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:

> > [b]Brain expansion[/b]
> > 
> > DAVID: T[i]hank you for admitting the new 315,000-old neurons still have future use. [/i]
> 
> > dhw: You initially claimed that they had no use but just sat around for thousands of years doing nothing. You then conceded that they may have had minor uses. THAT is the whole point. Your theory is that God popped them into the brains of some sleeping Moroccans so that thousands of years later, they would be useful. My theory is bolded above. 
> 
> We agree therev= was minor use before major uses. Tehyc would not survive if unused, this is obvious. You unreasonably assumed I assumed no use at all until later.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]What prepared them for them for an unknown future? Not Darwin theory, which handles only the present. Logical to assume God, the designer set up teh brain for the future.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: The future is unknown for ALL life forms! According to you, every evolutionary change was engineered by God as preparation for the unknown future. You even have him transforming pre-whale legs into flippers before the animals enter the water. My proposal (why must you bring Darwin into it?) is that every evolutionary change, including the additional brain cells, has resulted from a new current requirement or opportunity presented by changing conditions. NOT from your God’s gazing into his crystal ball and forecasting all future requirements. But of course the additional cells will continue to be used and to complexify in response to new future requirements!
> 
> Well, I'm still with God the future designer and you're not. No surprise.
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]God's direct action at the end was to produce humans, so unusual Adler uses us as proof of God.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: It was not direct. You yourself cannot understand why “at the end” he would have designed various “species” of hominin and homo before finally designing sapiens. That is one of the theories that “[b]make sense only to God[/b]”. Yes, you keep telling us that Adler uses us as proof of God. But we are not arguing about proof of God. We are arguing about your theories of evolution which do not make sense to you.
> 
> And proof of God is part of it. Adler helps my arguments.
> >  
> > DAVID: [i]From the beginning of time God knew we were coming!!! That answers your muddle about evolution which God used as His mechanism to create us.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: I have covered the hypothesis that from the beginning he “knew we were coming” (or we were his purpose) by explaining all the disconnected life forms and food bushes which you cannot explain as experiments in his quest to create beings that might recognize him and have a relationship with him (your own concept). But you don’t like the theory because it entails “human” attributes which are not among those you want your God to have.
> 
> You are again trying to humanize my God to protect your form of god.
> > 
> > dhw: [i]I suggest that he designed what he wanted to design, and that he actually wished for all those countless forms and foods and stages, as life unfolded its ever-changing variety. What better way than to give the original life forms their own means of designing? [/i]
> > 
> > DAVID: [i]Answered above.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Again with your “secondhand” objection. See “[b]More miscellany[/b]”.
> 
> Secondhand design is a cumbersome mess, that you don't seem to understand. You've never tried it and I have with firsthand experience