More "miscellany" PART TWO (General)

by David Turell @, Tuesday, November 29, 2022, 17:15 (486 days ago) @ dhw

PART TWO

dhw: And Dawkins still believes that humans can embrace naturalism, not God. Still pots and kettles!

DAVID: I will never enter your pot of disbelief and tortured attempts at theism.

dhw: My pot is not of “disbelief”. I offer theistic theories – all of which you agree are logical – as opposed to your own illogical ones, which apparently only God can understand. I think the “torture” is yours not mine.

You exhibit the same rigidity as Dawkins.


QUANTUM MECHANICS RULE LIFE

QUOTE: […] it’s all but certain that every aspect of the Universe, particles and fields alike, are themselves quantum in nature. What that means for reality, exactly, is something we’re still trying to puzzle out."

dhw: This is no answer to the question of what is “real”, and ignores the quotation at the head of this section.

DAVID: I can't find a question.

The question is what so-called quantum “reality” has to do with the everyday realities we are all familiar with. I shall continue to believe in the reality I know, and will leave it to others to work out how the mysterious processes of quantum reality "rule life". I would advise everyone else to do the same!:-)

Some of us are interested in what lies beneath our reality and creates it.


Birth canal and tooth development

DAVID: So your cruel Godless approach would allow so many deaths, while my kindly God prepared all for safe pregnancy.

dhw: So who’s “humanizing” now? My approach is not godless or cruel. If he exists and gives his invention the freedom to develop its own designs, then you have an explanation for the good and the bad. An analogy would be if a man chooses to murder his neighbour, would you say God is cruel? And in the context of childbirth, which even today can be fraught with problems, do you really believe there would have been none at all back in the good old days of our ancestors?

Any design requires a mechanism as large as God's mind. Organisms never had it.


Human evolution: a fossil with unknown DNA

DAVID: And as it advances the Cambrian gap is more sharpy defined.

dhw: Apparently not, if the latest research reveals genomic links. It’s you who stress that these are the most important ones to establish common descent!

Thank you for finally recognizing the Cambrian gap in form is not a gap in living biochemistry as in the genomes.


DAVID: […] What seems to be a pattern is when a type of animal appears it spreads out into many species, as dinosaurs, whales, birds, etc. show. But in this case only one remains after a burst of forms. Chance or guided by God?

dhw: […] as usual I would like to challenge the basic premise of your question. If your God gave organisms the autonomous ability to design their own responses to different conditions, the process of evolution would be neither by chance nor by God’s guidance

DAVID: Same response: "The best example to discuss is dinosaurs.”

dhw: You repeat the irrelevant example of the dinosaur that was not a dead end. And you ignore my final point, now bolded.

Any design requires a mechanism as large as God's mind. Organisms never had it. God creates all of His intentions, including planned dead ends


Immunity system complexity: defenses in bacteria

DAVID: If we descended from bacteria, of course our immune systems would look alike. I assume the start of life included viruses. If so, the original bacteria had to appear with these mechanisms on board by design.

dhw: This inevitably poses the question of why your God designed those viruses (and those bacteria) that attack bacteria (and us). Theodicy raises its ugly head again. And again the problem is solved by the theistic theory of a free-for-all in which all kinds of intelligences wage war on one another but also – hurray for Lynn Margulis! – cooperate with one another.

Same old dog-eat-dog world. Designed by God.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum