102 Replies to “BBC cell film pays tribute to design in nature without knowing it

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    JVL, Seversky and Co.

    Now, it is 21st century. We can see what is going on inside the cell.

    Darwinists, please explain, how a mentally healthy adult person can BELIEVE that all this somehow self-designed? The smartest people on Earth can’t mimic even the most primitive cell functions, more over, all cell experiments require pre-existing bio-molecules extracted from living organism – nothing new is made from scratch (see Dr. James Tour 2021 series of lectures)

    JVL, Seversky & Co., do Darwinists really believe in miracles ?

    Darwinian theory is the most absurd scientific theory ever existed – especially in 21st century …

    It is unbelievable that such a crazy absurd theory lasted for more than 150 years… it is like in some mental hospital …

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    let me quote from a 2018 mainstream article (ScienceDirect, 30 mainstream scientists published this):

    “The transformation of an ensemble of appropriately chosen biological monomers (e.g. amino acids, nucleotides) into a primitive living cell capable of further evolution appears to require overcoming an information hurdle of superastronomical proportions (Appendix A), an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, 1982, 2000). All laboratory experiments attempting to simulate such an event have so far led to dismal failure (Deamer, 2011; Walker and Wickramasinghe, 2015).

    let me repeat this part :

    “… we believe, as a miracle… ” :))))

    source:
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300798

  3. 3
    JVL says:

    Martin_r:

    Interestingly enough, the article you cite seems to support panspermia instead of intelligent design.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    Panspermia is not anti-Intelligent Design.

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    ET: Panspermia is not anti-Intelligent Design.

    I didn’t say it was. Panspermia just kicks the question of ID or unguided evolution down the road. It means that however life arose it was a long time ago in a galaxy or solar system far far away.

  6. 6
    ET says:

    There isn’t any evidence that nature, i.e. blind and mindless processes, can produce coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them. It doesn’t matter how far back the question is kicked. That answer will never change.

  7. 7
    JVL says:

    ET: There isn’t any evidence that nature, i.e. blind and mindless processes, can produce coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them. It doesn’t matter how far back the question is kicked. That answer will never change.

    Yes, I am aware of your opinion. But I was just discussing the paper linked to by Martin_r. You don’t have to push your viewpoint every chance you get like a dog marking its territory. You CAN just let people have a discussion without putting your two cents in.

    Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis, okay with both ID supporters and unguided evolutionists because it avoids the disagreement.

    From the unguided stance it does simplify things quite a lot about the OoL question. But, again, from that point of view, it just pushes the question back onto another solar system somewhere . . . .

    From the ID point of view it calls into question, I think, of the Earth being special and ‘designed’ or picked. Some of the designed arguments make statements about the age and cosmological position of the earth. I’m not a proponent of ID so I’ll stop speculating on how panspermia fits in with their views. It would be an interesting point of discussion?

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    As to: “BBC Cell Film Pays Tribute To Design In Nature Without Knowing It”

    That video is VERY similar to the following video:

    In 2006 Harvard University, via a production company called “BioVisions”, made a video entitled The Inner Life of the Cell

    The Inner Life of the Cell
    http://www.xvivo.net/animation.....-the-cell/

    The video by Harvard BioVisions was one of the first videos on the web that animated some of the amazing molecular machines that are now being found in cells.
    As you can see, the overwhelming impression of the intelligent design of the cell literally leaps out of the video at you. Since the Intelligent Design of the cell is readily apparent for all to see, Dr. William Dembski, one of the pioneers of the Intelligent Design movement, would, circa 2007, show the video in some of his talks to students on Intelligent Design:

    Inner Life of a Cell w William Dembski commentary – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNs5kBE66Xo

    When Harvard BioVisions found out about Dr. Dembski using the video, in his lectures to his students as a glaring example of intelligent design in the cell, they ‘warned him’ not to use the video anymore.

    William A. Dembski
    Excerpt: The Inner Life of the Cell copyright controversy,,
    David Bolinsky, creator of the video, wrote that Dembski was warned about using the video without permission,,,
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Dembski

    Their effort to stop Dr. Dembski from using the video was futile since the video soon went viral on the web and anyone with access to a computer could easily download the video and watch it whenever they wanted to, and see for themselves the amazing design that is readily apparent in the cell.

    The Darwinists at Harvard Biovisions who had originally made the video apparently did not like this development one bit. And in 2013, apparently trying to undo the damage that was done to Darwinian thinking by their original video, Harvard BioVisions then made a subsequent video entitled ‘Inner Life of the Cell: Protein Packing’.

    Inner Life of a Cell | Protein Packing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeTQLNFTgU

    In the 2013 video, as you can see, Harvard Biovisions tried to make the inner workings of the cell look as random, chaotic, and haphazard as possible in order to try to dispel any impression of design in the cell that they had inadvertently created in their first video.

    In fact, in 2014 New York Times itself ran an article on the ‘Protein Packing’ video. (I’m sure many ID advocates wish they could get such free promotion for their videos on intelligent design in the New York Times.) In the article Carl Zimmer stated that ‘ “In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules” but of the 2013 video he said that the molecules of the cell ‘flail blindly in the crowd.” And that “Our cells work almost in spite of themselves.’

    Watch Proteins Do the Jitterbug – Carl Zimmer – APRIL 10, 2014
    Excerpt: In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd. Our cells work almost in spite of themselves.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/science/watch-proteins-do-the-jitterbug.html

    Yet, regardless of their overt bias against anyone ‘inadvertently’ seeing Intelligent Design in the cell, the fact of the matter is that we now have several lines of evidence firmly establishing the fact that the cell is not nearly as random and haphazard in its makeup as the Darwinists at Harvard tried to falsely portray to the public in their ‘protein packing’ video.

    For instance, in the following 2016 paper, it was found that “crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.” In fact, finding a lack of ‘collisions’ in the crowded cell was a ‘counterintuitive surprise’ for the researchers: Specifically one of the researchers stated: “This was a surprise,” “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.”

    Proteins put up with the roar of the crowd – June 23, 2016
    Excerpt: It gets mighty crowded around your DNA, but don’t worry: According to Rice University researchers, your proteins are nimble enough to find what they need.
    Rice theoretical scientists studying the mechanisms of protein-DNA interactions in live cells showed that crowding in cells doesn’t hamper protein binding as much as they thought it did.,,,
    If DNA can be likened to a library, it surely is a busy one. Molecules roam everywhere, floating in the cytoplasm and sticking to the tightly wound double helix. “People know that almost 90 percent of DNA is covered with proteins, such as polymerases, nucleosomes that compact two meters into one micron, and other protein molecules,” Kolomeisky said.,,,
    That makes it seem that proteins sliding along the strand would have a tough time binding, and it’s possible they sometimes get blocked. But the Rice team’s theory and simulations indicated that crowding agents usually move just as rapidly, sprinting out of the way.
    “If they move at the same speed, the molecules don’t bother each other,” Kolomeisky said. “Even if they’re covering a region, the blockers move away quickly so your protein can bind.”
    In previous research, the team determined that stationary obstacles sometimes help quicken a protein’s search for its target by limiting options. This time, the researchers sought to define how crowding both along DNA and in the cytoplasm influenced the process.
    “We may think everything’s fixed and frozen in cells, but it’s not,” Kolomeisky said. “Everything is moving.”,,,
    Floating proteins appear to find their targets quickly as well. “This was a surprise,” he said. “It’s counterintuitive, because one would think collisions between a protein and other molecules on DNA would slow it down. But the system is so dynamic, it doesn’t appear to be an issue.”
    http://phys.org/news/2016-06-p.....crowd.html

    In fact, instead of a biological systems being “dominated by randomly colliding individual protein molecules”, the fact of the matter is that biological systems are now shown to be extremely resistant to random background noise. As the following article on photosynthesis stated, ‘These biological systems can direct a quantum process,,, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments.’

    Unlocking nature’s quantum engineering for efficient solar energy – January 7, 2013
    Excerpt: Certain biological systems living in low light environments have unique protein structures for photosynthesis that use quantum dynamics to convert 100% of absorbed light into electrical charge,,,
    “Some of the key issues in current solar cell technologies appear to have been elegantly and rigorously solved by the molecular architecture of these PPCs – namely the rapid, lossless transfer of excitons to reaction centres.”,,,
    These biological systems can direct a quantum process, in this case energy transport, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments. “This new understanding of how to maintain coherence in excitons, and even regenerate it through molecular vibrations, provides a fascinating glimpse into the intricate design solutions – seemingly including quantum engineering – ,,, and which could provide the inspiration for new types of room temperature quantum devices.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-n.....nergy.html

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Likewise the following article on human vision stated that, “Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light”.,,, “it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,”,, and the researched added, “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,, “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?”

    Study suggests humans can detect even the smallest units of light – July 21, 2016
    Excerpt: Research,, has shown that humans can detect the presence of a single photon, the smallest measurable unit of light. Previous studies had established that human subjects acclimated to the dark were capable only of reporting flashes of five to seven photons.,,,
    it is remarkable: a photon, the smallest physical entity with quantum properties of which light consists, is interacting with a biological system consisting of billions of cells, all in a warm and wet environment,” says Vaziri. “The response that the photon generates survives all the way to the level of our awareness despite the ubiquitous background noise. Any man-made detector would need to be cooled and isolated from noise to behave the same way.”,,,
    The gathered data from more than 30,000 trials demonstrated that humans can indeed detect a single photon incident on their eye with a probability significantly above chance.
    “What we want to know next is how does a biological system achieve such sensitivity? How does it achieve this in the presence of noise?”
    http://phys.org/news/2016-07-humans-smallest.html

    Moreover, instead of proteins themselves being a collection of highly jittery atomic molecules, as the Harvard Biovisions video falsely portrayed proteins to be, proteins instead are found to be “analogous to the way wine glasses tremble”,,, “If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave,”

    Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life – Jan. 16, 2014
    Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz’ team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb.
    This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies.
    So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed.
    This technique, , allowed the team to identify which sections of the protein vibrated under normal biological conditions. The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions.
    “If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave,” Markelz said. “Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don’t get any sustained sound.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....084838.htm

    Moreover, in the following microscopic picture of the bacterial flagellum hook basal body, you can see for yourself that the molecular machines of a cell are not nearly as chaotic and haphazard looking as Harvard’s ‘Protein Packing’ video had falsely portrayed them to be.

    Electron Microscope Photograph of Flagellum Hook-Basal Body
    http://www.skeptic.com/eskepti.....gure03.jpg

    Moreover, the protein molecules themselves, that make up the building blocks of the molecular machines of the cell do not find their final folded form by the random collision of particles within the cell.

    As the following article states, “when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe.”

    The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications – Paul Nelson – October 23, 2012
    Excerpt: Anyone who has studied the protein folding problem will have met the famous Levinthal paradox, formulated in 1969 by the molecular biologist Cyrus Levinthal. Put simply, the Levinthal paradox states that when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe. Therefore, concluded Levinthal, given that proteins obviously do fold, they are doing so, not by random search, but by following favored pathways. The challenge of the protein folding problem is to learn what those pathways are.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65521.html

    And yet, since proteins are obviously not taking the lifetime of the entire universe to randomly find their final folded form.

    Levinthal’s paradox
    Excerpt: The “paradox” is that most small proteins fold spontaneously on a millisecond or even microsecond time scale.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal%27s_paradox

    ,, then, obviously, proteins must be finding their final folded form by some ‘non-random’, i.e. non-Darwinian, method.

    And in the following article, the authors found that the long standing mystery of exactly how a protein is able to find its final folded form so quickly can be easily explained if protein folding is allowed to be a “quantum affair” where the “protein could ‘jump’ from one shape to another without necessarily forming the shapes in between.”,,,.

    Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011
    Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way.
    Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from.
    To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,,
    Today, Luo and Lo say these curves can be easily explained if the process of folding is a quantum affair. By conventional thinking, a chain of amino acids can only change from one shape to another by mechanically passing through various shapes in between.
    But Luo and Lo say that if this process were a quantum one, the shape could change by quantum transition, meaning that the protein could ‘jump’ from one shape to another without necessarily forming the shapes in between.,,,
    Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins.
    That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics.
    http://www.technologyreview.co.....f-protein/

    Moreover, exactly as the preceding researchers anticipated, the following 2015 article experimentally confirmed that proteins are indeed based on quantum principles. More specifically, the following study observed that quantum processes “concentrate all of the vibrational energy in a biological protein into its lowest-frequency vibrational mode.”

    Quantum coherent-like state observed in a biological protein for the first time – October 13, 2015
    Excerpt: If you take certain atoms and make them almost as cold as they possibly can be, the atoms will fuse into a collective low-energy quantum state called a Bose-Einstein condensate. In 1968 physicist Herbert Fröhlich predicted that a similar process at a much higher temperature could concentrate all of the vibrational energy in a biological protein into its lowest-frequency vibrational mode. Now scientists in Sweden and Germany have the first experimental evidence of such so-called Fröhlich condensation (in proteins).,,,
    The real-world support for Fröhlich’s theory (for proteins) took so long to obtain because of the technical challenges of the experiment, Katona said.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-10-q.....otein.html

    Thus , (directly contrary to what the Darwinists at Harvard tried to portray), proteins themselves are apparently ingeniously designed in such a way so as to be very resistant to any random noise that may be present in the cell.

    Moreover, in the following more recent 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

    Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015
    Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say.
    That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.”
    The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
    “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?”
    https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    And as this follow up article in 2018 stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”

    Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018
    Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,,
    Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,,
    WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....l-proteins
    Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015);
    Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)

    As well, DNA itself does not belong to the world of classical mechanics but instead belongs to the world of quantum mechanics. In the following video, at the 22:20 minute mark, Dr Rieper shows why the high temperatures of biological systems do not prevent DNA from having quantum entanglement and then at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper goes on to remark that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.

    “What happens is this classical information (of DNA) is embedded, sandwiched, into the quantum information (of DNA). And most likely this classical information is never accessed because it is inside all the quantum information. You can only access the quantum information or the electron clouds and the protons. So mathematically you can describe that as a quantum/classical state.”
    Elisabeth Rieper – Classical and Quantum Information in DNA – video (Longitudinal Quantum Information resides along the entire length of DNA discussed at the 19:30 minute mark; at 24:00 minute mark Dr Rieper remarks that practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it)
    https://youtu.be/2nqHOnVTxJE?t=1176

    Thus quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement, contrary to what was believed to be possible in molecular biology just a few short years ago, is now found to be ubiquitous within molecular biology. Moreover, entanglement and random noise are mutually exclusive to each other, (just ask anyone trying to build a quantum computer),. Which is exactly the opposite type of biological activity that Harvard’s Protein Packing video was trying to portray.

    On top of that, what else is so devastating to Darwinian presuppositions with the finding pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
    http://www.quantumlah.org/high.....uences.php

    Moreover, as the following study found, the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, (which is exactly the type of quantum coherence that we have with protein and DNA molecules), the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles.

    Physicists find extreme violation of local realism in quantum hypergraph states – Lisa Zyga – March 4, 2016
    Excerpt: Many quantum technologies rely on quantum states that violate local realism, which means that they either violate locality (such as when entangled particles influence each other from far away) or realism (the assumption that quantum states have well-defined properties, independent of measurement), or possibly both. Violation of local realism is one of the many counterintuitive, yet experimentally supported, characteristics of the quantum world.
    Determining whether or not multiparticle quantum states violate local realism can be challenging. Now in a new paper, physicists have shown that a large family of multiparticle quantum states called hypergraph states violates local realism in many ways. The results suggest that these states may serve as useful resources for quantum technologies, such as quantum computers and detecting gravitational waves.,,,
    The physicists also showed that the greater the number of particles in a quantum hypergraph state, the more strongly it violates local realism, with the strength increasing exponentially with the number of particles. In addition, even if a quantum hypergraph state loses one of its particles, it continues to violate local realism. This robustness to particle loss is in stark contrast to other types of quantum states, which no longer violate local realism if they lose a particle. This property is particularly appealing for applications, since it might allow for more noise in experiments.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-p.....alism.html

    Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply have no ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, cause that they can appeal so as to be able to explain the non-local quantum coherence and/or entanglement that is now found to be ubiquitous within biology. Whereas Christians readily do have a beyond space and time cause that they can appeal to so as to explain quantum entanglement. As Colossians 1:17 states, “He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”

    Colossians 1:17
    He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

    Moreover, quantum information, like energy, is conserved. As the following article states, “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.”

    Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011
    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/20.....tally.html

    The implication of finding ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, and ‘conserved’, quantum information in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every important biomolecule in our bodies, is fairly, and pleasantly, obvious.
    That pleasant implication, of course, being the fact that we now have very strong empirical evidence suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As Stuart Hameroff states in the following article, “the quantum information,,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual
    Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) (of note, this video is no longer available for public viewing)
    https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

    Verse:

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

    Supplemental note:

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

  11. 11
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Yes, I am aware of your opinion.

    What I said is a fact.

    But I was just discussing the paper linked to by Martin_r.

    No, you just made some irrelevant remark. That isn’t a discussion.

    Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis, okay with both ID supporters and unguided evolutionists because it avoids the disagreement.

    Anything is OK with unguided evolutionists as long as it doesn’t have to be testable.

    From the ID point of view it calls into question, I think, of the Earth being special and ‘designed’ or picked.

    It doesn’t do that. And according to the authors of “the Privileged Planet” Intelligent Design increases the odds of more intelligent beings in the universe.

  12. 12
    JVL says:

    From the ID point of view it calls into question, I think, of the Earth being special and ‘designed’ or picked.

    ET: It doesn’t do that.

    I think it does because IF life originated on some other planet in some other solar system (and just happened to get transplanted to Earth via some cosmic accident) then it seems to me that the planet where life originated is the special chosen one. Why start life on one planet in hopes that it somehow moves to the chosen place? That doesn’t make any sense.

  13. 13
    martin_r says:

    JVL

    you Darwinists never answer questions, you always change the subject…

    i put you a simple question, let me repeat it:
    how a mentally healthy adult person can BELIEVE that all this somehow self-designed? (after all what we know now in 21st century) – that is why I cited a MAINSTREAM DARWINIAN ARTICLE, where the authors/researchers talking about miracles.

    Did you even get that ?

    Why are you changing the subject to panspermia? I don’t get how panspermia answers this miracle-questions… did you mean, that somewhere else in universe miracles happen ?

  14. 14
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: Why are you changing the subject to panspermia? I don’t get how panspermia answers this miracle-questions… did you mean, that somewhere else in universe miracles happen ?

    The paper you cited hypothesises that panspermia solves the problem of how life came to be on Earth. From the abstract:

    In our view the totality of the multifactorial data and critical analyses assembled by Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe and their many colleagues since the 1960s leads to a very plausible conclusion – life may have been seeded here on Earth by life-bearing comets as soon as conditions on Earth allowed it to flourish (about or just before 4.1 Billion years ago); and living organisms such as space-resistant and space-hardy bacteria, viruses, more complex eukaryotic cells, fertilised ova and seeds have been continuously delivered ever since to Earth so being one important driver of further terrestrial evolution which has resulted in considerable genetic diversity and which has led to the emergence of mankind.

    Didn’t you even read the abstract? Or the title: Cause of Cambrian Explosion – Terrestrial or Cosmic?

  15. 15
    martin_r says:

    JVL, you (and the scientists) are not very smart, are you ?

    again, how panspermia solves the OOL issue ? So now you believe that first cell evolved somewhere else in the universe ? so now you BELIEVE that MIRACLES (the mainstream scientists talked about) are happening SOMEWHERE else in the universe ?

  16. 16
    martin_r says:

    JVL,

    and, as you can see, there are Darwinists and Darwninists. Obviously, some Darwinists think, that OOL (on EARTH) would be a miracle. When creationists say the same = creationists are stupid religious fanatics and don’t know the Darwinian ‘science’ … Can you comment on that ?

  17. 17
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: again, how panspermia solves the OOL issue ? So now you believe that first cell evolved somewhere else in the universe ? so now you BELIEVE that MIRACLES (the mainstream scientists talked about) are happening SOMEWHERE else in the universe ?

    I didn’t say it did solve the problem. In fact, if you read some of my comments to ET you will notice that I explicitly say it just kicks the can down the road. But the article isn’t saying what you think it’s saying since the authors explicitly say that to expect that life came from non-life in the available time frame was akin to believing a miracle. They didn’t say it couldn’t happen, just not that fast. And they did not jump to a design inference.

    and, as you can see, there are Darwinists and Darwninists. Obviously, some Darwinists think, that OOL (on EARTH) would be a miracle. When creationists say the same = creationists are stupid religious fanatics and don’t know the Darwinian ‘science’ … Can you comment on that ?

    Look, the bit of the article you cite says: an event that could not have happened within the time frame of the Earth except, we believe, as a miracle. So, they are saying they favour panspermia as far as the beginning of life on Earth is concerned as opposed to it arising in situ. I haven’t read the whole article but that statement does not rule out the possibility that life came from non-life someplace else over a longer period of time.

    I don’t understand why you insist on being so rude and defamatory when I’m just pointing out things about an article you brought up. If the article doesn’t actually say what you think it says that’s not my fault.

    It’s obvious that no one really knows how or if life on Earth started here or was imported. People have their ideas and preferences but no one actually knows. Some scientists have proposed various scenarios but not a one of them has been shown to be very likely. Not yet anyway. We’ll see, lots of work yet to do.

  18. 18
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I think it does because IF life originated on some other planet in some other solar system (and just happened to get transplanted to Earth via some cosmic accident) then it seems to me that the planet where life originated is the special chosen one. Why start life on one planet in hopes that it somehow moves to the chosen place? That doesn’t make any sense.

    It’s a good thing that panspermia doesn’t require things to just happen. But terraforming is a real concept. So you would have life on one habitable planet and it seeks out other possible systems to start colonizing. And terraforming is part of that.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    There isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them. So, according to Hitchens, the assertion of nature producing a living organism can be dismissed.

    Scientists will have an easier time showing that nature produced Stonehenge than they will trying to find a spontaneous origin of life. It has been a tragic comedy watching people try.

  20. 20
    martin_r says:

    JVL

    did i get this right?

    OOL in 4 billions of years = a miracle
    OOL in 13 billions of years = plausible

    is it what you suggesting?

  21. 21
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: OOL in 4 billions of years = a miracle
    OOL in 13 billions of years = plausible

    is it what you suggesting?

    I’m not suggesting anything. I’m saying that the authors of the paper you cited seemed to think that it was more plausible that life on Earth was seeded from some other place given the time constraints. You seem to have an argument with them, not with me.

    I think no one knows how life started on Earth. There are ideas and guesses but no one knows. We may never know.

  22. 22
    ET says:

    We know how life didn’t get started on earth. We know there isn’t any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems and living organisms are ruled by them. So a spontaneous origin of life can be dismissed

  23. 23
    martin_r says:

    JVL,

    we may never know what ?

    So do you BELIEVE that life emerged on Earth or was seeded here ? You have to believe in the first or the second scenario – in your Darwinian naturalistic World there is no other option, or is it ? I am pretty confused so please explain …

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: we may never know what ?

    We may never know if life arose spontaneously on Earth or arrived via a comet or asteroid.

    So do you BELIEVE that life emerged on Earth or was seeded here ? You have to believe in the first or the second scenario – in your Darwinian naturalistic World there is no other option, or is it ? I am pretty confused so please explain …

    Both options are possible; I’m not sure we have enough data to decide to be honest. Not yet anyway. We’ll see . . . . hopefully!

  25. 25
    martin_r says:

    JVL,

    both options are possible ?

    How comes ? Don’t you believe in scientists, do you believe in miracles ?

    (in that article, your Darwinian scientists just told you, that in 4 billions years it would be a miracle, did you forget?)

  26. 26
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: both options are possible ?

    Yup.

    How comes ? Don’t you believe in scientists, do you believe in miracles ?

    I’ve never witnessed a miracle and I haven’t seen evidence to convince me any have occurred.

    (in that article, your Darwinian scientists just told you, that in 4 billions years it would be a miracle, did you forget?)

    But you can find other scientists who this it is possible without being a miracle.

    Like I said: we don’t know, we may never know. I don’t know enough about the evidence to have a strong conviction either way. EXCEPT . . .

    It’s a long, long ways between solar systems. I would think it would be incredibly hard for some living thing to survive an interstellar trip that would have to take a hideously long period of time. But, maybe we’ll find something that can survive such a journey. I hope the science becomes a lot clearer in my lifetime ’cause I’d love to know.

  27. 27
    martin_r says:

    JVL,

    the following is is the first thing you wrote that makes sense:
    ” I would think it would be incredibly hard for some living thing to survive an interstellar trip that would have to take a hideously long period of time”

    Touche…

    So it seems, you tend to BELIEVE in that Earth-OOL scenario… and, you support it by the claim of the Darwinian-scientists who unlike the other Darwinian-scientists think, that OOL on Earth is still a plausible hypothesis – no need for miracles.

    OK.

    Now, my question:
    You have two Darwinian-scientists who claim pretty different things…
    How a Darwinian-layman knows who to trust ? I would love to understand that …
    (i hope, it is not that you trust the ones you like more, because they say what you wish to hear)

    So, please explain, how a Darwinian-layman makes this kind of decision, who to trust ?

  28. 28
    JVL says:

    Martin_r: You have two Darwinian-scientists who claim pretty different things…
    How a Darwinian-layman knows who to trust ? I would love to understand that …

    I can’t speak for anyone else but I try to understand both arguments and their supporting evidence and then come to some kind of conclusion about which is more probable. BUT, since all scientific knowledge is provisional you have to always remember that new data may change your view. In the end they may both be wrong.

    It’s not a matter of picking one answer and sticking with it. For working scientists deciding a paradigm is more likely means they will focus further research in that direction. And they know they may be barking up a dead tree.

    It seems to bother you a lot that scientists keep changing their minds. Isn’t that how it should be when new results and evidence come to light? Shouldn’t we always be open to shifting our beliefs when better ones come along?

    Personally, with origin of life stuff, I think the evidence and data we have is so tenuous right now that I prefer to say: we don’t know, instead of coming down on one side or another. But I have to say, the probability of some life form being able to survive thousands if not millions of years on an interstellar journey is bordering on miracle territory. But hey, I could be wrong; tomorrow an asteroid from outside the solar system might land on Earth and have some living alien life on or in it. In which case I would change my mind. You should always consider all the available data.

  29. 29
    ET says:

    JVL:

    We may never know if life arose spontaneously on Earth or arrived via a comet or asteroid.

    We know life did not arise spontaneously anywhere.

    Both options are possible; I’m not sure we have enough data to decide to be honest.

    Total nonsense. Neither option is possible as imagination is neither science nor evidence. And we have plenty of data to say that life did not arise spontaneously anywhere. Only denial and willful ignorance say otherwise.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    All available data says that nature cannot produce coded information processing systems. All available data says that living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems.

    JVL will never consider all available data because it refutes his beliefs.

  31. 31
    JVL says:

    ET: All available data says that nature cannot produce coded information processing systems. All available data says that living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems.

    Other opinions are available. Check your local library.

    If life cannot arise spontaneously then where did your designer come from? Is it just designers all the way down?

  32. 32
    William J Murray says:

    The logic of what the current best explanation here is readily available, even to a layman.

    We’ve only ever seen the creation of instantiated coded systems by intelligent agency (us).

    All life as we know it and have found so far require an instantiated coded system.

    Logical conclusion: the coded systems in all life as we know it was likely created and instantiated by an intelligent agency.

    Questions about if that intelligent agency was itself coded, or alive, or where it came from are irrelevant to the above.

  33. 33
    JVL says:

    William J Murray: Logical conclusion: the coded systems in all life as we know it was likely created and instantiated by an intelligent agency.
    Questions about if that intelligent being was itself coded, or alive, or where it came from are irrelevant to the above.

    One of the core ID arguments is that in our experience design must come from an intelligent agent. An intelligent agent that can use/manipulate energy and natural resources. In our experience that only happens when the agent has a physical manifestation which enables it to interact with the environment. In our experience, corporeal forms come from other corporeal forms.

    If you want to assume or assert design without the kind of designer we have experience with then you’ve got some ‘splanin’ to do: how can design come to be implemented without a physical designer?

    You can choose to not ask any questions after you think you’ve detected design where others don’t see it. But they are fair questions and, in science, it’s okay to ask questions. Scientists are curious about how things work and like finding unanswered questions to work on.

    No designer means no design. So . . . what kind of designer are you hypothesising and are you sure such designers exist?

  34. 34
    William J Murray says:

    JVL,

    Please note, I did not use the term “design” or “designer.” I just stuck to the facts as we currently know them, without jumping to any unwarranted conclusions, which is why I used the term “likely” Since all observed cases of instantiated code are accomplished, originally (no matter how many copies are made,) by an intelligent agent, then the likely original source of the instantiated code necessary for life was (or is) an intelligent agent.

    Further questions about that agency are separate, such as what form it was in, how it did it, etc. The reason these questions are irrelevant in the exercise above is for the same reason the same kind of questions aren’t relevant when discussing the origin of anything.

    Let’s say, for example, that one says that the physical laws of the universe, and the size of the universe, are sufficient to explain instantiations of a coded system. Where did those laws come from? How did they come to be?

    That line of questioning is, ultimately, infinitely regressive, whether intelligent agency or natural laws acting on matter is given as the answer. So, those kinds of questions are irrelevant as far as a logical determination of most likely explanation for a thing. IOW, the coroner doesn’t have to identify the person to find that homicide is the most likely cause of a death, and certainly doesn’t have to name the parents and grandparents of the killer.

    Similarly, it isn’t necessary to identify what caused a flood in order to make a determination that a flood likely caused patterns one sees in the terrain.

    The identity of the killer and the cause of the flood are not necessary to make the determination of what likely caused the effects in question. Sure, it could have been something else, but that’s why we’re using the term “likely.”

  35. 35
    JVL says:

    William J Murray: So, those kinds of questions are irrelevant as far as a logical determination of most likely explanation for a thing. IOW, the coroner doesn’t have to identify the person to find that homicide is the most likely cause of a death, and certainly doesn’t have to name the parents and grandparents of the killer.

    Surely part of determining that homicide is the most likely cause of death is the likely presence of a murderer.

    If there was no one around to commit the murder then it can’t be homicide can it? Someone with the abilities has to be there at the pertinent time. Lots and lots of people believe that the humans around at the time were incapable of building the Pyramids or Stonehenge; they must have had help from aliens. But, if there were no aliens around (and we have zero other evidence they were around) then it must have been the humans.

    No designer -> no design. What evidence (aside from the contested design) is there that there was an intelligent designer present at . . . what time was it again? And what did they do exactly? And that’s not even getting to the how and why.

    I’ll stop now ’cause I know no one is even going to try and answer those questions. It seems to be against the unstated rules of ID that you don’t talk about the designer. You don’t publicly speculate about the designer. You loudly proclaim such questions are not the point. BUT, if ID is a science then surely such questions are fair and proper to ask.

    But, like I said, I’ll stop now.

  36. 36
    ET says:

    All available data says that nature cannot produce coded information processing systems. All available data says that living organisms are ruled by coded information processing systems.

    JVL:

    Other opinions are available.

    What is said is a FACT. Check your peer-reviewed journals and textbooks.

    If life cannot arise spontaneously then where did your designer come from?

    ID is about the DESIGN. Grow up.

    Reality dictates that the only way to make any scientific determination about the designer or the processes is by studying the design and all relevant evidence. No one knows who designed and built Stonehenge. Humans are a what, not a who. So perhaps you should get an education an stop being such a scientifically illiterate troll.

    Anyone can discuss the designer. What they have to say has to be taken for what it is, though. Knowing the Wright brothers doesn’t help anyone understand airplanes. So I don’t understand your obsession.

    And the people who contest the design don’t have anything to account for what we observe. So they can be dismissed.

    Materialism is supposed to be the mechanistic position and yet you and yours don’t know how and when. It’s as if you are a hypocrite all the way down.

  37. 37
    Concealed Citizen says:

    JVL: No designer -> no design. What evidence (aside from the contested design)

    All putative design can be contested. That’s a false demarcation.

    The question really is, what explains a given artifact the best, with the least assumptions, etc? Inference of the best explanation, and all that.

    Now, if you think that proteins and cells came about by chance and necessity, given what we know about ‘natural laws’ then it’s incumbent upon you to make your case.

    Give it your best shot. I'm listening. I really am.

  38. 38

    .

    JVL: No designer -> no design. What evidence (aside from the contested design) is there that there was an intelligent designer present

    You’ve been given the evidence and have been completely unable to show that the evidence is anything but 100% coherent and accurate — i.e. it is well-documented in the literature via a) recorded predictions, b) experimental confirmations, and c) secondary physical analysis. These observations are not only universal and uncontroversial, but you have already acknowledged their scientific and historical verity. And it is not merely the factual presence of the observations themselves that you agree with, but also (and in particular) the logic of drawing a design inference from those specific observations. You, in fact, do it yourself without hesitation; that is, you posit a previously unknown intelligence when and if these specific observations are confirmed to exist, as they already are in biology. So, on the one hand you want to believe you are a rational person who “believes in science” and believes in the power of methodical observation. But yet on the other hand, if you actually allowed yourself to do so, then you would be forced to acknowledge something you simply don’t want to concede. You then publicly manage this glowing contradiction by applying a gratuitous double standard to the evidence — which is every bit as obvious and unmistakable as the contradiction it is intended to conceal. This is a real problem for you, and you have thus far used several unscrupulous tactics (which can be listed here, if need be) in an attempt to deflect attention away from the problem.

    JVL, the mechanism required to organize the origin of life is well known. The physical conditions of that mechanism are well-documented in the literature, and have been explained to you on multiple occasions. It is a matter of historical record that the mechanism was first predicted to exist through logical analysis, and subsequently confirmed through experimental result. The critical observations are not even controversial.

    When confronted with these facts, you respond with a clear intent to avoid the conversation and protect your worldview from science and reason. You accomplish this protectionist sleight-of-hand through the application of flawed reasoning, which you then refuse to address.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    JVL: I would not be surprised at all if we find electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings in other solar systems

    UB: How would we know if we found “electromagnetic evidence of intelligent beings”? What would that be?

    JVL: Something like in the movie Contact. A signal that’s very clearly NOT produced by unguided processes. A signal which, after inspection, was shown to have compressed data.

    UB: So you accept encoded symbolic content as a universal inference to the presence of an unknown intelligence in one domain, while immediately denying that same physical evidence in another domain.

    Why the double standard?

    JVL: Because there is no plausible designer available

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    ET: D is about the DESIGN. Grow up.

    Well then, since you’ve already declared design has been detected, ID can shut up shop. This blog has no purpose, The Discovery Institute can stop publishing books and podcasts and blog posts. Yup, no need for detecting design anymore, it’s been found.

  40. 40
    JVL says:

    Concealed Citizen: The question really is, what explains a given artifact the best, with the least assumptions, etc? Inference of the best explanation, and all that.

    ID assumes there was some highly intelligent and talented designer around at . . . what time was it? And they did what exactly? With what tools? And the energy came from where? And they left no detritus, waste, spent fuel, broken tools, notes, documentation . . . nothing at all?

    That’s a lot of assumptions don’t you think?

  41. 41
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Well then, since you’ve already declared design has been detected, ID can shut up shop.

    Your willful ignorance is not an argument. Your scientific illiteracy is not an argument. ID is not only about detecting design. You have been told this numerous times and yet you choose to act like an infant.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    JVL:

    ID assumes there was some highly intelligent and talented designer around at

    Wrong again. The evidence demands that a highly intelligent and talented designer was around. And to refute that claim all you have to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for what we observe. But you can’t because you are a scientifically illiterate infant.

    No one even knows how to test the claims of materialism. Yours is supposed to be all about the how and yet you have NOTHING but your childish whining about ID. How pathetic is that?

  43. 43
    JVL says:

    ET: ID is not only about detecting design.

    It doesn’t seem to do much else. So far, as far as I know, no ID researcher has attempted to go past the detection stage. Additionally, I haven’t heard of any significant new design detections. I can’t think of one new argument from an ID proponent in a decade at least. Maybe with Dr Dembski coming back into the fold (and Casey Luskin) we’ll get something new.

    The evidence demands that a highly intelligent and talented designer was around.

    Highly disputed which is why I think ID proponents should a) look for more evidence and b) flesh out the design inference with some more ideas (backed up with data and evidence) of how and when design was implemented. But, no one seems to want to do that. So ID spins its wheels, in pretty much the same place as it was 10 – 15 years ago.

    And to refute that claim all you have to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for what we observe.

    Since you have no evidence for a designer beyond your widely disputed design inference then there’s no need to demonstrate anything. No designer -> no design -> it’s all down to blind and mindless processes. QED

    No one even knows how to test the claims of materialism.

    No designer -> it’s all down to blind and mindless processes.

  44. 44
    ET says:

    JVL:

    It doesn’t seem to do much else. So far, as far as I know, no ID researcher has attempted to go past the detection stage.

    The design is being studied so it can be understood. Just as I have told you many times. But that is moot as your side has NOTHING. You can’t even test the claims your side makes.

    Highly disputed

    By who and what? The people who dispute ID have NOTHING but denial.

    Since you have no evidence for a designer beyond your widely disputed design inference then there’s no need to demonstrate anything.

    ID is only widely disputed by liars and whiners. They can be dismissed.

    Science is not about proving something. Clearly JVL requires proof of ID which proves that JVL is a scientifically illiterate troll.

    There isn’t any way to test the claims of materialism and that means its claims are not part of science, At least ID’s claims can be tested and potentially falsified.

    Yours is supposed to be all about the how and yet you have NOTHING but your childish whining about ID. How pathetic is that?

  45. 45
    JVL says:

    ET: The design is being studied so it can be understood.

    But no one is actually doing that are they? No one has published a book or paper or even forwarded such a research agenda. It ain’t happenin’.

    By who and what?

    The vast majority of all working scientists, especially biologists. Pretending that isn’t true is childish.

    ID is only widely disputed by liars and whiners. They can be dismissed.

    So, virtually every biology department in all the universities in the world is run by liars and fakers? You do have a vivid imagination, I grant you that.

    Science is not about proving something. Clearly JVL requires proof of ID which proves that JVL is a scientifically illiterate troll.

    I think you should look for some other kind of evidence that there was some kind of intelligent designer around at . . . . what time was it? Who was capable of . . . what exactly do you think they did again? With the necessary tools . . . which were what exactly? That got energy from . . . where exactly?

    But, since you’re not going to even try to do any of that (nor is any other ID proponent) I guess you’ll just have to keep repeating the same old tropes you’ve been parlaying for years and years. To bad that’s not getting you anywhere. ID is pretty much frozen in place now.

    There isn’t any way to test the claims of materialism and that means its claims are not part of science

    Hey, if there was no designer then it’s all based on materialistic, blind processes.

    Yours is supposed to be all about the how and yet you have NOTHING but your childish whining about ID.

    Oddly enough, when I go to any university library I can find volumes upon volumes on unguided evolution, full of technical details, research that’s been done, tentative hypotheses, etc. I’ve never seen a book like that on ID. The only technical things that ID proponents publish is their attempts to show that blind processes can’t do the job. That’s what Dr Behe’s argument is based on: irreducible complexity is just an attempt to show there are living structures which could not have come about via unguided processes. But the mistakes in his arguments have been pointed out to him many times and he just doubles down. Didn’t you ever wonder why he couldn’t get his ideas peer reviewed? It’s ’cause they aren’t sound.

    IF you want to further the ’cause of ID then you’re going to have to do some more work. What’s been presented over the last 30 years or so didn’t do the job. ID is still roundly dismissed by almost all working biologists. They’re not convinced. If you’re right you should be able to find more evidence but, oddly enough, no one seems to be looking. Funny, it’s almost as if there isn’t any more evidence. Imagine that.

    Anyway, have fun studying the design of DNA. Let us know if you figure anything out about the designer doing that.

  46. 46
    ET says:

    JVL:

    But no one is actually doing that are they?

    Sure they are.

    No one has published a book or paper or even forwarded such a research agenda.

    “the Privileged Planet” says the universe was designed for scientific discovery. Lee Spetner wrote of “built-in responses to environmental cues”. Your ignorance is not an argument.

    The vast majority of all working scientists, especially biologists.

    LoL! They have all of the power to refute ID and yet can’t. They don’t even know how to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You lose.

    So, virtually every biology department in all the universities in the world is run by liars and fakers?

    If they promote materialism and evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, they are.

    I think you should look for some other kind of evidence that there was some kind of intelligent designer around at . . . . what time was it? Who was capable of . . . what exactly do you think they did again? With the necessary tools . . . which were what exactly? That got energy from . . . where exactly?

    Your hypocrisy and ignorance are duly noted. The other kind of evidence was presented in “the Privileged Planet”.

    Hey, if there was no designer then it’s all based on materialistic, blind processes.

    Hey, if there isn’t any way to test the claims of materialism then it is all pseudoscientific nonsense.

    Oddly enough, when I go to any university library I can find volumes upon volumes on unguided evolution, full of technical details, research that’s been done, tentative hypotheses, etc.

    Liar.

    Look, JVL, it is obvious that you are a scientifically illiterate troll and a pathological liar.

    The only mistakes with IC are with the losers trying to rebut the concept.

    We don’t know who designed and built Stonehenge. The when keeps changing. No one has found any quarrying tools nor means of moving and setting the stones. And Stonehenge is something we can duplicate.

  47. 47
    JVL says:

    ET: Sure they are.

    Show me some work being done studying ‘the design’ in order to gain some insight into the designer or so that the design can be understood.

    “the Privileged Planet” says the universe was designed for scientific discovery. Lee Spetner wrote of “built-in responses to environmental cues”. Your ignorance is not an argument.

    Those don’t answer my point which was that no one is studying ‘the design’ to gain insights into the designer or so the design can be understood. Try again.

    LoL! They have all of the power to refute ID and yet can’t. They don’t even know how to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. You lose.

    Publish your work then if you’re that sure. Let’s see it in print in a peer-reviewed journal. Go on.

    If they promote materialism and evolution by means of blind and mindless processes, they are.

    Nice conspiracy theory: millions of people who have actually studied the pertinent topics are liars and delusional and you are right. Great.

    Hey, if there isn’t any way to test the claims of materialism then it is all pseudoscientific nonsense.

    Even Darwin told how his ideas could be refuted. Try again.

    Liar.

    Too afraid to go to your local university library and see?

    The only mistakes with IC are with the losers trying to rebut the concept.

    I like that: IC = Intelligent Creationism. Well put.

    We don’t know who designed and built Stonehenge.

    Human being around at the time for which we have masses of evidence that they existed, the kind of tools they used, sometimes even what they ate. And ID has zilch about it’s designer. Zero. Nada.

    The when keeps changing. No one has found any quarrying tools nor means of moving and setting the stones.

    Nope, the general dating has been clear for a long time now. You’re just flailing about when you don’t even bother to understand the work that has been done. But you watched some YouTube video and you know better.

    Look, aside from your supposed design inference you’ve got nothing substantial that has passed peer-review. Most scientists, if they were really sure they were right, would go and look for more data, more evidence, more fuel for their fire. ID proponents don’t do that, they just keep repeating the same old attempts to shoot down unguided processes knowing full well they can’t prove a negative. Which means: you can never, ever rule out unguided processes. Because you can never, ever be sure of what they might accomplish.

    Kind of kills ID . . . unless you can find something more. Can you? Are you even going to try? Or are you just going to have another whinge about how you understand science better than the professionals? I think I can guess.

    IF you can come up with some hard, physical evidence of some kind of intelligent lifeforms that was around . . . when did you say? Who had . . . what abilities exactly? Then I promise to pay attention. Why don’t you try and find that evidence?

    Or doesn’t it exist?

  48. 48
    ET says:

    There isn’t anything in peer-review that supports blind watchmaker evolution. JVL is a pathological liar.

    If university libraries had what JVL claims then Behe’s colleagues would just present it and that would be it. Instead they have to write disclaimer notes. That alone proves that JVL is a pathological liar.

    I have been to those libraries and know for a fact that JVL is a liar.

    Darwin did not know how to test hos claims. He never tested them. No one has.

    Humans are NOT a who. JVL is obviously a pathetic imp. No one knows WHO designed and built Stonehenge. And then when keeps changing. Everything we know about Stonehenge came from centuries of studying it.

    The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And to refute it all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can produce what ID says was intelligently designed. To date no one has been able to do so. To date there is absolutely NO evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. But it is even worse than that! No one knows how to test the claim that nature can produce those systems!

    Thanks to evolutionary biology, evolutionary biologists don’t even know what determines biological form!

    ID is still the only scientific explanation for our existence. All JVL has is some unknown processes did something at some point in the past and here we are. JVL’s is a mechanistic position without a plausible mechanism. But it is entertaining watching him flail about.

  49. 49
    ET says:

    The genetic code is hard physical evidence that an intelligent designer was around. It is not my fault that JVL is too stupid to understand that fact.

  50. 50
    JVL says:

    ET: Humans are NOT a who.

    Who says it was a single person who designed and built Stonehenge? Are you even aware of the stages of construction and how long it took?

    When I wonder if there is any other evidence for your intelligent designer (who did what exactly? And when?) I’m not saying I want their name and address. I just would like to see any other evidence that there were any intelligent beings around . . . when was it? You never say.

  51. 51
    Steve Alten2 says:

    From the Kairosfocus thread that I have been banned from for posting links to scientific articles that support the benefits to society of same sex marriage.

    Viola Lee “What you think is “inherently disordered” and “in the sewer” I don’t, and I don’t believe your opinion has any special access to “natural law” et al. I think this highlights what is wrong with the thesis of your OP.

    I have to agree. What Kairosfocus declares as “in the sewer” is central to his arguments. But rather than address them he declares them off-limits. I guess that is one way to dominate the discussion.

    Since legalization of same sex marriage and the “normalization” of same sex attraction, teen suicides have decreased. And children raised by same sex couples are scoring higher at school. It is obviously not all sunshine and lollipops, but it certainly isn’t the dire consequences that people like Kairosfocus and others were harping on about.

  52. 52
    JVL says:

    Steve Alten2:

    So, this is the naughty corner now? Will we get milk and cookies?

  53. 53
    Viola Lee says:

    Can I join?

  54. 54
    Viola Lee says:

    Can I join?

  55. 55
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Who says it was a single person who designed and built Stonehenge?

    I never said anything about a single person. Your ignorance knows no bounds.

    Are you even aware of the stages of construction and how long it took?

    And no one knows who did any of the stages.

    I just would like to see any other evidence that there were any intelligent beings around

    You are too stupid to be able to assess the evidence. And you are a willfully ignorant pathological liar

    If saying humans did it is OK for archaeology, then saying non-humans did it is OK for Intelligent Design.

  56. 56
    ET says:

    Acartia

    Since legalization of same sex marriage and the “normalization” of same sex attraction, teen suicides have decreased.

    Their minds are that feeble, eh? They should just kill themselves and rid the world of their inherent weaknesses.

  57. 57
    JVL says:

    Viola Lee: Can I join?

    Sure! It’s not crowded . . . yet.

  58. 58
    JVL says:

    ET: And no one knows who did any of the stages.

    The human beings around at the time. We even have some genetic information about them.

    If saying humans did it is OK for archaeology, then saying non-humans did it is OK for Intelligent Design.

    There is lots and lots of evidence there were humans around at the pertinent time and in the pertinent area. The stones have been traced to where they came from and they show signs of work. The ‘evolution’ of the site is getting clearer and clear. Aside from the structure itself (and it’s one of many by the way) it’s clear that humans made it. We don’t know anyone’s name obviously; it would have taken tens if not hundreds of folks collaborating.

    Aside from your contested design inference there is no evidence that any kind of intelligent agents were around before human beings. You should look for some.

    Their minds are that feeble, eh? They should just kill themselves and rid the world of their inherent weaknesses.

    You aren’t a very nice person are you?

  59. 59
    asauber says:

    “Since legalization of same sex marriage and the “normalization” of same sex attraction, teen suicides have decreased.”

    In other words, these poor souls will kill themselves if they don’t get deviant sex.

    There is so much more to life than deviant sex.

    Andrew

  60. 60
    ET says:

    JVL:

    The human beings around at the time.

    That is NOT who. Get an education.

    There is lots and lots of evidence there were humans around at the pertinent time and in the pertinent area.

    That doesn’t mean they did it, duh.

    Aside from your contested design inference there is no evidence that any kind of intelligent agents were around before human beings.

    The only people who contest the design inference don’t have anything else to account for what we observe. So they can be dismissed as liars and whiners.

    You aren’t a very nice person are you?

    Talk to Charles Darwin and your fellow evoTARDs. The elimination of the less fit from any population is a good thing. That is what we are taught in science classrooms, thanks to Darwin.

  61. 61
    ET says:

    The funniest part of saying humans designed and built Stonehenge is we “know” humans were capable of doing it just because Stonehenge exists. In reality no one knows if the humans of the time were capable.

  62. 62
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL “So, this is the naughty corner now? Will we get milk and cookies?”

    I think we are more of a wine spritzer and charcuterie crowd. 🙂

    I just thought it was important to address Kairosfocus’ OP subject without having issues that make him queasy being declared off topic and commenters being put in moderation. Kairosfocus is welcome to join in the discussion but I suspect that he won’t because he doesn’t control the delete button.

    ET “Their minds are that feeble, eh? They should just kill themselves and rid the world of their inherent weaknesses.”

    It really takes a reprehensible human being to make fun of teen suicide. Thank you for showing your homophobic stripes.

    Viola Lee, I am not sure if I agree with your comment about a plumb bob having more than one “truth”. I think that for most issues there is only one “truth” (whatever that means) but we may be using the wrong starting point. For example, we have been talking about whether same sex marriage and opposite sex marriages are both morally acceptable. However, if we take one step back and start with love between two consenting adults, how that is applied can take many forms, all of which I would argue are morally acceptable. These would include the classical opposite sex marriage but would also include same sex marriage, civil unions, “shacking up”, arranged marriages, etc.

  63. 63
    JVL says:

    Asauber: In other words, these poor souls will kill themselves if they don’t get deviant sex.

    If you were a teenager and you deeply loved someone and you were told your interest was deviant or sinful and that there must be something wrong with you how would you react?

  64. 64
    asauber says:

    “If you were a teenager and you deeply loved someone”

    JVL,

    Lets start with your premise. I doubt a teenager knows what deeply loving someone entails.

    Lust isn’t love.

    Andrew

  65. 65
    JVL says:

    ET: That is NOT who. Get an education.

    You don’t know WHO the intelligent design(s) were. So what’s the difference?

    That doesn’t mean they did it, duh.

    There’s no evidence anyone else with the capabilities was around at the time AND we haven’t found evidence of advanced tools or methods of work. Everything we’ve discovered (from studying the design and excavation) points to human beings.

    The only people who contest the design inference don’t have anything else to account for what we observe. So they can be dismissed as liars and whiners.

    You not understanding the evidence (like what random with respect to fitness means) doesn’t make you right.

    Talk to Charles Darwin and your fellow evoTARDs. The elimination of the less fit from any population is a good thing. That is what we are taught in science classrooms, thanks to Darwin.

    No one said it was a good thing. And social ostracising people and making them feel ashamed and shunned is not a case of you being more fit. That’s a case of you being prejudiced and a bully.

    The funniest part of saying humans designed and built Stonehenge is we “know” humans were capable of doing it just because Stonehenge exists. In reality no one knows if the humans of the time were capable.

    Yeah, we do because we’ve found their tools, we can see how they did some things, we have parallels with other sites in other cultures. AND there is zero evidence any non-human agents were around at the time. Zero.

  66. 66
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Andrew “In other words, these poor souls will kill themselves if they don’t get deviant sex.”

    I don’t think anyone can claim to know the reasons that a person commits suicide other than the fact that severe depression is involved. With respect to gay teens, I would think that if they were brought up to believe that homosexuality was a sin that they would suffer from serious guilt when they started to having feelings of sexual attraction towards others of the same sex. It is not difficult to see how this could lead to depression.

    However, if they grew up in an atmosphere that did not stigmatize same sex attraction, I suspect that they would be less likely that their same-sex attraction would trigger a depression.

  67. 67
    JVL says:

    Asauber: I doubt a teenager knows what deeply loving someone entails.

    Does anyone know that? Can it not be different for different people? Have you not met people who married their childhood sweetheart and lived happily ever after?

    Face it, you’re just prejudice and have no sympathy whatsoever. I sincerely hope that none of your own offspring is afraid to tell you something knowing you would think there was something wrong with them.

    We are talking about real people who are someone’s children. And you’re happy just to see them suffer because . . .

    Have you read the New Testament?

  68. 68
    asauber says:

    “I don’t think anyone can claim to know the reasons that a person commits suicide other than the fact that severe depression is involved. ”

    SA,

    Then please don’t resort to spurious correlations.

    Andrew

  69. 69
    asauber says:

    “Does anyone know that?”

    JVL,

    You implied that teenagers do. The rest of your comment is not worth responding to.

    Andrew

  70. 70
    ET says:

    JVL:

    You don’t know WHO the intelligent design(s) were. So what’s the difference?

    Wow. That has been my point for years and all you have done is choke on it.

    There’s no evidence anyone else with the capabilities was around at the time AND we haven’t found evidence of advanced tools or methods of work.

    You don’t know what such evidence would look like.

    You not understanding the evidence (like what random with respect to fitness means) doesn’t make you right.

    I understand what random with respect to fitness means. I also understand that only fools use that saying. Mutations are supposed to be random, period. Random as in accidents, errors and mistakes. Then these accidents, errors and mistakes accumulate, differentially.

    No one said it was a good thing.

    Scientists have. Anyone who understands the concept would,.

    Yeah, we do because we’ve found their tools, we can see how they did some things, we have parallels with other sites in other cultures.

    Liar. No one has found and quarrying tools. No one has found the transport tools.

  71. 71
    ET says:

    Acartia Loser:

    It really takes a reprehensible human being to make fun of teen suicide.

    It really takes a lying loser to say I was making fun of teen suicide. Your total lack of mental awareness is astounding.

    Thank you for continuing to prove that you are an ignorant troll on an agenda.

  72. 72
    ET says:

    JVL:

    If you were a teenager and you deeply loved someone and you were told your interest was deviant or sinful and that there must be something wrong with you how would you react?

    I would tell people to stuff it and continue to do as I please as long as it didn’t break any laws nor harm anyone. That people cannot do that and instead take their own lives is on them. Stop blaming others as that is just childish.

  73. 73
    JVL says:

    ET: You don’t know what such evidence would look like.

    No tools, no signs of living quarters, no trash, no excrement, nada, nothing. It was people.

    I understand what random with respect to fitness means. I also understand that only fools use that saying. Mutations are supposed to be random, period. Random as in accidents, errors and mistakes. Then these accidents, errors and mistakes accumulate, differentially.

    They are random with respect to fitness, it’s an important distinction. One you don’t get clearly.

    Scientists have. Anyone who understands the concept would,.

    If you lived in the bad part of Harlem you might be considered less fit.

    Liar. No one has found and quarrying tools. No one has found the transport tools.

    Gee, I didn’t know you’ve read all the excavation reports from Stonehenge and all the other stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany. My mistake.

    It really takes a lying loser to say I was making fun of teen suicide.

    Well, how would you interpret your comment: Their minds are that feeble, eh? They should just kill themselves and rid the world of their inherent weaknesses. if it was directed at your daughter?

    I would tell people to stuff it and continue to do as I please as long as it didn’t break any laws nor harm anyone. That people cannot do that and instead take their own lives is on them. Stop blaming others as that is just childish.

    You engender an attitude of dismissal and unacceptance. You show a lack of understanding and support for people whose practices you find weird and unnatural. Instead of just saying: sure, let ’em get married, who cares, it doesn’t hurt anyone you spend hours and hours and hours coming up with reasons why they shouldn’t be allowed to get married. You care a lot that they should be denied certain rights. Is that any different from making black people sit in the back of the bus or stopping them from using the same drinking fountain or having to go to different schools?

  74. 74
    JVL says:

    Asauber: The rest of your comment is not worth responding to.

    That’s okay, I find your attitude and beliefs contemptible.

  75. 75
    asauber says:

    “I find your attitude and beliefs contemptible.”

    JVL,

    And I find yours dysfunctional, vaporous, and immature. 😉

    Andrew

  76. 76
    ET says:

    JVL:

    No tools, no signs of living quarters, no trash, no excrement, nada, nothing.

    I didn’t find any tools, living quarters, trash or excrement near the new house in the woods.

    They are random with respect to fitness, it’s an important distinction.

    WRONG. They are random, period. Mutations are supposed to be random, period. Random as in accidents, errors and mistakes. Then these accidents, errors and mistakes accumulate, differentially.

    YOUR ignorance is not an argument.

    If you lived in the bad part of Harlem you might be considered less fit.

    That isn’t an argument. That is just your desperate stupidity.

    Gee, I didn’t know you’ve read all the excavation reports from Stonehenge and all the other stone circles in the British Isles and Brittany.

    And another non-argument. It’s as if you are proud to be a coward.

    Well, how would you interpret your comment: Their minds are that feeble, eh? They should just kill themselves and rid the world of their inherent weaknesses. if it was directed at your daughter?

    Wow. You are a desperate fool. What I said is not making fun of teen suicides. And neither you nor the other cowardly TARD can show otherwise.

    You engender an attitude of dismissal and unacceptance.

    You are a known pathological liar and deceiver. Now you are trying to tell me what I think. You are a lowlife punk. You are beyond pathetic.

  77. 77
    JVL says:

    ET: I didn’t find any tools, living quarters, trash or excrement near the new house in the woods.

    We don’t find any evidence of extraterrestrials anywhere. Zip, nada, nothing.

    WRONG. They are random, period. Mutations are supposed to be random, period. Random as in accidents, errors and mistakes. Then these accidents, errors and mistakes accumulate, differentially.

    Some regions have higher mutation rates so the statement that they are random with respect to fitness is an important distinction.

    That isn’t an argument. That is just your desperate stupidity.

    The point is that fitness is partially judged by situation and when you ostracise and marginalise people you can make them ‘less fit’ socially, legally and mentally.

    And another non-argument. It’s as if you are proud to be a coward.

    It’s not my fault that you just automatically decry and reject any opinion which differs from yours when you clearly are not aware of all the work and data available.

    Wow. You are a desperate fool. What I said is not making fun of teen suicides. And neither you nor the other cowardly TARD can show otherwise.

    As I said, your attitude is akin to that held by racists in the 50s and 60s: separate but equal. The trouble is things were never equal. And why do you want things to be separate in the first place? That’s prejudice. In this case against homosexuals. You don’t have any legal stance to support your notion that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry and you think they can do what they need by jumping through a lot of hoops instead. You think that’s separate but equal. Why do you care so much? What harm does it do to let same-sex couples marry? You can’t point to any harm that would cause. It’s your own prejudice that underlies your view.

    You are a known pathological liar and deceiver. Now you are trying to tell me what I think. You are a lowlife punk. You are beyond pathetic.

    You cannot come up with a legal or moral reason why same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Your stated reasons (it’s unnatural, it should be reserved for procreating couples) are ludicrous.

    You’re prejudice. I don’t know why, you say you’re not religious but when you say it’s unnatural that sure sounds like a: we’re not designed for that kind of thing argument. And the procreation thing is just dumb. Marriage has never, ever been legally defined that way ever. Some jerks like Henry VIII used that kind of reason for wanting their marriages annulled because he wanted to jump into bed with another woman but the church refused to recognise that argument.

  78. 78
    JVL says:

    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge

    The first monument consisted of a circular bank and ditch enclosure made of Late Cretaceous (Santonian Age) Seaford Chalk, measuring about 360 feet (110 m) in diameter, with a large entrance to the north east and a smaller one to the south. It stood in open grassland on a slightly sloping spot.[25] The builders placed the bones of deer and oxen in the bottom of the ditch, as well as some worked flint tools. The bones were considerably older than the antler picks used to dig the ditch, and the people who buried them had looked after them for some time prior to burial.

    In 2013 a team of archaeologists, led by Mike Parker Pearson, excavated more than 50,000 cremated bone fragments, from 63 individuals, buried at Stonehenge.[3][4] These remains had originally been buried individually in the Aubrey holes, exhumed during a previous excavation conducted by William Hawley in 1920, been considered unimportant by him, and subsequently re-interred together in one hole, Aubrey Hole 7, in 1935.[28] Physical and chemical analysis of the remains has shown that the cremated were almost equally men and women, and included some children.

    At least twenty-five of the Aubrey Holes are known to have contained later, intrusive, cremation burials dating to the two centuries after the monument’s inception. It seems that whatever the holes’ initial function, it changed to become a funerary one during Phase two. Thirty further cremations were placed in the enclosure’s ditch and at other points within the monument, mostly in the eastern half. Stonehenge is therefore interpreted as functioning as an enclosed cremation cemetery at this time, the earliest known cremation cemetery in the British Isles. Fragments of unburnt human bone have also been found in the ditch-fill. Dating evidence is provided by the late Neolithic grooved ware pottery that has been found in connection with the features from this phase.

    Researchers studying DNA extracted from Neolithic human remains across Britain determined that the ancestors of the people who built Stonehenge were farmers who came from the Eastern Mediterranean, traveling west from there. DNA studies indicate that they had a predominantly Aegean ancestry, although their agricultural techniques seem to have come originally from Anatolia. These Aegean farmers then moved to Iberia before heading north, reaching Britain in about 4,000 BC.

    No extra-terrestrial evidence anywhere. None. Zip. De nada. According to ID proponents the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions (and the one that matches the available evidence) is the best. Humans designed and built Stonehenge. That’s the only possible conclusion. At this time. IF you can find any evidence, at all, that there were non-human intelligent agents around at the time then it will be examined and considered. Do you have any such evidence?

    PS This is just some of the information from one article on one of the many stone circles in the British Isles. And no where has any evidence turned up indicating no non-humans capable of making the circles were present. Nothing. You’ve got absolutely no reason to postulate that non-humans created Stonehenge.

  79. 79
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Andrew “Then please don’t resort to spurious correlations.”

    All I was doing is reporting facts. Homosexual teen suicide rates have gone down in states and countries that allow same sex marriage and have made concerted efforts to “normalize” same-sex attraction. This may be causal but I suspect it is due to a combination of circumstances. It is true that there has been a significant increase in the societal acceptance of homosexuality, but there has also been a societal trend towards punishing bullying. But for teens, homosexual kids were often the victims of bullying.

    Where I live the government mandated that schools must allow student led gay-straight alliances, even in catholic schools. The main purpose of these was to have gay and straight kids interact positively with each other in a social setting. Within a few years of their implementation suicide attempts by homosexual teens dropped by almost 50%.

  80. 80
    JVL says:

    And there’s this:

    Archaeologists have discovered the long-lost prehistoric tools used to quarry the original standing stones from the earliest stone-built phase of Stonehenge.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/stonehenge-archaeology-prehistoric-tools-stones-wales-wiltshire-a8786356.html

    The discovery of the stone quarrying tools, which date to the approximate time of the construction of the first stone phase of the monument (c 2900BC), proves beyond reasonable doubt for the first time that Neolithic people quarried the Welsh stones that ended up being used to build the world’s most famous prehistoric temple.

  81. 81
    JVL says:

    Then there’s this:

    Large quantities of sarsen and bluestone waste material, as well as broken hammerstones, have been found in the field to the north of Stonehenge, where the stones were worked into shape.

    Sarsen and flint hammerstones in various sizes have been found at Stonehenge. The larger ones would have been used to roughly flake and chip the stone, and the smaller ones to finish and smooth the surfaces.

    Analysis of a recent laser survey of the stones has revealed the different stoneworking methods used, and has shown that some parts of the monument were more carefully finished than others. In particular, the north-east side and the inner faces of the central trilithons were finely dressed.

    From: https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/history-and-stories/building-stonehenge/

  82. 82
    ET says:

    Again, JVL totally misses the point with respect to Stonehenge. Everything that we know about Stonehenge came from centuries of research. And not one thing that we know relied on first knowing the method of construction, the reason nor the exact people.

  83. 83
    Concealed Citizen says:

    If this thread is depressing you, please don’t commit suicide over it.

  84. 84
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Your stated reasons (it’s unnatural, it should be reserved for procreating couples) are ludicrous.

    Cuz you say so? Really? There is absolutely no reason to get married if you aren’t going to have and raise children. All your straw-grasping complaints can be easily taken care of.

    Again, why allow same-sex marriage and deny all other possible types of marriage? Are you prejudice?

  85. 85
    ET says:

    And it is beyond pathetic that those who are pro-choice when it comes to abortion have an issue with people who choose to abort their own lives. We don’t need these easily depressed people growing up and getting weaponized. That’s has mass shootings happen.

  86. 86
    Concealed Citizen says:

    JVL: No extra-terrestrial evidence anywhere. None. Zip. De nada. According to ID proponents the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions (and the one that matches the available evidence) is the best.

    Um, well, we do have coded information in the DNA/ribosome replicator… the very sort of thing that SETI is looking for. Damn hard to explain without intent behind it. (The search space for functional protein abiogenesis is astonishing.) Is it a knock-down argument logically? No. Nothing could ever be, if you want to brazen it out. But the odds are stupendous. Guilty beyond any reasonable doubt (unless you have a biased prior commitment of some sort, which is why jurors get tossed from juries.) So at least squarely face up to that.

  87. 87
    kairosfocus says:

    JVL, you are overlooking factual adequacy, as Newton emphasised in his rules. A claimed causal explanation for a phenomenon needs to be confirmed per observation as actually adequate. We both know that there are no cases of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity at or beyond 500 – 1,000 bits. Search challenge on sol system or observed cosmos scale search resources across 10^17 or so s readily shows why. The only empirically warranted causal explanation for FSCO/I is intelligent design. That cells include algorithmic string data structures and codes so goal-directed procedures and language, underscores the point. That’s why I no longer take seriously the sorts of objections and distractions you exemplify. For brutally simple example, incinerators exist, including a giant one 90 mn miles away so where are the wastes, where are the broken tools is irrelevant. The direct evidence warrants a strong causal inference to a known capable cause. That that may lead where you are uncomfortable may be psychologically interesting but such is of no material import. KF

    PS: The massive, multifaceted evidence of a fine tuned cosmos full of FSCO/I, is itself extra-terrestrial and points to design of a cosmos fitted out for C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based life.

  88. 88
    JVL says:

    ET: Again, JVL totally misses the point with respect to Stonehenge. Everything that we know about Stonehenge came from centuries of research. And not one thing that we know relied on first knowing the method of construction, the reason nor the exact people.

    We know that human beings around at the time built Stonehenge because we did a lot more than just study the design. We looked around for other evidence and data, something that no one in the ID community is doing. Excavations have been carried out, not only at Stonehenge itself but at other close locations and other standing stone circles in the British Isles. Plus, as there is zero evidence of other highly intelligent beings around at the time we can rule out that it was someone/something other than human beings. Finding some of the tools they used helps seal the deal. The genetic material is a real bonus.

    Again, why allow same-sex marriage and deny all other possible types of marriage? Are you prejudice?

    I’ve told you so many times . . . I guess you have memory problems: limit it to CONSENTING ADULTS. Just as is done with many other legal contracts and issues.

    And it is beyond pathetic that those who are pro-choice when it comes to abortion have an issue with people who choose to abort their own lives. We don’t need these easily depressed people growing up and getting weaponized. That’s has mass shootings happen.

    Your attitude towards your fellow human beings who are ostracised and marginalised because of prejudice and fear is appalling.

  89. 89
    ET says:

    Again, JVL totally misses the point with respect to Stonehenge. Everything that we know about Stonehenge came from centuries of research. And not one thing that we know relied on first knowing the method of construction, the reason nor the exact people.

    And he doesn’t even understand what that means

    ’ve told you so many times . . . I guess you have memory problems: limit it to CONSENTING ADULTS.

    Why your arbitrary condition? You are obviously deeply prejudiced. And your criteria llows for polygamy.

    Your attitude towards your fellow human beings who are ostracised and marginalised because of prejudice and fear is appalling.

    Your bullshit accusations just prove that you are a coward who is unable to think.

    And it is beyond pathetic that those who are pro-choice when it comes to abortion have an issue with people who choose to abort their own lives. We don’t need these easily depressed people growing up and getting weaponized. That’s has mass shootings happen.

  90. 90
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL “ Your attitude towards your fellow human beings who are ostracised and marginalised because of prejudice and fear is appalling.

    This has got to be the understatement of the year.

    Teen suicide is a huge problem, and the rate of gay teens committing suicide is significantly higher than that of heterosexual teens. Anyone who thinks this is OK is just a homophobic reprehensible human being.

  91. 91
    ET says:

    And it is beyond pathetic that those who are pro-choice when it comes to abortion have an issue with people who choose to abort their own lives. We don’t need these easily depressed people growing up and getting weaponized. That’s has mass shootings happen.

    Bleeding hearts and their uncontrolled emotions are the problem. If suicide is a problem then abortion is an even bigger problem. But losers like JVL and Acratia sockpuppet are to dim to grasp that fact.

  92. 92
    ET says:

    Anyone who thinks that abortions are OK is a reprehensible and ignorant human being.

  93. 93
    JVL says:

    ET: Why your arbitrary condition?

    It’s already used in legal contexts and is also generally defined; differently for different states and countries but it’s a clear place to anchor the law.

    You are obviously deeply prejudiced.

    I am very prejudice towards allowing consenting adult humans to do mostly what they please as long as doesn’t harm someone else.

    And your criteria [a]llows for polygamy.

    Yes it does. Just like in the Old Testament and the Koran.

    And it is beyond pathetic that those who are pro-choice when it comes to abortion have an issue with people who choose to abort their own lives. We don’t need these easily depressed people growing up and getting weaponized. That’s has mass shootings happen.

    If an adult chooses to end their own life I have much less of an issue. I’m not saying I would encourage it but I prefer to let adults make their own choices; again, with the proviso, that it doesn’t hurt someone else. Arguably suicide does harm others so it’s not an easy thing to deal with.

    I would prefer to be in a world where abortion was not sought out by women. I would not make that choice myself. But I’ve always been careful. And I think any woman who wants a legal abortion should be counselled to make sure that really is the only way forward. Another tricky issue. I’m not terribly happy with any of the solutions arrived at by most modern democracies but I can live with the laws where I live.

    We don’t need these easily depressed people growing up and getting weaponized. That’s has (sic) mass shootings happen.

    You know nothing about depression, how debilitating it can be, how many people suffer from it at times in their lives. Almost all depressed people do not grab a gun and shoot a lot of people. But you don’t really care, you’re just prejudiced.

  94. 94
    ET says:

    JVL:

    It’s already used in legal contexts and is also generally defined; differently for different states and countries but it’s a clear place to anchor the law.

    It can be changed just as the definition of marriage has been changed. You are just prejudiced and reprehensible.

    And shut up. I know all about depression you ignorant ass. You are a prejudiced and reprehensible ass.

  95. 95
    JVL says:

    ET: It can be changed just as the definition of marriage has been changed. You are just prejudiced and reprehensible.

    You and Kairosfocus: you guys don’t really like Democracy do you? You think your morals and ethics should be the legal standard and you can’t accept that sometimes you lose a legal argument.

    You don’t trust most people, you think most people are morons and idiots and why should they be able to tell you what you can and can’t do.

    And shut up. I know all about depression you ignorant ass.

    You hide it well.

  96. 96
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL, ET keeps using his ridiculous slippery slope argument. But he doesn’t realize that his brain-numbingly stupid argument can work in both directions. If the government dictates that two consenting adult men can’t marry then it is only a short step to banning inter-racial marriage, interfaith marriage and inter-party marriage.

    Slippery-slope arguments are just fear-mongering by the prejudiced and bigoted.

  97. 97
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, I once got into trouble on a slippery slope. They are real world and if there is a ratchet that acts or mostly acts, that is enough. Drop the fallacy that slippery slopes are fallacies. The issue is strength of support for an inductive case. C 1930’s Churchill was widely dismissed on warning of a slippery slope to round 2 world war. He was right, ask the ghosts of 80 millions. By actual case we therefore know that slippery slopes can be real and that fashionable dismissals backed by a lot of institutional and elite power and opinion shaping can actually contribute to their effectiveness. I see, glancing beyond, that you are riding the fashionable hobby horse and note that the power of an agenda backed by forces powerful enough to entrench their favoured policies in defiance of basic genetics and biology stamped into every cell AND to promote a false impression of genetically determined sexual habituation should not be underestimated. You are also to my certain knowledge already refusing to engage linked references that should give you pause; indeed, you are part of threadjacking to push that agenda. ET has a serious point. KF

  98. 98
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ SA2, I once got into trouble on a slippery slope. They are real world and if there is a ratchet that acts or mostly acts, that is enough. Drop the fallacy that slippery slopes are fallacies.“

    I will stop claiming that they aren’t fallacious when people stop using them fallaciously.

    Let’s just look at ET’s stupid argument that if we recognize same sex marriage that we have no grounds to not also recognize marriage between an adult and a child or marriage between a human and a goat, or with an inanimate object. Are you seriously agreeing with ET that this is a valid argument against same sex marriage?

  99. 99
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, it is you who need to show that in this case the alphabet soup agenda, of proved power and unwisdom, does not have further letters in store such as for example a P or a B. KF

  100. 100
    JVL says:

    Kairosfocus: it is you who need to show that in this case the alphabet soup agenda, of proved power and unwisdom, does not have further letters in store

    And how, pray tell, can someone show that something is NOT going to happen?

    You just don’t trust people do you? You don’t really like Democracy at all because the public can change the rules if they wish.

  101. 101
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ SA2, it is you who need to show that in this case the alphabet soup agenda, of proved power and unwisdom, does not have further letters in store such as for example a P or a B. KF“

    If P and B have merit, and cause no harm to others, what is the problem?

    Some slippery-slope arguments are valid. For example, I am sure that at the time of the civil war there were people using the slippery slope argument that if we freed the slaves that we would not have any justification to deny them access to the vote, to integrated schools, to inter-racial marriage, etc. And this argument has come true. But not because every slippery-slope argument is valid, but because these were the actions necessary for a stable and equitable society.

    ET’s slippery-slope argument that SSM will lead to pedophile marriage and inter-species marriage is just insane fear-mongering.

    However, if you can provide a rational argument as to how SSM is likely to lead to pedophile and inter-species marriage, I am all ears.

  102. 102
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Crickets from Kairosfocus.

Leave a Reply