Miscellany (General)

by David Turell @, Saturday, September 04, 2021, 18:37 (49 days ago) @ dhw

New amphibious whale

DAVID: You are again asking for a second-hand design system, much more difficult and much more cumbersome than direct hands on.

dhw: Why is it more difficult and cumbersome for God to invent a single mechanism which will be capable of autonomously making each decision, performing each operation, coping with each new situation, than for him to keep popping in and doing it all himself "hands on"?

In human designing. if you do it yourself it is much easier than telling someone else how to do it and reach the proper desired result. I've been there as previously described.


Introducing the brain

DAVID: This study from AI shows how very complex a single neuron is in its potential activities. Not by chance.

dhw: I’d say that with all these potential activities, the neuron needs a fair degree of intelligence to decide what signals to send to the other members of the cell community. Wouldn’t you?

DAVID: Just lots of intelligent instructions for the neuron to act on.

dhw: So does every neuron receive instructions handed down from 3.8 billion years ago, or alternatively, does God pop in to tell every neuron what to do?

I think He dabbled hominin neurons to fit our consciousness needs


Back to New amphibious whale
dhw: But you dismiss the theory because my human proposal is somehow more human than your human proposal. Anyway, do please give us your other reasons for why we are here.[/i]
DAVID: Well, we extremely exceptional ones are here and He did lots of creating to get us here. Remember our battle is over why he wanted us as His goal.

dhw: I remember all too well that you believe we were his one and only goal (which apparently is why he created all those life forms that had no connection with us), and I remember all too well asking WHY he wanted us as his goal, so why don’t you answer?

I've given lots of possible reasons in the past, to which you always give positive meanings I don't intend to convey. It is all guesswork about a non-human person , God.


Junk DNA
dhw: [..] every time you mention “junk”, I have to point out that if all of DNA is useful, it simply provides a demonstration of natural selection at work, since NS would remove anything that wasn’t useful.

DAVID: We still have about 20% junk, not removed.

dhw: So what does that prove?

DAVID: The atheist Darwinists use 80% junk as a direct argument for chance mutations being kept!!! They still rave about it and fight current research and majority opinion. You are unaware of the continuing battle. I've named names in the past, not worth it now.

dhw: I am aware of the battle, and am simply pointing out that if there is no junk, it supports Darwinian natural selection (which is neither atheistic nor theistic). You then said there was 20% junk. And so I asked what that proves – i.e. that there is a God? That there isn’t a God?

For my point of view, the less junk indicates more design work. The increasing discoveries about the complexity of DNA controls strongly implies a designer at work.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum