cause! The choice lies between a mysterious, unknowable, supremely conscious mind without a source and an infinite mass of [non-conscious] energy and matter which in the course of eternity eventually chanced to produce a rudimentary form of life and consciousness that evolved into us and every other species I find both equally difficult to believe, because each produces what you call a chasm, and you must abandon all reason if you choose to leap over it

DAVID: Back to equally probable on the uncomfortable picket fence.

dhw: Equally improbable, and nothing like as uncomfortable as trying to leap over a chasm and realizing midway that there is no solid ground to land on. But fortunately, if you are wrong, you will never know it, just as the atheist can never know that he/she was right. Keep your faith. Just stop pretending that you know all your God’s thought patterns, emotions, purposes, methods and attributes, and remember that if your views are as valid as any others, mainstream or not, their views are as valid as yours, mainstream or not.

As is your agnosticism. It won't punish you.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Friday, March 15, 2024, 11:35 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: My alternatives suggest a purposeful God who achieved his purpose by one of two possible forms of experimentation and/or the invention of a free-for-all. These make perfect sense, are not mainstream, but are just as valid as yours.

DAVID: Of course, any God is valid. Mine is from my teachings from mainstream Adler. Yours follows process and deistic theologies, not mainstream. We will always disagree about God.

You never stop dodging, do you? You wrote:
DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

I pointed out two schools of theistic thought that you apparently didn’t know about, whereupon you dodged to “mainstream”. Then what did you say? If they’re not mainstream, they’re “not worth using”. So I pointed out that your absurdly illogical theory of evolution, which makes your God’s design “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”, is not mainstream, and you defended it: “My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other”. On the one hand, any theory that is not mainstream is “not worth using”, but if it’s yours, it’s just as valid as any other. The term for such blatant inconsistency is “double standards”.

DAVID: Ah, you make more sense than God! Human sense is not equal to God sense at any time. God logic is not human logic when it comes to how to create.

dhw: Stop pretending that your senseless theory is the objective truth! My theories make more sense than yours (unless you think you are God), because each one offers a logical reason for the 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with current species. Your theory makes your God look messy and inefficient. Maybe he is. Whereabouts in mainstream theology did you find that? Nobody knows the objective truth!

DAVID: Agreed above.

So stop all this nonsense about mainstream, and stop all this silly pretence that a criticism of your absurd theory is a criticism of God.

Experimentation

dhw: I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.[…]

DAVID: Why do you forget I forge my theories based on what scientists present, thus a Behe sample on the exact subject. I know your theologies are various and based on some experts in the field.

There is no point in pretending that science supports theism and ignoring the fact that probably just as many scientists support atheism. Science is no more capable of proving or disproving God than philosophy, theology, or you. And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

DAVID: As for cellular intelligence, it is all coded into DNA as instructions for necessary actions, so cells LOOK as if intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop conceptual material?

Back you go to your godlike knowledge that what LOOKS intelligent can’t possibly BE intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop the intelligence to develop any kind of material? You tell me. Nobody has yet found the source of intelligence/consciousness (the two go together, no matter what may be the degree). See "Immunity system complexity" for the feasibility you are now denying.

First cause

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. […]

DAVID: Back to equally probable on the uncomfortable picket fence.[…]

dhw: Equally improbable, and nothing like as uncomfortable as trying to leap over a chasm and realizing midway that there is no solid ground to land on. But fortunately, if you are wrong, you will never know it, just as the atheist can never know that he/she was right. Keep your faith. Just stop pretending that you know all your God’s thought patterns, emotions, purposes, methods and attributes, and remember that if your views are as valid as any others, mainstream or not, their views are as valid as yours, mainstream or not.

DAVID: As is your agnosticism. It won't punish you.

Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that my alternative theories of evolution and of God are as valid as yours. I hope that will stop you once and for all from pretending that you know God’s intentions, methods and nature.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Friday, March 15, 2024, 23:42 (13 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Of course, any God is valid. Mine is from my teachings from mainstream Adler. Yours follows process and deistic theologies, not mainstream. We will always disagree about God.

dhw: You never stop dodging, do you? You wrote:
DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

dhw: I pointed out two schools of theistic thought that you apparently didn’t know about, whereupon you dodged to “mainstream”. Then what did you say? If they’re not mainstream, they’re “not worth using”. So I pointed out that your absurdly illogical theory of evolution, which makes your God’s design “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient”, is not mainstream, and you defended it: “My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other”. On the one hand, any theory that is not mainstream is “not worth using”, but if it’s yours, it’s just as valid as any other. The term for such blatant inconsistency is “double standards”.

I know of process theology and Deism long ago, but knew they were peripheral to what I consider mainstream. I have my personal view of God as you do, but now you have educated me as to how these two approaches fit your humanized God. "My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other." That is a statement that fits all of us, doesn't it?

As for any criticism of your God, what I criticize is your demanding that God should not have evolved us. Evolution had the purpose of creating us. Once I apply purpose you start howling.


Experimentation

dhw: I'm asking YOU what YOU meant by “autonomous experimentation”, because YOU thought it was a possibility. You refuse to answer.[…]

DAVID: Why do you forget I forge my theories based on what scientists present, thus a Behe sample on the exact subject. I know your theologies are various and based on some experts in the field.

dhw: There is no point in pretending that science supports theism and ignoring the fact that probably just as many scientists support atheism. Science is no more capable of proving or disproving God than philosophy, theology, or you. And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

You struggle back to secondhand design, a very complicated way to design anything.


DAVID: As for cellular intelligence, it is all coded into DNA as instructions for necessary actions, so cells LOOK as if intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop conceptual material?

dhw: Back you go to your godlike knowledge that what LOOKS intelligent can’t possibly BE intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop the intelligence to develop any kind of material? You tell me. Nobody has yet found the source of intelligence/consciousness (the two go together, no matter what may be the degree). See "Immunity system complexity" for the feasibility you are now denying.

I've never accepted consciously thinking cells.

First cause

DAVID: Logically there must be a first cause. Undeniable. Living biochemistry requires a designing mind. At this point you and I part company.

dhw: No we don’t. I accept the logic of the design argument. But this is balanced by the illogicality of an unknown, immaterial, conscious mind simply being there for ever without having any source. […]

DAVID: Back to equally probable on the uncomfortable picket fence.[…]

dhw: Equally improbable, and nothing like as uncomfortable as trying to leap over a chasm and realizing midway that there is no solid ground to land on. But fortunately, if you are wrong, you will never know it, just as the atheist can never know that he/she was right. Keep your faith. Just stop pretending that you know all your God’s thought patterns, emotions, purposes, methods and attributes, and remember that if your views are as valid as any others, mainstream or not, their views are as valid as yours, mainstream or not.

DAVID: As is your agnosticism. It won't punish you.

dhw: Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that my alternative theories of evolution and of God are as valid as yours. I hope that will stop you once and for all from pretending that you know God’s intentions, methods and nature.

I know the answers I prefer based on logic.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, March 16, 2024, 10:08 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I follow theistic thinking as presented by several sources. I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.

dhw: I pointed out two schools of theistic thought that you apparently didn’t know about, whereupon you dodged to “mainstream”. Then what did you say? If they’re not mainstream, they’re “not worth using”.

DAVID: I know of process theology and Deism long ago, but knew they were peripheral to what I consider mainstream.

You wrote above: “I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.” Now you say you found it. But it’s not mainstream (i.e. what you believe), and so it’s “not worth using”. Your theory about your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving his one and only goal is not mainstream, but you consider it as valid as any other. Hence your double standards.

DAVID: I have my personal view of God as you do, but now you have educated me as to how these two approaches fit your humanized God. "My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other." That is a statement that fits all of us, doesn't it?

My different versions of God are no more “humanized” than yours, but in assessing the feasibility of the different theories, I do not resort to the blatant double standards you apply: according to you, my theories are not mainstream and therefore not worth using, but your non-mainstream theories are as valid as any others!

DAVID: As for any criticism of your God, what I criticize is your demanding that God should not have evolved us. Evolution had the purpose of creating us. Once I apply purpose you start howling.

This is the worst of your dodges. I DO NOT DEMAND THAT GOD – if he exists – SHOULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED US. I demand a reason why your God would deliberately and inefficiently design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. I have offered you three purposeful, logical explanations for the 99.9% extinctions, and it is you who howl, because they don’t fit in with your preconceptions of an omniscient, omnipotent, selfless God, whose only purpose was to design us plus our food. (See the Plantinga article.)

Experimentation

DAVID: Why do you forget I forge my theories based on what scientists present, thus a Behe sample on the exact subject. I know your theologies are various and based on some experts in the field.

dhw: There is no point in pretending that science supports theism and ignoring the fact that probably just as many scientists support atheism. Science is no more capable of proving or disproving God than philosophy, theology, or you. And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

DAVID: You struggle back to secondhand design, a very complicated way to design anything.

Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him. See the Plantinga article for more nonsensical contradictions.

Cellular intellligence

DAVID: As for cellular intelligence, it is all coded into DNA as instructions for necessary actions, so cells LOOK as if intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop conceptual material?

dhw: Back you go to your godlike knowledge that what LOOKS intelligent can’t possibly BE intelligent. How does the biochemistry of cells develop the intelligence to develop any kind of material? You tell me. Nobody has yet found the source of intelligence/consciousness (the two go together, no matter what may be the degree). .

DAVID: I've never accepted consciously thinking cells.

Congratulations on the steadfastness with which you close your mind. But I do not ask you to accept what is only a theory. I only ask you to accept that the theory is feasible, which you have now done. (See "Immunity system complexity" and “Is sentience everywhere?”)

First cause

dhw: Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that my alternative theories of evolution and of God are as valid as yours. I hope that will stop you once and for all from pretending that you know God’s intentions, methods and nature.

DAVID: I know the answers I prefer based on logic.

Yes, you start with the “form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” As for logic, you have no idea why your God would choose the inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on him; you solve the problem of evil by telling us to focus on the good; your God wants us to recognize, worship and love him (you agree with Plantinga), and enjoys creating, but he is selfless; he is omnipotent, but tries in vain to prevent the evil caused by the bugs he designed and knew would be harmful….need I go on?

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 16, 2024, 17:25 (12 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I know of process theology and Deism long ago, but knew they were peripheral to what I consider mainstream.

dhw: You wrote above: “I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.” Now you say you found it. But it’s not mainstream (i.e. what you believe), and so it’s “not worth using”. Your theory about your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving his one and only goal is not mainstream, but you consider it as valid as any other. Hence your double standards.

DAVID: I have my personal view of God as you do, but now you have educated me as to how these two approaches fit your humanized God. "My view of God is mine and just as valid as any other." That is a statement that fits all of us, doesn't it?

dhw: My different versions of God are no more “humanized” than yours, but in assessing the feasibility of the different theories, I do not resort to the blatant double standards you apply: according to you, my theories are not mainstream and therefore not worth using, but your non-mainstream theories are as valid as any others!

I have never found any of your views of God as compatible as Plantinga's is to mine.


DAVID: As for any criticism of your God, what I criticize is your demanding that God should not have evolved us. Evolution had the purpose of creating us. Once I apply purpose you start howling.

dhw: This is the worst of your dodges. I DO NOT DEMAND THAT GOD – if he exists – SHOULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED US. I demand a reason why your God would deliberately and inefficiently design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him. I have offered you three purposeful, logical explanations for the 99.9% extinctions, and it is you who howl, because they don’t fit in with your preconceptions of an omniscient, omnipotent, selfless God, whose only purpose was to design us plus our food. (See the Plantinga article.)

Your criticism of His evolutionary method is boldy obvious. Stop denying it.


Experimentation

DAVID: Why do you forget I forge my theories based on what scientists present, thus a Behe sample on the exact subject. I know your theologies are various and based on some experts in the field.

dhw: There is no point in pretending that science supports theism and ignoring the fact that probably just as many scientists support atheism. Science is no more capable of proving or disproving God than philosophy, theology, or you. And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

DAVID: You struggle back to secondhand design, a very complicated way to design anything.

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him. See the Plantinga article for more nonsensical contradictions.

Back to your wish for an overly human God


First cause

dhw: Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that my alternative theories of evolution and of God are as valid as yours. I hope that will stop you once and for all from pretending that you know God’s intentions, methods and nature.

DAVID: I know the answers I prefer based on logic.

dhw: Yes, you start with the “form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” As for logic, you have no idea why your God would choose the inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on him; you solve the problem of evil by telling us to focus on the good; your God wants us to recognize, worship and love him (you agree with Plantinga), and enjoys creating, but he is selfless; he is omnipotent, but tries in vain to prevent the evil caused by the bugs he designed and knew would be harmful….need I go on?

And I am happy with Plantinga's approach. Mainstream theology!!!

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, March 17, 2024, 11:42 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I know of process theology and Deism long ago, but knew they were peripheral to what I consider mainstream.

dhw: You wrote above: I have never found the sort of God you describe in any of it.” Now you say you found it. But it’s not mainstream (i.e. what you believe), and so it’s “not worth using”. Your theory about your God’s messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving his one and only goal is not mainstream, but you consider it as valid as any other. Hence your double standards.

Not only do you have double standards, but as well as pretending you know God’s thoughts, you accuse me of thoughts I have never had:

DAVID: As for any criticism of your God, what I criticize is your demanding that God should not have evolved us. Evolution had the purpose of creating us. Once I apply purpose you start howling.
And:
Your criticism of His evolutionary method is boldy obvious. Stop denying it.

dhw: This is the worst of your dodges. I DO NOT DEMAND THAT GOD – if he exists – SHOULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED US. I demand a reason why your God would deliberately and inefficiently design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him.
In other words, I am critical of the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on your God in your derogatory and illogical theory of evolution. Stop denying it!

Experimentation

dhw: And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

DAVID: You struggle back to secondhand design, a very complicated way to design anything.

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him. See the Plantinga article for more nonsensical contradictions.

DAVID: Back to your wish for an overly human God.

This is no more “overly human” than Plantinga’s view of a self-centred God who wants us humans to love him of our own free will, even if this means untold suffering through the evil that free will allows (not to mention the nasty bugs and the natural disasters that he either creates or allows in his love for us).

First cause

dhw: Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that my alternative theories of evolution and of God are as valid as yours. I hope that will stop you once and for all from pretending that you know God’s intentions, methods and nature.

DAVID: I know the answers I prefer based on logic.

dhw: Yes, you start with the “form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” As for logic, you have no idea why your God would choose the inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on him; you solve the problem of evil by telling us to focus on the good; your God wants us to recognize, worship and love him (you agree with Plantinga), and enjoys creating, but he is selfless; he is omnipotent, but tries in vain to prevent the evil caused by the bugs he designed and knew would be harmful….need I go on?

DAVID: And I am happy with Plantinga's approach. Mainstream theology!!!

We’re talking about your logic, not Plantinga’s God, who in his all-goodness is happy to allow all the misery caused by evil, so long as some people love him of their own free will. And you are happy with this too. Shame on you!

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 17, 2024, 15:26 (11 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Not only do you have double standards, but as well as pretending you know God’s thoughts, you accuse me of thoughts I have never had:

DAVID: As for any criticism of your God, what I criticize is your demanding that God should not have evolved us. Evolution had the purpose of creating us. Once I apply purpose you start howling.
And:
Your criticism of His evolutionary method is boldy obvious. Stop denying it.

dhw: This is the worst of your dodges. I DO NOT DEMAND THAT GOD – if he exists – SHOULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED US. I demand a reason why your God would deliberately and inefficiently design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him.
In other words, I am critical of the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on your God in your derogatory and illogical theory of evolution. Stop denying it!

Fascinating! You continue to defend my God from my criticisms of Him. I have to continuously remind you it was your early objection to the round-about-way evolution works compared to direct creation that I agreed with, causing the current disagreement. Evolution is not a straight-forward method!


Experimentation

dhw: And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

DAVID: You struggle back to secondhand design, a very complicated way to design anything.

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him. See the Plantinga article for more nonsensical contradictions.

DAVID: Back to your wish for an overly human God.

dhw: This is no more “overly human” than Plantinga’s view of a self-centred God who wants us humans to love him of our own free will, even if this means untold suffering through the evil that free will allows (not to mention the nasty bugs and the natural disasters that he either creates or allows in his love for us).

Same old theodicy problems that trouble you with no reason to answer them again.


First cause

dhw: Thank you for indirectly acknowledging that my alternative theories of evolution and of God are as valid as yours. I hope that will stop you once and for all from pretending that you know God’s intentions, methods and nature.

DAVID: I know the answers I prefer based on logic.

dhw: Yes, you start with the “form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” As for logic, you have no idea why your God would choose the inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on him; you solve the problem of evil by telling us to focus on the good; your God wants us to recognize, worship and love him (you agree with Plantinga), and enjoys creating, but he is selfless; he is omnipotent, but tries in vain to prevent the evil caused by the bugs he designed and knew would be harmful….need I go on?

DAVID: And I am happy with Plantinga's approach. Mainstream theology!!!

dhw: We’re talking about your logic, not Plantinga’s God, who in his all-goodness is happy to allow all the misery caused by evil, so long as some people love him of their own free will. And you are happy with this too. Shame on you!

You will never understand how theists think and are comfortable with their feelings. It is proportionality, as expressed before. All you see is evil, which to me is a very small part of our reality.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Monday, March 18, 2024, 09:09 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your criticism of His evolutionary method is boldy obvious. Stop denying it.
And under “importance of microbiomes”:
DAVID: You can't help but continuously revert to complaining about the way God evolved us.

dhw: This is the worst of your dodges. I DO NOT DEMAND THAT GOD – if he exists – SHOULD NOT HAVE EVOLVED US. I demand a reason why your God would deliberately and inefficiently design and cull 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the purpose you impose on him.
In other words, I am critical of the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on your God in your derogatory and illogical theory of evolution. Stop denying it!

DAVID: Fascinating! You continue to defend my God from my criticisms of Him. I have to continuously remind you it was your early objection to the round-about-way evolution works compared to direct creation that I agreed with, causing the current disagreement. Evolution is not a straight-forward method!

More silly twisting of the argument. Assuming your God exists, if he had only wanted to design us plus food, then of course direct creation would have been the obvious way for an all-powerful, all-knowing God to do it! But he did not create us directly, which can only mean one or more of these theistic alternatives: 1) he is not all-powerful; 2) he is not all-knowing; 3) his purpose was not confined to designing us and our food; 4) he did not design every individual species (but instead designed Shapiro’s autonomous cellular intelligence, or left speciation to Darwin’s random mutations and natural selection); 5) he is the messy, cumbersome, inefficient, illogical designer you say he is.

Experimentation

dhw: And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

DAVID: You struggle back to secondhand design, a very complicated way to design anything.

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him. See the Plantinga article for more nonsensical contradictions.

DAVID: Back to your wish for an overly human God.

dhw: This is no more “overly human” than Plantinga’s view – which you say you support - of a self-centred God who wants us humans to love him of our own free will, even if this means untold suffering through the evil that free will allows (not to mention the nasty bugs and the natural disasters that he either creates or allows in his love for us).

DAVID: Same old theodicy problems that trouble you with no reason to answer them again.
And:
DAVID: You will never understand how theists think and are comfortable with their feelings. It is proportionality, as expressed before. All you see is evil, which to me is a very small part of our reality

Acknowledging all the good does not make all the evil disappear, and if you think it is a very small part of our reality, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. But you are right, I will never understand how any theist can believe that their God wants to be recognized, worshipped and loved but has no self-interest; and I will never understand how any theist can be comfortable with the belief that their God doesn’t care what suffering he has caused through his knowingly “allowing” evil (e.g. war, genocide, tyranny, famine, flood, disease etc.) so long as some people freely choose to love him.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, March 18, 2024, 16:57 (10 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: In other words, I am critical of the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on your God in your derogatory and illogical theory of evolution. Stop denying it![/i]

DAVID: Fascinating! You continue to defend my God from my criticisms of Him. I have to continuously remind you it was your early objection to the round-about-way evolution works compared to direct creation that I agreed with, causing the current disagreement. Evolution is not a straight-forward method!

dhw: More silly twisting of the argument. Assuming your God exists, if he had only wanted to design us plus food, then of course direct creation would have been the obvious way for an all-powerful, all-knowing God to do it! But he did not create us directly, which can only mean one or more of these theistic alternatives: 1) he is not all-powerful; 2) he is not all-knowing; 3) his purpose was not confined to designing us and our food; 4) he did not design every individual species (but instead designed Shapiro’s autonomous cellular intelligence, or left speciation to Darwin’s random mutations and natural selection); 5) he is the messy, cumbersome, inefficient, illogical designer you say he is.

Interesting listing of your muddled approach. All I can slightly agree with is #5 and change it to: God chose to use the process of evolution for His own reasons, a system we can view as messy and cumbersome, but successful. We are here, an extremely unusual result if Darwin theory is used a guideline.


Experimentation

dhw: And still you dodge the question of what alterations your “autonomous experimentation” can produce, and why an autonomous mechanism (possibly designed by your God) would be incapable of producing the innovations that lead to speciation.

DAVID: You struggle back to secondhand design, a very complicated way to design anything.

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him. See the Plantinga article for more nonsensical contradictions.

DAVID: Back to your wish for an overly human God.

dhw: This is no more “overly human” than Plantinga’s view – which you say you support - of a self-centred God who wants us humans to love him of our own free will, even if this means untold suffering through the evil that free will allows (not to mention the nasty bugs and the natural disasters that he either creates or allows in his love for us).

DAVID: Same old theodicy problems that trouble you with no reason to answer them again.
And:
DAVID: You will never understand how theists think and are comfortable with their feelings. It is proportionality, as expressed before. All you see is evil, which to me is a very small part of our reality

dhw: Acknowledging all the good does not make all the evil disappear, and if you think it is a very small part of our reality, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. But you are right, I will never understand how any theist can believe that their God wants to be recognized, worshipped and loved but has no self-interest; and I will never understand how any theist can be comfortable with the belief that their God doesn’t care what suffering he has caused through his knowingly “allowing” evil (e.g. war, genocide, tyranny, famine, flood, disease etc.) so long as some people freely choose to love him.

Yep, lots of folks have the pure freedom to love Him. For me it feels good.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, March 19, 2024, 09:00 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw:[..] I am critical of the messy, cumbersome and inefficient method of achieving the purpose you impose on your God in your derogatory and illogical theory of evolution. Stop denying it!

DAVID: Fascinating! You continue to defend my God from my criticisms of Him. I have to continuously remind you it was your early objection to the round-about-way evolution works compared to direct creation that I agreed with, causing the current disagreement. Evolution is not a straight-forward method!

dhw: More silly twisting of the argument. Assuming your God exists, if he had only wanted to design us plus food, then of course direct creation would have been the obvious way for an all-powerful, all-knowing God to do it! But he did not create us directly, which can only mean one or more of these theistic alternatives: 1) he is not all-powerful; 2) he is not all-knowing; 3) his purpose was not confined to designing us and our food; 4) he did not design every individual species (but instead designed Shapiro’s autonomous cellular intelligence, or left speciation to Darwin’s random mutations and natural selection); 5) he is the messy, cumbersome, inefficient, illogical designer you say he is.

DAVID: Interesting listing of your muddled approach. All I can slightly agree with is #5 and change it to: God chose to use the process of evolution for His own reasons, a system we can view as messy and cumbersome, but successful. We are here, an extremely unusual result if Darwin theory is used a guideline.

Nothing muddled. I have simply listed different theories to explain the 99.9% of extinct species that did not lead to humans plus food. I am not denying that we are here, or that we evolved, or that God, if he exists, had his own reasons for using the process of evolution. The theory you have chosen is one for which you can find no logical justification – hence your criticism of it. But you refuse to consider any alternative. For example, under “experimentation”:

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him..

DAVID: Back to your wish for an overly human God.

dhw: This is no more “overly human” than Plantinga’s view – which you say you support - of a self-centred God who wants us humans to love him of our own free will, even if this means untold suffering through the evil that free will allows (not to mention the nasty bugs and the natural disasters that he either creates or allows in his love for us). See the Plantinga thread.

Not answered here, and also ignored on the Plantinga thread.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 19, 2024, 16:10 (9 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: More silly twisting of the argument. Assuming your God exists, if he had only wanted to design us plus food, then of course direct creation would have been the obvious way for an all-powerful, all-knowing God to do it! But he did not create us directly, which can only mean one or more of these theistic alternatives: 1) he is not all-powerful; 2) he is not all-knowing; 3) his purpose was not confined to designing us and our food; 4) he did not design every individual species (but instead designed Shapiro’s autonomous cellular intelligence, or left speciation to Darwin’s random mutations and natural selection); 5) he is the messy, cumbersome, inefficient, illogical designer you say he is.

DAVID: Interesting listing of your muddled approach. All I can slightly agree with is #5 and change it to: God chose to use the process of evolution for His own reasons, a system we can view as messy and cumbersome, but successful. We are here, an extremely unusual result if Darwin theory is used a guideline.

dhw: Nothing muddled. I have simply listed different theories to explain the 99.9% of extinct species that did not lead to humans plus food. I am not denying that we are here, or that we evolved, or that God, if he exists, had his own reasons for using the process of evolution. The theory you have chosen is one for which you can find no logical justification – hence your criticism of it.

The justification is our appearance! We are the only organism on Earth that knows how we got here, and incidentally might create a relationship with our designer.

dhw: But you refuse to consider any alternative. For example, under “experimentation”:

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him..

God, as I see Him, always know exactly what He wishes to create and does it by a method of His choice. Your logic does not equal God's. The God you create is an imaginary form of a human acting as if He were God.


DAVID: Back to your wish for an overly human God.

dhw: This is no more “overly human” than Plantinga’s view – which you say you support - of a self-centred God who wants us humans to love him of our own free will, even if this means untold suffering through the evil that free will allows (not to mention the nasty bugs and the natural disasters that he either creates or allows in his love for us). See the Plantinga thread.

Not answered here, and also ignored on the Plantinga thread.

See the Plantinga thread for answers.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Saturday, March 23, 2024, 08:06 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Assuming your God exists, if he had only wanted to design us plus food, then of course direct creation would have been the obvious way for an all-powerful, all-knowing God to do it! But he did not create us directly, which can only mean one or more of these theistic alternatives: 1) he is not all-powerful; 2) he is not all-knowing; 3) his purpose was not confined to designing us and our food; 4) he did not design every individual species (but instead designed Shapiro’s autonomous cellular intelligence, or left speciation to Darwin’s random mutations and natural selection); 5) he is the messy, cumbersome, inefficient, illogical designer you say he is.

DAVID: All I can slightly agree with is #5 and change it to: God chose to use the process of evolution for His own reasons, a system we can view as messy and cumbersome, but successful. […]

dhw: The theory you have chosen is one for which you can find no logical justification – hence your criticism of it.

DAVID: The justification is our appearance! We are the only organism on Earth that knows how we got here, and incidentally might create a relationship with our designer.

We don’t know how we got here. But even if we are the only organism that wonders how we did and who might form a relationship with God (if he exists), he did not have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, or one-track-minded, or messy or inefficient, in order to produce us. I have offered you alternative explanations, with one example repeated below:

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him.

DAVID: God, as I see Him, always know exactly what He wishes to create and does it by a method of His choice.

Agreed. And that does not have to be the incomprehensible, inefficient combination of purpose and method that you impose upon him.

DAVID: Your logic does not equal God's. The God you create is an imaginary form of a human acting as if He were God.

The God you create is an imaginary form of a god whose messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method makes no sense even to you, and whose desire to be loved, regardless of the suffering his desire may cause, makes him just about as self-centred as any human could possibly be.

DAVID: See the Plantinga thread for answers.

The Plantinga thread provides the above example of a self-centred God,who wants to be loved at all costs, and you have accepted it.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 23, 2024, 15:44 (5 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: The theory you have chosen is one for which you can find no logical justification – hence your criticism of it.

DAVID: The justification is our appearance! We are the only organism on Earth that knows how we got here, and incidentally might create a relationship with our designer.

dhw: We don’t know how we got here. But even if we are the only organism that wonders how we did and who might form a relationship with God (if he exists), he did not have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, or one-track-minded, or messy or inefficient, in order to produce us. I have offered you alternative explanations, with one example repeated below:

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him.

DAVID: God, as I see Him, always know exactly what He wishes to create and does it by a method of His choice.

dhw: Agreed. And that does not have to be the incomprehensible, inefficient combination of purpose and method that you impose upon him.

Evolution occurred and God did it. Nothing incomprehensible about that fact. I view it as a cumbersome method, but as God did it for His own reasons, I'm happy with the result we are alive.


DAVID: Your logic does not equal God's. The God you create is an imaginary form of a human acting as if He were God.

dhw: The God you create is an imaginary form of a god whose messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method makes no sense even to you, and whose desire to be loved, regardless of the suffering his desire may cause, makes him just about as self-centred as any human could possibly be.

Back to you concocted view of God which I've criticized in another thread: " God is person like no other person. God is not a self and does not need a soul. Theologians consider God as simple. We are more complex. Humans caused the Holocaust despite God, and humans stopped it, all because of our God-given free will. You bend your shape of God to fit your disbelief."

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Sunday, March 24, 2024, 09:36 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The theory you have chosen is one for which you can find no logical justification – hence your criticism of it.

DAVID: The justification is our appearance! We are the only organism on Earth that knows how we got here, and incidentally might create a relationship with our designer.***

dhw: We don’t know how we got here. But even if we are the only organism that wonders how we did and who might form a relationship with God (if he exists), he did not have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, or one-track-minded, or messy or inefficient, in order to produce us. I have offered you alternative explanations, with one example repeated below:

(*** You agreed with Plantinga that God's purpose for creating us was that we should love him of our own free will. It was not "incidental".)

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him.

DAVID: God, as I see Him, always know exactly what He wishes to create and does it by a method of His choice.

dhw: Agreed. And that does not have to be the incomprehensible, inefficient combination of purpose and method that you impose upon him.

DAVID: Evolution occurred and God did it. Nothing incomprehensible about that fact. I view it as a cumbersome method, but as God did it for His own reasons, I'm happy with the result we are alive.

If God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to the theory that evolution occurred and God did it. (God’s existence is not a fact.) This discussion is solely about your God’s possible purpose and method: it is NOT a fact that his only purpose was to design us, or that he specially designed every single species, let alone that he knowingly and deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with that single purpose. That is your theory, which you agree is incomprehensible (you don’t know why he would have done that), messy, cumbersome and inefficient. The fact that you are happy to be alive does not depend on the illogical theory of evolution you cling to.

DAVID: Your logic does not equal God's. The God you create is an imaginary form of a human acting as if He were God.

dhw: The God you create is an imaginary form of a god whose messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method makes no sense even to you, and whose desire to be loved, regardless of the suffering his desire may cause, makes him just about as self-centred as any human could possibly be.

DAVID: Back to you concocted view of God which I've criticized in another thread.

I have not “concocted” a view of God on the Plantinga thread. I have merely pointed out that Plantinga’s view (with which you agree) presents us with a self-centred God whose desire to be freely loved has led to appalling consequences, to which he appears to be indifferent, since he chose to allow such evils as the Holocaust. You have avoided replying to this argument, just as you avoid acknowledging the illogicality of your theory of evolution, with its explicit criticism of your God’s messy inefficiency.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 24, 2024, 14:47 (4 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: (*** You agreed with Plantinga that God's purpose for creating us was that we should love him of our own free will. It was not "incidental".)

dhw: Not complicated if your God’s purpose was to enjoy and learn from the invention of something he endowed with the freedom to do its own designing (humans included). Perfectly logical by comparison with the messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method you impose on him.

DAVID: God, as I see Him, always know exactly what He wishes to create and does it by a method of His choice.

dhw: Agreed. And that does not have to be the incomprehensible, inefficient combination of purpose and method that you impose upon him.

DAVID: Evolution occurred and God did it. Nothing incomprehensible about that fact. I view it as a cumbersome method, but as God did it for His own reasons, I'm happy with the result we are alive.

dhw: If God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to the theory that evolution occurred and God did it. (God’s existence is not a fact.) This discussion is solely about your God’s possible purpose and method: it is NOT a fact that his only purpose was to design us, or that he specially designed every single species, let alone that he knowingly and deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with that single purpose. That is your theory, which you agree is incomprehensible (you don’t know why he would have done that), messy, cumbersome and inefficient. The fact that you are happy to be alive does not depend on the illogical theory of evolution you cling to.

I believe the works produced by ID prove beyond a reasonable doubt a designer exists. That God designer produced us after a long period of evolution of everything on Earth that humans would need. Perfectly logical!!! Adler turns that around by using humans as proof of God the designer, by analyzing it from a Darwinist view of natural evolution.


DAVID: Your logic does not equal God's. The God you create is an imaginary form of a human acting as if He were God.

dhw: The God you create is an imaginary form of a god whose messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method makes no sense even to you, and whose desire to be loved, regardless of the suffering his desire may cause, makes him just about as self-centred as any human could possibly be.

DAVID: Back to you concocted view of God which I've criticized in another thread.

dhw: I have not “concocted” a view of God on the Plantinga thread. I have merely pointed out that Plantinga’s view (with which you agree) presents us with a self-centred God whose desire to be freely loved has led to appalling consequences, to which he appears to be indifferent, since he chose to allow such evils as the Holocaust. You have avoided replying to this argument, just as you avoid acknowledging the illogicality of your theory of evolution, with its explicit criticism of your God’s messy inefficiency.

Sufficiently answered in the Plantinga thread: "Humans caused the Holocaust through God-given free-will and ended it through the same free-will. God has left us responsible for ourselves, as I've previously noted. It is our brains that allow us to cure illness, develop early warning systems for tornados and Earthquakes, etc." *** We are not God's puppets. We run the Earth not God, who purposely gave us life and that responsibility. God is not responsible for human failure, we are. As you exemplify, we are free to ignore God. without God's punishment.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Monday, March 25, 2024, 09:22 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God, as I see Him, always know exactly what He wishes to create and does it by a method of His choice.

dhw: Agreed. And that does not have to be the incomprehensible, inefficient combination of purpose and method that you impose upon him.

DAVID: Evolution occurred and God did it. Nothing incomprehensible about that fact. I view it as a cumbersome method, but as God did it for His own reasons, I'm happy with the result we are alive.

dhw: If God exists, I have no objection whatsoever to the theory that evolution occurred and God did it. (God’s existence is not a fact.) This discussion is solely about your God’s possible purpose and method: it is NOT a fact that his only purpose was to design us, or that he specially designed every single species, let alone that he knowingly and deliberately designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with that single purpose. That is your theory, which you agree is incomprehensible (you don’t know why he would have done that), messy, cumbersome and inefficient. The fact that you are happy to be alive does not depend on the illogical theory of evolution you cling to.

DAVID: I believe the works produced by ID prove beyond a reasonable doubt a designer exists.

No problem.

DAVID: That God designer produced us after a long period of evolution of everything on Earth that humans would need. Perfectly logical!!!

No problem.

DAVID: Adler turns that around by using humans as proof of God the designer, by analyzing it from a Darwinist view of natural evolution.

No problem, and I’m delighted to hear that Adler recognized that Darwinism and God were perfectly compatible, as opposed to your ridiculous assertion that they are alternatives. However, unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. You can only speculate that he did so because he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. There are, however, perfectly logical explanations for the existence of all the organisms and econiches that came and went long before humans appeared on the scene. But you refuse to consider them on the grounds that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is more godlike than a designer who deliberately conducts experiments, or wants a free-for-all, and enjoys creating and/or learning new things.

DAVID: Your logic does not equal God's. The God you create is an imaginary form of a human acting as if He were God.

dhw: The God you create is an imaginary form of a god whose messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method makes no sense even to you, and whose desire to be loved, regardless of the suffering his desire may cause, makes him just about as self-centred as any human could possibly be.

DAVID: Back to you concocted view of God which I've criticized in another thread.

dhw: I have not “concocted” a view of God on the Plantinga thread. I have merely pointed out that Plantinga’s view (with which you agree) presents us with a self-centred God whose desire to be freely loved has led to appalling consequences, to which he appears to be indifferent, since he chose to allow such evils as the Holocaust. You have avoided replying to this argument, just as you avoid acknowledging the illogicality of your theory of evolution, with its explicit criticism of your God’s messy inefficiency.

DAVID: Sufficiently answered in the Plantinga thread.

See that thread, on which your “answers” simply ignore my questions.

DAVID: We are not God's puppets. We run the Earth not God, who purposely gave us life and that responsibility. God is not responsible for human failure, we are. As you exemplify, we are free to ignore God. without God's punishment.

If God exists, I accept the above, and I would go even further than you, as one of my theories of evolution is that no organisms are your God’s puppets, but he deliberately created a free-for-all, which would explain why life’s history is one of comings and goings that had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow your God to have (us and our food). But now please tell me 1) how the above proves that God messily and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and 2) how the above proves that God loves us, and wants us to love him, and gave us free will and allowed us to commit evil so that he could be sure that we loved him in the right way, and this means he is selfless. (See the Plantinga thread).

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Monday, March 25, 2024, 17:55 (3 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I believe the works produced by ID prove beyond a reasonable doubt a designer exists.

dhw: No problem.

DAVID: That God designer produced us after a long period of evolution of everything on Earth that humans would need. Perfectly logical!!!

dhw: No problem.

DAVID: Adler turns that around by using humans as proof of God the designer, by analyzing it from a Darwinist view of natural evolution.

dhw: No problem, and I’m delighted to hear that Adler recognized that Darwinism and God were perfectly compatible, as opposed to your ridiculous assertion that they are alternatives. However, unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. You can only speculate that he did so because he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. There are, however, perfectly logical explanations for the existence of all the organisms and econiches that came and went long before humans appeared on the scene. But you refuse to consider them on the grounds that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is more godlike than a designer who deliberately conducts experiments, or wants a free-for-all, and enjoys creating and/or learning new things.

You always scurry back to your humanized God who basically doesn't know how to evolve us and must experiment to achieve His goal. Ridiculous!


DAVID: Your logic does not equal God's. The God you create is an imaginary form of a human acting as if He were God.

dhw: The God you create is an imaginary form of a god whose messy, inefficient combination of purpose and method makes no sense even to you, and whose desire to be loved, regardless of the suffering his desire may cause, makes him just about as self-centred as any human could possibly be.

DAVID: Back to you concocted view of God which I've criticized in another thread.

dhw: I have not “concocted” a view of God on the Plantinga thread. I have merely pointed out that Plantinga’s view (with which you agree) presents us with a self-centred God whose desire to be freely loved has led to appalling consequences, to which he appears to be indifferent, since he chose to allow such evils as the Holocaust. You have avoided replying to this argument, just as you avoid acknowledging the illogicality of your theory of evolution, with its explicit criticism of your God’s messy inefficiency.

DAVID: Sufficiently answered in the Plantinga thread.

dhw: See that thread, on which your “answers” simply ignore my questions.

Not today!


DAVID: We are not God's puppets. We run the Earth not God, who purposely gave us life and that responsibility. God is not responsible for human failure, we are. As you exemplify, we are free to ignore God. without God's punishment.

dhw: If God exists, I accept the above, and I would go even further than you, as one of my theories of evolution is that no organisms are your God’s puppets, but he deliberately created a free-for-all, which would explain why life’s history is one of comings and goings that had no connection with the one and only purpose you allow your God to have (us and our food). But now please tell me 1) how the above proves that God messily and inefficiently designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his one and only purpose, and 2) how the above proves that God loves us, and wants us to love him, and gave us free will and allowed us to commit evil so that he could be sure that we loved him in the right way, and this means he is selfless. (See the Plantinga thread).

In the other thread I've described the current situation of personal relationships with God that are the basis for individual beliefs. Although I don't follow the Bible, I would note the concept of religious groups (Churches, Synagogues, etc.) is not mentioned. The OT does offer the need for small groups of ten, which is at the fellowship level.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Tuesday, March 26, 2024, 13:02 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: I believe the works produced by ID prove beyond a reasonable doubt a designer exists.

dhw: No problem.

DAVID: That God designer produced us after a long period of evolution of everything on Earth that humans would need. Perfectly logical!!!

dhw: No problem.

DAVID: Adler turns that around by using humans as proof of God the designer, by analyzing it from a Darwinist view of natural evolution.

dhw: No problem […] However, unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. You can only speculate that he did so because he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. There are, however, perfectly logical explanations for the existence of all the organisms and econiches that came and went long before humans appeared on the scene. But you refuse to consider them on the grounds that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is more godlike than a designer who deliberately conducts experiments, or wants a free-for-all, and enjoys creating and/or learning new things.

DAVID: You always scurry back to your humanized God who basically doesn't know how to evolve us and must experiment to achieve His goal. Ridiculous!

Why is that more ridiculous and more “humanized” than a God who inexplicably and inefficiently takes the trouble to design and then get rid of 99.9 species out of 100 that have no connection with his one and only purpose? Not to mention a God whose only purpose in creating humans is to make sure they love him of their own free will, regardless of all the harmful consequences of his needs? (See your approval of Plantinga’s theory.)

DAVID: Sufficiently answered in the Plantinga thread.

Not answered at all, as exemplified by your next comment:

DAVID: In the other thread I've described the current situation of personal relationships with God that are the basis for individual beliefs. Although I don't follow the Bible, I would note the concept of religious groups (Churches, Synagogues, etc.) is not mentioned. The OT does offer the need for small groups of ten, which is at the fellowship level.

Totally irrelevant to your illogical theory of evolution and Plantinga’s theodicy and Held’s wild and woolly theory about God’s love.

GIANT ARMORED SPECIES BEFORE DINOSAURS

DAVID: viewed from dhw's perspective, some horrible enemies had to exist to force this guy to require this degree of plate armor to survive.

dhw: Viewed from David’s perspective, God had to specially design the aetosaur, because otherwise he couldn’t have designed us and our food. But David can’t think of a single reason why he would have had to do so.

DAVID: It shouldn't surprise you that I cannot reason at God's level of reasoning that you demand.

dhw: What surprises me is that you THINK you are thinking at God’s level. But maybe God didn’t design the aetosaur, or maybe he had a good reason for designing it, and is not the messy, inefficient designer you denigrate.

DAVID: God's use of evolution means He chose a cumbersome method of evolution.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It is your theory about his use of evolution that makes his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And it is your blinkered vision that makes you denigrate his powers in this manner.

DAVID: I don't denigrate His powers as your experimenting God does.

I’m surprised that you don’t regard “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” as denigrating, but I’m getting used to your habit of reversing the meaning of words. I don’t regard experimenting, learning, discovering, enjoyment, interest etc. as “denigrating”.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 26, 2024, 16:11 (2 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Adler turns that around by using humans as proof of God the designer, by analyzing it from a Darwinist view of natural evolution.

dhw: No problem […] However, unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. You can only speculate that he did so because he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. There are, however, perfectly logical explanations for the existence of all the organisms and econiches that came and went long before humans appeared on the scene. But you refuse to consider them on the grounds that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is more godlike than a designer who deliberately conducts experiments, or wants a free-for-all, and enjoys creating and/or learning new things.

DAVID: You always scurry back to your humanized God who basically doesn't know how to evolve us and must experiment to achieve His goal. Ridiculous!

dhw: Why is that more ridiculous and more “humanized” than a God who inexplicably and inefficiently takes the trouble to design and then get rid of 99.9 species out of 100 that have no connection with his one and only purpose? Not to mention a God whose only purpose in creating humans is to make sure they love him of their own free will, regardless of all the harmful consequences of his needs? (See your approval of Plantinga’s theory.)

Plantinga explained in that thread today. You have planted Plantinga's total theology specifically in my brain. Think! I use bits and pieces, as usual for me and for discussion.


DAVID: Sufficiently answered in the Plantinga thread.

dhw: Not answered at all, as exemplified by your next comment:

DAVID: In the other thread I've described the current situation of personal relationships with God that are the basis for individual beliefs. Although I don't follow the Bible, I would note the concept of religious groups (Churches, Synagogues, etc.) is not mentioned. The OT does offer the need for small groups of ten, which is at the fellowship level.

dhw: Totally irrelevant to your illogical theory of evolution and Plantinga’s theodicy and Held’s wild and woolly theory about God’s love.

Presented for viewpoints and discussion.


GIANT ARMORED SPECIES BEFORE DINOSAURS

DAVID: viewed from dhw's perspective, some horrible enemies had to exist to force this guy to require this degree of plate armor to survive.

dhw: Viewed from David’s perspective, God had to specially design the aetosaur, because otherwise he couldn’t have designed us and our food. But David can’t think of a single reason why he would have had to do so.

DAVID: It shouldn't surprise you that I cannot reason at God's level of reasoning that you demand.

dhw: What surprises me is that you THINK you are thinking at God’s level. But maybe God didn’t design the aetosaur, or maybe he had a good reason for designing it, and is not the messy, inefficient designer you denigrate.

DAVID: God's use of evolution means He chose a cumbersome method of evolution.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It is your theory about his use of evolution that makes his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And it is your blinkered vision that makes you denigrate his powers in this manner.

DAVID: I don't denigrate His powers as your experimenting God does.

dhw: I’m surprised that you don’t regard “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” as denigrating, but I’m getting used to your habit of reversing the meaning of words. I don’t regard experimenting, learning, discovering, enjoyment, interest etc. as “denigrating”.

That view of God makes Him humanized and thus lessened.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Wednesday, March 27, 2024, 09:14 (1 day, 14 hours, 27 min. ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. You can only speculate that he did so because he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

This is the theory which has led to years of disagreement between us and which you constantly try to dodge because it is so fundamental to your personal, anthropocentric theology. You admit that you can find no logical explanation, but you cling to it and even ridicule God for his inefficiency, as if somehow you know that your view of his purpose and method is the one and only possible truth. In the comments that preceded this part of my post, you trotted out all the generalisations that make sense, but both there and here you have simply dodged the issue.

dhw: There are, however, perfectly logical explanations for the existence of all the organisms and econiches that came and went long before humans appeared on the scene. But you refuse to consider them on the grounds that a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer is more godlike than a designer who deliberately conducts experiments, or wants a free-for-all, and enjoys creating and/or learning new things.

DAVID: You always scurry back to your humanized God who basically doesn't know how to evolve us and must experiment to achieve His goal. Ridiculous!

dhw: Why is that more ridiculous and more “humanized” than a God who inexplicably and inefficiently takes the trouble to design and then get rid of 99.9 species out of 100 that have no connection with his one and only purpose? Not to mention a God whose only purpose in creating humans is to make sure they love him of their own free will, regardless of all the harmful consequences of his needs? (See your approval of Plantinga’s theory.)

DAVID: Plantinga explained in that thread today. You have planted Plantinga's total theology specifically in my brain. Think! I use bits and pieces, as usual for me and for discussion.

You produced the article, did not offer a single criticism, and accepted and still accept his explanation of theodicy, which was the whole point of the article!

GIANT ARMORED SPECIES BEFORE DINOSAURS

DAVID: It shouldn't surprise you that I cannot reason at God's level of reasoning that you demand.

dhw: What surprises me is that you THINK you are thinking at God’s level. But maybe God didn’t design the aetosaur, or maybe he had a good reason for designing it, and is not the messy, inefficient designer you denigrate.

DAVID: God's use of evolution means He chose a cumbersome method of evolution.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It is your theory about his use of evolution that makes his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And it is your blinkered vision that makes you denigrate his powers in this manner.

DAVID: I don't denigrate His powers as your experimenting God does.

dhw: I’m surprised that you don’t regard “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” as denigrating, but I’m getting used to your habit of reversing the meaning of words. I don’t regard experimenting, learning, discovering, enjoyment, interest etc. as “denigrating”.

DAVID: That view of God makes Him humanized and thus lessened.

And a God who wants to be loved, who enjoys creating (as you have agreed), and whose method of design is messy and inefficient is not “humanized” and is more godlike?

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 27, 2024, 22:40 (1 day, 1 hours, 1 min. ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. You can only speculate that he did so because he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.

This is the theory which has led to years of disagreement between us and which you constantly try to dodge because it is so fundamental to your personal, anthropocentric theology. You admit that you can find no logical explanation,

Ridiculous charge that I 'cannot find an explanation'. I cannot question God directly. He has His own personal reasons using evolution. I can't know them, nor can you. Our puny human logic find objections. Did you ever think we are wrong?

dhw...but you cling to it and even ridicule God for his inefficiency, as if somehow you know that your view of his purpose and method is the one and only possible truth. In the comments that preceded this part of my post, you trotted out all the generalisations that make sense, but both there and here you have simply dodged the issue.

Nothing dodged. many of your points are so illogical, no answer on the point is possible.


DAVID: Plantinga explained in that thread today. You have planted Plantinga's total theology specifically in my brain. Think! I use bits and pieces, as usual for me and for discussion.

dhw: You produced the article, did not offer a single criticism, and accepted and still accept his explanation of theodicy, which was the whole point of the article!

I stand by my explanation, accept the theodicy view, but not the love view. I am not going to cleanse each article of all its comments. You now know Planting. He ain't me!


GIANT ARMORED SPECIES BEFORE DINOSAURS

DAVID: It shouldn't surprise you that I cannot reason at God's level of reasoning that you demand.

dhw: What surprises me is that you THINK you are thinking at God’s level. But maybe God didn’t design the aetosaur, or maybe he had a good reason for designing it, and is not the messy, inefficient designer you denigrate.

DAVID: God's use of evolution means He chose a cumbersome method of evolution.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It is your theory about his use of evolution that makes his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And it is your blinkered vision that makes you denigrate his powers in this manner.

DAVID: I don't denigrate His powers as your experimenting God does.

dhw: I’m surprised that you don’t regard “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” as denigrating, but I’m getting used to your habit of reversing the meaning of words. I don’t regard experimenting, learning, discovering, enjoyment, interest etc. as “denigrating”.

DAVID: That view of God makes Him humanized and thus lessened.

dhw: And a God who wants to be loved, who enjoys creating (as you have agreed), and whose method of design is messy and inefficient is not “humanized” and is more godlike?

How do you know with certainty God wants love and loves us? I don't.

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by dhw, Thursday, March 28, 2024, 13:24 (10 hours, 17 minutes ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. You can only speculate that he did so because he is a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer.
This is the theory which has led to years of disagreement between us and which you constantly try to dodge because it is so fundamental to your personal, anthropocentric theology. You admit that you can find no logical explanation.

DAVID: Ridiculous charge that I 'cannot find an explanation'. I cannot question God directly. He has His own personal reasons using evolution. I can't know them, nor can you. Our puny human logic find objections. Did you ever think we are wrong?

If God exists, of course he has his reasons for using evolution. But you pretend that you know them: his one and only purpose was to design humans and our food. You also pretend that you know his method: to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his only purpose. Your conclusion, as below: He is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. And you refuse to consider the possibility that he might have had a different purpose and/or a different method to achieve his purpose.

DAVID: God's use of evolution means He chose a cumbersome method of evolution.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It is your theory about his use of evolution that makes his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And it is your blinkered vision that makes you denigrate his powers in this manner.

DAVID: I don't denigrate His powers as your experimenting God does.

dhw: I’m surprised that you don’t regard “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” as denigrating, but I’m getting used to your habit of reversing the meaning of words. I don’t regard experimenting, learning, discovering, enjoyment, interest etc. as “denigrating”.

DAVID: That view of God makes Him humanized and thus lessened.

dhw: And a God who wants to be loved, who enjoys creating (as you have agreed), and whose method of design is messy and inefficient is not “humanized” and is more godlike?

DAVID: How do you know with certainty God wants love and loves us? I don't.

This was a reference to your acceptance of Plantinga’s theory, which you have now withdrawn. And presumably you now reject Held as well. (See the other thread.) Nobody knows anything “with certainty” about God, which applies even to his existence. All we can do is offer theories and discuss their feasibility. Your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, selfless God is currently inefficient, guilty of creating numerous causes of appalling human suffering, and at one time wanted to be recognized and worshipped, and also enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, but now you’re not so sure about that. However, you happen to know that he doesn’t experiment, or like to learn from his experiments, or make new discoveries. And you have also withdrawn your support for the mainstream theory that God loves us and wants us to love him. Your only certainty is that we plus food were his sole purpose, and that was why he inexplicably designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus our food.

Darwinism and God (transferred from “More Miscellany”)

The starting point of this discussion was your statement that “Two alternatives exist: God or nature”. We are not discussing the content of articles..[/i].

DAVID: That is exactly the point of my original comment and along the way. Science articles are always Godless, referring to Darwin, Darwin theory or not commenting.

I’m not surprised that scientific articles do not turn into theological articles unless they wish to use science to discuss God’s existence and/or nature, as you and your fellow ID-ers do. Now please tell us: do you think it’s impossible for anyone to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and at the same time believe in God or believe in the possibility of a God?

Return to David's theory of evolution, purpose & theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 28, 2024, 19:42 (3 hours, 59 minutes ago) @ dhw

dhw: […] unfortunately all these logical beliefs of yours miss out your immutable belief that your God also designed and culled 99.9 species out of 100 that had no connection with humans and our needs, and you have no idea why he would have done so. > This is the theory ...which has led to years of disagreement between us and which you constantly try to dodge because it is so fundamental to your personal, anthropocentric theology. You admit that you can find no logical explanation.

DAVID: Ridiculous charge that I 'cannot find an explanation'. I cannot question God directly. He has His own personal reasons using evolution. I can't know them, nor can you. Our puny human logic find objections. Did you ever think we are wrong?

dhw: If God exists, of course he has his reasons for using evolution. But you pretend that you know them: his one and only purpose was to design humans and our food. You also pretend that you know his method: to design 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with his only purpose. Your conclusion, as below: He is a messy, cumbersome, inefficient designer. And you refuse to consider the possibility that he might have had a different purpose and/or a different method to achieve his purpose.

Your now-bolded statement is your gross distortion of Raup's analysis of the statistics of extinctions in evolution. It all led to humans in charge of the Earth and its resources just right for human use. And I see God as the successful designer/engineer, not the Blackard you have invented about Him.


DAVID: God's use of evolution means He chose a cumbersome method of evolution.

dhw: No it doesn’t. It is your theory about his use of evolution that makes his method messy, cumbersome and inefficient. And it is your blinkered vision that makes you denigrate his powers in this manner.

More distorted sneering.


DAVID: I don't denigrate His powers as your experimenting God does.

dhw: I’m surprised that you don’t regard “messy”, “cumbersome” and “inefficient” as denigrating, but I’m getting used to your habit of reversing the meaning of words. I don’t regard experimenting, learning, discovering, enjoyment, interest etc. as “denigrating”.

DAVID: That view of God makes Him humanized and thus lessened.

dhw: And a God who wants to be loved, who enjoys creating (as you have agreed), and whose method of design is messy and inefficient is not “humanized” and is more godlike?

DAVID: How do you know with certainty God wants love and loves us? I don't.

dhw: This was a reference to your acceptance of Plantinga’s theory, which you have now withdrawn. And presumably you now reject Held as well. (See the other thread.) Nobody knows anything “with certainty” about God, which applies even to his existence. All we can do is offer theories and discuss their feasibility. Your all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, selfless God is currently inefficient, guilty of creating numerous causes of appalling human suffering, and at one time wanted to be recognized and worshipped, and also enjoyed creating and was interested in his creations, but now you’re not so sure about that. However, you happen to know that he doesn’t experiment, or like to learn from his experiments, or make new discoveries. And you have also withdrawn your support for the mainstream theory that God loves us and wants us to love him. Your only certainty is that we plus food were his sole purpose, and that was why he inexplicably designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with us plus our food.

Nutty!! Raup shows us that these statistics were exactly the result of God's evolution of life and finally humans. You want God to do it without extinctions?


Darwinism and God (transferred from “More Miscellany”)

The starting point of this discussion was your statement that “Two alternatives exist: God or nature”. We are not discussing the content of articles..[/i].

DAVID: That is exactly the point of my original comment and along the way. Science articles are always Godless, referring to Darwin, Darwin theory or not commenting.

dhw: I’m not surprised that scientific articles do not turn into theological articles unless they wish to use science to discuss God’s existence and/or nature, as you and your fellow ID-ers do. Now please tell us: do you think it’s impossible for anyone to accept Darwin’s theory of evolution and at the same time believe in God or believe in the possibility of a God?

No! You do. It is logical to see design. But in one aspect you are blind. In the current state of scientific fact, there is not much logically left of Darwin except a form of common descent without natural selection.

Return to David's theory of evolution again by request

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 27, 2024, 18:43 (61 days ago) @ David Turell

Per dhw's request, I'm returning to the prior entry to answer:

dhw: I’m going to try to bring some order into this discussion, which has degenerated almost into farce.


The farce is your making. Evolution had to cull 99.9% to reach today's surviving 0.1%. From a species standpoint humans are tiny part of the millions of species on Earth.


dhw: 1) David’s current theory, following Tony’s intervention: God designed every species that has ever existed and culled 99.9% of them in order to design humans and our food, and in order to put us in charge of everything on Earth and to use all of its resources. However, this was only part of his plan.

The usual misuse of 99.9% extinct. We are dealing simply with 0.1% surviving forms. That tiny percent is what is living on Earth. Tony and I view God's purpose as producing an Earth filled with species for our use. Everything on Earth today is here because of God's purpose.


dhw: \ 2) David has agreed on numerous occasions that 99.9% of species that ever lived had no connection with us or our food, i.e. current species (I can provide quotes), but also insists that 99.9% of them were the ancestors of ourselves and our food, i.e.current species. Mixed in with this explicit contradiction is the acceptable point that 99.9% of our ancestors and those of current species are extinct. This of course is totally different from saying that we and our contemporary species are directly descended from 99.9% of all extinct organisms.

Raup simply said that God's evolution produced a 99.9% extinction rate. That has morphed into all of these distortions about why what is here is here. The survivors are God's intended survivors for our use. Our species is a tiny percentage of all living species which are the 0.1% final survivors. We need to only discuss the 0.1%. It is so simple. From God's viewpoint make some humans and give them all the material and living resources they will need to prosper. Everything here is required to be here. Incidentally there is a calculated loss rate, since everything evolved from earlier forms. Forget the loss rate, it is just a statistical observation.

Return to David's theory of evolution II

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 13, 2024, 19:29 (75 days ago) @ dhw

Raup revisited:

99.9& versus 0.1%

dhw: We can now end this discussion, thanks to a fossil skin 290 million years old! Previously you have claimed that “The 99.9% of evolution produced the 0.1% extant” This clearly means that 99.9% of all species produced us. Your closed triangle image was meant to reinforce this - the “area” being the 99.9% of all species – as opposed to the bush, which diverges into countless branches that never meet. But now, praise be, we have a revelation:

dhw: Perhaps worth pointing out that the different groups diverged and developed. They did not all link up with one another in a straight line from themselves to us and our food. 99.9% of them were not our ancestors.

DAVID: Our direct human line had a loss of ancestors at the 99.9% level, per Raup.

dhw: Yes! Of course the loss of 99.9% of our direct human line(= our ancestors) fits the history. And so we can now dismiss all the nonsense about the 99.9% of evolution producing us, and accept that only 0.1% of past species led to us (plus food). And we remain stuck with 99.9% of past species which you believe your God deliberately designed and culled, and which had no connection with us or our food but came to a dead end. Agreed at last?

Note this new approach:

https://phys.org/news/2024-01-life-earth.html

"All organisms are made of living cells. While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when the first cells came to exist, geologists' best estimates suggest at least as early as 3.8 billion years ago. But how much life has inhabited this planet since the first cell on Earth? And how much life will ever exist on Earth?

***

"Today, the most notable contributor to this effort is oxygenic photosynthesis, where sunlight and water are key ingredients. However, deciphering past rates of primary production has been a challenging task. In lieu of a time machine, scientists like myself rely on clues left in ancient sedimentary rocks to reconstruct past environments.

"In the case of primary production, the isotopic composition of oxygen in the form of sulfate in ancient salt deposits allows for such estimates to be made.

"In our study, we compiled all previous estimates of ancient primary production derived through the method above, as well as many others. The outcome of this productivity census was that we were able to estimate that 100 quintillion (or 100 billion billion) tons of carbon has been through primary production since the origin of life.

"Big numbers like this are difficult to picture; 100 quintillion tons of carbon is about 100 times the amount of carbon contained within the Earth, a pretty impressive feat for Earth's primary producers.

***

"In our study, we used this information to explore what organisms have contributed the most to Earth's historical primary production. We found that despite being late on the scene, land plants have likely contributed the most. However, it is also very plausible that cyanobacteria contributed the most.

***

"Today, one may be able to approximate how many humans exist based on how much food is consumed. Similarly, we were able to calibrate a ratio of primary production to how many cells exist in the modern environment.

"Despite the large variability in the number of cells per organism and the sizes of different cells, such complications become secondary since single-celled microbes dominate global cell populations. In the end, we were able to estimate that about 10^30 (10 noninillion) cells exist today, and that between 10^39 (a duodecillion) and 10^40 cells have ever existed on Earth."

Comment: A different way to view evolution. not the 0.1% Raup give's us.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by David Turell @, Friday, March 15, 2024, 15:46 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

Plantinga on theodicy:

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo68/if-god-why-evil

In his classic 1955 paper “Evil and Omnipotence,” J. L. Mackie claims that the presence of evil in the world (evil construed broadly enough to include any instance of suffering) shows that belief in God is irrational. After all, Mackie reasons, if God was all-good, he would want to stop all evil, and if he was all-powerful, he could stop it. But evil and suffering do exist, he continues; therefore, God doesn’t. To believe that both God and evil exist, then, is to believe incompatible claims.

The problem might be posed as a dilemma for the believer: either accept the existence of God and deny evil or accept the existence of evil and deny God.

***

the believer need only show that holding beliefs in both God and the reality of evil is consistent.

Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga has done just that. In response to Mackie, Plantinga explains that a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, inhis perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so —that is, a reason that would justify permitting the evil. Plantinga further suggests a possible reason: that God deemed human free will to be something of great value, even though the existence of free will makes possible the existence of evil. Thus, there is a third option: God might allow evil for good reasons. (my bold)

But why might God value free will? The Bible tells us that God is a real being who loves his human creatures and wants real relationships with them. This is why he endowed them with free will, even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.

Plantinga’s response has taken hold, and philosophers of religion now tend to agree that it is not inconsistent to believe in both the existence of God and the existence of evil. Even Mackie conceded that Plantinga’s refutation of his argument is successful.

Comment: this article is on the point of human caused evil. it presents all of my points given in the past. What it does not cover directly is the evil in bugs, but Plantinga's answer really does. What good bacteria do far outweigh the evil side effects and they are present for good reason.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by dhw, Saturday, March 16, 2024, 09:58 (13 days ago) @ David Turell

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo68/if-god-why-evil

QUOTE: In his classic 1955 paper “Evil and Omnipotence,” J. L. Mackie claims that the presence of evil in the world (evil construed broadly enough to include any instance of suffering) shows that belief in God is irrational. After all, Mackie reasons, if God was all-good, he would want to stop all evil, and if he was all-powerful, he could stop it. But evil and suffering do exist, he continues; therefore, God doesn’t. To believe that both God and evil exist, then, is to believe incompatible claims.

I can hardly believe that anyone took this argument seriously. Did it never occur to J.L. Mackie that God might exist and might not be “all-good”, but that he might be indifferent to suffering, or might even want it to happen?

QUOTE: […] In response to Mackie, Plantinga explains that a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, in his perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so —that is, a reason that would justify permitting the evil. Plantinga further suggests a possible reason: that God deemed human free will to be something of great value, even though the existence of free will makes possible the existence of evil. Thus, there is a third option: God might allow evil for good reasons.

Here we have the usual presumption that God is morally perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. As you point out later, his argument is confined to human choice, and does not explain the suffering caused by God-made bugs, or by natural disasters which God either organizes or allows to happen. But there is worse to come.

PLANTINGA: But why might God value free will? The Bible tells us that God is a real being who loves his human creatures and wants real relationships with them.

Plantinga seems to have forgotten that the Bible also tells us that God loves humans so much that he killed all but one family – including babes and toddlers – in a great flood, and gave orders that if people worshipped other gods, they should be killed and their cities destroyed.

QUOTE: This is why he endowed them with free will, even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.

So although the omniscient God knew that evil would cause untold suffering to untold numbers of human beings, his all-good reason for giving folk the chance to commit evil was to make sure that people loved him willingly. You agree, and earlier you thought he also wanted us to recognize and worship him, but you still believe he is selfless!

DAVID: this article is on the point of human caused evil. it presents all of my points given in the past.

There is only one point made here: your selfless God created evil, and all the suffering it brings, to make sure that those who love him really love him.

DAVID: What it does not cover directly is the evil in bugs, but Plantinga's answer really does. What good bacteria do far outweigh the evil side effects and they are present for good reason.

Some bugs are present for good reasons, and others cause untold suffering, as your omniscient God knew they would, but your omnipotent God could not prevent the suffering although you tell us he did his best to do so. Do you agree with Plantinga that just like us humans, your selfless God needed to be loved, and he gave us free will so that he could be sure we really loved him?

All this muddled thinking, with its baseless assumptions about God’s nature, thoughts and motives, stems from one of the most insightful comments you have ever made about your own preconceptions: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” Clearly you are not alone.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 16, 2024, 17:15 (12 days ago) @ dhw

https://salvomag.com/article/salvo68/if-god-why-evil

QUOTE: In his classic 1955 paper “Evil and Omnipotence,” J. L. Mackie claims that the presence of evil in the world (evil construed broadly enough to include any instance of suffering) shows that belief in God is irrational. After all, Mackie reasons, if God was all-good, he would want to stop all evil, and if he was all-powerful, he could stop it. But evil and suffering do exist, he continues; therefore, God doesn’t. To believe that both God and evil exist, then, is to believe incompatible claims.

dhw: I can hardly believe that anyone took this argument seriously. Did it never occur to J.L. Mackie that God might exist and might not be “all-good”, but that he might be indifferent to suffering, or might even want it to happen?

QUOTE: […] In response to Mackie, Plantinga explains that a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, in his perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so —that is, a reason that would justify permitting the evil. Plantinga further suggests a possible reason: that God deemed human free will to be something of great value, even though the existence of free will makes possible the existence of evil. Thus, there is a third option: God might allow evil for good reasons.

dhw: Here we have the usual presumption that God is morally perfect, omniscient and omnipotent. As you point out later, his argument is confined to human choice, and does not explain the suffering caused by God-made bugs, or by natural disasters which God either organizes or allows to happen. But there is worse to come.

PLANTINGA: But why might God value free will? The Bible tells us that God is a real being who loves his human creatures and wants real relationships with them.

dhw: Plantinga seems to have forgotten that the Bible also tells us that God loves humans so much that he killed all but one family – including babes and toddlers – in a great flood, and gave orders that if people worshipped other gods, they should be killed and their cities destroyed.

QUOTE: This is why he endowed them with free will, even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.

dhw: So although the omniscient God knew that evil would cause untold suffering to untold numbers of human beings, his all-good reason for giving folk the chance to commit evil was to make sure that people loved him willingly. You agree, and earlier you thought he also wanted us to recognize and worship him, but you still believe he is selfless!

DAVID: this article is on the point of human caused evil. it presents all of my points given in the past.

dhw: There is only one point made here: your selfless God created evil, and all the suffering it brings, to make sure that those who love him really love him.

DAVID: What it does not cover directly is the evil in bugs, but Plantinga's answer really does. What good bacteria do far outweigh the evil side effects and they are present for good reason.

dhw: Some bugs are present for good reasons, and others cause untold suffering, as your omniscient God knew they would, but your omnipotent God could not prevent the suffering although you tell us he did his best to do so. Do you agree with Plantinga that just like us humans, your selfless God needed to be loved, and he gave us free will so that he could be sure we really loved him?

All this muddled thinking, with its baseless assumptions about God’s nature, thoughts and motives, stems from one of the most insightful comments you have ever made about your own preconceptions: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” Clearly you are not alone.

Plantinga's key point: "Plantinga explains that a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, in his perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so —that is, a reason that would justify permitting the evil. Plantinga further suggests a possible reason: that God deemed human free will to be something of great value, even though the existence of free will makes possible the existence of evil. Thus, there is a third option: God might allow evil for good reasons." Which comes back to this implication: God has reasons we cannot understand but must accept. Yes, both Plantinga and I accept the same God as a starting point.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by dhw, Sunday, March 17, 2024, 11:34 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

Yesterday I wrote a complete response to each point made in the article. There is no room or need to repeat all of it here, as the requisite details are contained in my response to David.

dhw: All this muddled thinking, with its baseless assumptions about God’s nature, thoughts and motives, stems from one of the most insightful comments you have ever made about your own preconceptions: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” Clearly you are not alone.

DAVID: Plantinga's key point: "Plantinga explains that a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, in his perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so — that is, a reason that would justify permitting the evil. bbbPlantinga further suggests a possible reasonbbb (dhw’s bold): that God deemed human free will to be something of great value, even though the existence of free will makes possible the existence of evil. Thus, there is a third option: God might allow evil for good reasons." Which comes back to this implication: God has reasons we cannot understand but must accept. Yes, both Plantinga and I accept the same God as a starting point.

Your answer is one big dodge. Plantinga’s starting point is the unproven theory that God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-good (“morally perfect”), and apparently loves us humans, although the Bible has him slaughtering all humans (babes included) except for one family (the Flood) and giving orders for the slaughter of all unbelievers and the destruction of their cities (Deuteronomy). And then Plantinga gives us one reason and one reason only for evil: God gave us free will because “even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.”.And you agree! He wants us to love him (and elsewhere you have him wanting us to recognize and worship him). But you think your God is selfless!!! And who cares if the evil that God deliberately "allows" causes untold misery to millions of humans, whether they love God or not? Obviously your all-good God doesn’t, or he would never have created the concept in the first place. This is what you are proud to accept!

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 17, 2024, 14:56 (11 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Sunday, March 17, 2024, 15:09

Yesterday I wrote a complete response to each point made in the article. There is no room or need to repeat all of it here, as the requisite details are contained in my response to David.

dhw: All this muddled thinking, with its baseless assumptions about God’s nature, thoughts and motives, stems from one of the most insightful comments you have ever made about your own preconceptions: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” Clearly you are not alone.

DAVID: Plantinga's key point: "Plantinga explains that a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, in his perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so — that is, a reason that would justify permitting the evil. bbbPlantinga further suggests a possible reasonbbb (dhw’s bold): that God deemed human free will to be something of great value, even though the existence of free will makes possible the existence of evil. Thus, there is a third option: God might allow evil for good reasons." Which comes back to this implication: God has reasons we cannot understand but must accept. Yes, both Plantinga and I accept the same God as a starting point.

dhw: Your answer is one big dodge. Plantinga’s starting point is the unproven theory that God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-good (“morally perfect”), and apparently loves us humans, although the Bible has him slaughtering all humans (babes included) except for one family (the Flood) and giving orders for the slaughter of all unbelievers and the destruction of their cities (Deuteronomy). And then Plantinga gives us one reason and one reason only for evil: God gave us free will because “even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.”.And you agree! He wants us to love him (and elsewhere you have him wanting us to recognize and worship him). But you think your God is selfless!!! And who cares if the evil that God deliberately "allows" causes untold misery to millions of humans, whether they love God or not? Obviously your all-good God doesn’t, or he would never have created the concept in the first place. This is what you are proud to accept!

You have fallen into the same Old Testament trap as you apply to Plantinga now bolded above. We have agreed the Bible, written by humans expresses human wishes for what they want God to be. Both you and I have our own impressions, as equally cogent as anyone else. Granted neither of us like the other's. :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by dhw, Monday, March 18, 2024, 08:59 (11 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Plantinga's key point: "Plantinga explains that a morally perfect, omnipotent being can allow evil to exist if, in his perfect omniscience he has a morally sufficient reason for doing so — that is, a reason that would justify permitting the evil. bbbPlantinga further suggests a possible reasonbbb (dhw’s bold): that God deemed human free will to be something of great value, even though the existence of free will makes possible the existence of evil. Thus, there is a third option: God might allow evil for good reasons." Which comes back to this implication: God has reasons we cannot understand but must accept. Yes, both Plantinga and I accept the same God as a starting point.

dhw: Your answer is one big dodge. Plantinga’s starting point is the unproven theory that God is omnipotent, omniscient and all-good (“morally perfect”), and apparently loves us humans, although the Bible has him slaughtering all humans (babes included) except for one family (the Flood) and giving orders for the slaughter of all unbelievers and the destruction of their cities (Deuteronomy). And then Plantinga gives us one reason and one reason only for evil: God gave us free will because “even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.”. And you agree! He wants us to love him (and elsewhere you have him wanting us to recognize and worship him). But you think your God is selfless!!! And who cares if the evil that God deliberately "allows" causes untold misery to millions of humans, whether they love God or not? Obviously your all-good God doesn’t, or he would never have created the concept in the first place. This is what you are proud to accept!

DAVID: You have fallen into the same Old Testament trap as you apply to Plantinga now bolded above. We have agreed the Bible, written by humans expresses human wishes for what they want God to be.

I am simply pointing out that if Plantinga wants to use the Bible as a reference book to prove how much God loves us, he cannot ignore other sections of the Bible which illustrate God’s devastating vengefulness against those who do not love or recognize him. And astonishingly, you yourself seem to have forgotten your own bald confession: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID: Both you and I have our own impressions, as equally cogent as anyone else. Granted neither of us like the other's.

And now you completely ignore the truly appalling implications of Plantinga’s one and only explanation of evil, which I have bolded for you and which you approve of. How can you possibly support this egocentric, callous version of your God and continue to view him as selfless and loving?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by David Turell @, Monday, March 18, 2024, 16:45 (10 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have fallen into the same Old Testament trap as you apply to Plantinga now bolded above. We have agreed the Bible, written by humans expresses human wishes for what they want God to be.

dhw: I am simply pointing out that if Plantinga wants to use the Bible as a reference book to prove how much God loves us, he cannot ignore other sections of the Bible which illustrate God’s devastating vengefulness against those who do not love or recognize him. And astonishingly, you yourself seem to have forgotten your own bald confession: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.”

DAVID: Both you and I have our own impressions, as equally cogent as anyone else. Granted neither of us like the other's.

dhw: And now you completely ignore the truly appalling implications of Plantinga’s one and only explanation of evil, which I have bolded for you and which you approve of. How can you possibly support this egocentric, callous version of your God and continue to view him as selfless and loving?

You have forgotten my reminder to you: current Rabbinical interpretation of the OT has a very softened God compatible with modern thinking. You are still frightened by your childhood memories of religious teachings. I was never frightened that way.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by dhw, Tuesday, March 19, 2024, 08:51 (10 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: […] if Plantinga wants to use the Bible as a reference book to prove how much God loves us, he cannot ignore other sections of the Bible which illustrate God’s devastating vengefulness against those who do not love or recognize him.

DAVID: You have forgotten my reminder to you: current Rabbinical interpretation of the OT has a very softened God compatible with modern thinking. You are still frightened by your childhood memories of religious teachings. I was never frightened that way.

Just like you, theologians “first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” For some reason, you have overlooked the horrifying implications of Plantinga’s justfication of evil, which equally horrifyingly meets with your approval. Let’s start again:

dhw: Plantinga gives us one reason and one reason only for evil: God gave us free will because “even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.” And you agree! He wants us to love him (and elsewhere you have him wanting us to recognize and worship him). But you think your God is selfless!!! And who cares if the evil that God deliberately "allows" causes untold misery to millions of humans, whether they love God or not? Obviously your all-good God doesn’t, or he would never have created the concept in the first place. This is what you are proud to accept!

Under “experimentation

DAVID: You will never understand how theists think and are comfortable with their feelings. It is proportionality, as expressed before. All you see is evil, which to me is a very small part of our reality.

dhw: Acknowledging all the good does not make all the evil disappear, and if you think it is a very small part of our reality, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. But you are right, I will never understand how any theist can believe that their God wants to be recognized, worshipped and loved but has no self-interest; and I will never understand how any theist can be comfortable with the belief that their God doesn’t care what suffering he has caused through his knowingly “allowing” evil (e.g. war, genocide, tyranny, famine, flood, disease etc.) so long as some people freely choose to love him.

DAVID: Yep, lots of folks have the pure freedom to love Him. For me it feels good.

One “very small part” of our reality was the Holocaust, in which approx. 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. If you and I had been living in Germany at the time, we would have been among them. I would imagine some of those Jews, including you, would have loved God of their own free will. And your omniscient God would have known that this would happen, but that was the price he was willing to pay, in order to ensure that he was loved in the proper way. And for you this feels good. Both you and your God would have been happy as you made your way to the gas chamber, because you had chosen to love him of your own free will, and the Holocaust was just one “very small part” of reality.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 19, 2024, 15:57 (9 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Just like you, theologians “first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” For some reason, you have overlooked the horrifying implications of Plantinga’s justfication of evil, which equally horrifyingly meets with your approval. Let’s start again:

dhw: Plantinga gives us one reason and one reason only for evil: God gave us free will because “even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.” And you agree! He wants us to love him (and elsewhere you have him wanting us to recognize and worship him). But you think your God is selfless!!! And who cares if the evil that God deliberately "allows" causes untold misery to millions of humans, whether they love God or not? Obviously your all-good God doesn’t, or he would never have created the concept in the first place. This is what you are proud to accept!

Your bold of Plantinga is exactly correct! I have the free will to love you. And his point that allowing evil happens for sufficient reason is similarly correct. Note in the original article Plantinga's critic accepted P's points. As usual you want to have God provide a Garden of Eden. As long as living requires eating there will be evil.


Under “experimentation

DAVID: You will never understand how theists think and are comfortable with their feelings. It is proportionality, as expressed before. All you see is evil, which to me is a very small part of our reality.

dhw: Acknowledging all the good does not make all the evil disappear, and if you think it is a very small part of our reality, you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. But you are right, I will never understand how any theist can believe that their God wants to be recognized, worshipped and loved but has no self-interest; and I will never understand how any theist can be comfortable with the belief that their God doesn’t care what suffering he has caused through his knowingly “allowing” evil (e.g. war, genocide, tyranny, famine, flood, disease etc.) so long as some people freely choose to love him.

DAVID: Yep, lots of folks have the pure freedom to love Him. For me it feels good.

dhw: One “very small part” of our reality was the Holocaust, in which approx. 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. If you and I had been living in Germany at the time, we would have been among them. I would imagine some of those Jews, including you, would have loved God of their own free will. And your omniscient God would have known that this would happen, but that was the price he was willing to pay, in order to ensure that he was loved in the proper way. And for you this feels good. Both you and your God would have been happy as you made your way to the gas chamber, because you had chosen to love him of your own free will, and the Holocaust was just one “very small part” of reality.

Wow! Didn't you read Viktor E. Frankl? You have much meaning in your life despite your enlarged view of evil.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by dhw, Saturday, March 23, 2024, 08:00 (6 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Just like you, theologians “first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” For some reason, you have overlooked the horrifying implications of Plantinga’s justfication of evil, which equally horrifyingly meets with your approval. Let’s start again:

dhw: Plantinga gives us one reason and one reason only for evil: God gave us free will because “even though free will entails the possibility that they might choose evil; relationships grounded in real love are not possible unless both parties enter into them willingly.” And you agree! He wants us to love him (and elsewhere you have him wanting us to recognize and worship him). But you think your God is selfless!!! And who cares if the evil that God deliberately "allows" causes untold misery to millions of humans, whether they love God or not? Obviously your all-good God doesn’t, or he would never have created the concept in the first place. This is what you are proud to accept!

DAVID: Your bold of Plantinga is exactly correct! I have the free will to love you.

Um…sorry, mistaken identity...I’m not God, but thanks for the compliment.

DAVID: And his point that allowing evil happens for sufficient reason is similarly correct. Note in the original article Plantinga's critic accepted P's points. As usual you want to have God provide a Garden of Eden. As long as living requires eating there will be evil.

This has nothing to do with what I want - which is feasible answers to all the great questions! You are the one who starts with wishes and bends your answers to fit them. You and the critic accept that your God wants us to love him, and is happy to allow evil in order to gratify this totally self-centred interest. And yet you claim your God is selfless. If he is happy to allow the Holocaust (see below) as the price to be paid for ensuring people love him of their own free will, (a) he is not selfless, and (b) human suffering is clearly of little or no importance to him, despite P.’s and your belief that he loves us.

DAVID: You will never understand how theists think and are comfortable with their feelings. It is proportionality, as expressed before. All you see is evil, which to me is a very small part of our reality.

dhw: One “very small part” of our reality was the Holocaust, in which approx. 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. If you and I had been living in Germany at the time, we would have been among them. I would imagine some of those Jews, including you, would have loved God of their own free will. And your omniscient God would have known that this would happen, but this was the price he was willing to pay, in order to ensure that he was loved in the proper way. And for you this feels good. Both you and your God would have been happy as you made your way to the gas chamber, because you had chosen to love him of your own free will, and the Holocaust was just one “very small part” of reality.

DAVID: Wow! Didn't you read Viktor E. Frankl? You have much meaning in your life despite your enlarged view of evil.

Yes, I love life in spite of the evil in the world. And I haven’t read Mr Frankl. Please explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we loved him of our own free will?

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy;Plantinga

by David Turell @, Saturday, March 23, 2024, 15:31 (5 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: And his point that allowing evil happens for sufficient reason is similarly correct. Note in the original article Plantinga's critic accepted P's points. As usual you want to have God provide a Garden of Eden. As long as living requires eating there will be evil.

dhw: This has nothing to do with what I want - which is feasible answers to all the great questions! You are the one who starts with wishes and bends your answers to fit them. You and the critic accept that your God wants us to love him, and is happy to allow evil in order to gratify this totally self-centred interest. And yet you claim your God is selfless. If he is happy to allow the Holocaust (see below) as the price to be paid for ensuring people love him of their own free will, (a) he is not selfless, and (b) human suffering is clearly of little or no importance to him, despite P.’s and your belief that he loves us.

God is person like no other person. God is not a self and does not need a soul. Theologians consider God as simple. We are more complex. Humans caused the Holocaust despite God, and humans stopped it, all because of our God-given free will. You bend your shape of God to fit your disbelief.


DAVID: You will never understand how theists think and are comfortable with their feelings. It is proportionality, as expressed before. All you see is evil, which to me is a very small part of our reality.

dhw: One “very small part” of our reality was the Holocaust, in which approx. 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. If you and I had been living in Germany at the time, we would have been among them. I would imagine some of those Jews, including you, would have loved God of their own free will. And your omniscient God would have known that this would happen, but this was the price he was willing to pay, in order to ensure that he was loved in the proper way. And for you this feels good. Both you and your God would have been happy as you made your way to the gas chamber, because you had chosen to love him of your own free will, and the Holocaust was just one “very small part” of reality.

DAVID: Wow! Didn't you read Viktor E. Frankl? You have much meaning in your life despite your enlarged view of evil.

dhw: Yes, I love life in spite of the evil in the world. And I haven’t read Mr Frankl. Please explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we loved him of our own free will?

Same mistaken criticism.

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by dhw, Sunday, March 24, 2024, 09:28 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: And his point that allowing evil happens for sufficient reason is similarly correct. Note in the original article Plantinga's critic accepted P's points. As usual you want to have God provide a Garden of Eden. As long as living requires eating there will be evil.

dhw: This has nothing to do with what I want - which is feasible answers to all the great questions! You are the one who starts with wishes and bends your answers to fit them. You and the critic accept that your God wants us to love him, and is happy to allow evil in order to gratify this totally self-centred interest. And yet you claim your God is selfless. If he is happy to allow the Holocaust (see below) as the price to be paid for ensuring people love him of their own free will, (a) he is not selfless, and (b) human suffering is clearly of little or no importance to him, despite P.’s and your belief that he loves us.

DAVID: God is person like no other person. God is not a self and does not need a soul.

Nobody is saying that God is a human being. But even you have agreed that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. If he wants us to love him, then don’t pretend he is selfless and emotionless.

DAVID: Theologians consider God as simple. We are more complex. Humans caused the Holocaust despite God, and humans stopped it, all because of our God-given free will. You bend your shape of God to fit your disbelief.

