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:

> dhw: [i]If your God exists, how can you possibly make assumptions about what he is and is not capable of? You assume that he is all-powerful, and then you assume that he can’t correct some of the mistakes that result from the system he designed! I don’t know why you mention theodicy, which concerns the problem of how an all-good God can create evil. Of course there is no theodicy discussion if the creator is chance![/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]All reasoning about God is circular: we look our reality, assume a creator mind which must be extremely powerful and then decide upon the personality of that mind again based on the good and bad we see.[/i]
> 
> I proposed a God who designed precisely what he wanted (a free-for-all), and you dismissed such a God as “weak” compared to your version, who tries to correct some of the unwanted errors resulting from his design, but sometimes fails. I suggest that a God who gets precisely what he wanted is STRONGER than a God who doesn’t. Theodicy is irrelevant to this discussion. 
> 
> [b]A cell repair design[/b]
> DAVID: [i]See today's entry on quantum imaginary numbers: materialism is dead.[/i]
> And:
> DAVID: [i]If we use imaginary numbers that mathematicians make up to describe the quantum basis of reality, then any form of materialism is dead.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]If we use imaginary properties that atheist scientists make up from combinations of matter and energy, then God is dead.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Not comparable. The made-up numbers work, which means reality requires mind.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]The authors and you have both used conditional “if” clauses. But you also stated earlier “materialism is dead” without an “if” clause. I asked if you had conducted a a poll among scientists to see if they agree.
> [/i]
> DAVID: [i]ID folks agree with me. We use our minds to find the imaginary numbers that MUST exist for quantum theory to work, which it does. Magnificently[/i]
> 
> You stated that materialism was dead. Are you now saying that all scientists are now ID-ers?
> 
> [b]T cell[/b]
> DAVID: [i]The quote refers to cellular apoptosis. All organisms prior to vertebrates had immune systems and vertebrate immune system came from them. Your point is is off base.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]Of course it’s not off base. Clearly if T cells only exist in vertebrates, they were not part of the immune system of earlier life forms, and therefore you cannot say they were there from the beginning. They would have evolved, just as vertebrate structures evolved from invertebrates in what you constantly tell us has been a development from the simple to the complex. [/i][…]
> 
> DAVID: [i]We actually agree. All steps are designed in my view, remember?[/i]
> 
> I remember you telling us that all steps are designed in advance of their being required, and that therefore T cells must have been there from the beginning. I propose that all steps take place as and when they are required by new conditions. I therefore suggest that T cells would have originated when new life forms (vertebrates) were confronted by new invaders. 
> 
> [b]Zebrafish inner ear[/b]
> dhw: [i]I am always struck by the fact that so many researchers emphasize the manner in which cells cooperate to create new structures. Thank you for two more quotes for the collection:
> “The inner ear is a model for how cells work together to make complex structures that are needed for organisms to function."
> “Our work shows a new way of doing things," Megason said, adding that he hopes it will encourage people to consider additional mechanisms that may be involved in shaping tissues. Cells have to use many different forces in order to accomplish what they need to.”[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Of course they do automatically as controlled by DNA instructions.[/i]
> 
> dhw: [i]I don’t have a problem if you think that, in accordance with the theory of cellular intelligence, the autonomous guiding intelligence of cells is situated within the DNA.[/i]
> 
> DAVID: [i]Yes, designed into the DNA[/i]
> 
> If I didn’t know you better, I would take this as your agreement that cells are possessed of an autonomous guiding intelligence which is situated within the DNA, with the additional caveat that it was designed by your God. However, no doubt you will withdraw your agreement.