Thursday, June 14, 2012

NAS Authority: It Makes No (Theo)logical Sense and it Defies Notions of a Supreme Intelligence

In his book Inside the Human Genome Evolution professor John Avise makes the usual evolutionary truth claims that biological designs make “no (theo)logical sense” and “defy notions of a supreme intelligence.” The biological designs, in this case, are those involved in the mitochondria’s cellular energy production. Avise writes:

Considering the critical role of cellular energy production in human health and metabolic operations, why in the world would an intelligent designer have entrusted so much of the production process to a mitochondrion, given the outrageous molecular features this organelle possesses?. Why would a wise designer have imbued mtDNA with some but not all of the genes necessary to carry out its metabolic role (and then put the remaining genes in the mucleus instead)? Why would a wise engineer have put any crucial genes in a caustic cytoplasmic environment where they are exposed routinely to high concentrations of mutagenic oxygen radicals? And why would He have dictated that the mitochondrial genetic code must differ from the nuclear genetic code, thereby precluding cross-translation between two genomes for which effective communication would seem to be highly desirable?
The puzzlement for explanations involving ID goes even further. Why would an intelligent designer have engineered mtDNA structures (such as a closed-circular genome, no introns, no junk DNA, lack of binding histones) and mtDNA operations (such as little or no genetic recombination, the production of a polygenic transcript, a limited ability to mend itself, and no self-sufficiency in transcription or translation) to differ so fundamentally from their counterpart features in the nuclear genome? In a nutshell, the underlying design of the whole mitochondrial operation seems to make no (theo)logical sense. Not only is the overall design of mtDNA suboptimal—it is downright ludicrous. [103-4]

However, as discussed in chapter 1, in this book we are not particularly concerned with genomic features that suggest good workmanship because such features are philosophically consistent with either natural selection or intelligent causation. Our focus instead is on genomic features that defy notions of a supreme intelligence underlying biological design. Genomic flaws should in principle provide a more decisive test of whether unconscious evolutionary processes or cognitive agents have shaped our genes. [108]

Evolutionists have been making these arguments for centuries but what many observers, including historians and philosophers of science, fail to realize is that these arguments are metaphysical. One reason for this failure is that these evolutionary claims are rather charged and polarizing. People tend to agree or disagree with them, and hence the debate rapidly focuses on whether or not evolutionary claims are true.

While certainly that is an interesting question and worthy of discussion at some point, it misses the more fundamental point which is that evolutionary thinking is metaphysical. It may be true, it may be false, but it is metaphysical.

The claim that evolution is overwhelmingly a fact is underwritten not by the science (on which evolution is problematic), but by the metaphysics. For instance, set the debate aside for a moment and take the evolutionary position. Assume, for a moment, that you believe what evolutionists believe. Pretend that you, rather than the evolutionist, wrote the above passages. Now ask yourself, is evolution a fact?

Of course it is. It must be. Once you understand evolutionary thinking, then you will understand why they say evolution is a fact. Evolutionists claim the high ground of science and accuse others of religious bias. But it is all a hypocritical lie.

And when confronted with this evolutionists equivocate on their claims. They say the “fact” of evolution refers merely to change over time. That equivocation is easily exposed and it reveals how twisted is evolutionary thinking. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

134 comments:

  1. In a nutshell, the underlying design of the whole mitochondrial operation seems to make no (theo)logical sense. Not only is the overall design of mtDNA suboptimal—it is downright ludicrous.

    Before he brands the present design of cells as 'suboptimal', John Avise should synthesise a living organism of his own, the cells of which should be organized the way he thinks is best; then the two designs can be compared.

    Until he can do that then he is just blowing hot air.

    ReplyDelete
  2. (sorry for my english)
    Interesting. Avise´s mitochondrias in neurons are not designed because even a bad human designer like Gil Dodgen is not enough IDiot to make such crap. But many sub-optimal neurons working together in Avise´s brain segregate thought that are the plain, the optimal TRUTH. WOW, what a stupid ideology is naturalism.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Theological arguments are irrelevant to the science of evolutionary theory.

    Some scientific theories might be easier to accommodate theologically than others, but the test of a theory is not whether it makes theological sense, but whether it fits the data.

    Evolutionary theory is not an argument against Design, or against theism. It's simply a scientific theory that accounts well for the data.

    If you can devise a theology to fit it (and it isn't hard) then fine, but that shouldn't be our test of whether a scientific theory should be retained or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. As a programmer, I've often had this same reaction to new code when I don't understand the design. Of course, I did not thereby conclude that the code in question arose through random processes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you mean by "random" in the above sentence?

      Delete
    2. What is your definition of 'code'?

      How do you determine that what you see is code?

      Delete
    3. Why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created; then point out how evolutionary theory does not fit that explanation. Please be specific.

      Delete
    4. Thorton, you bozo. You don't know what a code is? A code is a symbol, i.e., anything that represents something else. It follows that in order for a code to be useful, it must be interpretable either by an intelligent agent or by a mechanism created or designed by an intelligent agent.

      Interpretability is the key. Wake up, bozo.

      Delete
    5. I have the same experience as Magister. (I am JoeCoder, after all). I often scoff the first time I encounter code from another developer, laughing at all the roundabouts and poor design. But often as I try to clean it up, I find most are there for a reason, and my fixes introduce new problems.

      Above, I found Dr. Hunter's response to Dr. Avise to be very lacking, and almost frustrating in its avoidance of the issue. But since I've encountered so many other examples of "bad design" that upon further investgation turned out to be necessary (recurrent laryngeal nerve, vertebrate retina), it seems reasonable to assume the same will be found here. In this case, isn't Darwinism the science-stopper? While ID continues to search for purpose.

      It's ironic that Avise complains about mitochondria's closed-circular genome. I'm far from being a biologist, but as far as I understand, this prevents telomere decay. Elsewhere I've seen Darwinists complain about the open nature of the nuclear genome as a design that doesn't make sense. You can't have it both ways.

      Perhaps the other differences and dependence on the rest of the cell is to prevent mitochondira from being able to accomplish much if they rebel?

      Delete
    6. Louis Savain

      Thorton, you bozo. You don't know what a code is? A code is a symbol, i.e., anything that represents something else. It follows that in order for a code to be useful, it must be interpretable either by an intelligent agent or by a mechanism created or designed by an intelligent agent.


      Then by your definition, DNA is not a code. Triplet codons don't abstractly represent amino acids. They don't have a sender or a receiver. They aren't interpreted by any intelligence. They are part of a chemical reaction that produces amino acids.

      Only abstract codes use symbols to represent other things. Only abstract codes need intelligent to create and intelligence to interpret/extract the message.

      Code also means any process where the inputs can be mapped to the outputs. In that sense DNA is a code, but it is not an abstract code, and doesn't require any intelligence to proceed.

      Delete
    7. JoeCoder

      In this case, isn't Darwinism the science-stopper? While ID continues to search for purpose.


      Hi JC and welcome.

      I'm very interested in this "ID search for purpose" you mention. Can you please give some examples of ongoing ID research, and the hypotheses being tested? What experimental results would falsify ID?

      Delete
    8. Hello Thorton,

      In my view, ID is very falsifiable. All you have to do is calculate the odds of a given feature evolving, given population sizes, mutation rates, nucleotides needing to change, the number of intermediate steps, and available time. If it can be explained by natural means, it's silly to invoke ID. I've attempted to do this myself(http://justpaste.it/11z1) with the famous cause of the prestin protein in Dolphins and Bats, since it is a very minor convergence of only 14 amino acids.

      As for finding purpose, one study that comes to mind is "Evolution gave flawed eye better vision" (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627594.000-evolution-gave-flawed-eye-better-vision.html). Special "glial cells" sit over the retina and act like fiber-optic cables to channel light through the optic nerve wires directly onto the photoreceptor cells. These funnel-shaped cells prevent scattering of light and "act as light filters, keeping images clear." Here (http://justpaste.it/11z0) are my notes about why the vertebrate retina is actulaly good design.

      I thought another interesting area of ID research was Douglas Axe's "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds"(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624), Journal of Molecular Biology, 2005; where he shows fewer than 10^64 sequences of amino acids can produce proteins that fold. For comparison, the earth has 10^50 atoms. Similarly, H Gutfreund and G. Toulouse wrote in "Biology and Computation":
      The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero. So, ignoring the difficulties of abiogenesis, you would expect all proteins to be modified versions of existing ones. Although many are similar in structure, this seems hard enough in such a sparse landscape, and even simple cases such as Dolphins and Bats defy probability. Yet six new genes have arison from scratch in humans since the chimp divergence? (http://www.britishcouncil.org/january_2011-biology-scientific_article.pdf, bottom of page 9)

      Delete
    9. Sorry, that should've been "less than one out of 10^64 sequences"

      Delete
    10. JoeCoder

      In my view, ID is very falsifiable. All you have to do is calculate the odds of a given feature evolving, given population sizes, mutation rates, nucleotides needing to change, the number of intermediate steps, and available time. If it can be explained by natural means, it's silly to invoke ID.


      How would that falsify ID? How would you know that the Intelligent Designer didn't just manipulate known evolutionary mechanisms through his powers?

      As for finding purpose, one study that comes to mind is "Evolution gave flawed eye better vision"

      How in the world us that suppose to support the claim that ID is looking for "purpose"? That study has absolutely nothing to do with ID.

      The probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero.

      No one in science says or thinks functional proteins arose by random association of amino acids.

      So, ignoring the difficulties of abiogenesis, you would expect all proteins to be modified versions of existing ones.

      No, you wouldn't. You'd expect that similar proteins may have shared a common ancestral form at some time in the past, not that one extant protein evolved into another extant protein. That's the same beginner's error that Axe and Gauger embarrassed themselves with so badly.

      Although many are similar in structure, this seems hard enough in such a sparse landscape, and even simple cases such as Dolphins and Bats defy probability.

      Where did you get enough data on all the unknowns to even begin to calculate an accurate probability? It's impossible to calculate the probabilities of a long term feedback process simply by taking a snapshot of the results. You need detailed information about the state of the system (inputs and outputs) during every iteration. Do you have such information for any protein? Because no one else in science does.

      BTW, your calculations that you reference above are dead wrong for exactly that reason. You are modeling an event that no one in science says or thinks happened as you describe it. That all of the changes to prestin had to occur totally randomly instead of being formed by two very similar feedback systems driven by very similar selection pressures.

      In actuality, bats and dolphins shared a common mammalian ancestor from which they both inherited an ancestral form of prestin. Each type of animal developed echolocation in its own unique way, but both had a very similar selection pressure to develop high frequency sensitivity that prestin confers. Most of those critical details are explained in the paper, yet you chose to ignore them in your calculations. Why is that?

      Delete
    11. > How would that falsify ID? How would you know that the Intelligent Designer didn't just manipulate known evolutionary mechanisms through his powers?

      Occam's razor. There's no need to invoke an intelligent designer for what natural processes can explain.

      > That study has absolutely nothing to do with ID.

      It didn't set out to validate ID, but the results (among the others I listed) help refute one common argument against ID. By "purpose"; I simply mean that what at first looks like a bad design is actually done that way for a good reason.

      > You'd expect that similar proteins may have shared a common ancestral form at some time in the past, not that one extant protein evolved into another extant protein.

      Well yes, that's what I'm trying to say; although it's reasonable to expect the unmodified form to still exist. This study (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/9/1637.full) shows bacterial proteins that were unchanged for 250 million years.

      > Where did you get enough data on all the unknowns to even begin to calculate an accurate probability?

      It's a crude calculation, I'm only trying to find a lower bound for a best-case scenario. Even if you assume the deck is stacked and all of the sites start with CpG nucleotides (which mutate 10-50x faster), it's still not enough to be within reason. Yes, we can't calculate it exactly, but when the result is off by multiple orders of magnitude, it's enough to make the point. And changing 14 derived amino acid sites is still orders of magnitude easier than de novo protein creation.


      > No one in science says or thinks functional proteins arose by random association of amino acids.

      This study (http://www.britishcouncil.org/january_2011-biology-scientific_article.pdf) published New Scientist describes de novo creation of proteins from junk DNA, including at least 6 since the alleged chimp/human (and now bonobo!) divergence (bottom of page 9).

      > but both had a very similar selection pressure

      I have to disagree with the authors of the paper here. Bats fly in the air and dolphins spend their lives under water. There's no more selective pressure than for any other mammal to develop high-frequency hearing. But that doesn't matter--my calculation ignores selection and assumes as soon as the mutation appears, all members of the species receive it instantly. This simplification also puts the odds a couple more orders of magnitude in your favor.

      > Most of those critical details are explained in the paper

      I've read it a couple times, and also a similar report from a different group. The paper blames convergence but doesn't go into details.

      Thanks for the interesting debate; it's always a privilege to go head-to-head with someone who is well studied in these topics.

      Delete
  5. We may of course rely on Cornelius's authority here. After all, he even illustrated his post with a photo of John Avise, behaving pompously.

    Hey, wait a second, that doesn't look like John! I know John, and he looks like this. And he doesn't behave like that guy in the picture, either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  6. CH: "The claim that evolution is overwhelmingly a fact is underwritten not by the science (on which evolution is problematic), but by the metaphysics. For instance, set the debate aside for a moment and take the evolutionary position. Assume, for a moment, that you believe what evolutionists believe. Pretend that you, rather than the evolutionist, wrote the above passages. Now ask yourself, is evolution a fact?

    Of course it is. It must be. Once you understand evolutionary thinking, then you will understand why they say evolution is a fact. Evolutionists claim the high ground of science and accuse others of religious bias. But it is all a hypocritical lie."

    Of course, this assumes you actually understand "evolutionary thinking" and could actually recognize your own beleifs so you could take them out of the equation.

    For example, I'm not wed to any particular conception or number of supernal designers. As such, I'm not bound to any particular theology, including that such a designer would have any moral axis as all. See Robert Wright's The Evolution of God, in which he shows, in significant detail, how our earliest conceptions of God initially had no moral axis and that this facet only appeared gradually as cultures and civilizations merged, etc.

    However, as a Christian, you are wed to a particularly theology. You're the one claiming God is all knowing, all powerful and perfectly good. So this criticism is a response to your particular beliefs, not any possible supernatural designer. Just because it's binary for you, this doesn't mean it's binary for me.

    So, this is yet another parochial argument in that it only takes into account a narrow conception of a supernatural designer.

    I discard the current crop of ID because it's a bad explanation. We can distill it down to "That's just what some abstract designer, with no defined limitations, must have wanted" which explains nothing because it could explain absolutely anything and everything. Nor does it explain the origin of the knowledge this supposed designer put in the genome. As such, it serves no explanatory purpose.

    All this does is push the problem into some inexplicable realm.

    Any assumption that knowledge doesn't play a role in building adaptations or that the knowledge that builds those adaptations, "just was" is yet another theological assumption that i'm not wed to. If you cannot recognize this as an idea that would be subject to criticism, then you cannot "Assume, for a moment, that you believe what evolutionists believe." You cannot take yourself out of the equation and answer this question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In other words, since you continually refuse to answer direct questions regarding the above assumptions, it's unclear how you can actually "Assume, for a moment, that you believe what evolutionists believe."

      Delete
    2. Scott, you're not convincing me that you discard the current crop of ID because it's a bad explanation since you are unable to see that evolution is a bad explanation. You're rationality for justifying your pro-evolution position is based on something else.

      Many procedures to intelligently manipulate DNA by design have been practiced effectively. These procedures are well documented and even patented. While we may never know exactly how God created life, we are beginning to see what's involved in such a feat and evolutionary overly simplistic mechanisms are simply becoming archaic.

      Evolutionary theory was conceived in the era when horse poop was still being shoveled off the streets of New York City. It's time for you to move on also. The future belongs to ID.

      Delete
    3. Ignorant Creationist

      Evolutionary theory was conceived in the era when horse poop was still being shoveled off the streets of New York City.


      So was the automobile and the electric light. Just like the auto and the light, evolutionary theory has undergone an enormous growth in knowledge and sophistication in the last 150 years. Just like the auto and the light, evolutionary theory is still here because it has proved its scientific worth a hundred time over. And just like the auto and the light, the basic principles are still used because they still do productive work.

      It's time for you to move on also. The future belongs to ID.

      It's time for you to stop shoveling your Creationist poop and catch up with the last 150 years' worth of scientific discoveries that seem to have passed you by.

      Delete
    4. Neal: Scott, you're not convincing me that you discard the current crop of ID because it's a bad explanation since you are unable to see that evolution is a bad explanation. You're rationality for justifying your pro-evolution position is based on something else.

      And, it's a bad explanation, because?

      Again, it's not clear that you can actually hold an accurate conception of evolutionary theory that would be necessary to criticize it. As such, it's unclear how could have reasonably concluded it's a good or bad explanation.

      Neal: You're rationality for justifying your pro-evolution position is based on something else.

      First, I'm not a justificationist. That's your conception of human knowledge, not mine.

      Second, something other than what, Neal? I've already pointed out that CH's assumption is incorrect.

      Furthermore, I've pointed out over and over again that evolutionary theory is a good explanation because it is based on a long chain of independent, hard to vary explanations. This is how we explain our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge.

      So, I think it's a good explanation based on our current, best conceptions of human knowledge (how we make progress). You, on the other hand, hold a significantly different conception of human knowledge, which apparently you cannot recognize as an idea.

      Which is what I've been pointing out repeatedly in recent threads. In other words, there is no hidden assumption as to why I think evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the biological complexity we observe.

      Neal: While we may never know exactly how God created life, we are beginning to see what's involved in such a feat and evolutionary overly simplistic mechanisms are simply becoming archaic.

      What's archaic is your conception of human knowledge, which presents design as overly simplistic. There is no need to explain how the knowledge God supposedly put in the genome was created. Nor is there supposedly any need to complicate God with a complex material brain, etc. This is special pleading.

      Nor does God actually serve an explanatory purpose, as one could more economically state that organisms, "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how to build adaptation, already present.

      Of course, if you cannot even recognize your conception as an idea, then you cannot conceive of it being any other way.

      Delete
    5. Scott: You, on the other hand, hold a significantly different conception of human knowledge, which apparently you cannot recognize as an idea.

      What do I mean by this? Take the following question...

      Q: Do you think God has always had the knowledge of how to build any organism that is logical possible. This would include forms of life that God didn't decide to create, but could have.

      Yes or no?

      Delete
    6. Also...

      Q: Do you think God has always existed.

      Yes or no?

      Delete
  7. Semi OT: Since evolutionary biologists have a predisposition to label everything they don't understand in biology as kludged together junk that just happened to evolve that way, perhaps Engineers, who have a appreciation for how things are 'made', should be the ones investigating biology instead of evolutionary biologists!!! For instance look what engineers found that was missed by evolutionists:

    Engineers investigate why the cochlea is coiled - June 2012
    Excerpt: In the 1980s, scientists supposed that the shape evolved solely for space conservation,,, “One previous paper stated that the spiral’s graded curvature enhances the cochlea’s mechanical response to low frequencies,” Huang told Phys.org. “Our work is the first one in sound localization. Basically, most previous works focus on ‘low level’ functions, such as mechanical response. We show that sound localization may be one of the potential functions of the cochlea’s coiled geometry, which was assumed solely developed for saving space.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-06-cochlea.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry CH, scientists such as Avise make anti-religious arguments soley because non-scientists attempt to make religious arguments to reject the reality of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David:

      What anti-religious argument did Avise make?

      Delete
    2. I'd say that in exactly those places that you've highlighted above, he's arguing that a religious explanation (special creation) is not the best explanation for the evidence.

      Delete
  10. Not only are Avise's comments narrow minded metaphysical hogwash, it is bad science.

    What is predictable is that evolutionist claims of ineffiency and/or junk have ALWAYS proven later to be mistaken. From the eye to the appendix and dozens of other bogus examples, evolutionists have always got it wrong. I think evolutionists do this as a sort of offensive play since their theory is a mess.

    If Avise is such an expert about how DNA should have been designed why doesn't he take a couple hours after lunch and discover the cure for cancer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why doesn't the Designer choose to,after all He created the design. Since we are extrapolating from human design ,if you create a design which kills the user ,you are obligated to make amends or at least fix the problem.

      Delete
    2. Oddly enough, Neal, I agree. I don't think "God wouldn't have done it this way" is a scientific argument.

      It's an entirely negative argument against a a specific but unarticulated Intelligent Creator argument.

      The problem is that there are no positive articulated Intelligent Creator arguments, merely IDist picking holes in scientific theories.

      But I agree that merely picking holes in a theory is not good science, especially when that theory is not clearly articulated.

      Which is precisely why I find Cornelius's posts so unsatisfactory.

      Delete
    3. Elizabeth, every patent that is issued regarding the intelligent manipulation of DNA by design is a positive argument for the intelligent design of life.

      What evolutionists have done is establish their dogma way, way before the living cell was understood. We are years away, if ever, from having a procedure for how to put together a basic cell from scratch. But we do know enough now to dispense with the silly, simplistic notions of "evolution did it".

      Delete
    4. Elizabeth:

      The main arguments for ID from ID proponents are based on the facts that organisms have characteristics that we know from experience are characteristics of designed things only. You have irreducible complexity, functional integration of parts, etc, etc, etc. Evolution is an attempt to explain the appearance of design without actually coming on to design. It looks like design is actually the default explanation. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, eats like a duck, repels water like a duck, has parents and grandparents that were ducks, has duck DNA, then it probably is a duck. Same thing with organisms and design. How is this poorly articulated?

      Delete
    5. Neal: Elizabeth, every patent that is issued regarding the intelligent manipulation of DNA by design is a positive argument for the intelligent design of life.

      As I've pointed out elsewhere, it's not. This is because we use good explanations as a criteria for which experiments to run whenever possible, rather than non-explanatory rules of thumb.

      For example, If I had a genetic disease, I would expect my doctor to base my treatment on a good explanation, in that changing specific genes in my genome in a specific way would result in specific biological changes that could improve my condition. This would be explanatory knowledge.

      On the other hand, a the doctor could base my treatment on a rule of thumb: changing any of my genes in any way could result in some unknown biological change that could improve my condition. This would be non-explanatory knowledge.

      Do you see the difference? Assuming your doctor had both kinds of knowledge as his disposal, which treatment do you think he would use? Which treatment would you want?

      However, you seem to be suggesting that a designer which is supposedly more advanced that we are, which supposedly had access to both kinds of knowledge, decided to use a rule of thumb, rather than explanatory knowledge?

      How do you explain this discrepancy?

      Delete
    6. Nat: The main arguments for ID from ID proponents are based on the facts that organisms have characteristics that we know from experience are characteristics of designed things only.

      So, your argument is based on what we've experienced in the past?

      If so, what about the fact that, in our experience, all designers we've ever observe design anything have all had complex material brains. Does that mean you think that design is a characteristic of beings with complex material brains only?

      Delete
    7. "have all had complex material brains. Does that mean you think that design is a characteristic of beings with complex material brains only?"

      Hmmm interesting comment Scott, especially considering that when you were pressed on the fact that you have 'lost your mind' somewhere in your materialistic philosophy you stated:

      'No. I do not think my own consciousness is an illusion.' - Scott - many worlds proponent who believes in 10^500 versions of himself
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/06/heres-tip-of-iceberg-on-cellular.html?showComment=1339281299291#c7587375877043900608

      So which is it Scott do you have a mind or is your mind merely a illusion?

      Delete
    8. What do we have here? Rather than address the question I answered, BA quote mined me yet again, leaving out the part where I already answered his question. Never saw that coming in a million years.

      No. I do not think my own consciousness is an illusion. Rather we do not agree on what consciousness is, the level in which it's expressed and the role is plays in quantum mechanics.

      What will you change the subject to next?

      Delete
    9. natschuster

      The main arguments for ID from ID proponents are based on the facts that organisms have characteristics that we know from experience are characteristics of designed things only.


      No nat, you don't know that. That is the hypothesis you need to test and verify, that only consciously designed things can have certain attributes.

      The entire ID argument is based on the big fat logical fallacy of assuming your conclusion.

      You have irreducible complexity, functional integration of parts, etc, etc, etc.

      All of which can be produced from known, naturally occurring, non-designed mechanisms.

      Evolution is an attempt to explain the appearance of design without actually coming on to design.

      Which it does quite successfully to all except a few non-scientific religious zealots.

      Delete
    10. Ignorant Creationist

      Elizabeth, every patent that is issued regarding the intelligent manipulation of DNA by design is a positive argument for the intelligent design of life.


      "Every patent for lawn sprinklers is a positive argument that rain clouds were intelligently designed!!"

      Another big time logic FAIL for the board's premiere scientific ignoramus.

      Delete
    11. Elizabeth, every patent that is issued regarding the intelligent manipulation of DNA by design is a positive argument for the intelligent design of life.

      No, it isn't,any more than anyone who drops a plate is a positive argument for the intelligent design of gravity. Less so, actually.

      What evolutionists have done is establish their dogma way, way before the living cell was understood.

      Not at all. I realise this is what ID supporters think, but it is not the case. Science is not, and cannot be, dogmatic, or it ceases to be science. If data infirm a theory then it's the theory that has to change. But far from infirming Darwin's theory, everything we have learned, from the mechanisms of heritability, to the role genetics variation plays in phenotypic variation, has allowed to flesh out Darwin's original with actual, testable mechanisms.

      We are years away, if ever, from having a procedure for how to put together a basic cell from scratch.

      Sure. But that is irrelevant, except as an argument that "a basic cell" probably wasn't "put together from scratch", but rather evolved from something far simpler.

      But we do know enough now to dispense with the silly, simplistic notions of "evolution did it".

      Indeed. And it's time that instead of cariacturing evolutionary theory in such a silly, simplistic way, ID proponents actually educated themselves about the body of current understanding that constitutes evolutionary theory, its hypotheses, predictions, and supporting data.

      Delete
    12. Scott, this is simple. You either believe that you mind is a 'epi-phenomena' of your material brain and thus a 'illusion', or you believe that you mind is a independent entity that is transcendent of your brain. Which is it Scott?

      Notes:

      In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether.
      http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28

      “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Sir John Eccles - Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963

      Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs - 2010
      Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong.
      http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf

      Whereas materialism has ZERO evidence that consciousness arises from the material brain:

      Darwinian Psychologist David Barash Admits the Seeming Insolubility of Science's "Hardest Problem"
      Excerpt: 'But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it. In fact, I don't even know what kind of discovery would get us to first base, not to mention a home run.'
      David Barash - Materialist/Atheist Darwinian Psychologist
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/post_33052491.html

      Further note:

      the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

      1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality.
      2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

      Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

      Delete
    13. Has anything tha has the characterisics of designed things ever been producd withtout design? If not, why not? If we only observe designed things having these attributes, then IMHO, it is a pretty good working hypothesis that design is necessary. I know it is inductive reasoning, but all science ultimately comes down to induction.

      Anyway, I was addressing the point Elizabeth was making, that ID is not well defined. I do belief that it passess the duck test, at least.

      Delete
    14. natschuster

      Has anything that has the characterisics of designed things ever been producd withtout design?


      Yes. Evolved life forms for one. That's what the evidence shows.

      If not, why not? If we only observe designed things having these attributes, then IMHO, it is a pretty good working hypothesis that design is necessary.

      You are still making a completely circular argument. You are defining the characteristics as being "designed only", then using the same characteristics as evidence for design.

      That's still a major logic fail nat.

      Try this - tell me what is wrong with this argument:

      "Humans design tables with four legs

      Humans design chairs with four legs.

      Everything we know of that has four legs was intelligently designed.

      Horses and cows have four legs, therefore horses and cows were intelligently designed.

      Has anything that has four legs ever been produced without design?"

      Think hard nat and give me an honest answer.

      Delete
    15. Thorton said

      "Humans design tables with four legs

      Humans design chairs with four legs.

      Everything we know of that has four legs was intelligently designed.

      Horses and cows have four legs, therefore horses and cows were intelligently designed."

      Well that is not a bad argument . Why horses has four legs? We, humans, can design tables with three or more legs.
      Why there are only tetrapods in the whole history of superior animals? Why not a vertabrate fossil with six legs and two wings?

      Delete
    16. If we never see anything with four legs that wasn't designed, and we have no good explanation for how something could acquire four legs without being designed, then we can infer with some degree of certainty that all things with four were designed. This is science we are talking about, remember. Nothing is ever certain.

      Delete
    17. natschuster

      If we never see anything with four legs that wasn't designed, and we have no good explanation for how something could acquire four legs without being designed, then we can infer with some degree of certainty that all things with four were designed. This is science we are talking about, remember. Nothing is ever certain.


      You tap danced right around my question, and still keep making the same logical fallacy.

      What is wrong with this statement as the basis for a logical argument:

      "Everything we know of that has four legs was intelligently designed."

      You're still not thinking at all nat. I know it's hard for you. Try again.

      Delete
    18. I think you are getting at the problem of induction. We generalize from what we see. Or is your point that the statement isn't true. Okay, maybe I wasn't clear enough above. In our experience working with making things like levers, pulleys, steam engines, airplanes, computers, we have found that it is really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without design. That's the same way people learned about the second law of thermodynamics.

      Delete
    19. But I can just as easily reformulate this as...

      In our experience working with making things like levers, pulleys, steam engines, airplanes, computers, we have found that it is really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without complex material brains. That's the same way people learned about the second law of thermodynamics.

      Yet, I guessing you do not think it's necessary for all designers to have complex material brains, right?

      So, my point is, you're not really using induction. Rather, you're extrapolating observations using an explanatory theory - and a rather bad one at that, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere.

      Delete
    20. Furthermore, what is it that you mean when you say design, and what about it specifically needs to explained? Levers, steam engines and computers are well adapted for a particular purpose. Adaptations represent transformations of matter. These transformation occur when the requisite knowledge is present.

      If God is a designed us, wouldn't this mean he was well adapted to design things? And wouldn't that require some being with the knowledge of how to adapting beings, such as God, to be designers? And wouldn't this require yet another being with the knowledge of how to adapt that being as well, etc.?

      Merely claiming that God "just was", pre-adapted to the purpose of designing things, doesn't serve an explanatory purpose. This is because we could more economically reformulate this as, organisms "just appeared", pre-adapted to serve a purpose.

      Again, you're merely pushing the problem of the knowledge of how to adapt things to serve a purpose into some inexplicable realm.

      And, as always, if I've got something wrong then please point our where and how your view differs, in detail.

      On the other hand, evolutionary theory does provide an explanation, in that the knowledge of how to adapt organisms, as found in the genome, was *created* using a form of conjecture and refutation.

      Delete
    21. Scott:

      We don't know for sure that the mind is purely material. Purely materialistic explanations for things like mind, intelligence, etc fall short. The mind has characteristics that aren't characteristics of matter. So I'm not sure that your argument that design requires a purely materialistic mind is correct.

      And ID doesn't require the designer to be a disembodied mind, anyway.

      And we don't know the requirements needed to make God. We don't know what is necessary to make a disembodied mind. We do know from our work with machines that certain things are hard to produce without design.

      Delete
    22. natschuster

      In our experience working with making things like levers, pulleys, steam engines, airplanes, computers, we have found that it is really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without design.


      Well isn't that just peachy.

      So you now agree that when the claim is:

      "Everything we know of that has four legs was intelligently designed."

      what you really meant was

      "Every already known to be designed thing that has four legs was intelligently designed."

      Do you need me to explain the logical worthlessness of that statement too?

      Delete
    23. Nat: In our experience working with making things like levers, pulleys, steam engines, airplanes, computers, we have found that it is really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without design.

      Scott: In our experience working with making things like levers, pulleys, steam engines, airplanes, computers, we have found that it is really hard to make things that have certain characteristics without complex material brains.

      Nat: We don't know for sure that the mind is purely material.

      But we know for sure that the knowledge necessary to perform adaptations in biological organisms only occurs in the presence of intelligent designers? Again, what's the difference here?

      Nat: Purely materialistic explanations for things like mind, intelligence, etc fall short.

      Fall short of what, Nat? Being completely exhaustive? Gravitational theory falls short, but that doesn't' mean that you think God is directly pulling on objects according to their mass.

      Just because we do not have exhaustive explanation for anything doesn't mean it has a non-material cause by default. We simply have no explanation, so it's neutral one way or the other. What's funny is that theists deny this assumption, yet keep making argument that assume it's true.

      Nat: And ID doesn't require the designer to be a disembodied mind, anyway.

      I asked what you think, not what ID requires. Again, I'd suggest that you're not really using induction. Rather, you're extrapolating observations using an explanatory theory - and a rather bad one at that, for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere.

      And, of course, you completely ignored my other comment.

      Delete
    24. Thorton:

      Did I say that? I thought I said that basedon ur obsevarions of how we make machines, we learn that it is really hard to make things that look like they were designed without designing them. Just like every time we try to make a perpetual motion machine it doesn't work. The most we can say is that every attempt at perpetual motion that we attempted doesn't work. So we infer from there a law of second thermodynamics. That's how science works.

      Delete
    25. natschuster

      Did I say that? I thought I said that basedon ur obsevarions of how we make machines, we learn that it is really hard to make things that look like they were designed without designing them.


      "It's hard for humans to design thing that look designed without designing them"

      Well duh. You make less sense every time you post.

      What is your objective criteria for "looks designed"?

      Delete
    26. Scott:

      We know a lot about the brain. We can scan a brain while it's working. We can trace the path of neurotransmitters. But we don't know how that makes a mind.

      And, like I said above, in our experience working with machines, find that it is very hard to make things look designed without designining them.

      And why is what I think about the Designer important? The point is ID doesn't require a non-material designer. That's the science part. I personally believe that the God of Abraham created everything, but that is not based on the biology.

      And I admit that I'm using an explanatory framework to get the really big picture. What's wrong with that?

      Delete
    27. Thorton:

      Didn't I list things above that are characteristics of designed things that are really hard to make without design? There's irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity, functional integration of parts, etc.

      Delete
    28. natschuster

      Didn't I list things above that are characteristics of designed things that are really hard to make without design? There's irreducible complexity, highly specified complexity, functional integration of parts, etc.


      Didn't I point out that science knows of natural mechanisms which can create IC and integrated parts? "Specified complexity" is a meaningless undefined IDiot buzz phrase.

      How hard is "really hard" nat? Give me an objective way to determine "really hard". Does "really hard" equal "impossible" in nat-land?

      You also forgot to give me your objective way to determine if something "looks designed".

      Delete
    29. To the best of my knowledge, the mechanisms for making IC involve the creation of fucntional intermediate. But this is all very congectural and theoretical. It is basically an apologetic, an attempt to explain the appearance of design without coming on to design.

      And specified complexity means that there are very few complex combinations that actually work. Why is it any more meaningless than things like fixation rates and fitness coefficients?

      And I guess very hard could mean very unlikely. For example, if the chances of getting a certain protein are 1 to 10^77, that would be very hard.

      And when I said "looks designed" I meant that it has things like IC, SC, ect.

      Delete
    30. natschuster

      To the best of my knowledge, the mechanisms for making IC involve the creation of fucntional intermediate. But this is all very congectural and theoretical. It is basically an apologetic, an attempt to explain the appearance of design without coming on to design.


      Once again your woeful ignorance trips you up. IC systems in biology with plausible evolutionary pathways are plentiful in the scientific literature. The IDiot mistake is to assume

      1. parts can only be added, never deleted
      2. the function of each part can never change
      3. the function of the whole assembly can never change.

      All three of those are demonstrably wrong.

      Irreducible Complexity Demystified

      Even Behe, the "inventor" of the IC argument, doesn't use it anymore since it's been so thoroughly debunked. You need to get with the program.

      And specified complexity means that there are very few complex combinations that actually work. Why is it any more meaningless than things like fixation rates and fitness coefficients?

      It's worthless because the 'specified' part is completely subjective, and the 'complexity' part is completely subjective. It's a meaningless metric for any scientific study.

      And I guess very hard could mean very unlikely. For example, if the chances of getting a certain protein are 1 to 10^77, that would be very hard.

      The chance of one specific outcome being unlikely doesn't mean that having any outcome is unlikely. We've gone over this a dozen times. Why are you still too dense to get it?

      And when I said "looks designed" I meant that it has things like IC, SC, ect

      Now that you know that neither IC and SC require design, you're going to need another IDiot undefined buzzterm for your personal incredulity.

      Delete
    31. But to change functions of parts you need to change them in very specific ways. That means you need to get very, very lucky.

      Complexity means that there is a lot of stuff. And specified means only a few combinations work. Organisms need parts that work in specific ways.

      Delete
    32. natschuster: Just like every time we try to make a perpetual motion machine it doesn't work. The most we can say is that every attempt at perpetual motion that we attempted doesn't work. So we infer from there a law of second thermodynamics. That's how science works.

      That's a nice little story, Nat, but I am afraid it is apocryphal.

      Delete
    33. natschuster

      But to change functions of parts you need to change them in very specific ways. That means you need to get very, very lucky.


      Or you need just a little luck and a feedback process driving the results. Evolution is a feedback process.

      Complexity means that there is a lot of stuff.

      Evolution has been empirically demonstrated to create complexity.

      And specified means only a few combinations work. Organisms need parts that work in specific ways.

      Evolution has been empirically demonstrated to create parts that work in specific ways.

      Sorry nat, you're still floundering badly here.

      Delete
    34. How many amino acids do you have to change in one protein to change a homologous protein with a different function? If it is a lot of amino acids, then we have to get really lucky.

      Delete
    35. natschuster

      How many amino acids do you have to change in one protein to change a homologous protein with a different function? If it is a lot of amino acids, then we have to get really lucky


      Nope. Still need just a little luck and a feedback process, which we have.

      Still flailing here nat. Don't hurt yourself.

      Delete
    36. But if there is no increase in fitness until a number of mutations have happened, we don't get the feedback. And the numbers start to work against you, Or if it is actually detrimental, for example, it loses stability, then we get negative feedback. So we still need a lot of luck.

      Delete
    37. natschuster

      But if there is no increase in fitness until a number of mutations have happened, we don't get the feedback.


      Every mutation doesn't have to immediately increase fitness. There's this thing called neutral drift. I suppose you've forgotten the dozen or so times that's been explained to you.

      And the numbers start to work against you, Or if it is actually detrimental, for example, it loses stability, then we get negative feedback.

      But the detrimental mutations don't accumulate, they get filtered out.

      So we still need a lot of luck.

      Nope, just a little combined with empirically observed evolutionary processes.

      Too bad nat, you're still clueless.

      Delete
    38. But don't the numbers become problematic if we rely only on drift? You need millions and millions of birth to get all those mutations.

      And in some cases the mutations are harmful until they are all there. For example, if a protein aquires a new ability, but loses stability until there is a compensatory mutation. So you need all the mutations to happen at once, or you need an organism that somehow makes it with the detrimental mutations. Either way, yuo need lots of luck.

      Delete
    39. natschuster

      But don't the numbers become problematic if we rely only on drift? You need millions and millions of birth to get all those mutations.


      No, you don't. Keep flailing nat, I hear it's good exercise.

      So you need all the mutations to happen at once, or you need an organism that somehow makes it with the detrimental mutations. Either way, yuo need lots of luck.

      No, just a little luck and known evolutionary processes. Stay ignorant nat.

      Delete
    40. If we get one mutation out of a million births, and we need two mutations to get an adaptation, and we don't get the fitness filter, then we need a trillion births to get the two mutations. Or you need two million generations. Either way the, numbers start to add up.

      And how does an organism with floppy useless DNA floating around survive when its competitors are perfectly healthy? That sounds like a lot of luck to me.

      Delete
    41. Sorry, I erred. Should be "floppy, useless proteins." My bad.

      Delete
  11. ba77Scott, this is simple. You either believe that you mind is a 'epi-phenomena' of your material brain and thus a 'illusion', or you believe that you mind is a independent entity that is transcendent of your brain. Which is it Scott?

    You have a vast excluded middle there, ba77. Why should a mind that is the output of a material brain be an "illusion"? What would the word even mean in that context? An illusion is, in essence, a misleading model. We talk about "optical illusions" when we see something that is contradicted by our other senses, or even by our knowledge. A mind is not an "illusion" in this sense at all - it's a perfectly good model.

    Nor need it be an "epi-phenomenon", which suggests that it is a useless biproduct which we could just as easily dispense with, and function perfectly well (as philosophical zombies, perhaps). Conscious thought is important for function - it serves a real purpose that reflex and automated actions do not serve. It gives us flexibility of action.

    It's perfectly real. That doesn't mean that it isn't a consequence of physical processes. After all, most real things are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yada yada yada, "That doesn't mean that it isn't a consequence of physical processes."

      OK I produced evidence that mind is independent of the brain, where is you evidence that mind is a 'consequence of physical processes'???

      That is a specific claim about the mind that you simply have ZERO substantiating evidence for, no matter how long winded you may be in your denial!,,, Please reply with specific evidence for your claim, not with long winded rhetoric for your claim Elizabeth.

      Delete
    2. BA: 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.

      We've been over this before. There are better explanations for quantum mechanics that do not require observers playing a special role, while providing more explanatory power and resolving multiple paradoxes. When I point this out, your only response is ridicule those explanations.

      So, as Elisabeth pointed out, your argument is parochial in that it excludes a vast middle ground. Just because you do not accept this middle ground, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that I do not hold it.

      Nor do I claim we have solved the hard problem of consciousness.

      Specifically, explanations for phenomena exist on many levels. Consciousness is no exception. On the other hand, you're assuming there is some privileged analytical level of reality which gives us a superior view of consciousness. But this is an appeal to reductionism.

      A reductionist thinks high-level sciences are a matter of convenience, in that science is really about analyzing things into compartments, which must bottom out into a fundamental physics-based "theory of everything" from which we can make predictions.

      However, complexity prevents us from using fundamental physics to make high-level predictions. As such, we must conjecture what predictions would be if it were possible to make them. What gives us a chance to do this successfully is emergence. This is what makes higher-level science possible.

      So, I'm content with saying that computation plays a significant role in consciousness. And computation requires matter as media to hold instructions, store the results of computations, etc.

      However, I would note there are theories that suggest conciseness reflects choices we make about reality, which is integrated together to form a coherent whole. In other words, our view of reality is the result of a continual decision making process, which includes where things are in the room behind us, where we exist in space, etc.

      To use an example, some strokes victims can experience the complete loss of function in one hemisphere of their brain. This can result in the brain building some kind of false, unified whole out of incomplete sensory data. In some cases a patient cannot recognize their own arm and assume it belongs to care givers, even when they recognize the hand attached to that arm wearing what is obviously their wedding ring.

      To quote the article…

      There are historical parallels. An 18th-century scientist believed a substance called “caloric” made hot materials hot and flowed into colder materials to make them warmer. It seemed to be true, but subsequent investigation showed mechanical vibration equates to heat. Science is littered with similarly discredited theories; the soul is one of them. (emphasis mine)

      So, this isn't an illusion, per se as the arm in question is always opposite of the hemisphere in which functionality is lost. From the outside, we can explain what's going on, even though we're just scratching the surface of how brains work.

      See: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/from_divided_minds_a_specious_soul/

      Delete
    3. OK I produced evidence that mind is independent of the brain, where is you evidence that mind is a 'consequence of physical processes'???

      That is a specific claim about the mind that you simply have ZERO substantiating evidence for, no matter how long winded you may be in your denial!,,, Please reply with specific evidence for your claim, not with long winded rhetoric for your claim Elizabeth.


      Well, you could start with the entire neuroscience literature, ba77.

      Delete
    4. Scott claims,

      We've been over this before. There are better explanations for quantum mechanics that do not require observers playing a special role, while providing more explanatory power and resolving multiple paradoxes.

      HMMM, 'resolving multiple paradoxes'???

      and amazingly this strange paradox remains pops out of the woodwork:

      'I tentatively accept the consequences of such a theory, including that I would also be a multiversal object, which includes at least 10^500 versions of myself' - Scott - Many Worlds proponent
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/neuroscientist-most-seamless-illusions.html?showComment=1334583967799#c7217305678409346277

      Most people would realize that they took a wrong turn somewhere!

      Moreover the correct answer that is staring you right in the face remains a 'unresolved paradox',,,

      "Nor do I claim we have solved the hard problem of consciousness."

      Thus you clearly have 'lost your mind' in your materialistic philosophy!

      Elizabeth literature bluffs,

      'you could start with the entire neuroscience literature'

      please be very, very, specific Elizabeth! please cite the exact experiment that clearly supports your claim that consciousness 'emerges' as a 'consequence of physical processes'!

      God Versus Science: A Futile Struggle By J Roy Singham - May 2012
      Excerpt: Materialists believe that matter is unconscious, a tenable opinion. But they also believe that consciousness is an illusion. That belief is absurd, almost madness.
      http://ezinearticles.com/?God-Versus-Science:-A-Futile-Struggle&id=6940055

      Delete
    5. Of related note;

      It is interesting to note that atheistic materialist are not even close to explaining how 'life' emerged from a material basis, much less resolving the 'hard problem' of consciousness:

      The Theist holds the Intellectual High-Ground - March 2011
      Excerpt: To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)
      http://www.faithfulnews.com/contents/view_content2/49631/rabbi-moshe-averick-the-theist-holds-the-intellectual-high-ground-apologetics-christian-apologetics-defending-gospel

      If materialists want a clue as to how 'life and consciousness' interact with lifeless material, I suggest they look to the one who defeated death on the cross:

      General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin - updated video
      http://vimeo.com/34084462

      Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

      If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright 'Light' or 'Being of Light' who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of 'The Being of Light' while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the 'The Being of Light' they were in the presence of is none other than 'The Lord God Almighty' of heaven and earth.

      In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544

      “The Light was brighter than hundreds of suns, but it did not hurt my eyes. I had never seen anything as luminous or as golden as this Light, and I immediately understood it was entirely composed of love, all directed at me. This wonderful, vibrant love was very personal, as you might describe secular love, but also sacred.
      Though I had never seen God, I recognized this light as the Light of God. But even the word God seemed too small to describe the magnificence of that presence. I was with my Creator, in holy communication with that presence. The Light was directed at me and through me; it surrounded me and pierced me. It existed just for me.” – testimony taken from Kimberly Clark Sharp’s Near Death Experience
      http://www.near-death.com/sharp.html

      Music:

      Not To Us - Chris Tomlin
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFlwKpQmmFQ

      Delete
    6. Hillsong - Mighty to Save - With Subtitles/Lyrics
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ

      Delete
    7. ba77,

      You ask Elizabeth to be "very, very specific," but I have strong doubts that you can understand any specifics of neuroscience. I tried to engage you on quantum mechanics and I can say without reservation that you do not understand the subject at all. You just keep parroting quotes.

      Delete
    8. It's not a literature bluff.

      It's just a request that you actually acquaint yourself with the literature before asserting that there is no middle ground between a model that posits the mind is independent of the brain and a model the posits that the mind is an illusion.

      There are a great many other models. The fact that you are ignorant of them doesn't mean that they do not exist.

      Delete
    9. BA: and amazingly this strange paradox remains pops out of the woodwork:

      That's not a paradox. It's yet example of quote mining.

      BA: Moreover the correct answer that is staring you right in the face remains a 'unresolved paradox'.

      Scott: "Nor do I claim we have solved the hard problem of consciousness."

      BA: Thus you clearly have 'lost your mind' in your materialistic philosophy!

      That "I do not claim we have solved the hard problem of consciousness" isn't a paradox either. No wonder why you're confused.

      From the referenced article: How can materialists deny the reality of their own consciousness? But consciousness does pose a dilemma. Either (1) Consciousness is a non-material phenomenon; or (2) Some degree of consciousness exists in matter. In option 2, the degree must vary from its high level in humans, through a much lower level in higher animals, down to the lowest level in insects, worms and plants. Sheldrake adopts option 2 and includes stones, molecules and all matter. Sheldrake sees the dilemma while Dawkins apparently does not. But by preferring option 2 to option 1, Sheldrake fails to land his punch.

      Again, this is a false dilemma. Does some degree of a statue exist in all copper atoms?

      Brains compute. However, this doesn't mean that all computers are conscious. That would be like claiming all adding machines are computers.

      Specifically, Universal Turning Machines (UTM) are universal in that they are capable, in principle, of running a program that runs on any other UTM. This capability does not hinge on a specific processing speed, exact storage capacity, RISC or CISC architectures, analog or digital implementation, etc. It represents a jump to universality based solely on the minimum repertoire of computations it can perform. This is emergence.

      For example, had he actually finished it, Charles Babbage's Analytic engine would have been the first UTM, despite being completely mechanical. In principle, it could have booted Windows 8, despite the fact that it hasn't even been released yet. However, doing so in practice would be impractical because emulating the storage capacity of even a 10 year old PC would take a massive number of punch cards and read / write times would be in the range minutes rather than milliseconds. Not to mention the amount of human effort required to coordinate and keep track of which cards represented which part of the PC's storage and memory.

      In the same sense, not all computations result in consciousness. This is because consciousness does not hinge on the mere ability to perform just any computations. Like UTMs, consciousness emerges from computation as a jump to universality. However, unlike UTMs, we have yet to conceive of an analog to the "Turing Principle" for consciousness.

      The current lack of such a principle doesn't necessitate God's existence, that observers play some special role in QM, etc.

      Delete
    10. you call me ignorant and yet you provide no specific evidence or test, whereas a provided reference to specific tests that shows consciousness is independent of brain function. Go figure! Par for the course for atheists, no solid evidence is ever presented and ad hominem is issued for being ignorant of the non-existant evidence, and yada yada yadas all day long.,,, oleg I can say without reservation, in what I remember of my dealings with you, that you are very, very, deceptive in your treatment of the evidence of quantum mechanics! In fact if I remember right, You can have something put right in front of you and your response is much like this guy:

      The Atheist Doctor
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRQzQpnYhKI

      Notes:

      Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff - video (notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/29895068

      Quantum Entangled Consciousness (Permanence of Quantum Information)- Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video
      https://vimeo.com/39982578

      Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

      Delete
    11. Oh, don't point me to this quantum voodoo. Hameroff is not a physicist and he does not understand quantum mechanics.

      Delete
    12. Well by golly Scott, in your 'theory of knowledge' everything always can be redefined to give you your desired conclusion at the end. Isn't that just so special how it always works out that way for you!

      Romans:
      For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

      24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

      Delete
    13. Sure oleq, nobody understands quantum mechanics save for atheists right?

      Delete
    14. I don't think I said that. I was speaking of Hameroff in particular. He is an anesthesiologist if I remember correctly. And alothough that does not disqualify him from discussing QM, his understanding of it is pretty poor. I read his articles and he makes quite unreasonable assumptions about relaxation times of fairly large molecules.

      We can talk specifics if you want. :)

      Delete
    15. We can talk specifics if you want.

      Okie Dokie: Leaving Hameroff to one side for a bit:

      Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universe

      From the best scientific evidence we now have, from multiple intersecting lines of evidence, we now have very good reason to believe that the entire universe came instantaneously into origination at the Big Bang. Not only was all mass-energy brought into being, but space-time itself was also instantaneously brought into being at the Big Bang!!!

      "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."
      (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970
      http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

      “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” -
      Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - January 2012
      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

      Thus it logically follows that whatever brought the universe into being had to be transcendent of space-time, mass-energy. Yet the only thing that we know of that is completely transcendent of space-time, matter-energy is information. Thus the question becomes did information bring space-time, mass-energy into being?,,, simple enough question, but how do we prove it? It turns out that quantum teleportation breakthroughs have shed light directly on this question!,,, Here are a few experiments establishing the 'information theoretic' origin, and sustaining of this universe,;

      The following experiments demonstrate that energy and mass reduce to quantum information;

      How Teleportation Will Work -
      Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. --- As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made.
      http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm

      Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page
      Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,"
      http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

      Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh
      Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport.
      http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf

      Delete
    16. ,,,The following articles show that even atoms are subject to 'instantaneous' teleportation:,,,

      Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups
      Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,,
      http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp

      Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009
      Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,,
      "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts

      ,,,These following experiments show that the teleportation of information is indeed 'instantaneous', thus demonstrating transcendence, and even dominion, of space and time;,,,

      Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182/

      Researchers Succeed in Quantum Teleportation of Light Waves - April 2011
      Excerpt: In this experiment, researchers in Australia and Japan were able to transfer quantum information from one place to another without having to physically move it. It was destroyed in one place and instantly resurrected in another, “alive” again and unchanged. This is a major advance, as previous teleportation experiments were either very slow or caused some information to be lost.
      http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-04/quantum-teleportation-breakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing

      Delete
    17. Here is another experiment which demonstrated quantum information's dominion over space and time (specifically time);

      Physicists describe method to observe timelike entanglement - January 2011
      Excerpt: In "ordinary" quantum entanglement, two particles possess properties that are inherently linked with each other, even though the particles may be spatially separated by a large distance. Now, physicists S. Jay Olson and Timothy C. Ralph from the University of Queensland have shown that it's possible to create entanglement between regions of spacetime that are separated in time but not in space, and then to convert the timelike entanglement into normal spacelike entanglement. They also discuss the possibility of using this timelike entanglement from the quantum vacuum for a process they call "teleportation in time." "To me, the exciting aspect of this result (that entanglement exists between the future and past) is that it is quite a general property of nature and opens the door to new creativity, since we know that entanglement can be viewed as a resource for quantum technology," Olson told PhysOrg.com.
      http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-physicists-method-timelike-entanglement.html

      and this experiment:

      Here’s a variation of Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, which highlights quantum information's transcendence of time so as to effect 'spooky action into the past';

      Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012
      Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
      According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger.
      http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html

      Delete
    18. ,,,Whereas these following experiment shows that quantum information is 'conserved',,,

      Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time
      Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment.
      http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html

      Quantum no-deleting theorem
      Excerpt: A stronger version of the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem provide permanence to quantum information. To create a copy one must import the information from some part of the universe and to delete a state one needs to export it to another part of the universe where it will continue to exist.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_no-deleting_theorem#Consequence

      ,,,Moreover, when the quantum wave state (superposition), which is defined as a infinite dimensional state which can be encoded with infinite information, collapses to its particle state, the collapsed state yields only a single bit of information:,,,

      Wave function
      Excerpt "wave functions form an abstract vector space",,, This vector space is infinite-dimensional, because there is no finite set of functions which can be added together in various combinations to create every possible function.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function#Wave_functions_as_an_abstract_vector_space

      Single photons to soak up data:
      Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information.
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201

      Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia
      Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,,
      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1

      Zeilinger's principle
      The principle that any elementary system carries just one bit of information. This principle was put forward by the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger in 1999 and subsequently developed by him to derive several aspects of quantum mechanics.
      http://science.jrank.org/pages/20784/Zeilinger%27s-principle.html#ixzz17a7f88PM

      Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
      Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation:

      Delete
    19. ,,,moreover, encoded information, such as we find encoded in computers, and yes, such as we find encoded in DNA, is found to be a subset of 'conserved' quantum information:,,,

      Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy - June 2011
      Excerpt: No heat, even a cooling effect;
      In the case of perfect classical knowledge of a computer memory (zero entropy), deletion of the data requires in theory no energy at all. The researchers prove that "more than complete knowledge" from quantum entanglement with the memory (negative entropy) leads to deletion of the data being accompanied by removal of heat from the computer and its release as usable energy. This is the physical meaning of negative entropy.
      Renner emphasizes, however, "This doesn't mean that we can develop a perpetual motion machine." The data can only be deleted once, so there is no possibility to continue to generate energy. The process also destroys the entanglement, and it would take an input of energy to reset the system to its starting state. The equations are consistent with what's known as the second law of thermodynamics: the idea that the entropy of the universe can never decrease. Vedral says "We're working on the edge of the second law. If you go any further, you will break it."
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601134300.htm

      ,,,The following logical deduction and evidence shows that consciousness precedes the collapse of the 'infinite information' of the quantum wave state to the single bit of the 'uncertain' particle state,,,

      The argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

      1. Consciousness either precedes all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality.
      2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
      3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
      4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

      Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality
      https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

      “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
      Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

      Delete
    20. ,,,Wigner stated this in regards to his Nobel Prize winning work on Quantum Symmetries,,,

      Eugene Wigner
      Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
      http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm

      ,,,i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”,,,

      The following solidified Wigner’s work from another angle;

      “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications.Preceding quote taken from this following video;

      Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness - A New Measurement - Bernard Haisch, Ph.D (Shortened version of entire video with notes in description of video)
      http://vimeo.com/37517080

      Delete
    21. Quantum physics says goodbye to reality - Apr 20, 2007
      Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell's inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell's inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
      Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
      They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell's thought experiment, Leggett's inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we're not observing it. "Our study shows that 'just' giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics," Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. "You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism."
      http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

      And to further solidify the case that 'consciousness precedes reality' the violation of Leggett's inequalities were extended in 2010:

      Violation of Leggett inequalities in orbital angular momentum subspaces - 2010
      Main results. We extend the violation of Leggett inequalities to the orbital angular momentum (OAM) state space of photons, which is associated with their helical wavefronts. We define our measurements in a Bloch sphere for OAM and measure the Leggett parameter LN (where N is the number of settings for the signal photon) as we change the angle χ (see figure). We observe excellent agreement with quantum mechanical predictions (red line), and show a violation of five and six standard deviations for N = 3 and N = 4, respectively.
      http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/12/123007

      Delete
    22. You are pretty quick to throw Hameroff under the bus, ba. And then you throw up another bunch of quotes. I am not even sure to what end. I have nothing against the big bang. And what does the fine concept of quantum teleportation have to do with it? I have no idea.

      As to the "infinite" amount of information needed to specify a photon, this is hogwash. The state of a one-qubit quantum system (such as a photon, a spin of length S=1/2, or a two-level atom) is fully specified by two complex numbers, namely the amplitudes of its two basis states (e.g., spin up and spin down). In fact, it can be compressed down to three real numbers. Now, if you wish to specify the state with infinite precision, that is fine, but you can state it pretty accurately with a finite amount of information.

      WIth all the time on your hands, Phil, you would do well to actually read and learn about science, instead of copying and pasting stuff you don't understand.

      Delete
    23. ,,,It is important to note that the following experiment actually encoded information into a photon while it was in its quantum wave state, thus destroying the notion, held by many, that the wave function was not ‘physically real’ but was merely ‘abstract’. i.e. How can information possibly be encoded into something that is not physically real but merely abstract?,,,

      Ultra-Dense Optical Storage – on One Photon
      Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image’s worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact.
      http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html

      Here is a more rigorous measurement of the wave function which establishes it as 'physically real';

      Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction - June 2011
      Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7350/full/nature10120.html

      ,,,The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiment and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities that arose from a purely statistical interpretation, i.e. it seems that stacking a ‘random infinity’, (parallel universes to explain quantum wave collapse), on top of another ‘random infinity’, to explain quantum entanglement, leads to irreconcilable mathematical absurdities within quantum mechanics:,,,

      Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011
      Excerpt: David Wallace, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford, UK, says that the theorem is the most important result in the foundations of quantum mechanics that he has seen in his 15-year professional career. “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says.
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-theorys-wavefunction

      The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011
      http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

      Now, I find the preceding to be absolutely fascinating! A photon, in its quantum wave state, is found to be mathematically defined as a ‘infinite-dimensional’ state, which ‘requires an infinite amount of information’ to describe it properly, can be encoded with information in its 'infinite dimensional' state, and this ‘infinite dimensional’ photon is found to collapse, instantaneously, and thus ‘non-locally’, to just a ’1 or 0′ state, out of a infinite number of possibilities that the photon could have collapsed to instead! Moreover, consciousness is found to precede the collapse of the wavefunction to its particle state. Now my question to materialistic atheists is this, "Exactly what ’cause’ has been postulated throughout history to be completely independent of any space-time constraints, as well as possessing infinite knowledge, so as to be the ‘sufficient cause’ to explain what we see in the quantum wave collapse of a photon???

      Delete
    24. ba77,

      To what end are you posting all these stories? Are you hoping to educate me in QM? I know my quantum mechanics well, Thank you very much. These PR descriptions are cute, but they don't really do justice to what those researchers do. I usually read the original articles.

      Delete
    25. BA, when you make parochial arguments, you're the one illustrating you lack a firm grasp of quantum mechanics. We're just pointing it out.

      Imagine I claimed you clearly must like *vanilla* ice-cream because, at some point in the past, you hypothetically said you "enjoyed enjoy eating ice-cream with your family on Sundays".

      This is a parochial argument in that it assumes there is only one kind of ice-cream: vanilla. My argument hinges on this assumption, yet one can go to any ice-cream shop and note that there is more than one kind of ice-cream.

      So, either I was presenting a disingenuous argument, in that I knew full well there was more than one kind of ice-cream, but chose to make the argument anyway, or that in making that argument, I would have illustrated gross ignorance about ice-cream.

      We're simply pointing out the same thing regarding your arguments based on QM.

      Delete
    26. John 1:1-5
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

      ,,,In my personal opinion, even though not hashed out in exhaustive detail yet, all this evidence is about as sweet as it can get in experimental science as to providing proof that Almighty God created and sustains this universe.,,,

      The Word Is Alive - Casting Crowns - music video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5197438/

      Further notes:

      In fact the foundation of quantum mechanics within science is now so solid that researchers were able to bring forth this following proof from quantum entanglement experiments;

      An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011
      Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory)
      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf

      Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science!

      Quantum Mechanics has now been extended by Anton Zeilinger, and team, to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:

      ‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
      Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110624111942.htm

      Moreover, completely contrary to atheistic thinking, The resurrection of Christ provides a very credible reconciliation to the number 1 problem in physics today. The reconciliation of QM and GR:

      The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy, and The Shroud Of Turin – updated video (notes in description)
      http://vimeo.com/34084462

      This very credible reconciliation should not even be on the radar scope of reason if atheistic presuppositions were true!

      Delete
    27. This guy is on a tear! Ba77, did you forget that we have dealt with that shroud-of-Turin "scientist" a while ago?

      Delete
    28. BA: Well by golly Scott, in your 'theory of knowledge' everything always can be redefined to give you your desired conclusion at the end. Isn't that just so special how it always works out that way for you!

      I haven't redefined anything. Of course, you're actually have to understand it first to realize this.

      However, since you seem to have the same problem with evolutionary theory, this doesn't come as much of a surprise.

      Delete
    29. Well regardless of what the resident, sneeringly, 'smarter than thou' atheists think, there is simply nothing within quantum mechanics that supports their materialistic worldview!

      Materialism had postulated for centuries that everything reduced to, or emerged from material atoms, yet the correct structure of reality is now found by science to be as follows:

      material particles reduces to energy
      energy reduces to information
      information reduces to consciousness

      In the following video, at the 37:00 minute mark, Anton Zeilinger, a leading researcher in quantum teleportation with many breakthroughs under his belt, humorously reflects on just how deeply determinism has been undermined by quantum mechanics by saying such a deep lack of determinism may provide some of us a loop hole when they meet God on judgment day.

      Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw

      Personally, I feel that such a deep undermining of determinism by quantum mechanics, far from providing a 'loop hole' on judgement day, actually restores free will to its rightful place in the grand scheme of things, thus making God's final judgments on men's souls all the more fully binding since man truly is a 'free moral agent' as Theism has always held;

      Delete
    30. BA: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf

      Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science!

      This is a parodical argument in that it assumes there is only one kind of predictive power which an interpretation of QM can exhibit. You'd realize this if you actually understood QM and actually understood the paper's contents.

      Again, this is like making an argument that hinges on the assumption that there is only one kind of ice-cream.

      Delete
    31. "did you forget that we have dealt with that shroud-of-Turin "scientist" a while ago?"

      I seem to remember someone, a dogmatic atheist, issuing a ad hominem against her credentials without ever addressing the evidence directly. So I dismissed the objection as being motivated by atheistic bias since ad hominem is 'not even wrong' as to honestly dealing with the evidence directly in front of you!

      Delete
    32. "Again, this is like making an argument that hinges on the assumption that there is only one kind of ice-cream."

      But Scott you have 'lost your mind' in your materialistic worldview. What gives you any right whatsoever to appeal to logic to support your materialistic worldview?

      Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012
      Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.
      http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

      Delete
    33. BA: Well regardless of what the resident, sneeringly, 'smarter than thou' atheists think, there is simply nothing within quantum mechanics that supports their materialistic worldview!

      So, you're a true believer and a justiifcationist?

      3. Responses to the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism

      In the light of the dilemma of the infinite regress versus dogmatism, we can discern three attitudes towards positions: relativism, “true belief” and critical rationalism [Note 3]

      Relativists tend to be disappointed justificationists who realise that positive justification cannot be achieved. From this premise they proceed to the conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position.

      True believers embrace justificationism. They insist that some positions are better than others though they accept that there is no logical way to establish a positive justification for an belief. They accept that we make our choice regardless of reason: "Here I stand!". Most forms of rationalism up to date have, at rock bottom, shared this attitude with the irrationalists and other dogmatists because they share the theory of justificationism.

      According to the critical rationalists, the exponents of critical preference, no position can be positively justified but it is quite likely that one (or more) will turn out to be better than others in the light of critical discussion and tests. This type of rationality holds all its positions and propositions open to criticism and a standard objection to this stance is that it is empty; just holding our positions open to criticism provides no guidance as to what position we should adopt in any particular situation. This criticism misses its mark for two reasons. First, critical rationalism is not a position. It is not directed at solving the kind of problems that are solved by fixing on a position. It is concerned with the way that such positions are adopted, criticised, defended and relinquished. Second, Bartley did provide guidance on adopting positions; we may adopt the position that to this moment has stood up to criticism most effectively. Of course this is no help for people who seek stronger reasons for belief, but that is a problem for them, and it does not undermine the logic of critical preference.


      In other words, you've got it backwards. Evidence doesn't justify theories. We conjecture theories, which we then test for errors using observations.

      Delete
    34. Sure oleq, nobody understands quantum mechanics save for atheists right?

      It's even simpler than that, according to Richard Feynman.

      Delete
    35. BA: But Scott you have 'lost your mind' in your materialistic worldview. What gives you any right whatsoever to appeal to logic to support your materialistic worldview?

      Which is yet another parodical argument in that it assumes reason and logic must, and could only be, justified by the existence of a non-material supernatural being.

      Again, all have to do is point to critical rationalism, which doesn't assume either of these things.

      Do you deny that, at a minimum, this alternative exists? Do you have any details criticism of this alternative? If so, please be specific.

      Otherwise, it seems you just keep digging yourself further into a hole.

      Delete
    36. Yeah, as a colleague once told David Mermin, "anybody who's not bothered by Bell's theorem has to have rocks in his head." We physicists fully appreciate the strange and unintuitive nature of the quantum world. It's funny when someone who has no idea about all this quantum stuff tries to beat the weirdness into me. Give it up, ba77.

      Delete
    37. you don't understand, nobody understands, yet we understand,, yada yada yada,,,, Yawn!,,, Well to continue on reflecting on the structure of reality itself despite 'not being able to understand':

      Reflections on the 'infinite transcendent information' framework, as well as on the 'eternal' and 'temporal' frameworks:

      The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight.

      Special Relativity - Time Dilation and Length Contraction - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY

      Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole 'time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light' concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same 'thought experiment' that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2.

      Albert Einstein - Special Relativity - Insight Into Eternity - 'thought experiment' video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/

      Delete
    38. ,,,Yet, even though light has this 'eternal' attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned.

      Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182

      That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, 'past and future folding into now', framework of time. This higher dimension, 'eternal', inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not 'frozen within time' yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light.

      "I've just developed a new theory of eternity."
      Albert Einstein - The Einstein Factor - Reader's Digest

      "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass."
      Richard Swenson - More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

      Experimental confirmation of Time Dilation
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation

      It is very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, and general relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies:

      'In the 'spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it's going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.'
      Mickey Robinson - Near Death Experience testimony

      Delete
    39. It is also very interesting to point out that the 'light at the end of the tunnel', reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a 'hypothetical' observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

      Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

      Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;

      Seeing Relativity
      http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/

      The NDE and the Tunnel - Kevin Williams' research conclusions
      Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn't walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn't really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different - the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer)

      Delete
    40. Hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).

      "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality"
      Akiane Kramarik - Child Prodigy
      Music video -
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4204586

      Logic also dictates 'a decision' must have been made, by the 'transcendent, eternal, infinite information' from the primary timeless (eternal) reality 'It' inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse.

      The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914

      What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - William Lane Craig - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI

      Delete
    41. Ba77, I would like to ask you once again: what is the point of throwing all these links at me? I know the physics described in them much better than the authors themselves do. Are you trying to evangelize me or something? If you are, it isn't working. :)

      Delete
    42. "I know the physics described in them much better than the authors themselves do."

      Speaks for itself!

      Delete
    43. Why is this a surprise for you, ba77? The authors of these videos and articles are not even physicists.

      Delete
    44. Speaks for itself!

      Well, it does, rather, I think oleg is a physicist.

      Delete
    45. "The authors of these videos and articles are not even physicists."

      Blanket statement, which is false, reveals the unreasonableness of your dogmatism oleg!

      I know for a fact, without even looking, that Anton Zeilinger is listed in a video, Eugene Wigner in a few articles, and I have a few papers by the physicists themselves. But why would you lie so blatantly when anyone can look at my references? Indeed why would you puff yourself up as a authority by such a blatant lie that is so easily refuted??. You have just exposed yourself as a unreasonable dogmatic atheist. And have lost all trust you may have gained from me in being a physicist. (Having Elizabeth cosign your bull REALLY doesn't help your case either!)

      Delete
    46. ba77, I was talking about the authors of the articles and videos, not the people mentioned in them.

      Zeilinger is of course a physicist, but the article that describes his work is a press release put together by PR folks at the University of Vienna. I don't put much stock in press releases, I read the original research articles they highlight. That is why I am unimpressed by your flood of links.

      Delete
    47. oleg, you said that

      ""The authors of these videos and articles are not even physicists."

      Yet we find from my references:

      Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. (Teleportation and falsification of local realism without entanglement) at UCT - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw

      (This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

      Approaching The Speed Of Light - Optical Effects - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

      Here is the interactive website, with link to the papers at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;

      Seeing Relativity
      http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/

      The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011
      http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

      An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011
      Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory)
      http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf

      Violation of Leggett inequalities in orbital angular momentum subspaces - 2010
      Main results. We extend the violation of Leggett inequalities to the orbital angular momentum (OAM) state space of photons, which is associated with their helical wavefronts. We define our measurements in a Bloch sphere for OAM and measure the Leggett parameter LN (where N is the number of settings for the signal photon) as we change the angle χ (see figure). We observe excellent agreement with quantum mechanical predictions (red line), and show a violation of five and six standard deviations for N = 3 and N = 4, respectively.
      http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/12/12/123007

      Eugene Wigner
      Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
      http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm


      “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
      Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.

      Quantum Teleportation - IBM Research Page
      Excerpt: "it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,"
      http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/

      "Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past."
      (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970
      http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

      Thus you blatantly misrepresented my references just to puff up your own opinion oleg!

      Delete
    48. Let's start with this one, ba77:

      Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. (Teleportation and falsification of local realism without entanglement) at UCT - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw


      A couple of questions for you.

      1. Do you know what "local realism" is?
      2. Can you name some physicists who view it as a viable model?

      Please do not copy and paste your lengthy and totally irrelevant quotes. Just answer these questions.

      Delete
    49. Well oleg, The trouble is I don't respect your opinion on these matters as being unbiased and objective. Indeed I find you to be a deliberately misleading and dogmatic atheist!

      i.e. your opinion of your opinion is far, far, higher than my opinion of your opinion is! Perhaps on par with your opinion of my opinion! :) Thus we shall get nowhere with each other

      As to local realism, my references have already covered the relevant tests. And I am thus done playing games.

      Delete
    50. You don't have to respect my opinion. I don't care what you think of me. And I am sure that somewhere in your references Zeilinger explains what local realism is. I am not sure, however, that you understand that. You have demonstrated an awesome ability to cut and paste. Understand, not so much.

      Delete
    51. oleg, you deliberately lied and said I didn't have papers or videos from the physicist themselves. When I posted the relevant videos and papers that I had listed you, instead of apologizing for your gross mistake, immediately changed the subject and say I don't understand the subject. You must be insane if you think I am going to trust you any further with anything. This is my last response to you since I see no redeeming value in playing your 'I'm smarter than you' games.

      Delete
    52. LOL, ba77.

      I am not asking you to trust me. I am only asking you to describe, in your own words, how you understand the notion of local realism. That which you have mentioned a bazillion times here and on a number of other blogs. Go ahead, enlighten us.

      Delete
    53. So oleg, you really are having a hard time with this whole integrity thing aren't you? You deliberately misrepresented what I had posted earlier solely for the purpose of trying to discredit it. You never even hinted at a apology to me for purposely trying to misrepresent me, nor does it appear you have any clue as to how dogmatic this makes you look in your atheism to me. And to top things off, now you demand that I respect whatever you may have to say on non-locality??? You REALLY, REALLY, need to get over yourself, and start considering how your actions towards others reflects negatively on you personally. You simply have lost all credibility in my book.

      Delete
    54. Yeah, alright, I have no credibility. (LOL)

      But it's not about me, Phil. I am not saying anything about non-locality. It's about you. Do you understand what local realism is in quantum mechanics?

      Delete
    55. Wow, that was one of the better spittle flying hissy-fit meltdowns by batspit77 in some time.

      Never a dull moment with the clueless C&P king.

      Delete
  12. `Why does this guy know better then God?
    why does he think he's got a handle on the glorious creation mechanics?
    Why doesn't he fix the body and give us longer life and get a award?
    What would a God do???
    Its beyond me and him.
    Can he grow back his hair? a minor thing surely!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Elizabeth said, "No, it isn't,any more than anyone who drops a plate is a positive argument for the intelligent design of gravity. Less so, actually."

    Gravity causes the plate to fall. Though the plate drop is intentionally designed the manipulation of the plate is not gravity or a cause of gravity.

    The direct manipulation of DNA to produce profound biological change by the design of intelligent agents is not analogous to the plate. The plate is simply conforming to the law of gravity. In your analogy you're not manipulating gravity itself, and that's the difference.

    As far as the cell not being put together from scratch, where did the process start? Though evolution is said to be a gradual step wise process, it supposedly started from scratch, did it not? What are you assuming the process started?

    Certainly an intelligently designed cell in a lab would be a stepwise process. What I'm saying is that if such a stepwise process is ever patented, it will not describe an evolutionary process of "just add water", but an immense undertaking of highly technical and precisely guided processes. The engineering manual for the space shuttle would be like a tinkertoy pamphlet in comparison. Evolutionists simplistic and archaic understanding of biology is a hoot.

    ReplyDelete
  14. NealElizabeth said, "No, it isn't,any more than anyone who drops a plate is a positive argument for the intelligent design of gravity. Less so, actually."

    Gravity causes the plate to fall. Though the plate drop is intentionally designed the manipulation of the plate is not gravity or a cause of gravity.


    Right.

    The direct manipulation of DNA to produce profound biological change by the design of intelligent agents is not analogous to the plate.

    It's analogous to an intelligent agent dropping the plate.

    The plate is simply conforming to the law of gravity. In your analogy you're not manipulating gravity itself, and that's the difference.

    If an intelligent designer artificially creates a new DNA sequence they are using the forces of chemistry, just as someone who deliberately drops a plate is using the force of gravity.

    As far as the cell not being put together from scratch, where did the process start?

    We don't know, Neal. That's what OOL research is about.

    Though evolution is said to be a gradual step wise process, it supposedly started from scratch, did it not? What are you assuming the process started?

    We aren't assuming anything about the start of the process, merely that it had a start. That's why there are OOL research programs. If your problem is with OOL, fine, but then it's not a problem with evolutionary theory, because evolutionary theory only applies once you have a population of self-replicating entities. It doesn't explain how those emerged in the first place, although it might explain how very simple self-replicators became cells. But right now, we don't know, although there are some promising lines of research.

    Certainly an intelligently designed cell in a lab would be a stepwise process. What I'm saying is that if such a stepwise process is ever patented, it will not describe an evolutionary process of "just add water", but an immense undertaking of highly technical and precisely guided processes. The engineering manual for the space shuttle would be like a tinkertoy pamphlet in comparison.

    Well, you can say this if you like, but it doesn't make it true! My own hunch (and it is just a hunch) is that within my son's lifetime (and possibly within my own), scientists will have found conditions under which an evolving population of proto-cells spontaneously emerges. The question will then be whether those conditions are likely to have been those pertaining on early earth. If so, we will have a good hypothesis as to how life got started. But we aren't there yet.

    Evolutionists simplistic and archaic understanding of biology is a hoot.

    Again, I have to say, it is your simplistic and archaic understanding of evolutionary theory that is, not so much amusing, but leading you astray.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete