Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

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]Why can't you separate purpose from reaction?[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]Your usual dodge of “answering” a question by asking a question!.....I think it more likely that he would have begun by saying to himself: “I would like to create things that I will enjoy creating and that I will find interesting.”[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Once again you have God serving Himself. God may or may not enjoy or take interest.[/i] 
> > And:
> > DAVID: T[i]hat is your strange humanizing interpretation. We do not know if He has emotions like ours.[/i]
> > 
> > But not so long ago you were sure that he enjoyed and was interested, just as you thought he probably had thought patterns and emotions like ours and we mimicked him. Nobody knows anything for sure, but even now you are accepting the possibility that he enjoys and takes interest, and so it is only logical that you should also accept the possibility that enjoyment and interest might be his purpose for creating life. That is all I ask of you. I acknowledge that it’s only a theory, as is the actual existence of God. 
> 
> I do accept that possibility. Possibility is a guess. But I insist His reactions are secondary  to His purpose.
> > 
> > [b]God's choice of war over peace[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Your bias is to degrade God's choice of how to create life. I think it is the only way possible or God would have found some way else.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: It is you who “degrade” God’s choice and weaken his powers by even suggesting that he was forced to design a system that entailed a “constant war to survive by eating”. My suggestion is that he created the system he WANTED to create. How is that “degrading”?
> 
> Not forced to use the best system He could invent, in His judgement, is not degrading. He decided what was best is my view.
> > 
> > [b]Shapiro[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] We disagree on cell intelligence which obviously can be purely cell instructions.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]I know you disagree with the theory. Will you now please stop telling me that I inflate and misuse it.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID:[i] His theory is based on bacteria editing their DNA applied to a guess about speciation. He has only proved bacteria and none else have this ability. The rest is his extrapolation.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I am delighted that you now believe bacteria are intelligent, surprised that you should think that the cell communities which evolved from them cannot be intelligent, and disappointed by your refusal to withdraw your often repeated accusation that I inflate and misuse Shapiro’s theory. :-(
> 
> Shapiro did not extrapolate. He simply proposed a possible mechanism for speciation. He  never said all cells are immensely intelligent. The only extensions from his theory  I can think of, is speciation must have germ cells editing their own DNA. NOT ALL CELLS. You are in error to expand his proposals way beyond his proposals! :-)