But should we be talking about a “Big Bang” of birds?

_{Denyse O'Leary

December 13, 2014

Evolution, Intelligent Design, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Does the idea of an “explosion of organisms” reinforce a misleading perspective?

The evidence for intelligent design just keeps getting stronger. It’s long been known that the Cambrian explosion isn’t the only explosion of organisms in the fossil record. There’s also something of a fish explosion, an angiosperm explosion, and a mammal explosion. Paleontologists have even cited a “bird explosion,” with major bird groups appearing in a short time period. Frank Gill’s 2007 textbook Ornithology observes the “explosive evolution” of major living bird groups, and a paper in Trends in Ecology and Evolution titled “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse” explains:

A literal reading of the fossil record indicates that the early Cambrian (c. 545 million years ago) and early Tertiary (c. 65 million years ago) were characterized by enormously accelerated periods of morphological evolution marking the appearance of the animal phyla, and modern bird and placental mammal orders, respectively.

Now, a massive genetic study published in Science has confirmed the fossil evidence that birds arose explosively. According to an article titled, “Rapid bird evolution after the age of dinosaurs unprecedented”: More.

Okay, it all happened really fast, and so do explosions. (If it happened really slow, we would call it evolution.)

See the problem? Explosions aren’t just very fast, they are usually destructive. Yes, they can be constructive, but only if controlled for a constructive purpose like blasting a subway tunnel (intelligent design).

What actually happens, whether it’s the origin of the universe or the origin of birds most fits the pattern of a scheduled rollout.

You can often see antecedents, to be sure, as in the dinosaurian traits of birds. But the antecedents do nothing to account for later developments like the “enormously accelerated periods” or “unprecedented” rapidity of constructive change.

Don’t forget, Fred Hoyle called it the Big Bang theory to make fun of it. In doing so, he implanted an idea that fits what we are required to believe, but not what we see. Thoughts?

See: Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train

Comments

@64 gpuccio
...there is a definite logical difference between “necessary” and “sufficient”
perhaps that logical difference is an inconvenient fact that some of your interlocutors prefer to ignore ? :)Dionisio_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT}

@63 gpuccio
One thing is to say that a vacant niche can facilitate a burst of diversification. All another thing is to say that it can explain it. But probably a true skeptical cannot understand those subtleties…
could it be that your interlocutors don't want to understand those subtleties? :)Dionisio_{December 15, 2014
December
12
Dec
15
15
2014
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

tjguy: "Whatever happened to Darwinian evolution one little gradual step at a time?!" Well, that has been well known since Gould, but evolutionists seem not baffled by the necessity to rely on 10 million years instead of, say, 4 billion, for small events like those "explosions". After all, 10 million years is still a very big time. So, how much shall we have to "shrink" the window, to make them "doubt"? I am not sure. Maybe days. But after all, so many things can happen in one day, given a vacant niche and the right level of credulity! :)gpuccio_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
11:41 PM
11
11
41
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: "It is a well-known fact that life requires liquid water at some point in its life cycle." True. Well, let's say life as we know it. It is equally true that water is probably not enough. Again, you certainly know that there is a definite logical difference between "necessary" and "sufficient".gpuccio_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
11:35 PM
11
11
35
PM
PDT}

Zachriel: "Are you denying the great extinction 65 million years ago?" No. "gpuccio: A vacant niche can explain everything. No, but it does explain a burst of diversification." That is what I am "denying". One thing is to say that a vacant niche can facilitate a burst of diversification. All another thing is to say that it can explain it. But probably a true skeptical cannot understand those subtleties...gpuccio_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
11:31 PM
11
11
31
PM
PDT}

Casey Luskin: “It’s long been known that the Cambrian explosion isn’t the only explosion of organisms in the fossil record. There’s also something of a fish explosion, an angiosperm explosion, and a mammal explosion.” Add to that now a bird explosion! Whatever happened to Darwinian evolution one little gradual step at a time?! But this really doesn't matter in the long run, because evolution just morphs to engulf whatever data we find. Adding even a few more explosions won't change a thing.tjguy_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PDT}

Axel @ 58
On the contrary, Me_Think. The YouTube clip, linked below, shows that a larger, mechanical system consisting of one trillion atoms, and the diameter of a human hair can be influenced by quantum mechanics. The previous largest mechanical system was of only one hundred atoms
If your idea of Macro QM effects is a phonon movement of less than an electron width in a Quantum ground state in a isolated system,in below one-tenth of a kelvin, then I agree!
Much more important, is that QM has established mathematically that mind precedes matter, which latter is the derivative.
What mathematical equation are you talking about ? There is no maths proving 'mind' precedes matter. Can you even define 'mind' in terms of a equation ?Me_Think_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

Moose Dr. Yeah sure I think gene splicing and gene editing goes a long way in establishing that whole universe and vegetation and species were created in a week :-) I know you thought first of Big Bang ( "evidence of a single moment" comment ) and have now retracted.Me_Think_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:08 PM
6
06
08
PM
PDT}

Me_Think (33), "I have no problem if you can explain to the IDist how all species were created by omnipotent being in a week via mechanism that you know." I am sure that you allow me to use modern gene splicing and gene editing technologies within the realm of "what I know".Moose Dr_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

'QM is a long way from explaining anything above Quantum level.' - Me_Think On the contrary, Me_Think. The YouTube clip, linked below, shows that a larger, mechanical system consisting of one trillion atoms, and the diameter of a human hair can be influenced by quantum mechanics. The previous largest mechanical system was of only one hundred atoms In order for the effects of QM, such as being in two places at the the same time, to be demonstrated at the level, say, of a tennis ball or something larger, however, all measurements/observations, such as are effected all the time by the molecules bouncing off a man sitting on a chair, would need to be eliminated, and they have not yet found a way to do that, although the physicist, Andrew Cleland, was in no doubt that, in principle, the same QM effects would otherwise be obtained. He seems https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmGIb2oxo4M However, since the quantum level is the primordial one, the deeper truth about matter, I'm a little puzzled that you should criticize QM for failing to apply to matter at a grosser level. Much more important, is that QM has established mathematically that mind precedes matter, which latter is the derivative. It would be why Planck all those years ago stated: 'Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.' We are all that crucial observer, whose inter-subjective role and its effects, though no-one seems keen to state it explicitly, predicates that he lives in a little world of his own, coordinated with those of everyone else, by an omniscient and omnipotent deity, in whose Mind, his own mind and everyone else's subsist. Cleland, understandably seems more inclined to throw in his lot with the likes of Planck and Bohr, than materialists, when his own research indicates to him that there is no such thing as matter, as such, as Planck averred.Axel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

ppolish: So Chuck was overreacting to the Cambrian Explosion? It was a problem for his theory, but we now have evidence of metazoan life before the Cambrian Explosion. Genetic evidence also supports monophyly for metazoa. ppolish: Good thing he was unaware of a fish explosion, angiosperm explosion, mammal explosion, bird explosion etc We know a lot more today than Darwin did, including about the tempo and modes of evolutionary change. That's why scientists don't consider the radiation of birds or mammals to be theoretical conundrums, but just interesting historical phenomena. ETA: Did you get a chance to look at Brusatte et al? It's quite an interesting paper and answers many of your concerns.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

So Chuck was overreacting to the Cambrian Explosion? Should not have had doubts about his theory? Good thing he was unaware of a fish explosion, angiosperm explosion, mammal explosion, bird explosion etc - he might have freaked. But yes, we always will have The Beaks. And the Vestigal Organs. High School students need not worry either.ppolish_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

No, but it does explain a burst of diversification.
Exactly what YECs say about rapid diversification after the Flood.
Darwin observed evidence of adaptive radiation of finches on the Galápagos Islands.
Which was most likely due to built-in responses to environmental cues. Dr Spetner discusses this in "The Evolution Revolution".Joe_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Mung: It is a well-known fact of evolutionary biology that if a niche exists life will fill it. It is a well-known fact that life requires liquid water at some point in its life cycle.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

gpuccio, It is a well-known fact of evolutionary biology that if a niche exists life will fill it. That's why life is ubiquitous throughout the universe. Of course, if there is no life present, it must not be a niche. And unguided evolution predicts that as well.Mung_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

ppolish: NeoDarwinism predicts bursts? Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." Darwin observed evidence of adaptive radiation of finches on the Galápagos Islands. In modern times, rates of evolution of over 20k darwin have been observed.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

Zachriel, Guided & Purposeful can explain bursts and explosions of innovation and diversity. That is ID. NeoDarwinism predicts bursts? Predicts explosions? That is quite a stretch.ppolish_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

gpuccio: Let’s see… Who said, recently: “But, obviously, our “skeptical” friends are never skeptical about those issues.”? Are you denying the great extinction 65 million years ago? Do we need to start with geological dating? gpuccio: A vacant niche can explain everything. No, but it does explain a burst of diversification.Zachriel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Dionisio: You are certainly exaggerating. Of course, anything can happen in a vacant niche. Why bother looking for explanations? A vacant niche can explain everything. :)gpuccio_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT}

Zachriel: "Sure. A great extinction event left many niches vacant." Let's see... Who said, recently: "But, obviously, our “skeptical” friends are never skeptical about those issues."? Ah, that was me, at post #27! :)gpuccio_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT}

Me_Think you ask: "Let’s take the example of a keyboard. Can you explain by what you mean by it is not material?" I mean the atoms of the keyboard are not solid material objects as was held by the ancient Greeks, but are, instead of material, information theoretic in their composition. i.e. "Atoms are not things" Werner Heisenberg "it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe." – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)) Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/archive/ultimate_reality/zeilinger.pdf Little do most people realize there is actually no solid indestructible particle, at all, at the basis of our reality in the atom somewhere. Each and every sub-atomic particle in the atom, (proton, neutron, electron etc..) is subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is about as far away from the solid material particle/atom, that materialism had predicted as the basis of reality, as can be had. These following videos and articles make this point clear: Science vs God: Bryan Enderle at TEDxUCDavis - video (how much empty space is in the atom is at the beginning of the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn7YQOzNuSc As to the empty space in an atom which Enderle talked about in the preceding video, the following video goes a bit further: Just how small is an atom? – Jonathan Bergmann – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQP4UJhNn0I And although, despite the atom being shown to be somewhere around 99.99999999999999% empty space, it was still presumed, in both the Bryan Enderle video and the Jonathan Bergmann video, that the nucleus and electron of the atom are ‘solid’ material particles. That presumption simply is not so. For anyone who still believes that atoms are composed of little billiard ball type particles (i.e. Reductive Materialism as it was conceived of by ancient Greeks and was only recently overturned last century), the following timeline and images will cure you of that false materialistic notion: History of the Atom - timeline image http://wsc11sci.wikispaces.com/file/view/atom_history.png/297878088/640x480/atom_history.png Photographs of atoms, produced by the scanning tunnel microscope http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-flinte/cover7.tif http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/files/us-flinte/stm15.jpg Of related interest: the atom is far, far, more complex than the materialists/atheists, since the Greeks, had originally envisioned or anticipated! Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet - LAKHI GOENKA an Engineer - May 2012 Excerpt: Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer. http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/does-the-atom-have-a-designer/ Why Science Does Not Disprove God - April 27, 2014 Excerpt: "To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden "wisdom," or structure, or a knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature." Amir D. Aczel - mathematician http://time.com/77676/why-science-does-not-disprove-god/ the complexity of computing the actions of even a simple atom, in detail, quickly exceeds the capacity of our most advanced supercomputers of today: Delayed time zero in photoemission: New record in time measurement accuracy - June 2010 Excerpt: Although they could confirm the effect qualitatively using complicated computations, they came up with a time offset of only five attoseconds. The cause of this discrepancy may lie in the complexity of the neon atom, which consists, in addition to the nucleus, of ten electrons. "The computational effort required to model such a many-electron system exceeds the computational capacity of today's supercomputers," explains Yakovlev. http://www.physorg.com/news196606514.html ==== Entanglement is primary, particles are secondary. i.e. as shown in quantum computation, Information is its own physical resource that is independent of and primary to what we perceive to be the 'material' particlesbornagain77_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Axel @ 41
that any explanation relating to our universe which cannot be established by empirical science – apart from QM ..
QM is a long way from explaining anything above Quantum level.Me_Think_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 @ 39
To say something is immaterial is not to say that it is not ‘real’, it is to say that it is not material.
Let's take the example of a keyboard. Can you explain by what you mean by it is not material? bornagain77 @ 40
quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) is an independent physical resourse, separate from matter and energy, that can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,, physicists have reduced material to quantum information...
Entanglement can't be separated from the particles which is entangled, as the entanglement is specific to the entangled particles. If A and B are entangled, you can't use that entanglement to entangle C and D, so it is tied to the 'materialistic' particles. The Wave functions are representation of momentum and position space, so naturally they are 'separate' information - since it is 'information' about the particle and not a particle per se so they can be 'teleported'.
In fact an entire human can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:
Keeping track of single particle is difficult enough (uncertainty principle - you can't know both position and momentum accurately at the same time), you want to teleport trillions of particles ?! Can you imagine the decoherence in the system and the Qubit bias in measurement and the Quantum information that would require to correct the error bias?!, not to mention the staggering system separation and minikelvin temperature required to achieve anything close to such a feat!Me_Think_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

bornagain77 Thank you for the information you post, specially the scriptures references along with musical links. I've noticed some interlocutors whine about your posts, but you may just ignore them all. :)Dionisio_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

of supplemental note to this comment:
"If you believe all the things you own are not real, that there resale value is zero, that the dollars you earn are spiritual, I really don’t know what to say!"
It is interesting to point out that the materialistic/atheistic philosophy has an extremely difficult time assigning any proper value to humans in the first place, i.e. Just how do you derive value for a person from a philosophy that maintains transcendent values are illusory?
How much is my body worth? Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar! http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp
I would like to think that people intuitively know that they are worth far more value than a dollar?!? Yet, as pointed out, on materialism you have the 'resale value' of less than one dollar! Of course, in the marketplace some arrangements of matter carry more value than others because of the craftsmanship inherent within how the matter is arranged. But materialists deny that there is any true craftsmanship within humans. We are merely the happenstance product of a lucky series of accidents! Thus, why should any person’s particular arrangement of material carry any more value than any other particular arrangement of matter since any person’s arrangement of matter is just a happenstance accident and was not the work of a craftsman (i.e. fearfully and wonderfully made)?
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3
Whereas in Theism, particularly in Christianity, there is no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are really worth, since infinite Almighty God has shown us how much we mean to him, since he was willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice so as to redeem us:
1 Corinthians 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Matthew 16:26 And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul? MercyMe – Beautiful - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh7-RSPuAA
There is simply no way to derive any true meaning and/or value for life without God. Dr. Craig expands on that fact in the following video:
The absurdity of life without God (1 of 3) by William Lane Craig – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJqkpI1W75c
bornagain77_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

The evidence supports that birds descended from theropods through a process of branching descent.
Except that evidence doesn't exist except in the minds of the extremely gullible. No one knows what makes a bird a bird and until we know that your version of common descent is not science.Joe_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Me_Think, do you not realise what an impoverished, aesthetically repugnant, epistemological paradigm you cherish and take to be unassailable fact, namely, that any explanation relating to our universe which cannot be established by empirical science - apart from QM, which though proven, would be woo-woo to you, in any case, as it is to all materialists - is at best risible, but in any case, bewilderingly foolish? You're just an old-fashioned partisan of scientism, 'promissory note' in the post. By the way UD folks, when referring to 'random chance' in the atheist scientism context, perhaps we should simply call it 'BB', in honour of the protagonist in the children's ditty on an old UK TV show, to whom I believe I have made reference before: one, William (Desmond) Bean: 'Billy Bean built a machine to see what it would do; He built it up with sticks and stones and nuts and bolts and glue.' The true genesis of empirical science, not Christianity! When Mr Bean, himself, was at his most creative, I wouldn't care to be too dogmatic about, but the programme appeared 1950-7.Axel_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

as to:
You just transport the information about the state (say spin) of a non-entangled particle to already entangled particles. You don’t have to reduce material to information.
it is important to learn that ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum entanglement (A. Aspect, A. Zeilinger, etc..) is an independent physical resourse, separate from matter and energy, that can be used as a ‘quantum information channel’,,,
Quantum Entanglement and Information Quantum entanglement is a physical resource, like energy, associated with the peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems. Entanglement can be measured, transformed, and purified. A pair of quantum systems in an entangled state can be used as a quantum information channel to perform computational and cryptographic tasks that are impossible for classical systems. The general study of the information-processing capabilities of quantum systems is the subject of quantum information theory. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-entangle/
And by using this ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, ‘quantum information channel’ of entanglement, such as they use in quantum computation, physicists have reduced material to quantum information. (of note: energy is completely reduced to quantum information, whereas matter is semi-completely reduced, with the caveat being that matter can be reduced to energy via e=mc2).
First Teleportation Of Multiple Quantum Properties Of A Single Photon - Oct 7, 2014 To truly teleport an object, you have to include all its quantum properties. Excerpt: ,,,It is these properties— the spin angular momentum and the orbital angular momentum?(of a photon)—?that Xi-Lin and co have teleported together for the first time.,,, https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/first-teleportation-of-multiple-quantum-properties-of-a-single-photon-7c1e61598565 How Teleportation Will Work - Excerpt: In 1993, the idea of teleportation moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the world of theoretical possibility. It was then that physicist Charles Bennett and a team of researchers at IBM confirmed that quantum teleportation was possible, but only if the original object being teleported was destroyed. — As predicted, the original photon no longer existed once the replica was made. http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/teleportation1.htm Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research Page Excerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,” http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862
In fact an entire human can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another location in the universe:
Quantum Teleportation Of A Human? – video https://vimeo.com/75163272 Will Human Teleportation Ever Be Possible? As experiments in relocating particles advance, will we be able to say, "Beam me up, Scotty" one day soon? By Corey S. Powell|Monday, June 16, 2014 Excerpt: Note a fascinating common thread through all these possibilities. Whether you regard yourself as a pile of atoms, a DNA sequence, a series of sensory inputs or an elaborate computer file, in all of these interpretations you are nothing but a stack of data. According to the principle of unitarity, quantum information is never lost. Put them together, and those two statements lead to a staggering corollary: At the most fundamental level, the laws of physics say you are immortal. http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyaug/20-the-ups-and-downs-of-teleportation
Thus not only is information not reducible to a energy-matter basis, as is presupposed in Darwinism, but in actuality both energy and matter ultimately reduce to a information basis as is presupposed in Christian Theism (John1:1).
John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
bornagain77_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

as to:
The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. If you believe all the things you own are not real, that there resale value is zero, that the dollars you earn are spiritual, I really don’t know what to say!
To say something is immaterial is not to say that it is not 'real', it is to say that it is not material. You are the one insisting, in spite of the evidence, that reality is material.
"Atoms are not things" Werner Heisenberg "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Niels Bohr "I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950?s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons. I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself. Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory." – J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64. Quantum state may be a real thing - July 2, 2014 Excerpt: At the very heart of quantum mechanics lies a monster waiting to consume unwary minds. This monster goes by the name The Nature of Reality™. The greatest of physicists have taken one look into its mouth, saw the size of its teeth, and were consumed. Niels Bohr denied the existence of the monster after he nonchalantly (and very quietly) exited the monster's lair muttering "shut up and calculate." Einstein caught a glimpse of the teeth and fainted. He was reportedly rescued by Erwin Schrödinger at great personal risk, but neither really recovered from their encounter with the beast.,,, (some) scientists believed that,, quantum mechanics would eventually be explained by,, some deterministic property that we simply couldn't directly observe (otherwise known as a hidden variable). Another group ended up believing that quantum mechanics did represent reality, and that, yes, reality was non-local, and possibly not very real either. To one extent or another, these two groups are still around and still generate a fair amount of heat when they are in proximity to each other. Over the years, you would have to say that the scales have been slowly tipping in favor of the latter group. Experiments and theory have largely eliminated hidden variables. Bohm's pilot wave, a type of hidden variable, has to be pretty extraordinary to be real. http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/quantum-state-may-be-a-real-thing/ Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism - By Bruce L Gordon: Excerpt: Because quantum theory is thought to provide the bedrock for our scientific understanding of physical reality, it is to this theory that the materialist inevitably appeals in support of his worldview. But having fled to science in search of a safe haven for his doctrines, the materialist instead finds that quantum theory in fact dissolves and defeats his materialist understanding of the world.,, The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical - and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism. http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952939 "[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not." Eugene Wigner Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM
bornagain77_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

gpuccio @ 27 [#37 follow-up] Here's another case where the term 'amazing' would seem like an understatement: https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-third-way-of-evolution/#comment-536666 But there are gazillion examples like that. :)Dionisio_{December 14, 2014
December
12
Dec
14
14
2014
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply