More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, August 03, 2015, 21:13 (3191 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: Why would God create a programme that requires intermediaries? If he is capable of creating new organisms from scratch, do you think he is incapable of creating them through a programme that immediately transforms existing organisms?
> -I never said he couldn't, but that I didn't think he did because of a lack of evidence supporting that line of thought. -
> TONY: 4) Again, this is possible, but I find it unlikely. The reason is that the underlying nature of the environment as a whole changed substantially, and the creatures coming after the Cambrian generally do not have any identifiable precursors.
> 
> This version has God personally transforming organisms instead of doing it through a computer programme (3) or creating them from scratch. If he could do the latter, regardless of the environment, why couldn't he just as easily do the former?
> -Again, I do not think it is a matter of *could*, I think it is a matter of "did". i.e. Having the power or ability to do something a particular way does not necessitate that would do it that way because it may not be the best way to do things. 
 
> 5) Again, while possible, I find this unlikely. The number of changes are simply too great.
> 
>DHW: That would depend on how much inventive power God gave the mechanism. In all three of your objections, you have graciously agreed that the scenario is possible but in your opinion unlikely. That is a far cry from dismissing the theory of common descent altogether. Just to set the record straight: I also find options 3 and 4 unlikely (as I do option 2, which is separate creation), and I'm certainly not committing myself to options 1 (precursors will be found) or 5. But with 4 out of 5 options in favour of common descent, I'm sufficiently convinced to go for it.
> -The problem is in the overall balance of things. You aren't talking about programming 1 creature to change, or 10. You are talking about pre-programming every possible variation of every possible variant into every single organism. While that may be *possible*, it is not very efficient or logical. All evidence in nature indicates that God is incredibly efficient, and logical. It would be dramatically more efficient to recreate a small subset of organisms to deal with changes they weren't designed for than it would to try and pre-program every single thing for every possible scenario. Further, the evidence is heavily in favor of the fact that every single organism is not pre-programmed for every single scenario. For example, most creatures will die if their environment changes even marginally. -
 
> TONY: I do not accept common descent because it is a virtual impossibility in the given time frames.
> 
>DHW: You have no precedent by which to judge what time frames your God needs for his programmes (3), his personal interventions (4) or his inventive mechanism (5) to work.-I only have what we see, what evidence there is. I see no evidence of innovation or speciation. -
 
> DHW: Are you claiming that all the hominid/hominin fossils are in fact modern humans, but the palaeontologists are covering this fact up in order to keep their posts?
> 
> TONY: Of course they aren't modern. They died thousands of years ago. Were they HUMAN absolutely. Were they monkey's/apes? No. But I see their morphological differences as being no different than the morphological differences between modern races.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by “Were they HUMAN absolutely”. Are you saying that all the hominid/hominin fossils belonged to one species of human, but that species was not homo sapiens (modern man)? Why would God specially create one form of human, and then...what? Specially create another form? Or are you saying homo sapiens evolved from another form? And are you saying that the palaeontologists are deliberately concealing the fact that all the hominids/hominins - covering a period of millions of years, not thousands - were one type of human and were not apes? Generation upon generation of palaeontologists all taking part in some kind of conspiracy in order to save their jobs? Going a bit far, isn't it?-
Look, I have already conceded that we will see variation within a species. I.e. Not all apes will be identical, but they will all be apes. Not all humans will be identical, but they will all be human. As groups cluster, yes, you will see some traits that become dominant inside that group. Like size, build, hair color, certain immunities. I am not arguing against genetic inheritance. But what you are saying is no different than saying "Blacks are a different species than Whites, Asians, Arabs or Hispanics." -Don't we see morphological differences between all these groups? Don't we see immunity differences in all these groups? Don't they tend to all share similar traits? Of course they do!!! They are ALL HUMAN. Why, then, is it that when we see another group of humans with morphological differences we assume that they are no longer "human" but a different species?

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.