I have no idea what simplicity versus complexity has to do with anything. You support Plantinga’s theory that your God “allowed” evil to happen because he wanted us to love him of our own free will. Being omniscient he knew what would happen. The slaughter of 6 million Jews was not “despite God” if he knew it would happen and made no attempt to stop it because he wanted us to love him of our own free will. It is you who bend your God to fit your belief that he is selfless (and yet wants to be loved), loves us (you accept Pantinga’s theology) and yet is prepared to see us slaughter 6 million Jews so that he can be sure he is loved of our own free will, is all-good and yet designs viruses that will kill us, and for good measure messily, inefficiently and inexplicably designs and culls 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only purpose you allow him.

I finished my post with a request:

dhw: Please explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we love him of our own free will?

DAVID: Same mistaken criticism.

You have not answered.

Current Jewish theology

QUOTE:
A traditional rabbinic story imagines that when God was about to create Adam, the angels split into factions and began to argue. “Kindness said, ‘Let him be created, since he will perform acts of lovingkindness’; Truth said, ‘Let him not be created, since he is all lies.’” How does God respond to the debate? “God took truth and cast it to the earth.” Faced with a choice between love and other competing values, God embraces the former and rebuffs the latter. God risks a lot, and puts up with a lot, all in the name of love—both the love God has for us and the love God hopes that we will embody and bring into the world."

DAVID: Rabbi Shai Held is president of the Hadar Institute. This essay is adapted from his new book, “Judaism Is About Love: Recovering the Heart of Jewish Life,” which will be published on March 26 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

This should put to rest dhw's terror of the riginal OT God he learned about as a child long ago. Ancient primitive Jews perhaps needed such a tough God to keep them in line. That guy is not necessary now. The God of the Talmud is today's Jewish God.

For heaven’s sake! One Jewish rabbi narrates a little allegory, and pretends he knows exactly what his God is thinking and feeling. He has no more knowledge of God than you, me or Plantinga! You have just agreed with Plantinga that your selfless, loving God gave us free will to do as much evil as we like because that was the only way he could ensure that we would love him properly. Shai Held tells us that God chooses love and rejects evil. So why in hell’s name did he create the possibility of evil in the first place?

As for me, I am not terrified of the OT God. I don’t even know if God exists, and I don’t regard the Bible as the Word of God. It’s a book riddled with contradictions. You have summed it up in your comment (bolded). Humans can change the image of God as they see fit. You exemplify the approach: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” You, Plantinga and Held are birds of a feather, and are just as ignorant of the truth as I am.

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by David Turell @, Sunday, March 24, 2024, 14:27 (4 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: God is person like no other person. God is not a self and does not need a soul.

dhw: Nobody is saying that God is a human being. But even you have agreed that your God probably has thought patterns and emotions like ours. If he wants us to love him, then don’t pretend he is selfless and emotionless.

DAVID: Theologians consider God as simple. We are more complex. Humans caused the Holocaust despite God, and humans stopped it, all because of our God-given free will. You bend your shape of God to fit your disbelief.

dhw: I have no idea what simplicity versus complexity has to do with anything. You support Plantinga’s theory that your God “allowed” evil to happen because he wanted us to love him of our own free will. Being omniscient he knew what would happen. The slaughter of 6 million Jews was not “despite God” if he knew it would happen and made no attempt to stop it because he wanted us to love him of our own free will. It is you who bend your God to fit your belief that he is selfless (and yet wants to be loved), loves us (you accept Pantinga’s theology) and yet is prepared to see us slaughter 6 million Jews so that he can be sure he is loved of our own free will, is all-good and yet designs viruses that will kill us, and for good measure messily, inefficiently and inexplicably designs and culls 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only purpose you allow him.

I finished my post with a request:

dhw: Please explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we love him of our own free will?

DAVID: Same mistaken criticism.

dhw: You have not answered.

I did answer your criticism by calling it criticism of God. Humans caused the Holocaust through God-given free-will and ended it through the same free-will. God has left us responsible for ourselves, as I've previously noted. It is our brains that allow us to cure illness, develop early warning systems for tornados and Earthquakes, etc.


Current Jewish theology

QUOTE:
A traditional rabbinic story imagines that when God was about to create Adam, the angels split into factions and began to argue. “Kindness said, ‘Let him be created, since he will perform acts of lovingkindness’; Truth said, ‘Let him not be created, since he is all lies.’” How does God respond to the debate? “God took truth and cast it to the earth.” Faced with a choice between love and other competing values, God embraces the former and rebuffs the latter. God risks a lot, and puts up with a lot, all in the name of love—both the love God has for us and the love God hopes that we will embody and bring into the world."

DAVID: Rabbi Shai Held is president of the Hadar Institute. This essay is adapted from his new book, “Judaism Is About Love: Recovering the Heart of Jewish Life,” which will be published on March 26 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

This should put to rest dhw's terror of the riginal OT God he learned about as a child long ago. Ancient primitive Jews perhaps needed such a tough God to keep them in line. That guy is not necessary now. The God of the Talmud is today's Jewish God.

dhw: For heaven’s sake! One Jewish rabbi narrates a little allegory, and pretends he knows exactly what his God is thinking and feeling. He has no more knowledge of God than you, me or Plantinga! You have just agreed with Plantinga that your selfless, loving God gave us free will to do as much evil as we like because that was the only way he could ensure that we would love him properly. Shai Held tells us that God chooses love and rejects evil. So why in hell’s name did he create the possibility of evil in the first place?

As for me, I am not terrified of the OT God. I don’t even know if God exists, and I don’t regard the Bible as the Word of God. It’s a book riddled with contradictions. You have summed it up in your comment (bolded). Humans can change the image of God as they see fit. You exemplify the approach: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” You, Plantinga and Held are birds of a feather, and are just as ignorant of the truth as I am.

We like our 'truth' better than yours.

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by dhw, Monday, March 25, 2024, 09:01 (4 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw […] You support Plantinga’s theory that your God “allowed” evil to happen because he wanted us to love him of our own free will. Being omniscient he knew what would happen. The slaughter of 6 million Jews was not “despite God” if he knew it would happen and made no attempt to stop it ![…]. It is you who bend your God to fit your belief that he is selfless (and yet wants to be loved), loves us (you accept Pantinga’s theology) and yet is prepared to see us slaughter 6 million Jews so that he can be sure he is loved of our own free will, is all-good and yet designs viruses that will kill us, and for good measure messily, inefficiently and inexplicably designs and culls 99.9 out of 100 species that had no connection with the only purpose you allow him. […] Please explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we love him of our own free will?

dhw: You have not answered.

DAVID: I did answer your criticism by calling it criticism of God. Humans caused the Holocaust through God-given free-will and ended it through the same free-will. God has left us responsible for ourselves, as I've previously noted. It is our brains that allow us to cure illness, develop early warning systems for tornados and Earthquakes, etc.

My criticism is not of God but of Plantinga’s theology, which you accept although it contradicts your own beliefs. You say God is selfless. Plantinga’s only point is that God wants us to love him. How can that be called selfless? Why don’t you answer? Plantinga says the only way God can be sure we really love him is to give us free will, which being omniscient he knows will cause huge suffering as it will allow evil. For Plantinga’s God, the slaughter of 6 million Jews (many of whom would certainly have loved him) is worth allowing if it means some humans will love him the way he wants to be loved. How does this fit in with Plantinga’s stated belief – which you share – that God loves us? How does he show that love for us if, like the Deist God you rejected a few days ago – he creates us and then abandons even those who love him of their own free will?

Current Jewish theology

QUOTE from Rabbi Shai Held:
A traditional rabbinic story imagines that when God was about to create Adam, the angels split into factions and began to argue. “Kindness said, ‘Let him be created, since he will perform acts of lovingkindness’; Truth said, ‘Let him not be created, since he is all lies.’” How does God respond to the debate? “God took truth and cast it to the earth.” Faced with a choice between love and other competing values, God embraces the former and rebuffs the latter. God risks a lot, and puts up with a lot, all in the name of love—both the love God has for us and the love God hopes that we will embody and bring into the world."

DAVID (re the OT): Ancient primitive Jews perhaps needed such a tough God to keep them in line. That guy is not necessary now.

dhw: For heaven’s sake! One Jewish rabbi narrates a little allegory, and pretends he knows exactly what his God is thinking and feeling. He has no more knowledge of God than you, me or Plantinga![…]. Shai Held tells us that God chooses love and rejects evil. So why in hell’s name did he create the possibility of evil in the first place? You have summed it up in your comment (bolded). Humans can change the image of God as they see fit. You exemplify the approach: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” You, Plantinga and Held are birds of a feather, and are just as ignorant of the truth as I am.

DAVID: We like our 'truth' better than yours.

I don't offer any "truth"! And what you believe is a theory which begins with what you wish, and only allows what you wish. So once again, please tell me how a God who knowingly allows evil in order to ensure that he is loved (Plantinga) can be called “selfless”, and how a God who loves us and hopes that we will embody love (Held) can create a situation which he knows will result in the slaughter of 6 million, including those who love him. Is this evil really made good by the fact that humans ended it? And the Holocaust is just one of the countless horrors. But I’m not criticizing your God. I’m pointing out the absurdity of your view of what constitutes love, selflessness, and justification for evil. I seem to remember you telling us that your mentor Adler says we cannot know whether God loves us or not. But you sway in whatever theological wind is blowing, so long as you think it might blow you towards the fulfilment of your wishes.

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by David Turell @, Monday, March 25, 2024, 17:38 (3 days ago) @ dhw

dhw […] You support Plantinga’s theory that your God “allowed” evil to happen because he wanted us to love him of our own free will. Being omniscient he knew what would happen. The slaughter of 6 million Jews was not “despite God” if he knew it would happen and made no attempt to stop it ![…]. It is you who bend your God to fit your belief that he is selfless (and yet wants to be loved), loves us (you accept Pantinga’s theology) and yet is prepared to see us slaughter 6 million Jews so that he can be sure he is loved of our own free will, is all-good and yet designs viruses that will kill us,... Please explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we love him of our own free will?

dhw: You have not answered.

DAVID: I did answer your criticism by calling it criticism of God. Humans caused the Holocaust through God-given free-will and ended it through the same free-will. God has left us responsible for ourselves, as I've previously noted. It is our brains that allow us to cure illness, develop early warning systems for tornados and Earthquakes, etc.

dhw: My criticism is not of God but of Plantinga’s theology, which you accept although it contradicts your own beliefs. You say God is selfless. Plantinga’s only point is that God wants us to love him. How can that be called selfless? ... Plantinga says the only way God can be sure we really love him is to give us free will, which being omniscient he knows will cause huge suffering as it will allow evil. For Plantinga’s God, the slaughter of 6 million Jews (many of whom would certainly have loved him) is worth allowing if it means some humans will love him the way he wants to be loved. How does this fit in with Plantinga’s stated belief – which you share – that God loves us? How does he show that love for us if, like the Deist God you rejected a few days ago – he creates us and then abandons even those who love him of their own free will?

You have totally ignored my point. The Holocaust was forged by humans and ended by humans. We are fully in charge of ourselves. God is here, but we are in charge of ourselves. God now acts at the individual level in small strokes. He gave the Earth with all its bountiful resources for us to use and the brains to know how. That is God's contract with us. It is up to each individual to form a response. Yours is a sort of rejection, mine acceptance.


Current Jewish theology

QUOTE from Rabbi Shai Held:
A traditional rabbinic story imagines that when God was about to create Adam, the angels split into factions and began to argue. “Kindness said, ‘Let him be created, since he will perform acts of lovingkindness’; Truth said, ‘Let him not be created, since he is all lies.’” How does God respond to the debate? “God took truth and cast it to the earth.” Faced with a choice between love and other competing values, God embraces the former and rebuffs the latter. God risks a lot, and puts up with a lot, all in the name of love—both the love God has for us and the love God hopes that we will embody and bring into the world."

DAVID (re the OT): Ancient primitive Jews perhaps needed such a tough God to keep them in line. That guy is not necessary now.

dhw: ... One Jewish rabbi narrates a little allegory, and pretends he knows exactly what his God is thinking and feeling. He has no more knowledge of God than you, me or Plantinga![…]. Shai Held tells us that God chooses love and rejects evil. So why in hell’s name did he create the possibility of evil in the first place? You have summed it up in your comment (bolded). Humans can change the image of God as they see fit. You exemplify the approach: “I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows.” You, Plantinga and Held are ... just as ignorant of the truth as I am.

DAVID: We like our 'truth' better than yours.

dhw: I don't offer any "truth"! And what you believe is a theory which begins with what you wish, and only allows what you wish. So once again, please tell me how a God who knowingly allows evil in order to ensure that he is loved (Plantinga) can be called “selfless”, and how a God who loves us and hopes that we will embody love (Held) can create a situation which he knows will result in the slaughter of 6 million, including those who love him. Is this evil really made good by the fact that humans ended it? And the Holocaust is just one of the countless horrors. But I’m not criticizing your God. I’m pointing out the absurdity of your view of what constitutes love, selflessness, and justification for evil. I seem to remember you telling us that your mentor Adler says we cannot know whether God loves us or not. But you sway in whatever theological wind is blowing, so long as you think it might blow you towards the fulfilment of your wishes.

I am not as wishy-washy as you pretend. I have a firm belief in a purposeful God, knowing exactly what He wishes and does it. I posted an answer above to all your repetitious points. You don't understand that each of us has a personal relationship with God. That what makes a deism-like appearance, not that. Many millions of personal relationships persist, evaluating the role of your arguments as quite secondary to a final descision for faith.

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by dhw, Tuesday, March 26, 2024, 12:56 (2 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: You have totally ignored my point. The Holocaust was forged by humans and ended by humans. We are fully in charge of ourselves. God is here, but we are in charge of ourselves. God now acts at the individual level in small strokes. He gave the Earth with all its bountiful resources for us to use and the brains to know how. That is God's contract with us. It is up to each individual to form a response. Yours is a sort of rejection, mine acceptance.

You presented us with Plantinga’s view of theodicy, and have chosen to totally ignore it and all my questions. You make a mockery of discussion. Plantinga’s explanation for evil is that God wants us to love him. This contradicts your own belief that God is selfless. Plantinga says that the love can only be genuine if it comes from freedom of will, and so he gave us free will, knowing (in his omniscience) that this would lead to all the evil which causes so much suffering. Plantinga’s God allows the suffering (for example, the Holocaust) as it is secondary to his desire to be freely loved. And yet Plantinga thinks God loves us. I find that a strange way of demonstrating his love for us, but you agreed with Plantinga’s explanation of theodicy, and so I asked you to “explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we love him of our own free will?” What you have written above confirms that we have free will, but it is not an answer to my question.

Current Jewish theology

You quoted Rabbi Shai Held, who says that God chooses love and “rebuffs” evil, loves us, and hopes that we will “embody” love and “bring it into the world.” He doesn’t tell us why his God created the possibility of evil in the first place. Your comment was:

DAVID (re the OT): Ancient primitive Jews perhaps needed such a tough God to keep them in line. That guy is not necessary now.

I pointed out that this vividly illustrates the fact that your fellow theologians do exactly the same as you: ““I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows." And I added: I seem to remember you telling us that your mentor Adler says we cannot know whether God loves us or not. But you sway in whatever theological wind is blowing, so long as you think it might blow you towards the fulfilment of your wishes.

DAVID: I am not as wishy-washy as you pretend. I have a firm belief in a purposeful God, knowing exactly what He wishes and does it.

If God exists, I agree with you 100%. That does not mean he does what you wish him to do, and is what you wish him to be, and it does not explain how a God who loves us knowingly allows evil because his one and only concern is that we should love him of our own free will although, according to you, he is selfless, i.e. has no self-interest.

DAVID: I posted an answer above to all your repetitious points. You don't understand that each of us has a personal relationship with God. That what makes a deism-like appearance, not that. Many millions of personal relationships persist, evaluating the role of your arguments as quite secondary to a final descision for faith.

This is news to me. Apparently we can now ignore all the arguments above, the absurdity of your illogical theory of evolution, all beliefs that are different from yours, Adler, Plantinga, Held, and all the contradictions in your own theology (e.g. a selfless God who enjoys creating and wants to be loved and regards human suffering as secondary to his need for freely given love) because you have your own personal relationship with God. Out of interest, have you explained to him why his use of evolution was so inefficient?

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 26, 2024, 16:01 (2 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You have totally ignored my point. The Holocaust was forged by humans and ended by humans. We are fully in charge of ourselves. God is here, but we are in charge of ourselves. God now acts at the individual level in small strokes. He gave the Earth with all its bountiful resources for us to use and the brains to know how. That is God's contract with us. It is up to each individual to form a response. Yours is a sort of rejection, mine acceptance.

dhw: You presented us with Plantinga’s view of theodicy, and have chosen to totally ignore it and all my questions. You make a mockery of discussion. Plantinga’s explanation for evil is that God wants us to love him. This contradicts your own belief that God is selfless. Plantinga says that the love can only be genuine if it comes from freedom of will, and so he gave us free will, knowing (in his omniscience) that this would lead to all the evil which causes so much suffering. Plantinga’s God allows the suffering (for example, the Holocaust) as it is secondary to his desire to be freely loved. And yet Plantinga thinks God loves us. I find that a strange way of demonstrating his love for us, but you agreed with Plantinga’s explanation of theodicy, and so I asked you to “explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we love him of our own free will?” What you have written above confirms that we have free will, but it is not an answer to my question.

You forget Plantinga's God is his version of God. I agree with Adler (see below) that God's possible love is a 50/50 proposition. I do agree with Plantinga's defense in theodicy. So I take bits here and there for my personal theology. Your demand implies I fully agree with Plantinga. I don't. I may present an individual for this website's discussion, but without fully accepting that person's total opinion. As for 'free will' and the Holocaust, what that shows is God put us in charge of ourselves. My feeling is God intervenes now on a personal basis as individuals relate to Him, as above.


Current Jewish theology

You quoted Rabbi Shai Held, who says that God chooses love and “rebuffs” evil, loves us, and hopes that we will “embody” love and “bring it into the world.” He doesn’t tell us why his God created the possibility of evil in the first place. Your comment was:

DAVID (re the OT): Ancient primitive Jews perhaps needed such a tough God to keep them in line. That guy is not necessary now.

dhw: I pointed out that this vividly illustrates the fact that your fellow theologians do exactly the same as you: ““I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows." And I added: I seem to remember you telling us that your mentor Adler says we cannot know whether God loves us or not. But you sway in whatever theological wind is blowing, so long as you think it might blow you towards the fulfilment of your wishes.

You are swaying in the breeze without any firm decisions except to criticize theism. I have very firm positions you attack.


DAVID: I am not as wishy-washy as you pretend. I have a firm belief in a purposeful God, knowing exactly what He wishes and does it.

dhw: If God exists, I agree with you 100%. That does not mean he does what you wish him to do, and is what you wish him to be, and it does not explain how a God who loves us knowingly allows evil because his one and only concern is that we should love him of our own free will although, according to you, he is selfless, i.e. has no self-interest.

God in not 'needy ', does not create to satisfy Himself. You can't seem to understand a God of that type.


DAVID: I posted an answer above to all your repetitious points. You don't understand that each of us has a personal relationship with God. That what makes a deism-like appearance, not that. Many millions of personal relationships persist, evaluating the role of your arguments as quite secondary to a final decision for faith.

dhw: This is news to me. Apparently we can now ignore all the arguments above, the absurdity of your illogical theory of evolution, all beliefs that are different from yours, Adler, Plantinga, Held, and all the contradictions in your own theology (e.g. a selfless God who enjoys creating and wants to be loved and regards human suffering as secondary to his need for freely given love) because you have your own personal relationship with God. Out of interest, have you explained to him why his use of evolution was so inefficient?

You constantly forget I accept what God has created without questioning the underlying reasons or His choice of method. Most human suffering is human created! What is fair to blame God for are natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of His creation.

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by dhw, Wednesday, March 27, 2024, 09:05 (1 day, 14 hours, 36 min. ago) @ David Turell

PLANTINGA

dhw: “explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we love him of our own free will?”

DAVID: You forget Plantinga's God is his version of God. I agree with Adler (see below) that God's possible love is a 50/50 proposition.

I was the one who pointed this out to you when you defended Plantinga.

DAVID: I do agree with Plantinga's defense in theodicy. So I take bits here and there for my personal theology. Your demand implies I fully agree with Plantinga. I don't.

Here is your first comment when you presented the article to us:

DAVID: this article is on the point of human caused evil.it presents all of my points given in the past. What it does not cover directly is the evil in bugs, but Plantinga's answer really does. What good bacteria do far outweigh the evil side effects and they are present for good reason.

Your second comment was: "Thus, there is a third option: God might allow evil for good reasons. Which comes back to this implication: God has reasons we cannot understand but must accept. Yes, both Plantinga and I accept the same God as a starting point.

Throughout the discussion, you have never once offered a single point of disagreement, and even now you endorse his view of theodicy. His explanation of evil is that God wants us to love him, and he can only be sure the love is genuine if he gives us free will, although in his omniscience, he knows all the evil that we will inflict on one another. Hence my bolded question, which you refuse to answer.

DAVID: I may present an individual for this website's discussion, but without fully accepting that person's total opinion. As for 'free will' and the Holocaust, what that shows is God put us in charge of ourselves. My feeling is God intervenes now on a personal basis as individuals relate to Him, as above.

You accepted Plantinga’s theory, and even now you are dodging my question. Yes, we have free will, and your new theory of one-to-one relationships has nothing to do with your acceptance of Plantinga’s theodicy. Your championship of what you call your “personal theology” is also a remarkable switch from your recent attack on process theology and deism because they are not “mainstream”. It appears that personal theologies are only justified when they agree with yours.

HELD

dhw: I pointed out that this vividly illustrates the fact that your fellow theologians do exactly the same as you: ““I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows." And I added: I seem to remember you telling us that your mentor Adler says we cannot know whether God loves us or not. But you sway in whatever theological wind is blowing, so long as you think it might blow you towards the fulfilment of your wishes.

DAVID: You are swaying in the breeze without any firm decisions except to criticize theism. I have very firm positions you attack.

I do not criticize theism. I criticize your firm positions by pointing out all the illogicalities and self-contradictions with which they are riddled and which you consistently try to dodge when they are pointed out. Even your Plantinga comments today illustrate the point.

DAVID: I am not as wishy-washy as you pretend. I have a firm belief in a purposeful God, knowing exactly what He wishes and does it.

dhw: If God exists, I agree with you 100%. That does not mean he does what you wish him to do, and is what you wish him to be, and it does not explain how a God who loves us knowingly allows evil because his one and only concern is that we should love him of our own free will although, according to you, he is selfless, i.e. has no self-interest.

DAVID: God in not 'needy ', does not create to satisfy Himself. You can't seem to understand a God of that type.

I don’t know where you get your inside knowledge from, but since you accepted and still accept Plantinga’s view of theodicy, which is based on God’s desire to be loved by us of our own free will, I can’t see how you can regard him as being without self-interest. Please explain.

DAVID: You constantly forget I accept what God has created without questioning the underlying reasons or His choice of method. Most human suffering is human created! What is fair to blame God for are natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of His creation.

You assume that you know the underlying reasons and choice of method, and you refuse to question your own illogical theories. I agree that humans create human suffering – that is the human “evil” your God deliberately and knowingly allowed to happen, and you have accepted Plantinga’s theory that he did so because he wanted us to love him. I’m intrigued to see that you are now blaming God for all the other suffering he has inflicted on us in his love for us and despite his being all-good.

Return to David's theory of theodicy; good and bad bugs

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 27, 2024, 22:00 (1 day, 1 hours, 41 min. ago) @ dhw

Many more good than bad, as usual:

https://www.the-scientist.com/clostridia-to-the-rescue-71741?utm_campaign=TS_News%20Ale...

"Food allergies arise partly because of reduced gut barrier integrity, giving food molecules access to the circulatory system where they contact the immune system. The gut microbiome promotes intestinal health in part by helping to maintain the barrier function of this tissue. Clostridia bacteria promote the gut barrier and reduce food sensitization and allergy. Cathryn Nagler, a mucosal immunologist at University of Chicago, and her team previously found that this class of bacteria were more abundant in nonallergic individuals than those with food allergies.

"The production of interleukin (IL)-22 from host cells promotes gut barrier integrity, and bacterial products such as metabolites and flagellin induce host IL-22. In an article published in Cell Reports, Nagler’s team demonstrated that Clostridia-produced flagella and indole, a tryptophan metabolite, also promote barrier integrity.

***

"One week after weaning, the team isolated the animals’ intestinal tissues and treated them with flagella from commensal Clostridia or pathogenic Salmonella. “Commensal flagellins and pathogen flagellins are structurally and functionally distinct,” Nagler explained.

"Both flagella treatments led to the production of barrier protective IL-22 from intestines. “It's really fascinating that [the] same protein but different amino acids elicit different responses,” said Pamela Chang, an immunologist at Cornell University who was not involved in the study.

***

"According to Nagler, this study reveals how Clostridia bacteria protect the gut barrier and prevent food allergies. “You can imagine that if someone has a dysbiotic microbiome, and they don't have enough or any Clostridia that have these specific molecules, then they might be more likely to develop food allergy,” Chang said.

"Nagler believes that these results have broad implications for understanding gut microbe-host health. “Maintaining an effective barrier protective response is fundamental to the whole family of noncommunicable chronic diseases that are rising in parallel with food allergy,” she said."

Comment: there are good and bad bugs. The good ones support and maintain many bodily functions and ae in far greater number than the bad. Which means it is perfectly reasonable to tolerate some bad. In this case usually bad Clostridia and Salmonella work well for us!

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 27, 2024, 22:23 (1 day, 1 hours, 17 min. ago) @ dhw

PLANTINGA

dhw: Throughout the discussion, you have never once offered a single point of disagreement, and even now you endorse his view of theodicy. His explanation of evil is that God wants us to love him, and he can only be sure the love is genuine if he gives us free will, although in his omniscience, he knows all the evil that we will inflict on one another. Hence my bolded question, which you refuse to answer.

I've answered in indirect ways: 1) I am not joined at the hip with Plantinga! I take from Him what I wish. His defense of theodicy is exactly how I feel. His loving God (note Adler's point) is pure Christian theology, not mine. Your worthless use of the holocaust to accuse God when it is totally a human problem, when He has put us in change of ourselves, and leaving the OT times, He is no longer our Shepard of the OT.

DAVID: I may present an individual for this website's discussion, but without fully accepting that person's total opinion. As for 'free will' and the Holocaust, what that shows is God put us in charge of ourselves. My feeling is God intervenes now on a personal basis as individuals relate to Him, as above.

dhw: You accepted Plantinga’s theory, and even now you are dodging my question. Yes, we have free will, and your new theory of one-to-one relationships has nothing to do with your acceptance of Plantinga’s theodicy. Your championship of what you call your “personal theology” is also a remarkable switch from your recent attack on process theology and deism because they are not “mainstream”. It appears that personal theologies are only justified when they agree with yours.

Process theology and deism definitely are secondary stream theologies. Just do the numbers.

HELD

dhw: I pointed out that this vividly illustrates the fact that your fellow theologians do exactly the same as you: ““I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows." And I added: I seem to remember you telling us that your mentor Adler says we cannot know whether God loves us or not. But you sway in whatever theological wind is blowing, so long as you think it might blow you towards the fulfilment of your wishes.

DAVID: You are swaying in the breeze without any firm decisions except to criticize theism. I have very firm positions you attack.

dhw: I do not criticize theism. I criticize your firm positions by pointing out all the illogicalities and self-contradictions with which they are riddled and which you consistently try to dodge when they are pointed out. Even your Plantinga comments today illustrate the point.

Your strawman "Holocaust" is why I have to dodge around your so-called agnostic logic about God. u


DAVID: I am not as wishy-washy as you pretend. I have a firm belief in a purposeful God, knowing exactly what He wishes and does it.

dhw: If God exists, I agree with you 100%. That does not mean he does what you wish him to do, and is what you wish him to be, and it does not explain how a God who loves us knowingly allows evil because his one and only concern is that we should love him of our own free will although, according to you, he is selfless, i.e. has no self-interest.

DAVID: God in not 'needy ', does not create to satisfy Himself. You can't seem to understand a God of that type.

dhw: I don’t know where you get your inside knowledge from, but since you accepted and still accept Plantinga’s view of theodicy, which is based on God’s desire to be loved by us of our own free will, I can’t see how you can regard him as being without self-interest. Please explain.

See above. Plantinga is not swallowed whole as you imply. I use him sans love.


DAVID: You constantly forget I accept what God has created without questioning the underlying reasons or His choice of method. Most human suffering is human created! What is fair to blame God for are natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of His creation.

dhw: You assume that you know the underlying reasons and choice of method, and you refuse to question your own illogical theories. I agree that humans create human suffering – that is the human “evil” your God deliberately and knowingly allowed to happen, and you have accepted Plantinga’s theory that he did so because he wanted us to love him. I’m intrigued to see that you are now blaming God for all the other suffering he has inflicted on us in his love for us and despite his being all-good.

Bold is totally off point as your invention. God's creation has dangers for human beings, cannot be denied. It is all how you see proportions. You see mostly black. Is it purposeful?

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by dhw, Thursday, March 28, 2024, 13:15 (10 hours, 26 minutes ago) @ David Turell

Plantinga

dhw: “explain to me in your own words why you think a God who loves us and is selfless would be happy to allow 6 million of us to be slaughtered in order to ensure that we love him of our own free will?

DAVID: […] I am not joined at the hip with Plantinga! I take from Him what I wish. His defense of theodicy is exactly how I feel.

You have never said a word against his “defense of theodicy”: i.e. God allowed evil and its terrible consequences in order to make sure we loved him of our own free will. Now that I’ve pointed out that it conflicts with your previous arguments, you have done a complete volte face. Why did you produce and endorse this defence in the first place if you disagreed with the one and only "morally sufficient reason" he could offer us?

DAVID: His loving God (note Adler's point) is pure Christian theology, not mine.

You’ve forgotten that I pointed out to you the fact that Plantinga’s theory, which you endorsed, conflicted with Adler’s theory!

DAVID: Your worthless use of the holocaust to accuse God when it is totally a human problem, when He has put us in change of ourselves, and leaving the OT times, He is no longer our Shepard of the OT.

I have not accused God of anything! I have pointed out that Plantinga’s one and only defence of evil (e.g. the Holocaust) is that God allowed it to happen in order to make sure that humans loved him of their own free will. You embraced his theory, still endorse it (“his defense of theodicy is exactly how I feel”) and try to blame me for pointing out your self- contradictions which you now try to gloss over!

dhw: […] your new theory of one-to-one relationships has nothing to do with your acceptance of Plantinga’s theodicy. Your championship of what you call your “personal theology” is also a remarkable switch from your recent attack on process theology and deism because they are not “mainstream”. It appears that personal theologies are only justified when they agree with yours.

DAVID: Process theology and deism definitely are secondary stream theologies. Just do the numbers.

And you have your very own “personal theology” and your very own “personal relationship” with God. Now you are even sneering at Plantinga: “His loving God is pure Christian theology, not mine”. Since when was pure Christian theology “secondary stream”? Rabbi Held – another “mainstream” theologian – also devoted his article to God and love. You haven’t uttered a word of opposition, but I presume you now wish to reject that too. If you can have your own personal theology, why shouldn’t deists and process theologians have theirs? NOBODY knows the truth – not even you!

HELD

dhw: I pointed out that this vividly illustrates the fact that your fellow theologians do exactly the same as you: ““I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows." […]

DAVID: You are swaying in the breeze without any firm decisions except to criticize theism. I have very firm positions you attack.

dhw: I do not criticize theism. I criticize your firm positions by pointing out all the illogicalities and self-contradictions with which they are riddled and which you consistently try to dodge when they are pointed out. Your Plantinga comments today illustrate the point.

DAVID: Your strawman "Holocaust" is why I have to dodge around your so-called agnostic logic about God.
And:
DAVID: Plantinga is not swallowed whole as you imply. I use him sans love.

Sans God’s wish to be loved, you are rejecting the whole of his “defense of theodicy”. The holocaust was an example of the evil which Plantinga’s God allowed, so that he could be sure humans loved him of their own free will. Will you now declare that Plantinga’s one and only "morally sufficient reason" for evil is a load of twaddle, so that we can leave him out of our discussions? [...]

dhw: […] I’m intrigued to see that you are now blaming God for all the other suffering he has inflicted on us in his love for us and despite his being all-good.

DAVID:[…] God's creation has dangers for human beings, cannot be denied. It is all how you see proportions. You see mostly black. Is it purposeful?

The subject is theodicy – why God created or allowed evil. You cannot discuss evil without discussing evil, and evil is black.

Good and bad bugs

DAVID: Many more good than bad, as usual.

Theodicy asks why an all good God would have produced the bad bugs which cause so much suffering. Until yesterday you had glibly told us to ignore the bad because there’s much more good. Yesterday, however, you performed a remarkable U-turn: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” We can now add this to your view of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. I wonder how many of your “mainstream” theologians agree with you, and also how this will affect your “personal relationship” with God.

Return to David's theory of theodicy;Plantinga & Held

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 28, 2024, 19:10 (4 hours, 31 minutes ago) @ dhw

Plantinga

DAVID: […] I am not joined at the hip with Plantinga! I take from Him what I wish. His defense of theodicy is exactly how I feel.

dhw: You have never said a word against his “defense of theodicy”: i.e. God allowed evil and its terrible consequences in order to make sure we loved him of our own free will....Why did you produce and endorse this defence in the first place if you disagreed with the one and only "morally sufficient reason" he could offer us?

Unfortunately I have to rely on memory for past exchanges. Thanks for reminding me. 'Morally sufficient reason' was exactly what I agreed with, as did Plantinga's critic!


DAVID: His loving God (note Adler's point) is pure Christian theology, not mine.

dhw: You’ve forgotten that I pointed out to you the fact that Plantinga’s theory, which you endorsed, conflicted with Adler’s theory!

Again, you assume whole hog swallowing of Plantinga. I always take bits pieces I like. I'm clearly with Adle rabout possible love.


DAVID: Your worthless use of the holocaust to accuse God when it is totally a human problem, when He has put us in change of ourselves, and leaving the OT times, He is no longer our Shepard of the OT.

dhw:I have not accused God of anything! I have pointed out that Plantinga’s one and only defence of evil (e.g. the Holocaust) is that God allowed it to happen in order to make sure that humans loved him of their own free will. You embraced his theory, still endorse it (“his defense of theodicy is exactly how I feel”) and try to blame me for pointing out your self- contradictions which you now try to gloss over!

I've now told you exactly what I accept. Back you scurry to the Holocaust! Humans did it, not God.


dhw: […] your new theory of one-to-one relationships has nothing to do with your acceptance of Plantinga’s theodicy. Your championship of what you call your “personal theology” is also a remarkable switch from your recent attack on process theology and deism because they are not “mainstream”. It appears that personal theologies are only justified when they agree with yours.

DAVID: Process theology and deism definitely are secondary stream theologies. Just do the numbers.

dhw: And you have your very own “personal theology” and your very own “personal relationship” with God. Now you are even sneering at Plantinga: “His loving God is pure Christian theology, not mine”.

The sneers are yours. I've known Plantinga for years when we did some discussion together.

dhw: Since when was pure Christian theology “secondary stream”? Rabbi Held – another “mainstream” theologian – also devoted his article to God and love. Held is in the role of softening the OT God ,which I have pointed out previously.

HELD

dhw: I pointed out that this vividly illustrates the fact that your fellow theologians do exactly the same as you: ““I first choose a form of God I wish to believe in. The rest follows." […]

DAVID: You are swaying in the breeze without any firm decisions except to criticize theism. I have very firm positions you attack.

dhw: I do not criticize theism. I criticize your firm positions by pointing out all the illogicalities and self-contradictions with which they are riddled and which you consistently try to dodge when they are pointed out. Your Plantinga comments today illustrate the point.

DAVID: Your strawman "Holocaust" is why I have to dodge around your so-called agnostic logic about God.
And:
DAVID: Plantinga is not swallowed whole as you imply. I use him sans love.

dhw: Sans God’s wish to be loved, you are rejecting the whole of his “defense of theodicy”. The holocaust was an example of the evil which Plantinga’s God allowed, so that he could be sure humans loved him of their own free will. Will you now declare that Plantinga’s one and only "morally sufficient reason" for evil is a load of twaddle, so that we can leave him out of our discussions? [...]

No, it is exactly the right sort of reasoning.


dhw: […] I’m intrigued to see that you are now blaming God for all the other suffering he has inflicted on us in his love for us and despite his being all-good.

DAVID:[…] God's creation has dangers for human beings, cannot be denied. It is all how you see proportions. You see mostly black. Is it purposeful?

dhw: The subject is theodicy – why God created or allowed evil. You cannot discuss evil without discussing evil, and evil is black.

And blackest for you.


Good and bad bugs

DAVID: Many more good than bad, as usual.

dhw: Theodicy asks why an all good God would have produced the bad bugs which cause so much suffering. Until yesterday you had glibly told us to ignore the bad because there’s much more good. Yesterday, however, you performed a remarkable U-turn: “What is fair is to blame God for natural disasters: earthquakes, terrible storms, and bugs causing diseases, non-human parts of his creation.” We can now add this to your view of your God as a messy, cumbersome and inefficient designer. I wonder how many of your “mainstream” theologians agree with you, and also how this will affect your “personal relationship” with God.

Doesn't affect me.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy II

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 07, 2023, 19:45 (142 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: I agreed with everything you wrote about humans destroying our own sources of food.

Here is another problem, salt:

https://www.sciencealert.com/were-disrupting-another-major-earth-cycle-and-no-ones-talk...

"While geological and hydrological processes naturally bring salt up to Earth's surface over long time spans, we're speeding up this natural flow due to mining, land development, and the use of road salts to melt ice.

"Researchers from the University of Maryland, the University of Connecticut, Virginia Tech and other institutions have all combined their expertise to document what they describe as an "existential threat" to supplies of freshwater.

***

"'Twenty years ago, all we had were case studies," says ecologist Gene Likens, from the University of Connecticut. "We could say surface waters were salty here in New York or in Baltimore's drinking water supply."

"'We now show that it's a cycle – from the deep Earth to the atmosphere – that's been significantly perturbed by human activities."

"Among the study's findings are that around 2.5 billion acres of soil worldwide have been affected by human-caused salinization, and that salt used to deice roads is also finding its way into the air.

"The increasing saltiness of sources of freshwater is one of the biggest concerns. If the trend continues, finding enough water for the world's population to drink could become a real challenge – and that's before we get to the damage to other animals and their habitats.

***

"The researchers are calling for more to be done to assess our impact on the salt cycle, and to reduce that impact: one starting point could be the 44 billion pounds of salt distributed on US roads each year. Ultimately, further study and regulation is going to be required.

"This is a very complex issue because salt is not considered a primary drinking water contaminant in the US, so to regulate it would be a big undertaking," says Kaushal.

"'But do I think it's a substance that is increasing in the environment to harmful levels? Yes.'"

Comment: God gave us the perfect planet, but we are not keeping it that way.

Return to David's theory of evolution and theodicy

by David Turell @, Thursday, November 02, 2023, 22:51 (147 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Not “had to” but “must”! If your God is first cause, he designed evolution – it didn’t tell him what to do! You tell us he “directly creates what he wishes directly”, and you tell us he only wished to design us and our food. But instead he designed 99.9 out of 100 species which then had to be culled. You don’t know why, and so you cry: “We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?” And you have no answer.
Your next dodge is to perform a complete volte face:

DAVID: Raup's analysis of God's evolution revealed 99.9% were ancestors of the 0.1% alive today. […] View evolution as an upside-down triangle: Archaea are the original tip and the present survivors represented by the line of the hypotenuse. The area of the triangle is Raup's loss. (dhw's bold)

dhw: The line of the hypotenuse is the line from archaea to us and current species (our food). The rest of the triangle (the loss) is all the species that evolved away from that line and did not lead to us. Hence the 99.9% (the area of the triangle) that did not lead to us and our food.

They had to be lost to get to us by culling.


DAVID: I've never accepted the 99.9% were unconnected to God's purpose. All of evolution is connected to the past. The food is the entire bush of life.

dhw: Your acceptance that 99.9% of species did not lead to us and our food (your God’s one and only purpose) has been the subject of this dispute for years, and your triangle confirms the point. Of course if all life forms evolved from the first life forms, they are all connected to the original past tip, but that does not mean that all life forms led to us and our food! (We are confined to the line of the hypotenuse.) This is your silliest dodge so far.

The hypotenuse is us and our food.


DAVID: God's choice of evolving us makes perfect sense. He chose direct design where He wished as shown in the Cambrian.

dhw: So he wished to design and then cull 99.9 unnecessary species, although he could have directly created us if he had wished to. You do not know why, but it makes perfect sense, although you can’t make sense of it. […]In your own words: We do not know why God chose to evolve us. dhw is correct. Why not direct creation?

DAVID: We do not know why is correct.

dhw: So how can you claim that your theory makes perfect sense if you can’t think of any reason for such a messy, cumbersome and inefficient method (your own description)?

You have never understood God's works need no explanation for me.


Theodicy

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God was powerless to prevent evil, and yet he “directly creates what he wishes to create”, and in one of your theories he even invents evil as a challenge to humans. As first cause, he created everything out of himself, so how could he “allow evil to appear” if he was nothing but good?

dhw: And still you ignore the bold.

DAVID: Not ignored. God chose to evolve us.

You chose to leave the bold out of your response. Here it is again. Nothing to do with your God’s choice to evolve us.

Theodicy: the ‘good’ view of bacteria

DAVID: note the need for friendly bacteria in the uterus and the gut. These same bacteria, accidently in the wrong place, can be unfriendly. That is not God's fault.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing designer designs bacteria. Sometimes they do good, and sometimes they do bad. Apparently that means he is responsible for the good but he is not responsible for the bad. And you think that’s logical. The builders build your house and part of the roof falls in. Do you congratulate them because the walls are still standing?

DAVID: God knew the secondhand problem. There are editing systems everywhere.

dhw: Your all-powerful, all-knowing God knew that his bacteria and his humans would produce evil as well as good. (Is the good “secondhand”?) He creates what he wishes to create, remember? Editing systems? Even if he did create such systems, the evil consists in those “bads” which despite his alleged hatred of evil and his all-powerfulness, he was powerless to prevent – though according to one of your theories he actually invented the “bads” as a challenge to us humans. What a mess!

Your view of a mess, not mine. Proportionality is the right view.


DAVID: The roof fell in because a meteorite hit it is a true comparison to the problem.

dhw: According to you, your God designed the bacteria with the freedom to do their dirty deeds, and he knew they would do them. The responsibility for the design is his. There was no unexpected intervention from outside what he had designed.

God knew secondhand evil would happen, and knew the good outweighed it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Friday, March 31, 2023, 16:43 (363 days ago) @ dhw

Yet more repetition, I'm afraid, but there seems to be no end to the ways in which the issues raised by David's theories can be dodged!

DAVID: You stretch reality to think the history of evolution shows experimentation. Almost all advances are quite direct and the Cambrian directly refutes the theory. It shows God had no need to experiment.

dhw: You have totally ignored the whole of my comment. Your version of the Cambrian is that he designed our ancestors from scratch. That theory does indeed show that there was no need to experiment. And there was no need for the 99 out of 100 irrelevant species you say he designed before and after the Cambrian. These 99 were not “direct advances” towards us and our food! So what is your explanation? The absurd idea that he invented an inefficient system which forced him to design 99 species out of 100 that he then had to get rid of! At least the experimentation theory doesn’t make him into the cumbersome mess-maker you want him to be.

We seem to have two totally different views of evolution. Since I describe God designing it, stage by stage, you don't seem to recognize the resulting history. It starts with simple forms, Archaea, but their biochemistry is extremely complex. In two streams the biochemistry advances allowing more advanced body forms, with the final result, the most complex item in the universe, our brain. There was no experimentation, as my God knows exactly what to do at all times. In a way evolution is a screening process, with organisms given limited a adaptability so that God must step in to create new species. Therefore 99.9% of historical forms disappear. It all advanced toward us!!!


The environment

dhw: You attribute the 99% “failure rate” to your God’s faulty design,

DAVID: I've changed my terms on God's new species as "designed with limited adaptability".

dhw: If the limited adaptability which caused their non-survival was deliberate (as opposed to being a fault in the design), and they had no connection with his purpose, why would he have designed them in the first place? Stop dodging the issues.

DAVID: If a stage has limited adaptability, it means they cannot speciate and God must do it.

dhw: According to you, it was your God who designed them with limited adaptability and then had to kill them off because they had nothing to do with his one and only purpose. Hence your description of his work as inefficient, cumbersome and messy.

God did no kill them off. Bad luck did, per Raup.


DAVID: God designs de novo forms as He wishes. You make an interesting new interpretation of the Cambrian Gap.

dhw: Of course if he exists and is all-powerful he can design de novo forms whenever he wishes. Hence the unanswerable question why, if his only wish was to design us plus our food, he “wished” to design 99 out of a 100 species that had nothing to do with us. You can’t answer, and so you go on dodging, or you admit that only your God can explain such a silly theory. It is your interpretation of the Cambrian Gap that is new, since at one and the same time you inform us that we are descended from Archaea but that we are descended from species which your God designed de novo, i.e. with no predecessors. Waffling about biochemistry does not resolve this blatant contradiction.

DAVID: My contention still is God chose to evolve us by the method history shows. No dodge. Basic biochemistry advances to allow more complex phenotypes. No waffle but your lack of understanding the relationship at two levels of evolution.

dhw: History does not even show us that there is a God, but for the sake of argument, we are discussing a possible God’s motives and methods. For those of us who believe in evolution, history shows that we and every other multicellular organism evolved from single cells, and yes indeed, biochemistry advanced to allow more complex phenotypes, 99% of which did not lead to us our food. The 99% make nonsense of your claim that we and our food were your all-powerful God’s one and only purpose for creating life. Your only explanation for his creating them is that he invented an inefficient, cumbersome, messy system which forced him to create 99 out of 100 species irrelevant to his purpose. But you reject any alternative which obviates the need for such a derogatory view of your God.

Your weird form of God has no controls. He likes to watch free-for-alls (lacking any direction) and has to experiment because He doesn't know how to create the next step!!! Your guy could never invent our brain.

Return to David's theory of evolution

by David Turell @, Monday, November 28, 2022, 19:49 (486 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by David Turell, Monday, November 28, 2022, 20:01

Consider this example of a new species found only by using genome studies, but first this older discussion as a starter:

" David: It is time to forget Darwin and his ancient form of common descent. Modern work on relationships is done at the genome level, which at times finds surprising relationships contrary to analysis from form.

dhw: And in your theory, the only “forms” we humans plus our food are descended from are those which your God created without predecessors. This breaks the continuity of common descent,

Same answer given above. Genome trees are not Darwin's tree.

dhw: thereby invalidating the theory that we plus our food are descended from Archaea and pre-Cambrian “forms”. (NB I myself do believe in a continuous line of descent from bacteria to us. Yes, the Cambrian is an unsolved mystery, but that does not remove the blatant contradiction between your two theories.)

David: The contradiction is your 170-year-old thinking.":

"Genome complexity: a new fungal family found (Introduction)
by David Turell @, Wednesday, November 23, 2022, 18:51 (5 days ago) @ David Turell

"They all look different but have the same genomic ancestor:

https://phys.org/news/2022-11-genome-uncover-fungal-evolution.html

"About 600 seemingly disparate fungi that never quite found a fit along the fungal family tree have been shown to have a common ancestor, according to a University of Alberta-led research team that used genome sequencing to give these peculiar creatures their own classification home.

"'They don't have any particular feature that you can see with the naked eye where you can say they belong to the same group. But when you go to the genome, suddenly this emerges," says Toby Spribille, principal investigator on the project and associate professor in the Department of Biological Sciences.

"'I like to think of these as the platypus and echidna of the fungal world."

***

"Using DNA-based dating techniques, the team found that this new class of fungi, called Lichinomycetes, descended from a single origin 300 million years ago, or 240 million years before the extinction of dinosaurs.

"David Díaz-Escandón, who performed the research as part of his Ph.D. thesis, explains that these "oddball" fungi were previously sprinkled across seven different classes—a high-level grouping that in animals would be equivalent to the groups called mammals or reptiles.

"Working with a team of researchers from seven countries to get material from the fungi, he sequenced 30 genomes and found that all classes but one descended from a single origin.

"'They were classified, but they were classified into such different parts of the fungal side of the tree of life that people never suspected they were related to each other," says Díaz-Escandón.

"These fungi include forms as varied as earth tongues—eerie tongue-shaped fungi that shoot up vertically out of the ground—beetle gut microbes, and a fungus found in tree sap in northern Alberta. They also include some unusual lichens that survive in extreme habitats such as South America's Atacama Desert, the driest non-polar desert in the world.

"'What is really fascinating is that despite these fungi looking so different, they have a lot in common at the level of their genomes," says Spribille. "Nobody saw this coming."

"Based on their genomes, which are small compared with those of other fungi, the team predicts that this group of fungi depend on other organisms for life.

"'Their small genomes mean this class of fungi have lost much of their ability to integrate some complex carbohydrates," said Spribille. "When we go back to look at each of these fungi, suddenly we see all of them are in a kind of symbiosis.'"

"Comment: this is a major consideration in thinking about evolution. The relationships are at the genome, DNA, level, not at the outward appearance level. It puts to rest dhw's weirdly illogical worry about the Cambrian gap destroying my theory about how God evolved us from Archaea. WE have Archaea genes as previously noted."

Please rethink your Darwinian approach to evolution. It is now dependent upon genome studies

Return to David's theory of evolution, genome importance

by David Turell @, Monday, November 28, 2022, 21:19 (486 days ago) @ David Turell

Another genome study into sex determination and relationships in some rat species:

https://phys.org/news/2022-11-sex-determination-mechanism-revealed-mammals.html

"In mammals, the distinction between male and female at the chromosomal level is due to the X and Y chromosomes. Typically, females have two X chromosomes (XX) while males have an X and a Y chromosome (XY). The Sry gene on the Y chromosome triggers the formation of the testes. However, there exist a handful of rodent species in which the Y chromosome has disappeared, taking with it the Sry gene. The mechanism by which testes development occurs in these species is not fully understood, and is the subject of much research.

"A team of researchers led by Professor Asato Kuroiwa at Hokkaido University has uncovered the genetic basis for sexual differentiation in the Amami spiny rat, one of the species that lacks a Y chromosome and the Sry gene.


"The Amami spiny rat is an endangered rodent found only on Amami Oshima, Japan. It is one of just four mammals known to lack a Y chromosome, alongside its close relative the Tokunoshima spiny rat, as well as the Transcaucasian mole vole and the Zaisan mole vole. In the Amami spiny rat, the the Sry gene is completely absent; thus, the animal has evolved a novel sex-determining mechanism independent of Sry.

"In mammals, Sox9 is the target of Sry, and is responsible for the differentiation of the testes. It has been studied in detail, and many regulatory elements that control the expression of Sox9 are known.

"The researchers revealed that the sequence duplication in Amami spiny rats was a new regulatory element, which upregulated Sox9 in the absence of Sry. They were able to map its position on the chromosomes relative to Sox9, and confirmed that it was similar to a potential Sox9 enhancer in mice called Enh14. They hypothesize that the two copies of Enh14 work in concert to upregulate the expression of Sox9. When they introduced the sequence into mice genomes by gene editing technology, the female (XX) mice embryos showed a gene expression that induced testis formation.

"This study is the first discovery of a male-specific genetic element directly related to sex-determining mechanism in mammals that is independent of Sry. It shows that the the sex-determination mechanism in the Amami spiny rat has moved to chromosome 3, an autosome—the first example of a translocation of sex-determination mechanism in mammals.

"In mammals, Sox9 is the target of Sry, and is responsible for the differentiation of the testes. It has been studied in detail, and many regulatory elements that control the expression of Sox9 are known.

"The researchers revealed that the sequence duplication in Amami spiny rats was a new regulatory element, which upregulated Sox9 in the absence of Sry. They were able to map its position on the chromosomes relative to Sox9, and confirmed that it was similar to a potential Sox9 enhancer in mice called Enh14. They hypothesize that the two copies of Enh14 work in concert to upregulate the expression of Sox9. When they introduced the sequence into mice genomes by gene editing technology, the female (XX) mice embryos showed a gene expression that induced testis formation.

"This study is the first discovery of a male-specific genetic element directly related to sex-determining mechanism in mammals that is independent of Sry. It shows that the the sex-determination mechanism in the Amami spiny rat has moved to chromosome 3, an autosome—the first example of a translocation of sex-determination mechanism in mammals."

Comment: another study showing the cutting-edge in critical evolutionary research is at the genome level. Phenotypic caparisons are an imperfect guide. Quoting these genome studies have shown us surprising relationships

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Friday, April 08, 2022, 08:10 (721 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Secondary is obvious in my view of God. God purposefully creates as a primary event. His own responses to the results occur after creation.

dhw: Of course responses to results come afterwards. But why do you insist that the results of an action have nothing to do with its purpose?

DAVID: Why can't you separate purpose from reaction?

Your usual dodge of “answering” a question by asking a question! I’ll be frank: I can’t imagine a supremely intelligent mind conducting the following monologue in stages: “1) I must create. 2) Wow, I enjoyed that, and I’m interested in what I created. 3) I must create. 4) Wow, I enjoyed that, and I’m interested in what I created. 5) I must create. 6) Wow, I enjoyed that, and I’m interested in what I created…” Repeated countless millions of times.I think it more likely that he would have begun by saying to himself: “I would like to create things that I will enjoy creating and that I will find interesting.”

dhw: [...]Why do you wish to downplay the possible implications of your own guesses?

DAVID: They are your implications coming from your biased view of a humanized God. I carefully avoid granting those human responses to God's reasoning.

dhw: Since you’re sure he enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, and may even want us to admire his works, clearly your careful avoidance of the implications is due to your biased conviction that your God creates "without self interest".

DAVID: I'm not 'sure' creating and desiring interest have any role in God primarily creating. That is how you humanize Him.

You already humanized him when you said you were sure he enjoyed creating etc. But I don’t ask you to be sure that this was his purpose – I offer it as a theory that fits in perfectly with your own guesses, and would help you out of your dreadful dilemma of having him design countless organisms that had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (us and our food).

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Just a big IF based on your strange desire to have God give up control over speciation. That desire weakens God? Is that what you want?

dhw: It’s not a desire but a theory to solve the problem of theodicy. How does the decision to create a free-for-all denote weakness? Your version of God has him designing a system resulting in errors he can’t control, though he tries to correct them and sometimes fails. That’s what I would call weakness.

DAVID: My view is the system works. A biochemical system of life requires massive numbers of reactions at nanosecond speed. Rare mistakes that get past editing add up to cloud your biased viewpoint.

I have simply suggested that a God who creates what he wants to create (a free-for-all) seems to me to be far less weak than a God who creates what he doesn’t want to create – namely, the “rare” errors that cause crippling diseases and millions of deaths. Sorry if that seems to you like bias.

Shapiro

DAVID: You have conflated his theory for speciation into brilliant cells running the show in the everyday processes of life.

dhw: You are conflating two different subjects. When cellular intelligence explains evolution, I follow his theory of evolution. When we discuss everyday processes, I follow not just Shapiro’s view but that of many other scientists that cells are intelligent. What would be the point of cellular intelligence if it was not involved in everyday processes?

DAVID: We disagree on cell intelligence which obviously can be purely cell instructions.

I know you disagree with the theory. Will you now please stop telling me that I inflate and misuse it.

Learning how proteins work

DAVID: A study in automaticity of molecules:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-abundant-secret-doors-human-proteins.html

DAVID: This is a study of how protein molecules automatically react in living processes. This automaticity is required to allow the fantastic speed of the processes , a speed that is required for life to exist.

dhw: You constant pick on examples of automatic behaviour, and I constantly reiterate that of course much of cellular activity has to be automatic, because otherwise the system will break down. There are two contexts in which intelligence comes into play: 1) the origin of every activity; 2) how cells respond when things go wrong. An analogy would be a factory. It takes intelligence to design the machinery, things then work automatically, and only when something goes wrong is intelligence required. You have the same theory, but attribute each stage to your God's direct intervention.

DAVID: And your analogous intelligence arose how?

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the theistic version is that God would have designed it.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 09, 2022, 05:17 (720 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why can't you separate purpose from reaction?

dhw: Your usual dodge of “answering” a question by asking a question!.....I think it more likely that he would have begun by saying to himself: “I would like to create things that I will enjoy creating and that I will find interesting.”

Once again you have God serving Himself. God may or may not enjoy or take interest.


dhw: [...]Why do you wish to downplay the possible implications of your own guesses?

DAVID: I'm not 'sure' creating and desiring interest have any role in God primarily creating. That is how you humanize Him.

dhw: You already humanized him when you said you were sure he enjoyed creating etc. But I don’t ask you to be sure that this was his purpose – I offer it as a theory that fits in perfectly with your own guesses, and would help you out of your dreadful dilemma of having him design countless organisms that had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose (us and our food).

That is your strange humanizing interpretation. We do not know if He has emotions like ours.


God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: My view is the system works. A biochemical system of life requires massive numbers of reactions at nanosecond speed. Rare mistakes that get past editing add up to cloud your biased viewpoint.

dhw: I have simply suggested that a God who creates what he wants to create (a free-for-all) seems to me to be far less weak than a God who creates what he doesn’t want to create – namely, the “rare” errors that cause crippling diseases and millions of deaths. Sorry if that seems to you like bias.

Your bias is to degrade God's choice of how to create life. I think it is the only way possible or God would have found some way else.


Shapiro

DAVID: We disagree on cell intelligence which obviously can be purely cell instructions.

dhw: I know you disagree with the theory. Will you now please stop telling me that I inflate and misuse it.

His theory is based on bacteria editing their DNA applied to a guess about speciation. He has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability. The rest is his extrapolation


Learning how proteins work

DAVID: A study in automaticity of molecules:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-abundant-secret-doors-human-proteins.html

DAVID: This is a study of how protein molecules automatically react in living processes. This automaticity is required to allow the fantastic speed of the processes , a speed that is required for life to exist.

dhw: You constant pick on examples of automatic behaviour, and I constantly reiterate that of course much of cellular activity has to be automatic, because otherwise the system will break down. There are two contexts in which intelligence comes into play: 1) the origin of every activity; 2) how cells respond when things go wrong. An analogy would be a factory. It takes intelligence to design the machinery, things then work automatically, and only when something goes wrong is intelligence required. You have the same theory, but attribute each stage to your God's direct intervention.

DAVID: And your analogous intelligence arose how?

dhw: Sorry, I forgot to mention that the theistic version is that God would have designed it.

Thank you.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Saturday, April 09, 2022, 08:33 (720 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Why can't you separate purpose from reaction?

dhw: Your usual dodge of “answering” a question by asking a question!.....I think it more likely that he would have begun by saying to himself: “I would like to create things that I will enjoy creating and that I will find interesting.”

DAVID: Once again you have God serving Himself. God may or may not enjoy or take interest.
And:
DAVID: That is your strange humanizing interpretation. We do not know if He has emotions like ours.

But not so long ago you were sure that he enjoyed and was interested, just as you thought he probably had thought patterns and emotions like ours and we mimicked him. Nobody knows anything for sure, but even now you are accepting the possibility that he enjoys and takes interest, and so it is only logical that you should also accept the possibility that enjoyment and interest might be his purpose for creating life. That is all I ask of you. I acknowledge that it’s only a theory, as is the actual existence of God.

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: My view is the system works. A biochemical system of life requires massive numbers of reactions at nanosecond speed. Rare mistakes that get past editing add up to cloud your biased viewpoint.

dhw: I have simply suggested that a God who creates what he wants to create (a free-for-all) seems to me to be far less weak than a God who creates what he doesn’t want to create – namely, the “rare” errors that cause crippling diseases and millions of deaths. Sorry if that seems to you like bias.

DAVID: Your bias is to degrade God's choice of how to create life. I think it is the only way possible or God would have found some way else.

It is you who “degrade” God’s choice and weaken his powers by even suggesting that he was forced to design a system that entailed a “constant war to survive by eating”. My suggestion is that he created the system he WANTED to create. How is that “degrading”?

Shapiro

DAVID: We disagree on cell intelligence which obviously can be purely cell instructions.

dhw: I know you disagree with the theory. Will you now please stop telling me that I inflate and misuse it.

DAVID: His theory is based on bacteria editing their DNA applied to a guess about speciation. He has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability. The rest is his extrapolation.

I am delighted that you now believe bacteria are intelligent, surprised that you should think that the cell communities which evolved from them cannot be intelligent, and disappointed by your refusal to withdraw your often repeated accusation that I inflate and misuse Shapiro’s theory. :-(

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 09, 2022, 15:57 (719 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Why can't you separate purpose from reaction?

dhw: Your usual dodge of “answering” a question by asking a question!.....I think it more likely that he would have begun by saying to himself: “I would like to create things that I will enjoy creating and that I will find interesting.”

DAVID: Once again you have God serving Himself. God may or may not enjoy or take interest.
And:
DAVID: That is your strange humanizing interpretation. We do not know if He has emotions like ours.

But not so long ago you were sure that he enjoyed and was interested, just as you thought he probably had thought patterns and emotions like ours and we mimicked him. Nobody knows anything for sure, but even now you are accepting the possibility that he enjoys and takes interest, and so it is only logical that you should also accept the possibility that enjoyment and interest might be his purpose for creating life. That is all I ask of you. I acknowledge that it’s only a theory, as is the actual existence of God.

I do accept that possibility. Possibility is a guess. But I insist His reactions are secondary to His purpose.


God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Your bias is to degrade God's choice of how to create life. I think it is the only way possible or God would have found some way else.

dhw: It is you who “degrade” God’s choice and weaken his powers by even suggesting that he was forced to design a system that entailed a “constant war to survive by eating”. My suggestion is that he created the system he WANTED to create. How is that “degrading”?

Not forced to use the best system He could invent, in His judgement, is not degrading. He decided what was best is my view.


Shapiro

DAVID: We disagree on cell intelligence which obviously can be purely cell instructions.

dhw: I know you disagree with the theory. Will you now please stop telling me that I inflate and misuse it.

DAVID: His theory is based on bacteria editing their DNA applied to a guess about speciation. He has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability. The rest is his extrapolation.

dhw: I am delighted that you now believe bacteria are intelligent, surprised that you should think that the cell communities which evolved from them cannot be intelligent, and disappointed by your refusal to withdraw your often repeated accusation that I inflate and misuse Shapiro’s theory. :-(

Shapiro did not extrapolate. He simply proposed a possible mechanism for speciation. He never said all cells are immensely intelligent. The only extensions from his theory I can think of, is speciation must have germ cells editing their own DNA. NOT ALL CELLS. You are in error to expand his proposals way beyond his proposals! :-)

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Sunday, April 10, 2022, 13:12 (718 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Once again you have God serving Himself. God may or may not enjoy or take interest.
And:
DAVID: That is your strange humanizing interpretation. We do not know if He has emotions like ours.

dhw: But not so long ago you were sure that he enjoyed and was interested, just as you thought he probably had thought patterns and emotions like ours and we mimicked him. Nobody knows anything for sure, but even now you are accepting the possibility that he enjoys and takes interest, and so it is only logical that you should also accept the possibility that enjoyment and interest might be his purpose for creating life. That is all I ask of you. I acknowledge that it’s only a theory, as is the actual existence of God.

DAVID: I do accept that possibility. Possibility is a guess. But I insist His reactions are secondary to His purpose.

Yes, all our theories can be called guesses, because nobody knows the objective truth. You now accept the possibility that enjoyment and interest might be his purpose for creating life, but you insist that his reactions of enjoyment and interest are secondary to his purpose of enjoyment and interest. :-)

God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Your bias is to degrade God's choice of how to create life. I think it is the only way possible or God would have found some way else. (dhw's bold)

dhw: It is you who “degrade” God’s choice and weaken his powers by even suggesting that he was forced to design a system that entailed a “constant war to survive by eating”. My suggestion is that he created the system he WANTED to create. How is that “degrading”?

DAVID: Not forced to use the best system He could invent, in His judgement, is not degrading. He decided what was best is my view.

You are now changing your argument from "the only way possible" to your God having a choice of systems (this one was best).Please make up your mind. I don’t know God’s criteria for the best and worst, but I’ll settle for your implicit confirmation that he regarded the system you call “a constant war to survive by eating” as the best. And so I wonder why, according to you, your "kind" God would deliberately choose war over peace.

Transferred from “trilobites”:

DAVID: The polar bears must eat seals. Where are the veggies? Your imagined world was not what happened. My approach is much more reasonable

Of course it’s not what happened. That is the whole point of this discussion! Why do you think your God chose to design a world of bloody warfare when, being all-powerful, he could have chosen to design a world of peaceful cooperation? You have lost track of the argument, so let me repeat: my suggestion is that he did NOT design a world of bloody warfare, but designed a world in which life forms would design their own means of survival, as a result of which we have a mixed world of peaceful cooperation and bloody warfare. And furthermore, I suggest that he created what he wanted to create (the free-for-all), as opposed to his having to incorporate errors which he didn’t want and tried, sometimes in vain, to correct because, as bolded, it was the only way possible.

Shapiro

dhw: I am delighted that you now believe bacteria are intelligent, surprised that you should think that the cell communities which evolved from them cannot be intelligent, and disappointed by your refusal to withdraw your often repeated accusation that I inflate and misuse Shapiro’s theory.

DAVID: Shapiro did not extrapolate. He simply proposed a possible mechanism for speciation.

You keep moaning that he extrapolated his theory of evolution from his study of bacteria! But yes indeed, he proposed cellular intelligence as the mechanism for speciation. Once again, I'm pleased you accept that bacteria are intelligent and am surprised that you think the cell communities which evolved from them are not intelligent.

DAVID: He never said all cells are immensely intelligent. The only extensions from his theory I can think of, is speciation must have germ cells editing their own DNA. NOT ALL CELLS. You are in error to expand his proposals way beyond his proposals! :-)

Nobody has said “ALL cells are IMMENSELY intelligent”! Within each community they will have different functions and capabilities. I'm not sure about germ cells being "the only extension". What about stem cells, which we know can change their forms and functions? I'd have thought these would be crucial to evolutionary innovation. When I quoted Shapiro saying “cells are cognitive (sentient) entities etc.” and “evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”, I don’t recall adding that every cell was “immensely intelligent”. Please identify the quote.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Sunday, April 10, 2022, 16:27 (718 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I do accept that possibility. Possibility is a guess. But I insist His reactions are secondary to His purpose.

dhw:Yes, all our theories can be called guesses, because nobody knows the objective truth. You now accept the possibility that enjoyment and interest might be his purpose for creating life, but you insist that his reactions of enjoyment and interest are secondary to his purpose of enjoyment and interest. :-)

Not what I wrote. Purpose primary, emotional responses secondary


God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: Not forced to use the best system He could invent, in His judgement, is not degrading. He decided what was best is my view.

dhw:You are now changing your argument from "the only way possible" to your God having a choice of systems (this one was best).Please make up your mind. I don’t know God’s criteria for the best and worst, but I’ll settle for your implicit confirmation that he regarded the system you call “a constant war to survive by eating” as the best. And so I wonder why, according to you, your "kind" God would deliberately choose war over peace.

It is you who suggest God could have made a different system, as if He had choices. I think He devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view.


Transferred from “trilobites”:

DAVID: The polar bears must eat seals. Where are the veggies? Your imagined world was not what happened. My approach is much more reasonable

dhw: Of course it’s not what happened. That is the whole point of this discussion! Why do you think your God chose to design a world of bloody warfare when, being all-powerful, he could have chosen to design a world of peaceful cooperation? You have lost track of the argument, so let me repeat: my suggestion is that he did NOT design a world of bloody warfare, but designed a world in which life forms would design their own means of survival, as a result of which we have a mixed world of peaceful cooperation and bloody warfare. And furthermore, I suggest that he created what he wanted to create (the free-for-all), as opposed to his having to incorporate errors which he didn’t want and tried, sometimes in vain, to correct because, as bolded, it was the only way possible.

God did not incorporate errors. A world of peaceful cooperation most likely in God's eyes could not work. (Darwin goes out the window, no fighting for survival, is a byproduct of your theory.) The free-for-all has nothing to do with errors in a high speed metabolism of life's molecules.


Shapiro

DAVID: Shapiro did not extrapolate. He simply proposed a possible mechanism for speciation.

dhw: You keep moaning that he extrapolated his theory of evolution from his study of bacteria! But yes indeed, he proposed cellular intelligence as the mechanism for speciation. Once again, I'm pleased you accept that bacteria are intelligent and am surprised that you think the cell communities which evolved from them are not intelligent.

You forget God designed bacteria. They run on His programs in DNA. He gave them editing for protection living on their own to adapt to challenges.


DAVID: He never said all cells are immensely intelligent. The only extensions from his theory I can think of, is speciation must have germ cells editing their own DNA. NOT ALL CELLS. You are in error to expand his proposals way beyond his proposals! :-)

dhw: Nobody has said “ALL cells are IMMENSELY intelligent”! Within each community they will have different functions and capabilities. I'm not sure about germ cells being "the only extension". What about stem cells, which we know can change their forms and functions? I'd have thought these would be crucial to evolutionary innovation. When I quoted Shapiro saying “cells are cognitive (sentient) entities etc.” and “evolutionary novelty arises from the production of new cell and multicellular structures as a result of cellular self-modification”, I don’t recall adding that every cell was “immensely intelligent”. Please identify the quote.

I can't find your quotes. Neil gave you that ability. Immensely intelligent is the implication from your cell committees theory. Germ cells carry the DNA combined in a new individual. For a completely new individual, the DNA changes must be there

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by dhw, Monday, April 11, 2022, 08:49 (718 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: ...even now you are accepting the possibility that he enjoys and takes interest, and so it is only logical that you should also accept the possibility that enjoyment and interest might be his purpose for creating life. That is all I ask of you. I acknowledge that it’s only a theory, as is the actual existence of God.

DAVID: I do accept that possibility. Possibility is a guess. But I insist His reactions are secondary to His purpose.

dhw:Yes, all our theories can be called guesses, because nobody knows the objective truth. You now accept the possibility that enjoyment and interest might be his purpose for creating life, but you insist that his reactions of enjoyment and interest are secondary to his purpose of enjoyment and interest.

DAVID: Not what I wrote. Purpose primary, emotional responses secondary.

I proposed that his emotional responses might indicate his purpose, and all I asked was that you should accept that possibility. So what was the possibility you accepted?

God's choice of war over peace

dhw: […]I wonder why, according to you, your "kind" God would deliberately choose war over peace.

DAVID: It is you who suggest God could have made a different system, as if He had choices. I think He devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in his view.

If he consciously made choices, then he obviously had a choice, i.e. he could have made a different system!

Transferred from “trilobites”:

DAVID: The polar bears must eat seals. Where are the veggies? Your imagined world was not what happened. My approach is much more reasonable

dhw: Of course it’s not what happened. That is the whole point of this discussion! Why do you think your God chose to design a world of bloody warfare when, being all-powerful, he could have chosen to design a world of peaceful cooperation? […] I suggest that he created what he wanted to create (the free-for-all), as opposed to his having to incorporate errors which he didn’t want and tried, sometimes in vain, to correct because, as bolded, it was the only way possible.

DAVID: God did not incorporate errors. A world of peaceful cooperation most likely in God's eyes could not work. (Darwin goes out the window, no fighting for survival, is a byproduct of your theory.) The free-for-all has nothing to do with errors in a high speed metabolism of life's molecules.

Of course Darwin goes out of the window! Like both of us, he looks at the world as it is. But you keep getting yourself in an almighty tangle over whether your God had a choice or not. If God exists, the bodily system he designed contained the potential for errors, and the survival system he designed depended on bloody warfare. These facts raise questions about his possible nature (hence the subject of theodicy). I have offered a possible explanation – a “free-for-all”. So far, I have found your objections to be based not on logic but on your subjective views of your God’s nature and purpose, while your own ideas seem to me to be riddled with contradictions. The battle continues!

Shapiro

DAVID: Shapiro did not extrapolate. He simply proposed a possible mechanism for speciation.

dhw: You keep moaning that he extrapolated his theory of evolution from his study of bacteria! But yes indeed, he proposed cellular intelligence as the mechanism for speciation. Once again, I'm pleased you accept that bacteria are intelligent and am surprised that you think the cell communities which evolved from them are not intelligent.

DAVID: You forget God designed bacteria. They run on His programs in DNA. He gave them editing for protection living on their own to adapt to challenges.

You wrote that Shapiro’s theory was based on “bacteria editing their DNA” and he “has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability”. I assumed you meant your God had given them the ability (i.e. the intelligence) to edit their own DNA. Now you say they run on his programmes, but that is what you say of every other cell and cell community. So did he give them this autonomous ability or not, and if he did, why couldn’t he have given the same ability to their descendants?

dhw: I don’t recall adding that every cell was “immensely intelligent”. Please identify the quote.

DAVID: I can't find your quotes. Neil gave you that ability.

No, he didn’t. I have learned from experience that you frequently contradict yourself, and so I keep a record of statements which I suspect you will later try to disown. There is simply no point in gratuitously inserting the word “immensely” as you have done. It is enough to stick to Shapiro’s own list of attributes.

dhw: I'm not sure about germ cells being "the only extension". What about stem cells, which we know can change their forms and functions? I'd have thought these would be crucial to evolutionary innovation.

DAVID: […] Germ cells carry the DNA combined in a new individual. For a completely new individual, the DNA changes must be there.

Agreed. But don’t you think it is of vital significance for evolution that some cells (i.e. stem cells) are able to change their form and function?

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Monday, April 11, 2022, 15:37 (717 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Not what I wrote. Purpose primary, emotional responses secondary.

dhw:I proposed that his emotional responses might indicate his purpose, and all I asked was that you should accept that possibility. So what was the possibility you accepted?

I do not think God considers His eventual reactions to His creations beforehand. He works well in advance. I am sure humans were on His mind as He created the BB.


God's choice of war over peace

dhw: […]I wonder why, according to you, your "kind" God would deliberately choose war over peace.

DAVID: It is you who suggest God could have made a different system, as if He had choices. I think He devised a system from scratch consciously making choices and came up with the best in His view.

dhw: If he consciously made choices, then he obviously had a choice, i.e. he could have made a different system!

But that is not the system we have. Doesn't trouble me. I use the Jewish approach: He gave us enough accepting His choices.


Transferred from “trilobites”:

DAVID: The polar bears must eat seals. Where are the veggies? Your imagined world was not what happened. My approach is much more reasonable

dhw: Of course it’s not what happened. That is the whole point of this discussion! Why do you think your God chose to design a world of bloody warfare when, being all-powerful, he could have chosen to design a world of peaceful cooperation? […] I suggest that he created what he wanted to create (the free-for-all), as opposed to his having to incorporate errors which he didn’t want and tried, sometimes in vain, to correct because, as bolded, it was the only way possible.

DAVID: God did not incorporate errors. A world of peaceful cooperation most likely in God's eyes could not work. (Darwin goes out the window, no fighting for survival, is a byproduct of your theory.) The free-for-all has nothing to do with errors in a high speed metabolism of life's molecules.

dhw:Of course Darwin goes out of the window! Like both of us, he looks at the world as it is. But you keep getting yourself in an almighty tangle over whether your God had a choice or not. If God exists, the bodily system he designed contained the potential for errors, and the survival system he designed depended on bloody warfare. These facts raise questions about his possible nature (hence the subject of theodicy). I have offered a possible explanation – a “free-for-all”. So far, I have found your objections to be based not on logic but on your subjective views of your God’s nature and purpose, while your own ideas seem to me to be riddled with contradictions. The battle continues!

As above God made choices I accept. Our biochemical system is amazing. As is life appearing out of a material universe. I have no contradictions, as you see them arising from your contorted view of what God should be.


Shapiro

DAVID: Shapiro did not extrapolate. He simply proposed a possible mechanism for speciation.

dhw: You keep moaning that he extrapolated his theory of evolution from his study of bacteria! But yes indeed, he proposed cellular intelligence as the mechanism for speciation. Once again, I'm pleased you accept that bacteria are intelligent and am surprised that you think the cell communities which evolved from them are not intelligent.

DAVID: You forget God designed bacteria. They run on His programs in DNA. He gave them editing for protection living on their own to adapt to challenges.

You wrote that Shapiro’s theory was based on “bacteria editing their DNA” and he “has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability”. I assumed you meant your God had given them the ability (i.e. the intelligence) to edit their own DNA. Now you say they run on his programmes, but that is what you say of every other cell and cell community. So did he give them this autonomous ability or not, and if he did, why couldn’t he have given the same ability to their descendants?

dhw: I don’t recall adding that every cell was “immensely intelligent”. Please identify the quote.

DAVID: I can't find your quotes. Neil gave you that ability.

dhw;No, he didn’t. I have learned from experience that you frequently contradict yourself, and so I keep a record of statements which I suspect you will later try to disown. There is simply no point in gratuitously inserting the word “immensely” as you have done. It is enough to stick to Shapiro’s own list of attributes.

Your cell committees are given enormous tasks to accomplish. Don't deny it.


dhw: I'm not sure about germ cells being "the only extension". What about stem cells, which we know can change their forms and functions? I'd have thought these would be crucial to evolutionary innovation.

DAVID: […] Germ cells carry the DNA combined in a new individual. For a completely new individual, the DNA changes must be there.

dhw: Agreed. But don’t you think it is of vital significance for evolution that some cells (i.e. stem cells) are able to change their form and function?

Any existing stem cells are the result of previous speciation. They help run embryology as one item.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART 1

by David Turell @, Monday, April 11, 2022, 15:18 (717 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Secondary is obvious in my view of God. God purposefully creates as a primary event. His own responses to the results occur after creation.

dhw: Of course responses to results come afterwards. But why do you insist that the results of an action have nothing to do with its purpose?

DAVID: Why can't you separate purpose from reaction?

Your usual dodge of “answering” a question by asking a question!...Repeated countless millions of times....I think it more likely that he would have begun by saying to himself: “I would like to create things that I will enjoy creating and that I will find interesting.”

Note I answered your question with a question. Sauce for goose and gander. That thought of your God is still secondary to to what He actually decides to create. It is not "I must create so I can enjoy and be interested." Our differences are shaded.


God's choice of war over peace

DAVID: My view is the system works. A biochemical system of life requires massive numbers of reactions at nanosecond speed. Rare mistakes that get past editing add up to cloud your biased viewpoint.

dhw: I have simply suggested that a God who creates what he wants to create (a free-for-all) seems to me to be far less weak than a God who creates what he doesn’t want to create – namely, the “rare” errors that cause crippling diseases and millions of deaths. Sorry if that seems to you like bias.

If God has realized the current system is the only system that would work, that is consistent with strength of purpose. And that the system is edited gain shows strength of purpose. I strongly believe no to other system is possible.


Shapiro

DAVID: We disagree on cell intelligence which obviously can be purely cell instructions.

dhw: I know you disagree with the theory. Will you now please stop telling me that I inflate and misuse it.

I can't change my beliefs. We'll drop the subject.


Learning how proteins work

DAVID: A study in automaticity of molecules:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-abundant-secret-doors-human-proteins.html

DAVID: This is a study of how protein molecules automatically react in living processes. This automaticity is required to allow the fantastic speed of the processes , a speed that is required for life to exist.

dhw: You constant pick on examples of automatic behaviour, and I constantly reiterate that of course much of cellular activity has to be automatic, because otherwise the system will break down. There are two contexts in which intelligence comes into play: 1) the origin of every activity; 2) how cells respond when things go wrong. An analogy would be a factory. It takes intelligence to design the machinery, things then work automatically, and only when something goes wrong is intelligence required. You have the same theory, but attribute each stage to your God's direct intervention.

DAVID: And your analogous intelligence arose how?

dhw: Sorry, I forgot to mention that the theistic version is that God would have designed it.

OK

Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 24, 2022, 14:59 (735 days ago) @ David Turell

An article on God's warring animals:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/deer-have-antlers-walruses-have-tusks-her...

"Mating season in the animal kingdom can be dramatic, and sometimes violent. As an example, take deer clashing their antlers during the rut – nostrils flaring, hooves hammering the ground, grass flying everywhere, and that eerie silence before the thunderous collision. The winning buck gets access to the harem, while the loser must find other females to fight for.

"Many other animals also have formidable weapons. They range from rhinoceros beetles’ pointy horns to fiddler crabs’ proportionally gigantic claws and the long tusks of walruses and narwhals.

"Birds also need to compete for their mates, which often involves fiercely defending a territory. But most birds don’t sport impressive weapons; we know them better for their colors, dances and songs. As evolutionary biologists primarily interested in birds and weapons, respectively, we couldn’t help but wonder: Why do most birds lack their own version of antlers? The answer, which we present in a recent study, likely lies in a trade-off between flying and fighting.

***

"If you fly a lot, like an airline that operates 4,500 daily flights or a swift that flies 10 months out of every year, every reduced ounce counts. And consequences are harsher for the swift. Animals can’t buy energy in the form of fuel – they have to find food and consume it, which itself requires energy.

"On the other hand, if you are a rooster that only barely flies, you might be able to afford a bit of extra weight in the form of a weapon. In other words, given the cost of flying, it makes sense that birds should be able to afford weapons only if they don’t depend too much on flight. This trade-off is supported by mathematical flight models and measurements of the cost of flight in real birds, which show that carrying avian weapons such as leg or wing spurs in flight costs more “fuel” the more a bird flies and the lighter the rest of its body is.

Birds also need to compete for their mates, which often involves fiercely defending a territory. But most birds don’t sport impressive weapons; we know them better for their colors, dances and songs. As evolutionary biologists primarily interested in birds and weapons, respectively, we couldn’t help but wonder: Why do most birds lack their own version of antlers? The answer, which we present in a recent study, likely lies in a trade-off between flying and fighting.

"For anything that flies, whether it’s a bird or an airplane (or even Superman), flight demands more energy – in the form of burned fat or fuel – than moving on the ground or in the water. And the amount of energy required increases with weight.

"To be sure, some birds do have weapons specialized for fighting – just not very many species. And the weapons that birds do carry aren’t as big, heavy or flashy as in other animals. Rooster spurs, a classic example, are about as antlerlike as bird weapons get.

"About 170 species – less than 2% of all existing avian species – possess spurs on their legs or wings. Spurred legs are only found on landfowl – birds that mostly feed on the ground – including turkeys, pheasants, peacocks and many of their relatives.

***

"Our findings show that flight is a very good explanation for why birds don’t impress much in the weaponry department. But that doesn’t necessarily translate to peace and love. For example, hawks use their talons as weapons in violent fights, and toucans do the same with their bills.

"We shouldn’t expect these cases to be the rule, though. That’s because claws and bills are essential for other tasks like foraging, feeding, thermoregulating, preening and anchoring. In contrast, spurs’ and antlers’ only function is to fight. Using claws and bills in combat can mean compromising other essential functions. For example, in 2017, Chinese engineers designed a titanium alloy bill for a captive crane that broke its bill during a fight and consequently lost the ability to feed without human help.

"If most birds can neither bear spurs because they compromise flight nor risk features such as their bills because they are essential for other tasks, the solution may be to avoid physical combat as much as possible. Indeed, many birds defend territories primarily by singing or showing off ornaments. Flight preventing the evolution of weapons may thus help explain the striking colors, dances and songs that we find across birds.

"The next time you’re outdoors and hear two birds screaming their lungs out at each other instead of fighting, remember that peace might be the only option evolution gave them."

Comment: in evolution competition is built in. So there has to be evolutionary 'war'.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by Balance_Maintained @, U.S.A., Tuesday, January 23, 2024, 17:04 (65 days ago) @ dhw

"sole purpose"

This is one of those phrases I always took issue with. Why do we (humans) have to be the 'sole purpose' as opposed to 'part of the plan'?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

Return to David's theory of evolution PART ONE

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 23, 2024, 17:14 (65 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: "sole purpose"

This is one of those phrases I always took issue with. Why do we (humans) have to be the 'sole purpose' as opposed to 'part of the plan'?

Part of the plan is better.

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum