Return to David's theory of evolution PARTS 1 & 2 (Evolution)

by dhw, Monday, February 28, 2022, 11:03 (794 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Of course we arrived from a specific line of a single branch, but all the branches that surround us provide the food. I am using the giant bush process of evolution as a whole.

dhw: No you are not .You have told us that all the giant bushes that preceded ours were meant as “preparation” for us and our bush and were part of “the goal” of evolving humans and our food. If you now wish to change that theory, then please stop “beating about the bush” and say so.

DAVID: The bold is exactly what I believe, and it expresses evolution as a progressive whole from its beginning.

On 16 Feb you criticized me: “You have created the ‘one and only aim’ distortion which I view as totally illogical”. Last week you wrote: “’One and only purpose’ is your overemphasized version of my views.” Week after week, you admit that you have no idea why your God would have deliberately designed countless life forms and foods “in preparation” for humans plus food, as “part of the goal of evolving humans”, although the vast majority had no connection with humans plus food. What have I distorted or overemphasized if this is exactly what you believe? And since you cannot explain the logic behind this combination of theories, why do you continue to close your mind to alternatives which you agree are logical?

You asked me to list the alternatives, and I offered you four different theories.

DAVID: […] You are totally blind to how you use a humanized God to back your theories.

You are totally blind to your own belief that your God probably has thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours, and that we mimic him in many ways, and you are totally blind to the obvious fact that he would hardly design something he knew nothing about, and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that a creator would project part of himself into what he creates. Shared thought patterns do not, however, mean that a God who can create a universe and life must be human, which is the “distortion” and “overemphasis” that you imply in your efforts to undermine alternative theories which you regard as logical.

DAVID: Adler specifically uses God's evolution of humans to prove God exists.

dhw: As bolded above, and I’m not surprised that he doesn’t cover your illogical theory, since you regard him as a logical thinker.

DAVID: Please do remember, Adler accepted evolution as God's method to reach humans. He never discussed how God did it, as beside the point. I am the one who separately is trying to explain the nitty-gritty of how God did it. Explained in the past.

dhw: Explained in the past by telling me to ask God why he used the illogical method you have imposed on him in order to fulfil the one and only purpose you have imposed on him.

DAVID: My comments explained Adler to undo your confusion about him. Your answer is confused or a deliberate sidestep.

You keep agreeing that Adler does NOT cover your theory, so why do you keep bringing him into the discussion of your theory? Confusion, or a deliberate sidestep?

DAVID: I...continue to view all of evolution as one whole giant process.

dhw: You have rejected all four of my alternatives. I agree with you that evolution is one whole giant process in which vast numbers of life forms and their foods have come and gone, and we represent only one branch among countless other branches of life forms and their foods, the vast majority of which had no connection with us and our foods. It is therefore manifestly illogical to claim that all other life forms and foods were “preparation” for us, and were “part of the goal of evolving humans” and our foods.

DAVID: If evolution is a 'whole giant process' everything that happened can easily be viewed as God's purposes being fulfilled in a stepwise fashion through one process.

Of course it can. What is impossible to view is that he only had one purpose (humans plus food) and therefore individually designed countless numbers of life forms "in preparation" for humans plus food, and as "part of the goal of evolving humans" plus food although most of them had no connection with humans plus food.