https://www.sciencenews.org/article/antimatter-hydrogen-atoms-quantum-quirk-lamb-shift-...

"Atoms of antimatter and matter are perfect mirror images, even when weird quantum phenomena come into play.

"The energy levels of antihydrogen atoms — the antimatter opposites of hydrogen atoms — are altered by a quantum effect called the Lamb shift, just as hydrogen atoms are, physicists report February 19 in Nature.

"Hydrogen atoms can exist in several states of higher and lower energy, known as energy levels. Some subtle quantum effects slightly alter those energy levels. One such tweak — the Lamb shift — surprised physicists when it was reported in hydrogen atoms in 1947. That discovery helped scientists form the theory of quantum electrodynamics, which describes how light interacts with electrically charged particles. The Lamb shift results from flighty particles that, according to quantum electrodynamics, appear and disappear constantly, even in empty space.

"Now, the Lamb shift has been spotted in antihydrogen atoms too. The energy shift is about the same size as in hydrogen atoms, report researchers with the ALPHA experiment (SN: 12/19/16). Located at the particle physics lab CERN in Geneva, ALPHA also revealed a tweak known as fine-structure splitting. That effect occurs in hydrogen, too, and results from spin-orbit coupling, an interaction between the electron’s movement within the atom and a quantum property called spin.

"According to physicists’ current understanding, matter and antimatter atoms should have the same energy levels, based on a principle called charge-parity-time, or CPT, symmetry. This symmetry means that physics would remain the same if the universe were reflected in a mirror, all antiparticles swapped with particles, and if time ran backward.

"So far, physicists have never discovered a case where CPT symmetry is violated. But, says physicist Jeffrey Hangst of Aarhus University in Denmark, spokesperson for the ALPHA collaboration, “you can never be sure until you actually check.'”

Comment: Why matter and little antim atter. New finding s by still now real understanding.

https://gizmodo.com/antimatter-looks-surprisingly-like-regular-matter-1790279870

"Scientists learned something crazy about antimatter this morning: it turns out, as far as we can tell, it looks like an exact mirror image of regular matter.

***

"Physics theory says that every particle has an antiparticle, so for each negatively-charged electron there’s a positively charged positron, and for each positively-charged proton there’s a negatively charged antiproton. If an antiparticle meets its anti-partner, the two particles annihilate each other in a burst of energy.

"Antiparticles definitely exist. Certain atoms spit out positrons during the natural process of radioactive decay, and the Earth often gets smacked by antiparticles from outside the solar system the form of cosmic rays.

"The Antihydrogen Laser Physics Apparatus, or ALPHA experiment at CERN (the lab with the 17-mile-round Large Hadron Collider in Geneva, Switzerland) makes and captures antihydrogen. Antihydrogen is basically the next level of antimatter, a positron orbiting an antiproton, the same way an electron orbits a proton in regular hydrogen. The ALPHA folks captured 14 or so antihydrogen atoms per trial, and blasted them with a laser. The antihydrogen atom absorbed the laser light, then let off a specific colored photon—one of the same particles of light that regular hydrogen atoms would have spit out.

"The results, which are published today in the journal Nature, represent the very first time physicists have measured a light spectra for antihydrogen.

"According to Tim Tharp, an Assistant Research Professor at Marquette University in Wisconsin who works on ALPHA, the finding is significant. “It’s long been thought that antimatter is an exact reflection of matter, and we are gathering evidence to show that is indeed true,” he told Gizmodo.

"Hydrogen still has a whole spectrum of colors that ALPHA scientists would want to compare with anti-hydrogen, says Tharp. But if matter and antimatter really end up looking like exact mirror images, it would add to one of the universe’s biggest mysteries. There’s a lot more regular matter than antimatter, and folks are trying to understand why. (This would be easier to explain if matter and antimatter were less similar.)"

Comment: Still no answers

DAVID: Of course I have no idea. God does what He desires and He has certainly done well by us. You want to understand God, and I know we can't. That is why we differ.

dhw:But it is you who keep presenting a fixed view of God’s thoughts: “My one goal is to design H. sapiens. I have decided to spend 3.X billion years not designing him. Therefore I have to design lots of non-human life forms to provide a food supply until I have covered the time I have decided to take before I start designing lots of non-sapiens hominins and homos, finishing up with H. sapiens.” I merely offer an alternative version: “I want to create a vast variety of living forms, and so I shall invent a mechanism whereby organisms will reproduce, change themselves to fit in with a variety of conditions, and live and die in a continuously changing process.” You could even add: “And I like the idea of a special life form that will be able to think about me and itself and ask all sort of questions and make all sorts of inventions. I can always do a dabble if I feel like it, but let’s see what happens naturally.”

Why should your version of his thoughts, which you find incomprehensible, be more valid than mine, which fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it?

Yes, you fit history in your humanizing approach to God's personality. My approach is very different as you know

dhw: (re mass extinctions:) Again, one can’t help wondering whether your always-in-control God deliberately destroyed all those species and, if so why, according to you, he specially designed them all in the first place if his only goal was humans. Alternatively, he did not cause the extinctions, in which case he was not always in control. So did he or didn’t he control the environmental changes that triggered evolutionary change?

DAVID: There were at least six mass extinctions according to my recent entry. God may well have used them to control the course of evolution. I view Him as totally in charge.

dhw: “Totally in charge” would have to mean he engineered every single environmental change that triggered every single new life form.

Since He created the universe and the Earth and evolved them, He may well have controlled all the environmental changes.

DAVID: The questions you ask about God have no answers that we can know to be true.

We all know that! We can’t even “know” if he exists!

DAVID: Remember, God is purposely concealed, which bugs you as you can't know Him at a human level, and you want to. That desire in impossible to satisfy.

dhw: It needn’t stop us from distinguishing between logical and illogical speculations.

They become illogical if God is humanized, your constant approach.

DAVID: Free will is not the same level as God running evolution. We can affect life on Earth by what we create on Earth, but we cannot evolve life as God does.

dhw: I keep giving free will only as an example of your God giving up control.

My dog runs to the barn using his free will. God is not in control at that level. My walking to the barn by free will means God is not involved, but God is still fully in control of evolution! What God gave up is very minor, not the major point you are trying to make about degree of control of the universe, the Earth, and evolution.

DAVID: Of course I have no idea. God does what He desires and He has certainly done well by us. You want to understand God, and I know we can't. That is why we differ.

But it is you who keep presenting a fixed view of God’s thoughts: “My one goal is to design H. sapiens. I have decided to spend 3.X billion years not designing him. Therefore I have to design lots of non-human life forms to provide a food supply until I have covered the time I have decided to take before I start designing lots of non-sapiens hominins and homos, finishing up with H. sapiens.” I merely offer an alternative version: “I want to create a vast variety of living forms, and so I shall invent a mechanism whereby organisms will reproduce, change themselves to fit in with a variety of conditions, and live and die in a continuously changing process.” You could even add: “And I like the idea of a special life form that will be able to think about me and itself and ask all sort of questions and make all sorts of inventions. I can always do a dabble if I feel like it, but let’s see what happens naturally.”
Why should your version of his thoughts, which you find incomprehensible, be more valid than mine, which fits in perfectly with the history of life as we know it?

dhw: (re mass extinctions:) Again, one can’t help wondering whether your always-in-control God deliberately destroyed all those species and, if so why, according to you, he specially designed them all in the first place if his only goal was humans. Alternatively, he did not cause the extinctions, in which case he was not always in control. So did he or didn’t he control the environmental changes that triggered evolutionary change?

DAVID: There were at least six mass extinctions according to my recent entry. God may well have used them to control the course of evolution. I view Him as totally in charge.

“Totally in charge” would have to mean he engineered every single environmental change that triggered every single new life form.

DAVID: The questions you ask about God have no answers that we can know to be true.

We all know that! We can’t even “know” if he exists!

DAVID: Remember, God is purposely concealed, which bugs you as you can't know Him at a human level, and you want to. That desire in impossible to satisfy.

It needn’t stop us from distinguishing between logical and illogical speculations.

DAVID: God is my designer.

dhw: Perfectly understandable: he may have designed an autonomous mechanism instead of directly designing every life form, lifestyle, natural wonder, and let’s not forget bacterial responses to every situation they may encounter throughout life’s history.

DAVID: Forgetting my God is in charge and would have given such a mechanism guidelines.

dhw: Your “guidelines” have always meant nothing but preprogramming or direct dabbling – the direct opposite of autonomy. “Being in charge” is one of your weasel expressions. Your God would still have been “in charge” if he had decided to invent a mechanism that could make its own decisions (as you acknowledge with your firm belief in human free will). He could always intervene if he wanted to.

DAVID: Free will is not the same level as God running evolution. We can affect life on Earth by what we create on Earth, but we cannot evolve life as God does.

I keep giving free will only as an example of your God giving up control.

DAVID: My God is not incomprehensible to me, only to your humanized concept of God. My logical explanation of what happened is God chose to evolve humans, and didn't care about the time it took.

dhw: But according to you, evolve = specially design, and according to you he also chose to evolve (= specially design) every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life! And according to you, H. sapiens was his one and only goal, and you wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?” – which I take to mean you have no idea why your God chose to spend 3.X billion years specially designing the bush before he specially designed H. sapiens. If you have no idea, I would suggest that this theory of yours is incomprehensible to you.

Of course I have no idea. God does what He desires and He has certainly done well by us. You want to understand God, and I know we can't. That is whny we differ.

DAVID: Further I have shown you that God has evolved everything He created, universe, Earth, life, and you have never commented on that point of evidence as to God's methods.

dhw: I have no quarrel at all with the theory that if God exists, he “evolved” all the above! My quarrel, for the umpteenth time, is with your theory that he did it all in order to produce H. sapiens! I much prefer your suggestion under “Natural Wonders & Evolution” that he “evolved” (which to you means specially designed) all the above, including the bush of life, which includes humans, to satisfy his wants and desires.

God knew what He desired when He began the process of evolution and knew he had to create the bush to support an energy supply while He took so many years to evolve us as the final point of His work.

dhw: In this context, and in relation to the two extinctions you have drawn our attention to today (for which many thanks), you wrote: “… obviously a very stable environment is of most importance, for life to survive. The Earth has many protecting feed-back cycles.” Again, one can’t help wondering whether your always-in-control God deliberately destroyed all those species and, if so why, according to you, he specially designed them all in the first place if his only goal was humans. Alternatively, he did not cause the extinctions, in which case he was not always in control. So did he or didn’t he control the environmental changes that triggered evolutionary change?

There were at least six mass extinctions according to my recent entry. God may well have used them to control the course of evolution. I view Him as totally in charge. The questions you ask about God have no answers that we can know to be true. Remember, God is purposely concealed, which bugs you as you can't know Him at a human level, and you want to. That desire in impossible to satisfy.

DAVID: Your version of my God is bumbling […]

DAVID: God is my designer.

dhw: Perfectly understandable: he may have designed an autonomous mechanism instead of directly designing every life form, lifestyle, natural wonder, and let’s not forget bacterial responses to every situation they may encounter throughout life’s history.

DAVID: Forgetting my God is in charge and would have given such a mechanism guidelines.

dhw: Your “guidelines” have always meant nothing but preprogramming or direct dabbling – the direct opposite of autonomy. “Being in charge” is one of your weasel expressions. Your God would still have been “in charge” if he had decided to invent a mechanism that could make its own decisions (as you acknowledge with your firm belief in human free will). He could always intervene if he wanted to.

Free will is not the the same level as God running evolution. We can affect life on Earth by what we create on Earth, but we cannot evolve life as God does.

DAVID: No answer to my point God is always in full control.

dhw: No answer to my suggestion that he may have deliberately given up control in order to satisfy his wants and desires (as you acknowledge with your firm belief in human free will).

Our free will makes only local changes on Earth, so we cannot do what God does. The climate change worriers worry over nothing they can control.

But according to you, evolve = specially design, and according to you he also chose to evolve (= specially design) every other life form, lifestyle and natural wonder in the history of life! And according to you, H. sapiens was his one and only goal, and you wrote: “Haven’t you realized by now, I have no idea why God chose to evolve humans over time?” – which I take to mean you have no idea why your God chose to spend 3.X billion years specially designing the bush before he specially designed H. sapiens. If you have no idea, I would suggest that this theory of yours is incomprehensible to you.

DAVID: Further I have shown you that God has evolved everything He created, universe, Earth, life, and you have never commented on that point of evidence as to God's methods.

I have no quarrel at all with the theory that if God exists, he “evolved” all the above! My quarrel, for the umpteenth time, is with your theory that he did it all in order to produce H. sapiens! I much prefer your suggestion under “Natural Wonders & Evolution” that he “evolved” (which to you means specially designed) all the above, including the bush of life, which includes humans, to satisfy his wants and desires.

In this context, and in relation to the two extinctions you have drawn our attention to today (for which many thanks), you wrote: “… obviously a very stable environment is of most importance, for life to survive. The Earth has many protecting feed-back cycles.” Again, one can’t help wondering whether your always-in-control God deliberately destroyed all those species and, if so why, according to you, he specially designed them all in the first place if his only goal was humans. Alternatively, he did not cause the extinctions, in which case he was not always in control. So did he or didn’t he control the environmental changes that triggered evolutionary change?

DAVID: Your version of my God is bumbling […]

dhw: […] He only becomes bumbling when you insist that he specially designed every other multicellular organism although the only one he wanted to specially design was H. sapiens.

DAVID: Not bumbling. He is the creator, designer!

It is you who make the creator a bumbler by having him delay fulfilling his one and only purpose for reasons that are incomprehensible to you.

DAVID: God is my designer.

dhw: Perfectly understandable: he may have designed an autonomous mechanism instead of directly designing every life form, lifestyle, natural wonder, and let’s not forget bacterial responses to every situation they may encounter throughout life’s history.

DAVID: Forgetting my God is in charge and would have given such a mechanism guidelines.

dhw: Your “guidelines” have always meant nothing but preprogramming or direct dabbling – the direct opposite of autonomy. “Being in charge” is one of your weasel expressions. Your God would still have been “in charge” if he had decided to invent a mechanism that could make its own decisions (as you acknowledge with your firm belief in human free will). He could always intervene if he wanted to.

DAVID: No answer to my point God is always in full control.

No answer to my suggestion that he may have deliberately given up control in order to satisfy his wants and desires (as you acknowledge with your firm belief in human free will).

DAVID: I have to use human words in describing God's thoughts. We don't have words just for God, and you know that.

dhw: I don’t know why you assume that your God’s thoughts cannot be described in human terms. You have no reason to suppose that his reasons for doing what he did are incomprehensible to humans.

DAVID: Not incomprehensible, but our analysis of God's thoughts are all guesses as to his actual thoughts.

dhw: Yes indeed, but your guess until now has been the fixed belief that he only had one purpose, decided to wait 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil it, and covered the time by specially designing anything but the one form he wanted/desired to design. And you cannot find any logical explanation for such a procedure, which makes it incomprehensible both to you and to me.

Your usual distortion. My God is not incomprehensible to me, only to your humanized concept of God. My logical explanation of what happened is God chose to evolve humans, and didn't care about the time it took. Further I have shown you that God has evolved everything He created, universe, Earth, life, and you have never commented on that point of evidence as to God's methods.

dhw: […] I don’t have him fretting. I have him wanting a bush and getting a bush. You had him wanting a human but having to make a bush because he’d decided to wait a few billion years, though you didn’t know why. A sort of bumbling, can’t-make-up-his-mind God – or a God that knew what he wanted but couldn’t work out how to do it.

DAVID: Your version of my God is bumbling, but that is because your view of my God is so garbled. My God knows exactly what he is doing and is full of purposeful creative activity, and chose to evolve humans. God's works tell us that.

dhw: If I believed in God, he would certainly know what he is doing and be full of purposeful activity, and since I believe evolution happened, I would agree that he “chose” to evolve humans, just as he chose to evolve every other multicellular organism that has ever lived on this planet. He only becomes bumbling when you insist that he specially designed every other multicellular organism although the only one he wanted to specially design was H. sapiens.

Not bumbling. He is the creator, designer!

DAVID: God is my designer.

dhw: Perfectly understandable: he may have designed an autonomous mechanism instead of directly designing every life form, lifestyle, natural wonder, and let’s not forget bacterial responses to every situation they may encounter throughout life’s history.

DAVID: Forgetting my God is in charge and would have given such a mechanism guidelines.

dhw: Your “guidelines” have always meant nothing but preprogramming or direct dabbling – the direct opposite of autonomy. “Being in charge” is one of your weasel expressions. Your God would still have been “in charge” if he had decided to invent a mechanism that could make its own decisions (as you acknowledge with your firm belief in human free will). He could always intervene if he wanted to.

No answer to my point God is always in full control

dhw: I don’t know why you assume that your God’s thoughts cannot be described in human terms. You have no reason to suppose that his reasons for doing what he did are incomprehensible to humans.

DAVID: Not incomprehensible, but our analysis of God's thoughts are all guesses as to his actual thoughts.

Yes indeed, but your guess until now has been the fixed belief that he only had one purpose, decided to wait 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil it, and covered the time by specially designing anything but the one form he wanted/desired to design. And you cannot find any logical explanation for such a procedure, which makes it incomprehensible both to you and to me.

dhw: […] I don’t have him fretting. I have him wanting a bush and getting a bush. You had him wanting a human but having to make a bush because he’d decided to wait a few billion years, though you didn’t know why. A sort of bumbling, can’t-make-up-his-mind God – or a God that knew what he wanted but couldn’t work out how to do it.

DAVID: Your version of my God is bumbling, but that is because your view of my God is so garbled. My God knows exactly what he is doing and is full of purposeful creative activity, and chose to evolve humans. God's works tell us that.

If I believed in God, he would certainly know what he is doing and be full of purposeful activity, and since I believe evolution happened, I would agree that he “chose” to evolve humans, just as he chose to evolve every other multicellular organism that has ever lived on this planet. He only becomes bumbling when you insist that he specially designed every other multicellular organism although the only one he wanted to specially design was H. sapiens.

DAVID: God is my designer.

dhw: Perfectly understandable: he may have designed an autonomous mechanism instead of directly designing every life form, lifestyle, natural wonder, and let’s not forget bacterial responses to every situation they may encounter throughout life’s history.

DAVID: Forgetting my God is in charge and would have given such a mechanism guidelines.

Your “guidelines” have always meant nothing but preprogramming or direct dabbling – the direct opposite of autonomy. “Being in charge” is one of your weasel expressions. Your God would still have been “in charge” if he had decided to invent a mechanism that could make its own decisions (as you acknowledge with your firm belief in human free will). He could always intervene if he wanted to.

DAVID: Final thought: For weeks you have repeated the same complaint using a humanized concept of God, while I follow the well-accepted advice of Adler who is a philosopher of theology. Do you have any new thoughts?

dhw: No, but I’m delighted to see that you do, as is clear from your post under “Natural Wonders & Evolution”. We are making progress.

DAVID: Not so clear.

Well, you’re doing your best to muddy the waters again after you’d you cleared them in your post under “Natural Wonders & Evolution”.

DAVID: Once again, I don't question God's choices. I assume reality as God's works and the results are his choices. My God didn't worry about the time taken as He is timeless. You humanized God seems to fret about everything.

dhw: Once again, you don’t question your INTERPRETATION of God’s choices. He didn’t worry (how very human of him) about the time taken…Well of course not, because according to you he actually decided not to start fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, though you have no idea why.

DAVID: I have to use human words in describing God's thoughts. We don't have words just for God, and you know that.

dhw: I don’t know why you assume that your God’s thoughts cannot be described in human terms. You have no reason to suppose that his reasons for doing what he did are incomprehensible to humans.

Not incomprehensible, but our analysis of God's thoughts are all guesses as to his actual thoughts.

dhw: However, under “Natural Wonders and Evolution” we have at last established that H. sapiens was not his one and only purpose, so we can forget this whole business of him deciding to wait 3.X billion years. He wanted or desired a bush. And no, no, no, I don’t have him fretting. I have him wanting a bush and getting a bush. You had him wanting a human but having to make a bush because he’d decided to wait a few billion years, though you didn’t know why. A sort of bumbling, can’t-make-up-his-mind God – or a God that knew what he wanted but couldn’t work out how to do it.

Your version of my God is bumbling, but that is because your view of my God is so garbled. My God knows exactly what he is doing and is full of purposeful creative activity, and chose to evolve humans. God's works tell us that.

DAVID: God is my designer.

dhw: Perfectly understandable: he may have designed an autonomous mechanism instead of directly designing every life form, lifestyle, natural wonder, and let’s not forget bacterial responses to every situation they may encounter throughout life’s history.

Forgetting my God is in charge and would have given such a mechanism guidelines.

DAVID: Final thought: For weeks you have repeated the same complaint using a humanized concept of God, while I follow the well-accepted advice of Adler who is a philosopher of theology. Do you have any new thoughts?

dhw: No, but I’m delighted to see that you do, as is clear from your post under “Natural Wonders & Evolution”. We are making progress.

Not so clear.

dhw: Once again, you don’t question your INTERPRETATION of God’s choices. He didn’t worry (how very human of him) about the time taken…Well of course not, because according to you he actually decided not to start fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, though you have no idea why.

DAVID: I have to use human words in describing God's thoughts. We don't have words just for God, and you know that.

I don’t know why you assume that your God’s thoughts cannot be described in human terms. You have no reason to suppose that his reasons for doing what he did are incomprehensible to humans. However, under “Natural Wonders and Evolution” we have at last established that H. sapiens was not his one and only purpose, so we can forget this whole business of him deciding to wait 3.X billion years. He wanted or desired a bush. And no, no, no, I don’t have him fretting. I have him wanting a bush and getting a bush. You had him wanting a human but having to make a bush because he’d decided to wait a few billion years, though you didn’t know why. A sort of bumbling, can’t-make-up-his-mind God – or a God that knew what he wanted but couldn’t work out how to do it.

DAVID: As for cells making minor adaptations epigenetically , we know God gave them that degree of ability, and we know nothing beyond that as a cause of speciation, which always requires major design changes, something you seem not to appreciate.

Dealt with under “Natural Wonders & Evolution”.

DAVID: God is my designer.

Perfectly understandable: he may have designed an autonomous mechanism instead of directly designing every life form, lifestyle, natural wonder, and let’s not forget bacterial responses to every situation they may encounter throughout life’s history.

DAVID: Final thought: For weeks you have repeated the same complaint using a humanized concept of God, while I follow the well-accepted advice of Adler who is a philosopher of theology. Do you have any new thoughts?

No, but I’m delighted to see that you do, as is clear from your post under “Natural Wonders & Evolution”. We are making progress.

Do you have any new thoughts?

DAVID: I don't try to understand. I simply accept that God does what He wants to do, and He chose to evolve, as you agree to above.

dhw: You “simply accept” your fixed belief that he had only one purpose (H. sapiens), chose to wait 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his purpose, and therefore had to cover the time by specially designing (your interpretation of the evolutionary process) millions of non-human life forms to eat or be eaten by one another. You “cannot understand His choices” means you cannot understand the choice you impose on him with this theory. Now you don’t even try to understand it, because you know as well as I do that it makes no sense...

DAVID:You then turn around and with your humanized God you wonder why HE wanted to wait.

dhw: …and then you try to distract attention from its senselessness by saying that any other explanation which DOES make sense “humanizes” God, as if you know that God can’t possibly think in any way that a human might consider to be logical!

DAVID: Once again, I don't question God's choices. I assume reality as God's works and the results are his choices. My God didn't worry about the time taken as He is timeless. You humanized God seems to fret about everything.

dhw: Once again, you don’t question your INTERPRETATION of God’s choices. He didn’t worry (how very human of him) about the time taken…Well of course not, because according to you he actually decided not to start fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, though you have no idea why.

I have to use human words in describing God's thoughts. We don't have words just for God, and you know that .

Under “doubting Darwin” we have the same problem:

DAVID: My fixed belief is that God made all major design changes for new species.

But you keep insisting that your God also specially designed every natural wonder and every lifestyle and every econiche! And as with cellular intelligence, so too with your fixed belief that your God had only one goal (though see “Natural Wonders & Evolution” for a possible dramatic change in this fixed belief), decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design the rest of life’s bush to cover the time he had decided to take. Your mind would seem to be closed, even though you admit that cells “can” be automatic (and therefore “can” be autonomous), and you have no idea why your God chose the above method of fulfilling his one and only goal.

From above: "Once again, I don't question God's choices. I assume reality as God's works and the results are his choices. My God didn't worry about the time taken as He is timeless. You humanized God seems to fret about everything." As for cells making minor adaptations epigenetically , we know God gave them that degree of ability, and we know nothing beyond that as a cause of speciation, which always requires major design changes, something you seem not to appreciate. God is my designer.

dhw: You can’t explain his choices because you don’t understand them!

DAVID: I don't try to understand. I simply accept that God does what He wants to do, and He chose to evolve, as you agree to above.

dhw: You “simply accept” your fixed belief that he had only one purpose (H. sapiens), chose to wait 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his purpose, and therefore had to cover the time by specially designing (your interpretation of the evolutionary process) millions of non-human life forms to eat or be eaten by one another. You “cannot understand His choices” means you cannot understand the choice you impose on him with this theory. Now you don’t even try to understand it, because you know as well as I do that it makes no sense...

DAVID:You then turn around and with your humanized God you wonder why HE wanted to wait.

dhw: …and then you try to distract attention from its senselessness by saying that any other explanation which DOES make sense “humanizes” God, as if you know that God can’t possibly think in any way that a human might consider to be logical!

DAVID: Once again, I don't question God's choices. I assume reality as God's works and the results are his choices. My God didn't worry about the time taken as He is timeless. You humanized God seems to fret about everything.

Once again, you don’t question your INTERPRETATION of God’s choices. He didn’t worry (how very human of him) about the time taken…Well of course not, because according to you he actually decided not to start fulfilling his one and only purpose for 3.X billion years, though you have no idea why.

Under “doubting Darwin” we have the same problem:

DAVID: My fixed belief is that God made all major design changes for new species.

But you keep insisting that your God also specially designed every natural wonder and every lifestyle and every econiche! And as with cellular intelligence, so too with your fixed belief that your God had only one goal (though see “Natural Wonders & Evolution” for a possible dramatic change in this fixed belief), decided not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years, and therefore had to design the rest of life’s bush to cover the time he had decided to take. Your mind would seem to be closed, even though you admit that cells “can” be automatic (and therefore “can” be autonomous), and you have no idea why your God chose the above method of fulfilling his one and only goal.

dhw: […] if he was always in control and had only one purpose, why did he decide not to fulfil his purpose and therefore had to design millions of other life forms etc.? Here is your answer:
DAVID: […] I cannot read God's mind or understand His choices […]

dhw: You can’t explain his choices because you don’t understand them!

DAVID: I don't try to understand. I simply accept that God does what He wants to do, and He chose to evolve, as you agree to above.

dhw: You “simply accept” your fixed belief that he had only one purpose (H. sapiens), chose to wait 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his purpose, and therefore had to cover the time by specially designing (your interpretation of the evolutionary process) millions of non-human life forms to eat or be eaten by one another. You “cannot understand His choices” means you cannot understand the choice you impose on him with this theory. Now you don’t even try to understand it, because you know as well as I do that it makes no sense...

DAVID:You then turn around and with your humanized God you wonder why HE wanted to wait.

dhw: …and then you try to distract attention from its senselessness by saying that any other explanation which DOES make sense “humanizes” God, as if you know that God can’t possibly think in any way that a human might consider to be logical!

Once again, I don't question God's choices. I assume reality as God's works and the results are his choices. My God didn't worry about the time taken as He is timeless. You humanized God seems to fret about everything.

dhw: You can’t explain his choices because you don’t understand them!

DAVID: I don't try to understand. I simply accept that God does what He wants to do, and He chose to evolve, as you agree to above.

You “simply accept” your fixed belief that he had only one purpose (H. sapiens), chose to wait 3.X billion years before starting to fulfil his purpose, and therefore had to cover the time by specially designing (your interpretation of the evolutionary process) millions of non-human life forms to eat or be eaten by one another. You “cannot understand His choices” means you cannot understand the choice you impose on him with this theory. Now you don’t even try to understand it, because you know as well as I do that it makes no sense...

DAVID:You then turn around and with your humanized God you wonder why HE wanted to wait.

…and then you try to distract attention from its senselessness by saying that any other explanation which DOES make sense “humanizes” God, as if you know that God can’t possibly think in any way that a human might consider to be logical!

DAVID: History tells us He decided to evolve!

dhw: For those of us who believe in evolution, history tells us that evolution took place. If you believe in God, then of course God decided to use evolution to produce the bush of life. It does not tell us that he decided to spend 3.X billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design, and therefore he had to cover the time by designing millions of non-human life forms. Why do you keep ignoring the part of your theory that makes no sense?

DAVID: Same old incorrect points. Of course He had to cover the time involved or life would have been starved out of existence.

dhw: But if he was always in control and had only one purpose, why did he decide not to fulfil his purpose and therefore had to design millions of other life forms etc.? Here is your answer:
DAVID: It is not that: "you admit you cannot explain", I cannot read God's mind or understand His choices […]

dhw: You can’t explain his choices because you don’t understand them!

I don't try to understand. I simply accept that God does what He wants to do, and He chose to evolve, as you agree to above. You then turn around and with your humanized God you wonder why HE wanted to wait.

DAVID: I fully understand my explanations. It is possible God's logic is like ours, but what you refuse to recognize is we cannot know that for sure, so we must look at His works and interpret what He might have thought.

dhw: I fully recognize that we cannot know for sure, which is why I keep pointing out the illogicality of your own theory, and in turn look at his works and offer different logical interpretations as alternatives to the one which you now claim to fully understand – though at other times you admit you have no idea why your God would choose such a method of fulfilling such a purpose.

DAVID: Again your humanized God seems illogical. Not to me

dhw: You can’t understand his choices but they don’t seem illogical to you.

No, I accept what He decides to do. My God is not humanized, very unlike yours.

DAVID: Evolve hides nothing since you know I believe God designs everything! The entire bush of life is required, as God certainly knew, as humans without the bush couldn't survive.

dhw: Humans did not even exist, let alone survive for 3.X billion years! That is the problem with your theory that H. sapiens was his one and only goal but he “had to” create the bush because he had decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years! You don't know why he chose this method of fulfilling his purpose, and so God's logic must be different from ours!

DAVID: Same old chorus. My view of God is He chose to evolve. You view my God as illogical. I don't.

dhw: Yes, he chose evolution of all life forms including humans. That does not mean he had only one purpose and chose not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years but instead had to design all the other life forms etc. And I do not view your God as illogical. It is your view of your God that I consider to be illogical – and so do you, because you can’t understand his choices.

I accept His choice to evolve. Perfectly logical in view of the known history of evolution.

dhw: It is you who keep telling us that your God DECIDED to spend 3.X billion years not pursuing his goal! And that, according to you, is why he “had to” design non-human life forms to keep life going until he designed the only thing he wanted to design!

DAVID: History tells us He decided to evolve!

For those of us who believe in evolution, history tells us that evolution took place. If you believe in God, then of course God decided to use evolution to produce the bush of life. It does not tell us that he decided to spend 3.X billion years not designing the only thing he wanted to design, and therefore he had to cover the time by designing millions of non-human life forms. Why do you keep ignoring the part of your theory that makes no sense?

DAVID: Same old incorrect points. Of course He had to cover the time involved or life would have been starved out of existence.

But if he was always in control and had only one purpose, why did he decide not to fulfil his purpose and therefore had to design millions of other life forms etc.? Here is your answer:
DAVID: It is not that: "you admit you cannot explain", I cannot read God's mind or understand His choices […]

You can’t explain his choices because you don’t understand them!

DAVID: I fully understand my explanations. It is possible God's logic is like ours, but what you refuse to recognize is we cannot know that for sure, so we must look at His works and interpret what He might have thought.

dhw: I fully recognize that we cannot know for sure, which is why I keep pointing out the illogicality of your own theory, and in turn look at his works and offer different logical interpretations as alternatives to the one which you now claim to fully understand – though at other times you admit you have no idea why your God would choose such a method of fulfilling such a purpose.

DAVID: Again your humanized God seems illogical. Not to me

You can’t understand his choices but they don’t seem illogical to you.

DAVID: Evolve hides nothing since you know I believe God designs everything! The entire bush of life is required, as God certainly knew, as humans without the bush couldn't survive.

dhw: Humans did not even exist, let alone survive for 3.X billion years! That is the problem with your theory that H. sapiens was his one and only goal but he “had to” create the bush because he had decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years! You don't know why he chose this method of fulfilling his purpose, and so God's logic must be different from ours!

DAVID: Same old chorus. My view of God is He chose to evolve. You view my God as illogical. I don't.

Yes, he chose evolution of all life forms including humans. That does not mean he had only one purpose and chose not to fulfil it for 3.X billion years but instead had to design all the other life forms etc. And I do not view your God as illogical. It is your view of your God that I consider to be illogical – and so do you, because you can’t understand his choices.

I’m combining threads again:

DAVID: God needed to create the entire bush of life to provide food for the years He took to create humans…

dhw: It is you who keep telling us that your God DECIDED to spend 3.X billion years not pursuing his goal! And that, according to you, is why he “had to” design non-human life forms to keep life going until he designed the only thing he wanted to design!

History tells us He decided to evolve!

DAVID: If He just created humans, how would they be able to live all by themselves? God understood the requirements. Your God doesn't because of His human thinking you have given Him. Entirely logical as an interpretation of God's thinking.

dhw: Of course he had to provide food for humans, but the millions of extinct life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders did NOT provide food for humans! According to you, they provided food to “cover the time” he had decided to spend before he started his roundabout method of fulfilling his one and only goal. THAT is the theory which you admit you cannot explain and which drives you into claiming that your God’s logic is different from ours.

Same old incorrect points. Of course He had to cover the time involved or life would have been starved out of existence. It is not that: "you admit you cannot explain", I cannot read God's mind or understand His choices, while I treat Him as non-human and you constantly humanize His logic.

DAVID: I fully understand my explanations. It is possible God's logic is like ours, but what you refuse to recognize is we cannot know that for sure, so we must look at His works and interpret what He might have thought.

dhw: I fully recognize that we cannot know for sure, which is why I keep pointing out the illogicality of your own theory, and in turn look at his works and offer different logical interpretations as alternatives to the one which you now claim to fully understand – though at other times you admit you have no idea why your God would choose such a method of fulfilling such a purpose.

Again your humanized God seems illogical. Not to me

DAVID: Evolve hides nothing since you know I believe God designs everything! The entire bush of life is required, as God certainly knew, as humans without the bush couldn't survive.

dhw: Humans did not even exist, let alone survive for 3.X billion years! That is the problem with your theory that H. sapiens was his one and only goal but he “had to” create the bush because he had decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years! You don't know why he chose this method of fulfilling his purpose, and so God's logic must be different from ours!

Same old chorus. My view of God is He chose to evolve. You view my God as illogical. I don't.

DAVID: I don't try to understand God's mind because we cannot, but we can have theories about why He created what He created, about which you and I disagree.

dhw: And your theory is that you DO understand his mind: he had one purpose, and although he is always in control, he decided not to fulfil it directly but to focus on designing anything but the one thing he wanted to design. You don’t know why, but you do know that God’s logic is different from yours and mine.

DAVID: God needed to create the entire bush of life to provide food for the years He took to create humans…

It is you who keep telling us that your God DECIDED to spend 3.X billion years not pursuing his goal! And that, according to you, is why he “had to” design non-human life forms to keep life going until he designed the only thing he wanted to design!

DAVID: If He just created humans, how would they be able to live all by themselves? God understood the requirements. Your God doesn't because of His human thinking you have given Him. Entirely logical as an interpretation of God's thinking.

Of course he had to provide food for humans, but the millions of extinct life forms, lifestyles and natural wonders did NOT provide food for humans! According to you, they provided food to “cover the time” he had decided to spend before he started his roundabout method of fulfilling his one and only goal. THAT is the theory which you admit you cannot explain and which drives you into claiming that your God’s logic is different from ours.

DAVID: I fully understand my explanations. It is possible God's logic is like ours, but what you refuse to recognize is we cannot know that for sure, so we must look at His works and interpret what He might have thought.

I fully recognize that we cannot know for sure, which is why I keep pointing out the illogicality of your own theory, and in turn look at his works and offer different logical interpretations as alternatives to the one which you now claim to fully understand – though at other times you admit you have no idea why your God would choose such a method of fulfilling such a purpose.

DAVID: ...but I have noted He uses evolution at all times with the universe, the Earth and with life, as evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

dhw: As usual, you hide behind the word “evolve” and gloss over the rest of your theory.

DAVID: Again a total distortion. As God is the Creator, I have chosen to believe He chose to evolve everything, because that is what history tells us. 'Evolve' does not hide anything, as both of us believe in the process of evolution.

dhw: We both believe in common descent, but your “evolve” hides the fact that you believe your God specially designed every single innovation, life form etc., and did so for the sole purpose of getting organisms to eat or be eaten by one another until he could specially design various bits and pieces in various species of hominin and homo before he specially designed the bits and pieces that finally produced the only thing he wanted to design (his one and only purpose), which was H. sapiens. But according to you, this is not a roundabout way of achieving his one and only purpose, and although you have no idea why he chose this method of achieving his purpose, you do know that your own non-logic is God’s logic.

DAVID: Evolve hides nothing since you know I believe God designs everything! The entire bush of life is required, as God certainly knew, as humans without the bush couldn't survive.

Humans did not even exist, let alone survive for 3.X billion years! That is the problem with your theory that H. sapiens was his one and only goal but he “had to” create the bush because he had decided not to fulfil his one and only goal for 3.X billion years! You don't know why he chose this method of fulfilling his purpose, and so God's logic must be different from ours!

DAVID: His choice is not wrong!

dhw: I did not say his choice was wrong! It is your interpretation of his choice which may be wrong.

DAVID: Your reasoning constantly humanizes Him, because you are using human reasoning for Him.

dhw: And what sort of reasoning are you using when you tell us his choice was not to design the only thing he wanted to design? Does this illogicality mean you now reason like God?

See my quote about God and the need for humans to eat in both other threads. We need the threads combined by you.

DAVID: I try to understand why history happened as it did, assuming God is the Creator.

dhw: So do I. The difference between us is that you cannot understand your own explanation, whereas even you agree that you can understand my alternatives, but you happen to know that your God’s logic is different from ours.

I fully understand my explanations. It is possible God's logic is like ours, but what you refuse to recognize is we cannot know that for sure, so we must look at His works and interpret what He might have thought.

DAVID: ...but I have noted He uses evolution at all times with the universe, the Earth and with life, as evidence He prefers to evolve His creations.

dhw: As usual, you hide behind the word “evolve” and gloss over the rest of your theory.

DAVID: Again a total distortion. As God is the Creator, I have chosen to believe He chose to evolve everything, because that is what history tells us. 'Evolve' does not hide anything, as both of us believe in the process of evolution.

dhw: We both believe in common descent, but your “evolve” hides the fact that you believe your God specially designed every single innovation, life form etc., and did so for the sole purpose of getting organisms to eat or be eaten by one another until he could specially design various bits and pieces in various species of hominin and homo before he specially designed the bits and pieces that finally produced the only thing he wanted to design (his one and only purpose), which was H. sapiens. But according to you, this is not a roundabout way of achieving his one and only purpose, and although you have no idea why he chose this method of achieving his purpose, you do know that your own non-logic is God’s logic.

Evolve hides nothing since you know I believe God designs everything! The entire bush of life is required, as God certainly knew, as humans without the bush couldn't survive.