Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Friday, July 31, 2020, 11:32 (1363 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Once more, as bolded above: we are discussing the question why your all-powerful God directly designed millions of long gone non-human life forms and their food supply if his one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens and his food supply.[/b]

DAVID: Answer: because God wanted to do it His way, by evolution, which is the only human creation system we know about.

dhw: Evolution for you means direct design of all species, natural wonders etc. According to the above, then, he wanted to design millions of now extinct non-human life forms and their food supplies that had no link to humans, although the only life form and food supplies that he wanted to design were H. sapiens and his food supplies. This doesn’t make sense, and that is why you have admitted you have no idea why he chose this method.

DAVID: The usual total distortion of my theory. The bold is preposterous.

Of course it’s preposterous to argue that God's one and only purpose was to specially design H. sapiens and so he specially designed anything but H. sapiens before eventually specially designing H. sapiens.

DAVID: All of the past organisms are linked to the eventual humans though the process of evolution. Bacteria are our ancestors, or have you forgotten?

Please explain why humans could not have evolved from bacteria without your God directly designing all the thousands of extinct life forms, econiches, natural wonders etc. which preceded his direct design of hominins and homos. And please don’t forget that for you evolution does mean direct design and not random proliferation.

DAVID: As for His choice of method, it makes lots of sense, as it leads to a giant bush of food supply. Life always needs daily energy intake, a concept you love to downplay.

I do not downplay the obvious fact that life needs food! I simply ask why your God would have directly designed millions of extinct life forms and their food supplies if the only life forms he wanted to design were H. sapiens and his food supply.

DAVID: More reason are in my brain, but as unprovable, why bother, expect to play word games with you.

We are not playing word games. I ask you a straightforward question, and get an illogical reply. I offer you alternative, logical explanations of life’s history, all of which you reject for the illogical reason that although your God probably has human attributes, my explanations entail your God having human attributes. I’ll skip the rest of the post until the final exchange:

dhw: Please explain how all the millions of now extinct non-human life forms and their now extinct food supplies, plus all their strategies, lifestyles, natural wonders etc. – all apparently directly designed by your God - are to be regarded as “developing stages” before your God could directly design H. sapiens.

DAVID: You are back to immediate creation by God. Why? Developing stages equals evolution, which is the true history of reality. The reality God chose to create.

The true history of reality (for those of us who believe in evolution) is that ALL life forms passed through developing stages, and if God exists, then the reality he chose to create was the vast bush of life, 99% of which has disappeared. You insist that ALL of the bush was directly created, and the only concession you make to evolution is common descent, which means that existing organisms were either preprogrammed to change into new species, pursue their lifestyles or perform their wonders, or he stepped in to give them lessons or to dabble with their anatomy. So if his one and only purpose was to directly design each stage from bacteria to H. sapiens, why would he preprogramme or dabble all the life forms etc. that did NOT constitute “stages of development” towards humans? It is the combination of your beliefs that lead to their illogicality, but you persist in focusing on just one at a time in order to dodge the truth of the matter, which is that you have no idea why your God would combine your idea of his purpose with your idea of his method.