More "miscellany" PART TWO (General)

by David Turell @, Thursday, May 25, 2023, 16:43 (7 days ago) @ dhw



DAVID: Yes information is dormant until used. But information cannot appear de novo. A mind creates it and a mind or a mind-like cell interprets and uses it.

dhw: So when the wind blew the rock down on the man’s head and killed him, the masses of information contained in that incident were created by a mind, were they?

You still haven’t responded to this.

Information is dormant until used is the answer, as in the accident your mind created.

dhw: What is your objection to the statement that biochemistry is the basis of living biology?

DAVID: Biochemistry, as a subject, is our understanding of how living biology works. We see it as a result of living cells using instructive information in their genomes.

dhw: Yes, biochemistry is a subject for study, but it's also the chemistry of living things, as in: Chemistry: “the composition, properties and reactions of a particular substance”. (Encarta) Cells have to be alive before they can “use” information, so don’t you think the basis of life/living biology must be whatever composition, properties and reactions give them life?

Not answered.

The 'composition, properties, reactions' all come from a DNA code, requiring a mind to design it and living cells to interpret it.

DAVID: DNA, as a code, must be interpreted by cells or life doesn't happen. Remember first life appeared and has been producing life ever since.' How' is what we debate.

dhw: Please tell me how not-yet-living cells interpret the information in not-yet-living DNA, and this enables them to come to life. You know it’s nonsense, so stop dodging: there is no dispute over the fact that first life appeared and we still have life!

Thank you. without that information cells don't produce life. That is why the appearance of life is a miracle. Everything happened all at once by design.


dhw: But if cells can restructure themselves on a small scale in response to environmental change, it’s not illogical to suppose that they might be able to do so on a large scale. And I note the reference to experimentation by Nature, which a theist might well describe as experimentation by God, don’t you think?

DAVID: You constantly want to present an experimenting God. I've rejected the concept as describing a humanized God.

dhw: I know you have. You prefer to believe in a God who invents a messy, cumbersome, inefficient method to achieve the purpose you impose on him, and you think his inefficiency is more godlike and less human than the efficiency of a God who successfully tries out new ideas, and enjoys the process of discovery.

Still humanizing a God who is not all-knowing.


DAVID: God's purpose was to run evolution to finally produce humans while developing a very broad-based bush of life for human to eat and enjoy.

dhw: But we can’t eat and enjoy the 99% of past organisms that never had any connection with us or our food, and I really wonder why your God had to design 36 species of tenrec just for Madagascars to eat (assuming the islanders eat them), though you might say it’s kind of him to provide them with such a large menu.

DAVID: You are simply repeating my point, the bush of life provides food for all.

dhw: How many more times are you going to use this obfuscation? The bush of life provided food for all the 99% of extinct life forms that had nothing to do with the life forms and food bushes you say were your God’s one and only purpose (us and our food). Hence your description of your God’s system as messy, cumbersome and inefficient.

Yes, God evolved us as His choice of method.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum