Genome complexity: epigenetics in action (Introduction)

by dhw, Tuesday, April 11, 2017, 11:48 (2573 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Nature’s wonders are not a side issue, they are part of THE issue under discussion. Until now your two dogmas have been that (a) God’s sole purpose (which you seem to equate with “end point”) was the production of humans, and (b) he personally designed all of Nature’s wonders. This creates a problem: why did he personally design all of Nature’s wonders if his sole purpose was to create humans?
DAVID: And my answer is constant, balance of nature for energy supply.

So once again you have God designing the weaverbird’s nest in order to supply energy so that life could continue until he produced humans. This is why I use the nest as my prime example. It doesn’t make sense.

dhw: You rejected limitations, so you are left with God choosing to design all the wonders so that it can take a long time for him to do the one thing he wants to do.
DAVID: I'm still fully in favor of the thesis that God chose a lengthy time, and arranged for a copious food supply.

If God exists, there can be no doubt that it took longer for him to produce humans than to produce dinosaurs, and that whatever system he used resulted in there being enough food for some species to survive. And so there is nothing controversial in what you have just written. The problem arises when you say that God’s sole purpose was to produce humans, and he chose to take a long time over doing so, and designed the weaverbird’s nest to provide energy while he was taking a long time to produce humans. THAT is what did not make sense to you earlier, and THAT is what has resulted in your different explanations which one day you regard as conclusions and the next day regard only as possibilities.

dhw:You now seem to realize that this does not make sense, and so on Sunday 9 April you go back to a list of all the possibilities, there is no clear answer, and gone is Saturday’s decisive conclusion. Quite right too. This leaves us with the options discussed under “Purpose and design”, including what you have at last accepted as a possibility: God’s sole purpose may NOT have been to produce humans, and God may NOT have designed all the natural wonders. Why not leave it at that?
DAVID: Because I do not accept that interpretation. My list was to show the various ways I have previously proposed to interpret God's actions in producing humans. I thought my intent in that review was clear. I also believe your theories are possible, but not probable. This is a fluid discussion.

I do not ask you to accept any interpretation. I am fully aware of all your attempts to explain the dichotomy between what have previously been your two dogmatic beliefs, and welcome the fact that you regard my different hypotheses as possible, which means you accept the possibility that one or both of your dogmatic beliefs may be wrong.