Did God Design the Human Brain or Did It Just Happen?

The following are statements I found on the web comparing the brain with
a computer. After each statement is my question or comment:

1. Computer memory grows by adding computer chips. Memories in the brain grow by stronger synaptic connections.
(Are these connections made to unused portions of the brain?)

2. Both can adapt and learn. It is much easier and faster for the brain to learn new things. Yet, the computer can do many complex tasks at the same time ("multitasking"😉 that are difficult for the brain. For example, try counting backwards and multiplying 2 numbers at the same time. However, the brain also does some multitasking using the autonomic nervous system. For example, the brain controls breathing, heart rate and blood pressure at the same time it performs a mental task.
(Looks like evidence of design in both cases to me. What do you think?)

3. Both have evolved over time. The human brain has weighed in at about 3 pounds for about the last 100,000 years. Computers have evolved much faster than the human brain. Computers have been around for only a few decades, yet rapid technological advancements have made computers faster, smaller and more powerful.
(We know computers evolved by human designers. But how did the brain
evolve, if it did, on its own? Why should me believe the brain evolved without
a designer, if it evolved at all? Could not what they call "evolved" be only
evidence of us using more of our unused memory? I also can not understand
this 100,000 years and who weighed it at the time.)

4. Both need energy. The brain needs nutrients like oxygen and sugar for power; the computer needs electricity to keep working.
(Was this all by design or did it just happen that way?)

5. Both can be damaged. It is easier to fix a computer - just get new parts. There are no new or used parts for the brain. However, some work is being done with transplantation of nerve cells for certain neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease. Both a computer and a brain can get "sick" - a computer can get a "virus" and there are many diseases that affect the brain. The brain has "built-in back up systems" in some cases. If one pathway in the brain is damaged, there is often another pathway that will take over this function of the damaged pathway.
(If a backup system is built-in, why is that not evidence of design?)

6. Both can change and be modified. The brain is always changing and being modified. There is no "off" for the brain - even when an animal is sleeping, its brain is still active and working. The computer only changes when new hardware or software is added or something is saved in memory. There IS an "off" for a computer. When the power to a computer is turned off, signals are not transmitted.
(Amazing! This just happened too, I suppose. Hard to believe.)

7. Both can do math and other logical tasks. The computer is faster at doing logical things and computations. However, the brain is better at interpreting the outside world and coming up with new ideas. The brain is capable of imagination.
(Imagiation! Did you get that?)

8. Both brains and computers are studied by scientists. Scientists understand how computers work. There are thousands of neuroscientists studying the brain. Nevertheless, there is still much more to learn about the brain. "There is more we do NOT know about the brain, than what we do know about the brain"
(How then could anyone in their right mind logically say, there was no
designer, it just happened by nature, whatever they think that is?)

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following are statements I found on the web comparing the brain with
a computer. After each statement is my question or comment:

1. Computer memory grows by adding computer chips. Memories in the brain grow by stronger synaptic connections.
(Are these connections made to unused portions of the brain?)

2. Both can adapt and learn. It is muc ...[text shortened]... s no
designer, it just happened by nature, whatever they think that is?)

Who designed the designers brain?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following are statements I found on the web comparing the brain with
a computer. After each statement is my question or comment:

1. Computer memory grows by adding computer chips. Memories in the brain grow by stronger synaptic connections.
(Are these connections made to unused portions of the brain?)

2. Both can adapt and learn. It is muc s no
designer, it just happened by nature, whatever they think that is?)

“...Looks like evidence of design in both cases to me …
…..
…..why is that not evidence of design? …
….”

in both cases I think you are confusing complexity and independency with evidence for intelligent design (as opposed to the mindless design made by biological evolution).
Since the theory of biological evolution predicts that there could be BOTH complexity AND independence as outcomes in the mindless design, seeing complexity and independency in lifeforms is not evidence for 'intelligent' design because it is not any more predicted as a possible outcome by intelligent design than the mindless design of biological evolution.
(this is not even to mention the observable flaws in some designs of life. Example: the human retina having its connections and blood vessels in front of it! How would that not be evidence AGAINST “intellectual” design? -it would be a very stupid flaw to make! And evolution IS “stupid” in the literal sense! )

“...Was this all by design or did it just happen that way? ...”

If you are talking about “intelligent” design, neither. It is inevitable that, just like all of our organs, the brain needs nutrients like oxygen and sugar for power.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Who designed the designers brain?

I believe it was the God of the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Looks like evidence of design in both cases to me …
…..
…..why is that not evidence of design? …
….”

in both cases I think you are confusing complexity and independence with evidence for intelligent design (as opposed to the mindless design made by biological evolution).
Since the theory of biological evolution predicts that there could b ...[text shortened]... that, just like all of our organs, the brain needs nutrients like oxygen and sugar for power.

What you are saying, looks like a bunch of "MumboJumbo" to me.
It doesn't make good sense.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What you are saying, looks like a bunch of "MumboJumbo" to me.
It doesn't make good sense.

which parts? It is in plain English.
Give me a specific example and state why it makes no sense to you.
I have answered some of your questions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe it was the God of the Holy Bible.

You've missed the point. Who designed God?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Looks like evidence of design in both cases to me. What do you think?

I think evidence of design is very hard to pin down.
I could just as easily say "Oh, that waterfall is so beautiful and intricate! Looks like evidence of design!". But what do I mean by that? Why would it be evidence of design? Please explain further.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
which parts? It is in plain English.
Give me a specific example and state why it makes no sense to you.
I have answered some of your questions.

Okay. Lets take your first answer:
"in both cases I think you are confusing complexity and independency with evidence for intelligent design (as opposed to the mindless design made by biological evolution). "
The computer is complex and the brain even more complex, because it
was man's brain that was used in the design of the computer. You seem
to be saying that some mindless force could produce the complexity in
the computer as well as in the human brain. Is that correct?
Independency? I have no idea what you are saying. Some more "MumboJumbo"
to me.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
You've missed the point. Who designed God?

The Holy Bible says God always existed. He is without beginning or end.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay. Lets take your first answer:
"in both cases I think you are confusing complexity and independency with evidence for intelligent design (as opposed to the mindless design made by biological evolution). "
The computer is complex and the brain even more complex, because it
was man's brain that was used in the design of the computer. You seem
to be ...[text shortened]... correct?
Independency? I have no idea what you are saying. Some more "MumboJumbo"
to me.

“...The computer is complex and the brain even more complex, BECAUSE it
was man's brain that was used in the design of the computer. ...” (my emphasis0

why can't a brain design something more complex than itself? -but I fear this might be sidetracking you so lets just continue...

“...You seem to be saying that some mindless force could produce the complexity in
the computer as well as in the human brain. Is that correct? ...”

NO! where did you get that from?

“...Independency? I have no idea what you are saying. ...”

Oh ****, that was a misspelling 🙁
That should have been “interdependency” and I was referring to the interdependency between different parts of a living thing (e.g. the heart and the rest of the body -neither can function without the other).
Oh and "Independence" should also have been " interdependency” there.

My Englidelicious is not too good.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Looks like evidence of design in both cases to me …
…..
…..why is that not evidence of design? …
….”

in both cases I think you are confusing complexity and independency with evidence for intelligent design (as opposed to the mindless design made by biological evolution).
Since the theory of biological evolution predicts that there could b ...[text shortened]... that, just like all of our organs, the brain needs nutrients like oxygen and sugar for power.

sorry, misspellings:
Just as I have just pointed out to RJHinds, “independency” and "independence" should also have been " interdependency” all all cases in that post.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think evidence of design is very hard to pin down.
I could just as easily say "Oh, that waterfall is so beautiful and intricate! Looks like evidence of design!". But what do I mean by that? Why would it be evidence of design? Please explain further.

It is my opinion, any reasonable person could see that the computer
is a complex machine that functions in a certain way for a certain purpose.
He would not say that certain forces, like gravity or the wind, somehow
formed it. He would say somebody made this computer but I don't know
who. Man is even more complex than a computer, yet some people don't
wonder who made him, but think they know that forces put him together.
They somehow see no evidence of design at all.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]
“...You seem to be saying that some mindless force could produce the complexity in the computer as well as in the human brain. Is that correct? ...”

NO! where did you get that from?

I don't know. Maybe I just dreamed it. Maybe we agree after all.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is my opinion, any reasonable person could see that the computer
is a complex machine that functions in a certain way for a certain purpose.
He would not say that certain forces, like gravity or the wind, somehow
formed it. He would say somebody made this computer but I don't know
who. Man is even more complex than a computer, yet some people don't ...[text shortened]... think they know that forces put him together.
They somehow see no evidence of design at all.

“...He would not say that certain forces, like gravity or the wind, somehow
formed it. ...”

that, at least in part, is because he knows that there is EVIDENCE that PEOPLE formed it and that would surely imply that gravity, wind etc didn't “somehow formed it”?
In contrast, here is NO evidence that a god or some other kind of intelligence formed a man.


“...Man is even more complex than a computer ...”

correct.

“...yet some people don't wonder WHO made him ...” (my emphasis)

that is because we know WHAT 'made' him and that “WHAT” is not a “WHO” but is evolution (which is also proven to have happened ) .