Back to David's theory of evolution: God's errors (Evolution)

by David Turell , Wednesday, July 29, 2020, 18:22 (1576 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: And so he is a puppet master who can’t control his puppets.

So wrong. Puppets have direct controls. Molecules have instructions to follow, but mistakenly may not. Facts of life you refuse to accept.

DAVID: Mutational errors may or may not be God, but it went forward with His permission.

dhw: So now you think he’s capable of preventing good mutational errors but is powerless to prevent bad ones.

Total misrepresentation. DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said.

DAVID: Reviewed. You still do not understand molecular errors. God may allow beneficial ones.

dhw: You still do not understand that a God who is capable of preventing beneficial errors but is incapable of preventing deleterious ones (a) has NOT deliberately created the beneficial ones, which makes nonsense of your argument that he is always in total control of evolution, and (b) is pathetically weak, especially in the light of the next comment, from your second post:

DAVID: Autoimmune diseases are mistakes of the genetic immune system. God has given us a brain that can solve many of the problems created.

Still entirely without comprehension. Repeated: "DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said."

dhw: He can’t solve some of the problems, but we can! Your God gets weaker every day.

Still entirely without comprehension. Repeated: "DNA as a free molecule can make a mutation by error or gamma rays. God chooses to leave it if worthwhile or eliminate them, exactly what I said." Our immune system is what we currently have. It makes mistakes. God is not in the business of fixing them now; it is up to us and our big brain.

dhw: […] you have now abandoned the concept of an all-powerful God always in control of everything, so why not at least remove the helpless tag and agree to the possibility that the free-running system he created may after all have been the system he wanted to create?

DAVID: Still confused. The molecules can make mistakes. God recognized this with backups present.

dhw: There is no confusion on my part! Your God designed the system and the mistakes show that he did not control the molecules – even with his backups. You have not answered my question. Why won’t you consider the possibility that he did not WANT to control the molecules, and that he WANTED to give them free rein to make both beneficial and deleterious changes to themselves?

Again, an idea from an imagined weak humanized God. Why would He allow 'deleterious changes' when He purposely put in backup systems? I see a God with serious purpose. You don't.

dhw: You have no idea how powerful your God can be, and my alternatives have nothing to do with the biblical version. Please quote the biblical references to experimentation, late arrival of humans in his thinking, giving cells the intelligence to do their own designing, creating life as a spectacle for himself, relief from eternal boredom…

DAVID: Thank you for the description of your humanizing thoughts. Perfect human thoughts ascribed to God, and you can't see it.

dhw: This is getting sillier and sillier. You told me I was still too influenced by the Biblical version of God! I asked you to quote biblical references to any of my alternative explanations. Instead you tell me that my humanized versions are humanized, totally ignoring the point now bolded above: it is totally illogical for someone who agrees that his God probably has human attributes to dismiss a theory on the grounds that it endows his God with human attributes!

My guesses about God's human side, responding as guesses requested by you, are just that. I prefer to look at his creator side, and not consider that his human side has any role in his decisions for creation. Silly is your total lack of comprehension of what molecules can do and how they are partially, not tightly, controlled.