Cosmology Intelligent Design

Popular science writer “sort of” gets it about the multiverse scam

Spread the love

Speaking of the fact that people you might not have expected to are beginning to notice that we are drowning in cow plop from popular science media: Every so often someone there notices the problem briefly. But that person always has to be careful not to notice it too much.

In a review of Max Tegmark’s latest, Our Mathematical Universe: My quest for the ultimate nature of reality, a New Scientist writer finds himself asking a question that might well have been asked a decade ago: “When does multiverse speculation cross into fantasy?”

Tegmark? Yes, the perceptronium man: “I conjecture that consciousness can be understood as yet another state of matter.” He’s also a big multiverse proponent, which is why writer Mark Buchanan’s question is directed at his book:

Even so, there does seem to be something a little questionable with this vast multiplication of multiverses. While the notion of the Level I Multiverse at least makes contact with real physics and possible evidence, it isn’t clear that any of these other ideas ever could. Multiverse champions seem quite happy, even eager, to invoke infinite numbers of other universes as mechanisms for explaining things we see in our own universe. In a sense, multiverse enthusiasts take a “leap of faith” every bit as big as the leap to believing in a creator, as physicist Paul Davies put it in an article in The New York Times.

In the end, this isn’t science so much as philosophy using the language of science. “Inflation”, Tegmark notes, “is the gift that keeps on giving, because every time you think it can’t possibly predict something more radical than it already has, it does.”

Uh-uh. Stop right there. This is not philosophy using the language of science. This is nonsense using the language of nonsense.

If popular science writers hadn’t decided, with Stephen Hawking, that science has replaced philosophy, they would have been quicker to spot the elementary problem: Speculation that can predict anything predicts nothing. Science is only the first loser, not the only one.

Of course, the review ends by praising Tegmark’s speculative abilities, as if he were a science fiction novelist. Which he is. But the rules of the pop science game today require that players never say so. They just dance around the fact. And ask questions about what that implies only in situations where either nothing or banalities follow.

Bio_Symposium_033.jpg

Note: My Science Fictions series focuses on how the issues around the origin of the universe, life, the human race, and the human mind play out in the popular imagination vs. what the evidence suggests. Just look what we have been getting for all our time and money. ): – O’Leary for News

24 Replies to “Popular science writer “sort of” gets it about the multiverse scam

  1. 1
    OldArmy94 says:

    In a sense, multiverse enthusiasts take a “leap of faith” every bit as big as the leap to believing in a creator

    I just don’t get it. Why is it so impossible for people to believe in a creator? WHY??

  2. 2

    Old Army: It’s not impossible; they just don’t want to.

  3. 3
    Roy says:

    Old Army: It’s not impossible; there’s just no reason to do so (and many reasons not to believe in the various creators proposed by theists).

  4. 4
    buffalo says:

    Believing in the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) they do not have to deal with final justice and sin. It certainly is the “god Delusion”.

  5. 5
    Axel says:

    This cat certainly has intelligent designs on that door (or is it just random movements of molecules in his wee bonce?):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e.....e-24622710

  6. 6
    JDH says:

    Roy,

    I don’t see what you mean. Many modern thinkers have proposed a multiverse exactly because they believe it is necessary to propose something that can account for the miraculous happening of life. Otherwise you must propose an endless stream of unguided implausible events.

    Would you answer one of these thinkers the same way:

    “There is no reason to propose the multiverse”.

    The reason it is necessary to believe in a Creator (or a multiverse which I find absurd ) is that it seems by the best scientific knowledge currently available, a Creator is necessary to overcome the monumental odds against the spontaneous generation of life, morality, consciousness, etc. To postulate other than that is to disregard the evidence.

    Of course, you are free to neglect fine-tuning, the problem of consciousness, and the problem of universal morality if you want, it just makes you seem trite.

  7. 7

    Tegmark is a physicist doing practical and theoretical work that few of us can ever hope to understand. http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+a+tegmark

    Lots of work with processing signals from distant parts of the Universe and people will probably ask what’s the point of doing signal processing on 21cm (hydrogen line/1420.4 MHz) tomography to the average Joe. How does the tax paying public benefit ?

    The answer is revealed when the average Joe has just had part of his body bashed up and it needs to be internally examined with MRI.

    All the theoretical science of tomography contributes to improving the engineering of machines that do the tomography. So that is faster, more accurate and cheaper scans. Obviously not cheaper for the patient in the US as patients are cash cows that are to be sucked dry but that’s not Tegmark’s fault but the blame of all the Christians in Senate and Congress.

    Tegmark also asks speculative questions, in effect asking “where do we go next ?”. He’s better placed to ask that as he knows where the boundary of our science is. Or you could rely on people like O’Leary whose boundary seems to be between “I don’t like it” and “I like it”. Genuflect as you cross over.

  8. 8
    Roy says:

    JDH:

    The reason it is necessary to believe in a Creator (or a multiverse which I find absurd ) is that it seems by the best scientific knowledge currently available, a Creator is necessary to overcome the monumental odds against the spontaneous generation of life, morality, consciousness, etc. To postulate other than that is to disregard the evidence.

    A large number of people disagree with you. What evidence are they disregarding, and is it really scientific?

    Roy

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Roy you ask:

    What evidence (for God) are they (atheists) disregarding, and is it (the evidence) really scientific?

    Well Roy, since the evidence is the same for both Atheists and Theists, let’s take a look at what the evidence says and see where it points to shall we?

    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. –

    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. –

    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 homo) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. –

    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.

    (references provided upon request)

    Moreover, Alvin Plantinga has now shown that assuming naturalism as the driving force of Darwinian evolution is an epistemologically self-defeating assumption that undermines science itself:

    Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga – video
    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL80CAECC36901BCEE

    “Refuting Naturalism by Citing our own Consciousness” Dr. Alvin Plantinga
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8

    Moreover, assuming Naturalism for the origin of the universe is also epistemologically self defeating:

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that “nothing” is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.
    For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    OT; News this might interest you:

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

  11. 11
    News says:

    Lincoln Phipps at 7 writes, “Tegmark is a physicist doing practical and theoretical work that few of us can ever hope to understand. http://inspirehep.net/search?p=find+a+tegmark

    As Mark Buchanan points out in his review, Tegmark has done serious physics in the past. His foray into speculation is best understood this way: If a person who has built up a reputation for serious science advocates a popular speculation, the speculation achieves more cred with the pop science public than a speculation by a person widely considered a crackpot. The value of the speculation is the name. And no one needs special training or gifts to recognize nonsense at an elementary level. Even Mark Buchanan does; he just daren’t risk saying so or does not know the words.

  12. 12
    selvaRajan says:

    I have no problem with multiverse if it is limited to single digit. If you start believing in large upper bound for multiverse, you can’t falsify string theory’s more than 10^500 universes hypothesis. All the papers derived from string theory – like existence of exact copy of our universe, every individual existing in some other universe, every action of ours creating parallel universes, rainbow universe and all other absurd hypotheses will have to be true till String theory itself is falsified or all those hypotheses are falsified individually.

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    bornagain77 @ 9: Nicely contrasted and summarized! Interesting reading—thanks for taking the trouble!

    News @ 11 (no pun intended): Tegmark’s paper is replete with admitted conjecture, some of which is tongue-in-cheek. He seems so intent on the juicy application for quantum effects and mathematical characterizations of his five aspects of intrinsic consciousness, that a glaring absence of empirical data opens up. For example, is a sleeping human unconscious or conscious in a different way?

    selvaRajan @ 12: Kudos for pointing out the maddening fad of equating unfalsifiable speculation with Science. Note that every action of ours along with every action of everyone else, and every event creates permutations of new universes that will exceed 10^500 universes in less than Planck time. And how can anyone falsify string theory?

    -Q

  14. 14
    Roy says:

    Well Roy, since the evidence is the same for both Atheists and Theists, let’s take a look at what the evidence says and see where it points to shall we?

    Ok. I’ll start with #9:

    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.

    No, theism did not predict that. Theism – your version of it anyway – predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear in the seas and the skies in God’s fifth day of creation. I’m sure you know this. I’m sure you also know that your version of theism also predicted complex and diverse land plants before the appearance of sea creatures. Since there are no birds or bats or even flying insects found among the Cambrian explosion fossils, and no fruit trees or other land plants that precede them, your theism is demonstrably false according to your own standards. Refuted. Finished. Demolished.

    Of course simpler marine organism fossils have been found prior to the Cambrian explosion – Dickinsonia, Charnia, Cyclomedusa for example – and there were many millennia of even simpler single-celled organisms before then, and there were larger walking/flying/backboned/big-brained/etc organisms afterwards, so the evolutionary prediction of complexity gradually unfolding has been validated. But that’s just icing on the cake – your theism is already in tatters. Game over. Try something else.

    However, since I don’t like leaving tasks unfinished, I might as well respond to the rest of your “evidence”. I’ll start by pointing out that you hardly provided any evidence at all, just assertions, and most of those assertions are false. For instance,

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed.

    No it didn’t. Steady state cosmology and the big bang were competing theories within naturalistic science; neither was a prediction of it. Some ancient philosophers believed the wold was infinitely ancient, but that was not a pediction either. If you feel like disputing this, provide the basis for the prediction. A random quote fom a theist claiming that naturalism predicted an infinite past won’t suffice.

    Whereas Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created.

    No, some varieties of theism incorporate that idea (Hindusim doesn’t), and those that do invariably place the creation date as far far too recent.

    Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    Big Bang theory does not indicate that it was a creation event – that’s your own interpretation. But I’ll be generous and allow that theism predicted the universe had a beginning – I can afford it.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence.

    Not that I’m aware of.

    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.

    Even if this is so – and I note you haven’t given enough details for anyone to be sure what you’re referring to – I don’t see any reason to connect whatever the universe is dependent on with your god.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality.

    Finally something that’s actually a prediction. However,

    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. –

    No it doesn’t. You appear to be misunderstanding the quantum consciousness hypothesis. In any case, there is nothing I am aware of in quantum mechanics to show that consciousness preceded material reality, and a lot of evidence from cosmology that it didn’t, so theism is refuted here too.

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe.

    Says who? AFAICT you are simply turning eliminated possibilities into imagined pedictions.

    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)

    …which although compatible with your theistic prediction, does not actually support it – much like the existence of pineapple pizza is compatible with God being outside time, but not actually supportive of it.

    As an aside, Psalm 90:4 doesn’t have anything to do with God being eternal or outside of time, but refers to God being far far older than the author.

    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. –

    Of course it is – if it wasn’t, us carbon-based lifeforms wouldn’t be here to discuss it. I suggest you bush up on the anthropic principle.

    As for your theistic pediction, it falls very flat with the realisation that man occupies such a vanishingly small fraction of the universe that even if the universe was created for carbon-based life forms, there’s no reason to think it was created for us.

    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. –

    This contradicts the previous ‘prediction’ – if the entire universe was created with man in mind, then places where man can survive should be common and the Earth should not be extremely unique. Conversely, if the Earth is extremely unique, then the universe was not created for our benefit since we cannot easily exploit it. No evidence is necessary here – theism is self-refuting.

    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. –

    No, it doesn’t indicate that. There may have been oceans on Earth for 600,000,000 years before the oldest sedimentary rocks we have found were formed – and 600,000,000 years is a very long time in which life could have developed. Furthemore, the evidence of life in those oldest rocks consists only of chemical traces and isotope ratios – there is nothing I am aware of that indicates that the life then was complex, let alone photo-synthetic rather than chemosynthetic. I think you made that up.

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple..

    And this prediction is borne out by billions of years of single-celled organisms being followed by colonies of undifferentiated cells then colonies of differentiated organisms followed by multicelled organisms.

    Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth.

    That’s not a prediction, it’s an untestable and meaningless assertion.

    The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD)

    Since the simplest life form currently found on Earth has an evolutionary history as long as all the other lifeforms, it is no more equivalent to the first life than is a giraffe. Denton’s statement is irrelevant.

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record,

    And there are. Far more than the few dozen you refer to. In fact, there are so many that it’s possible to pick enough with rhyming names to create a parody of the Major-General’s song from The Pirates of Penzance.

    Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record.

    Two billion years of single-celled organisms is not rapid diversity. Theism is refuted again.

    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. –

    Of the hundreds of transitionals, only a small minority are addressed by creationists at all. The only way in which they could possibly be described as ‘contested’ is by pretending that some ignorant yahoo exclaiming “there ain’t no trans’nal fossuls” counts as a contestation. If you want to continue to claim that not one is uncontested, produce a discussion of why (to pick a random example) Eotheroides is not transitional.

    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 homo) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. –

    This is new to me. Obviously the naturalist prediction has prevailed, since speciation continues to occur (e.g. among London mosquitoes, apple flies, cichlids). Equally obviously the theistic prediction is total bollocks, since polar bears, dingoes, musk-oxen and maybe woolly mammoths postdate Homo sapiens. The last claim is equally untrue, since even after eliminating possible wiggle-room by (i) looking for an entire genus of fossils rather than a single species, and (ii) ensuring that the fossils had some additional feature that distinguished them from earlier forms to a greater extent than humans are different from chimps, it took very little time to find a counterexample: the earliest Doedicurus fossils postdate Homo by more than a million years.

    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.”. –

    The ENCODE research only showed that most of our DNA was transcribed – not that it wasn’t junk – and doesn’t demonstrate we’re wonderfully made even if none of our DNA is junk. Anyway, the Boston Globe article is far removed from the actual research report.

    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.

    No it didn’t. If anything, naturalism predicts that mutations are random with respect to fitness, not that they are extremely beneficial.

    Theism predicted only God created life on earth

    Once again that’s not a prediction but an untestable theory.

    The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental.

    That’s just gibberish. The mutation rate is clearly not detrimental, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. And most mutations have negligible effects. Even mutations to genes are largely neutral, since most mutations are point mutations and about a third of those don’t even change protein amino-acid sequences.

    Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) –

    Again, only by ignorant yahoos who think announcing that ‘99% of all mutations are detrimental’ counts as serious questioning. Any-one who has even the slightest expertise on the topic should be aware of the known beneficial mutations such as ApoA-1 Milano.

    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.

    (references provided upon request)

    You need to provide a reference to morality being “Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans … prior to the event even happening.” because it resembles bovine faeces.

    Final tally:
    – Five naturalism predictions upheld, only one contradicted (and that by apparent newage)
    – Only one theism prediction upheld; six disproven.
    The rest were non-conclusive or simply not predictions at all.

    When misrepresentations are corrected, and fabrications are replaced by the actual data, naturalism survives and theism gets shredded.

    Roy

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Roy, do I need to really reply when you state stuff like this:

    The ENCODE research only showed that most of our DNA was transcribed – not that it wasn’t junk – and doesn’t demonstrate we’re wonderfully made even if none of our DNA is junk.

    Only hardcore Darwinists say stuff like that!

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    Well Roy since did say ‘references provided upon request’, let’s go through them one by one:

    as to

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed.

    you state:

    No it didn’t. Steady state cosmology and the big bang were competing theories within naturalistic science; neither was a prediction of it. Some ancient philosophers believed the wold was infinitely ancient, but that was not a pediction either. If you feel like disputing this, provide the basis for the prediction. A random quote fom a theist claiming that naturalism predicted an infinite past won’t suffice.

    UUUHHH,,, Hoyle’s Steady State (in fact Hoyle first used the term ‘Big Bang’ as a derogatory term to express his disdain for a creation event, hardly a philosophically neutral position), Einstein’s greatest blunder is where he, philosophically not scientifically, added a constant to reflect his naturalistic belief that the universe has always existed, and Eddington’s ‘repugnant notion’ are all derived from what you term the ‘naturalistic science’ of believing the universe to be infinitely old:

    Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me.
    Arthur Stanley Eddington

    Even the atheist Carl Sagan reflected this naturalistic belief years after the Big Bang was accepted science:

    ‘The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.’
    Carl Sagan

    To this day atheists fight tooth and nail against a beginning for the universe as is reflected in Dr. Craig’s repeated defense of the Kalam cosmological argument against atheists who refuse to accept that the universe has/had a transcendent origin!

    whereas conversely:

    The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.
    Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    as to:

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence.

    you state:

    Not that I’m aware of.

    Again the atheist Carl Sagan’s quote:

    ‘The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.’
    Carl Sagan

    then to,,

    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.

    You state

    Even if this is so – and I note you haven’t given enough details for anyone to be sure what you’re referring to – I don’t see any reason to connect whatever the universe is dependent on with your god.

    Quantum ‘non-locality’ is best summed up in this quote:

    Looking Beyond Space and Time to Cope With Quantum Theory – (Oct. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: The remaining option is to accept that (quantum) influences must be infinitely fast,,,
    “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” says Nicolas Gisin, Professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142217.htm

    also of note: Quantum Mechanics has now been extended to falsify local realism (reductive materialism) without even using quantum entanglement to do it:

    ‘Quantum Magic’ Without Any ‘Spooky Action at a Distance’ – June 2011
    Excerpt: A team of researchers led by Anton Zeilinger at the University of Vienna and the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences used a system which does not allow for entanglement, and still found results which cannot be interpreted classically.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....111942.htm

    as to the fact God, who is beyond space and time, sustains the universe:

    Hebrews 1:3
    ,,,he upholds the universe by the word of his power.,,,

    as to:

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is a ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality.

    You state:

    Finally something that’s actually a prediction. However,

    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. –

    No it doesn’t. You appear to be misunderstanding the quantum consciousness hypothesis. In any case, there is nothing I am aware of in quantum mechanics to show that consciousness preceded material reality, and a lot of evidence from cosmology that it didn’t, so theism is refuted here too.

    Yet, due to advances in quantum mechanics, the argument for God from consciousness can 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

    Colossians 1:17
    And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    as to:

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe.

    you state:

    Says who? AFAICT you are simply turning eliminated possibilities into imagined pedictions.

    So naturalism did not suppose time to be constant everywhere??? Pray tell where it was supposed otherwise in naturalism?

    then to

    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)

    you state;

    …which although compatible with your theistic prediction, does not actually support it – much like the existence of pineapple pizza is compatible with God being outside time, but not actually supportive of it.

    So a higher eternal dimension above this one does not actually support Theism?

    “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.”
    Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

    ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’
    Mickey Robinson – Near Death Experience testimony – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544

    ‘There is no way to tell whether minutes, hours or years go by. Existence is the only reality and it is inseparable from the eternal now.’
    – John Star – NDE Experiencer

    Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.)

    Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

    The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions
    Excerpt: “I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.”
    Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video
    https://vimeo.com/79072924

    You go on to state:

    As an aside, Psalm 90:4 doesn’t have anything to do with God being eternal or outside of time, but refers to God being far far older than the author.

    Actually I find

    Psalm 90:4
    A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

    To be quite fitting, but hey, for a bonus here is another verse

    1 Corinthians 2:7
    ,,,a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began,,,

    To be continued later,,,

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Roy as to:

    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. –

    you flippantly sate:

    Of course it is – if it wasn’t, us carbon-based lifeforms wouldn’t be here to discuss it. I suggest you bush up on the anthropic principle.

    So there is no surprise at all for you that the universe is fine-tuned for life? Well,,,

    On Signature in the Cell, Robert Saunders Still Doesn’t Get It – Jonathan M. – December 2011
    Excerpt: On the issue of fine tuning, Saunders appeals to the famous anthropic argument, noting, ‘The fine-tuning argument has always seemed to me to be somewhat tautologous. Had the constants been different, we would not be here to look at the Universe and its physical constants. We have a sample size of 1. Exactly 1.’
    William Lane Craig has effectively countered this argument:
    ‘[S]uppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that, “You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,” nonetheless it is equally true that, “You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.”
    Since the firing squad’s missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....53711.html

    i.e. the claim that we should not be surprised is shown to be false by the fact that Astronomers were in fact very surprised that the fine-tuning would be so deep and widespread. i.e. It is not presupposed in naturalism!

    You go on to state:

    As for your theistic pediction, it falls very flat with the realisation that man occupies such a vanishingly small fraction of the universe that even if the universe was created for carbon-based life forms, there’s no reason to think it was created for us.

    Yet,,

    Evidence for Belief in God – Rich Deem
    Excerpt: Isn’t the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
    http://www.godandscience.org/a.....ntro2.html

    God created the entire universe for us – February 2012
    Excerpt: If the sun were represented by the period at the end of this sentence, our galaxy would be the size of the continental United States.,,, Why didn’t God create our modest solar system and a few stars and let it go at that? Because size matters.
    If the universe weren’t as large as it is fusion would be inefficient. As a result, the universe would produce hydrogen, or hydrogen plus a small amount of helium. That means carbon and oxygen — both essential for life — would be missing.
    http://www.dailypilot.com/news.....2339.story

    Here is a video of Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explaining the anthropic cosmological principle behind the immense size of the universe as well as behind the ancient age of the universe:

    We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History – Hugh Ross – video
    http://vimeo.com/31940671

    Moreover,,

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
    It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    As to:

    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. –

    To which you state

    This contradicts the previous ‘prediction’ – if the entire universe was created with man in mind, then places where man can survive should be common and the Earth should not be extremely unique. Conversely, if the Earth is extremely unique, then the universe was not created for our benefit since we cannot easily exploit it. No evidence is necessary here – theism is self-refuting.

    Actually in Christian Theism, God created this temporal universe, and this earth specifically, to deal specifically with evil, through Christ, once and for all. So on Christian Theism, it is expected for the earth to be unique:

    Revelation 13:8
    And all the inhabitants of The Earth will worship it, those who are not written in The Book of Life of The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.

    As to references see Gonzalez: Privileged Planet, and Hugh Ross

    Astrobiology research is revealing the high specificity and interdependence of the local parameters required for a habitable environment. These two features of the universe make it unlikely that environments significantly different from ours will be as habitable. At the same time, physicists and cosmologists have discovered that a change in a global parameter can have multiple local effects. Therefore, the high specificity and interdependence of local tuning and the multiple effects of global tuning together make it unlikely that our tiny island of habitability is part of an archipelago. Our universe is a small target indeed.
    Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez – P. 625, The Nature of Nature

    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate ? 10^324
    longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 10^22

    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
    http://www.reasons.org/files/c....._part3.pdf

    Hugh Ross – Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236

  18. 18
    bornagain77 says:

    Roy as to:

    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. –

    to which you state

    No, it doesn’t indicate that. There may have been oceans on Earth for 600,000,000 years before the oldest sedimentary rocks we have found were formed – and 600,000,000 years is a very long time in which life could have developed. Furthemore, the evidence of life in those oldest rocks consists only of chemical traces and isotope ratios – there is nothing I am aware of that indicates that the life then was complex, let alone photo-synthetic rather than chemosynthetic. I think you made that up.

    Yet,,

    When did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve? – Roger Buick – 2008
    Excerpt:,, U–Pb data from ca 3.8?Ga metasediments suggest that this metabolism could have arisen by the start of the geological record. Hence, the hypothesis that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before the atmosphere became permanently oxygenated seems well supported.
    http://rstb.royalsocietypublis...../2731.long

    U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland – indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003)
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R

    The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918

    When Did Life on Earth Begin? Ask a Rock (3.85 bya)
    http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/293/

    Iron in Primeval Seas Rusted by Bacteria – Apr. 23, 2013
    Excerpt: The oldest known iron ores were deposited in the Precambrian period and are up to four billion years old (the Earth itself is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old). ,,,
    This research not only provides the first clear evidence that microorganisms were directly involved in the deposition of Earth’s oldest iron formations; it also indicates that large populations of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria were at work in the shallow areas of the ancient oceans, while deeper water still reached by the light (the photic zone) tended to be populated by anoxyenic or micro-aerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria which formed the iron deposits.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....110750.htm

    Moreover there is no evidence of prebiotic chemical signatures before the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria:

    Dr. Hugh Ross – Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012696

    “We get that evidence from looking at carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis. And it tells us that in Earth’s oldest (sedimentary) rock, which dates at 3.80 billion years ago, we find an abundance for the carbon signature of living systems. Namely, that life prefers carbon 12. And so if you see a higher ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 that means that carbon has been processed by life. And it is that kind of evidence that tells us that life has been abundant on earth as far back as 3.80 billion years ago (when water was first present on earth).,,, And that same carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis tells us that planet earth, over it entire 4.5662 billion year history has never had prebiotics. Prebiotics would have a higher ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12. All the carbonaceous material, we see in the entire geological record of the earth, has the signature of being post-biotic not pre-biotic. Which means planet earth never had a primordial soup. And the origin of life on earth took place in a geological instant” (as soon as it was possible for life to exist on earth).
    – Hugh Ross – quote as stated in preceding video

    as to

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple..

    you state:

    And this prediction is borne out by billions of years of single-celled organisms being followed by colonies of undifferentiated cells then colonies of differentiated organisms followed by multicelled organisms.

    Actually, what we find is extremely ancient stasis, and complexity, for both bacteria and bacterial mats:

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;

    Geobiologist Noffke Reports Signs of Life that Are 3.48 Billion Years Old – 11/11/13
    Excerpt: the mats woven of tiny microbes we see today covering tidal flats were also present as life was beginning on Earth. The mats, which are colonies of cyanobacteria, can cause unusual textures and formations in the sand beneath them. Noffke has identified 17 main groups of such textures caused by present-day microbial mats, and has found corresponding structures in geological formations dating back through the ages.
    http://www.odu.edu/about/odu-p...../topstory1

    Scientists find signs of life in Australia dating back 3.48 billion years – Thu November 14, 2013
    Excerpt: “We conclude that the MISS in the Dresser Formation record a complex microbial ecosystem, hitherto unknown, and represent one of the most ancient signs of life on Earth.”… “this MISS displays the same associations that are known from modern as well as fossil” finds. The MISS also shows microbes that act like “modern cyanobacteria,”
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/13/.....ient-life/

    then to

    Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth.

    You state:

    That’s not a prediction, it’s an untestable and meaningless assertion.

    Actually it is. As to your claim it is not ‘testable’, for one instance, did you see the recent paper saying that photosynthesis itself is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause i.e. non-classical cause?

    Quantum Mechanics Explains Efficiency of Photosynthesis – Jan. 9, 2014
    Excerpt: Previous experiments suggest that energy is transferred in a wave-like manner, exploiting quantum phenomena, but crucially, a non-classical explanation could not be conclusively proved as the phenomena identified could equally be described using classical physics.,,,
    Now, a team at UCL have attempted to identify features in these biological systems which can only be predicted by quantum physics, and for which no classical analogues exist.

    then to this

    The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD)

    you state

    Since the simplest life form currently found on Earth has an evolutionary history as long as all the other lifeforms, it is no more equivalent to the first life than is a giraffe. Denton’s statement is irrelevant.

    Actually, you have no ‘evolutionary history save for in you imagination, moreover you are welcome to try your hand at creating life,

    “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”
    Ilya Prigogine, Gregoire Nicolis, and Agnes Babloyantz, Physics Today 25, pp. 23-28. (Sourced Quote)

    To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.”
    (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    as to 9

    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.

    you state:

    No, theism did not predict that.

    Actually, yes it did:

    And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”

    You complain

    Theism – your version of it anyway – predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear in the seas and the skies in God’s fifth day of creation. I’m sure you know this.

    Yes I’m well aware of that. Are you aware that I believe in extremely long creation days, following after, but not exactly with, Gerald Schroeder, in which the fifth day covered a few hundred million years from the Cambrian Explosion until fairly recently?

    The Science of God – Dr. Gerald Schroeder Part 1
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRxEeHFHc-Y

    you go o to state:

    I’m sure you also know that your version of theism also predicted complex and diverse land plants before the appearance of sea creatures.

    Really??? wonder how I missed that one? Many times atheists will attack the Genesis account of creation in the Bible by saying that plant life on the land did not precede the Cambrian explosion of animal life in the seas as the Bible account in Genesis says it does.

    Genesis 1:11-12
    Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation:

    Yet, at about the thirty minute mark of the following video, Dr. Hugh Ross reveals that scientists have now discovered evidence that the Genesis account is in fact correct and that plant life on land did in fact precede the explosion of animal life in the seas of the Cambrian era.

    Science and Scripture: Enemies or Allies? – Hugh Ross – video (recorded in October 2011)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX6ryCArkRk

    Here is the relevant paper that Dr. Ross referenced at the 31 minute mark, as well as a more recent paper that establishes that life on land preceded life in the seas (just as Genesis holds that it does):

    Earth’s earliest non-marine eukaryotes – April 2011
    Excerpt: They offer direct evidence of eukaryotes living in freshwater aquatic and subaerially exposed habitats during the Proterozoic era. The apparent dominance of eukaryotes in non-marine settings by 1?Gyr ago indicates that eukaryotic evolution on land may have commenced far earlier than previously thought.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....09943.html

    Was there life on Earth over two billion years ago? – July 2013
    Excerpt: A new study, led by geologist Gregory J. Retallack of the University of Oregon, now has presented evidence for life on land that is four times as old — at 2.2 billion years ago and almost half way back to the inception of the planet.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....years-ago/

    And more recently, the Ediacaran fossils were reclassified as living on land, not in the sea

    Ediacarans Not Related to Cambrian Animals – December 16, 2012
    Excerpt: “These fossils have been a first-class scientific mystery,” he said. “They are the oldest large multicellular fossils. They lived immediately before the Cambrian evolutionary explosion that gave rise to familiar modern groups of animals.”,,
    If not sea creatures, what are they? Retallack suggested they could be “lichens, other microbial consortia, fungal fruiting bodies, slime molds, flanged pedestals of biological soil crusts, and even casts of needle ice.” In the paper and the press release, he had very little to say about evolution, except that the Ediacarans represent “an independent evolutionary radiation of life on land that preceded by at least 20 million years the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of animals in the sea.”
    http://crev.info/2012/12/ediac.....n-animals/

    You go on to state

    Since there are no birds or bats or even flying insects found among the Cambrian explosion fossils, and no fruit trees or other land plants that precede them, your theism is demonstrably false according to your own standards. Refuted. Finished. Demolished.

    Actually ‘my Theism’ seems to be holding up quite well in the light of recent discoveries, whereas your straw man version of ‘my theism’, whatever you imagine it to be, never had a chance in your mind to begin with. But personally, as Twain would put it, ‘Rumors of my death have been greatly exaggerated’.

    You go on to state:

    Of course simpler marine organism fossils have been found prior to the Cambrian explosion – Dickinsonia, Charnia, Cyclomedusa for example – and there were many millennia of even simpler single-celled organisms before then, and there were larger walking/flying/backboned/big-brained/etc organisms afterwards, so the evolutionary prediction of complexity gradually unfolding has been validated. But that’s just icing on the cake – your theism is already in tatters. Game over. Try something else.

    Actually, I don’t think the enigma of the Cambrian Explosion is as easily solved as you seem to think it is. Have you read Darwin’s Doubt yet?

    If anyone has not read Darwin’s Doubt yet, Dr. Paul Giem has done a chapter by chapter video series on the book here:
    Darwin’s Doubt – Paul Giem – video playlist
    http://www.youtube.com/playlis.....Ow3u0_mK8t

    “It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. Meyer describes the dimensions of the problem with clarity and precision. His book is a game changer for the study of evolution and points us in the right direction as we seek a new theory for the origin of animals.”
    -Dr. Mark McMenamin – 2013
    Paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and author of The Emergence of Animals

    As to:

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record,

    you reply

    And there are. Far more than the few dozen you refer to. In fact, there are so many that it’s possible to pick enough with rhyming names to create a parody of the Major-General’s song from The Pirates of Penzance.

    Actually contrary to nursery rhymes,,

    “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”
    Stephen Jay Gould

    “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” –
    Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    “Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? … The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record.”
    Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma 1988, Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, p. 9

    “The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be …. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin’s time … so Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated”.
    David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.” Fossils and Evolution,
    TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    “Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.”
    George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.

    “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change over millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” –
    Niles Eldredge , “Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate,” 1996, p.95

    “Enthusiastic paleontologists in several countries have claimed pieces of this missing record, but the claims have all been disputed and in any case do not provide real connections. That brings me to the second most surprising feature of the fossil record…the abruptness of some of the major changes in the history of life.”
    Ager, D. – Author of “The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record”-1981

    Well that sure doesn’t sound Darwinian to me.

    Then

    Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record.

    To which you respond

    Two billion years of single-celled organisms is not rapid diversity. Theism is refuted again.

    I did not claim, nor did Theism predict, single cell organisms should differ, whereas evolution is quite embarrassed by such long term stasis. Beating up a strawman really ought to be a felony! 🙂

    Then

    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. –

    Of the hundreds of transitionals, only a small minority are addressed by creationists at all. The only way in which they could possibly be described as ‘contested’ is by pretending that some ignorant yahoo exclaiming “there ain’t no trans’nal fossuls” counts as a contestation. If you want to continue to claim that not one is uncontested, produce a discussion of why (to pick a random example) Eotheroides is not transitional.

    Well Eotheroides looks just like a sea cow to me!
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin.....p=63502260

    Was it transitioning to a sea cow or from a sea cow? Perhaps you better stick to fishapods or something along that line!?! Might be more believable 🙂

  20. 20
    bornagain77 says:

    As to:

    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 homo) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. –

    To which you reply

    This is new to me. Obviously the naturalist prediction has prevailed, since speciation continues to occur (e.g. among London mosquitoes, apple flies, cichlids).

    Well, you are wrong once again which you should be getting use to by now;

    “The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared.”
    from page 32 “Acquiring Genomes” Lynn Margulis.

    Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False – Jonathan Wells:
    Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....why_d.html

    Scant search for the Maker
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    Wired Science: One Long Bluff – Refuting a recent finch speciation claim – Jonathan Wells – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: “Does the report in Wired Science mean that “biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species (of Galapagos finch) splits in two?” Absolutely not.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....bluff.html

    Here is a detailed refutation, by Casey Luskin, to TalkOrigins severely misleading site on the claimed evidence for observed macro-evolution (speciation);

    Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change – Casey Luskin – January 2012 – article
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....55281.html

    Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin’s speciation FAQ as a ‘literature bluff’

    Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims – Casey Luskin – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....9_41-08_00

    A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp
    http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

    Cichlid Fish – Evolution or Variation Within Kind? – Dr. Arthur Jones – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4036852

    “For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing.”
    Dr. Arthur Jones – did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids

  21. 21
    Joe says:

    Wait- naturalism didn’t predict life so forget about transitional species. And also forget about mutations.

    I would say the only thing predicted by naturalism/ materialism is that everything in this universe is reducible to matter, energy, their interactions and emergent properties. However naturalism/ materialism can’t even explain the universe so that would be an issue.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Roy you continue

    Equally obviously the theistic prediction is total bollocks, since polar bears, dingoes, musk-oxen and maybe woolly mammoths postdate Homo sapiens.

    Actually Polar Bears are a sub-species of Brown Bears:

    Polar bears and mammalian speciation – May 2010
    Excerpt: “Recent genetic studies have shown that polar bears evolved from within brown bears, and that a genetically unique clade of brown bear populations that live exclusively on the Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof (ABC) islands of southeastern Alaska’s Alexander Archipelago are more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears.” “The stable isotope data, phylogenetic analysis, and the geological and molecular age estimates of the Poolepynten specimen indicate that ancient polar bears adapted extremely rapidly both morphologically and physiologically to their current and unique ecology within only 10-30 ky following their split from a brown bear precursor,,,
    http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.....speciation

    Thus we are warranted to postulate some epigentic, ‘evironmental clue’, mechanism as for the ‘extremely’ rapid adaptation. Yet it must be kept in mind that even though the speciation from brown bears was rapid, that the speciation also came at a cost of the genetic information that was already present in the brown bear population:

    Genetics – Polar Bear
    Excerpt: microsatellite data that can be compared suggest there may be less genetic variation among populations of polar bears than among populations of black bears and brown bears (Paetkau et al. 1995, 1999). Paetkau et al. (1999) also found genetic distances among polar bear populations were at the lower extreme of the distances reported for the gray wolf (Canus lupus), another widely distributed carnivore.

    Evidence from patterns in mtDNA also may hint at somewhat less genetic variation among polar bear populations than among populations of other bears. Cronin et al. (1991) reported only one basic polar bear mtDNA lineage, whereas black and brown bears each have two very divergent lineages. The older species (black and brown bears) appear to have more genetic variation across their ranges than the more recently derived polar bears.

    Greater morphological variation among populations of brown bears (e.g., very large individuals, such as those living on Kodiak Island and coastal Alaska, vs. smaller interior or arctic bears) also appears to reflect more genetic variation than is present among polar bears (Stirling and Derocher 1990; Talbot and Shields 1996a, 1996b).
    Morphological variation among polar bears is minimal throughout their range. Paetkau et al. (1999)
    http://www.polarbearsinternati.....e/genetics

    and Brown Bear fossils date to half a million years ago

    The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) is a free-ranging dog found mainly in Australia, as well as Southeast Asia, where it is said to have originated. It is currently classified as a subspecies of the grey wolf, and the grey wolf is thought to have originated 800,000 years ago.

    The first well known muskox, the “shrub-ox” Euceratherium, crossed to North America over an early version of the Bering Land Bridge two million years ago and prospered in the American southwest and Mexico.

    The family Elephantidae existed six million years ago in Africa and includes the modern elephants and the mammoths

    You then claim

    The last claim is equally untrue, since even after eliminating possible wiggle-room by (i) looking for an entire genus of fossils rather than a single species, and (ii) ensuring that the fossils had some additional feature that distinguished them from earlier forms to a greater extent than humans are different from chimps, it took very little time to find a counterexample: the earliest Doedicurus fossils postdate Homo by more than a million years.

    Man, That is one weird creature you referenced that certainly looks ancient to me, you can believe it to be recent if you want. Moreover when I stated ‘our Genus Homo’, I was using the term in a restricted sense that excluded ‘early homo’ and only includes ‘modern homo’, and thus greatly decreases the time scale. This is not done without warrant:

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

    Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride’s Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His – Casey Luskin – August 31, 2012
    Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we’ve seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,,
    The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63841.html

    McBride Misstates My Arguments in Science and Human Origins – Casey Luskin September 5, 2012
    Excerpt: At the end of the day, I leave this exchange more confident than before that the evidence supports the abrupt appearance of our genus Homo.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63931.html

    as to

    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.”. –

    You state:

    The ENCODE research only showed that most of our DNA was transcribed – not that it wasn’t junk – and doesn’t demonstrate we’re wonderfully made even if none of our DNA is junk. Anyway, the Boston Globe article is far removed from the actual research report.

    I think anyone who has had a glimpse at the mind blowing complexity being dealt with in DNA, who still thinks that the vast majority of DNA is junk just because we don’t fully understand exactly what it all does, is more than a few fries short of a happy meal,, A few glimpses are of that staggering complexity are here:
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-488282

    As to

    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.

    No it didn’t. If anything, naturalism predicts that mutations are random with respect to fitness, not that they are extremely beneficial.

    Do you really think Darwinian evolution is possible without any truly beneficial mutations?

    then

    Theism predicted only God created life on earth

    To which you respond:

    Once again that’s not a prediction but an untestable theory.

    To paraphrase Bohr to Einstein “Don’t Tell God What To Do With His Science” or perhaps as God told the scientists ‘Get Your Own Dirt’

    Falsification Of Neo-Darwinism by Quantum Entanglement/Information
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p8AQgqFqiRQwyaF8t1_CKTPQ9duN8FHU9-pV4oBDOVs/edit?hl=en_US

    Does Quantum Biology Support A Quantum Soul? – Stuart Hameroff – video (notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/29895068

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    then Roy

    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) –

    To which you respond

    That’s just gibberish. The mutation rate is clearly not detrimental, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. And most mutations have negligible effects. Even mutations to genes are largely neutral, since most mutations are point mutations and about a third of those don’t even change protein amino-acid sequences.

    Again, only ignorant yahoos who think announcing that ’99% of all mutations are detrimental’ counts as serious questioning. Any-one who has even the slightest expertise on the topic should be aware of the known beneficial mutations such as ApoA-1 Milano.

    Well contrary to what you believe;

    Multiple Overlapping Genetic Codes Profoundly Reduce the Probability of Beneficial Mutation George Montañez 1, Robert J. Marks II 2, Jorge Fernandez 3 and John C. Sanford 4 – May 2013
    Excerpt: It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations [1–10].,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are [11].
    1. Kibota T, Lynch M (1996) Estimate of the genomic mutation rate deleterious to overall fitness in E. coli . Nature 381:694–696.
    2. Charlesworth B, Charlesworth D (1998) Some evolutionary consequences of deleterious mutations. Genetica 103: 3–19.
    3. Elena S, et al (1998) Distribution of fitness effects caused by random insertion mutations in Escherichia coli. Genetica 102/103: 349–358.
    4. Gerrish P, Lenski R N (1998) The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103:127–144.
    5. Crow J (2000) The origins, patterns, and implications of human spontaneous mutation. Nature Reviews 1:40–47.
    6. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    7. Imhof M, Schlotterer C (2001) Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:1113–1117.
    8. Orr H (2003) The distribution of fitness effects among beneficial mutations. Genetics 163: 1519–1526.
    9. Keightley P, Lynch M (2003) Toward a realistic model of mutations affecting fitness. Evolution 57:683–685.
    10. Barrett R, et al (2006) The distribution of beneficial mutation effects under strong selection. Genetics 174:2071–2079.
    11. Bataillon T (2000) Estimation of spontaneous genome-wide mutation rate parameters: whither beneficial mutations? Heredity 84:497–501.
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0006

    Genetic Entropy – Dr. John Sanford – Evolution vs. Reality – video (Notes in description)
    http://vimeo.com/35088933

    “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.co.....evolution/

    Then you state:

    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.

    (references provided upon request)

    To which you reply

    You need to provide a reference to morality being “Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans … prior to the event even happening.” because it resembles bovine faeces.

    Glad to oblige:

    Quantum Consciousness – Time Flies Backwards? – Stuart Hameroff MD
    Excerpt: Dean Radin and Dick Bierman have performed a number of experiments of emotional response in human subjects. The subjects view a computer screen on which appear (at randomly varying intervals) a series of images, some of which are emotionally neutral, and some of which are highly emotional (violent, sexual….). In Radin and Bierman’s early studies, skin conductance of a finger was used to measure physiological response They found that subjects responded strongly to emotional images compared to neutral images, and that the emotional response occurred between a fraction of a second to several seconds BEFORE the image appeared! Recently Professor Bierman (University of Amsterdam) repeated these experiments with subjects in an fMRI brain imager and found emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Moreover he looked at raw data from other laboratories and found similar emotional responses before stimuli appeared.
    http://www.quantumconsciousnes.....Flies.html

    As well, the following experiment, from Princeton, is very interesting in that it was found that ‘perturbed randomness’ precedes a worldwide ‘moral crisis’:

    Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter – Random Number Generators – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007

    Mass Consciousness: Perturbed Randomness Before First Plane Struck on 911 – July 29 2012
    Excerpt: The machine apparently sensed the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre four hours before they happened – but in the fevered mood of conspiracy theories of the time, the claims were swiftly knocked back by sceptics. But it also appeared to forewarn of the Asian tsunami just before the deep sea earthquake that precipitated the epic tragedy.,,
    Now, even the doubters are acknowledging that here is a small box with apparently inexplicable powers. ‘It’s Earth-shattering stuff,’ says Dr Roger Nelson, emeritus researcher at Princeton University in the United States, who is heading the research project behind the ‘black box’ phenomenon.
    http://www.network54.com/Forum.....uck+on+911

    Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research – Scientific Study of Consciousness-Related Physical Phenomena – publications
    http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html

    There is simply no coherent explanation that a materialist/atheist can give as to why morally troubling situations are detected prior to our becoming fully aware of them or before they even happen. The materialist/atheist simply has no beyond space and time cause to appeal to to explain why the phenomena should happen!

    You then state

    Final tally:
    – Five naturalism predictions upheld, only one contradicted (and that by apparent newage)
    – Only one theism prediction upheld; six disproven.
    The rest were non-conclusive or simply not predictions at all.

    When misrepresentations are corrected, and fabrications are replaced by the actual data, naturalism survives and theism gets shredded.

    Roy

    Well, contrary to what you believe Roy, not only did you not refute a single point, but even if the physical evidence had gone your way it would not matter because Naturalism is epistemologically self defeating.

    Why No One (Can) Believe Atheism/Naturalism to be True – video
    Excerpt: “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QFsKevTXs

    “Refuting Naturalism by Citing our own Consciousness” Dr. Alvin Plantinga – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r34AIo-xBh8

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    footnote to 1 at 16

    Why Do We Live in a Huge, Yet Finite, Expanding Universe? – Rob Sheldon – March 7, 2014
    Excerpt: Philosophers from the time of Plato and Epicurus have wanted a static universe, infinite in extent, infinite in time.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....82961.html

Leave a Reply