Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > DAVID: [i]You seem incapable of realizing how human you envision God to be.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]In each of my theories I propose a particular theistic approach to evolution in order to explain the facts: experimentation, learning and getting new ideas as he goes along, deliberately creating a free-for-all as being more interesting than a puppet show (though always with the option of dabbling). I don’t see these “human” approaches as being any more “human” than your own belief that God enjoys creating and is interested in his creations, or – as you have now told us – that he wants us to think about him, recognize him, and ask questions.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]As explained in the other thread God's possible reactions to his creations are secondary events, never on purpose as a cause of creation.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I’m not talking about reactions! I asked you what was his purpose for creating humans, and the above was your answer.
> 
> The simple answer was His right to produce thinking beings for no other purpose than that.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]To explain again: We came with extra neurons in our brain so we could use our brain as we wished which gave us free will. The loss of superfluous neurons had nothing to do with losing free will with the remaining cells fully adequate to allow us to think freely.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: [i]So your new theory is that our extra neurons gave us free will – i.e. all our ancestors were automatons! Why, then, did these additional cells make our brain “oversized”? Clearly these new cells would have been of crucial importance to us! Hardly an explanation of shrinkage, is it? And still you refuse to explain why you find my theory unacceptable.[/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Shrinkage must be recognized as clearly indicating we had excess neurons to begin with. [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: You are completely ignoring my proposal, which is that the neurons were NOT excessive to begin with. They would only have been added to the existing quantity if they had a function to perform! But later, when there were more new requirements, expansion was no longer practicable, and complexification took over, the latter proved so efficient that some cells [b]which had earlier been necessary [/b]now become redundant.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]I'm sure all our ancestors had similar brains. Further expansion is not something to be considered in any way as your wild explanation. And the complexification process was at the ready when the brain was designed and at work. Otherwise your tortured theory is acceptable.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I have no idea what you mean by your second sentence. Yes, the complexification process was always present. I also have no idea what free will had to do with it, and I’m glad to see that has now disappeared. I also have no idea why my perfectly logical explanation of shrinkage is “tortured”.
> 
> Our brain came with excess neurons or shrinkage could not logically have occurred. That cells had to be used and then had to be thrown aways makes no sense. As we civilized our brains had constant expansion of use. Our brain arrived with the complexification mechanism in place, to be used as required, as you agree.