Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Thursday, January 12, 2023, 11:30 (476 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Yes, in your new theory, God’s method of achieving his goal was a mess, and he had no control over the environment but simply responded to whatever changes arose, thereby designing countless life forms which had no connection with what you believe to have been his one and only purpose: us and our food. You have called all of them “mistakes” and “failed experiments”. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

DAVID: Prolonged because of your twisted interpretation in bold, as one ooint. The countless life forms are our food!! The bush of life is a requirement for humans to exist.

You have informed us that 99% of past life forms were dead ends, “mistakes”, “failed experiments” which did NOT lead to us and our food. We do not eat brontosauruses, and the “mistakes” and “failed experiments” were not a requirement for humans to exist. Please stop editing your own theory.

DAVID: The process of evolution is messy, but it succeeded in producing humans under God's guidance. It happened from God's own choice of method. Why would God choice a method He couldn't handle easily?

An excellent question. It suggests that if God exists, either he did NOT start out with the goal you impose on him, or if he did, he had to experiment – make “mistakes”, design “failures” – in order to achieve his goal. You have chosen the latter theory, and have thereby made him “weak” and “bumbling”, though you don’t seem to have realized it.

dhw: […] And he obviously didn’t know how to finally evolve us until he had conducted countless failed experiments! I accept that this tunnel-visioned bumbling God of yours provides a logical explanation for the history of evolution as we know it. Why are you prolonging the discussion?

DAVID: […]He knew exactly how to achieve His endpoint goals.

Then why were 99% of his experiments “failures”?

dhw [..] : In your new theory, his firsthand experiments have a 99% failure rate, so I would suggest that “secondhand” design would be far less damaging to his reputation for efficiency.

DAVID: Stop beating a dead horse. 99% of all evolving forms disappeared.

dhw: Precisely. And so instead of a firsthand designing God making mistake after mistake, we have him giving organisms the means to do their own ("secondhand") designing. The failures then become theirs and not his. It’s an alternative to the weak, bumbling God you have advocated in your new theory.

DAVID: Your twisted invention of my God to fit your purposes ignores all my description as to how I see God.

dhw: Then stick to the weak bumbling God of your new theory.

DAVID: I have presented a clear theory of how God used s messy process of evolution to create us, a God that was in total control of what had to be controlled, new DNA designs in new species.

In your clear theory, he could not control the conditions necessary to fulfil his one and only purpose, and 99% of the new species were “mistakes” or “failed experiments”. Why do you keep leaving out your own explanation of the “mess”?

DAVID: Subsequent species became more increasingly complex until we arrived, took control of the Earth resulting in the end of major evolutionary changes. Any evolutionary process requires failure in order to require new advances. I know you work at denigrating God as I present Him. The discussion will continue as I answer your distortions off my theory. This does not set out a God-the-bumbler, does it??? But you will try to, so discussion continues.

I am not denying our arrival! I am merely repeating your own theory: (a)your God had one goal (us and our food); (b) he specially designed countless life forms in response to changing environments which were not under his control; (c) 99% of the life forms he designed were “mistakes” or “failed experiments” because they did not lead to us and our food; (d) evolution as you present it is a mess, for which your God is responsible. Please tell me what I have distorted.