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]False response. I can't provide a humanized God. My previous descriptions are vastly different, which you cannot deny. The only defense you have is distort my God![/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Your analogy supported the concept of a free-for-all as opposed to a puppet show. Your own humanized God is a control freak who designs everything from weaverbird nest-building and the opossum “death” strategy to whale flippers and each enlargement of the human brain. You are sure he enjoys creating and is interested in what he sees, is too kind to create causes of suffering, tries to alleviate them but despite his omnipotence sometimes fails and leaves it to humans to find remedies he couldn’t design, and when asked what purpose your all-purposeful God might have had for designing us, you suggest he wants us to admire his work, and maybe have a relationship with him. But you “can’t provide a humanized God”[/i].
> 
> DAVID: [i]Your 'control freak' equals purposeful.[/i]
> 
> My creator of a free-for-all equals purposeful. 
> 
> DAVID: [i]I am not SURE of anything about God, but make guesses about His thinking for his purposes.[/i]
> 
> See the thread on your theory for the illogicality of your guesses about his thinking. But yes, we all make guesses. 
> 
> DAVID: [i]Illness, mistakes of metabolism all previously discussed. [/i]
> 
> See “[b]immune system[/b]” under “cells”. 
> 
> DAVID: [i]'Admire' and 'relationship' all the result of guessing. The only defense you have is to attack my God. Your desired humanized form of God is not in any way related to my view of a real god.[/i]
> 
> Yes, your guesses are just as humanizing as my guesses, so “humanizing” is no reason to dismiss them. What “defense”? I don’t have a problem with “admire” and “relationship”. I only attack your theory of evolution (see the relevant thread) for its illogicality, and I offer different alternative explanations of evolution’s history. I have no “desired” humanized form, but I appreciate the logic of your confident guess that he enjoys creation and is interested in what he creates. I have no idea what gives you the impression that you know the “real” God, and that none of my alternative versions (e.g. an experimental God, or one who likes to learn new things) can possibly be real. 	
> 
> [b]New Study Changes Our Understanding of Human ... - Haaretz.com[/b]
> 
> DAVID: [i]The article clearly shows giant sapiens brain advances long before any current needs and uses. Note the early appearance of "Broca's language area long before real language developed. All organized in advance for future use.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]The quotes above [/i][I have not reproduced them here] [i]support my own theory: new CURRENT requirements would have led to the changes (including Broca). The author speculates that these may have been related to the need for “new capabilities and technologies” and for enhanced communication. This flatly contradicts your theory that the changes to the frontal lobe were unique to sapiens, and [color=#c00]it directly supports the proposal that the changes RESULTED from current requirements.[/color]/b] [/i][dhw's bold] […]
> 
> DAVID: [i]You continue a strange dichotomy of thought. Note the red phrase above. What agency responded to the new requirements? None was needed. Broca's area preceded language.[/i]
> 
> My theory is that the cells responded. The article suggests that the requirements for new abilities and technologies and enhanced communication (e.g. for hunting) led to changes in the frontal lobe. This is the direct opposite of two of your theories,  as above. What is the dichotomy? 
> 
> [b]Dampwood termites[/b]
> 
> DAVID:[i] Same old, same old. God designs and any resultant intelligent activity by any living organism comes from God's intelligent instructions in God's designed genomes.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Yes, it is same old, same old. Your God either preprogrammed the big eyes of potential kings and queens 3.8 billion years ago, or he popped in about 100 million years ago, to plant big-eye instructions in a few of the termites he’d just designed (in preparation for humans and their food). I propose that God – if he exists – might have given cells the ability to design their own responses to new requirements, but although there’s a 50/50 chance that intelligent behaviour denotes intelligence, you reject that possibility.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Yes God MAY HAVE done anything. The 50/50 is my original point that from the outside those are the odds. When the insides are studied, it is all automatic. You totally reject that.[/i]
> 
> I reject your authoritative dismissal of a 50/50 possibility, and I remind you above of the two methods you have offered us, each of which stretches my own imagination beyond credulity. 
> 
> [b]Memory formation[/b]
> 
> DAVID:  [i]It shows our brain is designed with neurons with specific functions for future use.[/i]
> 
> I think the article describes how different memories are formed, but of course there would not be much point in forming memories if we didn’t have the means of remembering them in the future! :-)