Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Saturday, April 03, 2021, 18:41 (493 days ago) @ dhw

Introducing the brain

DAVID: I can tell the difference in a half-second of time. Touching a hot pan or a pinprick. Watching the phlebotomist take blood, instantaneous pain.

dhw: What is your point? And what was Egnor’s point?

The soul in action.

Tectonics and environment

DAVID: Still confusion: sensory information is not instructional information. Both exist. Sensory is passive, while instructional describes actions to be taken.

dhw:I understand perfectly that you want to jump on the “information” bandwagon, which at one time led you to create a thread with the absurd title: “Information as the source of life”! I think that in the end you grudgingly acknowledged that you thought God and not information was the source of life.

Only God can be the source of the information is DNA code.

Nasty butterflies

DAVID: I'm only describing the war for eating.

dhw: But you are suggesting that the war is a free-for-all. So do you think your God preprogrammed/dabbled all the methods of obtaining food (and avoiding becoming food), or did he give life forms the means of working their methods out for themselves in a “purposeful free-for-all”?

We both know organisms can make simple adaptations in answer for the war they wage.


DAVID: Perhaps you can learn to consider the real God who knows exactly what He is doing.

dhw: I have no doubt that if God exists, he always knows exactly what he is doing. That is why I keep asking why he would have directly designed and then killed off all these life forms that had no connection with humans, if his sole purpose was to design humans. You have no idea why. Whereas I propose a number of theories, all of which have your God knowing exactly what he is doing and why, and all of which fit in logically with Chixculub and the rest of life’s history. Your only objection to all of them is that they entail your God having some of the “thought patterns and emotions similar to ours”, which you think he possibly/probably has.

You have again totally twisted what I present. You don't understand how you make God human with you theories of free-for-all with an unknown ending for evolution.

Genome complexity

DAVID: I do not expect the reader to be able to fully understand this presentation. It requires deep training in the subject. Viewing the illustrations would help. My real point is these molecules have jobs to do and perform them as if each molecule had a mind and had memorized its function in the production line. Innate Intelligence or intelligent design? Design is obvious.

dhw: These do not have to be alternatives. Your God could have designed the innate intelligence.

So you are back to accepting design.

Introducing the eye

DAVID: Its complexity is equal only to our brain:

DAVID: No need to comment on the need for a designer. Not by chance development from ancient eye spots

dhw: The human eye is indeed a wonderful instrument, but no more wonderful than the eyes of many of our fellow animals (and birds), whose vision in fact is even better than ours under some conditions. All these different eyes may well be the consequence of the different cell communities adapting the original light-sensitive cells to their own living conditions. Definitely not by chance. Interesting that Darwin also picks on the eye as an organ “of extreme perfection and complication”. And he wisely adds: “How a nerve came to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated.”

Sure, 'don't be concerned' because we will never be able to explain it without God's designs.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum