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

by David Turell @, Thursday, August 20, 2020, 14:34 (432 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: I am correcting your distorted understanding, since I have introduced the FACT that living molecules can make mistakes and, therefore, during evolution errors involving new speciation have to be edited and corrected by God. Bad mutations are simply deleted. There is a possibility of 'good' slight variation on what God planned, and I can see Him allowing it. Note, only a possibility this happens, but I have to accept that mutations are occasionally 'good' ( as science shows) and account for how God might handle them.

dhw: What “distorted understanding”? I have repeated your own words, and asked you whether they still apply. Your response is as confusing as ever. Instead of these errors changing the course of evolution, and possibly even “arranging” our own evolution, they have suddenly become a mere possibility of “slight variation”. And yet they also “involve new speciation”! How does new speciation mean slight variation? And why does he have to correct the errors if they are good and he allows them go through? This whole theory is becoming more and more nebulous and confusing, but you accuse me of distorting it!

Not nebulous to me. I am working on a very coherent theory to include errors in the genome during evolution. And you are helping. Genome errors during evolution require God editing is a simple response.

DAVID: The backups apply mainly to mistakes while organisms live to protect them during repeated copying that might lead to living damage. On further consideration, there should not be backups regarding DNA speciation changes. God must keep exact editing controls when He speciates.

dhw: Once again he edits (not designs) speciation changes, so these can hardly be called “slight variations”. I pointed out to you that backups could only refer to errors involving disease and death, but you claimed he was not bothered about these. Why would he create backups if he was not bothered?

He is trying to protect the living but having backups, but you asked about Him stepping in and correcting, and we know he doesn't.

dhw: And we haven’t even mentioned your passionate defence of the evolutionary role played by chance (“Chance can play a role!!!”) countered by “There is no reliance on chance”. I’m sorry, but I do not think you have “completely reached a coherent theory”, or that the contradictions are due to bias on my part.

DAVID: With your help I've totally reconsidered my thinking about chance in regard to speciation. God accepts only minor variations in genome evolutionary changes. He is a precise editor.

dhw: It’s comforting to know that these discussions can result in such a U-turn. Perhaps eventually you will also sort out the muddle of what your God can and can’t control, and what he edits and what he designs. And perhaps you will even consider the possibility that your God deliberately invented a system in which molecules went their own free way, because that was what he wanted. At least this would restore some of the dignity you have tried so hard to take away from him – or have you also withdrawn your claim that you are “the one who is willing to show that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing and he can’t stop molecular errors in a system he created”?

I don't know how all-everything God is as the Bible describes. You make Him very human as you describe His thinking. Why blame me? The quote is a concession. Errors exist during living and must have existed during evolution, and so I must account for them with God in charge.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum