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]It doesn't matter to me how God did his programming. My conclusion that God designed evolution suffices.[/i]
> 
> But it doesn’t “suffice” for you! I also conclude that if God exists, he designed evolution! Our discussions concern his possible purposes and methods, because your conclusion is that he personally designed every single life form, econiche, lifestyle, natural wonder etc., and that he did so for the sole purpose of designing H. sapiens and his food, although most of them had no connection with humans or their food. We needn’t go over my objections to your logic, or over my various alternative theistic explanations of life’s history. It is clear that, although you admit that have no idea why your God would have chosen your version of his method of achieving your version of his purpose, you will never budge. The problem is that it permeates so many of your posts that we are locked into this endless repetition! 
> 
> dhw: [i]Meanwhile, what do you think was the purpose of your God giving all these cell communities the ability to interpret if they didn’t need to interpret anything?[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]My concept of cell intelligence is totally opposite yours. It is entirely automatic as constantly stated.[/i]
> 
> Same again. You make concessions, as below, but then withdraw them with a repetition of your fixed belief.
> 
> DAVID: [i]They are given the ability to interpret, just the opposite from your thought.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]The ability to interpret is exactly my thought, since it entails the autonomous, intelligent use of all the abilities listed above, as opposed to bees and ants automatically obeying instructions.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]And I'll stick with automaticity.[/i]
> And under [b]"Spider webs[/b]”:
>  
> DAVID: [i]Spider webs are at the same level of complexity as weaverbird nests and require the same designer help.[/i]
> 
> You agree that these life forms have the ability to interpret. The attributes involved in bee and ant interpretation include sentience, cognition, information-processing, purpose, and decision-making. I asked how these differ – apart from time and scale – from our own. Your answer is that you’ll stick with automaticity. Do you agree with the above list of attributes involved in interpretation? And do you still accept that bees and ants have the ability to interpret?