More "miscellany" (General)

by dhw, Friday, November 05, 2021, 11:39 (22 days ago) @ David Turell

Cosmologic philosophy: dhw said once universe too big

DAVID: Because my answer to your constant illogical question is God chose to evolve us from bacteria for His own reasons, unknown to us…

Except that under "Giraffe plumbing" he didn't evolve us from bacteria, and according to you he also chose to evolve countless other life forms that had no connection with us, and again you have no idea why.

DAVID: Just study God's history to finally understand. Countless existing forms in the bush of life makes food for all.

But your God is perfectly capable of designing species without precursors. And so if he only wanted to design us plus food, there was no need for precursors of all the life forms and foods that had no connection with us. See “Giraffe plumbing” for your agreement that you have no logical defence for your theory. You have tried to wriggle out of your own trap by changing “goal” to “endpoint”.

dhw: […] all you have done is replace a very clear word with one that requires closer definition. Your definition is “goal”, and we are right back where we started.

DAVID: It seems that way.

So goodbye to another dodge.

David v Dawkins
DAVID: My only difference with Dawkins is his atheism. And his selfish gene theories resulting in a weird view of evolution covered in my book.

dhw: I suspect that he would refer to your own divine preprogramming/dabbling view of evolution as “weird”. Your closed minds and dismissal of each other’s unproven beliefs still mark you out as non-scientific pots and kettles.

DAVID: I agreed Dawkins at the start of this thread in that new science findings are anticipated to clarify theory. I still do.

“Clarify”? They will either support or oppose theories. On that, we can all agree, but none of us know which it will be. Meanwhile, the two of you continue to dismiss each other’s arguments, and to justify your blinkered approaches with the hope/faith that one day science will prove your theory to be correct. And I continue to complain that your respective hopes/faiths entail turning your backs on science.

Instincts
QUOTES: "But how did these embedded programs arise in the history of life? There’s the problem for evolutionists.”

The secret, according to author Eric Cassell: behavioral algorithms embedded in their tiny brains.”

DAVID: the brain behavioral algorithms require then input of specific information. How was that provided by natural evolution? Not by Darwin style chance mutations.

dhw: Just like you, the authors simply ignore the theory that all of these wonderful feats originated through the intelligence of tiny brains working out how best to cope with the world around them. (And the theory does not preclude the existence of a God who gave them their intelligence.)

DAVID: We all agree cells act intelligently, which may mean they are programmed to act that way automatically.

I’m delighted at this universal agreement, and wish all those who agree would acknowledge that intelligent behaviour “may mean” that the cells are intelligent.

Natural protein construction
"Every cell is a master builder, able to craft useful and structurally complex molecules, time and again and with astonishingly few mistakes. Scientists are keen to replicate this feat to build their own molecular factories, but first they'll need to understand it.

Just another reference to cellular abilities as opposed to automatic following of instructions.

Sponges
QUOTE: Arendt emphasises that the sponges’ neuroid cells aren’t neurons. “We still think they don’t have a nervous system,” he says. But these cells may be coordinating the activities of the digestive cells. “We see a lot of vesicles in those neuroid cells that would indicate that they secrete something, which is a very strong indication for communication,” he says. “And we also know the kind of molecules they might produce.”

Cells coordinating the activities of other cells, and appearing to communicate (how else could they coordinate others?). Sounds like intelligence to me.

Ethan Siegel on the Big Bang
QUOTE: "It remains possible that the Universe does, at all levels, obey the intuitive rule of cause-and-effect, although the possibility of a fundamentally acausal, indeterminate, random Universe remains in play (and, arguably, preferred) as well. It is possible that the Universe did have a beginning to its existence, although that has by no means been established beyond any sort of reasonable scientific doubt. And if both of those things are true, then the Universe’s existence would have a cause, and that cause may be (but isn’t necessarily) something we can identify with God. However, possible does not equate to proof. Unless we can firmly establish many things that have yet to be demonstrated, the Kalam cosmological argument will only convince those who already agree with its unproven conclusions."

A perfectly balanced view of the whole mystery, which I can only applaud. Thank you, David, as usual, for your integrity in presenting such an article, even though it goes against your own grain.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum