Intelligent voltage

VS: Deer tracks are a reliable sign of deer walking by. FSCO/I, of intelligent designers acting -- as outlined in 19 and 22, sophomoric strawman games notwitstanding. KF kairosfocus

KF, Naaah , we showed such things routinely come about in our observation by blind chance and necessity . . . Are you saying a deer choose the shape of the imprint of his hoof? velikovskys

Axel, Velikovskys, do you believe that probably the smartest aggregate group of people in the world, the Jesuits and Domninicans rely on toast marks, cloud formations, etc, for their belief? First,having been taught by Jesuits for five years,high IQ does not seem to be a mandatory for membership in the order Second, as I recall St.Ignatius had his own toast moment with a divine apparition. Third, as I recall from catechism ,Jesuits rely on Faith. Or indeed, the unworldly but devout people who are wont to see such banal and, frankly, usually misshapen, phenomena as images of Christ or an angel or the like, depend on such for their faith? Hardly. While this has nothing to do with my point , are you saying that religious faith causes one to see patterns with religious content? They are looking for a little comfort and reassurance in a world that is no too well-disposed towards them, EXACTLY like you people Maybe they should complain to the Author of that world. although arguably less foolishly than you people – when you fantasize about fossil fragments, a multiverse, unquestionably intricately-designed items as being random assemblies of parts that only look as if they were designed, as a whole and in their parts. At least get it straight, the assumption of methodological naturalism is that the design we see is created by natural processes, your BELIEF is that it requires an external agent as a primary cause. Those Intelligent Jesuit accept the the divine is capable of working thru those processes of nature to reach His goals, therefore evolution and natural processes are compatible. You apparently believe that the divine is incapable of acting as a secondary cause Never mind that empirical science is supposed to be ‘what it says on the packet’, i.e. that it relates to a study of entities materially substantial enough to be measured by some means. Then that would exclude any divine participation, correct? YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE!!! Yet you are entertained on here – all right, covertly as jesters – as if you were more worldly-wise than the toast-mark and cloud-shape people! Mildly entertained, again you miss the point. If the only criterion for something to be designed is to look designed(per niwrad) then there is an organizing source for the image of Jesus on toast. velikovskys

niwrad 39 What I find amazing is that the cell encodes information in the dynamics of the noise. anthropic

groovamos #35 Also thermal noise currents imply a noise voltage generator. The thermal agitation of the charge carriers in the matter causes this noise voltage (typically 1nV for 50 Ohm at room temperature). So, the electric model continues to hold, of course. In general noise fluctuations of all kinds belong to "randomness", which is able to cause neither ordered electric current nor -- much less -- organizational information. niwrad

Evolve #29

You have to define your designer first, lay down its/his/her’s properties, predict what it/he/she is likely to do and then look for tell tale signs of his handiwork.

For a mere design inference it is not necessary to perfectly know the designer. Before a computer also a layman, without knowing informatics and how programmers work, understands it is designed. Likewise, to claim that the electricity in your home is powered by a generator, you have not to know it in detail. Do you know all of the electric power station powering your area? Nevertheless you can affirm with certainty that your home electricity has a source. niwrad

Sorry, I am having troubling copying the site. It is from 3 July 2014. Maybe this will work: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140703151823.htm anthropic

And the beat goes on... ScienceDaily site http://www.sciencedaily.com/re... in an article titled "New Discovery in Living Cell Signalling"........ EXCERPT The cellular signaling networks of living cells start with receptor proteins residing on a cell's surface that detect and interact with the environment. Signals from these receptors are transmitted to chemical networks within the cell that process the incoming information, make decisions, and direct subsequent cellular activities. "Although cellular signaling networks perform logical operations like a computer microprocessor, they do not operate in the same way," Groves says. "The individual computational steps in a standard computer are deterministic;the outcome is determined by the inputs. For the chemical reactions that compose a cellular signaling network, however, the molecular level outcomes are defined by probabilities only. This means that the same input can lead to different outcomes." For cellular signaling networks involving large numbers of protein molecules, the outcome can be directly determined by the process of averaging. Even though the behavior of an individual protein is intrinsically variable, the average behavior from a large group of identical proteins is precisely determined by molecular level probabilities. Ras activation in a living cell, however, involves a relatively small number of SOS molecules, making it impossible to average the variable behavior of the individual molecules. This variation is referred to as stochastic "noise" and has been widely viewed by scientists as an error a cell must overcome. "Our study showed that, in fact, an important aspect of the SOS signal that activates Ras is encoded in the noise," says Groves. "The protein's dynamic fluctuations between different states of activity transmit information, which means we have found a regulatory coupling in a protein signaling reaction that is entirely based on dynamics, without any trace of the signal being seen in the average behavior." END EXCERPT Note that the signal is encoded in what was considered erroneous "noise." Just as "junk" DNA that supposedly served no purpose is increasingly found to have function. Prediction: The more we know about biology, the less "noise" and "junk" will be found. The "Evolution of the gaps" will become smaller and smaller as science advances. anthropic

In the second figure, there is a current flow, it is Gaussian statistical noise current proportional to R and T, R includes the conductor. This is termed Johnson or thermal noise and you can look up the spectral density. Johnson noise spectral density fits the curve it does because it is the low end range of blackbody radiation, and so that is why the spectral density can be calculated by the well know blackbody radiation formula. Which would show why the spectral density is independent of R, just as blackbody spectrum is independent of surface area. groovamos

Sorry on a messed up b-quote kairosfocus

Ev: Passed by, saw this . . . I doubt you realise the inadvertent force of what you are saying:

Because deer tracks match the feet of deers – well known entities. We can say with near certainty that it belongs to a deer and not to a horse, because a strong correlation can be made. Now what feature of life links it to which designer?/blockquote> Let's see, just what is it that cell-based life exhibits again that is a highly characteristic mark of design per inductive examination and the config space search challenge? Let me guess . . . . a'hm, ah'm . . . could it be: --> Functionally specific complex organisation and associated information? --> Digital codes (i.e. discrete state)? --> Algorithms? --> Implementing engines adapted to process said coded algorithmic info, constituting numerically controlled machines . . . such as ribosomes that assemble proteins on tRNA tape instructions, step by step according to a code? Naaah , we showed such things routinely come about in our observation by blind chance and necessity . . . Like when? ah'm, ahem . . . oops. As in, you tried a bluff, right? Bluff called. There is one observed, analytically plausible source of FSCO/I. Design? Yup. And so when we see traces from the remote past reflecting FSCO/I, what is the only actually inductively sound basis for explaining such? (As in, again -- probably for the first time, kindly cf here.) Gulp . . . design . . . ? Prezactly. But, but you can't identify a specific designer, gotcha! Did we ever claim that the design inference fingers a given designer, any more than presence and action of accelerants fingers a specific arsonist? A'm . . . no? Yup, we didn't. And so you tried to set up and knock over a strawman. That's not Cricket. KF PS: Axel, I was taught in HS by Jesuits, and you are right, they are quite a sharp group.

kairosfocus

Velikovskys, do you believe that probably the smartest aggregate group of people in the world, the Jesuits and Domninicans rely on toast marks, cloud formations, etc, for their belief? Or indeed, the unworldly but devout people who are wont to see such banal and, frankly, usually misshapen, phenomena as images of Christ or an angel or the like, depend on such for their faith? Hardly. They are looking for a little comfort and reassurance in a world that is no too well-disposed towards them, EXACTLY like you people - although arguably less foolishly than you people - when you fantasize about fossil fragments, a multiverse, unquestionably intricately-designed items as being random assemblies of parts that only look as if they were designed, as a whole and in their parts. Never mind that empirical science is supposed to be 'what it says on the packet', i.e. that it relates to a study of entities materially substantial enough to be measured by some means. YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE!!! Yet you are entertained on here - all right, covertly as jesters - as if you were more worldly-wise than the toast-mark and cloud-shape people! Axel

Now you''ve confused him again, KF!!! Axel

Evolve objects:

You have to define your designer first, lay down its/his/her’s properties, predict what it/he/she is likely to do and then look for telltale signs of his handiwork.

The materialistic/naturalistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several 'natural' contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another to see which worldview is correct: here are a few predictions tested against each other:

1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago. 2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence. 3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. - 4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) - 5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (M. Denton).- 6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez). - 7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geo-chemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photo-synthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. - 8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. - 10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)– 12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. - 13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 14. Naturalism/Materialism predicted morality is subjective and illusory. Theism predicted morality is objective and real. Morality is found to be deeply embedded in the genetic responses of humans. As well, morality is found to be deeply embedded in the structure of the universe. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening. 15. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’ (cannot be created or destroyed) ‘non-local’, beyond space-time matter-energy, quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale.

Supplemental quote:

An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe. Galileo Galilei

bornagain77

Because deer tracks match the feet of deers - well known entities. We can say with near certainty that it belongs to a deer and not to a horse, because a strong correlation can be made. Now what feature of life links it to which designer? You have to define your designer first, lay down its/his/her's properties, predict what it/he/she is likely to do and then look for telltale signs of his handiwork. That's what we do to identify deer tracks or dinosaur tracks or man-made tools. You're doing nothing of this sort, yet calling ID science! Evolve

PS: I'll give you one hint. If you see deer tracks, but did not see a deer, why is it reasonable to at least consider that tracks point to deer? Generalise that to inductive inference on tested sign. kairosfocus

niwrad: Analogously, there is no need to see the designer if I see a design. Somewhere an organization source must exist. Just as those who see Jesus on a piece of toast infer an external designer beyond nature velikovskys

Ev: You have more than adequate evidence and inductive reasoning before you already. I suggest a pause, stopping the head-tape repetitive playing of selectively hyperskeptical talking points, and a rethink. Sorry if that sounds short and sharpish, but at this point this weekend I am not going to go into a loop of repeated efforts to get the proverbial unwilling horse to drink. You got adequate evidence once, and that's enough. KF kairosfocus

Evolve There is no need to see by eyes the voltage generator if I see a current flowing in a load. It is certain that somewhere the generator exists. The laws of electricity grant the inference. Analogously, there is no need to see the designer if I see a design. Somewhere an organization source must exist. niwrad

Kairosfocus, ///If electricity is observable, so are designers, to at least a comparable extent. Such as ourselves and beavers. /// Humans produce skyscrapers. Okay. Beavers produce beaver dams. Okay. But that wouldn’t mean somebody produced the grand canyon. You must be able to relate a particular phenomenon with a particular cause. You cannot say that since A was responsible for B, C must be responsible for D. Observation is critical here. Humans and Beavers are known identities who have been observed to produce some objects. We further observe that man-made objects can be strictly correlated with humans, since those objects don't exist without humans and they cannot arise or sustain themselves without intervention by their designers. Thus there is a lot of physical evidence linking man-made objects with their designers. But, as far as we can see, living things grow, sustain and evolve all by themselves, without any external intervention. No physical evidence links living things to any designer whatsoever. Now, observation doesn’t mean we have to see facts in the here and now. For e.g: we don’t have to see an electron to link it with electricity. We can observe its effect on the surroundings, infer its properties, then make testable predictions based on those properties and check whether our predictions are vindicated. We can measure the effect of an electron and chart its course. Thus, even without seeing the electron, we can pin it down to a set of principles. But no such thing is possible for your intelligent designer. No physical evidence exists for his presence. Nothing can be inferred about him or his properties, either directly or indirectly. No testable predictions can be made. Your designer cannot be pinned down to a set of principles. As such, intelligent design is not a scientific endeavour by any stretch of imagination. Evolve

PS: If you want to see some'at on how one may build a reasonable theistic view try here on. Dis duppy leanin' 'pon de fence does say: BOO! kairosfocus

Ev, in re:

Your intelligent designer has never been observed, studied or tested. It is just a figment of imagination.

BA77 reminded me that when design objectors dismiss intelligent designers working in the context of origins as figments of imagination, they primarily have in mind God. To whom they tend to be extremely hostile. Let's set a few things straight: 1 --> Inference to design on the world of life is not equal to inference to God as designer of that world. 2 --> Yes, NOT. Freely conceded by design thinkers since Thaxton et al in TMLO in 1984. That's the FIRST technical ID book. (As in it's not wise to get your understanding of ID from circles of critics who are not scrupulous on duties of care to accuracy, truth and fairness. NCSE et al, this means YOU . . . on copious documentation.) 3 --> As I have OFTEN stated, what we see in the world of cell based life on earth could be adequately accounted for on an advanced molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al. Who are already showing that design of life forms is actuality not speculation. 4 --> By contrast there is no sound empirical evidence that FSCO/I -- ubiquitous in cell based life, up to and including CODES and ALGORITHMS and nanomachines to execute same -- is adequately accounted for on blind chance and mechanical necessity. (Again, cf. here.) 5 --> The real issue that points to design beyond our cosmos is cosmological fine tuning that sets up a world in which the first four most abundant elements across 90 bn LY worth of space are H, He, O and C with N coming close. Stars, the elements, Water, Organic Chemistry, proteins. Just like that, bang bang bang bang bang. You should be suspicious! 6 --> Or, as lifelong agnostic and Nobel-equivalent prize-holding Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle said on the record:

Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” [[Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture[ --> Jan 12th 1982]), Enslow Publishers, 1982, pg. 28.] From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 MeV energy level in the nucleus of 12 C to the 7.12 MeV level in 16 O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? . . . I am inclined to think so. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. [F. Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16] The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn’t give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem – the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn’t convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes – by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix . . . . I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. ["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]

7 --> Never heard of that before, or a LOT more like it -- not even the joke about Sir Fred Hoyle, agnostic lead evangelist of the First Church of God, Big Bang at Caltech, no less? [cf. here and onwards) -- did you? That's likely, and you should be deeply suspicious about why you have not heard that. 8 --> Even through a multiverse speculation, given the narrowness of the operating point of our cosmos' physics we are looking at serious evidence pointing to a tack-driving cosmos-building sharpshooter. 9 --> And as for pulling a cosmos out of a non-existent hat labelled nothing . . . see what happened to CRD on that here. Let's just say, there is a whole 'nother side to the story. KF kairosfocus

PS: Pardon, EMF means elecro-motive force, e.g. a solar cell, electrochemical battery of cells, or electromagnetic induction using alternator driven by a prime mover. EMF is such a dominant abbreviation I forgot to expand it. kairosfocus

Evolve claims

"(God) is just a figment of imagination"

Which is an interesting claim for a Darwinisan atheist to make since,,

"Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination" Dr. Michael Behe - 29:24 mark of following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=s6XAXjiyRfM#t=1762s

and

EVOLUTIONARY JUST-SO STORIES Excerpt: ,,,The term “just-so story” was popularized by Rudyard Kipling’s 1902 book by that title which contained fictional stories for children. Kipling says the camel got his hump as a punishment for refusing to work, the leopard’s spots were painted on him by an Ethiopian, and the kangaroo got its powerful hind legs after being chased all day by a dingo. Kipling’s just-so stories are as scientific as the Darwinian accounts of how the amoeba became a man. Lacking real scientific evidence for their theory, evolutionists have used the just-so story to great effect. Backed by impressive scientific credentials, the Darwinian just-so story has the aura of respectability. Biologist Michael Behe observes: “Some evolutionary biologists--like Richard Dawkins--have fertile imaginations. Given a starting point, they almost always can spin a story to get to any biological structure you wish” (Darwin’s Black Box).,,, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/evolutionary_just_so_stories.html

It seems that since all Darwinian evidence turns out to be merely imagination, then Darwinists would be in prime position to endorse god if he were imaginary. But alas, since God is not imaginary, but upholds the universe in it continued existence, then it must be the 'material' which is ultimately 'imaginary', (i.e. illusory), when compared to God! And that is exactly what modern science reveals:

Bohemian Gravity - Rob Sheldon - September 19, 2013 Excerpt: Quanta magazine carried an article about a hypergeometric object that is as much better than Feynman diagrams as Feynman was better than Heisenberg's S-matrices. But the discoverers are candid about it, "The amplituhedron, or a similar geometric object, could help by removing two deeply rooted principles of physics: locality and unitarity. “Both are hard-wired in the usual way we think about things,” said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., and the lead author of the new work, which he is presenting in talks and in a forthcoming paper. “Both are suspect.”" What are these suspect principles? None other than two of the founding principles of materialism--that there do not exist "spooky-action-at-a-distance" forces, and that material causes are the only ones in the universe.,,, http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/bohemian-gravity/ "As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck - The Father Of Quantum Mechanics - Das Wesen der Materie [The Nature of Matter], speech at Florence, Italy (1944) (from Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Abt. Va, Rep. 11 Planck, Nr. 1797)(Of Note: Max Planck Planck was a devoted Christian from early life to death, was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck “I’m going to talk about the Bell inequality, and more importantly a new inequality that you might not have heard of called the Leggett inequality, that was recently measured. It was actually formulated almost 30 years ago by Professor Leggett, who is a Nobel Prize winner, but it wasn’t tested until about a year and a half ago (in 2007), when an article appeared in Nature, that the measurement was made by this prominent quantum group in Vienna led by Anton Zeilinger, which they measured the Leggett inequality, which actually goes a step deeper than the Bell inequality and rules out any possible interpretation other than consciousness creates reality when the measurement is made.” – Bernard Haisch, Ph.D., Calphysics Institute, is an astrophysicist and author of over 130 scientific publications. The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Colossians 1:17 "He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

bornagain77

Ev: 1 --> What drives an electric ckt is EMF, an electricity pump, that uses an energy source to separate charges that flow around a loop through a load. 2 --> Electric charge carriers, especially electrons, are invisible . . . we visualise based on effects only credibly accountable through such. 3 --> If electricity is observable, so are designers, to at least a comparable extent. Such as ourselves and beavers. 4 --> Further to this, we can characterise causal factors and trace their consequences, such as blind mechanical necessity manifesting laws similar to F = m*a, and blind chance processes leading to credibly undirected contingency. 5 --> It is easy to see that such cannot credibly account for functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I. Such as, the text of posts in this thread. 6 --> Only one causal factor is seen to be adequate, and is plausible on blind sampling of very large associated config spaces -- design. Which strongly tends to come with intelligent designers. 7 --> Kindly cf info-graphic and discussion here. 8 --> So, we are empirically entitled to confidently infer from FSCO/I as sign, to design as credible cause. 9 --> Now, too, you say:

Your intelligent designer has never been observed, studied or tested. It is just a figment of imagination.

10 --> More accurately, the remote past of origins is not observable, we see only traces. We must infer to an explanatory model on inductive inference to best explanation. 11 --> Where, the vera causa principle that we explain traces in light of observed adequate and characteristic cause obtains. Where, too, the only empirically observed, search challenge plausible cause of FSCO/I is design. 12 --> So, we are fully entitled to infer on sign to design as causal process that then points to designers as sources of designs. Pretty much as we do not dismiss electrons as figments of imagination. KF kairosfocus

Perhaps 'ex nihilo creationism' would haven a more correct way of expressing it. Axel

Don't forget Tesla. Unintelligent Designers are a cult, pure and simple. As they are on the basis of their belief in Ex Nihilo Creationism - just in case we wanted to give them the benefit of any doubt. Thoughtful of them, really. I wonder what survival value such apparent philanthropy will give them? Axel

Evolve, how's that for quote mining? ???? inunison

Evolve @13 "Therefore, an intelligent designer is required to produce information! It doesn’t work for me." Evidently! inunison

Of trivia note, electricity was harnessed by a counter-intuitive 'top down' approach, not by a bottom up materialistic approach

Excerpt: Maxwell set the theoretical foundations of electric field theory in 1873. He says at the outset of his treatise, "Before I began the study of electricity I resolved to read no mathematics on the subject until I had first read [Faraday]." That's an innocent enough remark until you follow it through. You see, Faraday's pioneering work had made little sense to mathematicians. So Maxwell, a great mathematician himself, systematically went back and climbed inside Faraday' s head. There he found a great garden of delights. Here's what he said about the experience: I found that ... Faraday's methods ... begin with the whole and arrive at the parts by analysis, while the ordinary mathematical methods were founded on the principle of beginning with the parts and building up the whole by synthesis. http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi905.htm

bornagain77