Imagine! Serious discussions. And none of that “we’re the voice of Science!” bilge.
Richard Buggs on the non-Darwinian way genes behave:
A SERIES OF PAPERS from Peter Holland’s lab at the University of Oxford and the lab of his former postdoc Jordi Paps at the University of Bristol investigate patterns of gene presence and absence in plants and animals. These patterns are described in terms of gene gains and losses within a bifurcating phylogeny whose topology is derived from other sources. The authors make the assumption that each gene can be gained only once, but can be lost multiple times.
The four studies find that organisms with different morphologies possess different sets of genes. Given that genes provide much of the information encoding the morphology of living organisms, this finding may not seem a surprise. That novel genes do not accumulate with Darwinian gradualism in the phylogeny is perhaps more surprising. The authors describe bursts of innovation: upon the origin of placental mammals, 357 novel genes; upon the origin of the metazoan, 1,189 novel genes; upon the origin of the land plants, 1,167 novel genes; and upon the origin of the flowering plants, 2,525 novel genes.
Equally surprising is evidence that the patterns of presence and absence of many genes in these studies do not form a nested hierarchy congruent with the accepted phylogeny…
Excerpt: All four studies under review found massive gene losses for phylogenetic nodes at the base of the major groups of living organisms. This suggests that major evolutionary transitions do not occur solely by means of tinkering with existing genes. Instead, it seems that vast numbers of existing genes are jettisoned and replaced by entirely different ones. Such processes would represent a radical overhaul in the genetic composition of organisms. How this might be accomplished is another mystery.
Richard Buggs, “The Origin of Novel Genes” at Inference Review
James Shapiro (the self-organization theorist), reviewing Henry Heng’s Genome Chaos
Genome Chaos is a book of no small ambition. Based on his experience in cancer cytogenetics, Henry Heng invites readers to rethink the role of the genome in determining the hereditary properties of cells and organisms. He distinguishes between gene-centric and genome-based views of heredity and argues that the physical organization of the genome incorporates a higher systems level of information beyond its genes or coding sequences. For Heng, genes are rather like a parts list capable of encoding proteins and RNAs that can be assembled and used in many different ways to produce cells and organisms with quite distinct properties. In making his argument, Heng challenges a number of notions about the genotype–phenotype relationship.
James Shapiro, “From Genes to Genomes” at Inference Review
Lawrence Krauss, trashing fine-tuning of the universe:
We are either alone in the universe, or we are not. If we are, then we have essentially won a cosmic lottery. Of the billions of planets in our galaxy, and the billions of galaxies in the universe, a series of conditions arose allowing roughly four billion years of quiescent evolution, interrupted by periodic catastrophes—like the meteor that sixty five million years ago wiped out the dinosaurs—that altered the course of evolution but did not exterminate life. If we find we are alone in the universe, or at least find no evidence for life anywhere else, does this suggest that the universe was created for us? It would seem an awful waste of space. To design a whole universe requiring over 100 billion galaxies, each containing 100 billion stars lasting over 13 billion years, just to allow the evolution of one species on one planet less than a million years ago seems like a remarkably inefficient design.
An intelligent designer could have done better, would have done better, and should have done better. Similar biological arguments apply to the poor design of humans.
Larry Krauss, “Cosmology Without Design” at Inference Review
Hey, it’s all free too. Read, think, and make up your own mind while you still can.
Added and in combox at 10 below:
Some of us were glad to see that Krauss was given a chance to say his piece at Inference Review because recently, after getting Canceled himself, he has started to speak out against Cancel Culture. See “Larry Krauss returns as a free speech champion.“
No, he’s no hero. But whatever the justice of accusations against him (to the best of our knowledge they do not involve convictions for criminal activity):
So where are we? If Krauss is the ass many take him for, it won’t be hard to bring him down by honorable methods in a fair fight. If not, his personal issues are not a defeater of sound arguments he might make.
To think otherwise is to give up on the intellectual life. And many have. Many, many university claques today keep several civil rights groups for academics busy around the clock.
See also: Seem to recall that an aggrieved author tried to Cancel Inference Review at Undark and got nowhere. Not then anyhow.
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
To Larry Kraus:
Yes, perhaps in our limited and hubris understanding of the infinite interrelationships that are required for life, perhaps “To design a whole universe requiring over 100 billion galaxies, each containing 100 billion stars lasting over 13 billion years, just to allow the evolution of one species on one planet less than a million years ago seems like a remarkably inefficient design..”
But it does reflect a designer whose love for that one species that is infinite. Nothing was spared on our behalf.
>”seems like a remarkably inefficient design…An intelligent designer could have done better, would have done better, and should have done better.”
Yes, thanks Larry for the tired old argument. When you have a moment, please fill in the hidden/missing premises, starting with how you know God’s full purposes in creating, such that you could know our universe was a waste. You are arguing from a non-theistic basis and it shows.
Krauss is just dumb. No other word for it. I don’t care if he was canceled for right reasons or wrong reasons, he’s always been dumb. Any journal that presents his work as scholarship is not worth reading.
Uhmm… “Inefficient” respect to what? An infinite being has no shortage of materials.
And according to dumb atheists, human reasoning can’t be trusted, so why should intelligent people care about their inane utterances? Poor, very poor, kindergarten philosophy.
Interesting, in the first two articles that News listed by Richard Buggs and James Shapiro, Darwinian evolution is directly undermined by the scientific evidence itself.
Yet, in the third paper by Larry Krauss, Krauss argues for Darwinian evolution, not directly from the scientific evidence mind you, but mainly from his own a-proiri Theistic beliefs about what God should and shouldn’t do in the universe, and that, in his personal opinion, both the universe and humans reflect poor design, and therefore, according to Krauss’s a-priori Theistic beliefs about what God should and shouldn’t do,, the universe and humans cannot possibly be the product of intelligent design in Krauss’s view.
This Theistically based ‘bad design’ argument that Krauss is using has been around for a long time. In fact, the Theistically based ‘bad design;’ argument, along with several other Theistically based arguments, was used by Darwin himself in his book ‘Origin of Species’.
To this day, as Krauss himself proves in his article, Atheists are still primarily dependent, not on scientific evidence mind you, but are primarily dependent on Theological argumentation in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution.
The funny thing about the Atheist’s dependence on (faulty) Theological premises is that, according to atheists themselves, theology supposedly has no place in science.
Moreover, the Theology that Atheist’s are using in their ‘bad design’ arguments is exceedingly simplistic in its structure.
It is a exceedingly simplistic Theology that no self respecting Theologian/Minister would be caught dead trying to put forth to his congregation.
In short, Atheists are putting forth a ‘strawman’ characterization’ of God, and then knocking over that strawman characterization of God that they put forth, and then declaring that their atheism, therefore, must be true since their strawman characterization of God is obviously false.
Moreover, besides their own dependence of faulty Theological presuppositions refuting their claim that modern science is based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism, the fact of the matter is that ALL of science, everything nook and cranny of it, is based on Theistic presuppositions and modern science is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism as atheist’s often like to falsely claim.
In fact, although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:
Contrary to what atheists want to believe, it would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than methodological naturalism and/or reductive materialism have turned out to be.
Thus in conclusion, Krauss’s theologically based argument from ‘bad design’ crashes down in on itself in that, number one, Krauss cannot escape the fact that he himself is dependent on (faulty) Theological presuppositions in order to try to make his argument for atheism, and, number two, all of modern science is crucially dependent on Theistic presuppositions. Moreover if we remove those essential Theistic presuppositions that modern science is crucially dependent on, then all of modern science, as well as as our own understanding of ourselves, winds up in catastrophic epistemological failure.
As Thomas Nagel stated in his book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False”,,,, “If materialism cannot accommodate consciousness and other mind-related aspects of reality, then we must abandon a purely materialist understanding of nature in general, extending to biology, evolutionary theory, and cosmology.”
I would get into the science of exactly why the earth and humanity are unique in the universe, and perhaps I will later, but suffice it for now to say that Larry Krauss (and every other atheist on the face of earth), needs God in order to even be able to argue against Him in the first place.
As Van Til pointed out, a child to may slap his father’s in the face but the child can only do so because the father first holds the child on his knee.
5 Bornagain77
Atheism is a non-sensical worldview. The “bad design” argument is a fallacious appeal to emotions aimed at intellectually immature people.
Atheists are (paradoxically) obsessed with God and religion.
Here is an excerpt from an article I wrote a few years back countering the poor design argument:
” . . . Take an evening out and partake in one of those wonderful choral and orchestra performances taking place all around the world at any given time – I would recommend Handel’s Messiah for this exercise.
As you are watching and listing to this amazing musical performance I would like you to notice and watch a number of things very carefully.
First the hands – the hands and body motions of the conductor, as well as his facial expressions and body movements as he leads the choir and orchestra through this magnificent musical piece.
Continuing with the hands — watch the hands, and in particular the fingers of the orchestra members as they travel across the various instruments – the sting section, the brass section, the woodwinds — the piano. Watch carefully as their hands precisely match the direction given by the conductor. Watch as the fingers subtly, and at times strongly tease the music from their instruments.
And note the various musical instruments — envisioned, designed and created by many beautifully designed and created hands and fingers.
Next the choral voices – listen as these beautiful voices blend together perfectly with the orchestra, and watch the faces and mouths as they blend perfectly with the hands of the conductor and with the orchestra.
Next listen and pay attention to your own reaction as message of the words and music bring excitement and inspiration into your heart and soul. … ”
The full article is at:
https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/the-not-so-intelligent-designer/
from the original article at Inference:
“The four studies find that organisms with different morphologies possess different sets of genes. Given that genes provide much of the information encoding the morphology of living organisms, this finding may not seem a surprise. That novel genes do not accumulate with Darwinian gradualism in the phylogeny is perhaps more surprising. ”
let me repeat this part:
“… That novel genes do not accumulate with Darwinian gradualism in the phylogeny is perhaps more surprising.”
yes, indeed… so i was wondering, where the original genes come from … it looks more and more like a devolution/degradation of once created species/genomes …
full article (let me remind you, Inference is a mainstream website):
https://inference-review.com/article/the-origin-of-novel-genes
and let me continue (from the original article at Inference)
(this is so funny when a mainstream scientists publish something like the following)
“The authors describe bursts of innovation: upon the origin of placental mammals, 357 novel genes; upon the origin of the metazoan, 1,189 novel genes; upon the origin of the land plants, 1,167 novel genes; and upon the origin of the flowering plants, 2,525 novel genes…”
and it continues,
“Equally surprising is evidence that the patterns of presence and absence of many genes in these studies do not form a nested hierarchy congruent with the accepted phylogeny. ”
and, here we go again – UNEXPECTED, SURPRISING and so on, these are very frequent words in Darwinians-papers
“The unexpected nature of these findings was not lost on the authors of the studies, nor the editors of the journals that published their manuscripts. Three of the paper titles emphasize unexpected novelty and one emphasizes unexpected loss. But all four show similar patterns. More is revealed in each than a single title can convey.”
full article (let me remind you, Inference is a mainstream website):
https://inference-review.com/article/the-origin-of-novel-genes
Some of us were glad to see that Krauss was given a chance to say his piece at Inference Review because recently, after getting Canceled himself, he has started to speak out against Cancel Culture. See Larry Krauss returns as a free speech champion.
No, he’s no hero. But whatever the justice of accusations against him (to the best of our knowledge they do not involve convictions for criminal activity):
So where are we? If Krauss is the ass many take him for, it won’t be hard to bring him down by honorable methods in a fair fight. If not, his personal issues are not a defeater of sound arguments he might make.
To think otherwise is to give up on the intellectual life. And many have. Many, many university claques today keep several civil rights groups for academics busy around the clock.
It’s fine that Larry has his own opinion on the matter it is kind of annoying when he does voice inadequate design that’s a very annoying argument because it’s not possible for him to create something better
But having a discussion between a bunch of people and voicing each other’s opinions is absolutely fine and it’s nice seeing a discussion and not seeing Richard Dawkins flipping out or some other raging atheist being angry at religion
Richard Buggs writes,
“This suggests that major evolutionary transitions do not occur solely by means of tinkering with existing genes. Instead, it seems that vast numbers of existing genes are jettisoned and replaced by entirely different ones. Such processes would represent a radical overhaul in the genetic composition of organisms. How this might be accomplished is another mystery.”
This is remarkably like a model for Intelligent Design process that I speculated about in:
https://thopid.blogspot.com/2020/03/a-model-for-intelligent-designevolution.html
Obviously, paring the starting genome and adding hundreds of new genes at various points in time during the past few billion years is clear evidence of ID at work!
Krauss claimed that
In post 5 I pointed out that Krauss is dependent on (faulty) Theological presuppositions about what God should or shouldn’t do in order to try to make his argument that the universe, (and humans), reflect inefficient and poor design rather than reflecting intelligent design.
In post 5, I also pointed out that the argument is blatantly self refuting in that “Larry Krauss (and every other atheist on the face of earth), apparently needs God in order to even be able to argue against Him in the first place.”
What I did not do in post 5 is touch on the science. I just focused on the blatantly self-refuting nature of the (faulty) theological arguments that Krauss and other atheists constantly try to use to try to make their case for atheism.
In this post I would like rectify that situation and touch upon the science itself so as to further refute Krauss’s claim that the universe and humans reflect inefficient and poor design rather than intelligent design.
In his claim that the universe, if it were created for us, is “an awful waste of space’, Krauss is playing off the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
The Copernican principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, was derived from Copernican heliocentrism and is the assumption that there is nothing very unusual or very special about the earth in general or about humanity in particular in this universe:
And the Copernican principle, (and/or the principle of mediocrity), is one of the two main ‘supposed’ scientific evidences, (the false narrative of human evolution being the other ‘supposed’ scientific evidence), that atheists have appealed to try to claim that man has no reason to believe his life may have any higher purpose, meaning, value, or significance, in this universe.
For one instance out of many instances, in 1995 the late Stephen Hawking, (who was an atheist himself), bluntly stated “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can’t believe the whole universe exists for our benefit.,,,”
And yet, despite the fact that virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, the fact of the matter is that the Copernican Principal is now shown, via our most powerful theories in science, to be a false assumption.
The reason why virtually everyone, including the vast majority of Christians, hold that the Copernican Principle is unquestionably true, is, of course, because everyone firmly believes that it is an undeniably proven fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Yet, Copernicus never did prove that the geocentric model was wrong:
Moreover, General Relativity itself does not care if we choose the earth, or the sun, or any other place
in the universe, as the central point for our model of the universe.
As Stephen Hawking himself explained, ‘our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.,,, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.’
And as George Ellis stated, “I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations… You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds…”
And as Fred Hoyle stated, “Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
And even as Einstein himself stated, The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems].”
There simply is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe.
As Einstein himself noted,
Here are a few more notes backing up the claim that there is no empirical reason to prefer the sun, or any other place in the universe, as being central in the universe over and above the earth being considered central in the universe, in any model that we may choose to make for the universe.
In fact, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, in the 4 dimensional spacetime of Einstein’s General Relativity, we find that each 3-Dimensional point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe,,,
,,, and since any 3-Dimensional point can be considered central in the expanding 4-Dimensional space time of General Relativity, then, as the following articles make clear, it is now left completely open to whomever is making a model of the universe to decide for themselves what is to be considered central in the universe,,,
In fact, according to the four-dimensional space-time of General Relativity, even individual people can be considered central in the universe,,,
,,, In fact, when Einstein first formulated both Special and General relativity, he gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe.
We will get back to observers being central in the universe in a little while, but before we do that, and to more firmly establish that the earth, (and solar system itself) should be given a ‘privileged’ position in the universe, it is first necessary to point out that anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), (anomalies that were recently discovered by the WMAP and Planck telescopes), ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system,
At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system
And here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR that ‘unexpectedly’ line up with the earth and solar system in an easy to understand manner.
Moreover, due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the flatness of the universe being fine-tuned to within one part to the 10^57, we find that “These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.”
And we find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:
Thus, contrary to the presumptions of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of randomness as they presuppose, the temperature variations in the CMBR correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and that these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”. Moreover, we were only able to discover this correlation between the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR and the largest scale structures in the universe via the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being fine-tuned to at least 1 in 10^57 as measured for its flatness.
Atheists simply have no reason to presuppose the universe to be ‘insanely’ flat, or to be any other particular topology, whereas Theists do have a very good reason to presuppose the universe to be flat.
In other words, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, (from the large scale structures in the universe, to the earth and solar system themselves), reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan), that specifically included the earth from the start. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed,,,.
On top of all that, and the further support the claim that ‘the universe had humans in mind all along’, in the following paper, Robin Collins found that photons coming from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are ‘such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.’
To further empirically establish humanity’s centrality in the universe in particular, in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.
Whereas Dr. William Demski, in the following graph, gives a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.
Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.
Now let’s get back to observers themselves being central in the universe.
Whereas Einstein, when he first formulated both Special and General Relativity, gave a ‘hypothetical’ observer a privileged frame of reference in which to make measurements in the universe, In Quantum Mechanics we find that it is the measurement itself that gives each observer a privileged frame of reference in the universe.
As the following article states, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”,,,
Likewise, the following violation of Leggett’s inequality stressed ‘the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.’
Moreover, this recent 2019 experimental confirmation of the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment established that “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
Because of such consistent and repeatable experiments like the preceding from quantum mechanics, Richard Conn Henry, who is Professor of Physics at John Hopkins University, stated “It is more than 80 years since the discovery of quantum mechanics gave us the most fundamental insight ever into our nature: the overturning of the Copernican Revolution, and the restoration of us human beings to centrality in the Universe.”
On top of all that, and completely contrary to the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, in quantum mechanics we find that humans, (via their free will), are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.
As Steven Weinberg, who is an atheist himself, stated in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within.
Yet, regardless of how Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
As leading experimentalist Anton Zeilinger states in the following video, “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
As well, with contextuality, (which is referred to as the ‘magic ingredient’ of quantum computing), we find that, “In the quantum world, the property that you discover through measurement is not the property that the system actually had prior to the measurement process. What you observe necessarily depends on how you carried out the observation”
As well, although there have been several major loopholes in quantum mechanics over the past several decades that atheists have tried to appeal to in order to try to avoid the ‘spooky’ Theistic implications of quantum mechanics, over the past several years each of those major loopholes have each been closed one by one. The last major loophole that was left to be closed was the “setting independence” and/or the ‘free-will’ loophole:
And now Anton Zeilinger and company have recently, as of 2018, pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Thus regardless of how Steven Weinberg and other atheists may prefer the universe to behave, with the closing of the last remaining free will loophole in quantum mechanics, it is empirically demonstrated that “humans are indeed brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”, and thus these recent findings from quantum mechanics directly undermine, as Weinberg himself stated, the “vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.”
As well, as should be needless to say, this is yet another VERY powerful line of empirical evidence that directly falsifies the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity since humans themselves are shown to have far, far, more significance, value, and dignity in this universe than atheists tried to imply that we had via the Copernican Principle. As I noted earlier, Stephen Hawking himself once claimed that humans are “chemical scum” via the Copernican principle.
One final note, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ resurrection from the dead, the following recent article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Verse:
Thus in conclusion,
Although Krauss, and others, may find his (faulty and self-refuting) theological argument persuasive, the fact of the matter is that science itself, in overwhelming fashion, falsifies Krauss’s atheistic beliefs about the universe in general and humanity in particular.
“If we find we are alone in the universe, or at least find no evidence for life anywhere else, does this suggest that the universe was created for us? It would seem an awful waste of space. To design a whole universe requiring over 100 billion galaxies, each containing 100 billion stars lasting over 13 billion years, just to allow the evolution of one species on one planet less than a million years ago seems like a remarkably inefficient design.
An intelligent designer could have done better, would have done better, and should have done better. Similar biological arguments apply to the poor design of humans.“
-Krausy Pooh
Anyways this is an irrelevant comment
It sets up a “heads I win tails you lose” scenario
Here’s why
Creationists don’t want to find life elsewhere in the universe because it would lend credence to evolution
This is also mentioned by people trying to support evolution especially when they were trying to invalidate the uniqueness of life
So either
A. The universe is empty, god is stupid, why would he waste so much space?
Or
B. The universe is teeming with life, we aren’t special, this supports evolution
There is no right answer to their CHILDISH game
Other then it’s an invalid argument because it uses this dichotomy and should be ushered straight to the trash