More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Thursday, November 11, 2021, 12:17 (16 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big
Points covered under “Giraffe plumbing” and “theodicy”.

David v Dawkins
DAVID: My rejection of your pet theories is not ridicule, nor do I ignore them. Are you pouting?

dhw: OK. Both you and Dawkins have faith that your rigid beliefs will be confirmed in the future, and any other beliefs should be ridiculed or ignored or dismissed.

DAVID: I've just said I don't ridicule or ignore! My non-acceptance/dismissal of you theories is that I cannot logically reach an agreement with your assessments

You reject outright the concept of cellular intelligence which is capable of major innovation. Dawkins rejects outright your concept of a designer God. You reject outright his faith in the “natural” as opposed to the “supernatural”. I say that such subjective rigidity in both your cases is unscientific.

DAVID: God is not an experimental scientist!!! God has no need to experiment.
DAVID: God does not need to create His own enjoyment!! I assume He enjoys creating itself.

dhw: How do you know what your God needs?

DAVID: On the basis of accepting God as the Creator, He knows fully how to create, and is purposeful in reaching His desired goals, whatever they might be.

If God exists, I agree. All of my alternatives to your illogical theory show him to be purposeful, and two have him knowing how to create what he wants to create (a system - eventually leading to humans - that will provide him with the pleasure of exploring new ideas as he goes along, or a free-for-all system that will provide him with enjoyment through its unpredictability), while one (experimentation) has him purposefully working towards the desired goal you attribute to him.

Human evolution: another huge gap
QUOTE: "...arguments that one or a few random mutations magically created humanity’s advanced intellectual abilities strain credulity. The origin of human cognition and speech would have required many changes that represent a suite of complex interdependent traits. Two leading evolutionists writing in a prominent text on primate origins explain that human language could not evolve in an abrupt manner, genetically speaking, because many genetic changes would be necessary

You and I have long since abandoned random mutations as the cause of innovations. And I proposed long ago that the development of language and of the anatomy necessary for extra expression would have come about as our ancestors found that the original sounds they made were insufficient to convey the new thoughts and observations that came with increased experience of different conditions. Of course it would have been gradual (but that is a very flexible term) and not "abrupt". If you accept the theory that cells can restructure themselves in response to new requirements, you have a perfectly logical explanation for the physical changes.

Quote: “We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from… australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior."

So different hominins/homos evolved independently of one another. What do you think your God was playing at, if he only wanted sapiens?

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum