Monday, April 2, 2012

Is This What Jeff Schloss Said at That NYC Meeting Last Week?



This is troubling to watch. Maybe it’s because the misrepresentations are in a living color video rather than the usual black-and-white text. Maybe it’s because Schloss is so well-spoken. Maybe it’s because it is a friend doing the misrepresenting. Maybe it is because it was probably something like this that Schloss presented last week in NYC, which Christianity Today referred to as “elegant” and what no doubt so impressed the largely non scientific crowd, save NT Wright hopefully. At the [0.34] mark the Professor and Chair of Biology at Westmont College explains:

Evolution in the sense of whether that genetic change over time has resulted in the diversity of species, we see now, which is the proposition of common descent, that is an idea. That is an interpretation. But the evidence for the truth of that interpretation is overwhelming. And it ranges from biogeographic evidence, or where the species are located all over Earth, to the fossil column, to more recently the discovery of profound examples of genetic fossils. So that idea is very firmly established. And it is central to our understanding of how organisms work and how they are structured. 

This is the middle of three meanings or senses of the word “evolution” that Schloss explains. He begins with genetic change over time which, Schloss explains, is simply an empirical fact. Then, at the [0.34] mark, he moves on to the idea that this genetic change over time is the cause of the diversity of species. And finally, Schloss moves on to the explanations for what caused this genetic change over time which, Schloss explains, is largely mutations plus natural selection, but that a range of other factors currently under study were probably at work as well.

What Schloss does not explain in this video is that in recent decades evolutionists have increasingly acknowledged that the vast change evolution requires did not, in fact, likely arise from the usual suspects of mutation, selection and adaptation. This is not a minor point of dispute. It is a fundamental problem of how new designs arose.

As for common descent, again, this has increasingly been questioned even by evolutionists. Why? Because the evidence does not fit the model very well. What is needed are vast amounts of lateral or horizontal evolution, to fill the gaps in the vertical (common descent) model. So evolutionists have increasingly and more liberally dipped into the soup of horizontal gene transfer as a way of making sense of the evidence from an evolutionary perspective.

This horizontal gene transfer explanation is problematic. First, it is a complex mechanism that evolution would somehow had to have created. Second, it means that evolution created a complex mechanism so that evolution could occur—evolution created evolution. Third, evolutionists need to use the mechanism to a far greater degree than is realistic. You can read more about this here, here and here.

In fact common descent’s model of an evolutionary “tree” has also been increasingly questioned by evolutionists. As one evolutionist explained, “incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree,” and another explained that:

Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL [tree of life] rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.

You can read more about this here.

In fact there are monumental problems with common descent. For instance, identical DNA sequences show up in distant species with little functional constraint (something that an evolutionist once told me would falsify the entire theory).

Likewise, strikingly similar, incredibly complex, designs show up on distant twigs of the tree. For example, the human and squid vision system are uncannily similar. This cannot be explained as arising from a common ancestor. Nor is this is a rare or uncommon finding in biology. Such contradictions to evolutionary expectations seem to be never-ending in biology.

On the other hand, otherwise very similar species (which evolution would assign as neighbors on the evolutionary tree) have big differences. From completely different development patterns to completely unique, different genes, these differences make no sense on common descent and evolution.

The list goes on and on. Evolutionists have imposed a model on the evidence which does not fit very well. Only by ignoring these problems or describing them as evolutionary “noise” can the models work.

And what about Schloss’ evidences? Do evidences such as biogeography, the fossils and genetic comparisons make the case for common descent? These are all circumstantial evidences. Biogeography tells us what species were located where and when. It doesn’t tell us how those species got there.

These evidences are often consistent with evolutionary expectations, so that is a plus. But evolutionary expectations are incredibly broad. A great many patterns would work. So the confirmed prediction is not particularly strong. We could say the sunrise is a confirmed prediction of geocentrism, but a great many different sunrises would be.

Indeed, there are some evidences from biogeography that do not work very well and are, as evolutionist Ernst Mayr once put it in his book What Evolution Is, “indeed almost unbelievable.” He called one example of lizard dispersal “truly miraculous.”

And in his book Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution Douglas Futuyma wrote that “The molelike and wolflike animals of Australia are marsupials, clearly related to each other, because only marsupial ancestors had reached Australia.” Once again, forcing the evidence into the evolution paradigm failed as a few years later placental fossil species were discovered in Australia.

Similarly the fossil record tells us what species were there, but not how they got there. And here there are a great many problems. More advanced versions sometimes appear earlier in the record, other organisms appear abruptly, and in general the findings do not form the expected tree pattern. Instead, evolutionists switch to a “bush” metaphor which has a great many twigs going in all directions. And the fossil record reveals a series of diversity explosions followed by extinctions that winnow out the diversity—precisely the reverse of the original evolutionary expectations.

The genetic fossils Schloss mentions are better evidence. But of course, these are the evidences we understand the least. And there are occasional problems here as well, where these “fossils” are found in patterns that violate common descent. These circumstantial evidences could be explained by common mechanism as much as by common descent. Granted we do not know what that mechanism is, but we also do not know what mechanism could evolve the species.

It is not that there is no evidence for evolution and common descent. There is quite a bit of evidence. But there also is quite a bit of evidence for geocentrism, and a host of other rejected theories. It is crucial to take the entire scientific record into account rather than picking and choosing our favorite items as though we were in a cafeteria.

It seems to me that there simply are no easy scientific answers available at this point. I certainly do not have any. But there is no question that evolution and common descent are not scientific facts, as evolutionists insist. When such claims are made, that cannot be justified on the empirical evidence, it is an indicator that there is more than mere science at work.

It is crucial for scientists, who hold specialized knowledge and who are asked to explain what we know to non technical audiences, not to violate that public trust. When Schloss explains that the evidence for the truth of common descent “is overwhelming,” I do not think he is providing a balanced, objective explanation of the science.

Unfortunately, this is the history of evolutionary thought. For centuries religion has held sway and mandated an evolutionary narrative. The metaphysical certainty that Schloss so confidently asserts goes back centuries. That certainty did not come from genetic “fossils,” the fossil record, biogeography, or any other scientific evidence. It came from theological convictions imposed on the science.

Religion drives science, and it matters.

101 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter

    And in his book Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution Douglas Futuyma wrote that “The molelike and wolflike animals of Australia are marsupials, clearly related to each other, because only marsupial ancestors had reached Australia.” Once again, forcing the evidence into the evolution paradigm failed as a few years later placental fossil species were discovered in Australia.


    Hey CH, why don't you present your famous slides of a wolf and a marsupial thylacine and show us how similar they are.

    "Then there was the ID conference in San Francisco where Dr. Cornelius G. Hunter, the "expert" involved in the antievolution shenanigans in Roseville, CA, presented the wolf and thylacine as identical twins separated at birth argument. His visual aid, handily printed in the proceedings, consisted of two images side-by-side. On one side, you had the usual painting of two thylacines in color. On the other, you had the same painting, mirrored horizontally, and desaturated. Yep, you just could not tell the difference between the wolves on one side and the thylacines on the other. Uncanny, even."

    They make laughingstocks of themselves, don't they?

    The DI's money drives anti-science propaganda, and it matters.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It is not that there is no evidence for evolution and common descent. There is quite a bit of evidence.

    No there's not! I'm afraid you've been lied to if you believe that. You can read all about it here, here, and here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bonobo face:

    The DI's money drives anti-science propaganda, and it matters.

    With morons like bonobo face on the "science" side, I think the above should be rephrased thus:

    The DI's money fights pseudoscience propaganda, and it matters.

    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Common descent aka the nested tree of life used to be the most promoted prediction of Darwinian evolution theory. Some die-hards are still preaching it, even on this forum. But now that it has been solidly and humiliatingly falsified, what will the cretins in the Darwinist camp do for an encore? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  5. By the way, what happened to that idiot Zachriel, the staunchest promoter of the nested tree of life nonsense on this forum? Is he hiding under a rock now that his pseudoscientific crap has been falsified. Will we see a public mea culpa from Zachriel? Don't hold your breath.

    ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here is how neo-Darwinists avoid falsification from discordant biogeographic evidence:

    More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism – March 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/sea_monkeys_are_the_tip_of_the032471.html

    The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again – Casey Luskin – November 5, 2011
    Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that’s the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place?
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/the_case_of_the_mysterious_hoa052571.html

    Here is how neo-Darwinists avoid falsification from discordant findings in the fossil record,

    Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? – Paul Nelson – Feb. 2010
    Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/seeing_ghosts_in_the_bushes_pa031061.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is how neo-Darwinists avoid falsification of discordant genetic evidence:

      A Primer on the Tree of Life – Casey Luskin – 2009
      Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.
      http://www.discovery.org/a/10651

      How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution032141.html

      Here is how neo-Darwinists avoid falsification from discordant protein evidence:

      The Hierarchy of Evolutionary Apologetics: Protein Evolution Case Study - Cornelius Hunter - January 2011
      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/01/hierarchy-of-evolutionary-apologetics.html

      Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos
      “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

      Whereas, in contrast to there being no identifiable falsification criteria for neo-Darwinism (at least no identifiable falsification criteria that neo-Darwinists will ever accept), here is a very rough outline of the basic falsification criteria for Intelligent Design:

      Michael Behe on Falsifying Intelligent Design – video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8jXXJN4o_A

      Here is a more detailed list of the falsification criteria for Intelligent Design:

      A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – March 2011 – several examples of cited research
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html

      Delete
    2. And regardless of the fact that neo-Darwinism refuses falsification from discordant biogeographic evidence, discordant fossil evidence, discordant genetic evidence, and discordant protein evidence, neo-Darwinism is in fact rigorously falsified by recent advances in science in which massive quantum entanglement was revealed in molecular biology.

      Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/

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

      It is very interesting to note, to put it mildly, that quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its pure ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints, should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, for how can the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy space/time) ’cause’ when the quantum entanglement ‘effect’ falsified material particles as its own ‘causation’ in the first place? (A. Aspect; A. Zeilinger) Appealing to the probability of various configurations of material particles, as neo-Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the energy/matter particles themselves to supply! To give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘specified’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place!
      ,,,To refute this falsification of neo-Darwinism, one must overturn Alain Aspect, and company’s, falsification of local realism (reductive materialism) !

      Delete
  7. Dr. Hunter,

    Can you go into further detail as to why you don't find the theological arguments very convincing? In your book, you appeal to Job 39, but I'm not persuaded that the verse can be employed to argue very far against the many strange patterns we find in nature, the apparent cruelties, evils and dysteleologies, etc. Perhaps there are other verses in Scripture you can cite, or arguments you have.

    Furthermore, I feel that the scientific evidence for common descent, when taken together is pretty compelling.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you go into further detail as to why you don't find the theological arguments very convincing? In your book, you appeal to Job 39, but I'm not persuaded that the verse can be employed to argue very far against the many strange patterns we find in nature, the apparent cruelties, evils and dysteleologies, etc. Perhaps there are other verses in Scripture you can cite, or arguments you have.

      Perhaps I miscommunicated or perhaps you misread me. In any case, I would not say the theology that underlies evolution is not very convincing. As I usually explain, I think the religious arguments that motivate evolution are powerful. They are also, however, not biblical.

      Delete
    2. I feel that the scientific evidence for common descent, when taken together is pretty compelling.

      It’s important to begin by defining your hypothesis. If you don’t have a clear cut definition, or your definition is too broad, then your hypothesis is probably more of a tautology than a legitimate hypothesis. Whatever we find, that’s common descent, by definition. That wouldn’t mean much.

      In practice, what happens is that evolutionists may begin with, or may prefer, a particular definition. But with each falsification their definition morphs and broadens to accommodate the contradiction. Pretty soon, they’re back to what I just warned about, a very broad hypothesis, ever morphing, with no clear cut definition. So it’s really just a tautology.

      In this case, discussions of how the evidence bears on the hypothesis are pointless, even though there are thousands of contradictions. As Lakatos put it, the hypothesis is behind a protective belt. You can’t get at it.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, I had inferred that you didn't consider the theological arguments to be biblical since you're still Christian in the face of 'powerful' theological arguments, and since you also have marshaled Scripture to counter them. I'm just wondering why else you don't consider the arguments to be biblical, or what other Scriptures can be said to support your position. I was recently forced to abandon my Christian faith because I couldn't reconcile what we observe in nature with my understanding of Scripture (I was a young Earth creationist and had never found the 'long age/evolution' interpretations of the Bible to be very convincing).

      What would you consider to be a fundamental prediction of common descent that has been falsified, and subsequently modified by evolutionists? Maybe highly conserved sequences in distant species and dissimilar genes in similar species? Are these merely exceptions to the rule, or something more?

      Delete
    4. Yeah, I had inferred that you didn't consider the theological arguments to be biblical since you're still Christian in the face of 'powerful' theological arguments,

      Keep in mind that theological arguments are “powerful” because we deem them to be so. For example, consider the problem of evil. It is a very powerful argument, and atheists often use it. And yet the argument entails theological premises about a god. The atheist must subscribe to said premises in order for the argument to work. Ultimately, what we deem to be “powerful” are in fact self-defeating arguments. But pointing that out makes no difference. Because those theological premises hold sway. They are doing the heavy lifting. It will annoy an atheist to know that his position does not derive from objective logic and empirical science, but rather from his own religious beliefs. But he can live with such an annoyance. Theology is queen of the sciences.


      and since you also have marshaled Scripture to counter them.

      Well that is for the consumption of people who take Scripture seriously.


      I'm just wondering why else you don't consider the arguments to be biblical, or what other Scriptures can be said to support your position.

      Great question. As you can see from the evolutionary tree of thought, presented here:

      http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/04/here-is-centuries-old-religious-reason.html

      there are a dozen or so different religious or metaphysical mandates for naturalism. More generally, you can boil them down into four categories: greater god theology, religious rationalism and deism, the problem of evil, and theological opposition to miracles. Or, to go even further, you can see two broad categories: greater god and the intellectual necessity.

      However you want to categorize this evolutionary thought, I don’t think there is much question that they are all contradictory to Scripture. You could probably write a book on it, showing the opposition. You could pick out specific verses here and there to make your case, but it would probably be more meaningful to discuss the broad strokes of evolutionary thought and how it is in opposition to the broad strokes of Scripture.


      I was recently forced to abandon my Christian faith because I couldn't reconcile what we observe in nature with my understanding of Scripture (I was a young Earth creationist and had never found the 'long age/evolution' interpretations of the Bible to be very convincing).

      It’s the next logical step isn’t it. Suddenly you lose your repentance and Jesus dying on the cross for your sins is lost.

      Continued …

      Delete
    5. Continuing …

      What would you consider to be a fundamental prediction of common descent that has been falsified, and subsequently modified by evolutionists? Maybe highly conserved sequences in distant species and dissimilar genes in similar species? Are these merely exceptions to the rule, or something more?

      Well gee there are so many. As I said I like some of the genetic “fossils” (specifically some of the transposable element evidence) for common descent and evolution. That category of evidence is not too damaged by problems. But all it provides you with is a confirmed prediction.

      On the negative side, there are so many problems to choose from. BornAgain mentioned the biological Big Bangs (eg, Cambrian Explosion). It’s common seen as a problem for evolution, rather than common descent (CD). But even for the latter, this wide array of designs that rapidly appears must have a huge phylogeny behind it that mysteriously is not evident. So I think it poses a serious problem for CD as well.

      You mentioned highly conserved sequences in distant species. Keep in mind that these sequences are not highly functionally constrained. A dogmatic evolutionist once privately cited this exact finding, hypothetically before the finding came true, that such a finding would demolish common descent. And yet here we are. The finding came true, and he is still an evolutionist and CDer.

      If you can absorb that kind of finding, then it becomes clear that this is not about science. Evolutionists are not merely about science, they’re about what they believe to be the truth. They account for the full panoply of evidence, from metaphysics to empirical observations. The bottom line is that for them, falsifications of CD are far, far easier to absorb than falsifications of creationism.

      Hence the whole “show me another evidence against CD” game is just that, a game. It doesn’t matter. The goal posts will always move accordingly, as needed.

      When it comes to evolution and CD, we’re ostensibly dealing with objective science. Hence we all know, and agree on the rules. We all know what the evidence is, and we pretty much agree on what the evidence means, how to interpret it at a fundamental level, and so forth. There’s not a lot of controversy at that level. The good thing about all this is that from a strictly scientific perspective (which evolutionists to not hold to), we actually should be able to agree on how evolution and CD fare. The answer is very poorly. You’ll never be able to pin down the evolutionists and make them stick to the science, so they’ll never agree. But that’s the fact of the matter. The evidence demolishes these theories.

      Now what about creationism? Here we don’t have a nice, clean set of rules to go by. We don’t have those nice, well defined, natural laws that we all understand and agree on. Instead, we have a Creator who acts independently. And on top of this, we have various religious beliefs influencing our ideas of creationism. So theory evaluation is more difficult. But if you hold strongly to a particular set of religious views, then they will hold sway for you.

      Delete
    6. "For example, consider the problem of evil. It is a very powerful argument, and atheists often use it. And yet the argument entails theological premises about a god. The atheist must subscribe to said premises in order for the argument to work. Ultimately, what we deem to be “powerful” are in fact self-defeating arguments."

      Why does the fact that the argument entails theological premises render it self-defeating?

      Personally, I don't find the argument from moral evil very persuasive, but the one from natural evil seems to have much more force. To me, tornadoes, earthquakes and scorpion tails make much more sense on naturalism--the work of blind, impersonal forces--than Christian theism.

      "Well that is for the consumption of people who take Scripture seriously."

      I take it very seriously (or, did).

      "More generally, you can boil them down into four categories: greater god theology, religious rationalism and deism, the problem of evil, and theological opposition to miracles. Or, to go even further, you can see two broad categories: greater god and the intellectual necessity.

      However you want to categorize this evolutionary thought, I don’t think there is much question that they are all contradictory to Scripture. You could probably write a book on it, showing the opposition. You could pick out specific verses here and there to make your case, but it would probably be more meaningful to discuss the broad strokes of evolutionary thought and how it is in opposition to the broad strokes of Scripture."

      I agree that all of the above are unbiblical except for religious rationalism and the problem of (natural) evil. The others are rather easy to counter biblically. How do you think Scripture counters the remaining two?

      "It’s the next logical step isn’t it. Suddenly you lose your repentance and Jesus dying on the cross for your sins is lost."

      Indeed. For me, evolution makes nonsense of the Bible.

      "BornAgain mentioned the biological Big Bangs (eg, Cambrian Explosion). It’s common seen as a problem for evolution, rather than common descent (CD). But even for the latter, this wide array of designs that rapidly appears must have a huge phylogeny behind it that mysteriously is not evident. So I think it poses a serious problem for CD as well."

      I don't think it's as big as a problem for evolution and CD as I once did. I think there are a lot of good, plausible explanations floating around out there that might account for it, especially those found on Talk Origins.

      "You mentioned highly conserved sequences in distant species. Keep in mind that these sequences are not highly functionally constrained. A dogmatic evolutionist once privately cited this exact finding, hypothetically before the finding came true, that such a finding would demolish common descent. And yet here we are. The finding came true, and he is still an evolutionist and CDer."

      It is peculiar indeed, but doesn't it seem like a very rare exception to a well established rule?

      "The good thing about all this is that from a strictly scientific perspective (which evolutionists to not hold to), we actually should be able to agree on how evolution and CD fare. The answer is very poorly. You’ll never be able to pin down the evolutionists and make them stick to the science, so they’ll never agree. But that’s the fact of the matter. The evidence demolishes these theories."

      I'm primarily concerned with CD. Why else do you think it fares poorly scientifically?

      "But if you hold strongly to a particular set of religious views, then they will hold sway for you."

      So, would you agree there is no hope for a young-Earth creationist at this time?

      Delete
    7. Why does the fact that the argument entails theological premises render it self-defeating?

      Well atheism and materialism hold that there is no material world, so it is illogical to arrive at such a conclusion via a non material truth claim. Make sense? IOW, I can’t say god wouldn’t allow for X, and since X exists, therefore materialism is true. My conclusion contradicts my premise, which is that non material truths exist.

      Delete
  8. bb, why does the Cambrian Explosion, by itself, not severely compromise common descent for you?

    Darwin's Dilemma - Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWEsW7bO8P4

    Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion is Elusive: BioEssays Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 - July 2009
    Excerpt: "going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time." ---"Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists."
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/06/bioessays_article_admits_mater.html

    As to the 'theological argument' of theodicy, used by neo-Darwinists to try to make their case, personally I find the theodicy argument self defeating for neo-Darwinists in that the neo-Darwinists must presuppose the existence of good, of how things 'ought' to be, in order to make the argument in the first place. i.e. you cannot negate the existence of good by pointing to evil in the world since evil requires the existence of good for evil to even exist. This video makes this point clear;

    Albert Einstein - Does Evil Exist - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0vzGJAg1aw

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ba77,

      Well, I think the main problem with the Cambrian explosion objection is that it seems like a 'God of the gaps' argument. I don't think common descent is refuted just because the Cambrian explosion isn't (at least, at the moment) fully explicable. It seems to me like Darwinists have put forward a number of plausible explanations, which may, in the end, account for it. Nor does the Cambrian explosion negate the real, observable change we observe as we proceed up the fossil record.

      I'm also not convinced 'good' and 'evil' require a transcendent source. I think Darwinists have put forward good explanations for the origin of morality. It may well be an illusion, for all I know.

      Delete
    2. bb, Hmm "God Of The Gaps"?

      I would say that you have it completely backwards, for as our knowledge has advanced the atheists have had to call on bigger and bigger 'materialism of the gaps' explanations.

      Predictions of Materialism compared to Predictions of Theism within the scientific method:
      http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dc8z67wz_5fwz42dg9

      You state:

      I think Darwinists have put forward good explanations for the origin of morality.

      And I find the explanations vacant of substance:

      The Knock-Down Argument Against Atheist Sam Harris' moral argument – William Lane Craig – video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvDyLs_cReE

      Stephen Meyer - Morality Presupposes Theism (1 of 4) - video
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSpdh1b0X_M

      and If you find morality to be a illusion then this places you in a severe bind as to justify making a argument from Theodicy in the first place since you have no standard in which to declare what is evil or what is good so as to be able to make the argument from a firm basis. i.e. what is your moral basis to make the argument?

      Further note:

      Hitler & Darwin, pt. 2: Richard Weikart on Evolutionary Ethics - podcast
      http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-11-30T15_33_04-08_00

      Delete
  9. CH: What Schloss does not explain in this video is that in recent decades evolutionists have increasingly acknowledged that the vast change evolution requires did not, in fact, likely arise from the usual suspects of mutation, selection and adaptation. This is not a minor point of dispute. It is a fundamental problem of how new designs arose.

    What we've discovered is that the vast number of transformations of this type only occur in the context of where the of knowledge of how to perform them is present. And, in the case of the biosphere, this knowledge is actually present in the genome. This is in contrast to things that human designers build, which do not transform themselves from raw materials.

    Specifically, the knowledge of how to transform steel, rubber, glass and aluminum into a car resides externally in human beings, and the robots we've built do assemble them. However, in the case of the biosphere, this knowledge resides internally, in each organism in the form of the genome.

    As such, the fundamental question is, what is the origin of the knowledge used to build the adaptations we observe? How was it created?

    Evolutionary theory explains this knowledge as have being created via conjecture, in the form of genetic variation, and refutation, in the form of natural selection.

    Furthermore, in recent decades, we've also discovered that evolution isn't merely the the survival of the fittest. Genes represent biological replicators, which play a casual role in their own replication.

    In other words, if the knowledge of how to perform these transformation was initially conjecture in regards to the fitness of the organism, this knowledge would represent non-explanatory knowledge that wasn't designed for any particular purpose.

    CH: This horizontal gene transfer explanation is problematic. First, it is a complex mechanism that evolution would somehow had to have created. Second, it means that evolution created a complex mechanism so that evolution could occur—evolution created evolution.

    The claim that "a designer designed it" says nothing about the origin of this knowledge.This omission represents the same sort of flaw as the creationist, pre-enlightenment, authoritative account of how we, as human beings, create knowledge. In fact, in some cases, it's the exact same theory: some being, "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, along with rules of morality, human behavior, etc.

    Furthermore, this same designer would itself represent a being that is well adapted to the purpose of designing things, would it not?

    As such, it would seem this designer would need to be designed with the purpose of designing things, as would the designer that designed it, etc. The mere assumption "a designer designed it" doesn't address the problem of the origin of this knowledge required to adapt the designer to the purpose of design.

    So, apparently, in the case of the ID theorist, the knowledge of how to build the biosphere simply isn't something that can or needs to be explained, as it's unexplainable or "just was" along with the designer. But these assumptions are not evident from observations alone. Rather, these assumptions would represent an explanatory framework used to extrapolate observations.

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

    As such, it's unclear exactly how adding a designer to the mix actually adds to our explanation of the complexity of the biosphere.

    Of course, if the question you're asking is how you can reconcile your belief in a particular theological concept of God with the biosphere we observe, that's another issue. But that would be hijacking science to suit one's religious purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scott the aspiring philosopher:

    The claim that "a designer designed it" says nothing about the origin of this knowledge.This omission represents the same sort of flaw as the creationist, pre-enlightenment, authoritative account of how we, as human beings, create knowledge. In fact, in some cases, it's the exact same theory: some being, "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, along with rules of morality, human behavior, etc.

    Furthermore, this same designer would itself represent a being that is well adapted to the purpose of designing things, would it not?

    As such, it would seem this designer would need to be designed with the purpose of designing things, as would the designer that designed it, etc. The mere assumption "a designer designed it" doesn't address the problem of the origin of this knowledge required to adapt the designer to the purpose of design.


    Here's my personal Christian take on it:

    1. According to Christian doctrine, there exist two complementary realms: the physical realm and the spiritual realm.

    2. The physical realm can be created from nothing or destroyed back into nothing but it can neither create nor destroy itself. This is where the principle of energy conservation comes from. An ex-nihilo physical universe also explains all sorts of symmetries since it is a Yin-Yang universe by necessity: everything sums up to nothing, not unlike the way all negative and positive numbers sum up to zero. Furthermore, nothing in the physical realm is either good or bad in and of itself. Good and bad are spiritual concepts.

    3. The spiritual realm can be neither created nor destroyed. It just is. Atheists love to accuse God of creating evil beings but that's just nonsense. The Christian God, Yahweh (I am) or Elohim (the lords) can create neither evil nor good beings and has never claimed to have that capability. He/they can only create matter, i.e., atoms, molecules, DNA, etc. Even the devil was a perfectly designed and created being until evil was discovered in him much later.

    Just saying. Take it or leave it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. He starts off by presenting the evidence for evolution as being from a non biological subject. Biogeography.
    That is not biology.
    Its unrelated to biological investigation using the scientific method for conclusions.
    Genetic biology is not biology.
    Its snapshots of genetics that are then presumed to be connected because of geological presumptions.

    The bible says evolutionary biology is not true.
    Therefore there couldn't be biological evidence for biological evolution of moths to men.
    Therefore there isn't.
    What they persuade themselves to be biological evidence are actually unrelated evidences that only shadow actual biological investigation.
    fossils, genetics, biogeography are exactly what they must push to persuade evolution is true.
    This is because biology does not support them.

    Saying evolution is full of evidence is saying nothing to a emerging culture of criticism of evolution.
    Prove these wild claims that also reject holy scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Looks like Hunter is quote-mining Doolittle again. Surprise! Here is what Doolittle has to say on the subject of the tree of life:

    To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation (80) and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them (81, 82), it would be perverse to claim that Darwin's TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants.

    [1] W. F. Doolittle and E. Bapteste, "Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis," PNAS 104, 2043 (2007). doi:10.1073/pnas.0610699104.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oleg:

      Looks like Hunter is quote-mining Doolittle again. Surprise! Here is what Doolittle has to say on the subject of the tree of life:

      To be sure, much of evolution has been tree-like and is captured in hierarchical classifications. Although plant speciation is often effected by reticulation (80) and radical primary and secondary symbioses lie at the base of the eukaryotes and several groups within them (81, 82), it would be perverse to claim that Darwin's TOL hypothesis has been falsified for animals (the taxon to which he primarily addressed himself) or that it is not an appropriate model for many taxa at many levels of analysis. Birds are not bees, and animals are not plants.



      So let’s have a look at what the evolutionist says. First, I provided a quote from the Abstract, the part of the paper that is difficult to quote-mine because it is the author’s summary. The quote clearly explains the paper’s findings that the evolutionary tree for all organisms is not applicable. Here is that quote:

      Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.

      Continued …

      Delete
    2. Continuing …

      Did I quote-mine? Of course not. The remainder of the Abstract simply reinforces the point:

      This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation. Pattern pluralism (the recognition that different evolutionary models and representations of relationships will be appropriate, and true, for different taxa or at different scales or for different purposes) is an attractive alternative to the quixotic pursuit of a single true TOL.


      Next, the evolutionist accuses me of quote-mining because down in the middle of the paper, it says that the evolutionary tree is applicable for subsets of the species. But only subsets. The authors are quick to explain (again) the evolutionary is not always applicable phylogenetic patterns that are not tree-like need to be explored. Strangely, however, the evolutionist edited that last part. He quote-mined, after falsely accusing me of quote-mining. Here is the part the evolutionist strangely omitted:

      But in other taxa or at other levels, reticulation [non tree like evolutionary change] may be the relevant historical process, and nets or webs the appropriate way to represent what is a real but more complex fact of nature. Available software [such as Splitstree (43), NeighborNet (83), Lumbermill (84), or T-Rex (85)] allow biologists to explore phylogenetic patterns that are not necessarily tree-like. Other approaches, such as the analysis of the plurality signal within a data set or the elimination of impossible relationships, also explore phylogenetic signal without seeking to produce, a priori, a common tree as output. In the near future, even more sophisticated methods should be available, because mathematical research into phylogenetic network reconstruction is presently very active (43, 86–88).


      This isn’t mysterious or complicated. The message of the paper is obvious from the very start. As I mentioned, it is crystal clear right there in the Abstract, the first thing you see. Even the title, “Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis,” makes is obvious that they are discussing pluralism in the evolutionary patterns as opposed to the expected, single, evolutionary tree. The evolutionist had to dig down into the middle of the paper, and even then carefully edit out a few sentences to try and make the claim that the quote that I provided, from the Abstract, was a mis-quote. All the while, it was he who was doing the mis-quoting. People who do not engage evolutionists in these discussions have no idea what is going on.

      Delete
    3. Yep. The evolutionist always speaks with a forked tongue. Day in and day out. LOL.

      Delete
    4. Grasping at straws, Cornelius?

      Doolittle states quite unequivocally that higher organisms do form a tree of life. Translation: Man shares common ancestry with apes, mice, birds, dinosaurs and fishes. Genes are transferred vertically among these lineages, with an occasional exception due to viral insertions.

      This is beyond any doubt. Doolittle does not dispute that. Creationists such as yourself do.

      Delete
    5. Grasping at straws, Cornelius?

      No, I’m reporting on the science. Something which you seem to oppose.


      Translation: Man shares common ancestry with apes, mice, birds, dinosaurs and fishes. Genes are transferred vertically among these lineages, with an occasional exception due to viral insertions. This is beyond any doubt. Doolittle does not dispute that. Creationists such as yourself do.

      Beyond any doubt? Why is that true? How does the absence of falsification translate into “Beyond any doubt?”

      Delete
    6. Beyond doubt in the same sense and to the same degree as the kind of evidence that juries use to sentence fellow human beings to death. Not logical certainty, but "beyond reasonable doubt."

      In fact the evidence is exactly of the type used in courts. Same technology and same reasoning.

      Delete
  13. oleg declares his blind faith here:

    'Man shares common ancestry with apes, mice, birds, dinosaurs and fishes. Genes are transferred vertically among these lineages, with an occasional exception due to viral insertions.

    This is beyond any doubt.'

    Really??? Beyond any doubt???

    And yet despite oleg's blind faith in a remote Darwinian past that he was not even alive to see; We find:

    Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009
    Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?"
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html

    I would like to point out that this, 'annihilation' of Darwin's genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed 'world leading expert' on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was 'Intelligently Designed' for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year.

    The universal ancestor - Carl Woese
    Excerpt: No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/95/12/6854.full

    further notes:

    Genetic Evidence uproots Darwin's tree of life:
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1S5wXsukzkauD5YQLkQYuIMGL25I4fJrOUzJhONvBXe4

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bornagain,

    Here is what Woese himself thinks about creationists misusing his research:

    Woese scoffs at Meyer's claim when I call to ask him about the paper. "To say that my criticism of Darwinists says that evolutionists have no clothes," Woese says, "is like saying that Einstein is criticizing Newton, therefore Newtonian physics is wrong." Debates about evolution's mechanisms, he continues, don't amount to challenges to the theory. And intelligent design "is not science. It makes no predictions and doesn't offer any explanation whatsoever, except for 'God did it.'"

    Put a sock in it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. oleg quotes; 'intelligent design "is not science. It makes no predictions and doesn't offer any explanation whatsoever, except for 'God did it.'"

    'Put a sock in it.'

    My, My, oleg 'put a sock in it'? Testy aren't we? Well perhaps I can oblige you and 'put a sock in it' after you tell me exactly how is 'science' grounded in the materialistic worldview in the first place?' i.e. Exactly which material particles will I find the transcendent principles of reasoning and logic grounded in? oleg, contrary to what you falsely believe right now, 'science' is impossible without God, and in fact it was the Christian Theistic belief in a rationally created, and ordered, universe which could be understood by rationally minded creatures, who are made in the Creator's image, that gave birth to modern science;

    Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons
    IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21)
    Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.
    http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf

    Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/32145998

    Why should the human mind be able to comprehend reality so deeply? - referenced article
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qGvbg_212biTtvMschSGZ_9kYSqhooRN4OUW_Pw-w0E/edit

    As to your (Woese's) claim that ID makes no predictions:

    A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – March 2011 – several examples of cited research
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/a_closer_look_at_one_scientist045311.html

    And may I also refer you to the numerous falsified predictions of neo-Darwinism:

    Survey of Failed Evolutionary Predictions:
    http://www.darwinspredictions.com/

    Further note:

    "nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

    Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerate science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LpGd3smTV1RwmEXC25IAEKMjiypBl5VJq9ssfv4JgeM/edit

    ReplyDelete
  16. "For example, the human and squid vision system are uncannily similar."

    Really? I could have sworn that squid retinas are wired "correctly", with the nerve connections made on the back of the retina where they don't get in the way of the light.

    Human retinas, on the other hand, are "backwards" with the nerve connections in front of the photoreceptors where they block the incoming light.

    It's funny that the Intelligent Designer screwed up human eyes while getting squid eyes right. God's ways are mysterious and all that, I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's funny that the Intelligent Designer screwed up human eyes while getting squid eyes right. God's ways are mysterious and all that, I guess.

      Dave I think it's worth looking at the links here and more specifically here

      I urge you to read the content, it's compelling ;-)

      Delete
    2. On the second link I posted here ^^ is the same paper BA77 refers to below Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak here

      Delete
  17. Dave you state:

    'Human retinas, on the other hand, are "backwards" with the nerve connections in front of the photoreceptors where they block the incoming light.'

    Yet we find:

    Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak
    Physical Review Letters, 104, 158102 (April 2010)
    Excerpt: The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20482021

    "Evolution" gave flawed eye better vision
    Excerpt: IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision. ,,, Their findings suggest that sending light via the Müller cells offers several advantages. At least two types of light get inside the eye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and "noise" that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye. The simulations showed that the Müller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out. This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-blind-leading-the-blind/#comment-354157

    ReplyDelete
  18. further note:

    Eye Cells as Light Pipes - article accompanied by video and graph
    http://physics.aps.org/story/v25/st15

    Light propagation explains our inverted retina - A. M. Labin and E. N. Ribak
    http://spie.org/documents/Newsroom/Imported/003189/003189_10.pdf

    The Seeing Eye - part 1 of 2 - Dr. David Menton
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEXjEjFiW2A

    ReplyDelete
  19. bornagain77, you keep getting the evolutionists out on 1st base. I'm enjoying some of the links that you've posted recently.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Watch the amazing eye and hand coordination of the fastest draw probably of all time. It's not just a one time trick as other youtube videos show.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ht7QfGY66Bc

    ReplyDelete
  21. oleg, the failure of the Darwinian TOL is much bigger than us pulling out a few quotes. Its failure is pervasive throughout the genetic research in the last ten years. Mixing and matching of genetic sequences is widespread and common throughout all of life. The tangled web like bush is the new pattern.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Neal, there is no bush at the level of animal kingdom. It's still a tree, and it will remain a tree. I doubt that creationists care about the origin of prokaryotes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it posible to differentiate a monophiletic tree growing from a net than as orchard model growing from a net?

      Delete
  23. Scott: This omission represents the same sort of flaw as the creationist, pre-enlightenment, authoritative account of how we, as human beings, create knowledge. In fact, in some cases, it's the exact same theory: some being, "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, along with rules of morality, human behavior, etc.

    Louis: Here's my personal Christian take on it: [...]

    It's unclear how this resolves the omission I was referring to.

    How does knowledge come in to play in your scenario? Is it "physical" or is it "spiritual"? Can be created?

    Specifically, If the physical can be created from nothing, does this mean that the spiritual can create the physical in the absence of the necessary knowledge of how the physical would actually work, once it did appear? If so, this would be the spontaneous generation of knowledge.

    For example, if I want to build a house, I don't have to know architecture, building codes, etc. I merely state what I want to an architect, who designs a house using the knowledge we created about architecture, who then draws up plans and gives them to the contractor, who states what he wants to the construction and landscape workers, plumbers, etc. - each of which employ a specific set of knowledge.

    While I might have merely communicated what I wanted, raw materials would not actually be transformed into a home unless the necessary knowledge of how to do so was actually present at every point in the process. If it did, this would be "magic" or the spontaneous generation of knowledge.

    In other words, If I do not have all of the necessary knowledge, I have to farm it out to someone who does. Otherwise, the house I want doesn't actually get built. Nor do I specify every detail of the resulting home as I couldn't possibility know what options there were, etc. If I did, I would have the necessary knowledge in the first place.

    So, when you say the physical can be built from nothing, does this also mean that God could merely will a physical house to appear despite the absence of the knowledge of architecture, construction, plumbing, etc. in my example? Do details he didn't specify appear in the home, just as there would be details in the home I requested that I never specified?

    Or, to bring this back to the subject at hand, can God merely will the biosphere in existence from nothing, including the absence of knowledge of how the biosphere will actually work, once created?

    If not, then God must have always had the knowledge of how to build the biosphere. And he would specified everything about the biosphere, in detail, at least at some point. Otherwise, it wouldn't exist.

    So, the question becomes, does ex-nihilo creation of the physical in your scenario include creation in the absence of knowledge? Or, does knowledge even play a roll at all?

    This was my original criticism, which doesn't appear to be addressed in your comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In my opinion, knowledge only makes sense if there is a changing physical environment to learn from. No change -> no knowledge. I hypothesize that spiritual creator beings have had eons in which to create and experiment with the created environments that they learned from. They obtained their knowledge the same way we do, through trial and error. The only requirement is the power to create elementary physical entities out of nothing. There is no need to start with complex objects.

      Of course, once the creators became sufficiently advanced, they would have gained the knowledge to will entire planets into existence out of nothing. It takes no energy to create things out of nothing, only creative power.

      Remember that the Christian Yahweh (or Elohim) is also called the ancient of old. It took a long while to get to the point where they could create entire universes. There was an evolution of sorts. Just my opinion.

      Delete
    2. Louis: The only requirement is the power to create elementary physical entities out of nothing. There is no need to start with complex objects.

      I'm not quite sure if I'm following you here.

      For example, I like to paint, but I don't have much training and experience. As such, I have difficulty implementing specific artistic choices I make. On the other hand, a highly skilled painter does have these skills. As such, he many not have difficulty implementing the artistic choices he might make while working on a painting.

      However, in both cases, we may not be satisfied with the result of our paintings. And the reasons why could be different for each of us.

      Specially, despite having the necessary skill, the great painter may have made preferential artistic decisions that resulted in a painting that turned out different than he wanted. He had the knowledge to execute them, but was unhappy with he choices he made. As such, he might paint over parts of the canvas. Or he might start over on a completely different canvas.

      This would be one form of trial and error.

      On the other hand, I lack the skill to actually execute the artistic decisions I might make. So, regardless of how creative I am, being creative isn't enough. I have to learn the skill necessary, by trial and error, to actually execute the artistic decisions I wanted. So, I might start over with a new canvas, or decide to make a number of test paintings unit I've honed my skill. Or I might even change my style based on what my limitations are.

      This would be another type of trial and error.

      However, your response doesn't seem to make no distinction between the two.

      For example, physical things need a universe to exist in before anything else can be physical can be created. As such, are you suggesting that, at some time in the past, "the creators" (were there more than one?) had the knowledge to execute a universes necessary to hold planets, but not planets themselves? Or did they start out with tiny universes that only lasted a few second, in which to build test planets?

      In other words, I'm wondering if you think that "the creators" had the knowledge of how to execute building anything that could be possibility built. Rather, they gained the knowledge of what they *wanted* build, in particular, via trial and error.

      Would this be an accurate assumption on my part?

      Delete
    3. Scot:

      However, your response doesn't seem to make no distinction between the two.

      Sorry. I don't see the point of this exercise.

      For example, physical things need a universe to exist in before anything else can be physical can be created.

      I disagree. The only requirement is to have the power to create something out of nothing. There is no universe in which we exist in. Read Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion if you're interested in my views on this topic.

      As such, are you suggesting that, at some time in the past, "the creators" (were there more than one?) had the knowledge to execute a universes necessary to hold planets, but not planets themselves? Or did they start out with tiny universes that only lasted a few second, in which to build test planets?

      The universe is just the sum total of the particles that were created out of nothing. I don't believe that the creators started with the knowledge to create planets and stars. They started with the ability to create elementary entities or quanta, if you like. Once enough of those things are created, their interactions can be used for learning purposes. I doubt very much that the creators had anything other than rudimentary knowledge. Christian doctrine tells us that human beings were formed in the image of the gods (Elohim). I take it that those gods acquired their knowledge the same way we do.

      On a different tangent, I deduced from the scriptures that an immense lattice of energetic particles (the heavens or the sea of glass) was first created before normal matter particles. The lattice is needed as a causal substrate for motion. No lattice = no motion. See Physics: The Problem with Motion for more on this topic. Believe me, you don't understand motion even if you think you do.

      In other words, I'm wondering if you think that "the creators" had the knowledge of how to execute building anything that could be possibility built. Rather, they gained the knowledge of what they *wanted* build, in particular, via trial and error.

      Would this be an accurate assumption on my part?


      Yes. My understanding is that they gained their awesome knowledge and wisdom through trial and error over eons. I am not one of those clueless Christians who believe in an all-knowing God who cannot make a mistake. However, if you could live zillions upon zillions of years, you would eventually gain enough knowledge to design and create an awesome universe such as ours and all the complex lifeforms that it contains. In my opinion, the current universe is just one of many that came before it. The previous ones were destroyed because the Elohim were not satisfied with aspects of it.

      The scriptures are adamant that everything that was created in this universe was created through knowledge. The hocus pocus caricature of God that those sh!t-for-brains atheists/Darwinists love to wrestle with is a strawman of their own making. They're not even wrong.

      Delete
    4. Louis: I disagree. The only requirement is to have the power to create something out of nothing.

      What exactly does this mean? For example, it's unclear why a being that can create "something" of out nothing couldn't create knowledge out of nothing. Knowledge isn't "something"?

      Louis: There is no universe in which we exist in. Read Why Space (Distance) Is an Illusion if you're interested in my views on this topic.

      While I agree that the intuitive sense that time flows is an illusion, I do not think that this conflicts with Einstein's theory of space-time as this is resolved by the MWI of QM. Different times are simply special cases in different universes. See here.

      (Just so I have this correct, you think our intuitive sense that time flows is an illusion, yet you accept an intuitive sense that the biosphere was designed?)

      Louis: The universe is just the sum total of the particles that were created out of nothing.

      At which point, we've veered away from anything that remotely looks like modern day physics. For example, this does this explain why the universe would start with a big bang, represented by the cosmic microwave background, which eventually cools into atoms, etc. Nor is it clear what else is causing galaxies to accelerate away from us at an exponential rate. Is this an illusion as well?

      Louis: I don't believe that the creators started with the knowledge to create planets and stars. They started with the ability to create elementary entities or quanta, if you like.

      And what was the source of the knowledge by which they knew how to build elementary particles? Did they learn this by trial and error as well?

      Louis: Christian doctrine tells us that human beings were formed in the image of the gods (Elohim). I take it that those gods acquired their knowledge the same way we do.

      So, the gods instinctively knew how to build elementary particles, just how a new born baby knows how to nurse? But the knowledge of how to nurse comes from the child's genes, which is a form of embedded knowledge, created by trial and error.

      Louis: The lattice is needed as a causal substrate for motion. No lattice = no motion. See Physics: The Problem with Motion for more on this topic. Believe me, you don't understand motion even if you think you do.

      Again, issues regarding the illusionary nature of the flow of time are resolved by the MWI of quantum mechanics. So, motion is compatible with our universe. See the Many-Worlds FAQ

      Scott: In other words, I'm wondering if you think that "the creators" had the knowledge of how to execute building anything that could be possibility built. Rather, they gained the knowledge of what they *wanted* build, in particular, via trial and error.

      Would this be an accurate assumption on my part?


      Louis: Yes. My understanding is that they gained their awesome knowledge and wisdom through trial and error over eons.

      Except, this conflicts with what you wrote above. The knowledge of how to build a planet isn't the same as the knowledge what kind of planet you'd want to build. These are two different kinds of knowledge.

      So, to clarify, what kind of knowledge did these gods create though trial and error:

      A: The knowledge of how to build anything that could be possibly built,
      B: The knowledge of what out of this set of possible things they actually wanted to build.

      Was it A, B or both A & B? Or, do you even differentiate between A & B?

      Delete
    5. Louis: The previous ones were destroyed because the Elohim were not satisfied with aspects of it.

      Why would the Elohim destroy them rather than fix them? Were there sentient beings in these universes? Were they destroyed as well?

      Louis: The scriptures are adamant that everything that was created in this universe was created through knowledge.

      But I don't think we're using the same definition here. You could be referring to knowledge of what they intended to build, vs the knowledge of how to build it. I'm still not sure you're making a distinction. For example...

      Scott: However, your response doesn't seem to make no distinction between the two.

      Louis: Sorry. I don't see the point of this exercise.

      If we create knowledge through conjecture and refutation, then we create theories though conjecture, test those theories, which includes comparing them to observations, and discard aspects of the theory we find to be in error.

      So, the point of this exercise is criticism, in that we make progress.

      If you think this exercise pointless because your theory cannot be criticized, then you do not think we learn through trial an error.

      Delete
    6. Scott, I don't have the time to engage in a protracted discussion right now. Let me make a few more points.

      1. There is only 1 physical nothingness, that is, only 1 universe can come out of this nothingness because everything must sum up to zero. Hence, MWI is pure hogwash, a lame religion for atheist nerds.

      2. Not everything is knowledge. The ability to create some elementary entity out of nothing is just that, an ability.

      3. Knowledge is not a spiritual thing. It resides in the physical realm. Only the consciousness of that knowledge resides in the spiritual realm.

      4. In other for a original creator to even think about anything, he needs a brain. The problem is that this brain must reside in the physical realm and must be created through trial and error.

      5. I don't yet know how to resolve conundrum #4. From a Judeo-Christian POV, all I know is that the name Yahweh means 'I am that I am'. I take this to mean that he is what he is out of logical necessity.

      6. I don't see your point of there being different kinds of knowledge. Any knowledge is just a memorized (stored) temporal pattern of sensed events.

      7. I gotta go.

      Delete
    7. Louis: 1. There is only 1 physical nothingness, that is, only 1 universe can come out of this nothingness because everything must sum up to zero. Hence, MWI is pure hogwash, a lame religion for atheist nerds.

      Did you read the FAQ?

      First, the law conservation of energy is based on observations within each world. All observations within each world are consistent with conservation of energy, therefore energy is conserved.

      Second, and more precisely, conservation of energy, in QM, is formulated in terms of weighted averages or expectation values. Conservation of energy is expressed by saying that the time derivative of the expected energy of a closed system vanishes. This statement can be scaled up to include the whole universe. Each world has an approximate energy, but the energy of the total wavefunction, or any subset of, involves summing over each world, weighted with its probability measure. This weighted sum is a constant. So energy is conserved within each world and also across the totality of worlds.


      The MWI is just as much about explaining the common sense idea that it appears *as if* time flows; just as it explains why particles appear *as if* they become a wave in quantum mechanics. Time is just special cases in other universes.

      Louis: 2. Not everything is knowledge. The ability to create some elementary entity out of nothing is just that, an ability.

      Transformations of the sort you're describing only occur when the necessary knowledge of how to do so is actually present. So, you're essentially claiming it's "magic" in that God could create things in the absence of the knowledge of knowing how to build elementary entities, or this knowledge was somehow spontaneously generated when he willed elementary entries to appear.

      Sounds like hocus pocus to me.

      Louis: 5. I don't yet know how to resolve conundrum #4. From a Judeo-Christian POV, all I know is that the name Yahweh means 'I am that I am'. I take this to mean that he is what he is out of logical necessity.

      And If someone names their child "Yahweh", that child must exist out of a logical necessary? What if I legally change my name to "Yahweh"?

      Delete
    8. Louis: 6. I don't see your point of there being different kinds of knowledge. Any knowledge is just a memorized (stored) temporal pattern of sensed events.

      Because you cannot create something before you have the knowledge to actually do so. You might decide to build something you want, but deciding isn't enough. You need the knowledge to do so first. This is a key part of the underlying explanation of neo-darwinism.

      If the knowledge of how to build the biosphere was created though conjecture and refutation, then the most complex and least complex forms of life cannot appear simultaneously. And they must appear in the order of least complex forms to most complex.

      However, if a designer always knew how to build the biosphere, rather than what sort of biosphere he wanted to build, then this designer would have had knowledge to build the most complex and the least complex forms of life, at the same time. And this designer could have created life in the order of most complex to least complex.

      Furthermore, people are universal explainers. Specifically, we do not test every logical possibility. We test theories that represent good explanations. As such, we use explanations as a criteria for what possibilities we should test. So, the kind of knowledge people create is explanatory-knowledge.

      However, natural process are not universal explainers. As such, they cannot create explanations for use as a criteria of which conjectured genetic variations to test. This would be non-explanatory knowledge.

      If the knowledge in the genome was created by natural processes, we would expect the knowledge to be created over a significant amount of time, with a great number of neutral or even detrimental conjectures, as all genetic variations would be tested, rather than only those variations that would represent good explanations for beneficial features.

      But if the knowledge in the genome is explanatory-knowledge, created by a person, then we should expect most genetic variations to be beneficial. In other words, rather than test all possible genetic sequences, a designer would create explanations as to why a particular sequences would provide benefit to an organism, then only test those sequences. This is in contrast to testing every possible genetic variation.

      In fact, our relatively recent and rapid increase in the creation of knowledge is explained by our growing tendency to prefer deep and hard to vary explanations, while discarding shallow and easily varied explanations and mere possibilities, which began during the enlightenment.

      And, if we're talking about some designer that has been around much longer than us and is more advanced than we are, it would have created even better explanations for how knowledge is created. As such, it would have resulted in an even more refined criteria for which conjectures to test; which would result in creating knowledge even faster, resulting in more beneficial mutations, etc.

      However, the genome doesn't seem to contain explanatory knowledge. Rather it appears to contain non-explanatory knowledge.

      Delete
    9. Scott:

      And If someone names their child "Yahweh", that child must exist out of a logical necessary? What if I legally change my name to "Yahweh"?

      OK. That does it. I'm talking to a moron. See ya.

      Delete
    10. Louis: 5. I don't yet know how to resolve conundrum #4. From a Judeo-Christian POV, all I know is that the name Yahweh means 'I am that I am'. I take this to mean that he is what he is out of logical necessity.

      Scott: And If someone names their child "Yahweh", that child must exist out of a logical necessary? What if I legally change my name to "Yahweh"?

      Louis: OK. That does it. I'm talking to a moron. See ya.

      The Bible says that God's name is "I am what I am", so he doesn't need a physical brain? And if I do not agree, I'm a moron?

      Again, how does one's choosing to call them self any name in particular actually result in them actually having any necessary, specific properties?

      If the name "I am what I am" is only relevant when revealed from the Bible, then you're appealing to authority rather than making a rational argument.

      Again, this sounds like more hocus pocus.

      Delete
  24. Well Scott, I don't know how much it helps, but here is something that falls out of Quantum Entanglement:

    Quantum Entanglement and Teleportation (Implications discussed in description) - video
    Excerpt from description: since information exercises direct dominion of energy in quantum teleportation experiments then all information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist.
    http://vimeo.com/38463906

    This following experiments verified the 'conservation of transcendent/quantum information';

    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

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hey phil (ba77), are you cluttering up this site with your link spam because UD is dying and you're not getting the attention you crave there?

    What happened in your life that turned you into such a pompous, fanatical godbot? Booze, drugs, divorce, financial problems, erectile dysfunction, mental illness, homosexual or bestial or pedophilia desires? All of the above? Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your personal opinion matters because...

      Delete
    2. Well the 'hole' truth, if you must know, my debating tactics with delusional atheists were a bit less than orthodox in the past;

      Cruel Logic - video
      http://vimeo.com/5355398

      by the way hole do you want to come over to my basement for a debate?

      Delete
    3. Which basement are you referring to?

      I didn't watch the video. I have better things to do.

      Have you ever had an original thought?

      Delete
    4. By the way phil (ba77), remarks like "the 'hole' truth" and "delusional atheists" are mighty christian of ya. I'm sure your imaginary jesus is proud of you.

      With friends like you, gordon mullings, joe gallien, o'leary, arrington, and the rest of the IDiots, ID and christianity don't need any enemies. You sanctimonious god zombies are doing more harm than good for your maniacal agenda.

      Delete
  26. Bornagain 77 - So you're saying that Cornelius is right? That the eyes are identical?

    Or are you saying that The Intelligent Designer purposefully degraded the eyes of molluscs because He put their nerves behind their retinas?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dave this is simply incredible, you, the neo-Darwinist, even though you can't account for the origination of a single protein in the vision cascade,,,

    Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye - Molecular Animation
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4189562/

    ,,,claimed the Human eye was bad design because of a supposed 'backwards retina'. Yet when it is shown that the design is in fact optimally designed, you now claim that the molluscs are 'bad design'. Does it not even occur to you that this is not even a scientific argument but a Theological argument that you are using? Simply incredible! If you were honest ,instead of being overtly deceptive in your search of this matter, you would ask honest questions. Such as 'what is actually doing the 'seeing' in humans since 'self-aware' material particles are entirely contrary to how we view material particles?',,, When you ask honest questions, such as that Dave, then a world of wonder opens up to you. A world of wonder that is lost to those who argue for establishing a religious agenda within science instead of seeking the truth in science!

    Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported vision during their Near Death Experiences (NDEs). 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. (of note: This 'anomaly' is also found for deaf people who can hear sound during their Near Death Experiences(NDEs).)
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_1_64/ai_65076875/

    Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience (NDE) - Pim von Lommel - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599/

    Further notes:

    A neurosurgeon confronts the non-material nature of consciousness - December 2011
    Excerpted quote: To me one thing that has emerged from my experience and from very rigorous analysis of that experience over several years, talking it over with others that I respect in neuroscience, and really trying to come up with an answer, is that consciousness outside of the brain is a fact. It’s an established fact. And of course, that was a hard place for me to get, coming from being a card-toting reductive materialist over decades. It was very difficult to get to knowing that consciousness, that there’s a soul of us that is not dependent on the brain.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-a-neurosurgeon-confronts-the-non-material-nature-of-consciousness/

    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

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

      Delete
    2. My original comment was on Professor Hunter's claim that "the human and squid vision system are uncannily similar." Since one has an inverted retina and the other doesn't, this is plain false.

      You "countered" with a cut and paste job from your store of misinformation which describes how human vision EVOLVED to use glial cells to channel light directly to photoreceptor cells in the fovea, bypassing the nerve cells in front of them and reducing chromatic aberration and getting rid of some noise in the process.

      These cells would work just as well if the retina were right side out. I asked if The Intelligent Designer had done the same thing for the squid and you don't seem to like that question. Sorry about that, but it's a legitimate question. Did He?

      Then you bring up another cut and paste from your treasure trove, this time on near death experiences. Guess what? You're not dead when you have a NEAR death experience! You're not dead just because your heart has stopped, ask anyone who's had open heart surgery.

      But your brain IS deprived of oxygen and starts to malfunction and that is enough to account for people who think they see while their hearts are stopped (or maybe she actually did - there are several different pathways for vision in the human brain and her oxygen starved and malfunctioning cells might have tapped into one of them. Look up "blind sight") or have out of body experiences or anything else that I've ever heard of happening during an NDE.

      Before making totally unfactual "arguments" about what consciousness is, try reading up on what research shows about it. I suggest "Who's in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain" by Michael Gazzaniga for a recent book that gives a good account of what we actually KNOW about consciousness as compared to the off the wall theories that some people have about it.

      The world seems to be divided into two camps regarding consciousness: Those who are studying it in the lab and making great strides in understanding it and theologians and a few philosophers who don't know squat, but who have plenty of ever more worthless and off the wall theories about it.

      P.S. Thank you for not dragging the Shroud of Turin into this.

      Delete
  28. Batspit77's really been on a roll of late. He's trashed pretty much every recent thread here with his massive piles of C&Ped verbal diarrhea. Many of the same pointless blurbs he's cut and pasted a dozen times or more.

    Seems to indicate a form of mild brain damage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems to indicate a form of mild brain damage.

      Hmm, and yet the truth is:

      Look Who's Irrational Now
      Excerpt: "What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html

      Delete
    2. ...make that major brain damage.

      Delete
    3. Really Thorton? Brain damage? That's how you expect to show people the superiority of evolution?

      That's the sort of garbage that holds it back.

      Delete
    4. Smith-Kazammiri

      Really Thorton? Brain damage? That's how you expect to show people the superiority of evolution?

      That's the sort of garbage that holds it back.


      Hi Smith! Back with your little fake-evolutionist sock puppet I see.

      Go ahead and defend Batspit77's inane C&Ped blithering. Give us all a good laugh!

      Delete
    5. That's not surprising. Evangelical Christians are forbidden to believe in pagan stuff like palm readers and astrology.

      Delete
  29. Born,

    If consciousness proceeded material reality, how is one particular interpretation of quantum mechanics that implies material information cannot be hidden actually relevant to my comment about a designer that existed before the material universe supposedly existed?

    No universe, no quantum mechanics, no impact on material information.

    I just do not see the connection. Nor is it clear that you actually do either.Rather, you seem to keep posting links without actually understanding their implication, relevance, etc., because they sound like they could support your position.

    Despite the fact that we keep pointing out that they do not, you keep posting them anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott, do you believe that the knowledge to create the universe (even quantum fields) came from absolutely nothing?

      Delete
    2. Neal,

      I think the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics is the best explanation for what we observe on the small scale. That is, many classical universes exist which are so close to ours that the aspects that do vary cause interference patters to occur.

      Specifically, when a particle appears to become a wave in one universe, this actually represents all of the different possible locations of that particle could take in each universe, which are interfering with each other.

      We too exist in each of these universes. And, before we observe the particle, the versions of us are similar enough not to cause the interference to stop. However, when we observe the unique location of the particles in each universe, this knowledge causes us to become unique enough to end the interference. This is not specific to observers as any significant difference can end interference, not just observations. There is no spooky action regarding observers.

      So, "quantum fields" are caused by interactions between classical universes. As such, "quantum fields" are partially explained what occurs in these classical universes, which each has the same laws of physics.


      As to why universes interfere with each other in this particular way, that's an answer we simply do not have right now. However, I think that the MWI interpretation is just as much of an explanation in regards to time, as it is quantum mechanics.

      Does time actually flow as it appears, or does it flow at all? What does it mean to say knowledge created time? Good questions, lead to good answers, which lead to better questions, better answers, etc.

      As for the knowledge of how to create the universe, we do not know if there really was absolutely nothing before the big bang. We simply cannot see beyond it due to the fact that the early universe was opaque. Furthermore, our current models simply break down in the conditions at the big bang. Then again, our current models break down in the center of a black hole as well. Does this mean that black holes are supernatural?

      However, I do not think the knowledge of how to build the universe represents explanatory knowledge. That is, I do not think this knowledge was created by a form of person based on the guess that the particular laws of physics we have would result in the particular universe we observe.

      Apparently, Louis does. But this would mean that the designer had to build a great number of failed universes, such as a universe that only last a few seconds, or universes were the specific form of life we observe couldn't appear, etc. before it could try to build anything simple, like a rock.

      Again, apparently, Louis thinks things like rocks can exist in the absence of a universe. But this doesn't resemble anything like modern day physics.

      Delete
    3. Scott, you're pushing the question further back before the big bang as to how the knowledge to create our universe came about. If you postulate that some mechanical force that preexisted the universe had the knowledge to create our universe, then where did the knowledge to create that mechanical force come from? No matter how far back you go, you must still answer the same question.

      Doesn't your position force you to believe that absolutely nothing was the ultimate creator?

      We are left with either an eternal, rational Creator or with absolutely nothing as the ultimate origin. Since the later is absurd, then there is really only one reasonable answer.

      Delete
    4. On the other hand, we do not know what degrees of freedom there are in creating universes. So, it could be that specific aspects of the universe cannot be varied separately, etc.

      Nor do we have access to other universes by which to determine what sort of "knowledge" would have been required to create them. And, unlike organisms, universes do not have "genes" which represent the knowledge used to build themselves.

      Not to mention that I do not keep up on the latest and greatest theoretical physics, such as M and String theory.

      As such, I simply do not have enough information to categorize this knowledge as either explanatory or non-explanatory.

      However, good questions, lead to good answers, which lead to better questions, which leads to better answers, etc.

      Delete
  30. Well Scott, whichever of the 10^500 Scotts, in whichever parallel universe, I'm speaking with this morning, That consciousness is found to precede material reality and that information would be found to be foundational to material reality are both confirmed Theistic postulations: i.e. John 1:1-4

    How 'material information' (i.e. classical information) is found to be relevant to this scientifically confirmed Theistic view of reality is that 'material information' is found to be a subset of quantum information by the following method:

    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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theistic postulations, miracles, near death experiences, etc.?

      So, your objections to science and the ToE, and your promotion of ID, are based on your religious beliefs. Of course I knew that all along.

      All science so far! LOL

      Delete
  31. Born,

    The MWI of quantum mechanics doesn't violate the SLoT.

    See the Many-Worlds FAQ, which addresses these issues in detail.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Born: Well Scott, whichever of the 10^500 Scotts, in whichever parallel universe, I'm speaking with this morning,

    Did you forget already? Since we cannot communicate between universes. you're speaking to the Scott that's in the same universe you are.

    Again, apparently you can't even fallaciously ridicule the theory correctly. No surprise here.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Whatever Scott. Just let me know when I'm talking to a Scott that doesn't believe in 10^500 Scotts!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Born: Whatever Scott.

    As usually, your distills down to "whatever Scott." Again, no surprise here.

    Born: Just let me know when I'm talking to a Scott that doesn't believe in 10^500 Scotts!

    Except, 10^500 is only the number of universes that are similar enough to ours where they would interfere. So, there would be a significantly more than 10^500 Scotts.

    If you actually understood the theory, you would have realized this a well.

    So, it seems that you're not only clueless about the theory, but you can't even be bothered to accurately, yet fallacious, ridicule the theory, even after being corrected about it in the first place.

    How can you criticize a theory you do not understand?

    In fact, I've already corrected you on both of this points before. Yet you keep making the same mistake. Why is this?

    Apparently, understanding isn't important when you think your position was divinely revealed to be true in your favorite holy book.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Born: One down, 10^500 - 1 to go :)

    Born, have you heard of the the Dunning-Kruger effect?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wrong is wrong Scott! As to having a exalted sense of self, perhaps you can see the final stages of 'Darwinian Delusionitis' in this following video:

    Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661

    This preceding video, at the 6:49 mark, has a very interesting quote:

    "So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." -
    Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics

    Well Scott, I don't know about you, but some mere human imagining himself to evolve to become God and reaching back in time and creating the universe is pretty much as conceited as one can be in my book, perhaps you can send Barrow and Tipler your Dunning-Kruger link! :) But then it is probably only people who disagree with your delusional worldview that you accuse of being conceited.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Born: But then it is probably only people who disagree with your delusional worldview that you accuse of being conceited.

      Do you do any research at all before posting? At all?

      From the Omega Point entry on Wikipedia.

      Physicist David Deutsch incorporates Tipler's Omega Point cosmology as a central feature of the fourth strand of his "four strands" concept of fundamental reality and defends the physics of the Omega Point cosmology,[14] although he is highly critical of Tipler's theological conclusions[15] and what Deutsch states are exaggerated claims that have caused other scientists and philosophers to reject his theory out of hand.[16] Researcher Anders Sandberg pointed out that he believes the Omega Point Theory has many flaws, including missing proofs.[17]

      You just can't stop putting your foot into your own mouth, can you?

      Here's a hint, when your in a hole, stop digging!

      Delete
    2. Tipler and Deutsch disagree on the consequences of the omega point, not on whither the omega point can be reached.

      http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/physicist.html

      Delete
    3. Scott, 2 down 10^500 - 2 to go. :)

      Delete
    4. Multiple Scotts would be fine with me, but one looney toon like you is more than enough.

      You still haven't said what happened in your life that turned you into such a pompous godbot.

      Delete
    5. Just so I have this straight, for the umpteenth time, you look up something on the internet and post it, thinking it conflicts with what I wrote.

      However, for the umpteenth time, I point out how you didn't actually understand what you posted in the first place, and that it actually doesn't conflict with what I wrote.

      At which point, you declare "Scott, 2 down 10^500 - 2 to go"? How exactly does this make sense?

      If this isn't an example of the the Dunning-Kruger effect, what else are we supposed to conclude?

      Do you think the answer has been divinely revealed to you, so details in any paper must support your position even if you do not understand them?

      Delete
  37. BA77, have you read the papers you toss at us? One is here: http://prl.aps.org/pdf/PRL/v104/i15/e158102

    The other, simplified version, is here: http://spie.org/documents/Newsroom/Imported/003189/003189_10.pdf

    They both describe how the retina EVOLVED (their word) to add glial cells which "drill down" through the nerve cells to the light sensing cells.

    Those glial cells reject light that doesn't strike them perpendicularly, thus rejecting noise from reflections in the eye.

    They also reduce chromatic aberration (blue light focuses approx .25 mm in front of red light) by channeling both colors directly to the light sensitive cells.

    Note that word EVOLVED. I wonder if The Intelligent Designer did the same for the squid? After all, "the human and squid vision system are uncannily similar."

    You also make a point that we don't know the exact process by which the proteins in the eye evolved. This is not surprising, since they evolved millions of years ago and left no fossils that we know of.

    But you know what? Neither can ID. You haven't the faintest idea of how those proteins came to be there. Saying "God did it" carries about the same weight as saying "Evolution did it." except that we have lots of evidence of evolution making things.

    If you claim that God did it, then tell us when He did it and where and describe all the steps involved. Did the proteins appear instantly and fully formed or did precursors appear first and then gradually mutate into their present form? When did they appear? Did they appear in humans or in some ancestral animal?

    That's what you're asking of us and you seem to think that our inability to answer is some kind of victory for ID.

    Well, two can play that game. If you can't answer the above questions, then I'm going to copy your tactics and declare victory.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dave, why should I care what they believe happened instead of believe what the evidence actually says?

    Dave you go on to state:

    'If you claim that God did it, then tell us when He did it and where and describe all the steps involved.'

    And yet you do not even require that level of explanation from your preferred evolution scenario? Perhaps you should demand the origination of just one protein by purely material processes first?,,, By the way though purely material processes have failed to generate a single protein, intelligence has:

    Viral-Binding Protein Design Makes the Case for Intelligent Design Sick! (as in cool) - Fazale Rana - June 2011
    Excerpt: When considering this study, it is remarkable to note how much effort it took to design a protein that binds to a specific location on the hemagglutinin molecule. As biochemists Bryan Der and Brian Kuhlman point out while commenting on this work, the design of these proteins required:
    "...cutting-edge software developed by ~20 groups worldwide and 100,000 hours of highly parallel computing time. It also involved using a technique known as yeast display to screen candidate proteins and select those with high binding affinities, as well as x-ray crystallography to validate designs.2"
    If it takes this much work and intellectual input to create a single protein from scratch, is it really reasonable to think that undirected evolutionary processes could accomplish this task routinely?
    In other words, the researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs requires intelligent agency to arise. Sick!
    http://www.reasons.org/viral-binding-protein-design-makes-case-intelligent-design-sick-cool

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And yet you do not even require that level of explanation from your preferred evolution scenario?"

      You seem to think that because science has little information on exactly how most proteins have formed, the theory of evolution has been dealt a crushing blow.

      But when I point out that ID has no idea of how any proteins have come into existence, that's ok. Why the double standard? Is it because ID isn't even looking?

      I can't ask why I should care about what ID believes happened because ID doesn't know squat about how proteins come to be, isn't doing any research into the question and, as far as can be seen, doesn't care. The only "research" ID is doing is looking for ways to disprove evolution and they're making fools of themselves doing it.

      Wow! 100,000 hours of "highly parallel" computing time. What's that in bacteria hours? If your bacterial colony is large enough to see, you've got trillions of bacteria, each dividing every half hour, with a chance for a mutation with every division. Numbers like that soon swamp a mere 100,000 hours of even the most highly parallel computer time.

      It involved "a technique known as yeast display to screen candidates" plus "x-ray crystallography to validate designs"? That's automatic in evolution. The bacteria multiply, DNA mutates and if one gets a beneficial mutation its descendants start to multiply faster than the rest of the colony and soon take over.

      "...[T]he researchers from the University of Washington and The Scripps Institute have unwittingly provided empirical evidence that the high-precision interactions required for PPIs" are pretty fast and easy - no intelligence required.

      Two more points. First, google bacterial evolution and see how many papers and books and text books show up in the results. Note that NONE of them are from ID researchers.

      Then, google hemoglobin evolution. Here's the first result: "A comparative study of hemoglobin was conducted to explain how an ancestral single-function molecule gave rise to descending molecules with varied functions."Hemoglobin—the oxygen-transport protein that gives blood its red color—got its start at about the time life originated on earth, nearly four billion years ago." ... "A look at the ancestral hemoglobins indicates that newly arising proteins co-opt the chemistry of older ones and gain new functions through structural alterations. But these studies have revealed an additional way to modify function. Scientists are coming to the realization that changes in a protein's regulation—the when and how of its expression—can also give rise to functional differences."

      I won't rub it in by quoting from any of the eight other papers that show up on the first page of results alone. I'll just ask: WHAT'S THIS CRAP ABOUT SCIENTISTS NOT KNOWING ANYTHING ABOUT HOW PROTEINS EVOLVE?

      Delete
    2. Instead of a similarity study which presupposes the very question being asked, why don't you have evidence of a actual protein changing from none form to the other? If you were honest with the science you would admit that this is a glaring lack of empirical confirmation!

      Delete
  39. ba, you really like to play games, don't you? Why don't you actually respond to this - "If you claim that God did it, then tell us when He did it and where and describe all the steps involved." - instead of linking to totally irrelevant stuff?

    Where's your scientific, testable evidence that your imaginary god (not humans and not "intelligence") ever designed anything?

    ReplyDelete
  40. well 'hole', I don't believe in an imaginary god, I believe in a REAL and LIVING God. In fact I KNOW God is real! Moreover 'hole', though you vehemently deny anything to do with God today, I guarantee you, with as much certainty as the sun will rise tomorrow, that your will bow your knee to God and that your tongue will confess to Him!

    Romans 14:11
    For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, to me every knee shall bow, And every tongue shall confess to God.

    Natalie Grant - Your Great Name Lyrics - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCg3HU1jhVA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your imaginary god doesn't exist, and you're a poster boy for insanity and fanatical narcissism.

      I'm sure you think that you're accomplishing something positive with all of your links and insane rambling but you're nothing but a laughing stock and a massive hypocrite.

      Did you get beaten up and/or molested a lot when you were a kid? Is your religious fanaticism an escape from internal strife and pain? Does having a cloistered, friendless, useless life in a self-imposed cloud of religious delusions really make up for the worthwhile life you're missing?

      Delete
  41. Testify BA , tell us how you know,in your own words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miracle Testimony - One Easter Sunday Sunrise Service - video
      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995314/

      Moreover, the words of the Holy Bible have literally, in a event that turned my worldview completely upsidedown, ‘come alive’ as I was reading them: This following testimony reveals one such time this occurred:

      Strange But True - Miracle Testimony
      https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNTNocmRjZGtkdg&hl=en

      Hebrews 4:12
      For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

      Delete
  42. I am happy for you, to be without doubt must be a comfort.

    ReplyDelete
  43. velikovskys

    I am happy for you, to be without doubt must be a comfort.


    Like a wise man one noted,

    "no brain, no headaches!"

    :D

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bornagain

    "Strange But True - Miracle Testimony
    https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNTNocmRjZGtkdg&hl=en"

    Amazing story! Too bad it didn't move our atheist friends much.

    ReplyDelete