More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Thursday, December 09, 2021, 09:01 (245 days ago) @ David Turell

Reality: God is a mathematician
DAVID: We differ from God in that we cannot attain His depth of knowledge or thought capacity.

dhw: If he exists, of course we can’t. How does that come to mean that although you agree he probably has thought patterns and emotions and logic similar to ours, and we “mimic him” in certain ways, any theory containing thought patterns, emotions and logic similar to ours must be wrong?

DAVID: Your constant humanizing of God never stops.

If you believe your God probably/possibly has thought patterns etc. similar to ours, why is it wrong to provide a logical explanation of life’s history which includes thought patterns similar to ours? In any case, usual question: why is it less human (your version) to want total control, to have good intentions, to try yet fail to correct errors etc., than (one of my alternatives) to allow freedom, to enjoy creation, to watch one’s creations with interest (the last two of which you have already accepted as possible)?

Monarchs use toxic milkweed
dhw: [...] you agree that the bees’ “algorithm” is the ABILITY to interpret. I suggest that this ABILITY (possibly designed by your God) enabled the monarch to develop its lifestyle, as opposed to your God’s 3.8-billion-year-old programme or dabble to counter milkweed poison, apparently so necessary for his design of humans plus food.

DAVID: Same old complaint, answered over and over.

Answered over and over either by ignoring the absurdity of the claim that all life forms etc. were “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food, although the vast majority had no connection with humans, or by agreeing that you have no idea how to explain your theory, and I should go and ask God. I’ll skip some of the repetitions, and pass to:

Heliosphere protection
DAVID: The universe is a dangerous place for living organisms. dhw wonders why God made the universe this way. Perhaps it has to be and one day we will fully understand.

dhw: [...] It’s inexplicable, and typifies your whole theory of evolution. You can only hope that one day you will understand it yourself.

DAVID: So you don't understand it either! Wait for our research!

No, I don’t understand it, and nor do you. The fact that neither of us understands it should alert you to the possibility that it might be wrong, and that one of the alternatives that you do understand might even be right. If we wait for the research, there is no point in discussing any of the unsolved mysteries of life!:-(

Ecosystem importance
DAVID: This is a beautiful example of an important very complex system which is an answer to why dhw thinks God made too many animals on His way to producing humans. All those animals are necessary for the proper balance. Just imagine the chaos if all the lions disappeared, as the absent wolves in Yellowstone.

dhw: As usual, you omit the illogical parts of your theory. You try to equate the havoc humans are creating in our current ecosystems with all the ecosystems of the past: what on earth is the “proper balance”? Proper for what? Countless ecosystems and their life forms have disappeared during the last 3.X billion years, the vast majority of which had no connection with humans, and yet still you pretend that somehow they were ALL “part of the goal of evolving [= designing] humans” and their food!

DAVID: Each system was useful in its time.

You’ve got it! Each system is useful for its members. And each system changes, which either causes extinction or is caused by extinction. But each system cannot have been “part of the goal” etc. if it had nothing to do with humans or their food. That should end this section of the argument.

Upright posture
DAVID: upright posture requires pelvic changes and a development of lumbar lordosis, which apes do not have. [...] Did continuous attempts at bipedal locomotion produce the change? Not likely with a dependence upon chance mutations. On the other hand if provided with the proper spinal anatomy upright, posture becomes easy to manage. Design is obvious.

dhw: Why have you linked “continuous attempts” to random mutations? Even an individual human in his own lifetime can make minor changes to his/her body by “continuous attempts” – what would be the purpose of training if it were otherwise? Why is it impossible that the cell communities of which all bodies consist might with “continuous attempts” alter their structure from legs to flippers (whales), or from slouching bone structure to upright bone structure?

DAVID: Back to the flimsy idea cell committees can design for future needs. No tiny steps in the fossil record refutes your conjecture.

Once more: no, they do not design for future needs. They design in response to present needs, and by adapting to present needs, they improve their chances of surviving into the future. The fact that we do not have an inch by inch fossil record of every life form that ever lived is hardly surprising given the vast period of time involved. That is why every new fossil find is hailed as a wonderful discovery.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum