Cerebral Dendrites are Mini Computers!

[Radrook]

Cerebral dendrites are mini computers!

Mini computing devices
"This work shows that dendrites, long thought to simply funnel incoming signals towards the soma, instead play a key role in sorting and interpreting the enormous barrage of inputs received by the neuron," study co-author Michael Hausser at University College Londonsaid in a statement. "Dendrites thus act as miniature computing devices for detecting and amplifying specific types of input."

"Imagine you're reverse engineering a piece of alien technology, and what you thought was simple wiring turns out to be transistors that compute information," Smith said. "That's what this finding is like. The implications are exciting to think about."

Human brain may be even more powerful computer than thought - NBC News

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which brings to the Christian mind the following verse:


Psalm 139:14 ►
New International Version
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yep, evolution is a pretty wonderful designer.

 

[Radrook]

Yep, evolution is a pretty wonderful designer.

You mean Atheistic evolution? Well, umm, mindless processes would never mimic the brilliancy of a mind.

BTW
"I can't see!" isn't a rebuttal.

 

[bhsmte]

You mean Atheistic evolution? Well, umm, mindless processes would never mimic the brilliancy of a mind.

BTW
"I can't see!" isn't a rebuttal.

Then provide scientific evidence an intelligent designer was involved.

 

[KCfromNC]

You mean Atheistic evolution?

No, but thanks for asking.

 

[Radrook]

Then provide scientific evidence an intelligent designer was involved.

Atheists aren't open to any evidence that proves an ID. They unceremoniously and mindlessly tag it as non-evidence or non-scientific. Then they turn around and dogmatically proclaim other things that have no evidence as being supported by indisputable evidence. It's the "I can't see it cuz I don't guanna sees it!" strategy that is commonly deployed. You know: the ""Show me something so I can quickly shoots it downs!" ploy. So thanks but no thanks.

BTW
Why do you assume that SOMETHING you tag as dark energy or dark matter is involved in the phenomenon you observe? HMMMMMM?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheists aren't open to any evidence that proves an ID. They unceremoniously and mindlessly tag it as non-evidence or non-scientific. Then they turn around and dogmatically proclaim other things that have no evidence as being supported by indisputable evidence. It's the "I can't see it cuz I don't guanna sees it!" strategy that is commonly deployed. You know: the ""Show me something so I can quickly shoots it downs!" ploy. So thanks but no thanks.

Now Radrook, you know that isn't true. You should not make such statements. We simple demand scientific evidence. You have none. You don't even seem to understand the concept. The evidence that evolutionary scientists is scientific evidence. This has everything to do with a post where I asked you if you realized the importance of a testable hypothesis yet.

BTW
Why do you assume that SOMETHING you tag as dark energy or dark matter is involved in the phenomenon you observe? HMMMMMM?

That is easy. Because it is supported by scientific evidence. Creationists should never put fake hums at the end of their posts. Since the answer is usually very obvious it only ends up making the creationist look not too bright. It is not a good debating technique at all. That only works if one knows that one is right. You don't have knowledge, all you have is belief. Knowledge is demonstrable. Don't forget that. Your side keeps losing in court because all they have is belief. And judges can see that.

 

[Radrook]

Now Radrook, you know that isn't true. You should not make such statements. We simple demand scientific evidence. You have none. You don't even seem to understand the concept. The evidence that evolutionary scientists is scientific evidence. This has everything to do with a post where I asked you if you realized the importance of a testable hypothesis yet.



That is easy. Because it is supported by scientific evidence. Creationists should never put fake hums at the end of their posts. Since the answer is usually very obvious it only ends up making the creationist look not too bright. It is not a good debating technique at all. That only works if one knows that one is right. You don't have knowledge, all you have is belief. Knowledge is demonstrable. Don't forget that. Your side keeps losing in court because all they have is belief. And judges can see that.

Very typical atheist denial of the obvious. Actually, it's similar to chanting: "Abracadabra go away!" Unfortunately for atheists, tagging compelling evidence as absent or as mere belief isn't going to make the compelling evidence of a planning organizing mind magically disappear. Neither is the obvious unscientific attitude of selective blindness a convincing way to persuade others. Instead, the choice of such an irrational strategy provides a very strongly justifiable reason to suspect chicanery based on a pathetic inability to offer a genuine refutation.

It actually constitutes an attempt at elevating irrationality to a virtue. That is very counterproductive for one very significant reason, glaringly blatant irrationality is totally incompatible with the scientific method. You see, or at least you should see since you continuously boast about familiarity with the scientific method, there is absolutely no scientific justification for suddenly placing the mental faculties on hold one moment and then cunningly recovering them the next when deemed convenient.

Such an irrationally ridiculous modus operandi isn't science. Why? simple! Because science demands objectivity and the placing of the mind on hold when deemed convenient is a certain indication that objectivity has been sacrificed at the alter of personal preferences.

Also indicative of this atheist bias is the bad habit of continuously creating straw man arguments after claiming a total inability to perceive the obvious and an inability to understand clearly written English. Then, after deploying such absurd objections, they vehemently demand the discussion continue along the same lines when there actually isn't any true discussion at all possible under such circumstances where fallacious reasoning is deemed cogent and cogent reasoning cunningly deemed fallacious

Example:

You keep ignoring the very obvious fact that I am comparing the initial conclusion that SOMETHING which has a certain effect on the movement of celestial bodies was there that needed investigation with reaching our conclusion own conclusion that Something is evidently causing the organization of matter in a way that very compellingly indicates a planning organizing mind.

The typically mindless atheist response based on selective blindness of: "Ï can't see!" makes any further discussion useless.

 

[Speedwell]

Something is evidently causing the organization of matter in a way that very compellingly indicates a planning organizing mind.

But not everyone finds your insight compelling, much less conclusive--not even all theists.

For theists here is also the possibility that the "something" is the combined action of natural forces which were conceived of by the "planning organizing mind" of God--a possibility which you reject.

 

[KCfromNC]

Atheists aren't open to any evidence that proves an ID.

Neither are Christian judges, apparently, given the losses ID have suffered in court. How deep does the conspiracy go?

Why do you assume that SOMETHING you tag as dark energy or dark matter is involved in the phenomenon you observe?

Because it needs some sort of label. Get back to us when people start claiming that dark matter is intelligent and lines up with the magical creator god of a 3000 year old religion. Until then, there's simply no comparison between the two subjects.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheists aren't open to any evidence that proves an ID. They unceremoniously and mindlessly tag it as non-evidence or non-scientific. Then they turn around and dogmatically proclaim other things that have no evidence as being supported by indisputable evidence. It's the "I can't see it cuz I don't guanna sees it!" strategy that is commonly deployed. You know: the ""Show me something so I can quickly shoots it downs!" ploy. So thanks but no thanks.

BTW
Why do you assume that SOMETHING you tag as dark energy or dark matter is involved in the phenomenon you observe? HMMMMMM?

Your claim, you need to support it with evidence. You chose evasion instead, which isn't fooling anyone.

I will ask again regarding ID:

Please provide the scientific definition of design.

Please provide the falsifiable test you would use, to determine when ID is present or not.

Don't evade with excuses, just address these simple questions, with direct answers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very typical atheist denial of the obvious. Actually, it's similar to chanting: "Abracadabra go away!" Unfortunately for atheists, tagging compelling evidence as absent or as mere belief isn't going to make the compelling evidence of a planning organizing mind magically disappear. Neither is the obvious unscientific attitude of selective blindness a convincing way to persuade others. Instead, the choice of such an irrational strategy provides a very strongly justifiable reason to suspect chicanery based on a pathetic inability to offer a genuine refutation.

Now please, you are not being honest here. As I have pointed out it is obvious that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Observations that you do not understand, and perhaps that others do not understand are not evidence. To have evidence you need a logical testable concept to start with. You don't have one. Therefore by definition you do not have any evidence. You are projecting your flaws upon others. That will not work here. Most people here have enough education so that your errors are obvious.

It actually constitutes an attempt at elevating irrationality to a virtue. That is very counterproductive for one very significant reason, glaringly blatant irrationality is totally incompatible with the scientific method. You see, or at least you should see since you continuously boast about familiarity with the scientific method, there is absolutely no scientific justification for suddenly placing the mental faculties on hold one moment and then cunningly recovering them the next when deemed convenient.

That is once again only what you are doing. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence so that you do not keep making such terribly ignorant mistakes. Right now you are the obviously irrational one.

Such an irrationally ridiculous modus operandi isn't science. Why? simple! Because science demands objectivity and the placing of the mind on hold when deemed convenient is a certain indication that objectivity has been sacrificed at the alter of personal preferences.

Right, and you are being both irrational and you are far from being objective. Learn from your errors. There are people here that can help you with those.

Also indicative of this atheist bias is the bad habit of continuously creating straw man arguments after claiming a total inability to perceive the obvious and an inability to understand clearly written English. Then, after deploying such absurd objections, they vehemently demand the discussion continue along the same lines when there actually isn't any true discussion at all possible under such circumstances where fallacious reasoning is deemed cogent and cogent reasoning cunningly deemed fallacious

Example:

You keep ignoring the very obvious fact that I am comparing the initial conclusion that SOMETHING which has a certain effect on the movement of celestial bodies was there that needed investigation with reaching our conclusion own conclusion that Something is evidently causing the organization of matter in a way that very compellingly indicates a planning organizing mind.

Bad analogy. Don't compare non-living things to living things. In fact forget the analogies until you learn what evidence is. You also don't seem to know what a strawman is. You need to learn your basics first. Of course once you do you will change your replies on at least 90% of your posts.

The typically mindless atheist response based on selective blindness of: "Ï can't see!" makes any further discussion useless.

Please, that is so untrue that it is bordering on a lie. An honest person would never say that because we don't say that. What we point out constantly is the fact that you have no evidence. If you would bother to even try to learn you would see that as of now you have no evidence.

Without a testable hypothesis at the very least then by definition you have no scientific evidence at all.

 

[Radrook]

Now please, you are not being honest here. As I have pointed out it is obvious that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Observations that you do not understand, and perhaps that others do not understand are not evidence. To have evidence you need a logical testable concept to start with. You don't have one. Therefore by definition you do not have any evidence. You are projecting your flaws upon others. That will not work here. Most people here have enough education so that your errors are obvious.

That is once again only what you are doing. You need to learn what is and what is not evidence so that you do not keep making such terribly ignorant mistakes. Right now you are the obviously irrational one.



Right, and you are being both irrational and you are far from being objective. Learn from your errors. There are people here that can help you with those.



Bad analogy. Don't compare non-living things to living things. In fact forget the analogies until you learn what evidence is. You also don't seem to know what a strawman is. You need to learn your basics first. Of course once you do you will change your replies on at least 90% of your posts.



Please, that is so untrue that it is bordering on a lie. An honest person would never say that because we don't say that. What we point out constantly is the fact that you have no evidence. If you would bother to even try to learn you would see that as of now you have no evidence.

Without a testable hypothesis at the very least then by definition you have no scientific evidence at all.

I already addressed all your points and need not repeat myself only to have them totally ignored or drastically warped and misrepresented. Also, your refusal to acknowledge evidence doesn't fool anyone with common sense here who can easily see through the ruse. It is merely the selective vision excuse of I can't see! repeated ad infinitum because you have nothing better to offer. Your smug claims of intellectual superiority also come under the same delusional ineffectual, inane category. I suggest that you adopt a more humble teachable attitude and perhaps in that way you might be able to broaden your mental horizon. As they stand right now they are exceedingly narrow.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already addressed all your points and need not repeat myself only to have them totally ignored or drastically warped and misrepresented.

No, you haven't. You only posted more unsupported nonsense.

Also, your refusal to acknowledge evidence doesn't fool anyone with common sense here who can easily see through the ruse. It is merely the selective vision excuse of I can't see!

Now this is either a lie, which I do not think is the case, or you are terribly ignorant and sense that if you did understand you would drop your silly claims. I have never refused to see any evidence. I have explained to you why you don't have any. I have offered to help you to understand what evidence is but you simply run away Again, this does not reflect well onyou.

repeated ad infinitum because you have nothing better to offer.

This is another falsehood on your part.

Your smug claims of intellectual superiority also come under the same delusional ineffectual, inane category.

Please, when you are the one suffering from cognitive dissonance you should not make such claims. I am not smug. Far from it. But you are making a very very basic error and are doing nothing to correct it. Why are you so afraid to even discuss the nature of evidence?

I suggest that you adopt a more humble teachable attitude and perhaps in that way you might be able to broaden your mental horizon. As they stand right now they are exceedingly narrow.

You are projecting your flaws upon others again.

One more time, why are you so afraid to even discuss the nature of evidence? If you understood what valid evidence was you would be a much better debater. You might even win a debate now and then. Until you do so you are just swinging in the dark.

 

[Radrook]

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (

) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book,

The Physics of Christianity.

 

[KCfromNC]

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (

) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book,

The Physics of Christianity.

Wow. One whole scientist converted to Christianity.

But it is strange, if he's so sure that his conversion is the result of a "straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them" where is his peer-reviewed publication showing this?

 

[bhsmte]

Atheists aren't open to any evidence that proves an ID. They unceremoniously and mindlessly tag it as non-evidence or non-scientific. Then they turn around and dogmatically proclaim other things that have no evidence as being supported by indisputable evidence. It's the "I can't see it cuz I don't guanna sees it!" strategy that is commonly deployed. You know: the ""Show me something so I can quickly shoots it downs!" ploy. So thanks but no thanks.

BTW
Why do you assume that SOMETHING you tag as dark energy or dark matter is involved in the phenomenon you observe? HMMMMMM?

I didnt see any evidence in your post.

 

[Speedwell]

Atheists aren't open to any evidence that proves an ID.

No, they (and most theists, as well) just don't think there is any.

 

[KCfromNC]

No, they (and most theists, as well) just don't think there is any.

Heck, even pro-ID evangelists testified in court that the evidence for it is on par with the evidence for astrology. It isn't as if "there's tons of scientific evidence for creationism" is a majority view even among people who get paid to tell others that there is.

 

[Radrook]

No, they (and most theists, as well) just don't think there is any.

Theists consider themselves surrounded by evidence as displayed in nature.
In fact, theists consider themselves as evidence of an ID.