Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 10, 2021, 15:39 (74 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You are playing word games. The bold is correct, with ABILITY referring to onboard instructions.

dhw: It is you who are playing word games. I gave you alternatives: instructions (the first “portion of my comment”) versus autonomous ability. You chose the ability to recognize new problems and to provide solutions “de novo”, and you therefore rejected instructions.

More confusion. The immune cells have a God-given ability to recognize invaders and a God- given ability to make antibodies to fight them. Thus they can do it autonomously becasue of God's instructions designed into them. I believe we may be saying the same thing.


dhw: Even if your God designed the major changes, their purpose (e.g. turning legs into flippers) was to improve the organism’s chances of survival. These changes ARE speciation, and so….yet again…it is absurd to say that changes made in order to improve chances of survival have no connection with speciation.

DAVID: Survival is not proven to lead to speciation!!~!!!

dhw: I keep repeating that it is the QUEST for survival that leads to the changes in anatomy which ARE speciation, no matter how many exclamation marks you use.

I'm delighted only you know how speciation occurs. When is your breakthrough book coming out?


Retinal design allows prediction of movement
dhw: I have responded to two different arguments. I have proposed that different degrees of vision etc. evolved gradually (you claim that retinal design had to be instant), and I have proposed that evolutionary changes (legs into flippers) evolved AS A RESULT of new requirements, whereas you claim they were created IN ANTICIPATION of new requirements.

DAVID: Yes we have different interpretations.

dhw: So do you believe that your God specially and instantly designed every degree of vision, or did degrees of vision appear gradually in different life forms? Thank you for confirming your belief that your God designs all major mutations before they are required (e.g. legs are turned into flippers before pre-whales enter the water). I wonder how many even of your ID-ers would support your theory.

Irreducible complexity is their confirming theory.


Back to theodicy: fixing genome mistakes
DAVID: And my answer is the human impression of bad bacteria may be a mistaken human impression of bacteria acting in the wrong place. Bacteria started life and are very important in their current roles.

dhw: I don’t deny the latter. Your solution to the mystery of theodicy now seems to be the pious hope that all the terrible diseases caused by bad bacteria are a mistaken human impression. Unless…now, here’s a thought…by “bacteria acting in the wrong place” you mean that your all-powerful, all-knowing, always well-intentioned God actually gave bacteria the freedom to act independently and autonomously in a great free-for-all…

DAVID: Bacteria are not corralled, but are everywhere by design.

dhw: How does that explain your well-intentioned God’s direct design of those which he knew would cause untold harm to other life forms?

That is why we have God-given brains to solve those problems. In your statement I would use 'could' for you bolded 'would'.


Neil Thomas
DAVID: I've found on page 55, I think, a strong objection to Darwin splitting the subject into two parts and ignored the origin of life to concentrate then on only evolution as if they were not obviously fully connected issues. More later.

dhw: I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the mechanisms of evolution without saying how those mechanisms came into being. You can explain how a motor engine works without giving the history of its origins, and in any case, Darwin himself allows for God as the creator of the mechanisms he describes.

DAVID: The splitting avoids God immediately.

dhw: Of course it doesn’t. Describing how a motor engine works does not immediately avoid the fact that it was invented by an intelligent mind. As above (and ignored by you), even Darwin, in later editions of Origin, refers to the Creator as the originator of the mechanisms.

Funny that Thomas and I reach the same conclusion you would try to avoid. Your rigid mindset is showing. Darwin's modifications show his response to the backlash he experienced, chronicled at great length by Thomas.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum