Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Monday, April 19, 2021, 18:08 (229 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, April 19, 2021, 18:32

dhw: I’m afraid terms like “humanized” and “second-hand” do not offer one iota of logic to contradict my theory or to explain why you think your God could not have invented such a mechanism.

To have an inventive mechanism, it must have the ability to abstractly plan for the future actions of the new form. As before, as a designer myself, I can tell you it is much easier to do it yourself. I did not tell the architects a verbal design, I did the design. Much faster and I ended p with exactly what was desired.

DAVID (under “dimmer switch”): We see genes exert controls. We don't know how they do it. The results are logical and appear designed. How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves. Not naturally. God had to design them that way, by giving them the proper required information.

dhw: I like your question, and thank you for at last acknowledging that cells are intelligent (though no doubt you will withdraw that in your next post).

DAVID: Please read carefully. The bold clearly tells us God coded intelligent actions into cells.

dhw: Prophecy fulfilled. “How did the cells get so intelligent by themselves” and “God had to design them that way” clearly tells us that God designed their intelligence.

God just gave them intelligent instructional information which they decoded/followed and therefore looked as if they were intelligent.

dhw: I don’t know why you have to drag “information” into the discussion.

DAVID: Because cells and resulting emergent life run/runs on God-given information to guide them.

dhw: What sort of information are you talking about? If it’s to guide them, is this your “instructional” information? Why don’t you just say God gave cells instructions on what to do in every single situation that might arise for the rest of life’s history, and they are all automatons? The exact opposite of “so intelligent”!

You are confused. I am presenting only God's intelligent information cells follow..


DAVID: Photosynthesis is so complex we are still picking apart steps we don't understand. As in origin of life it seems obvious design is required since there is no time for a Darwin style evolution caused by a series of random mutations.

dhw: I do wish you wouldn’t keep sniping at Darwin, whose random mutations theory was applied to speciation – i.e. Chapter Two of life. I have no problem with your design argument, but what has time got to do with it? We are talking about millions of millions of years! How can anyone know how long it ought to take for such a process to evolve?

You forget I snip at Darwinists who are confused about how little Darwin knew when he wrote his book bringing to the fore the concept of common descent, an idea that had been floating around for some time. As for photosynthesis, highly complex, appearing so early after the start of life, its new short appearance timing discovery startled the Darwinist researchers who recognize it is strong evidence against random mutation as a cause. So timing has a lot to do with it. The article shows their surprise.

You seem to forget I have to present information from Darwinist articles, my only possible source for it. I have to counter their theist conclusions to stay in my belief system. As you have described our differing positions even today, it is obvious we are in two different universes of thought in which part of your approach is to present a weakened form of God, as above, with you having God give up control of direct designing. It is your obvious approach of describing a less purposeful God one who is continuously described as quite human in thought pattern. It is more direct to accept what God did and assume it was entirely purposeful and recognize it was fully intended without wondering about God's self-enjoyment or self-satisfaction, or self-aggrandizement. The full theistic view is God does not need any of that. Does God enjoy creating? Allegorically, yes, or He might not create, but God does not require enjoyment, so it is an allegorical 'yes'. I am not sure you will understand the nuance of difference.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum