More "miscellany" (General)

by David Turell @, Sunday, September 04, 2022, 17:02 (571 days ago) @ dhw

Vocalisation

DAVID: Why can't you see the fallacy? Our mental designs are not equivalent to speciation!!!!

dhw: So why do you kid yourself that your own experience of "firsthand" design is analogous to your God’s "firsthand" design process? You execute your designs directly (you don’t design a bicycle in order to design a house), whereas your God apparently designed us and our food by first designing countless life forms that had no connection with us and our food. And you don’t confine “firsthand” design to speciation! The weaverbird apparently can’t design its nest, the possum can’t figure out that playing dead might save its life, birds can’t navigate, and bacteria can’t defend themselves without your God’s instructions! And none of this answers the question why, if your God wants you to do your own autonomous form of designing, he can’t possibly have wanted cells to do the same.

Same cell committee's brilliancy. All we can see is adaptability built-in with instructions in DNA from God.


First walking ancestor

dhw: […] you always opt for the theory that organisms undergo speciation in ANTICIPATION of changing conditions, as opposed to RESPONDING to changing conditions. That still doesn’t tell me why my alternatives are not feasible.

DAVID: A designer designs for the future!!!

dhw: Organisms respond to present requirements. Your God could have designed autonomous cellular intelligence which would of course then be used to create all future designs. Why is not feasible that our ancestors descended from the trees in a successful quest for food, and this triggered their gradual (judging by the fossil record) physical adaptation to life on the ground (like whales adapting to life in the water)?

All fossils fit the theory of design for future use.


DNA repair mechanism

QUOTE: "DNA damage happens naturally in human body and most of the damage can be repaired by the cell itself. However, unsuccessful repair could lead to cancer. (dhw's bold)

dhw: Clearly, then, the cell has autonomous healing powers.

DAVID: Of course, from God-given instructions in DNA.

A 3.8-billion-year-old book of instructions or a divine dabble to counter each and every new threat is the opposite of autonomy. […]

It is an autonomous use of instructions


Politics

QUOTE: "It may be one of the most surefire findings in all of social psychology, repeatedly replicated over almost five decades of study: American conservatives say they are much happier than American liberals. They also report greater meaning and purpose in their lives, and higher overall life satisfaction.”

DAVID: to our followers it must be patently obvious dhw is solidly liberal and I very conservative, as shown by how we invent theories. My background in childhood was in a fiercely liberal family. I left that philosophy by my late forties as clear thinking arrived.

dhw: You agree that your theories about God and evolution make no sense to you (they “make sense only to God”). I don’t believe that Conservative theories make no sense. There is no analogy here. The article dwells on “happiness”, which (a) is extremely difficult to measure, and (b) does little more than suggest that those who have are happier than those who do not have. “Having” does not create happiness, in my view, but not having certainly creates unhappiness. I guess I’m a lucky man: I have, I am happy, and I only wish everybody else could have and could also be happy. I doubt if you will find any Conservative or Liberal who would object to that. They simply differ on how such an ideal might be achieved.

The bold fits my entry: you have no concept of how I believe in God, with perfect senses..


Seahorses

dhw: Weird! In view of all the rumpus going on about transgender and transsexuality, I think seahorses have every right to object to being defined as male or female.

Always something for fun if found!


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum