Back to David's theory of evolution: Talbott on cell death (Evolution)

by David Turell , Saturday, August 29, 2020, 17:57 (1545 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: The bolds show you don't understand the biochemistry of life. I've told you, the large majority of our cells are in constant cell division, and the made-up statistic is to try to give you an approximation of the magnitude of the needed editing protections to maintain proper DNA which is almost always what results.

dhw: This whole thread is devoted to the errors, i.e. when things go wrong. I don’t know how cancer turns up out of constant reproduction. I thought it was the consequence of errors in the reproduction, as are so many of the diseases that your God tried but failed to control and so has left to us to correct.

The point of the error discussion is to show you that despite the errors the vast majority of all organisms continue through their lives unchanged due to the excellent editing, the exact opposite of tack you take in your interpretations. Your bias is showing.

dhw: ...my proposal is that he deliberately created a system that would allow beneficial and deleterious changes, to produce the vast variety of life plus the ending of life through the “required” death. My God gets what he wants. Yours apparently doesn’t. Which of these is a denigration?

DAVID: Again denigration of my view of God.

dhw: And not denigration of God, as you put it. I regard your view of your God as denigrating, in so far as you have him designing a system which produces errors that he cannot prevent or control, even though he tries his best to do so. My proposal is that the system he designed is the system he wanted to design.

Yes, it is His design. Concentrate on the amazing accuracy of his editing system.

David: What you fail to see as you criticize the picture of God I present, is the surprisingly great success rate of a living high-speed system in which protein molecules are relied upon to act correctly.

You said you started this thread because you wanted to find a way of explaining the errors. Now all you want to talk about are the successes.

DAVID: Your obvious bias is showing. I accept God despite all the warts you invent. Instead of expressing wonder at all He created, you carefully try and describe faults that don't exist in my mind. I didn't realize how narrow your concepts are.

dhw: The warts are your invention, not mine. It is you who have told us that he tried to correct the mistakes but couldn’t, and has left us to do our best. You know perfectly well that I share your wonderment at all the miracles of life, and I cannot see how my openness to such theistic theories as experimentation, having new ideas, enjoying his creations, giving organisms a free hand to do their own designing, make my concepts narrower than your own belief that your sometimes all-powerful God designs everything, produces errors which he can’t control, and faffs around for 3.X billion years directly designing anything but the one species (plus food supply) that he wants to design.

DAVID: The bold is your total distortion of the points in this discussion I have presented. God does not 'PRODUCE ERRORS'. The problem is they cannot be prevented but can be edited out most of the time. Still your warts. Stick to wonderment with me. The red is your constant humanizing purposes for God we can not validate in any way.

dhw: If God designed a system which produces errors, he produced errors even though he didn’t want to. This is hardly a total distortion.

What a twisted line of thought. The errors are in His system, but that mean He caused them. Errors are accidents of function. If another car runs into yours is that your fault?

dhw: You started the thread hoping to explain the errors, and now that your explanations have created a mass of contradictions, all you want to talk about is what went right instead of what went wrong. I join you in wonderment at the former, but that is no reason for changing the subject. You grumbled at the narrowness of my concepts, and I have listed the broad variety of my concepts. The narrowness of your concepts, and the consequent accumulation of contradictions, is epitomized by your refusal to consider any proposal that endows God with any human attributes, although you agree that he probably has thought patterns and attributes similar to ours.

I'm sorry if I finally opened your mind to another aspect of God's biology. The negative reactions on your part are your confusion about God in general. Of course I look at the positive. That is my view. Your comments are continuously negative.