More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Saturday, October 30, 2021, 15:37 (28 days ago) @ dhw

Chimps /'r’/ not us

DAVID: I have said what God designed mimics Darwin's common descent. And it does. God started with very simple one-celled animals containing a menagerie of biochemical processes all acting in concert creating their living state. From that point He designed more complex phenotypes and on occasion jumped ahead in form type creating Darwin's and Gould's gaps. I'm sorry you are stuck in Darwin quicksand theory.

I answered this yesterday:
dhw: Why “mimics”? If he took existing organisms and added new bits and pieces, we still have common descent. It’s only when you switch to species without precursors that you abandon common descent...
And then I referred you back to your gross contradiction, which was that humans were directly descended from bacteria, but were not directly descended from bacteria because they were directly descended from Cambrian species which had no precursors.

The word 'directly' creates an issue for you. Our human biochemistry comes directly from bacteria. When Darwin lamented about the Cambrian gap he could only view evolution by changing forms. I see God the designer creating the forms based upon the underlying processes creating life. It is interesting that you are trying a twisted subterfuge about the Cambrian gap as a gross contradiction. It acts as proof of as designer, remember, since the Edicaran precursors are so simple in form as compared to the Cambrian animals. Straw man foolishness.


Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: My view of God's personality makes my theories entirely logical.

dhw: Do please tell us exactly what is your view of your God’s “personality”, as it seems to vary from month to month.

I'll simply repeat my constant view of His personality: Purposeful with active goals achieved in full control. As shown by the history He created. Logical in His own way. Loving? Clearly aware of probable errors in life's system He created.


DAVID: Your view of God seriously humanizes His supposed thoughts invented by you.

Idhw: offer different views, which are no more “supposed” and “invented” and “humanized” than yours, but have the great advantage of logically explaining the course of evolution, as you admit.

Same twist: I only admit your form of a humanized God makes your theories about evolution logical for you.


DAVID: We start with diametrically opposed God images/personalities. Of course we won't agree. My explanation which satisfies me is God did exactly what He wanted and needed to do. I accept God's history as proof.

dhw: We actually agree that if God exists, he would have done exactly what he wanted to do, and in each of my alternatives, I have explained precisely how he might have done what he needed to do in order to achieve what he wanted to do. There is no “diametrically opposed” image of God here. The history shows a vast bush of life forms and foods, extinct and extant. What is that proof of? Nothing. It is the theories about how and why it exists/existed that require proof, and your own theories are so full of logical holes that you tell me to go and ask God to fill them for you!

Doesn't answer my point. The Gods we each imagine are vastly different as shown by what you have your version of God doing: experimenting, spectating, handing off secondhand designing, allowing free-for-all evolution, no goal in sight. Doesn't explain us in any way.


Secret life of cells
QUOTE: Because these tools can reveal structures that have never been seen before, researchers are often left with new mysteries to solve. “What I love about tomography”, Villa says, “is that we always generate more questions than answers.”

DAVID: It makes sense of my view that life's processes are entirely automatic reactions and decisions, designed by God at life's first appearance.

dhw: I can almost hear a collective gasp of astonishment. Apparently there are new mysteries, and therefore all reactions and decisions are automatic and programmed from the very beginning of life by your God. Since you set so much store on recognition by science (see the entries on cellular intelligence) I wonder what reception you would get if you gave a lecture on the subject to your scientist colleagues.

Agreement.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum