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

by David Turell @, Thursday, July 30, 2020, 21:19 (443 days ago) @ dhw

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

dhw: So presumably your God gave up on dabbling.

Dabbling was for new evolutionary steps, nothing more.

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

dhw: If God chooses to leave a good mutation, he clearly has the power to eliminate it. However, you have forgotten that you told us he does NOT have the power to eliminate bad mutations (errors).

Show me where I said the bold. Not my thought.

DAVID: 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: According to you he was incapable of solving the problems in the past. I don’t know what sort of business you think he is involved in now, but if you are implying that he could solve them now if he wanted to, then we would have a learning God very different from the all-knowing one you started out with, though fitting in nicely with one who experiments or gets new ideas as he goes along. Meanwhile, you are still stuck with your proposal that we are better at fixing his errors than he is.

Weird set of comments. My view is that God ran and monitored evolution until sapiens was well established in the current form. The bold is totally wrong in my view. In the past God took total control and managed evolution as He wished. I'm not implying what you wished I imply. I don't change. The red sentence is also something you infer from nowhere. We fix things now that we are in charge. God not stepping in now.

dhw: 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?

DAVID: 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: Please stop pretending that your God has serious purpose and then refusing to say what that serious purpose is.

I don't refuse. Humans are the purpose. Still distorting.

dhw: According to you he did not “allow” deleterious changes. He could not prevent them. And according to you, even his backup systems didn’t always work.

True, a fact of life, I can accept.

dhw: That makes him considerably weaker than the God I am proposing, who WANTED the system we have. The so-called backup systems would have evolved over time as free running organisms tried to combat those free running forces whose survival threatened their own. The conflict between good and bad at all levels would then be integral to your God’s purpose, as would death. Why do you refuse to even consider the possibility that your God is not the weak and helpless designer of an imperfect system whose errors he can’t correct, but who deliberately designed the system we have? We needn’t even discuss possible purposes for doing so, since you “prefer to look at his creator side, and not consider that his human side has any role in his decisions for creation.”

Simple answer. God is not human and nothing like the God you wish He were. No form of any God could control molecular mistakes in free-floating molecules which are supposed to respond properly to specific stimuli. It seems you cannot or refuse to understand a very simple biochemical concept. I teach the best I can.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum