Miscellany (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, August 31, 2021, 14:47 (351 days ago) @ David Turell

Part One


On 4th August David rejected instructions and emphatically agreed to autonomy.

DAVID: So I'll change it to they act as if autonomous.

dhw: And so now you are saying, no, that is not what he did. He planted instructions on how to create each new antibody for each new future threat (the first “portion”, which you had emphatically rejected). You are making a mockery not only of language but also of your own arguments, as you have done in the sections on time and on evolution.

DAVID: You always twist my statements. You know full well I believe God game cells the instructions of how to take action.

I am not twisting your statements! You are simply contradicting your own statements, as you frequently do when you realize that they run counter to your earlier beliefs, e.g all the quotes about us mimicking God, God having human attributes, and God enjoying creation and being interested in watching his creations. Now we have your agreement that God did not plant instructions but gave cells the ability to make their own decisions and form new antibodies without his intervention – but 4 weeks later he planted instructions.

Rethinking brain organization
DAVID: As a living organ the neurons of a specific area can recruit any and all of the brain as required when the neurons recognize the current task at hand. That has to be seen as superb design.

dhw: Yes, it’s just like a colony of ants recognizing new tasks and responding by taking on different roles. Yet more evidence of the (perhaps God-given) intelligence of cells.

DAVID: Our brain neurons have marvelous instructions in their genomes to produce this result.

dhw: Marvellous indeed if the way to deal with every single new task was either preprogrammed 3.8 billion years ago or entailed God having to pop in every time to issue new instructions. How about considering the possibility that he gave cells the ability/intelligence to tackle each task autonomously – as you agreed so emphatically a few weeks ago?

DAVID: Cleared up above: "DAVID: So I'll change it to they act as if autonomous."

Why do you refuse to contemplate the POSSIBILITY that they ARE autonomous, as you agreed, so emphatically four weeks ago?

New amphibious whale
DAVID: But note the rapid jaw changes in advance of actually hunting on land. Doesn't that suggest purposeful planning from a theistic viewpoint?

dhw: I think that is highly misleading. The transitional period would have entailed an initial combination of eating in the water and on land, but once the tetrapod started spending more of its time on land, the evolution of its jaws would have accelerated very quickly in order to improve the new method of survival. Surely if your God had done it, there would have been no need for jaws to evolve “faster than the rest of the body” – he would have simply performed the whole "redesigning" operation in one go. Or do you think he kept popping in to make improvements?

DAVID: What made your bolded statement work naturally quickly? We don't have any intermediates to show us how, just an existing fossil of a transitional form with the usual gaps in form. I turn to God as the driver of change and you to nature. Since intense design is required, I'll stick with God.

dhw: It’s a miracle that even this transitional form has been found, but you seem to think that there should be a fossil for every single change in every single organ in every single organism! The alternatives you have given – God versus nature – are misleading. You know perfectly well that my alternative to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme for whale changes, or his regular visits to perform one operation after another, is intelligent cells (possibly designed by your God) responding to the needs of the moment. Once the animal had settled on land, of course the relevant cells would have made the relevant and rapid adjustments to its eating mechanisms. These were essential for its survival.

DAVID: The problem is the gaps in form in our fossil series. I agree. But I see the marked reasons for intense design for each major stage, which keeps you agnostic. I've made a decision, you haven't is our only real difference.

You are conflating two completely different discussions. It is the complexities of life that help to keep me agnostic, but not the process of evolution. You do not need to add the words “marked” and “intense” to the word “design”: I propose that both minor stages and major stages of development require design, but I dispute the argument that every single one of them, plus every single natural wonder and econiche and lifestyle requires a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme or a personal dabble by your God, especially in view of your theory that every single change was geared to the design of humans and their food. The design could have been carried out by intelligent cells, whose complexities are such that they may well have been designed by your God. This is one of the alternative theistic theories you find perfectly logical but reject because they are different from yours.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum