Return to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by David Turell , Friday, January 13, 2023, 00:09 (476 days ago) @ dhw

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

Dhw: 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.

Don't you realize my statement above is specifically for the present, not the past? The bush for food exists now from past evolution.

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?

dhw: 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.

Your 'weak and bumbling' is your messy interpretation of the facts. All/any evolution, by definition is messy with dead ends and extinctions. An all-powerful God created a universe and thinking life (us), but in your view, He had no idea what He was doing. Irrational thinking to put it politely.

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 a 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.

dhw: 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”?

Simply steps along the way to humans. God chose His method and handled it well. Any evolution is messy in the asepct of lost species along the way.

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.

dhw: 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.

Nothing. Now don't add God was a bumbling fool to do it that way. His way was controlled evolution of more and more complexity until our brain arrived. Nothing but a powerful designer could create our brain!!!