Back to David's theory of evolution (Evolution)

by dhw, Sunday, July 12, 2020, 10:03 (515 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Yes, His powers cannot stop molecular errors. I know He can't stop them. The evidence being the backup systems in place.

dhw: If his powers cannot stop something, his powers are limited. Once more: what is your objection to the proposal that he wanted the errors?

DAVID: Because of the corrective measures that are designed to undo them:

QUOTE: The human developmental disorder called Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) is caused by mutations that impair the function of cohesin, a protein complex that is important for genome organization and DNA repair […]

DAVID: just a reminder, corrective mechanisms are everywhere for a reason. God anticipated the errors.

You have described an error which disrupts a corrective system! But as with the immune system, corrective mechanisms boil down to the cells continually devising (or failing to devise) remedies for errors as they occur. The mechanism, I would suggest, is the perhaps God-given intelligence of the cells. Meanwhile, (a) if your God’s powers cannot prevent errors, his powers are limited, and (b) even your proposal that your God provided corrective measures that sometimes work and sometimes don’t work does not disprove the theory that he deliberately created the errors in the first place, since the immortality of every creature would rapidly have led to sheer chaos on Planet Earth.

DAVID: How does evolution occur from bacteria to us without evolution? Nutty objection.

dhw: Stop dodging! You believe your all-powerful God directly created every life form. If he only wanted to directly create one life form with food supply, why did he spend 3.X billion years directly creating millions and millions of extinct non-human life forms and food supplies?

DAVID: The bold tells us of your blind thoughts about God. Humans were a goal, not the method to reach their creation. Confused mixed up thinking.

I’m afraid I don’t understand your statement. According to you, humans were THE goal, and in order to achieve his goal, he specially designed billions of now extinct NON-HUMAN life forms, econiches, lifestyles, strategies, natural wonders etc. But, understandably, you have no idea why he chose such a method.

DAVID: More confused thought. The huge bush of econiches feeds everyone. when humans arrive and their population grows larger enough food is present.

But 99% of the huge bush of specially designed, food-supplying econiches had disappeared by the time humans arrived!

DAVID: Precise designer planning for the future. Purpose is not reason. There Are always reasons behind purpose!!! We cannot know those. I agree purpose drives action, but doesn't tell us the reasons for choice of action.

“Purpose: the reason for which anything is done, created or exists” (Encarta). According to you the reason why, or purpose for which, your God created life was to create H. sapiens. Yes or no? And according to you the reason why, or purpose for which, your God specially designed 3.X billion years’ worth of non-human life forms etc. was to provide food for humans who did not yet exist. Believe that if you will, but don’t tell me it’s logical, or that you know the purpose or reason for the billions of non-human life forms etc. but you can’t know the purpose or reason for them.

DAVID: Of course his thought patterns and ours may be similar patterns, but it doesn't make us privy to His thoughts (reasoning) that led to his decisions for his purposes.

dhw: We can’t know anything for certain, but if he uses the same logic as we do, and his thought patterns may be similar to ours, then you have no reason for rejecting “humanizing” theories other than the fact that we can’t know whether they are true or not. In that case, please reject your own theory, since you can’t know whether it is true or not.

DAVID: Of course both you and I are theorizing. You like your thoughts, I like mine as this long train of discussion shows.

And the discussion so far has shown that you have no idea why your God would have chosen the method you impose on him for achieving the purpose you impose on him, you agree that the alternative “humanizing” purposes and methods I have proposed are perfectly logical and God probably has thought patterns similar to ours, but you reject them because we can’t know whether any of them are true, and so you will stick to your own illogical theory, although we can’t know whether that is true either.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum