The limitations of science (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 12, 2010, 05:29 (5185 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> > I will assert here (as I have before) that if a human being can design any one thing in a simpler manner than how it appears in nature; than it means that man is smarter than God, plain and simple. If that design can be transplanted into a living organism, it gives life to my claim and further hurts any argument that God is a UI. (And if God isn't a UI, it isn't really worth much of anything.) 
> > 
> 
> 
> Aside from a slight sense of arrogance in, I see a few fundemental flaws in the statement, or rather in the scope of the argument. Perhaps if you altered it to say:
> 
> "If a human being can design any one thing in a simpler, more elegant, and more efficient manner than how it appears in nature, that performs all the same functions, has the same capabilities...."
> 
> The restrictions should actually be much tighter, because for me to believe a man was smarter than God, whatever man created would have to be able to reproduce new and more complex structures over time that, excluding free willed creatures, could maintain a semblance of homeostasis.-Well, specifically I was referring to some biochemical mechanisms that exist that actually have much shorter and more direct synthesis pathways; yet nature chose a more convoluted path. In these cases there is nothing gained in the convoluted path other than the consumption of more resources. In this instance; if humans can design something better than the UI, than the UI isn't really a UI. Or to put it more bluntly; if we can do something better than nature, than what does it say about nature?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"