ID Foundations, 18 (video): Dr Stephen Meyer of Discovery Institute presents the case for Intelligent Design (with particular reference to OoL)

_{kairosfocus

April 21, 2013

Darwinism, Design inference, ID Foundations, Intelligent Design, Origin Of Life, science education, specified complexity, worldview}

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

Here, HT WK:

[youtube NbluTDb1Nfs]

Take an hour and a half to learn what ID is about (yes, what it is really about [and cf. here at UD for correctives to common strawman distortions . . . ]), with particular focus on the origin of cell based life [OoL], through watching a public presentation in the UK from a leading ID thinker, Stephen Meyer.

Notice the distinction he underscores relative to the common demonising rhetorical projection of “Right-wing Fundamentalist theocratic agendas” etc.

I clip from the video:

Let me also draw in the design inference explanatory filter considered on a per aspect basis, as was presented in the very first post in the ID Foundations series:

The per aspect explanatory filter that shows how design may be inferred on empirically tested, reliable sign

(NB: Observe Meyer here, on ID’s scientific bona fides.)

It is probably also helpful to add the following, from a reply by Meyer to a hostile review of his book, Signature in the Cell. (It seems that things have got worse over the past few years, we used to have no-views — hostile pretended “reviews” of books not read — now we have hostile no-views of books not yet published.)

Clipping:

The central argument of my book is that intelligent design—the activity of a conscious and rational deliberative agent—best explains the origin of the information necessary to produce the first living cell. I argue this because of two things that we know from our uniform and repeated experience, which following Charles Darwin I take to be the basis of all scientific reasoning about the past. First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). [–> Notice the usage] Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question . . . . In order to [[scientifically refute this inductive conclusion] Falk would need to show that some undirected material cause has [[empirically] demonstrated the power to produce functional biological information apart from the guidance or activity a designing mind. Neither Falk [[the hostile reviewer], nor anyone working in origin-of-life biology, has succeeded in doing this . . .

Food for thought.

Foundational. END

Comments

As the preceding shows, it seems that Darwinists have a bit of a problem as to literature bluffing when it comes to demonstrating the origin of functional information by purely Darwinian processes: Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/assessing_the_ncses_citation_b.html The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010 http://www.discovery.org/a/14251 How to Play the Gene Evolution Game - Casey Luskin - Feb. 2010 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/02/how_to_play_the_gene_evolution.html Intelligent Design and the Origin of Biological Information: A Response to Dennis Venema By: Casey Luskin October 3, 2011 http://www.discovery.org/a/17571 Responding to Venema's Response to Meyer's Response to Venema's Response to Meyer's Signature in the Cell: The Last in a Series (We Promise!) Casey Luskin October 22, 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/responding_to_venemas_response052061.html Mr. Matzke, Perhaps you can list the specific example of functional information generation by Darwinian processes that Dr. Behe missed in his summary of 4 decades of lab work: “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain - Michael Behe - December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Michael Behe talks about the preceding paper on this podcast: Michael Behe: Challenging Darwin, One Peer-Reviewed Paper at a Time - December 2010 http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/player/web/2010-12-23T11_53_46-08_00 Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/editbornagain77_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

Mr. Matzke, I seem to recall that this little exchange you had with Casey Luskin in regards to your claim that purely Darwinian processes could generate functional information: Leading Darwin Defender Admits Darwinism's Most "Detailed Explanation" of a Gene Doesn't Even Tell What Function's Being Selected - Casey Luskin - October 5, 2011 Excerpt: ...You just admitted that the most "detailed explanation" for the evolution of a gene represents a case where: *they don't even know the precise function of the gene, *and thus don't know what exactly what function was being selected, *and thus don't know if there are steps that require multiple mutations to produce an advantage, *and thus haven't even begun to show that the gene can evolve in a step-by-step fashion, *and thus don't know that there are sufficient probabilistic resources to produce the gene by gene duplication+mutation+selection. In effect, you have just admitted that Darwinian explanations for the origin of genes are incredibly detail-poor. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/leading_darwin_defender_admits051551.htmlbornagain77_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

PS: The Whale example discussions by Sternberg and Berlinski can be seen here on.kairosfocus_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

NM: I went to your linked:
Since I had read the book very carefully, and have gone over it many times since, I was amazed that I could have missed this stipulation. Again, he says: “I specifically stipulate that I am [not] talking about … processes (such as random genetic mutation and natural selection) that commence only once life has begun.” Did he really specifically stipulate that? Have we been barking up the wrong tree all this time? While we knew the main focus of Meyer's book was the origin of life (not mechanisms of evolution), his argument clearly stated, we thought, that no large increase in CSI (Complex Specified Information) had ever been demonstrated without the need to invoke intelligence. Period.
First, Falk is playing fast and loose with context. The overall context of the book is the origin of the living cell, and so the proper issue is indeed how to get to an encapsulated, gated, metabolising entity with a code based self replication capacity. So, Meyer is quite right to say that you need to account for the systems on blind physics and chemistry in a reasonable pre-life scenario. This is pivotal. Next,there is a subtle, rhetorically pivotal -- and fallacious -- ambiguity in Falk's talking about increases in CSI in living systems. As has long been discussed, the whole issue of functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information in living systems is about getting to shores of islands of function. Incremental variation within such islands is within the threshold limit of FSCO/I. In addition, there is no good observational warrant for any claims that mutations on the order of a few base pairs are capable of cumulatively, with advantageous selection all the way, is capable of transforming body plans, e.g. to make a bird or a functionally similar bird ancestor with the key avian lung and functional wings etc, from some form of reptile. Or, to make a whale from something like a cow or Darwin's bear. These are tantamount to implying a vast continent of incrementally improved function, that is consistent with pop genetics and the claimed timeline. So we are entitled to ask: where is the pattern of transitionals as the DOMINANT feature of the fossil life world? [All those increments to the widely diverse forms SHOULD be statistically dominant and should come up in any reasonable sampling regime as the dominant feature as a result. We should stumble over them every time we go out the door.] Similarly, given the pop genetics, generation times, and number of generations to fix an increment, multiplied by the plausible number of increments, we are looking at huge lengths of time that dwarf the timelines held to be so from the fossil beds. Was that a couple of hundred million years to get a human like creature out of an ancestral primate? How many millions to get the what was it 50,000 incremental changes to make a whale that say Berlinsky suggested, with a 5-year baseline and pops of maybe 20,000 with realistic mutation scopes and rates? Or if you have better numbers (kindly justify) show us the sort of required timeline, and then show us how that corresponds to the on the ground evidence you claim. Going back a bit, to the Cambrian [which Meyer intends to take up in more details in a couple of months], here is Meyer's argument from 2004 that your organisation had a lot to do with censorship and expulsion games on:
The Cambrian explosion represents a remarkable jump in the specified complexity or "complex specified information" (CSI) of the biological world. For over three billions years, the biological realm included little more than bacteria and algae (Brocks et al. 1999). Then, beginning about 570-565 million years ago (mya), the first complex multicellular organisms appeared in the rock strata, including sponges, cnidarians, and the peculiar Ediacaran biota (Grotzinger et al. 1995). Forty million years later, the Cambrian explosion occurred (Bowring et al. 1993) . . . One way to estimate the amount of new CSI that appeared with the Cambrian animals is to count the number of new cell types that emerged with them (Valentine 1995:91-93) . . . the more complex animals that appeared in the Cambrian (e.g., arthropods) would have required fifty or more cell types . . . New cell types require many new and specialized proteins. New proteins, in turn, require new genetic information. Thus an increase in the number of cell types implies (at a minimum) a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information. Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000). Transitions from a single cell to colonies of cells to complex animals represent significant (and, in principle, measurable) increases in CSI . . . . In order to explain the origin of the Cambrian animals, one must account not only for new proteins and cell types, but also for the origin of new body plans . . . Mutations in genes that are expressed late in the development of an organism will not affect the body plan. Mutations expressed early in development, however, could conceivably produce significant morphological change (Arthur 1997:21) . . . [but] processes of development are tightly integrated spatially and temporally such that changes early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream. For this reason, mutations will be much more likely to be deadly if they disrupt a functionally deeply-embedded structure such as a spinal column than if they affect more isolated anatomical features such as fingers (Kauffman 1995:200) . . . McDonald notes that genes that are observed to vary within natural populations do not lead to major adaptive changes, while genes that could cause major changes--the very stuff of macroevolution--apparently do not vary. In other words, mutations of the kind that macroevolution doesn't need (namely, viable genetic mutations in DNA expressed late in development) do occur, but those that it does need (namely, beneficial body plan mutations expressed early in development) apparently don't occur.6
Q6] Show us how you cross the challenge of random changes in body plan per mutations that do not prove embryologically (or equivalently) lethal. Q7] Show us how there is observational step by step warrant for such beneficial body plan shaping mutations accumulating to yield novel body plans, and how this comports with pop genetics concerns on time to establish varieties and then move to the next stage per blind watchmaker mechanisms. Q8] Go on from that to the step of showing us how, dozens of times over in a relevant window, again with observational warrant, you have origin of novel body plans that per reasonable estimates will take 10 - 100+ mn bits of new genetic info. Q9] Explain to us in that context, how there has been a persistent challenge of sudden appearance of forms held to be in a window of what, 5 - 10 mn years, 500+ MYA, and how this was solved, by whom, documented where. Q10] The very fact that Meyer is about to release a book following up from the above, suggests that he is confident that the basic case outlined still holds valid and that there is additional detail that will further substantiate it. Why, on what empirically, observationally warranted grounds, do you think this is wrong? Not, just so stories and unrealistic models and analogies, but on hard fossil facts and clear empirical numbers and relationships for population genetics that shows the origin of body plans on blind watchmaker incrementalism and the like mechanisms that are commonly touted. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

NM: Joe is right. Q1] Why not take up the now almost seven month old UD essay challenge and give us a feature length [~ 6,000 word] survey of the decisive evidence that shows the empirically, observationally warranted OOL and OO body plans, by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity? Q2] OOL is highlighted as, the origin of the self replicating, code based mechanism seen in cell based life is the first thing to be demonstrated. Q3] After that, you need to show us the empirical evidence behind the blind watchmaker incrementalist assertions on origin of major body plans. Q4] And, in that you are going to have to show us observational evidence, not just so stories. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT}

So while the emergence of stunning arrays of complex and specified organelles necessary for the existence of the "simplest" self-replicator, such as DNA and RNA polymerases, ribosomes, and ATP synthase can be pushed back behind the veil of OOL, because as we all know neo-Darwinism doesn't address the origin of life, surely it must follow that the origin of information is not a problem for OOL because a mechanism exists in extant cells which accommodates gene duplication and diversification for function modification. This sort of explanatory power is intoxicating.Chance Ratcliff_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Earth to Nick Matzke- This is why the OoL is so important. If the OoL = designed then the inference would be living organisms were designed to evolve and evolved BY DESIGN. Genetic and evolutionary algorithms are great examples of this premise.Joe_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

@NickMatzke_UD: Not intelligence, but free will is necessary to create new information. See "Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will, and the Turing Test".JWTruthInLove_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
Please let us know when Meyer explains why the origin of new genes with new functions through normal processes of gene duplication, mutation, and natural selection doesn’t contradict his claim that the only way to get new information is through intelligent design.
Please let us know how you or anyone determined that gene duplications followed by function changing mutations, are blind and undirected chemical processes.Joe_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Watch the chaos happen as Meyer changes his argument in response to criticism: http://biologos.org/blog/on-deciphering-the-signature ...but, what is Meyer going to do in his Cambrian book? His favorite argument is always that information is caused by intelligence, but he's not going to be able to use the "I wasn't talking about biology" emergency escape card when it comes to the Cambrian.NickMatzke_UD_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT}

Please let us know when Meyer explains why the origin of new genes with new functions through normal processes of gene duplication, mutation, and natural selection doesn't contradict his claim that the only way to get new information is through intelligent design. He relies on a universal premise (conservation of information) which is extremely easy to show doesn't fit the evidence.NickMatzke_UD_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: I decided to also add a clip in which Meyer makes his argument in a nutshell. Notice the use of the concept of functionally specific complex information [FSCI], with particular reference to digital manifestations [dFSCI as GP so often abbreviates]. Also, I have added a flowchart of the per aspect design inference filter and a link to another video lecture by Meyer, on ID's scientific bona fides. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

F/N: I have updated the post by incorporating four key slides presented by Dr Meyer. These should help focus our attention on what is being argued and what is not being argued. KFkairosfocus_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT}

In the following video, Dr. Durston references a few recent papers, by people who are not particularly friendly to the ID position,
The Origin Of Life Requires Intelligence - Kirk Durston PhD - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/10335610
Those recent papers referenced by Dr. Durston, by people who are not particularly friendly to the ID position, dramatically underscore what Dr. Meyer refers to as the DNA Enigma,,,
The DNA Enigma - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs&feature=player_detailpage#t=1837s Quote: "The DNA enigma concerns, instead, the question of origins. The DNA enigma is about the origin of information and this mystery, the origin of this information, where did it come from? How did this DNA molecule aquire this precise sequencing that allows it to direct these mechanical operations? That's the key question." - Stephen Meyer
To focus in on that 'key question'. Where did the information come from? As Dr. Meyer further relates the enigma here,,,
“One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences.
And as Dr. Durston relates in the first video, and as Dr. Meyer relates in his lecture, it is not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from what we do know. We know for a fact that intelligence can produce functional information. And we know of no instances where chance and necessity processes have produced it.
Before They've Even Seen Stephen Meyer's New Book, Darwinists Waste No Time in Criticizing Darwin's Doubt - William A. Dembski - April 4, 2013 Excerpt: I explain all this in a nontechnical way in an article I posted at ENV a few months back titled "Conservation of Information Made Simple" (go here). ,,, ,,, Here are the two seminal papers on conservation of information that I've written with Robert Marks: "The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher-Level Search," Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics 14(5) (2010): 475-486 "Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success," IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics A, Systems & Humans, 5(5) (September 2009): 1051-1061 For other papers that Marks, his students, and I have done to extend the results in these papers, visit the publications page at www.evoinfo.org http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/04/before_theyve_e070821.html Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information - Abel, Trevors Excerpt: Three qualitative kinds of sequence complexity exist: random (RSC), ordered (OSC), and functional (FSC).,,, Shannon information theory measures the relative degrees of RSC and OSC. Shannon information theory cannot measure FSC. FSC is invariably associated with all forms of complex biofunction, including biochemical pathways, cycles, positive and negative feedback regulation, and homeostatic metabolism. The algorithmic programming of FSC, not merely its aperiodicity, accounts for biological organization. No empirical evidence exists of either RSC of OSC ever having produced a single instance of sophisticated biological organization. Organization invariably manifests FSC rather than successive random events (RSC) or low-informational self-ordering phenomena (OSC).,,, Testable hypotheses about FSC What testable empirical hypotheses can we make about FSC that might allow us to identify when FSC exists? In any of the following null hypotheses [137], demonstrating a single exception would allow falsification. We invite assistance in the falsification of any of the following null hypotheses: Null hypothesis #1 Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #2 Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #3 Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function. Null hypothesis #4 Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time. We repeat that a single incident of nontrivial algorithmic programming success achieved without selection for fitness at the decision-node programming level would falsify any of these null hypotheses. This renders each of these hypotheses scientifically testable. We offer the prediction that none of these four hypotheses will be falsified. http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29
But can we go further in answering 'the key question', 'Where did the information come from?', than just pointing out the fact that human intelligence is the only known cause of functional information in the universe. It turns out that advances in quantum mechanics does allow us to go further.,, Consciousness is found to be integral to quantum mechanics. Indeed,,
Quantum mind–body problem Parallels between quantum mechanics and mind/body dualism were first drawn by the founders of quantum mechanics including Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Niels Bohr, (Max Planck) and Eugene Wigner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind%E2%80%93body_problem "It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality" - Eugene Wigner - (Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, Eugene Wigner, in Wheeler and Zurek, p.169) 1961 - received Nobel Prize in 1963 for 'Quantum Symmetries'
In fact advances in quantum mechanics have now allowed the argument for God from consciousness to be framed like this:
1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit
Thus we have evidence that 'Mind' precedes material reality. But can we clarify the nature of this 'Mind'? It turns out that quantum mechanics once again sheds light on our question. The mysterious 'wave function' of quantum mechanics is described as a infinite dimensional state which takes a infinite amount of information to describe it properly,,,
Quantum Computing – Stanford Encyclopedia Excerpt: Theoretically, a single qubit can store an infinite amount of information, yet when measured (and thus collapsing the Quantum Wave state) it yields only the classical result (0 or 1),,, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantcomp/#2.1 Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Does the quantum wave function represent reality? April 2012 by Lisa Zyga Excerpt: “Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system's wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.” http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-function-reality.html
Thus we have evidence of consciousness being the 'ultimate universal reality', evidence that consciousness precedes the quantum wave collapse to its single bit state, and evidence that that consciousness which precedes wave collapse is associated/co-extensive with a infinite dimensional/infinite information reality. All that is pretty much the definition of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. Throw in the 'eternal' nature of special relativity at the speed of light, and the instantaneous nature of information transfer in quantum teleportation, then you have all the basic attributes of God wrapped up in this evidence.
John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made.
bornagain77_{April 21, 2013
April
04
Apr
21
21
2013
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply