Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]The bee can not correlate separate events. period!![/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]But if the bee had not correlated the separate events, it would not have carried on biting! And so either the bee has the intelligence to link cause and effect (as all organisms have to if they are to survive), or your God had to preprogramme leaf-biting 3.8 billion years ago, or he had to step in to give one species of bee a course in leaf-biting.bb [b]I find the last two options somewhat far-fetched.[/b] (1) Furthermore, (2) [b]I really wonder how many people would agree with you that linking leaf-biting with early flowering requires the same degree of conceptual thinking as human philosophy.[/b] But of course you have every right to your beliefs. Period![/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]First bold is not far-fetched if one believes in God. [/i]
> 
> Then let’s just say that even with my theist hat on, I find those two options vastly less believable than the theory that God designed a mechanism that would enable cells to develop their own lifestyles, strategies and natural wonders. I would, however, join Darwin in accepting that all the different life forms developed from “a few forms or one” which may have been designed separately by your God, though I would firmly reject Darwin’s belief that all the new forms were the result of random mutations. 
> 
> DAVID: [i]I'm amazed at your second bold. You obviously don't recognize the need for analytic thought when it is required. That need hit me between the eyes when I first read the report. The separate events in time require repeated observation and then a thoughtful analysis and correlation. You are very thoughtful. Why not admit your error?[/i]
> 
> I don’t object if you consider that abstract thinking is needed in order to observe two events over a period of a couple of weeks, and then to repeat the observation and draw a conclusion that they = cause and effect. That depends on your definition of “abstract”, though yours clearly differs from the one offered in the article, which distinguished between thinking about universals and thinking about particulars. I do not regard leaf-biting followed by early flowering as a “universal”. However, I object very strongly if you consider leaf-biting followed by early flowering as requiring “the same degree of conceptual thought as we use.” I would regard theirs as rudimentary compared to the conceptual thinking that has led you from your scientific studies of the complexities of life to the concept of an invisible, eternal, universal mind whose one and only purpose in creating that life was to design a being with a unique degree of consciousness. I would say that you are vastly more thoughtful than a bee. “Why not admit your error?”