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:

> > [b]The smelly hoatzin[/b]
> 
> > 
> > dhw: Wrong attribution. You apply the terms messy, cumbersome and inefficient to your God, who designed and culled 99.9 out of 100 species that were irrelevant to his one and only purpose. You have now added the hoatzin to the list of survivors. Why do you think your God designed this weird bird? 
> 
> Usual answer: part of a necessary ecosystem.
> > 
> > [b]Immune responses[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Not all antibodies are perfect defenses all the time. Organisms do build a library of antibodies over a lifetime.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: So how does this make immune responses “formulaic” if each new challenge creates a new volume to be added to the library? Once again: every new challenge will require a new response, and this in turn will require the intelligent processing of the new information, followed by a decision on how best to counter the threat.
> 
> If A is made just as B is made it is a formulaic system.
> > 
> >> [b]Evolution and intelligence[/b]
> 
> >  dhw:  You wrote:”[i]All prey animals think, as can all predators[/i].” The possum is a prey animal. You believe it can think, but you believe it can’t think how to defend itself. What do you think it can think about, if not its own survival?
> 
> All animals think about survival but not conceptually.
> > 
> > [b]How bacteria control phages[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Animals have autonomous thought[/i]. (dhw: Apart from the poor old possum and presumably the weaverbird!) [i]All bacteria do is edit their DNA.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: They edit their DNA in order to counter new threats and to ensure their own survival, which even you have agreed many times requires autonomous intelligence.
> 
> OR intelligent guides.
> > 
> > [b]Mind and cosmos[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]The theory is we use His consciousness structure to form our consciousness.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: H[i]ow about putting it a different way: if he exists, he has provided our cells with consciousness? Doesn’t that make more sense?[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Consciousness requires a brain of neurons.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: This is even more confusing, but very illuminating, since you keep referring to the consciousness of NDE patients who have lost the use of their brain of neurons. But I was responding to your theory that we use God’s consciousness to form our own, as opposed to the theory that your God may have given us part of his consciousness.
> 
> I don't know which is correct, but view our consciousness as a separate gift apart from our physical body.
> > 
> > [b]Theoretical origin of life[/b]
> > 
> > dhw:  What I quoted was a “real” statement. You ridicule your God for his inefficiency. Do you wish him to be inefficient? Of course you don’t. Your wish is that your illogical theory, whereby we plus food are his sole purpose, were the truth, but it can only be true if your God is inefficient.
> 
> That God's use of evolution is inefficient is a human viewpoint, certainly not God's.
> > 
> > [b]eco-disaster[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Fools' logic! Fossil fuels will never be stopped in use.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]I really can’t see why it’s fool’s logic to advocate the practical approach I have outlined, and I’m afraid I do not have much faith in your gift of prophecy. “Never”? How about a hundred/thousand/ten thousand years from now (if humans are still around)?[/i]
> > 
> > DPA (the answer I proposed for you): [i]You are right. I accept your wish for a practical approach, and withdraw my prophecy.[/i]
> > 
> > You didn’t change my proposal. I take that as a tacit agreement.
> 
> No. I guess I skipped it. Fossil fuels always