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

by dhw, Monday, September 14, 2020, 13:52 (402 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Your history of my stream of consciousness ignores present thought, which is all that counts.

dhw: By tomorrow the present will be the past. Your present explanation for your God’s failure to provide successful backups to correct disease-causing errors is that I shouldn’t look on the bleak side but should consider the successes. I hope that by tomorrow you will have realized that this is not a very satisfactory explanation. [Hopes dashed! - dhw]

DAVID: The bleak outlook is yours, not mine. Your overwhelming bias is showing. I am extremely pleased with how God has handled the problem.
The failure in editing is extremely minimal. I’m very pleased with how God has handled this problem. You aren't it seems.

You have drawn our attention to what you call “errors”, and have tried to explain them. You want us to forget the mess you made of evolutionary errors, because now they don’t count any more. And you drew our attention to disease-causing errors, but now you want us to forget the diseases and only think of all God’s successes. (I'm surprised that during a worldwide pandemic and at a time when cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, motor neurone disease etc. are rife, the problem of disease is described as "extremely minimal".) I even offer you an alternative view of what you call the “errors”, which removes the need for you to draw attention to your God’s inability to control the disease-causing errors, but this is dismissed. Your only response now, when I point out that you have NOT explained the errors you drew our attention to, is that my view is bleak and is:

DAVID: Total biased view. God has done a miraculous job of editing. I'm very pleased with what He has done.

What is this accusation of bias based on? I am as pleased as you about the successes, and I share your wonderment at the miracle of life, but that is not the subject you drew our attention to on this thread! Neither of us has a problem with everything that goes well. You felt the need to explain errors that led to evolution and errors that led to disease. I don’t know why you think I’m biased just because I drew attention to flaws in your initial reasoning (subsequently acknowledged) and then object when you try to change the subject from errors your God can’t prevent or control to all his successes.

dhw: Once more: you say he didn’t WANT the “errors” and tried to correct them. I suggest he wanted the molecules to have their freedom – not as “errors” but as the very foundations of evolution, producing the huge variety of life forms (including nasty ones) that make up life’s history.

DAVID: A biased theory to have God give up some controls. Not my view of God.

You stick rigidly to your fixed belief, and reject an alternative for no reason other than the fact that it is different from your fixed belief, and apparently this makes me biased!

DAVID: I have covered the problem of errors to my satisfaction. Editing works extremely well. As for the best living system available we have it as previously stated: "I think a more complex system of molecular controls using more chaperoning molecules would have been too cumbersome resulting in reactions that were too slow for the high speed results required in life."

I have understood that you don’t think any other system is possible, i.e. that your God had no choice, could not prevent the errors, but did his best to control them, and was very successful most of the time. But as above, you do not solve the problem by telling me not to think about it, and then accusing me of bleakness and bias because I want to stick to the subject you have – perhaps inadvertently – raised.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum