Thursday, March 18, John Lennox Webinar: Has Science Buried God?

UB, excellent points as usual. They are connected to why I have concluded it is time to draw conclusions for ourselves and reckon that there is a refusal on the part of the establishment to attend to the import of inconvenient facts. KFkairosfocus

March 27, 2021

March

03

Mar

27

27

2021

04:12 AM

4

04

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

. Look at it this way Sev, you’d have to give up the power you feel from bigotry and closed-mindedness and the like, but you’d gain the benefit of being intellectually integrated with demonstrated facts and history. Just imagine being able to allow reasonable people to have their own conclusions about established scientific facts, without the need to attack them for it.Upright BiPed

March 25, 2021

March

03

Mar

25

25

2021

09:05 AM

9

09

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

. Seversky at 82,

Seversky: You are the one asserting an insupportable claim of impossibility. If you want to support the claim that it is impossible for a self-replicating system such as specified by von Neumann to have come about through natural causes then you must be able to eliminate all possible natural causes <b<UB: Where did I make that claim, Sev? I wrote the text above, and don’t recall making any such claim Seversky: So you are allowing that it is at least possible for such a system to emerge through natural causes?

You asked me if I claimed a naturalistic origin of life was impossible. I told you I don’t make that claim, nor do I require it. Logic doesn’t require it. Science doesn’t require it. Things typically proceed in science by way of specific propositions and supportive details, not featureless questions. However, if you are simply asking me in the abstract, then I’d say a person really can’t analyze a proposition if they don’t leave the door open to it being possible in light of given details. So if your question is merely in the abstract, then I can say “yes” in the same way that you say “yes” design is possible — but I really don’t think that is what you are after. Let’s hang a little meat on the bones of your question, and ask it in a way that adds some value to the answer. Since we agree on von Neumann’s predictions and their confirmation, we can let that agreement add some needed form to your question: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Question: Do I think it is possible for pre-biotic chemical event X to become an autonomous open-ended self-replicator (i..e. marking the OoL on earth), if … 1: … if chemical event X does not control dynamic construction by means of a non-dynamic “quiescent description” (von Neumann, 1966)? Answer: No, I do not believe that is possible. 2: … if chemical event X does not contain a set of interpretive constraints to establish a symbolic medium, making that description possible? Answer: No, I do not believe that is possible. 3: … if chemical event X does not have the descriptive power to specify each of the building blocks required in its construction? Answer: No, I do not believe that is possible. 4: … if chemical event X does not control the production of individual molecular objects (i.e. start, produce, stop)? Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. 5: … if chemical event X does not describe (the molecular objects within) a dissipative process that maintains itself and reproduces itself? Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. 6: … chemical event X does not describe its set of interpretive constraints Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. 7: … chemical event X does not transcribe its memory and provide it to its offspring (along with a set of constraints)? Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. 8: … chemical event X does not achieve semantic closure, that is, a simultaneous coordination between two critical sets of descriptions: a) those that describe the dissipative processes (maintenance and reproduction) and b) those that describe the set of constraints? Answer:: No, I do not think that is possible. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So, there are eight instances off the top of my head where I do not think a naturalistic unguided origin of life is possible. I believe the OoL requires an organization to establish a high-capacity medium. It must be able to freely describe itself in that medium, as well as produce the products of that description. The products of that description must use dynamics (natural law) to cause it to maintain itself within a dissipative process (i.e. life’s “far from equilibrium state”), as well as control its reproduction. And to accomplish these things (i.e to start the system) will require semantic closure. Without semantic closure, it cannot function. So what about you? Do you think a thing would have to specify itself in order to reproduce? Do you think its offspring would have to be able to read and interpret that specification? Would the products of that specification have to actually function in specific ways? Do you think that a prebiotic organization could hail the origin of life on earth if it could not do these things? So when you pretend we know nothing substantive or conclusive about the OoL, its not really true is it? We know that encoded symbolic representation is the mechanism that allows something to specify itself, which in turn, enables the origin of life. We know this because, among other things, it was predicted by logic, confirmed by experiment, and under methodical scientific analysis, it fully comports to our universal experience of material reality. The entire system has been coherently described in the literature as a genuine sign process with very specific physical requirements, including specific objects with specific roles to play in the process — a system found nowhere else in the physical sciences, except in the use of language and mathematics, which is a universal correlate of intelligence. And if it is true that an encoded symbol system was predicted as fundamental to the OoL, and if it is true that an encoded symbol system was found at the very heart of the living cell, and if it is true that the use of language is a universal correlate of intelligence (a logical deduction made by scientific associations, universities and governments around the world) then the presence of empirical evidence supporting design in biology is already a documented fact. But the evidence and ramifications certainly don’t stop there. This can be grasped by simply asking the obvious questions that naturally fall from the evidence. Frankly, I’ve been asking them for years now. Those questions remain orphans, even among the well educated. Here is the deal, Sev. Whatever I think is possible or not possible is subject to evidence, just as it should be. You can tell me that you can flap your arms and fly, and I will immediately think that it is not possible. You are hopelessly heavy, your muscles are all wrong, your arms don’t have enough surface area, etc. etc. But if you just demand it, and spend years upon years demanding it, and indeed, I am expected to believe that you can flap your arms and fly or else I will suffer consequences — then I am not going to say “it’s not possible”. I’m going to say “show me”. That is how proper science works. It supports its legitimacy not by claim, but by evidence. That is the situation we are in here. Our positions on OoL, yours and mine, design versus materialism, are not equal. They are really not even close. I needn’t make any bold assumptions in recalling the fact that an encoded symbol system was predicted to be the critical condition of self-replication. That is part of the historical record. I needn’t make assumptions in pointing out that Crick predicted that a set of “adapter” molecules would be found operating in the gene system. That is another historical fact. I needn’t make assumptions regarding Hoagland and Zamecnik confirming the adapters, along with the complex proteins that charge them; that is a documented result of experiment. I make no wild assumptions in recognizing that genetic code assignments could not be calculated from the dynamic properties of the constituents, but had to be demonstrated in order to be known. The list goes on and on. In stark contrast to my position, Sev, you can do nothing but lead with assumptions. When you run for the tall grass (as you always do) and say we just don’t yet know how the system came about by unguided natural processes, you are merely assuming your conclusion. You dig a trench between you and the established facts of the matter, and you jump in. Other than regurgitating your personal contempt for religion, you’ve done little else on this forum for more than a decade now. You did it in the comments leading up to this posting, and you’ll do it again in your response afterwards.

So you are the champion of science and reason and any who take a different view are simply “incapacitated by ideology” which prevents them from seeing the pristine truth of your case?

If you don’t care for my assessment of you Seversky, you can try integrating the documented science with your arguments. Acknowledge that there is valid scientific evidence of design in biology, since that fact is a matter of the scientific record. If you just can’t stomach the idea of theism, then you have options. You’ve always had options. You may acknowledge the presence of valid scientific evidence of design on earth and remain a committed materialist. You just need the intellectual sovereignty and will to do so.Upright BiPed

March 24, 2021

March

03

Mar

24

24

2021

09:24 AM

9

09

24

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM, and of course, a "brain" is an rational inference that may or may not exist in the "shared module." Again, okay. Whatever gets ya thru the night, is alright :D I may agree/disagree with various views out there, but my view is that this is some sort of "game", "adventure", "roller coaster", "war", "competition", and for various reasons, I'm hanging on to the Blood of the Lamb. Weird, huh? Again, whatever getcha thru the night, and your life. That's what the MRT has shouted into my "ears." Okay then.Concealed Citizen

March 23, 2021

March

03

Mar

23

23

2021

02:30 PM

2

02

30

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

My conscious mind experiences what it experiences. Well, ok. Now, so what? My solipsism is what it is. Rock on. At the end of the day, I don't care about anything except what my brain makes me care about. Kind of a general F U. And that's okay. From you. And to me. I'm not judging. :D Rock on!Concealed Citizen

March 23, 2021

March

03

Mar

23

23

2021

11:33 AM

11

11

33

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM: Keep in mind, I don’t adopt perspectives because they are the most rational, efficient or most supported by the evidence; I adopt them because they provide me good, functional, practical means of more fully enjoying my experience. Okie dokie. So, kind of a blend of consciousness-is-primary wedded with hedonism and pragmatism. Okay, I can respect that. My view is not far from that. I fact, I don't see how any honest person could see it very far than otherwise (assuming they exist. Including you.)Concealed Citizen

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

04:03 PM

4

04

03

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The interesting thing about finding quantum information to be ubiquitous within living organisms is that quantum information, like quantum entanglement itself, requires a ‘non-local’, i.e. beyond space and time, cause in order to explain it. As the following article noted, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php

Moreover, it is also important to realize that quantum information is conserved. As the following article states, “In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed.”

Quantum no-hiding theorem experimentally confirmed for first time – 2011 Excerpt: In the classical world, information can be copied and deleted at will. In the quantum world, however, the conservation of quantum information means that information cannot be created nor destroyed. This concept stems from two fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics: the no-cloning theorem and the no-deleting theorem. A third and related theorem, called the no-hiding theorem, addresses information loss in the quantum world. According to the no-hiding theorem, if information is missing from one system (which may happen when the system interacts with the environment), then the information is simply residing somewhere else in the Universe; in other words, the missing information cannot be hidden in the correlations between a system and its environment. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-quantum-no-hiding-theorem-experimentally.html

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

Leading Scientists Say Consciousness Cannot Die It Goes Back To The Universe – Oct. 19, 2017 – Spiritual Excerpt: “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.” – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark) https://radaronline.com/exclusives/2012/10/life-after-death-soul-science-morgan-freeman/

Verse:

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

Thus, contrary to whatever Seversky is forced to believe in his materialistic worldview, the fact of the matter is that we now do have very strong empirical evidence strongly suggesting that we do indeed have an eternal soul that is capable of living beyond the death of our material bodies. As to Seversky's last false claim about 'kicking a rock' and that somehow proves that his materialistic worldview is correct, (and, by implication, that quantum theory is incorrect), well, in order to refute that false claim of Seversky's I will simply reference my post at 67 that refuted Seversky's belief that atoms have an inherent 'concreteness' about them in their foundational essence.

It might hurt Seversky’s feelings to know this, but atoms themselves, the very things that lie at the basis of his reductive materialistic, and Atheistic, worldview, themselves lack any real ‘concrete’ substance. In fact, atoms themselves are now found to be ethereal, non-concrete, even abstract, in their foundational essence. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/thursday-march-18-john-lennox-webinar-has-science-buried-god/#comment-726543

Quote:

"The conception of objective reality of the elementary particles has thus evaporated not into the cloud of some obscure new reality concept but into the transparent clarity of a mathematics that represents no longer the behavior of particles but rather our knowledge of this behavior" - Werner Heinsenberg - The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics - pg. 100

bornagain77

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

05:45 AM

5

05

45

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

And finally, in regards to this final claim

16. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that we are merely our material bodies with no transcendent component to our being, and that we die when our material bodies die. Theism predicted that we have minds/souls that are transcendent of our bodies that live past the death of our material bodies. Transcendent, and ‘conserved’, (cannot be created or destroyed), ‘non-local’, (beyond space-time matter-energy), quantum entanglement/information, which is not reducible to matter-energy space-time, is now found in our material bodies on a massive scale (in every DNA and protein molecule).

Severky responds to that claim thusly, "As noted above, quantum theory is a nat/mat theory. It just deals with nat/mat reality on the very smallest scales. It lends no support to the concept of a transcendent soul which at best is poorly-defined and at worst is incoherent." And Seversky follows that comment with, "Furthermore, in his The Life of Samuel Johnson James Boswell recounts the following episode: "After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley’s ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it — “I refute it thus.”" Seversky: "The reality is that, if you kick a stone hard now, it will hurt your foot just as much as it did in Johnson’s day. Quantum theory has not changed that one jot. What has changed profoundly is our understanding of the nature of matter right down to the quantum scale. And quantum theory and the phenomena it describes do not appear in any theology. It is entirely a product of naturalistic science. If we had relied on religion to guide us in these matters we would still be entirely ignorant about the quantum domain." First off, Seversky claim that Quantum Theory is a materialistic theory is simply a completely bogus claim. As Eugene Wigner, (who's insights in quantum physics continue to drive breakthroughs in quantum physics), himself stated, "[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not."

"[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not." - Eugene Wigner Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM

And here is a newer video that goes over the history of experiments in quantum mechanics and showing how materialism has been debunked at every turn

Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&index=3

Quantum Theory, (contrary to what Seversky falsely, and repeatedly, claims, is simply completely incompatible with his materialistic philosophy. As a UD commenter succinctly summarized materialism's irreconcilable situation with Quantum Theory a while back

“Everything we call real is made up of things that cannot be regarded as real. If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet.” Bohr - [Attributed. unsourced] The key here is the realization that when we simply observe light, electrons, even small molecules or viruses in the double-slit experiment, it determines whether you get a particulate or a wave pattern. This scientifically falsifies • Materialism – All that exists is matter and energy and the rearrangements of it. (extreme realism) • Realism – A physical reality exists independent of observation. • Naïve Realism — Reality exists independent of observation, just that our perceptions are just a representation of something actually there. (Falsified by QM experiments in 2011, 2012) And it leaves us with only two other options: • Idealism – Reality is a mental construct, and doesn’t exist independent of observation. • Solipsism – The extreme skeptical version of idealism, which claims that only your mind exists and anything outside of it is an illusion. Take your pick! - UD blogger

As to Seversky's claim that Quantum Theory "lends no support to the concept of a transcendent soul", well, that claim is also, unsurprisingly, completely bogus as well. First off, it is important to realize that Darwinian materialists have no realistic clue why the trillions upon trillions of cells in our material bodies should cohere together as a single unified whole for 'precisely a lifetime, and, (virtually), not a moment longer",

The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2010 Excerpt: Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. ,,, the question, rather, is why things don’t fall completely apart — as they do, in fact, at the moment of death. What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and not a moment longer? Despite the countless processes going on in the cell, and despite the fact that each process might be expected to “go its own way” according to the myriad factors impinging on it from all directions, the actual result is quite different. Rather than becoming progressively disordered in their mutual relations (as indeed happens after death, when the whole dissolves into separate fragments), the processes hold together in a larger unity. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-unbearable-wholeness-of-beings

And whereas Darwinian materialists have no clue, "What power holds off that moment — precisely for a lifetime, and (virtually) not a moment longer", Christians, on the other hand, have always held that it is the immaterial soul that, (besides being who we really are and what is gives us life in the first place),

“You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body.” George MacDonald - Annals of a Quiet Neighborhood - 1892 John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.

,, Christians have always held that it is the immaterial soul that, (besides being who we really are and what gives us life in the first place), is what is holding all the 'dead material particles/dust' of our bodies together "precisely for a lifetime, and (virtually) not a moment longer".

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it.

Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, simply deny that we have any transcendent component to our material bodies that is holding us together "precisely for a lifetime, and (virtually) not a moment longer". Much less do Darwinian materialists believe that we have a transcendent component to our being, i.e. a spirit/soul, that is capable of living past the death of our material bodies. Yet, directly contrary to what Darwinists hold in their materialistic worldview, breakthroughs in Quantum Biology have now revealed that humans do indeed have a transcendent component to their being that is capable of living past the death of our material bodies. Specifically, quantum information is now found to be ubiquitous within living organisms. As the following paper explains, “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are (quantum) critical conductors,” and adds, "the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,

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

Darwinists simply have no clue why quantum information should be found to be ubiquitous within life. As the following follow up article stated, "There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,"

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

Even DNA is now shown to be, basically, quantum information, with classical information embedded within it. As Dr Rieper notes at 24:00 minute mark of the following video, practically the whole DNA molecule can be viewed as quantum information with classical information embedded within it.

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

The following video deals with ‘Quantum Biology’ in a bit more detail,

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

bornagain77

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

05:45 AM

5

05

45

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

How are continually monitored all the cells of an complex organism ? How and by "who" is figured out all the structural losses ? Must be based on the presence of an informational map about the "normal structure" and then compared with received info about actual structure and then based on an preseted algorithm give instruction to DNA from cells to act for repairing,replacing,modifying,etc. Must be a Central System that receive the info from EVERY cell and give instruction to EVERY cell. DNA is the employee not the employer so all discussion about DNA/mutations as a driving force behind "evolution" are useless. All activity of DNA is not originated by DNA itself but is coming from other command center(like central nervous system) because DNA don't have enough of the required information to do that (needs hundreds times more info than few billion ).

@WJM under my MRT, there is no such thing as an individual mind.

:)))) My friend , I understand you .You think that is to much pressure on you about acting in this world and you just invent a universal mind to feel more relaxed to switch the responsibility from you to an impersonal mind . :) Doesn't work like that but I understand you.Lieutenant Commander Data

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

05:20 AM

5

05

20

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CC @75 said,

The “material world” is a set of experiences and rational inferences ...

There's a distinction between the experiences and how we model the experiences. The rational inferences about the experience are not the same as the experience itself.

The conclusions of experiences are rational inferences.

Rationally examining any set of experiences, including that which we call "the material world," can lead to valid, rational conclusions (inferences.)

How is that relationally different than ERT with respect to that non-accessed information and minds?

I don't think it is meaningfully different as far as "discovering Pluto" is concerned, because we're talking about module parameters for universally (at least, this universe) common experiences. The significant difference is that we're talking about the limitations of a single module under MRT; under ERT, we're basically saying there are not "other modules" or even "other programs" that we can access; that we are intrinsically "locked in" to "the only game in town, with zero meaningful mods or customizations."

Moreover, if the “material world”, or any world, outside of your mind doesn’t exist, except as information, why not solipsism?

As I explained in @ #39 here: https://uncommondescent.com/mathematics/implication-logic-is-pivotal-to-understanding-how-we-think-as-duty-bound-rational-creatures/#comments ... under my MRT, there is no such thing as an individual mind. Solipsism is, under MRT, an improper concept because it's not "my mind" that makes me "me," it is specific arrangements of information and programming that identify me as an individual in universal mind and render an observational platform of informational filters for consciousness to experience from a ("my") perspective. I am universal consciousness having a local experience from a perspective in mind. There is only one mind, but it is not "my" mind, it is "the" mind. Other people, who express different experiences, perspectives and personalities, exist in my experience. My MRT agrees they actually exist in the same way I exist as an individual; therefore, I am not the only person in existence. Moreover, I just don't find "solipsism" to be a useful perspective for my goal of enjoying my existence because it would make my experiences very hollow and empty. Keep in mind, I don't adopt perspectives because they are the most rational, efficient or most supported by the evidence; I adopt them because they provide me good, functional, practical means of more fully enjoying my experience. IOW, I prefer MRT because it blows the doors wide open to a endless, infinite world of enjoyment. It has transformed my life completely and provided enjoyments I never could have even imagined under ERT. That I can logically and evidentially support MR theory may be just an interesting and happy coincidence, but I suspect there's more to it than that.William J Murray

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

04:40 AM

4

04

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

One final note. The following studies actually show that our moral intuition itself transcends space and time: Specifically, in the following study, 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

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.quantumconsciousness.org/views/TimeFlies.html

And in the following meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010, the researchers found that your body can anticipate morally troubling situations between two and 10 seconds before it happens. And the authors go on to state that, "we can't explain it using present-day (materialistic) understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense."

Can Your Body Sense Future Events Without Any External Clue? (meta-analysis of 26 reports published between 1978 and 2010) - (Oct. 22, 2012) Excerpt: "A person playing a video game at work while wearing headphones, for example, can't hear when his or her boss is coming around the corner. But our analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand,,, This phenomenon is sometimes called "presentiment," as in "sensing the future," but Mossbridge said she and other researchers are not sure whether people are really sensing the future. "I like to call the phenomenon 'anomalous anticipatory activity,'" she said. "The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can't explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense. It's anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it's an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121022145342.htm

In short, Darwinian materialism is at a complete loss to explain the preceding findings, (indeed Darwinian materialism denies the existence of morality altogether), whereas Theism has no problem whatsoever explaining our ability to intuit morally troubling situations before they happen. Namely, we have immaterial minds, (and souls), that are made in the 'image of God' and therefore it is 'expected' on Christian presuppositions that we would have some kind of 'spooky' moral intuition above and beyond what materialism can possibly explain. Verse, quote and video

Romans 2: 14-15 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) “Yet our common moral knowledge is as real as arithmetic, and probably just as plain. Paradoxically, maddeningly, we appeal to it even to justify wrongdoing; rationalization is the homage paid by sin to guilty knowledge.” - J. Budziszewski, What We Can't Not Know: A Guide Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

bornagain77

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

03:06 AM

3

03

06

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Moreover, the deeper we dive into molecular biology, the more problematic altruistic behavior becomes for the Darwinist. Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (the very antithesis of selfishness).

What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/ Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016 Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,, The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,, “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,, The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,, http://www.icr.org/article/9747

Such ‘holistic cooperation’ of every gene in an organism, as should be needless to say, is the exact polar opposite of being a ‘selfish gene’ as Richard Dawkins had falsely envisioned with his entire ‘selfish gene’ concept. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as yet another direct, and powerful, falsification of Darwin's theory). In fact, on top of genes existing in a holistic web of mutual cooperation, the genetic responses of humans are also found to be designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:

Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm

Given that Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ processes are grossly inadequate for explaining where even a single gene and/or protein came from, I consider the preceding finding of ‘morally noble’ gene networks to be yet another direct and powerful falsification of Darwin’s anti-altruistic ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. Moreover on top of all that, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the entire notion that a single cell can somehow become tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive. If tens of trillions of cells acting in concert for the singular purpose of keeping an organism alive is not a shining example of altruistic behavior, then nothing ever will be an example of altruistic behavior.

One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: “It’s a Mystery, It’s Magic, It’s Divinity” – March 2012 Excerpt: ‘The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.’ https://evolutionnews.org/2012/03/mathematician_a/

Thus, the existence of multicellular organisms themselves refutes Seversky's claim that it is impossible to discern the existence of objective morality from 'material reality'. Although we might not be able to discern a entire moral code from our observations of 'material reality', we can, at least, rest assured, from our observations of biology and even our observations down into molecular biology itself, that life itself is thoroughly altruistic in its most fundamental nature, (indeed we would not even exist unless altruistic behavior was rampant in the molecular biology of our material bodies).bornagain77

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

03:05 AM

3

03

05

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky also falsely claimed that it is impossible "to derive moral prescriptions from our observations of material reality.” Yet, the truth is that, although there is no way to develop a COMPLETE code of moral prescriptions from our observations of material reality, in reality we can, at least, discern a general outline of objective morality from our observations of material reality. Remember, as I pointed out in post 80, "Altruistic behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to the entire Darwinian framework of ‘survival of the fittest’".

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

And yet our observations of 'material reality' reveal a stunning array of 'unexpected' altruistic behavior at the must fundamental levels of biology and molecular biology. In fact, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”

“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species

And directly contrary to Charles Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.”

Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf

Moreover, the falsification of the anti-altruistic thinking of Darwin's ‘survival of the fittest’ goes even deeper than that. Much deeper. If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most 'mutational firepower', since only they, since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and 'mutational firepower', would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this Richard Dawkins' video:

Richard Dawkins interview with a 'Darwinian' physician goes off track - video Excerpt: "I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly -- a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves -- that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we're stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?" http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html

In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically 'selected' for? Any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially morally noble altruistic behavior, would be highly superfluous and even detrimental to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view of things, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction. Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”

“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:

The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308

Moreover, directly contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found. And they even went on to remark that, “Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.”

Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

As well, and again directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us survive in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:

NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.” http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs

Moreover, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”

The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf – Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers

Darwin’s theory simply has no explanation for such altruistic behavior in microbial life and in fact such altruistic behavior is completely antithetical to the central assumption of ‘survival of the fittest’ that lays at the heart of Darwin’s theoretical framework.bornagain77

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

03:04 AM

3

03

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

It is also interesting to note that the existence of objective morality, and therefore the existence of God, puts humans in quite a bind, morally speaking. Namely, all men fall short of moral perfection. In fact, as the following video clearly illustrates at the 41:00 minute mark, even Mother Teresa, as saintly as she was, fell inherently short of the moral perfection that is required to meet God's infinite moral perfection.

Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being ‘good enough’ to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code) https://mediacenter.saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f

If not even Mother Teresa can be morally perfect before infinite goodness of that is inherent in God, then we have a very big moral problem on our hands. Namely, there is an inherent infinite moral gap between God’s moral perfection and humanity’s moral imperfection. Yet how does one possibly bridge that infinite moral gap between an infinitely holy and just God and a inherently morally imperfect human? Other religions of the stress man’s ‘works’, not God’s grace, in order to somehow bridge that infinite moral gap. Yet, finite man, all by his lonesome, bridging an infinite moral gap is clearly an exercise in utter futility. Out of all religions in the world, only the grace inherent within Christianity, where God Himself, where Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross payed the price for our sins, realistically, and sufficiently, bridges the infinite moral gap that exists between God’s moral perfection and humanity’s inherent moral imperfection. The unmerited grace of Christ bridging that infinite moral gap on the behalf of humanity is technically known as “propitiation”:

G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385

Moreover, Christianity, unlike all the other religions of the world, realistically takes the Atheist's argument from evil head on in that "the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,"

The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker – April 200 Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, “Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine.” What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan. With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,, http://www.crisismagazine.com/2009/the-problem-of-evil

Verse and video

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

bornagain77

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

03:01 AM

3

03

01

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

To continue my refutation of Seversky's fallacious belief that morality is completely subjective and illusory, from post 80 and 81. It is interesting to note that Atheists unwittingly concede the existence of objective morality in one of the most commonly cited reasons from 'elite' Scientists for not believing in God, i.e. they unwittingly concede the existence of objective morality in their 'argument from evil'

Elite Scientists Don’t Have Elite Reasons for Being Atheists - November 8, 2016 Excerpt: Dr. Jonathan Pararejasingham has compiled video of elite scientists and scholars to make the connection between atheism and science. Unfortunately for Pararejasingham, once you get past the self-identification of these scholars as non-believers, there is simply very little there to justify the belief in atheism.,,, What I found was 50 elite scientists expressing their personal opinions, but none had some powerful argument or evidence to justify their opinions. In fact, most did not even cite a reason for thinking atheism was true.,,, The few that did try to justify their atheism commonly appealed to God of the Gaps arguments (there is no need for God, therefore God does not exist) and the Argument from Evil (our bad world could not have come from an All Loving, All Powerful God). In other words, it is just as I thought it would be. Yes, most elite scientists and scholars are atheists. But their reasons for being atheists and agnostics are varied and often personal. And their typical arguments are rather common and shallow – god of the gaps and the existence of evil. It would seem clear that their expertise and elite status is simply not a causal factor behind their atheism. Finally, it is also clear the militant atheism of Dawkins is a distinct minority view among these scholars. https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/elite-scientists-dont-have-elite-reasons-for-being-atheists/

Again, In their 'argument from evil' the atheist is unwittingly conceding the existence of an objective moral standard to judge by. (the very thing that he denies the existence of). As Dr. Michael Egnor stated, "Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,,"

The Universe Reflects a Mind – Michael Egnor – February 28, 2018 Excerpt: Goff argues that a Mind is manifest in the natural world, but he discounts the existence of God because of the problem of evil. Goff seriously misunderstands the problem of evil. Evil is an insoluble problem for atheists, because if there is no God, there is no objective standard by which evil and good can exist or can even be defined. If God does not exist, “good” and “evil” are merely human opinions. Yet we all know, as Kant observed, that some things are evil in themselves, and not merely as a matter of opinion. Even to raise the problem of evil is to tacitly acknowledge transcendent standards, and thus to acknowledge God’s existence. From that starting point, theodicy begins. Theists have explored it profoundly. Atheists lack the standing even to ask the question.,,, https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/the-universe-reflects-a-mind/

And as C.S. Lewis noted, “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”,,, "in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense."

“If a good God made the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply refused to listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept on feeling “whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are, isn’t it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by any intelligent power? Aren’t all your arguments simply a complicated attempt to avoid the obvious?” But then that threw me back into another difficulty. My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too — for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. ” – C. S. Lewis https://www.americamagazine.org/content/ignatian-educator/cs-lewis-atheist-simplicity

Remember, without God, morality simply does not exist for the atheist. As Richard Dawkins stated, atheists live in a world of “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” – Dawkins

And yet atheists, in their ‘argument from evil’, are forced to act as if objective morality really does exist. Specifically, in their argument from evil, atheists are forced to hold that “There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good.”

The Problem of Evil: Still A Strong Argument for Atheism – 2015 Excerpt:,,, the problem of evil, one of the main arguments against the existence of an all-good and all-knowing God.,,, P1. There exist a large number of horrible forms of evil and suffering for which we can see no greater purpose or compensating good. P2. If an all-powerful, all-good God existed, then such horrific, apparently purposeless evils would not exist. C. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-good God does not exist. https://thegodlesstheist.com/2015/10/13/the-problem-of-evil-still-a-strong-argument-for-atheism/

And yet this is, once again, a self defeating position for the atheist to be in. Specifically on the one hand, Atheistic materialists, to be consistent in their Atheistic materialism, must hold that morality is completely subjective and illusory.

Atheism’s Odd Relationship with Morality By Rabbi Adam Jacobs – 2011 Excerpt: As Dr. Will Provine has said, “[as an atheist] you give up hope that there is an imminent morality … you can’t hope for there being any free will [and there is] … no ultimate foundation for ethics.” - per Huffington post

And yet on the other hand, as David Wood puts it, “By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil.”

Responding to the Argument From Evil: Three Approaches for the Theist – By David Wood Excerpt: Interestingly enough, proponents of AE grant this premise in the course of their argument. By declaring that suffering is evil, atheists have admitted that there is an objective moral standard by which we distinguish good and evil. Amazingly, then, even as atheists make their case against the existence of God, they actually help us prove that God exists!,,, https://www.namb.net/apologetics/responding-to-the-argument-from-evil-three-approaches-for-the-theist

Thus, in their “Argument from Evil”, atheists have unwittingly conceded the existence of an objective moral standard to judge by and have, once again, refuted their very own worldview of Atheistic Materialism in the process. Simply put, if good and evil really do exist, as the atheist must necessarily hold to be true in his argument from evil, then God necessarily exists also!

If Good and Evil Exist, God Exists: – Peter Kreeft – Prager University – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The Moral Argument – drcraigvideos – video https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU?t=276

bornagain77

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

02:59 AM

2

02

59

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

LCD @ 79 -

Actually ,to understand how clueless are the scientists about evolution is to explore another path that is more credible : the changes in DNA are made by brain network based on external/internal stimuli received. Then running on an algorithm the brain send the order to DNA to operate a change to adapt to new conditions.

How would that work in plants and bacteria?Bob O'H

March 22, 2021

March

03

Mar

22

22

2021

01:12 AM

1

01

12

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bornagain77/33

Sev then states, “Consciousness is not observed to exist apart from a physical substrate.” Seversky brazenly ignores the millions of Near Death testimonies (NDEs) that testify to the contrary.

You set a very low bar for what constitutes credible evidence in science. NDEs are reports of subjective experiences. We can assume that those who report them are giving accurate accounts as far as they can remember them. What we can't do is say categorically that they aren't something like dreams or hallucinations. And they are not evidence of consciousness existing apart from the physical brain.

I.e. We have far more observational evidence for the reality of souls than we do for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can generate functional information.

You can't even define what a soul is so what makes you think it exists?Seversky

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

06:58 PM

6

06

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bornagain77/32

Yes it does. That was the whole point of Atheists postulating their fictitious hidden variables and pilot waves. They were trying to explain quantum entanglement with within space-time causes. Yet, time and again, they have failed in their endeavor to ‘explain away’ non-local causality.

Do you know the religious beliefs of the proponents of hidden variable or pilot wave hypotheses? Do you know if they had any bearing on what they proposed? If not, why call them atheists? If they are, can you show that their beliefs had a bearing on their science?

Materialism simply did not predict that the universe is dependent on a non-local, beyond space and time, cause for its existence, whereas Christianity did

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

Colossians is not about quantum mechanics. If you think that line is I'd say that's the exegetical equivalent of pareidolia.

In fact, as I stated previously in this thread, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on the presupposition of methodological naturalism (as Seversky is holding)

Really? Would you care to give just five examples of scientific nooks and crannies which are based on the presupposition of intelligent design? Apart from where human design is involved, of course

Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc..,

So? No one has denied that design exists in the Universe. We do it. That's not the issue, though, is it? The question is can you provide evidence of non-human intelligent design? The answer is that, so far, no, you can't.Seversky

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

06:45 PM

6

06

45

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bornagain77/31

Whatever "it' was that preceded the Creation of the universe, that 'it' was certainly not space-time, matter-energy but somethings that transcended space-time, matter-energy. i.e. Materialism was falsified in its prediction space-time, matter-energy has always existed. And Theism was confirmed in its prediction that the universe had a transcendent origin.

We don't know the nature of what, if anything, preceded the Big Bang. Maybe there wasn't a Big Bang in its original sense. We don't know. Is it so hard to live with "don't know"? The Creation of the Universe by the Christian God is just one of a number of creation myths but it's far from being confirmed.Seversky

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

06:24 PM

6

06

24

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Asauber/23

I take this to mean you want high-school biology teachers to be Evolutionist Proselytizers.

I want them to teach science in the science classes not their personal religious beliefs. That is what they are paid for, that is their contractual and ethical duty.Seversky

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

06:16 PM

6

06

16

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bornagain77/22

Seversky, you keep alluding to evidence for Darwinian evolution. Yet it seems you never quite get around to presenting any actual evidence for Darwinian evolution.

The evidence for evolution can be found in biology textbooks, popular science books and websites such as Talk Origins Archive. But there is little point in presenting it when it will be just brushed aside as "fake news". If you are interested in the actual science, it's there. If your only interest in the scientific literature is mining it for quotes which can be interpreted as supporting your religious presuppositions then continue what you have been doing. But that is not science.Seversky

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

06:12 PM

6

06

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Upright BiPed/20

You are the one asserting an insupportable claim of impossibility. If you want to support the claim that it is impossible for a self-replicating system such as specified by von Neumann to have come about through natural causes then you must be able to eliminate all possible natural causes

Where did I make that claim, Sev? I wrote the text above, and don’t recall making any such claim

So you are allowing that it is at least possible for such a system to emerge through natural causes?

The problem for you, Sev, is not that I am making claims about what matter can and cannot do — that is nothing more than a diversion you’ve attempted to insert into the argument. Instead, the problem for you is that I am using non-controversial scientific literature and history to demonstrate three undeniable facts: 1) that a high-capacity system of symbols and a set of interpretive constraints (i.e. a language structure) was predicted as the fundamental requirement of any autonomous self-replicator capable of biological evolution, 2) that this prediction was systematically confirmed by experimental result, and 3) exactly what the physics of that system entails.

We have already agreed the science is not in dispute. The question is, so what?

In other words Sev, your problem is that you are completely incapacitated by ideology, and forced to protect your worldview from science and reason. Like any flat-earther in the same situation, you lose the argument before it begins, and are simply incapable of admitting the problem.

So you are the champion of science and reason and any who take a different view are simply "incapacitated by ideology" which prevents them from seeing the pristine truth of your case?

Try to take stock Seversky; as a means to defend your worldview, you have demanded that ID produce a logical impossibility as the threshold of credible evidence in its favor.

I am asking you to hold yourself to a standard of the science you claim to uphold. Anyone who promotes a claim in science is required to present evidence in support of that claim if they want to persuade others that it has merit. If ID claims that it is the only plausible explanation for life on Earth, rather than just one of a number of plausible explanations then it has taken a heavy burden of proof on itself. Is that what you are claiming?Seversky

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

06:03 PM

6

06

03

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

In fact, socialism itself is more or less directly based upon Darwin's theory. In 1848 Friedrich Engels co-authored ‘The Communist Manifesto’ with Karl Marx. Upon reading Darwin’s book ‘Origin of Species’ in 1860, Marx wrote to Engels that “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” And in another letter to another ‘comrade’ Marx further wrote that “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”

Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?” To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/

In fact, Vladimir Lenin himself kept a little statue of an ape staring at a human skull on his desk. As you can see, the ape is sitting on a pile of books which includes Darwin’s book, “Origin of Species”.

“V.I. Lenin, creator of the Soviet totalitarian state, kept a little statue on his desk—an ape sitting on a pile of books including mine [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life], gazing at a human skull. And Mao Zedong, butcher of the tens of millions of his own countrymen, who regarded the German ‘Darwinismus’ writings as the foundation of Chinese ‘scientific socialism.’ This disciple mandated my works as reading material for the indoctrination phase of his lethal Great Leap Forward.” Nickell John Romjue, I, Charles Darwin, p. 45 Here is a picture of what the little statue on Lenin’s desk looked like: Hugo Rheinhold’s Monkey – picture https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Y8HpKyHOL._SL1009_.jpg

It would be hard to exaggerate the unmitigated horror that these Godless men unleashed on the world,

“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered - Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered - Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered - Feudal Russia” http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there actually were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world that resulted from the undermining of the sanctity of human life when Darwin’s theory burst onto the scene.

At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA – graph http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10449486_10154444727070445_6800239725838679585_n-e1406834704889.jpg

If Seversky can't find it within himself to say that slaughtering millions upon millions of innocent people is objectively wrong then It is hard for me to believe that Seversky is actually human. He'd be some type of psychopathic monster in my book, but he definitely would not be human. Well, It is getting late in the evening for me, so I'll pick up this refutation of Seversky false belief in subjective morality in the morningbornagain77

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

06:02 PM

6

06

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

In response to this claim,

15. 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.

In response to that claim, Seversky responds thusly, "Nat/mat argues that there is no way to get from ‘is’ to ‘ought’, no way to derive moral prescriptions from our observations of material reality. So they can only be subjective, and that includes any that come from a deity.,,, Theistic faiths simply argue that the morality dispensed by their chosen deity overrides all others. That doesn’t make it objective, just an illegitimate attempt to stake out a claim to the moral high ground.,,, The claim that morality is somehow embedded in our genes or in the fabric of the universe is an entirely unsubstantiated claim." Seversky is correct to say that morality is subjective and illusory under Atheistic materialism. Yet Seversky is partially incorrect in saying that there is "no way to derive moral prescriptions from our observations of material reality." The truth is that there is no way to develop a COMPLETE code of moral prescriptions from our observations of material reality. Yet we can discern a general outline of objective morality from our observations of material reality, And Seversky is also completely incorrect in his claim that we cannot receive moral guidance from God. And Seversky is also completely incorrect in his claim that we cannot differentiate which Theistic faith is morally superior to the other Theistic faiths. And Seversky is also completely incorrect in his claim that it is unsubstantiated that morality is deeply embedded in our genes and in the structure of the universe. (I should be careful to caveat my claim with, morality is deeply embedded in 'the beyond space and time' structure of the universe.) First off, to what Seversky got right, if atheistic materialism is true, then. morality is completely subjective and illusory. As Richard Dawkins put it, if atheistic materialism is true then we live in a world of "no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” - Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

The trouble for Seversky, Dawkins, and all other atheistic materialists, is that nobody can consistently live their life as if morality were completely subjective and illusory. As the following article states, "materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath."

The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3?

Even Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be "intolerable' for him to live his life as if objective morality did not really exist.

Who wrote Richard Dawkins’s new book? – October 28, 2006 Excerpt: Dawkins:,,, We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do.,,, Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views? Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/who_wrote_richard_dawkinss_new002783.html

And as Nancy Pearcey has pointed out in the following excellent article, many other leading atheists also honestly admit that it impossible for them to live their life consistently as if their atheistic materialism were actually true and as if morality were completely subjective and illusory.

Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way.,,, ,,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html

And if we put Severky's own belief that morality is completely subjective and illusory to a real world test, then I bet my bottom dollar that I could get Seversky to strenuously argue that morality was, in fact, objective and real.

Cruel Logic: (The Original Short Film) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noP4it-QLBE

In what should be needless to say, if it is impossible for you to consistently live your life in the real world as if your worldview were actually true then your worldview cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but your worldview must instead be based on a delusion.

Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/

But the irresolvable problem Seversky has with objective morality gets worse for Seversky, much worse! You see, although Seversky's Atheistic Materialism entails that there is "no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference”, when we throw Darwinian evolution on top of his Atheistic Materialism, then the amorality that is inherent within his Atheistic Materialism turns into blatant ANTI-morality. Altruistic behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to the entire Darwinian framework of 'survival of the fittest': As Charles Darwin himself stated, “let the strongest live and the weakest die.”

“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

As should be obvious to everyone who is not a psychopath, not only is “let the strongest live and the weakest die” amoral, but it is completely ANTI-moral. Adolf Hilter himself echoed Charles Darwin’s words when he stated, “Nature,,, wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.”

“A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf – pg 248

As should be needless to say, wiping out the weak to give place to the strong is directly opposed to the Christian ethos of looking after the weak.

Matthew 25:34-40 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

As Sir Arthur Keith noted shortly after WWII, “the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.”

“for, as we have just seen, the ways of national evolution, both in the past and in the present, are cruel, brutal, ruthless, and without mercy.,,, Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed.” Sir Arthur Keith, (1866 — 1955) Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons – Evolution and Ethics (1947) p.15

Hitler was hardly the only genocidal maniac who based his worldview on Darwinian evolution. In fact, the greatest mass murderers in history, (Hitler, Stalin, and Mao), all based their murderous ideology on Darwin’s theory. Joseph Stalin, while at a seminary school of all places, was heavily influenced by Darwinism. Specifically Stalin, while at seminary told a friend, ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God’,,, ‘I’ll lend you a book to read’,,, ‘Darwin. You must read it,’

Stalin’s Brutal Faith Excerpt: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates: “I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said: “‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’ “I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. “‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed. “‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said. “‘What book is that?’ I enquired. “‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” 1 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,, http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/

As well Chairman Mao, who outdid Hitler and Stalin in monstrous evil,

Chairman MAO: Genocide Master (Black Book of Communism) “…Many scholars and commentators have referenced my total of 174,000,000 for the democide (genocide and mass murder) of the last century. I’m now trying to get word out that I’ve had to make a major revision in my total due to two books. I’m now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin….” http://wadias.in/site/arzan/blog/chairman-mao-genocide-master/

, Chairman Mao was also deeply influenced by Darwin’s theory. In fact, as the following article states, Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors.

Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution Excerpt: Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors. https://creation.com/deconstructing-darwin-darwins-impact Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China – 2/13/2013 https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china

bornagain77

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

06:00 PM

6

06

00

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

@Bornagain77 Actually ,to understand how clueless are the scientists about evolution is to explore another path that is more credible : the changes in DNA are made by brain network based on external/internal stimuli received. Then running on an algorithm the brain send the order to DNA to operate a change to adapt to new conditions. I guess there is no random change in DNA but indeed could appear "errors" (mutations) caused by harmful radiations ,deficient/exaggerated transmission of chemical/electric signal toward/from brain network ,etc. but this are exceptions that confirm the rule of non-random mutations. Nothing is random in living creatures and when randomness is happening then bad things occurs(genetic disorders,immune response problems etc., tenths of thousands are indexed till now) Health is only one straight line ,diseases are an infinite of crooked lines. Darwinists actually claim that a living organism is first a sick organism that become healthy by random events. :))))Lieutenant Commander Data

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

02:38 PM

2

02

38

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

It is also interesting to note that in the Darwinist's appeal to Neutral theory, where it is held that “the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance”, that 'chance' itself is not that cause of anything but is instead merely a placeholder for ignorance. Even Charles Darwin himself was honest enough to admit as much,

“I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.” Charles Darwin – Origin – Chapter V

As Wolfgang Pauli explained, “While they (evolutionary biologists) pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’”

Pauli’s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science – Harald Atmanspacher Excerpt: “In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational,’ they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle.’” Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/234f/4989e039089fed5ac47c7d1a19b656c602e2.pdf

In other words, the word ‘chance’, as it is used by Darwinists, is not an appeal to any known mathematical probability, and/or a known cause, but is, in reality, a placeholder for ignorance. As Robert C. Sproul points out: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’”

What Is Chance? – Nicholas Nurston Excerpt: “The vague word ‘chance’ is used as a substitute for a more precise word such as ’cause’. “To personify ‘chance’ as if we were talking about a causal agent,” notes biophysicist Donald M. MacKay, “is to make an illegitimate switch from a scientific to a quasi-religious mythological concept.” Similarly, Robert C. Sproul points out: “By calling the unknown cause ‘chance’ for so long, people begin to forget that a substitution was made. . . . The assumption that ‘chance equals an unknown cause’ has come to mean for many that ‘chance equals cause.’” Others who reasoned in this fashion, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod, for one, used this chance equals cause line of reasoning. “Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, (is) at the root of the stupendous edifice of evolution,”… https://books.google.com/books?id=bQ5OAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT25&lpg=PT25

So with Darwinists, via neutral theory, now claiming that “the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance”, instead of being due to Natural Selection, we have every right to ask Darwinists, 'Can you be a little more explicit here?'

Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness - Talbott - Fall 2011 Excerpt: The situation calls to mind a widely circulated cartoon by Sidney Harris, which shows two scientists in front of a blackboard on which a body of theory has been traced out with the usual tangle of symbols, arrows, equations, and so on. But there’s a gap in the reasoning at one point, filled by the words, “Then a miracle occurs.” And the one scientist is saying to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.” In the case of evolution, I picture Dennett and Dawkins filling the blackboard with their vivid descriptions of living, highly regulated, coordinated, integrated, and intensely meaningful biological processes, and then inserting a small, mysterious gap in the middle, along with the words, “Here something random occurs.” This “something random” looks every bit as wishful as the appeal to a miracle. It is the central miracle in a gospel of meaninglessness, a “Randomness of the gaps,” demanding an extraordinarily blind faith. At the very least, we have a right to ask, “Can you be a little more explicit here?” http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/evolution-and-the-illusion-of-randomness

Also of note, here are a few quotes from leading Darwinists who falsely imagined natural selection to be the supposed 'designer substitute',

Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought By Ernst Mayr - November 24, 2009 Excerpt: Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought/ Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer - Francisco J. Ayala - May 15, 2007 Excerpt: "Darwin’s theory of natural selection accounts for the 'design' of organisms, and for their wondrous diversity, as the result of natural processes,",,, Darwin's Explanation of Design Darwin's focus in The Origin was the explanation of design, with evolution playing the subsidiary role of supporting evidence. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567.full "Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning." Richard Dawkins - "The Blind Watchmaker" - 1986 - page 21 Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

also of note, the term 'Natural Selection' itself is actually an oxymoron

“intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred because an intelligent agent has done what only intelligent agents can do, namely, make a choice. If intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, the same cannot be said for the phrase natural selection. The second word of the phrase natural selection, is of course a synonym for choice. Indeed the l-e-c in selection is a variant of the l-e-g that in the Latin lego means to choose or select, and that also appears as l-i-g in intelligence. Natural selection is therefore an oxymoron. It attributes the power to choose, which properly belongs to intelligent agents, to natural causes, which inherently lack the power to choose.” – William Dembski – Science and the Myth of Progress – pg 294 – 2003

bornagain77

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

11:30 AM

11

11

30

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

In regards to this claim

14. 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)

In regards to that claim Seversky responded thusly, "More mutations are going to be detrimental rather than beneficial if for no other reason than that there are many more ways for something to go wrong than to go right. With the advent of neutral theory, the majority of mutations are held to be neutral or nearly so, a much smaller number are detrimental and a much smaller number still are positively beneficial. But whether a mutation is detrimental or beneficial depends on the environmental circumstances in which it occurs. Furthermore, detrimental mutations will tend to be the ones filtered out by evolution leaving the beneficial to proliferate. As noted before, theism made no predictions whatsoever concerning the existence of DNA, let alone the relative frequencies of neutral, detrimental or beneficial mutations." Although much of what I have just stated in the posts 71 through 74 falsify these claims from Seversky, I will add a few more observations. First off, contrary to Seversky's claim that, "theism made no predictions whatsoever concerning,,, the relative frequencies of neutral, detrimental or beneficial mutations", contrary to that claim, the Bible is pretty explicit in its claim that entropy is a defining feature of life and of this universe.

1 Corinthians 15: 51-57 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 13:34 God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said, "'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.' Psalm 102:25-27 ? Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end. "We have the sober scientific certainty that the heavens and earth shall ‘wax old as doth a garment’....?Dark indeed would be the prospects of the human race if unilluminated by that light which reveals ‘new heavens and a new earth.’" Sir William Thomson, Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907) – pioneer in many different fields, particularly electromagnetism and thermodynamics.

As to Seversky's claim that Darwinists always expected "More mutations are going to be detrimental rather than beneficial if for no other reason than that there are many more ways for something to go wrong than to go right", that claim from Seversky simply is not true. Fisher himself, when he formulated population genetics, held that there would be far more beneficial mutations than there actually are. In fact, Fisher, when he first formulated population genetics, "Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). "

Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down - December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it. Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,, The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,, The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/

And here the paper that falsified Fisher's theorem when a realistic rate of detrimental mutations was added to Fisher's theorem,

The fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations - June 2018 Excerpt: The mutation–selection process is the most fundamental mechanism of evolution. In 1935, R. A. Fisher proved his fundamental theorem of natural selection, providing a model in which the rate of change of mean fitness is equal to the genetic variance of a species. Fisher did not include mutations in his model, but believed that mutations would provide a continual supply of variance resulting in perpetual increase in mean fitness, thus providing a foundation for neo-Darwinian theory. In this paper we re-examine Fisher’s Theorem, showing that because it disregards mutations, and because it is invalid beyond one instant in time, it has limited biological relevance. We build a differential equations model from Fisher’s first principles with mutations added, and prove a revised theorem showing the rate of change in mean fitness is equal to genetic variance plus a mutational effects term. We refer to our revised theorem as the fundamental theorem of natural selection with mutations. Our expanded theorem, and our associated analyses (analytic computation, numerical simulation, and visualization), provide a clearer understanding of the mutation–selection process, and allow application of biologically realistic parameters such as mutational effects. The expanded theorem has biological implications significantly different from what Fisher had envisioned.,,,, Because the premise underlying Fisher’s corollary is now recognized to be entirely wrong (because Fisher falsely assumed there to be an equal proportion of good and bad mutations), Fisher’s corollary is falsified. Consequently, Fisher’s belief that he had developed a mathematical proof that fitness must always increase is also falsified. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00285-017-1190-x

So Seversky's claim that Darwinists always assumed that mutations would be mostly detrimental is simply false. Fisher himself assumed an equal proportion of good and bad mutations, and moreover, when realistic rates of detrimental mutations were considered, then it falsified the Darwinian belief that Fisher had developed a mathematical proof that "fitness must always increase". In short, when realistic rates of detrimental to beneficial mutations are considered, then the mathematics of population genetics itself falsifies Darwinian evolution. I will add one more comment in regards to Seversky's appeal to 'neutral theory'. 'Neutral theory' was actually born out of the theoretical failure of 'Natural Selection' within the mathematics of population genetics, and 'Neutral Theory' was NOT born out of any compelling empirical reason for considering it a valid, or even feasible, scientific theory. The mathematics of population genetics shows that Natural Selection is grossly inadequate as the supposed 'designer substitute' that Darwinists have falsely imagined it to be.

John Sanford, Wesley Brewer, Franzine Smith, and John Baumgardner Excerpt: The program Mendel’s Accountant realistically simulates the mutation/selection process,,, Given optimal settings, what is the longest nucleotide string that can arise within a reasonable waiting time within a hominin population of 10,000? Arguably, the waiting time for the fixation of a “string-of-one” is by itself problematic (Table 2). Waiting a minimum of 1.5 million years (realistically, much longer), for a single point mutation is not timely adaptation in the face of any type of pressing evolutionary challenge. This is especially problematic when we consider that it is estimated that it only took six million years for the chimp and human genomes to diverge by over 5 % [1]. This represents at least 75 million nucleotide changes in the human lineage, many of which must encode new information. While fixing one point mutation is problematic, our simulations show that the fixation of two co-dependent mutations is extremely problematic – requiring at least 84 million years (Table 2). This is ten-fold longer than the estimated time required for ape-to-man evolution. In this light, we suggest that a string of two specific mutations is a reasonable upper limit, in terms of the longest string length that is likely to evolve within a hominin population (at least in a way that is either timely or meaningful). Certainly the creation and fixation of a string of three (requiring at least 380 million years) would be extremely untimely (and trivial in effect), in terms of the evolution of modern man. It is widely thought that a larger population size can eliminate the waiting time problem. If that were true, then the waiting time problem would only be meaningful within small populations. While our simulations show that larger populations do help reduce waiting time, we see that the benefit of larger population size produces rapidly diminishing returns (Table 4 and Fig. 4). When we increase the hominin population from 10,000 to 1 million (our current upper limit for these types of experiments), the waiting time for creating a string of five is only reduced from two billion to 482 million years. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4573302/

Many leading Darwinists, such as Dan Graur and Larry Moran, who are familiar with the failings of natural selection within the mathematics of population genetics now champion what is termed the neutral theory of molecular evolution which, instead of Natural Selection;ection being the driving force of evolution, holds that "the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance."

Austin Hughes and Neutral Theory – Laurence A. Moran – June 19, 2017 Excerpt: Originally proposed by Motoo Kimura, Jack King, and Thomas Jukes, the neutral theory of molecular evolution is inherently non-Darwinian. Darwinism asserts that natural selection is the driving force of evolutionary change. It is the claim of the neutral theory, on the other hand, that the majority of evolutionary change is due to chance. https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/06/austin-hughes-and-neutral-theory.html

So with Natural selection being tossed to the wayside by the mathematics of population genetics, (and by the empirical evidence), as the supposed explanation for the 'appearance of design' that we see in life, Darwinists did not accept such a devastating finding from the mathematics of population genetics as an outright falsification for their theory, (as they should have done), but are instead now reduced to arguing that the 'appearance of design' that we see in life is, basically, the result of pure chance with natural selection now playing a very negligible role if any role at all. To call such a move on the part of Darwinists 'scientifically disingenuous' would be a severe understatement. Even Richard Dawkins himself finds the claim that chance alone can build such wonderful design to be ‘absolutely inconceivable’. In the following video Dawkins himself stated that “It cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out.,,, It’s out of the question.,,,"

4:30 minute mark: “It cannot come about by chance. It’s absolutely inconceivable that you could get anything as complicated or well designed as a modern bird or a human or a hedgehog coming about by chance. That’s absolutely out.,,, It’s out of the question.,,," So where (does the appearance of design)) it come from? The process of gradual evolution by natural selection.” Richard Dawkins – From a Frog to a Prince – video https://youtu.be/ClleN8ysimg?t=267

To put it even more bluntly than Richard Dawkins did, Jay Homnick stated that, “Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.”

“It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. It strikes me as urgent to insist that you not allow your mind to surrender the absolute clarity that all complex and magnificent things were made that way. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident… you have essentially “lost your mind.” - Jay Homnick – American Spectator 2005

Contrary to what the proponents of neutral theory may desperately want to believe, with natural selection being falsified as the supposed ‘designer substitute’ by the mathematics of population genetics, then the explanation for the design we see in life does not then become ‘well chance must have done it all by itself’, but instead the explanation for the ‘wonderful design’ we see in life instead becomes what it readily appears to be. Namely, as Richard Sternberg stated, “things appear designed because they are designed.”

“Darwinism provided an explanation for the appearance of design, and argued that there is no Designer — or, if you will, the designer is natural selection. If that’s out of the way — if that (natural selection) just does not explain the evidence — then the flip side of that is, well, things appear designed because they are designed.” Richard Sternberg – Living Waters documentary Whale Evolution vs. Population Genetics – Richard Sternberg and Paul Nelson – (excerpt from Living Waters video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0csd3M4bc0Q

Verse:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

bornagain77

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

07:47 AM

7

07

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM: To continue... copied from the other thread...

Here’s the rimshot: everything I just described in terms of common data set and shared processing protocols that exist in our “minds” must exist even if there is an actual world external of mind or else we would not have confirmable, coordinated experiences. MRT theory just disposes of what is an entirely unnecessary, extraneous “third party” do main of existence.

Why not go the whole way and dispense of all extraneous inferences? The mind you (may) believe I and others have are inferences that have no explanatory power beyond zombies existing in "the module." In other words, why not solispism for yourself? Solipsism+MRT (SMRT or "smart") is more parsimonious. The Module may be telling you something, WJM. ;)Concealed Citizen

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

07:09 AM

7

07

09

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM: The “material world” is a set of experiences that occur as the result of consciousness mentally interacting with abstract information, not material entities containing information. Experiments have shown that the latter cannot be the case. I would put it this way: The “material world” is a set of experiences and rational inferences that occur as the result of consciousness mentally interacting with abstract information, not material entities containing information. Experiments have shown that the latter cannot be the case. The conclusions of experiences are rational inferences. Do you accept that humans have reason that can make valid relational inferences? I do agree that the universe is composed of information, not "real" objects, but you, yourself, have posited the "shared module" between minds that contain information that is not always accessed by any individual mind. (Such as what was responsible for the objective configuration of Pluto before anyone perceived it.) How is that relationally different than ERT with respect to that non-accessed information and minds? Moreover, if the "material world", or any world, outside of your mind doesn't exist, except as information, why not solipsism? Do you have direct access to other minds that you haven't discussed that make you know you're not the only conscious mind? Do you have direct access to my consciousness? And a Happy Spring Equinox to all.Concealed Citizen

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

06:22 AM

6

06

22

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Of note, experiments trying to remove small sections of supposedly 'Junk DNA' from the mouse genome did not turn out as Darwinists had expected

Jonathan Wells on Darwinism, Science, and Junk DNA – November 2011 Excerpt: Mice without “junk” DNA. In 2004, Edward Rubin?] and a team of scientists at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California reported that they had engineered mice missing over a million base pairs of non-protein-coding (“junk”) DNA—about 1% of the mouse genome—and that they could “see no effect in them.” But molecular biologist Barbara Knowles (who reported the same month that other regions of non-protein-coding mouse DNA were functional) cautioned that the Lawrence Berkeley study didn’t prove that non-protein-coding DNA has no function. “Those mice were alive, that’s what we know about them,” she said. “We don’t know if they have abnormalities that we don’t test for.”And University of California biomolecular engineer David Haussler? said that the deleted non-protein-coding DNA could have effects that the study missed. “Survival in the laboratory for a generation or two is not the same as successful competition in the wild for millions of years,” he argued. In 2010, Rubin was part of another team of scientists that engineered mice missing a 58,000-base stretch of so-called “junk” DNA. The team found that the DNA-deficient mice appeared normal until they (along with a control group of normal mice) were fed a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet for 20 weeks. By the end of the study, a substantially higher proportion of the DNA-deficient mice had died from heart disease. Clearly, removing so-called “junk” DNA can have effects that appear only later or under other circumstances. per Uncommon Descent

Supplemental notes:

Shoddy Engineering or Intelligent Design? Case of the Mouse’s Eye – April 2009 Excerpt: — The (entire) nuclear genome is thus transformed into an optical device that is designed to assist in the capturing of photons. This chromatin-based convex (focusing) lens is so well constructed that it still works when lattices of rod cells are made to be disordered. Normal cell nuclei actually scatter light. — So the next time someone tells you that it “strains credulity” to think that more than a few pieces of “junk DNA” could be functional in the cell – remind them of the rod cell nuclei of the humble mouse. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/shoddy_engineering_or_intellig.html Inferring Widespread Functionality for Virtually 100% of the Genome https://uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/tossing-out-the-junk/#comment-565266

bornagain77

March 21, 2021

March

03

Mar

21

21

2021

04:17 AM

4

04

17

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link