Intelligent Design Science theism

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

Spread the love

12 noon EST, as part of the Cutting Edge Apologetics Webinar Series, sponsored by the C. S. Lewis Society.

Oxford mathematician John Lennox is the author, most recently, of 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity (2020)

Register here. More below:

Also: A course at Trinity University on Darwinism & Intelligent Design, featuring

  • Professor Tom Woodward, author of “Doubts about Darwin” & “Darwin Strikes Back”
  • C.S. Lewis Society Webinar by Dr. John Lennox (Oxford University)
  • CSLS Live Webinars by Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Michael Behe
  • Dr. Jonathan Wells, author of “Icons of Evolution,” presents a “Zombie Science” Webinar

Course Description. It’s free if you watch from your computer at home and don’t need the credit.

Now here’s the poster for Lennox’s webinar:

information@apologetics.org


2430 Welbilt Blvd.
Trinity, FL 34655

www.apologetics.org



John Lennox of Oxford University
Kicks off Webinar Series on March 18th!


Mark your calendars and fasten your seat belts. We’re ready for take-off!




One of our most exciting new ministries, just launched this year, is a series of “Cutting Edge Apologetics Webinars” with world-class scholars. Our “kickoff” of the series is a presentation by Dr. John Lennox, Emeritus Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, seen here. He is a renowned author and speaker on evidence for the Christian faith in science. His one-hour webinar is entitled, “Has Science Buried God?” and is slated for noon (EST) on Thursday, March 18.


The webinar will be in an interview format, addressing several key questions related to the recent film “Against the Tide,” in which Dr. Lennox explained the evidence for Christianity with actor Kevin Sorbo. We’ll discuss the most compelling new evidence which shows that our universe is the result of brilliant design. We’ll ask, “Is it plausible any longer to view our cosmos as coming from chance interactions of matter and energy—from “pure dumb luck”? Also, Dr. Lennox will survey the flow of historical evidence for the historicity of the New Testament.

Registration for free webinar with Dr. Lennox

Be sure to register for this virtual seminar right away; and a Zoom Webinar link will be supplied! Early registration is recommended, as our virtual auditorium has limited seating.


Also mark your calendar for a series of evening webinars (listed below in Eastern Time) that are scheduled for Thursday evenings in late March and April. At apologetics.org, we will publish links for these webinars a week before each event.


March 25th at 7:30 pm
Dr. Stephen Meyer – “The Return of the God Hypothesis”


April 8th at 7:30 pm
Dr. Michael Behe – “The Case for Design in Biology”


April 22nd at 7:30 pm
Dr. Jonathan Wells – “Zombie Science Exposed”


April 29th at 7:30 pm
Hillary Morgan Ferrer, of “Mama Bear Apologetics” – “How to Destroy a Culture”


Join us for our Cutting Edge Webinars!

If you are interested in the “Darwinism and Intelligent Design” course taught at Trinity College by C.S. Lewis Society Executive Director, Dr. Tom Woodward, you can click here for more information. It will be taught on five consecutive Thursday evenings, both in person and virtually, starting March 25th. Special rates are available for auditors!


Finally, if you didn’t catch our VISION 2021 Virtual Banquet a few weeks ago, it still can be viewed at Facebook.com/CSLewisSociety.




Continuing Forward for Him,


Dr. Tom Woodward
Executive Director

Dave Engelhardt
Director and President


The C. S. Lewis Society is a faith-based, 501(c)(3) ministry. To assist us financially, send your tax-deductible gift to 2430 Welbilt Blvd, Trinity, FL 34655. You may also donate online securely at www.apologetics.org and click on “donate”.

103 Replies to “Thursday, March 18, John Lennox Webinar: Has Science Buried God?

  1. 1
    polistra says:

    I don’t really care if science buries god. Science is burying millions of people right now, and that’s the important point.

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    “Has Science Buried God?”

    Does science want to bury God? Is it supposed to bury God?

    A lot of modern science is just veiled (more or less) expressions of hostility toward Christianity and Christians.

    It’s not really science.

    Andrew

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    Just as pertinent is does Christianity want to bury any inconvenient science that cannot be squared with its doctrines?

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    Sev,

    Are you afraid that Christians are burying some important science?

    Andrew

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    Asauber/4

    Are you afraid that Christians are burying some important science?

    We have evidence that some would if they could.

    Live ScienceCulture
    13% of H.S. Biology Teachers Advocate Creationism in Class
    By Jennifer Welsh | January 27, 2011 09:25am ET

    The majority of high-school biology teachers don’t take a solid stance on evolution with their students, mostly to avoid conflicts, and fewer than 30 percent of teachers take an adamant pro-evolutionary stance on the topic, a new study finds. Also, 13 percent of these teachers advocate creationism in their classrooms.

    […]

    Inside the classroom

    The data was collected from 926 nationally representative participants in the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, which polled them on what they taught in the classroom and how much time they spent on each subject. They also noted the teachers’ personal feelings on creationism and evolution.

    Only 28 percent of high-school biology teachers followed the National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences recommendations on teaching evolution, which include citing evidence that evolution occurred and teaching evolution thematically, as a link between various biology topics.

    “We say [evolution is] a central idea in biology, but someone can get a biology degree and not take a class in it,” Randy Moore, a science and evolution education specialist in the biology department at the University of Minnesota who was not involved in the study, told LiveScience. “We let that go in the name of religious freedom.”

    In comparison, 13 percent of the teachers said they “explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.” These are mostly the same group of teachers (about 14 percent) who personally reject the idea of evolution and the scientific method, and believe that God created humans on Earth in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. (That 14 percent included teachers’ personal beliefs, regardless of whether they taught these in the classroom.)

    Some of the creationism advocates insisted that they, rather than scientists, were practicing proper science, with a Minnesota teacher commenting, “I don’t teach the theory of evolution in my life science classes, nor do I teach the Big Bang Theory in my [E]arth [S]cience classes…. We do not have time to do something that is at best poor science.”

    Others rejected the scientific method as valid for shedding light on the origin of species, with an Illinois teacher responding, “I am always amazed at how evolution and creationism are treated as if they are right or wrong. They are both belief systems that can never be truly or fully proved or discredited.”

    I don’t know how John Lennox would feel about this but I would say it is cause for concern.

  6. 6

    .

    Sev: … bury any inconvenient science that cannot be squared with its doctrines?

    Do you mean the way you do it Sev — start off by requiring a logical impossibility as your standard of evidence, then assume your conclusions as a data point, and finish up with a fallacious appeal to authority?

    September 2020

    Seversky: I haven’t dismissed anything in the history of science or the literature or the data.

    UB: So in order to start an open-ended description-based replicator (one that is physically capable of what we generally refer to as Darwinian or biological evolution) you have to be able to specify multiple objects (among alternatives) using a common transcribable medium. This requires an irreducible organization made up of rate-independent memory tokens (symbols) and a set of non-integrable constraints, operating together in a semantically-closed system. The products of this system must successfully specify and produce a very particular dissipative process. The objects in this dissipative process must use the laws of nature to cause the medium to be processed, the products to be produced, and the memory to be copied and be placed inside a separate replicant along with a complete set of constraints. And for that pathway to be successful (i.e. semantically closed) requires a simultaneous coordination between the individual segments of the medium that describe the constraints and the individual segments of the medium that describe the various constituents of the dissipative process (i.e. changing the arrangement of one segment, changes the products of all the other segments). These requirements aren’t merely a mouthful, they are an accurate (and heavily abbreviated) summary of what physics and biology have taught us through logic, prediction, and confirmation via experimental result.

    When you are confronted with these well-documented facts of history and observation, and are given the opportunity to research and discover them for yourself, you immediately jump to say (in your safe, detached, and dull retrospective voice) some variation of the defensive rhetoric: “Well, no one knows how life began”. In other words, you run for the tall grass. You pretend we don’t already know what is physically required of the gene system. You hide from the facts.

    Seversky: The fact is that no one does know how life began. That is not hiding from the facts, that is facing them.

    UB: The elements of this description [above] are carefully recorded in the physics and biology literature, and are based on prediction, logic, measurement, and experimental confirmation. None of the material observations involved here is even controversial. Additionally, the logic is both appropriately sparse and impeccable. You’ll also notice that this is about measurement and description, not about denying or supporting any proposed solution to the origin of the system.

    Are you suggesting here that you now agree with these physical requirements?

    Seversky: I have never disputed those requirements. I accept what von Neuman and others have determined are the basic requirements for any self-reproducing system.

    What I do not accept – and neither, apparently, do many of those working in this field – is that the only possible origin for such systems is an intelligent designer.

    UB: So the only thing that can motivate a decision away from your preferred position is if it can be proven that the origin of life is not possible by any unknown natural cause.

    We can talk about the posture of your answer in a moment, but first we need to point out the 600lb gorilla hiding behind the curtains. You are using a non-falsifiable condition as your standard of evidence in a scientific question. You’ve set up a situation where the hypothesis you are opposed to must prove a negative or the evidence in favor of that hypothesis is given no value because it does not meet the threshold. Only the proof of a negative is given the capacity to change your position. This is entirely illegitimate reasoning. Of course, no one can force you to use valid reasoning in your beliefs; that is generally something that comes when it is valued by the person doing the reasoning. But you clearly cannot stand firm and suggest that your conclusions were arrived at with anything even resembling sound judgement. That is simply not true.

    Likewise, when you say that you “accept” opposing evidence (such as Von Neumann and others) it is also simply not true. Under your reasoning, the evidence for your opposition can continue to pile up to the rafters while the evidence in favor of your preferred position remains at zero. Until that opposing evidence proves a negative (something it cannot do) then it does not have the power to affect your conclusion. Physical evidence, indeed, becomes meaningless. This is the ultimate protectionist shield against science and reason; demand something that is not logically possible as your standard for evidence. The bonus is that you get to say you are a person of science and reason, while concealing the fact that you’ve completely eviscerated both of everything they have to offer.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev. you do realize that the science of biology is NOT the materialistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution do you not? Or has that little factual detail slipped your attention?

    “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”
    Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

    “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
    Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

    And Seversky you do also realize that Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, a real and testable science do you not? Or has that little detail also skipped your attention as well?

    There is simply nothing that Darwinists can point to within their theory and say, ‘and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science instead of a pseudoscientific religion’
    .https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/josh-swamidass-on-the-need-to-single-out-and-punish-creationists/#comment-725934

  8. 8
    Steve Alten2 says:

    I don’t see how science can bury God.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    SA2, you are right.

    Nothing can ever bury God. It is impossible for Him to die.

    Acts 2:24
    “But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.”

    If fact, far from science ever burying God, Christ’s triumph over death provides us with the correct solution to the number one mystery and question in science today of ‘what is the correct solution to the ‘theory of everything’?

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  10. 10
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bornagain1977 ” SA2, you are right.

    Nothing can ever bury God. It is impossible for Him to die.”

    And impossible for him to be falsified.

  11. 11
    Steve Alten2 says:

    And I notice, over on Kairosfocus’ latest thread, he is putting anyone who disagrees with him under moderation. Cancel culture rears it’s ugly head again. 🙂

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    SA2, I think you have God seriously confused with Darwinian evolution.

    (To repeat what I have said several times previously), Here are a few observations that falsify Darwinian evolution. Falsifications that Darwinists themselves simply refuse to ever accept as falsifications of their theory:

    Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’.

    Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute.

    Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke.

    Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see 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.

    Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late).

    Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species.

    Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    Charles Darwin himself 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.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “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.”

    Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’.

    Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place!

    Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!.

    The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy.

    Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    Verse:

    1 Thessalonians 5:21
    Test all things; hold fast what is good.

  13. 13
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bornagain77 “ SA2, I think you have God seriously confused with Darwinian evolution.“

    As I never mentioned Darwin, I don’t see how that is possible.

  14. 14
  15. 15
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bornagain77 “ Whatever.

    The response of someone who’s response is irrelevant but too proud to admit it. 🙂

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    Upright BiPed/6

    Do you mean the way you do it Sev — start off by requiring a logical impossibility as your standard of evidence, then assume your conclusions as a data point, and finish up with a fallacious appeal to authority?

    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 – whether known or unknown – which is an impracticable project given the limitations of our current knowledge. Otherwise, you must concede that at present, like it or not, we just don’t know.

    Furthermore, if your case is true, all it does is lead us yet again to confront the age-old dilemma of either an infinite causal chain or an uncaused first cause. If self-replicators are so complex that they must have been designed then the same must be true of the designers, which leads us to an infinite regress of designed designers. The only alternatives are that at some point they came about through natural causes – which you categorically reject – or there was an uncaused first cause which, being uncaused, must be eternal existing in the past, existing now and will continue to exist for the whole of our future. The only problem with such a concept is that causation implies time in which the cause is antecedent to the effect and that brings us back to the infinite causal chain.

  17. 17
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/7

    Sev. you do realize that the science of biology is NOT the materialistic philosophy of Darwinian evolution do you not? Or has that little factual detail slipped your attention?

    You do realize that arguing that Darwinian evolution does not comprise the whole of biology does not mean that evolution does not occur or that evidence of its occurrence does not exist?

    And Seversky you do also realize that Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, a real and testable science do you not? Or has that little detail also skipped your attention as well?

    You do also realize that generations of evolutionary biologists wholeheartedly disagree so to whose opinion should I assign the greater weight of credibility, yours or theirs?

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Acartia SA2:

    I don’t see how science can bury God.

    Will Provine disagrees:

    In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

    The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

    Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

    Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3
    ————–
    As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4
    ———
    ‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

    1- Academe January 1987 pp.51-52 †

    2-Evolutionary Progress (1988) p. 65 †

    3- “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address 1 2 †

    4- No Free Will (1999) p.123

    5- Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    seversky:

    You do realize that arguing that Darwinian evolution does not comprise the whole of biology does not mean that evolution does not occur or that evidence of its occurrence does not exist?

    You do realize that ID is not anti-evolution and even YEC accepts that evolution occurs.

    You do also realize that generations of evolutionary biologists wholeheartedly disagree so to whose opinion should I assign the greater weight of credibility, yours or theirs?

    The evidence. There isn’t any evidence that blind and mindless processes can produce the genetic code. So no one cares who disagrees. People care who can demonstrate their claims are testable.

  20. 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, point it out to me. No?

    You can’t point it out, because the semiotic argument doesn’t rely on unfalsifiable claims about what known-or-unknown material processes can-or-cannot do. It is based on the triadic relationships of Charles Sanders Peirce, the computation of Alan Turing, the automata of John von Neumann, the experimental results of Francis Crick, Sydney Brenner, Mahlon Hoagland, Paul Zamecnik, Marshall Nirenberg, etc., and the analysis in physics of Howard Pattee. It’s based on recorded dates, times, and events that are all well-documented in the history of science. It’s based on universal experience. Nowhere is it based on unknowable claims about matter.

    Contrast this with your position.

    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. 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.

    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. After months of me re-posting your flawed reasoning right in front of you, you sat in silence. And now, when you finally react, you are forced to inject a strawman into the argument, in place of a coherent and viable response. And worst of all, you just can’t stop.

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    Steve Alten2, you claimed that it is impossible for God to be falsified. Then after I pointed out that the shoe is squarely on the other ‘Darwinian’ foot and that it is Darwinian evolution itself that can’t be falsified (even though many lines of experimental evidence have falsified it), you claimed that you never mentioned Darwin. To which I responded ‘whatever”. You then had the audacity to say that response was “The response of someone who’s response is irrelevant but too proud to admit it.”

    HUH???

    For crying out loud SA2, Darwinian evolution is one of the primary reasons that people give for losing their faith in God. Apparently, contrary to your claim that God can’t be falsified, Richard Dawkins, William Provine, and Michael Ruse, etc.. etc.., all disagree with your claim and hold that Darwinian evolution makes faith in God obsolete, i.e. that God can be ‘falsified’

    “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”,,,
    “The essential idea of The Blind Watchmaker is that we don’t need to postulate a designer in order to understand life, or anything else in the universe.,,,”
    – Darwkins

    Dennett likens Darwin’s notion to a ‘universal acid’ which is so corrosive that nothing can contain it. Darwinism ‘eats through virtually every traditional concept’2—mankind’s most cherished beliefs about God, value, meaning, purpose, culture, morality—everything.
    https://creation.com/universal-acid

    “There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’
    – Provine

    The only one who is being “irrelevant but too proud to admit it” is you when you refused to admit that Darwinian evolution is central to any discussion on the falsifiability or non-falsifiability of God.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    Indeed, In your post, instead of presenting any actual evidence, you instead appealed to ‘generations of evolution biologists’ to support your belief that Darwinian evolution is true and, more specifically, is a testable and real science.

    So, to repeat, and to make myself perfectly clear, Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, a real and testable science.

    Charles Darwin himself honestly admitted that his theory is not based on the scientific method when he stated that,

    Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857
    My dear Gray,
    ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml

    And the situation is still the same today. There is simply no real time empirical evidence that establishes Darwinian evolution as true, (or even remotely feasible.)

    So again, to repeat, Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, a real and testable science

    Darwinian evolution is not now, nor has it ever been, a real and testable science
    .https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/josh-swamidass-on-the-need-to-single-out-and-punish-creationists/#comment-725934

  23. 23
    asauber says:

    “The majority of high-school biology teachers don’t take a solid stance on evolution with their students”

    Sev,

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

    That’s what you are.

    I don’t think you would be a model high-school biology teacher.

    Andrew

  24. 24
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2,

    God is a serious candidate necessary being. Such are either impossible of being as a square circle is, or else are actual per basic logic of being. Seventy or so years back atheists routinely tried to argue that they had a falsification, the deductive problem of evil; an imagined falsification. Then, Plantinga put forward the free will defence and shattered the argument.

    There has been no further serious atheistical argument that God is impossible of being. Instead of shouldering the burden to show why and how they could know God is impossible of being post free will defence, there have been any number of side track arguments. Can you show God is not a serious candidate being, much less a SC necessary being? Patently not.

    The way is open, show that God is a concept like a square circle. That was tried and failed. There is now, for 50 years in current debates (older ones go back at least to Boethius), excellent reason to hold that with major attempts to break the force of serious candidacy to necessary being failing decisively, God is highly credible, indeed, is credible as root of reality.

    The real onward discussion is, how do we characterise him.

    Beyond, the design inference issue is an inference to best explanation on reliable sign, it does not depend on assumptions or arguments about ultimate reality. The focus of UD is, there are reliable signs of design, indeed extremely reliable. Where the signs are present, design is indicated.

    Just on life, since March 19, 1953, we have known that the cell has in it complex, coded, string data structures that in part function algorithmically. Language, algorithms so too goals. From the cell up, life is designed. There are no successful counter examples where complex language, symbol systems, algorithms etc have been observed to come about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. Fairly simple analysis of configuration spaces will readily provide good reason.

    The main debate is over, that’s why I have simply declared independence from those ideologically wedded to the dubious proposition that what has no credible capability should prevail over what we know routinely produces language and related functionally specific complex organisation and information.

    KF

  25. 25
    ET says:

    Earth to seversky- The onus is on the people making the claim that nature can produce biologically relevant replicators. The onus is on the people making the claim that nature can produce coded information processing systems. Since no one can do so the claims can be dismissed, just as Christopher Hitchens once said.

  26. 26
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus @ 24. Why is this comment addressed to me? All I said was that it was impossible to falsify God. This is clearly a fact.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    Steve Alten2 you keep falsely claiming that it is impossible for science to falsify God. And in the minds of many religious believers that is certainly true.

    But we are talking science, not blind faith. I’ve already listed several quotes from leading proponents of Darwinian evolution who firmly believe that Darwinian evolution has falsified God as the explanation for life. (And as I also already mentioned, they are severely mistaken in their belief. It is Darwinian evolution itself that fails the criteria of being falsifiable, not God).

    But anyways, there are several other places in science where the scientific evidence itself could have cast serious doubts on God, if not outright falsified Him, as a viable explanation.

    Specifically, Atheistic Materialism and Theism make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of scientific evidence we will find.
    These contradictory predictions, and the evidence we have now found, can be compared against one another to see if either atheistic materialism or Theism is true.

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    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) –

    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. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    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).

    As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy (methodological naturalism), from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. –

    In fact, modern science is even very good at pointing us to Christianity as the correct solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Moreover, 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.
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    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.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, 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.

    Moreover, although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinian atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

    Thus SA2, much contrary to your claim that God can’t be falsified, Atheistic Materialism had more than it fair chance, via the scientific evidence itself, to falsify God as a viable explanation. And yet, it is atheistic materialism that has come up short time and again when compared to the scientific evidence. Not Theism.

    And yet Atheistic materialism, despite its horrific track record at predicting what type of scientific evidence we will discover, continues to be the dominant philosophy taught in leading universities in America. Why is that SA2? One could very well argue that it is atheistic materialism itself that is unfalsifiable, not God.

    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.

  28. 28
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Bornagain77 “ Steve Alten2 you keep falsely claiming that it is impossible for science to falsify God.

    Whatever.

  29. 29
    Seversky says:

    Upright BiPed/20

    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.

    Yes, the work of those researchers defined the fundamental requirements of an autonomous self-replicating system. So far, so good. But so what? What are you inferring from that work?

    Do they claim that it is impossible for such a system to emerge from naturalistic processes? Do you claim that it is impossible for such a system to emerge from naturalistic processes? If you/they do then the burden of proof rests with you to support that claim. The fact that it may be next to impossible to do that given the current state of our knowledge is not my fault. You should not be making such extravagant claims and expecting people to believe them if you cannot support them.

    If, on the other hand, you accept that it is not possible for us, given our current ignorance, to pronounce that the only source of such a system is intelligent agency then we can agree at least to that extent.

  30. 30
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/27

    Specifically, Atheistic Materialism and Theism make, and have made, several contradictory predictions about what type of scientific evidence we will find.

    Not that you’d know that from BA77’s much-repeated list:

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted time-space energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted time-space energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    If something< exists then, since you cannot get something from nothing, something – whatever it might be – must always have existed.

    The current age of the universe is estimated to be around 13.8 bn years. The Big Bang theory is the most widely-accepted theory of the origins of our Universe although there are questions about it.

    Neither theism nor deism alone predict only the Christian creator God. There are many theistic and deistic faiths that incorporate a wide range of creation/origins stories.

    Some Christian scholars have estimated the Universe to be just a few thousand years old based on passages from the Bible. That differs hugely from the current scientific estimate.

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

    Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    Theism covers a number of faiths and denominations. Not all of them hold that God is sustaining the entire universe from second-to-second.

    Non-locality in quantum mechanics (a nat/mat theory) does not necessarily imply that the universe is dependent on something outside itself for continued existence. It is one possible interpretation but it may also be that they are evidence of an additional dimension to physical reality, something we do not observe in our everyday experience yet still part of the natural order.

    It also implies that our everyday perceptions are but a partial representation of what is actually out there, assuming that there is actually something out there.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality.

    Consciousness is not observed to exist apart from a physical substrate. A living brain exhibits consciousness, a dead brain does not. The signs of consciousness that were once exhibited by a dead brain have so far proven to be unrecoverable in all cases.

    Researchers are still arguing over how to understand the “observer effect” in quantum physics. Some hold that observations in that context can be performed by inanimate devices, a conscious observer is not necessary. It certainly doesn’t support the simplistic notion that consciousness is what holds reality together.

    It also doesn’t answer the obvious question which is that, if nothing exists until it is being observed, what is being observed in the first place?

    It also doesn’t answer the next question which is why we all apparently observe the same thing when we look. If there are an infinite number of possible observations then when one person sees a red car why doesn’t another person see a brown cow?

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9)

    Both Newtonian mechanics and relativity are nat/mat theories.

    None of the theistic faiths that I’m aware of make specific predictions about the rate at which time passes.

    Psalm 90:4 – “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” refers to God’s perception of time.

    2 Timothy 1:9 – “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” concerns salvation not time.

    And neither make any prediction concerning the speed of light.

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).

    Observations and calculations have shown that, if certain fundamental physical (nat/mat) constants varied from their observed values by even a small amount, the universe in which we live could not exist. That does not necessarily mean this Universe was designed specifically for us.

    We live in a thin film of atmosphere on the surface of a planet that is only partially shielded against threats from outside. Even within that shielding there are many things that are dangerous or lethal for human life. Outside that protection the vast majority of this universe is unremittingly hostile to organic life such as ourselves. It is a huge and unwarranted leap of faith from those observations to the absurd conclusion that this entire universe was created just for us.

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (Gonzalez).

    Nat/mat estimates concerning the prevalence of life in the universe vary considerably. Our planet could be unique, not just “extremely unique” (is that like being ‘a bit pregnant’) in the sense that there is no other exactly like it that we know of.

    On the other hand, astronomers are finding plentiful evidence of planets around nearby stars so it’s certainly possible that there are other planets similar to Earth which bear life.

    Any theistic prediction that the Earth is unique as a home for life is in serious danger of being proved wrong.

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth.

    Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time, tailing off billions of years ago and completely at odds with a special creation event 6000 years back.

    One creation story – that of Christianity – refers to life appearing after water. Unfortunately, it also refers to day and night existing before light was created – just one of a number of inconsistencies in the faith.

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD)

    The simplest life found on earth so far is not necessarily the earliest life ever to appear on Earth. Its relative complexity does not contradict the hypothesis that much simpler forms existed earlier or support a claim that they were necessarily created by a god.

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas.

    The nat/mat theory of evolution predicted that the “unfolding” of life would proceed in small, incremental steps but allowed that the rate at which it could happen could vary considerably. The 13-25 mn year Cambrian Explosion (a rather slow “explosion”) was a period when it happened a lot more rapidly but there is evidence of life preceding it. It was not the original creation event described in Genesis.

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. […]

    Nat/mat theory holds that fossilization is a very rare event but even so transitional fossils have already been found.

    Theism makes no predictions whatsoever about the existence let alone the frequency of fossils, transitional or otherwise, in the geological record.

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    It is estimated that new species are being discovered by science at the rate of 15000 – 20000 per year. The rate of speciation can vary hugely, new species of large animals taking hundreds of thousands of years to appear while new bacteria or viruses can emerge in just a few years. One study cataloged some 1400 human pathogens of which 87 were characterized as “novel” (now including COVID-19). If evolution occurs, there is no reason to think it has stopped now.

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    Imago dei is a Christian not just a theistic concept and its meaning is conveniently vague. Does it mean that God is a bipedal humanoid with a head, two arms, two legs, genitals, etc? Does it mean we resemble Him psychologically so He is also capable of rage, jealousy, vindictiveness? That, at least, would be consistent with some of His behavior as described in the Bible.

    “Information” appears to have become the modern-day equivalent of the “luminiferous aether”. Treating it as some fundamental ‘stuff’ of which everything else is made is a misconception which commits the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”.

    Nat/mat still predicts that much of our DNA is ‘junk’. How else do you explain that the humble onion has a much larger genome than that of human beings? The ENCODE researchers were heavily criticized for overstating their case and using a far too elastic understanding of “function”.

    Theism said nothing at all about the existence of DNA, let alone how much of it night be ‘junk’

    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)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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).

    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.

    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.”

    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.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky responds to my comparison of Theistic Predictions to Materialistic Predictions:

    1. Naturalism/Materialism predicted space-time energy-matter always existed. Theism predicted space-time energy-matter were created. Big Bang cosmology now strongly indicates that time-space energy-matter had a sudden creation event approximately 14 billion years ago.

    2. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the universe is a self sustaining system that is not dependent on anything else for its continued existence. Theism predicted that God upholds this universe in its continued existence. Breakthroughs in quantum mechanics reveal that this universe is dependent on a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, cause for its continued existence.

    3. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that consciousness is an ‘emergent property’ of material reality and thus should have no particularly special position within material reality. Theism predicts consciousness precedes material reality and therefore, on that presupposition, consciousness should have a ‘special’ position within material reality. Quantum Mechanics reveals that consciousness has a special, even a central, position within material reality. –

    4. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe. Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time. – Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4 – 2 Timothy 1:9) –

    5. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and that life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind. Scientists find the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Moreover it is found, when scrutinizing the details of physics and chemistry, that not only is the universe fine-tuned for carbon based life, but is specifically fine-tuned for life like human life (R. Collins, M. Denton).-

    6. Naturalism/Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe. Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex organic life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe (G. Gonzalez; Hugh Ross). –

    7. Naturalism/Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11). Geochemical evidence from the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth indicates that complex photosynthetic life has existed on earth as long as water has been on the face of earth. –

    8. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the first life to be relatively simple. Theism predicted that God is the source for all life on earth. The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) –

    9. Naturalism/Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse animal life to appear abruptly in the seas in God’s fifth day of creation. The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short “geologic resolution time” in the Cambrian seas. –

    10. Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’ (C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    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) –

    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. Embedded to the point of eliciting physiological responses in humans before humans become aware of the morally troubling situation and even prior to the event even happening.

    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).

    To 1 Seversky responds, ‘If something< exists then, since you cannot get something from nothing, something – whatever it might be – must always have existed.'

    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.

    Big Bang Theory – An Overview of the main evidence
    Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy.”3
    Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, “The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe,” Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
    Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, “The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
    http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

    “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” –
    Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston – in paper delivered at atheist Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday party (Characterized as ‘Worst Birthday Present Ever’) – January 2012
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....beginning/

    Seversky then states, “The current age of the universe is estimated to be around 13.8 bn years. The Big Bang theory is the most widely-accepted theory of the origins of our Universe although there are questions about it.
    Neither theism nor deism alone predict only the Christian creator God. There are many theistic and deistic faiths that incorporate a wide range of creation/origins stories.”

    Well actually the Bible is unique in its prediction of a transcendent origin of the universe.

    “among all the ‘holy’ books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later ‘holy’ books, such as the Mormon text “Pearl of Great Price” and the Qur’an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact.”
    (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5)

    The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among ‘holy books’ and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y

    The Most Important Verse in the Bible – Prager University – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BqWdu1BnBQ

    The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0

    “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis”
    – Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    – Fred Heeren, Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), ?

    “My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.”
    – Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978

    Seversky then states, “Some Christian scholars have estimated the Universe to be just a few thousand years old based on passages from the Bible. That differs hugely from the current scientific estimate.”

    And yet there are many Christian scholars who strongly disagree with a Young Earth interpretation of the Bible,

    BIBLICAL REASONS TO DOUBT THE CREATION DAYS WERE 24-HOUR PERIODS – January 28, 2015
    Excerpt: it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this (strict 24 hour period) interpretation.
    Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7).
    J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.”
    Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”
    Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.”
    Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.”
    I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods,,,.
    https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky than states, “Non-locality in quantum mechanics (a nat/mat theory) does not necessarily imply that the universe is dependent on something outside itself for continued existence.”

    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.

    Experimental test of nonlocal causality – August 10, 2016
    DISCUSSION
    Previous work on causal explanations beyond local hidden-variable models focused on testing Leggett’s crypto-nonlocality (7, 42, 43), a class of models with a very specific choice of hidden variable that is unrelated to Bell’s local causality (44). In contrast, we make no assumptions on the form of the hidden variable and test all models ,,,
    Our results demonstrate that a causal influence from one measurement outcome to the other, which may be subluminal, superluminal, or even instantaneous, cannot explain the observed correlations.,,,
    http://advances.sciencemag.org.....00162.full

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can’t stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.,,,
    “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,”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

    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.

    Secondly, quantum mechanics is certainly NOT a materialistic/naturalistic theory as Sev tried to imply,

    Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism (v2)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM0IKLv7KrE

    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).
    From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (namely that the universe is contingent and rational in its foundational nature and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can, therefore, dare understand the rationality that God has imparted onto the universe), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results themselves, from top to bottom, science itself is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man.
    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.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analyzed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial logic and immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
    Again, 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.

    Moreover, although the Darwinian atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science, (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that Darwinian atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to:

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin).
    Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM

    Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.

    It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    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.

    In fact, Seversky also brazenly ignores the fact that NDEs are, scientifically speaking, far more robust and reliable, in terms of observational evidence, than Darwinian evolution itself is.

    Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist’s Evidentiary Standards to the Test – Dr. Michael Egnor – October 15, 2012
    Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE’s are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception — such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE’s have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,,
    The most “parsimonious” explanation — the simplest scientific explanation — is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,,
    The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE’s show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it’s earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it’s all a big yawn.
    Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65301.html

    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. Moreover, the transcendent nature of ‘immaterial’ information, which is the one thing that, (as every ID advocate intimately knows), unguided material processes cannot possibly explain the origin of, directly supports the transcendent nature as well as the physical reality of the soul:
    Oct 2020
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/12-successful-predictions-of-mental-reality-theory/#comment-714586

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

  34. 34
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev then states, “Researchers are still arguing over how to understand the “observer effect” in quantum physics. Some hold that observations in that context can be performed by inanimate devices, a conscious observer is not necessary. It certainly doesn’t support the simplistic notion that consciousness is what holds reality together.”

    Actually, the claim that the measuring device, all by its lonesome, can cause quantum wave collapse, minus the observer, is refuted by interaction-free measurements, i.e. “Renninger-type” experiments,

    The Mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry – Professor of Physics John Hopkins University
    Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke “decoherence” – the notion that “the physical environment” is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in “Renninger-type” experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    Moreover, the double slit itself, where a detector is placed at only one slit, is a type of interaction free measurement in that the ‘waves’ at the ‘unobserved’ slit still collapse into a particle state although there is no physical detector at that other slit. Thus proving that interaction with the measuring device (i.e. decoherence) is insufficient to explain the collapse of the wave function to a particle state in the double slit experiments,

    Quantum Experiment without Interaction
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOv8zYla1wY

    Further notes on ‘interaction-free measurement:

    The Renninger Negative Result Experiment – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3uzSlh_CV0

    Interaction-Free Measurements
    In physics, interaction-free measurement is a type of measurement in quantum mechanics that detects the position, presence, or state of an object without an interaction occurring between it and the measuring device. Examples include the Renninger negative-result experiment, the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-testing problem [1], and certain double-cavity optical systems, such as Hardy’s paradox.,,,
    Initially proposed as thought experiments, interaction-free measurements have been experimentally demonstrated in various configurations, 6,7,8,,
    6. Kwiat, Paul; Weinfurter, Harald; Herzog, Thomas; Zeilinger, Anton; Kasevich, Mark A. (1995-06-12). “Interaction-Free Measurement”. Physical Review Letters. 74 (24):
    7. White, Andrew G. (1998). “”Interaction-free” imaging”. Physical Review A. 58 (1):
    8. Tsegaye, T.; Goobar, E.; Karlsson, A.; Björk, G.; Loh, M. Y.; Lim, K. H. (1998-05-01). “Efficient interaction-free measurements in a high-finesse interferometer”. Physical Review A. 57 (5):
    – per wikipedia

    And here are eight intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness must precede material reality (Double Slit experiment, Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, as well as the recent confirmation of the Wigner’s friend thought experiment, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect, Quantum Information theory, and the recent closing of the Free Will loophole.)

    Putting all these lines of evidence from quantum mechanics together, the argument for God from consciousness can now be framed like this:

    1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff)
    2. If consciousness is a ‘epi-phenomena’ of material reality (Jerry Coyne). or is an intrinsic property of material reality, (panpsychism, Philip Goff), then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality.
    3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality.
    4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

    Although each of those (eight) experiments are very interesting in their own right as to proving that the Mind of God must precede material reality, two of the clearest examples that consciousness must precede material reality are Wheeler’s delayed Choice experiment and Leggett’s inequality.

    First, via Wheeler’s Delayed Choice experiment, ““It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’?
    The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    and secondly, via Leggett’s inequality, “Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
    Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
    They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    For Seversky to try to play all this off as no big deal for atheistic materialism is simply beyond the pale. Materialism certainly did not predict, nor remotely expect, any of these experimental findings from quantum mechanics, whereas these findings fit hand in glove with what Christians would presuppose about God sustaining this universe in its continual existence.

    Verse:

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

    Supplemental note:

    December 2019 – Although each of those (eight) experiments are very interesting in their own right as to proving that the Mind of God must precede material reality, my favorite evidences out of that group, for proving that the Mind of God must be behind the creation of the universe itself, is the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum Information theory. This is because the Quantum Zeno effect and Quantum Information theory deal directly with entropy. And, entropy is, by a VERY wide margin, the most finely tuned of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Finely tuned to an almost incomprehensible degree of precision, 1 part in 10 to the 10 to the 123rd power. As Roger Penrose himself stated that, “This now tells us how precise the Creator’s aim must have been: namely to an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.”
    https://uncommondescent.com/big-bang/sabine-hossenfelder-physicists-theories-of-how-the-universe-began-arent-any-better-than-traditional-tales-of-creation/#comment-690210

  35. 35
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, false. The point of my comment is that there was not only a possibility but 70 years ago atheists thought they had a knock down falsification of the possibility of God. That this failed is not equivalent to it is impossible to falsify the reality of God. KF

  36. 36
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Kairosfocus “ The point of my comment is that there was not only a possibility but 70 years ago atheists thought they had a knock down falsification of the possibility of God.“

    Just because someone says that God can be falsified is not mean that this is true. Maybe it would help me understand you better if you can give an example of how God could be falsified.

  37. 37
    ET says:

    Nothing can help with Acartia SA2’s willful ignorance. Will Provine said how to falsify God’s existence. And that falsification follows from Newton’s four rules of scientific reasoning. That is why Acartai SA2 is so confused.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    seversky:

    Do they claim that it is impossible for such a system to emerge from naturalistic processes?

    There isn’t any evidence for it so it can be dismissed. What is wrong with you? Why do a/mats think their ignorance is an argument?

  39. 39
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky then claims that the Bible makes no predictions about time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light. Yet the Bible predicted that God, who is outside of time and space, created light. (Genesis 1:1-3), So that time would come to a complete stop at the speed of light is certainly not unexpected for Christians. Whereas atheists, on the other hand, simply have no clue how light can possibly have this timeless, i.e. ‘eternal’, aspect to it. In fact, since time does not pass for objects traveling the speed of light, then light should be frozen within time in the Atheist’s simplistic understanding of time.

    In fact, the only way it is possible for time not to pass for light, and yet for light to move from point A to point B in our universe, is if light is of a higher dimensional value of time than the temporal time we are currently living in. Otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen within time’ to our temporal frame of reference.

    And that is exactly what Hermann Minkowski, one of Einstein’s math professors, found:

    Spacetime
    Excerpt: In 1908, Hermann Minkowski—once one of the math professors of a young Einstein in Zurich—presented a geometric interpretation of special relativity that fused time and the three spatial dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum now known as Minkowski space. A key feature of this interpretation is the definition of a spacetime interval that combines distance and time. Although measurements of distance and time between events differ for measurements made in different reference frames, the spacetime interval is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded.
    Minkowski’s geometric interpretation of relativity was to prove vital to Einstein’s development of his 1915 general theory of relativity, wherein he showed that spacetime becomes curved in the presence of mass or energy.,,,
    Einstein, for his part, was initially dismissive of Minkowski’s geometric interpretation of special relativity, regarding it as überflüssige Gelehrsamkeit (superfluous learnedness). However, in order to complete his search for general relativity that started in 1907, the geometric interpretation of relativity proved to be vital, and in 1916, Einstein fully acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski, whose interpretation greatly facilitated the transition to general relativity.[10]:151–152 Since there are other types of spacetime, such as the curved spacetime of general relativity, the spacetime of special relativity is today known as Minkowski spacetime.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

    One way for us to more easily understand this higher dimensional framework for time that light exists in is to visualize what would happen if a hypothetical observer approached the speed of light.
    In the first part of the following video clip, which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors, we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer approaches the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light.

    Optical Effects of Special Relativity – video (full relativistic effects shown at 2:40 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/JQnHTKZBTI4?t=160

    To give us a better understanding as to what it would be like to exist in a higher dimension, this following video, Dr. Quantum in Flatland, also gives us a small insight as to what it would be like to exist in a higher dimension:

    Dr. Quantum in Flatland – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5yxZ5I-zsE

    Moreover, to grasp the whole concept of time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the very same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into special relativity. Here is a short clip from a video that gives us a look into Einstein’s breakthrough insight.

    “In the spring of 1905, Einstein was riding on a bus and he looked back at the famous clock tower that dominates Bern Switzerland. And then he imagined, “What happens if that bus were racing near the speed of light.”, (narrator: “In his imagination, Einstein looks back at the clock tower and what he sees is astonishing. As he reaches the speed of light, the hands of the clock appear frozen in time”), “Einstein would later write, “A storm broke in my mind. All of the sudden everything, everything, kept gushing forward.”, (narrator: “Einstein knows that, back at the clock tower, time is passing normally, but on Einstein’s light speed bus, as he reaches the speed of light, the light from the clock can no longer catch up to him. The faster he races through space, the slower he moves through time. This insight sparks the birth of Einstein’s Special Theory of relativity, which says that space and time are deeply connected. In fact, they are one and the same. A flexible fabric called spacetime.”)
    – Michio Kaku
    Einstein: Einstein’s Miracle Year (‘Insight into Eternity’ – Thought Experiment – 6:29 minute mark) – video
    https://youtu.be/QQ35opgrhNA?t=389

    Moreover, in what I consider stunning confirmation for the validity of Near Death Experiences, many Near Death Experiencers give testimony of exactly these characteristics that are found in special relativity.

    In the following video clip, Mickey Robinson gives his Near Death testimony of what it felt like for him to experience a ‘timeless eternity’.

    ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’
    In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voak1RM-pXo

    And here are a few more quotes from people who have experienced Near Death, that speak of how their perception of time was radically altered as they were outside of their material body.

    ‘Earthly time has no meaning in the spirit realm. There is no concept of before or after. Everything – past, present, future – exists simultaneously.’
    – Kimberly Clark Sharp – Near Death Experiencer

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

    As well, Near Death Experiencers also frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension:

    Ask the Experts: What Is a Near-Death Experience (NDE)? – article with video
    Excerpt: “Very often as they’re moving through the tunnel, there’s a very bright mystical light … not like a light we’re used to in our earthly lives. People call this mystical light, brilliant like a million times a million suns…”
    – Jeffrey Long M.D. – has studied NDE’s extensively
    – abcnews nightline

    The Tunnel and the Near-Death Experience
    Excerpt: One of the nine elements that generally occur during NDEs is the tunnel experience. This involves being drawn into darkness through a tunnel, at an extremely high speed, until reaching a realm of radiant golden-white light.
    – near death research

    In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel:

    “I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.”
    Barbara Springer – Near Death Experience – The Tunnel – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2jLeoAcMI

    And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, who has been blind from birth, besides being able to see for the first time during in her life during her Near Death Experience, also gives testimony of going through a tunnel:

    “I was in a body, and the only way that I can describe it was a body of energy, or of light. And this body had a form. It had a head, it had arms and it had legs. And it was like it was made out of light. And it was everything that was me. All of my memories, my consciousness, everything.”,,, “And then this vehicle formed itself around me. Vehicle is the only thing, or tube, or something, but it was a mode of transportation that’s for sure! And it formed around me. And there was no one in it with me. I was in it alone. But I knew there were other people ahead of me and behind me. What they were doing I don’t know, but there were people ahead of me and people behind me, but I was alone in my particular conveyance. And I could see out of it. And it went at a tremendously, horrifically, rapid rate of speed. But it wasn’t unpleasant. It was beautiful in fact.,, I was reclining in this thing, I wasn’t sitting straight up, but I wasn’t lying down either. I was sitting back. And it was just so fast. I can’t even begin to tell you where it went or whatever it was just fast!” –
    Vicki’s NDE – Blind since birth –
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y

    And the following people who had a NDE both testify that they firmly believed that they were in a higher heavenly dimension that is above this three-dimensional world and that the primary reason that they have a very difficult time explaining what their Near Death Experiences felt like is because we simply don’t currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:

    “Regardless, it is impossible for me to adequately describe what I saw and felt. When I try to recount my experiences now, the description feels very pale. I feel as though I’m trying to describe a three-dimensional experience while living in a two-dimensional world. The appropriate words, descriptions and concepts don’t even exist in our current language. I have subsequently read the accounts of other people’s near-death experiences and their portrayals of heaven and I able to see the same limitations in their descriptions and vocabulary that I see in my own.”
    Mary C. Neal, MD – To Heaven And Back pg. 71

    “Well, when I was taking geometry, they always told me there were only three dimensions, and I always just accepted that. But they were wrong. There are more… And that is why so hard for me to tell you this. I have to describe with words that are three-dimensional. That’s as close as I can get to it, but it’s really not adequate.”
    John Burke – Imagine Heaven pg. 51 – quoting a Near Death Experiencer

    That what we now know to be true from special relativity, (namely that it outlines a ‘timeless’, i.e. eternal, dimension that exists above this temporal dimension), would fit hand and glove with the personal testimonies of people who have had a deep heavenly NDEs is, needless to say, powerful evidence that their testimonies are, in fact, true and that they are accurately describing the ‘reality’ of a higher heavenly dimension, that they experienced first hand, and that they say exists above this temporal dimension.

    I would even go so far as to say that such corroboration from ‘non-physicists’, who, in all likelihood, know nothing about the intricacies of special relativity, is a complete scientific verification of the overall validity of their personal NDE testimonies.

    Matthew 6:33
    But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

  40. 40
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky then states that, “Observations and calculations have shown that, if certain fundamental physical (nat/mat) constants varied from their observed values by even a small amount, the universe in which we live could not exist. That does not necessarily mean this Universe was designed specifically for us.”

    Well, it certainly shoots a big ole gaping hole in the Atheist’s argument that the universe is an unintended accident.

    Stephen Meyer recently touched on the anthropic fine tuning argument in this following lecture:

    Stephen Meyer at Dallas Conference on Science and Faith – March 2021
    https://youtu.be/mTRfxu6BijY?t=1708

    Dr. Craig also has an excellent animated video on the fine-tuning argument:

    The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0

    Seversky then claims that,

    “We live in a thin film of atmosphere on the surface of a planet that is only partially shielded against threats from outside. Even within that shielding there are many things that are dangerous or lethal for human life. Outside that protection the vast majority of this universe is unremittingly hostile to organic life such as ourselves. It is a huge and unwarranted leap of faith from those observations to the absurd conclusion that this entire universe was created just for us.”

    Funny that the Bible ‘predicts’ that the earth, (out of all the planets and stars in the universe), was specifically created and intended by God, since the beginning of creation, to be ‘inhabited’,

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

    Isaiah 45:18
    “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

    , and yet Seversky somehow finds the fact that the earth, as far as we know, is the only planet with the capacity to host life to be “a huge and unwarranted leap of faith, to the absurd conclusion that this entire universe was created just for us.”

    So, let me get this straight, if the universe were teeming with life, I imagine that Seversky would rightly say, ‘Hey, life is everywhere in the universe so obviously the universe was not created specifically for us”. And yet since, as far as we know, earth is the only planet capable of supporting life, Seversky’s argument now becomes that it is “a huge and unwarranted leap of faith, to the absurd conclusion that this entire universe was created just for us.”

    Seversky argument, as usual for his arguments for atheism, simply makes no logical sense. It’s literally a “Heads I win, Tails you lose” type of argument.

    Regardless of Seversky’s seemingly endless ability to ignore logic contradictions in his argumentation in order to ‘explain away’ evidence that contradicts his atheistic worldview, the scientific evidence itself, (evidence that indicates that the earth, and man were indeed purposely intended by God since the beginning of creation), is becoming far stronger than it was just a few short decades ago. And thus the scientific evidence itself is becoming far harder for atheists such as Seversky to try to ‘explain away’ with logically contradictory argumentation.

    The most fascinating piece of evidence indicating that the earth was purposely intended by God since the beginning of creation comes from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, (CMBR), itself.

    Specifically, there are anomalies found in the CMBR data that ‘strangely’ line up with the earth,

    Here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ that line up with the earth and solar system were found, (via the ‘averaging out’ of the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.

    Cosmic Microwave Background (CMBR) Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

    These ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR data, and the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, combine in order to give as a proper X, Y, and Z axis in order to reveal that the earth does indeed have a ‘privileged’ position in the universe.

    As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

    “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

    Illustration with X, Y, and Z axis superimposed on the universe
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png

    Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR, and the large scale structures in the universe, being a product of random quantum fluctuations, (as atheists presuppose in their inflation model),,,, far from that, both the temperature variations of the CMBR and the large scale structures of the universe reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and solar system from the creation of the universe itself. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not just some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed in their inflation model.

    Moreover, via work done by Robin Collins, we now know that the light coming from the CMBR is specifically tuned so that it might be discovered by intelligent observers such as ourselves.

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Examples of fine – tuning for discoverability.,,,,
    The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    …the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti – matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,,
    The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
    According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)?It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon – baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

  41. 41
    bornagain77 says:

    Another piece of evidence that strongly indicates that man in particular was intended by God since then beginning of creation comes from looking at the ‘geometric mean’ of the universe.

    in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”

    “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
    – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark
    The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe)
    https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715

    The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.

    The Scale of the Universe
    https://htwins.net/scale2/

    Moreover, Dr. William Dembski (and company), in the following graph, give a more precise figure, (than Dr. Turok’s figure), of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.

    Magnifying the Universe
    https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/

    Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.

    Another piece of evidence that indicates that man was purposely intended by God since the beginning of creation comes from what is termed the ‘anthropic inequality’

    Lucky Us: Turning the Copernican Principle on Its Head – Daniel Bakken – January 26, 2015
    Excerpt: What if intelligence and technology hadn’t arisen in Earth’s habitability time window? Waltham in Lucky Planet asks “So, how do we explain the remarkable coincidence that the timescale for the emergence of intelligence is almost the same as the timescale for habitability?” Researchers Carter and Watson have dubbed this idea the anthropic inequality and it seems surprising, if it is not for some purpose.,,,
    – per evolution news

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Y496NYnm8

    Michael Denton’s paper, “Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis” certainly deserves an honorable mention also.

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    Dr. Michael Denton Interview
    Excerpt Question 14:
    14. Q: ,,,you also detail that nature isn’t fine-tuned for just any kind of life, but life specifically like human life. Would you expound on this for our readers?
    A: there are certain elements of the fine-tuning which are clearly for advanced being like ourselves.
    We are warm-blooded, terrestrial aerobes; we use oxidation to get energy, we’re warm-blooded and we breathe air. We get our oxygen from the air. First of all, a warm-blooded organism needs to maintain a constant temperature. To do that we are massively assisted by the high specific heat of water, which buffers our body against rapid changes in temperature. In getting rid of excess heat, we utilize the evaporative cooling of water. That’s why dog’s pant, we sweat, etc. Warm-blooded organisms have to get rid of excess heat, and the evaporative cooling of water is the only way you’ve really got to get rid of heat when the temperature reaches close to body temperature. When it’s hot you can’t radiate off body heat to the environment.
    These critical thermal properties are obviously of great utility to air breathing, warm-blooded organisms like our self. But what relevance do they have to an extremophile living in the deep ocean, or a cold-blooded fish living in the sea? It’s obvious that these are elements of fitness in nature which seem to be of great and specific utility to beings like us, and very little utility to a lot of other organisms.
    Of course it is the case that they are playing a role in maintaining the constancy of global climate, the physical and chemical constancy of the hydrosphere and so forth. No doubt the evaporative cooling of water plays a big role in climatic amelioration; it transfers heat from the tropics to the higher latitudes and this is of utility for all life on earth. But definitely water’s thermal properties seem particularly fit for advanced organisms of biology close to our own.
    And even the freezing of water from the top down rather than the bottom up, which conserves large bodies of fresh water on the earth, is again relevant to large organisms. Bacterial cells can withstand quite well periodically freezing. And for unicellular organisms living in the hot sub surface rocks its pretty well irrelevant. In other words the top down freezing and the consequent preservation of liquid water is of much more utility for a large organism, but of far less relevance for microbial life.
    Or consider the generation and utilization of oxygen. We use oxygen, but many organisms don’t use oxygen; for a lot of organisms it’s a poison. So how do we get our oxygen?
    When we look at the conditions in the universe for photosynthesis, we find a magical collusion between of all sorts of different elements of fitness. First of all the atmospheric gases let through visual light which has got the right energy for biochemistry, for photosynthesis. And what are the gases in the atmosphere that let through the light? Well, carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen, and nitrogen. And what are the basic reactants which are involved in photosynthesis? Well, oxygen, water, and CO2. The same compounds that let through the light are also the main ‘players’ in photosynthesis.
    And then you might wonder what about the harmful radiations? UV, Gamma rays, microwaves?
    Well to begin with the sun only puts out most of its electromagnetic radian energy in the visual region (light) and near infrared (heat) and puts out very little in the dangerous regions (UV’s, gamma rays, X-rays etc.). And wonder on wonder, the atmospheric gases absorb all these harmful radiations. And so on and on and on, one anthropocentric biofriendly coincidence after another. And what provides the necessary warmth for photosynthesis, indeed for all life on earth. What keeps the average temperature of the earth above freezing? Well water vapor and carbon dioxide. If it wasn’t for water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature of the earth would be -33 centigrade.
    Now when you consider all these factors necessary for the generation of oxygen via photosynthesis knowing that not all organisms use oxygen implying that all these coincidences are irrelevant to the vast majority of all species (most of the biomass on the planet may well be anaerobic unicellular life occupying the hot deep biosphere in the sub surface rocks) never use oxygen, its clear that the special fitness of nature for oxygen utilization is for us.
    http://successfulstudent.org/d.....interview/

    Privileged Species – How the cosmos is designed for human life – video (2015)
    https://youtu.be/VoI2ms5UHWg

    Thus in conclusion, while Seversky is apparently stuck with a logically contradictory argument to try argue, (although the the Bible predicted it, and although earth and universe both appear to be designed to support human life in particular), that God would not really create the universe, and earth in particular, with the specific purpose of being inhabited by life, and being inhabited by human life in particular, (and again, Seversky is arguing this argument all in direct contradiction to what the science actually says and what the Bible actually ‘predicted’)

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

    Isaiah 45:18
    “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    Sev then claims, “Nat/mat estimates concerning the prevalence of life in the universe vary considerably. Our planet could be unique, not just “extremely unique” (is that like being ‘a bit pregnant’) in the sense that there is no other exactly like it that we know of.
    On the other hand, astronomers are finding plentiful evidence of planets around nearby stars so it’s certainly possible that there are other planets similar to Earth which bear life.
    Any theistic prediction that the Earth is unique as a home for life is in serious danger of being proved wrong.”

    Well actually, the more we know about the facts then the more we realize that the earth is EXTREMELY unique in its ability to support life. It is only those who are ignorant of the facts who believe that Earth-like planets are common.

    There is a well researched statistical analysis of the many independent ‘life-enabling characteristics’ that gives strong mathematical indication that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe. The statistical analysis shows, from a naturalistic perspective, that a life permitting planet is EXTREMELY unlikely to ‘accidentally emerge’ in the universe. The statistical analysis is dealt with by astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross, and his research team, in his paper ‘Probability for Life on Earth’. ?

    ‘Probability for Life on Earth’
    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;?Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms:
    http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfron.....3_ver2.pdf

    A few of the items in Dr. Ross’s “life-enabling characteristics” list are; Planet location in a proper galaxy’s ‘habitable zone’; Parent star size; Surface gravity of planet; Rotation period of planet; Correct chemical composition of planet; Correct size for moon; Thickness of planets’ crust; Presence of magnetic field; Correct and stable axis tilt; Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere; Proper water content of planet; Atmospheric electric discharge rate; Proper seismic activity of planet; Many complex cycles necessary for a stable temperature history of planet; Translucent atmosphere; Various complex, and inter-related, cycles for various elements etc.. etc..

    I could go a lot further in the details for there are a total of 816 known parameters which have to be met for complex life to be possible on Earth, or on a planet like Earth. Individually, these limits are not that impressive but when we realize ALL these limits have to be met at the same time on the same planet and not one of the limits can be out of its life permitting range for any extended period of time, then the probability for a world which can host advanced life in this universe becomes very extraordinary. Here is the final summary of Dr. Hugh Ross’s ‘conservative’ estimate for the probability of finding another life-hosting world in this universe.

    Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life:
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22
    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracle(s).

    And remember, there are only 10^80 atomic particles in the universe. Eric Metaxas, reflecting on the 1 in 10^1032 probability against another life supporting planet existing in our universe, commented that, “our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale in such insignificance that it almost becomes unworthy of our consideration, as though it were something done easily by a child, half-asleep.”

    “Reason and science compels us to see what previous generations could not: that our existence is an outrageous and astonishing miracle, one so startlingly and perhaps so disturbingly miraculous that it makes any miracle like the parting of the Red Sea pale in such insignificance that it almost becomes unworthy of our consideration, as though it were something done easily by a child, half-asleep. It is something to which the most truly human response is some combination of terror and wonder, of ancient awe, and childhood joy.”
    Eric Metaxas – Miracles – pages 55-56

    Hugh Ross is hardly alone. Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, in their book “Rare Earth” commented that, “The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances.”

    “If some god-like being could be given the opportunity to plan a sequence of events with the expressed goal of duplicating our ‘Garden of Eden’, that power would face a formidable task. With the best of intentions but limited by natural laws and materials it is unlikely that Earth could ever be truly replicated. Too many processes in its formation involve sheer luck. Earth-like planets could certainly be made, but each would differ in critical ways. This is well illustrated by the fantastic variety of planets and satellites (moons) that formed in our solar system. They all started with similar building materials, but the final products are vastly different from each other . . . . The physical events that led to the formation and evolution of the physical Earth required an intricate set of nearly irreproducible circumstances.”
    Peter B. Ward and Donald Brownlee, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe (New York: Copernicus, 2000)

    Astrobiologist David Waltham, in his book “Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional”, agrees with their assessment and states, “it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe.”

    “Earth is a precious jewel possessing a rare combination of qualities that happen to make it almost perfect for sustaining life. Lucky Planet investigates the idea that good fortune, infrequently repeated elsewhere in the Universe, played a significant role in allowing the long-term life-friendliness of our home and that it is unlikely we will succeed in finding similarly complex life elsewhere in the Universe.”
    London astrobiologist – David Waltham, Lucky Planet: Why Earth is Exceptional — and What That Means for Life in the Universe (Basic Books, 2014), p. 1.)

    Moreover, and to repeat what I pointed out in the previous post, there are anomalies found in the CMBR data that ‘strangely’ line up with the earth,

    Here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ that line up with the earth and solar system were found, (via the ‘averaging out’ of the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.

    Cosmic Microwave Background (CMBR) Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

    These ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR data, and the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, combine in order to give as a proper X, Y, and Z axis in order to reveal that the earth does indeed have a ‘privileged’ position in the universe.

    As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

    “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

    Illustration with X, Y, and Z axis superimposed on the universe
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png

    Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR, and the large scale structures in the universe, being a product of random quantum fluctuations, (as atheists presuppose in their inflation model),,,, far from that, both the temperature variations of the CMBR and the large scale structures of the universe reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and solar system from the creation of the universe itself. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not just some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed in their inflation model.

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

    Isaiah 45:18
    “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

  43. 43
    kairosfocus says:

    SA2, it is obvious that your argument fails. A serious candidate NB can be challenged as to impossibility of being, or as to serious candidacy. 70 years back, atheists they had achieved no 1 though attention to Boethius et al would have shown the contrary. It is sufficient, that a claim is subject to examination per comparative difficulties and could in principle be falsified (e.g. through incoherence) that it can be addressed validly in philosophy. Your problem is that God is indeed a serious candidate NB and that with the failure of the Sunday punch argument, logic of being strongly points to the alternative: actual. It seems that makes you uncomfortable. Well, if that is so, provide good reason to think God impossible of being or not a serious candidate to be framework to any possible world ________ Failing which, it is clear that we need not take the naive falsificationist objection seriously. KF

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky then claims, “Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time, tailing off billions of years ago and completely at odds with a special creation event 6000 years back.
    One creation story – that of Christianity – refers to life appearing after water. Unfortunately, it also refers to day and night existing before light was created – just one of a number of inconsistencies in the faith.”

    Well, first off, there are no such things as ‘Naturalistic/Materialistic observations’. Only an immaterial mind is capable of having a subjective conscious experience. Purely material objects observe nothing because they are conscious of nothing. i.e. ‘the hard problem’ of consciousness.

    Moreover, Donald Hoffman has proven that, if the materialism of Darwinian evolution were actually true, then all our observations of reality would be illusory.

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction (those organisms) that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”
    https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality

    Moreover, reliable observations are an integral part of the scientific method. In fact, the first step of the scientific method involves making an observation about something that interests you.

    Scientific Method –
    *Observation
    *Question
    *Hypothesis
    *Experiment
    *Results
    *Conclusion
    https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-method-p2-373335

    Thus assuming the naturalism and/or materialism of Darwinian evolution to be true actually undermines the scientific method itself since it ends up claiming that ALL of our observations of reality are illusory. And you don’t have to take Donald Hoffman’s word for it. Many leading Evolutionists admit as much,

    “the illusion that our brains evolved to have, a very compelling and persistent illusion – namely that the reality we perceive is real, rather than a constructed representation.”
    – Steven Novella – academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine

    “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    – Richard Dawkins – militant atheist – quoted from his book “The God Delusion”

    Luckily for us, science itself could care less that Darwinists are forced to believe, via the mathematics of population genetics, that ALL their observations of reality are illusory.

    Experimental results from quantum theory prove that ALL our conscious observations, of reality, far from being unreliable and illusory, are experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, and therefore, far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted for Darwinian theory.

    In the following experiment, it was found that ““It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    http://themindunleashed.org/20.....at-it.html

    Likewise, the following experiment also found that “reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
    Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
    They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    And as the following recent experiment also stated, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics) By Mindy Weisberger – March 20, 2019
    Excerpt: “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.
    https://www.livescience.com/65029-dueling-reality-photons.html

    Thus, according to the mathematical predictions of Darwinian theory, ALL of our perceptions are illusory. Yet according to the experimental results from quantum theory, ALL our perceptions of reality, far from being illusory. are found to integral to, and therefore reliable of, reality.

    And in empirical science, experimental results trump theoretical predictions every time. As Feynman stated, “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”

    “If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
    – Richard Feynman – On the Scientific Method

    Thus the reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian theory, and as far as experimental science itself is concerned, is falsified as the reason for why we have reliable observations.

    Thus, “Nat/mat observations” is an oxymoron. And for Seversky to state that “Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time,” is for him to state a huge non-sequitur. There simply are no such things as “Nat/mat observations”. Purely material objects can observe nothing! It takes an immaterial mind to have a subjective conscious experience, i.e. ‘the hard problem’ of consciousness.

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    That is not the only logical fallacy that Seversky commits. Seversky follows up that oxymoron with a strawman argument.

    To repeat, he states, “Nat/mat observations find evidence of life stretching far into deep time, tailing off billions of years ago and completely at odds with a special creation event 6000 years back.
    One creation story – that of Christianity – refers to life appearing after water. Unfortunately, it also refers to day and night existing before light was created – just one of a number of inconsistencies in the faith.”

    Seversky, instead of addressing the fact that life, contrary to Darwinian expectations that it took a very long time for the first living cell to form on the ancient earth, Seversky instead attacks a Young Earth Creationism strawman.

    Yet Seversky knows that I myself am not a young earth creationist, and Seversky also knows that there is severe disagreement among Christian Scholars themselves as to the correct interpretation of the Bible.

    BIBLICAL REASONS TO DOUBT THE CREATION DAYS WERE 24-HOUR PERIODS – January 28, 2015
    Excerpt: it may come as a surprise to some contemporary conservatives that some of the great stalwarts of the faith were not convinced of this (strict 24 hour period) interpretation.
    Augustine, writing in the early fifth century, noted, ”What kind of days these were it is extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible, to determine” (City of God 11.7).
    J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937), author of the 20th century’s best critique of theological liberalism, wrote, “It is certainly not necessary to think that the six days spoken of in that first chapter of the Bible are intended to be six days of twenty four hours each.”
    Old Testament scholar Edward J. Young (1907-1968), an eloquent defender of inerrancy, said that regarding the length of the creation days, “That is a question which is difficult to answer. Indications are not lacking that they may have been longer than the days we now know, but the Scripture itself does not speak as clearly as one might like.”
    Theologian Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2003), one of the most important theologians in the second half of the twentieth century and a defender of Scriptural clarity and authority, argued that “Faith in an inerrant Bible does not rest on the recency or antiquity of the earth. . . . The Bible does not require belief in six literal 24-hour creation days on the basis of Genesis 1-2. . . . it is gratuitous to insist that twenty-four hour days are involved or intended.”
    Old Testament scholar and Hebrew linguist Gleason Archer (1916-2004), a strong advocate for inerrancy, wrote ”On the basis of internal evidence, it is this writer’s conviction that yôm in Genesis could not have been intended by the Hebrew author to mean a literal twenty-four hour day.”
    I want to suggest there are some good, textual reasons—in the creation account itself—for questioning the exegesis that insists on the days as strict 24 hour periods,,,.
    https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/justintaylor/2015/01/28/biblical-reasons-to-doubt-the-creation-days-were-24-hour-periods/

    Seversky himself alludes to one of the reasons for regarding the Old Earth interpretation to be the correct interpretation of the Bible when he states that the Bible “also refers to day and night existing before light, (i.e. the sun), was created”

    Genesis 1: 3-5
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

    Thus since God himself is defining ‘day’ after he created light, yet before he created the Sun itself, then how can the word ‘day’ in the Bible possibly be held to mean only 24 hour periods of time as is held in the Young Earth interpretation of the Bible? It simply makes no exegesis sense to hold to a strict 24 hour definition of ‘day’.

    Why I Reject A Young Earth View: A Biblical Defense of an Old Earth – Jonathan M. – 2011
    Excerpt: If, therefore, it may be considered legitimate to take the seventh day as representative of a much longer period of time, then whence the mandate for supposing a commitment to interpreting the other six days as representative of 24-hour periods?
    Fourth, there is the multiple-usage of the word “day” in Genesis 1. Let’s take a look at the manner in which the word “day” is used in the Genesis 1 (up to 2:4) narrative alone:
    1. Genesis 1:5a: “God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” Here, “day” is contrasted with “night”: Thus, a 24-hour day is not in view, but rather “day” in the sense of “daytime” (i.e. 12 hours).
    2. Genesis 1:5b: “And there was evening and there was morning — the first day.” Here, the word does indeed mean a 24-hour day.
    3. Genesis 2:3: “By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” To this, I have already alluded — the key point here is the absence of “evening” and “morning”, which denotes all of the previous six days.
    4. The correct rendering of the Hebrew with respect to Genesis 2:4 is “This is the account of the heavens and the earth in the day they were created, when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.”
    http://crossexamined.org/why-i.....old-earth/

    Since Seversky is apparently dead set in defending his atheism at all costs, and could care less what the truth actually is, I guess the only option left for him is to set up a fallacious strawman argument against Young Earth creationism. The scientific evidence itself is simply crushing to his atheistic worldview.

    First off, as Dr. James Tour, (one of the leading synthetic chemists in the world), recently, brilliantly, and expertly, elucidated, due to the complexity involved in forming the first living cell, Darwinists, nor anyone else, has a realistic clue how the first living cell could have possibly formed naturalistically.

    Episode 13/13: Summary & Projections // A Course on Abiogenesis by Dr. James Tour
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71GTCHkId6M&list=PLILWudw_84t2THBvJZFyuLA0qvxwrIBDr&index=16

    Due to the complexity involved in forming the first living cell, Darwinists appealed to a ‘primordial soup’ and deep time in order to try to explain how the first living cell could have possibly formed on the ancient Earth.

    Yet there is no evidence that a ‘primordial soup’ ever existed on the face of the ancient Earth. As Dr. Hugh Ross explains, there simply are no ‘prebiotic chemical signatures’ on the ancient Earth.

    “We get that evidence from looking at carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis. And it tells us that in Earth’s oldest (sedimentary) rock, which dates at 3.80 billion years ago, we find an abundance for the carbon signature of living systems. Namely, that life prefers carbon 12. And so if you see a higher ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 that means that carbon has been processed by life. And it is that kind of evidence that tells us that life has been abundant on earth as far back as 3.80 billion years ago (when water was first present on earth).,,, And that same carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis tells us that planet earth, over it entire 4.5662 billion year history has never had prebiotics. Prebiotics would have a higher ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12. All the carbonaceous material, we see in the entire geological record of the earth, has the signature of being post-biotic not pre-biotic. Which means planet earth never had a primordial soup. And the origin of life on earth took place in a geological instant” (as soon as it was possible for life to exist on earth).”
    – Dr. Hugh Ross – Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video (40:10 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UPvO2EkiLls#t=2410

    Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Naturalists, life appeared on the ancient Earth as soon as it was possible for life to appear on the ancient earth.

    Life on Earth may date back 3.95 bn years: study – September 27, 2017
    Excerpt: life may have existed on Earth 3.95 billion years ago, a time when our infant planet was being bombarded by comets and had hardly any oxygen, researchers said Wednesday.,,,
    “Our samples are also the oldest supracrustal rocks preserved on Earth”—a type similar to the formation which contained the Quebec samples.,,,
    For the new study, Komiya and a team studied graphite, a form of carbon used in pencil lead, in rocks at Saglek Block in Labrador, Canada.
    They measured its isotope composition, the signature of chemical elements, and concluded the graphite was “biogenic”—meaning it was produced by living organisms.
    https://phys.org/news/2017-09-life-earth-date-bn-years.html

    Darwinists simply did not expect this. As the following article notes, “Twenty years ago, this would have been heretical; finding evidence of life 3.8 billion years ago was shocking,”,,,
    “Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously,”,,,

    Life on Earth likely started 4.1 billion years ago—much earlier than scientists thought – October 19, 2015
    Excerpt: UCLA geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago—300 million years earlier than previous research suggested.,,,
    “Twenty years ago, this would have been heretical; finding evidence of life 3.8 billion years ago was shocking,”,,,
    “Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously,”,,,
    The new research suggests that life existed prior to the massive bombardment of the inner solar system that formed the moon’s large craters 3.9 billion years ago.,,,
    “The early Earth certainly wasn’t a hellish, dry, boiling planet; we see absolutely no evidence for that,” Harrison said. “The planet was probably much more like it is today than previously thought.”,,,
    The researchers, led by Elizabeth Bell,,, identified 656 zircons containing dark specks that could be revealing and closely analyzed 79 of them with Raman spectroscopy, a technique that shows the molecular and chemical structure of ancient microorganisms in three dimensions.,,,
    One of the 79 zircons contained graphite—pure carbon—in two locations.,,,
    The carbon contained in the zircon has a characteristic signature—a specific ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13—that indicates the presence of photosynthetic life.
    “We need to think differently about the early Earth,” Bell said.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-10-l.....omuch.html

    Thus, I guess it is not surprising that Seversky would set up a strawman argument against Young Earth creationism. The scientific evidence itself is simply crushing to what naturalists had presupposed. The scientific evidence itself has falsified their belief in a ‘primordial soup’ and it has also falsified their belief that it took a long time for the first living cell to develop on the ancient earth.

    Since the scientific evidence itself has falsified what Naturalists had presupposed, Seversky, as a dogmatic atheist, simply has no other option than to set up, and attack, a strawman argument.

    Otherwise he would have to honestly admit that the scientific evidence itself strongly favors Theism over Atheism.

    Strawman Argument
    Excerpt: It’s much easier to defeat your opponent’s argument when it’s made of straw. The Strawman argument is aptly named after a harmless, lifeless, scarecrow. In the strawman argument, someone attacks a position the opponent doesn’t really hold. Instead of contending with the actual argument, he or she attacks the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw, an easily defeated effigy, which the opponent never intended upon defending anyway.
    The strawman argument is a cheap and easy way to make one’s position look stronger than it is.
    https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

    Verse:

    Nehemiah 9:6
    “You alone are the Lord.
    You have made the heavens,
    The heaven of heavens with all their host,
    The earth and all that is on it,
    The seas and all that is in them.
    You give life to all of them
    And the heavenly host bows down before You.

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    Next Seversky states, “The simplest life found on earth so far is not necessarily the earliest life ever to appear on Earth. Its relative complexity does not contradict the hypothesis that much simpler forms existed earlier or support a claim that they were necessarily created by a god.”

    Well actually we have plenty of scientific evidence that the supposedly ‘simple’ life on the ancient earth was exceedingly complex from the get go.

    First off, via iron ores, we have evidence that photosynthetic life was present on Earth 4 billion years ago.

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

    Life’s history in iron – Nov. 7, 2014
    Excerpt: A new study examines how Earth’s oldest iron formations could have been formed before oxygenic photosynthesis played a role in oxidizing iron.,,,
    Microorganisms that photosynthesize in the absence of oxygen assimilate carbon by using iron oxide (Fe(II)) as an electron donor instead of water. While oxygenic photosynthesis produces oxygen in the atmosphere (in the form of dioxygen), anoxygenic photosynthesis adds an electron to Fe(II) to produce Fe(III).
    “In other words, they oxidize the iron,” explains Pecoits. “This finding is very important because it implies that this metabolism was already active back in the early Archean (ca. 3.8 Byr-ago).”
    http://phys.org/news/2014-11-l.....-iron.html

    And photosynthesis, both oxygenic and anoxygenic photosynthesis, are exceedingly complex processes, (in fact anoxygenic photosynthesis turns to be even more complex that oxygenic photosynthesis is)

    “Remarkably, the biosynthetic routes needed to make the key molecular component of anoxygenic photosynthesis are more complex than the pathways that produce the corresponding component required for the oxygenic form.”
    – Early Life Remains Complex By Fazale R. Rana (FACTS for FAITH Issue 7, 2001)

    Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin:
    Excerpt: The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....5610a.html

    Enzymes and protein complexes needed in photosynthesis – with graphs
    https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1637-enzymes-and-protein-complexes-needed-in-photosynthesis

    Researchers Build Public “Library” To Help Understand Photosynthesis – March 19, 2019
    Excerpt: It isn’t easy being green. It takes thousands of genes to build the photosynthetic machinery that plants need to harness sunlight for growth. And yet, researchers don’t know exactly how these genes work.
    Now a team led by Princeton University researchers has constructed a public “library” to help researchers to find out what each gene does. Using the library, the team identified 303 genes associated with photosynthesis including 21 newly discovered genes with high potential to provide new insights into this life-sustaining biological process. The study was published online this week in Nature Genetics.
    “The part of the plant responsible for photosynthesis is like a complex machine made up of many parts, and we want to understand what each part does,” said Martin Jonikas, assistant professor of molecular biology at Princeton.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/researchers-build-public-library-to-help-understand-photosynthesis/

    Even neglecting the fact that we have evidence for extremely complex photosynthetic life 4 billion years ago, the basic metabolic requirements of even the simplest conceivable cell is also exceeding complex.

    Origin of life: heterotrophic or autotrophic , the emergence of the Basic Metabolic Processes – article
    https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2173-origin-of-life-heterotrophic-or-autotrophic-the-emergence-of-the-basic-metabolic-processes
    Basic Metabolic Processes – graph
    http://i21.servimg.com/u/f21/1.....duct11.png

  47. 47
    bornagain77 says:

    Darwinists may desperately want to believe that life started out as a relatively simple cell, but they simply have no evidence, theoretical or empirical evidence, that such a relatively simple cell is even theoretically, or empirically, possible.

    As Craig Venter, who tried to find the minimal set of genes necessary for ‘simple’ life, noted, “We’re showing how complex life is, even in the simplest of organisms,”,,,”These findings are very humbling.”,,,

    Microbe with stripped-down DNA may hint at secrets of life – Mar 24, 2016
    Excerpt: The newly created bacterium has a smaller genetic code than does any natural free-living counterpart, with 531,000 DNA building blocks containing 473 genes. (Humans have more than 3 billion building blocks and more than 20,000 genes).
    But even this stripped-down organism is full of mystery. Scientists say they have little to no idea what a third of its genes actually do.
    “We’re showing how complex life is, even in the simplest of organisms,” researcher J. Craig Venter told reporters. “These findings are very humbling.”,,,
    The genome is not some one-and-only minimal set of genes needed for life itself. For one thing, if the researchers had pared DNA from a different bacterium they would probably have ended up with a different set of genes.,,,
    The genome is “as small as we can get it and still have an organism that is … useful,” Hutchison said.,,,
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....INNY_GENES

    Mycoplasma mycoides Just Destroyed Evolution?“We’re Showing How Complex Life Is” – March 24, 2016
    Excerpt: The origin of life problem can be divided into two broad categories: ground-up and top-down. In the ground-up approach, evolutionists try to figure out how the first life could have arisen spontaneously from an inorganic world. In spite of the evolutionist’s claims to the contrary, the century-long ground-up research program has utterly failed.
    That leaves the top-down approach. Here, evolutionists work with simple, unicellular life forms, carefully removing parts one at a time in their search for smaller, simpler life forms. If evolution is true, they should be able to reduce life to a very simple, basic form which could conceivably arise by chance somehow.
    This approach has been failing as well, as in recent years all the signs pointed to a minimal life form consisting of at least a few hundred genes—far beyond evolution’s meager resources of random change.
    Now, this latest research has upped the ante. It is just getting worse. A minimal organism consisting of 473 genes is many orders of magnitude beyond evolution’s capabilities. Simply put, the science contradicts the theory. What the science is telling us is that evolution is impossible, by any reasonable definition of that term.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....royed.html

    Moreover, as if that was not bad enough for Atheistic Naturalists, we now have evidence that life may have started off as a complex web of mutually interdependent microbes, (in ‘microbial mats’ on Stromatolites), rather than starting off as a relatively simple cell, all by its lonesome, as Darwinists falsely envision.

    Specifically, evidence for ‘sulfate reducing’ bacteria has been discovered alongside the evidence for photosynthetic bacteria 3.8 billion years ago

    When Did Life First Appear on Earth? – Fazale Rana – December 2010
    Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria.
    http://www.reasons.org/when-di.....pear-earth?

    Moreover, evidence for 3.7 billion year old stromatolites, (i.e. microbial mats), has now also been found

    Oldest fossils on Earth discovered in 3.7bn-year-old Greenland rocks – August 31, 2016
    Excerpt: Scientists have discovered the oldest physical evidence for life on the planet in the form of fossils in Greenland rocks that formed 3.7bn years ago.
    The researchers believe the structures in the rocks are stromatolites – layered formations, produced by the activity of microbes, that can be found today in extremely saline lagoons in a few locations around the world.
    The new fossils are 220 million years older than any previously discovered.
    “Up until now the oldest stromatolites have been from Western Australia and they are roughly 3,500 million (3.5bn) years [old],” said Clark Friend, an independent researcher and co-author of the research. “What we are doing is pushing the discovery of life earlier in Earth’s history.”,,,
    the shape of the newly discovered structures, together with clues from their chemical make-up and signs of layers within them, suggests that they were formed by microbes,,,
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/aug/31/oldest-fossils-on-earth-discovered-in-37bn-year-old-greenland-rocks-stromatolites

    Moreover, the microbial mat ecology, such as the ecology of the microbes that build stromatolites, is mutually interdependent and, therefore, irreducibly complex, and thus inexplicable to Darwinian explanations

    Biologically mediated cycles for hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur, and iron – image of interdependent ‘biogeochemical’ web
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cont......large.jpg

    Microbial Mat Ecology – image
    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0717345817300738-gr2.jpg

    Microbial mat ecosystems: Structure types, functional diversity, and biotechnological application – 2018
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0717345817300738

    Please note, that if even one major type of bacteria group did not exist in these ancient microbial mats, in this complex environmental cycle of biogeochemical interdependence, that was illustrated on the preceding sites, then all of the different bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse. For now not only do neo-Darwinists have to explain how the ‘miracle of life’ happened once with the origin of photosynthetic bacteria, but now they must also explain how all these different types bacteria, that photosynthetic bacteria are dependent on, in this irreducibly complex biogeochemical web, miraculously arose just in time to supply the necessary nutrients, in their biogeochemical link in the chain, for photosynthetic bacteria to continue to survive for any extended period of time.

  48. 48
    bornagain77 says:

    As well, though not clearly illustrated in the illustration on the ‘Mat Ecology’ sites, please note that the long term tectonic cycle, of the turnover the Earth’s crustal rocks, must also be fine-tuned to a certain degree with the bacterial life and thus also plays an important ‘foundational’ role in the overall ecology of the earth over long periods of time that must be accounted for as well.
    This following study gives strong indication that the long term tectonic cycle and early bacterial life somehow mysteriously worked together in mutual cooperation with each other in order to maintain the life-sustaining ecology of the Earth over long periods of time:

    Ancient Earth Crust Stored in Deep Mantle – Apr. 24, 2013
    Excerpt: New research,, demonstrates that oceanic volcanic rocks contain samples of recycled crust dating back to the Archean era 2.5 billion years ago.,,
    This indicates that the sulfur comes from a deep mantle reservoir containing crustal material subducted before the Great Oxidation Event and preserved for over half the age of Earth.
    “These measurements place the first firm age estimates of recycled material in oceanic hotspots,” Hauri said. “They confirm the cycling of sulfur from the atmosphere and oceans into mantle and ultimately back to the surface,” Hauri said.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132705.htm

    We simply would not be here if these ancient communities of mutually interdependent bacteria, working in conjunction with a ‘timed’ tectonic cycle, did not fundamentally transform, i.e. ‘terraform’, the ancient Earth so that the Earth could eventually sustain higher multicellular organisms such as ourselves

    As Paul Falkowski stated, “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 – Falkowski 2008
    Excerpt: “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”
    – Paul G. Falkowski – Professor Geological Sciences – Rutgers
    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18497287/

    And finally in regards to Seversky’s claim that that the earliest life on earth does not “support a claim that they were necessarily created by a god.” (please note that God is spelled with a small ‘g’ in Seversky’s definition of God).

    Well, contrary to what Seversky may believe about God and photosynthesis, photosynthetic bacteria do give us scientific evidence that God was directly involved in creating the first life on Earth.

    Specifically, In what I find to be a very fascinating discovery, it is found that photosynthetic life, which is an absolutely vital link that all higher life on earth is dependent on for food, uses a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, quantum mechanical principle in order to accomplish photosynthesis.

    Uncovering Quantum Secret in Photosynthesis – June 20, 2013
    Excerpt: Photosynthetic organisms, such as plants and some bacteria, have mastered this process: In less than a couple of trillionths of a second, 95 percent of the sunlight they absorb is whisked away to drive the metabolic reactions that provide them with energy. The efficiency of photovoltaic cells currently on the market is around 20 percent.,,,
    Van Hulst and his group have evaluated the energy transport pathways of separate individual but chemically identical, antenna proteins, and have shown that each protein uses a distinct pathway. The most surprising discovery was that the transport paths within single proteins can vary over time due to changes in the environmental conditions, apparently adapting for optimal efficiency. “These results show that coherence, a genuine quantum effect of superposition of states, is responsible for maintaining high levels of transport efficiency in biological systems, even while they adapt their energy transport pathways due to environmental influences” says van Hulst.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....142932.htm

    Unlocking nature’s quantum engineering for efficient solar energy – January 7, 2013
    Excerpt: Certain biological systems living in low light environments have unique protein structures for photosynthesis that use quantum dynamics to convert 100% of absorbed light into electrical charge,,,
    “Some of the key issues in current solar cell technologies appear to have been elegantly and rigorously solved by the molecular architecture of these PPCs – namely the rapid, lossless transfer of excitons to reaction centres.”,,,
    These biological systems can direct a quantum process, in this case energy transport, in astoundingly subtle and controlled ways – showing remarkable resistance to the aggressive, random background noise of biology and extreme environments. “This new understanding of how to maintain coherence in excitons, and even regenerate it through molecular vibrations, provides a fascinating glimpse into the intricate design solutions – seemingly including quantum engineering – ,,, and which could provide the inspiration for new types of room temperature quantum devices.”
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-n.....nergy.html

    As an atheist, Seversky simply has no “non-local”, i.e. beyond space and time, cause that he can appeal in order to explain quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement. Indeed, trying to get around quantum non-locality was the entire point of atheists appealing to hidden variables and pilot waves in the first place in order to try to ‘explain away’ quantum non-locality:

    Experimental test of nonlocal causality – August 10, 2016
    DISCUSSION
    Previous work on causal explanations beyond local hidden-variable models focused on testing Leggett’s crypto-nonlocality (7, 42, 43), a class of models with a very specific choice of hidden variable that is unrelated to Bell’s local causality (44). In contrast, we make no assumptions on the form of the hidden variable and test all models ,,,
    Our results demonstrate that a causal influence from one measurement outcome to the other, which may be subluminal, superluminal, or even instantaneous, cannot explain the observed correlations.,,,
    http://advances.sciencemag.org.....00162.full

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: Mathematically (and mind-bogglingly), these constraints define an 80-dimensional object. The testable hidden influence inequality is the boundary of the shadow this 80-dimensional shape casts in 44 dimensions. The researchers showed that quantum predictions can lie outside this boundary, which means they are going against one of the assumptions. Outside the boundary, either the influences can’t stay hidden, or they must have infinite speed.,,,
    “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,”
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121028142217.htm

    A Critique of Bohmian Mechanics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn2hoU4jaQQ

    Whereas atheists are, (once again), left without an adequate scientific explanation to explain quantum non-locality, on the other hand I, as a Christian Theist, readily do have a “non-local”, i.e. beyond space and time, cause that I can appeal to in order to adequately explain non-local quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement.

    Namely, I can appeal to God spelled with a capital G!

    Verse and Music

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

    Natalie Grant – King Of The World (Official Acoustic Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6NfOJl26F4

  49. 49

    .
    Sev, I was out or a couple of days and did not see your comment at #29

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    UB: The problem for you, Sev, … 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.

    Seversky: Yes, the work of those researchers defined the fundamental requirements of an autonomous self-replicating system.

    So you agree that a semantically-closed system of symbols and constraints was predicted as the fundamental requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication, and that this symbol system was confirmed in biology by experiment?

    But so what? What are you inferring from that work?

    I take the information at face value: a high-capacity symbol system and a set of interpretive constraints were predicted as being fundamental to the system, and were subsequently confirmed by experiment. The presence of life and evolution on this planet is made possible by a symbol system and a language structure. Further, the physical entailments of that system are entirely unique among other physical systems known to science, being found nowhere else except in human language (a universal correlate of intelligence).

    Do they claim that it is impossible for such a system to emerge from naturalistic processes?

    Making such a claim would constitute a non-falsifiable conclusion. Why should anyone expect a proper research scientist, a physicist for example describing the dynamic properties of the system, to load his or her research with extraneous non-falsifiable conclusions?

    Your enthusiasm for this question is understandable given your ideological priors. Do you not regularly cast this situation (scientists not making these non-falsifiable conclusions in their research) as support for materialism?

    Do you claim that it is impossible for such a system to emerge from naturalistic processes?

    No, I do not make those extraneous claims either.

    Look, Sev, I have criticized you heavily for your constant reliance on non-falsifiable and/or unknowable reasoning in your personal war on ID. Yet, here you are again in this very post, doing it all over again. Read your own words – you are actually championing the use of flawed reasoning. It is like nothing ever gets through the wall you’ve erected around yourself and your relentless bigotry against documented science and history.

    You can’t demand the logically impossible as a means to shut out facts and details, Sev. You are not weighing evidence, you are running from it.

  50. 50
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky then states, “The nat/mat theory of evolution predicted that the “unfolding” of life would proceed in small, incremental steps but allowed that the rate at which it could happen could vary considerably. The 13-25 mn year Cambrian Explosion (a rather slow “explosion”) was a period when it happened a lot more rapidly but there is evidence of life preceding it. It was not the original creation event described in Genesis.”

    Well first off, Charles Darwin himself stated that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

    “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
    –Charles Darwin, Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 189

    And that falsification criteria, set forth by Charles Darwin himself, has now been met by both Douglas Axe and Michael Behe.

    Dr. Axe found that “the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.”

    Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds – Doug Axe – 2004
    Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723

    Dr. Axe’s work falls in line with other lines of research verifying the fact that functional proteins are extremely rare.

    Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein – Cornelius Hunter – Dec. 1, 2012
    Excerpt: In one study evolutionists estimated the number of attempts that evolution could possibly have to construct a new protein. Their upper limit was 10^43. The lower limit was 10^21.,,,
    These estimates are optimistic for several reasons, but in any case they fall short of the various estimates of how many attempts would be required to find a small protein. One study concluded that 10^63 attempts would be required for a relatively short protein.,,,
    And a similar result (10^65 attempts required) was obtained by comparing protein sequences.,,,
    Another study found that 10^64 to 10^77 attempts are required.,,,
    and another study concluded that 10^70 attempts would be required. In that case the protein was only a part of a larger protein which otherwise was intact, thus making the search easier.,,,
    These estimates are roughly in the same ballpark, and compared to the first study giving the number of attempts possible, you have a deficit ranging from 20 to 56 orders of magnitude. Of course it gets much worse for longer proteins.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....1503051454

    As the following researcher commented, these odds are impossible.,,, The appearance of early protein families is “something like close to a miracle.” And also noted that “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: these odds are impossible.,,,
    Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    The emerging picture, once luminous, has settled to gray. It is not clear how natural selection can operate in the origin of folds or active site architecture (of proteins). It is equally unclear how either micromutations or macromutations could repeatedly and reliably lead to large evolutionary transitions. What remains is a deep, tantalizing, perhaps immovable mystery.
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    The implications of this empirical evidence are crystal clear. Charles Darwin’s very own falsification criteria of ‘slight, successive modifications’ has been met at the most fundamental level of ‘building block’ level of biology, i.e. proteins, and Darwin’s theory has now been experimentally falsified.

    As Dr. Axe stated, “”Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) “If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown.” Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”

    “Charles Darwin said (paraphrase) “If anyone could find anything that could not be had through a number of slight, successive, modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown.” Well, that condition has been met time and time again now. Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.”
    – Douglas Axe – 200 Years After Darwin – What Didn’t Darwin Know – video – Part 2 of 2
    https://youtu.be/VKIgNroTj54?t=329

    And that is just the probability of getting a functional protein in the first place. When we throw the probability of existing proteins binding to one another in new ways then the problems get much worse for Darwinists.

    In his book “The Edge of Evolution”, Dr. Behe estimated, from observational evidence, that the limit for what Darwinian evolution could be expected to accomplish, in terms of building up functional complexity, via proteins binding to one another in new ways, was an event with the probability of happening of 1 in 10^20.

    “The number I cite, one parasite in every 10^20 for de novo chloroquine resistance, is not a probability calculation. Rather, it is a statistic, a result, a data point. (Furthermore, it is not my number, but that of the eminent malariologist Nicholas White.) I do not assume that “adaptation cannot occur one mutation at a time”; I assume nothing at all. I am simply looking at the results. The malaria parasite was free to do whatever it could in nature; to evolve resistance, or outcompete its fellow parasites, by whatever evolutionary pathway was available in the wild. Neither I nor anyone else were manipulating the results. What we see when we look at chloroquine-resistant malaria is pristine data — it is the best that random mutation plus selection was able to accomplish in the wild in 10^20 tries.”
    – Michael Behe
    https://evolutionnews.org/2007/11/rebuttal_to_paul_gross_review/

    Moreover, in 2014 Dr. Behe’s 1 in 10^20 statistical observation has now been born out empirically.

    Guide of the Perplexed: A Quick Reprise of The Edge of Evolution – Michael Behe – August 20, 2014
    Excerpt: In The Edge of Evolution I cited the development of chloroquine resistance in the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum as a very likely real-life example of this phenomenon. The recent paper by Summers et al. confirms that two specific mutations are required to confer upon the protein PfCRT the ability to pump chloroquine, which is necessary but may not be sufficient for resistance in the wild.
    *Any particular adaptive biochemical feature requiring the same mutational complexity as that needed for chloroquine resistance in malaria is forbiddingly unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes and fixed in the population of any class of large animals (such as, say, mammals), because of the much lower population sizes and longer generation times compared to that of malaria. (By “the same mutational complexity” I mean requiring 2-3 point mutations where at least one step consists of intermediates that are deleterious, plus a modest selection coefficient of, say, 1 in 10^3 to 1 in10^4. Those factors will get you in the neighborhood of 1 in 10^20.)
    *Any adaptive biological feature requiring a mutational pathway of twice that complexity (that is, 4-6 mutations with the intermediate steps being deleterious) is unlikely to have arisen by Darwinian processes during the history of life on Earth.,,,
    What’s more, Nicholas White’s factor of 1 in 10^20 already has built into it all the ways to evolve chloroquine resistance in P. falciparum. In the many malarial cells exposed to chloroquine there have surely occurred all possible single mutations and probably all possible double mutations — in every malarial gene — yet only a few mutational combinations in pfcrt are effective. In other words, mutation and selection have already searched all possible solutions of the entire genome whose probability is greater than 1 in 10^20, including mutations to other genes. The observational evidence demonstrates that only a handful are effective. There is no justification for arbitrarily inflating probabilistic resources by citing imaginary alternative evolutionary routes.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89161.html

    From this 1 in 10^20 empirical observation, Dr. Behe sets maximum limit to what Darwinian processes could be expected to ever accomplish on the face of earth at “two binding sites in a protein complex”, since “the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”

    “the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable.”
    – Michael Behe – The Edge of Evolution – page 146

  51. 51
    bornagain77 says:

    To highlight just how bad the problem of protein binding sites are for Darwinists, Dr. Behe, on Table 7.1 on page 143 of Edge Of Evolution, finds that a typical ‘simple’ cell might have some 10,000 protein-binding sites. Whereas a conservative estimate for protein-protein binding sites in a multicellular creature is, conservatively, 300,000

    Largest-Ever Map of Plant Protein Interactions – July 2011
    Excerpt: The new map of 6,205 protein partnerings represents only about two percent of the full protein- protein “interactome” for Arabidopsis, since the screening test covered only a third of all Arabidopsis proteins, and wasn’t sensitive enough to detect many weaker protein interactions. “There will be larger maps after this one,” says Ecker.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....144936.htm

    So taking into account that they only covered 2%, of the full protein-protein “interactome” in the plant, then that gives a number, for different protein-protein interactions in the plant, of 310,000. Thus, from my very rough ‘back of the envelope’ calculation, we find conservatively that some 300,000 different protein/protein binding sites would have to be generated for each multicellular creature to ’emerge’ from some single cell creature.
    Therefore, from my very rough calculation, it certainly appears to be a vastly impossible step that unguided ‘bottom up’ material processes cannot possibly make to go from a single cell to a multicellular creature.

    And please bear in mind, my ‘back of the envelope estimate’ is a VERY conservative estimate, in reality the situation turns out to be far worse for Darwinists.

    First off, the alternative splicing patterns are found to very different between species. In fact, ““The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,”

    Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
    Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
    A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
    On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
    http://www.the-scientist.com/?.....plicing%2F

    And alternative splicing produces strikingly different interaction profiles for proteins.

    As the following article states, “Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,
    Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013).

    Widespread Expansion of Protein Interaction Capabilities by Alternative Splicing – 2016
    In Brief
    Alternatively spliced isoforms of proteins exhibit strikingly different interaction profiles and thus, in the context of global interactome networks, appear to behave as if encoded by distinct genes rather than as minor variants of each other.,,,
    Page 806 excerpt: As many as 100,000 distinct isoform transcripts could be produced from the 20,000 human protein-coding genes (Pan et al., 2008), collectively leading to perhaps over a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification of products of all possible transcript isoforms (Smith and Kelleher, 2013).
    http://iakouchevalab.ucsd.edu/.....M_2016.pdf

    And recall, Dr. Behe’s limit for what evolution could reasonably be expected to accomplish, given the entire history of all life on earth, is just 2 protein binding sites. i.e. 1 in 10^40.

    To put it mildly, “a million distinct polypeptides obtained by post-translational modification” is a rather dramatic shortfall for what Darwinian processes are capable of explaining.

    Thus Seversky’s, (and Darwin’s) contention that evolution must proceed in “small, incremental steps” is falsified by the empirical evidence itself. Darwinian evolution fails at the most fundamental level possible, i.e. at the level of the origin of proteins and at the level proteins interacting with each other in new ways.

    Amazingly Seversky, who has been commenting on UD for years, knows all this evidence that I have presented, and yet he proceeds to believe in Darwinian evolution anyway. Go figure, some people simply can’t be reasoned with I guess,

    But anyways, in regards to the Cambrian explosion itself, Seversky goes on to state, “The 13-25 mn year Cambrian Explosion (a rather slow “explosion”) was a period when it happened a lot more rapidly but there is evidence of life preceding it. It was not the original creation event described in Genesis.”

    And yet, contrary to whatever Seversky may want to believe, “None of the Cambrian animal phyla is represented in the Ediacaran fossil record.”

    “None of the Cambrian animal phyla is represented in the Ediacaran fossil record. This is very significant, because the potential soft-bodied ancestors would surely have been preserved in the numerous Ediacaran fossil localities of the Burgess Shale type (Bechly 2020), or in the Kimberella layers, which after all could preserve the soft-parts of a mollusk-like organism.”
    Günter Bechly – paleontologist
    – Bechly Series: No Ancestors for Cambrian Animals; Darwin’s Doubt Remains – September 24, 2020
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/09/bechly-series-no-ancestors-for-cambrian-animals-darwins-doubt-remains/

    As the following article states, “the absence of Ediacaran predecessors to the Cambrian is an established fact of modern paleontology.,,,”

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    written by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: The Cambrian Explosion, Coyne argues, “is an explosion only in geological terms, and allows for a lot of biological evolution to take place, (after all, modern whales evolved from small terrestrial deerlike organisms in just 12 million years).”
    This is wrong in its first assertion, it is wrong in its second assertion; and it is wrong all around.,,,
    ,,, The available window of time for the transition from the terrestrial pakicetids to fully marine basilosaurids (Pelagiceti) is only 4.5 million years.,,,
    Careless in his facts, Coyne is also careless in his references. There is, for example, the recent study by Wood et al. (2019). It is there, Coyne assures himself, that all those Cambrian antecedents may be found. In fact, this paper contains no evidence for Ediacaran bilaterian animals. There are reasonable candidates for primitive metazoan lineages, like sponges, ctenophores, and cnidarians, but not a single putative ancestor for any of the 21 Cambrian bilaterian animal phyla. If this is unequivocal, the attribution of the very Ediacaran Dickinsonia to stem metazoan animals is dubious. Had Coyne done a more thorough survey of the paleontological literature himself, he would have discovered that the absence of Ediacaran predecessors to the Cambrian is an established fact of modern paleontology.,,,
    https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/

    In short, Charles Darwin’s dilemma with the Cambrian explosion has only gotten far worse, not better, since Darwin’s time

    “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
    – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – 1860 – pg 308

    As the following article honestly stated, “Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ”a major mystery,” a ”challenge.” The Theory of Evolution — exploded again.”
    Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with.”

    Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion is Elusive: BioEssays Vol. 31 (7):736 – 747 – July 2009 ?Excerpt: “going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time.” —“Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists.”,,,
    serving as perennial fodder for creationists. The reasoning is simple — as explained on an intelligent-design t-shirt.
    “Fact: Forty phyla of complex animals suddenly appear in the fossil record, no forerunners, no transitional forms leading to them; ”a major mystery,” a ”challenge.” The Theory of Evolution — exploded again.”
    Although we would dispute the numbers, and aside from the last line, there is not much here that we would disagree with. Indeed, many of Darwin’s contemporaries shared these sentiments, and we assume — if Victorian fashion dictated — that they would have worn this same t-shirt with pride.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....mater.html?

    Seversky, in his final sentence, claimed that the Cambrian explosion “was not the original creation event described in Genesis.”

    Well, if it is all the same with you Seversky, we will let unbiased readers decide for themselves if the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion reasonably matches what we see described in Genesis for God’s fifth day of creation, shall we?

    Genesis 1: 20-23
    And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

    Personally, from my Old Earth Creation perspective, I’d certainly call that a pretty good ‘rough’ fit for what happened in the Cambrian explosion

  52. 52
    bornagain77 says:

    One more note on the Cambrian Explosion. The Cambrian Explosion simply makes no sense on Darwinian presuppositions.

    If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be, and diversified, 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/2.....62031.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?

    As Charles Darwin himself stated.

    “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

    “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 – page 266

    The logic of natural selection is nicely illustrated in the following graph:

    The Logic of Natural Selection – graph
    http://recticulatedgiraffe.wee.....35.jpg?308

    Simply put, on a Darwinian view of things, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, thinking, morally noble and/or altruistic behavior, etc… etc.. would all be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since those attributes would obviously slow down successful reproduction.

    Again, the Cambrian Explosion simply makes no sense on the Darwinian view of things. To repeat what the Doctor told Richard Dawkins, “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?”

    Microorganisms, in terms of reproductive success, should simply be the pinnacle of evolution’s creative capacity. There simply is no reason for multicellularity to ever evolve on a Darwinian view of things. And indeed, microorganisms were apparently doing quite well for billions of years prior to the Cambrian Explosion.

    Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video (2:55 minute mark)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2LDiWeWb4

    Again, on a Darwinian view of things, the Cambrian Explosion should simply never have happened. Much less should we ourselves exist. Multicellularity of any sort is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s own criteria for his theory, i.e. “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”

    Oh well, so much for any hope that Darwin’s theory would ever make any logical and reasonable sense.

    Darwin’s Dilemma – Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxh9o32m5c0

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    Next Seversky claims that, “Nat/mat theory holds that fossilization is a very rare event but even so transitional fossils have already been found.
    Theism makes no predictions whatsoever about the existence let alone the frequency of fossils, transitional or otherwise, in the geological record.”

    Both claims are false.

    To repeat what I stated at 10:

    Naturalism/Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record. Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. –

    The fossil record, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, looks nothing like what Darwin predicted for the fossil record.

    And please don’t take my word for it. (as Seversky simply wants us to take his word for his claim). Take the word of all these leading paleontologists

    “Darwin’s prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record.”
    Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myth of Human Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), 45-46.

    “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. … One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.”
    – NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., – The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

    “With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing that paleontologists could have accepted gradual evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a handful of supposedly well-documented lineages (e.g. Gryphaea, Micraster, Zaphrentis) none of which actually withstands close scrutiny.”
    Christopher R.C. Paul, “Patterns of Evolution and Extinction in Invertebrates,” K.C. Allen and D.E.G. Briggs, eds., Evolution and the Fossil Record (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 105.

    “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student from Trueman’s Ostrea/Gryphaea to Carruthers’ Zaphrentis delanouei, have now been ‘debunked’. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.’
    Dr. Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceonography, University College, Swansea, UK), ‘The nature of the fossil record’. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association, vol.87(2), 1976,p.132.

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, “The Nature of the Fossil Record,” 87 Proceedings of the British Geological Association 87 (1976): 133. (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”
    Paleontologist, Mark Czarnecki

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University,

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” –
    Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

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

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

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    Tom S. Kemp, Fossils and Evolution (New York; Oxford University Press, 1999), 246. – Curator of Zoological Collections

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

    “The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type.”
    Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), 187.

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

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

    “The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record.”
    R.A. Raff and T.C. Kaufman, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991), 34.

    “The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity – of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form.”
    Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 40.

    “Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people [i.e., Eldredge] are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
    Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979, quoted in Luther .D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th ed. (El Cajon, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1988), 89.

    “Colin Patterson told me that he was looking for cases where the actual common ancestor of two given species was identified in the diagram on display. These would be at the “nodes” in the tree of life. But all the nodes shown in the museum were vacant. Patterson told me that as far as he could see, nodes are always empty in diagrams of the tree of life.,,,”
    – Tom Bethel

    Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design – 2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7w5QGqcnNs
    The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.

    In fact not only does the fossil record fail to conform to Charles Darwin’s prediction of gradualism, but the fossil record is actually ‘upside down’ to what Charles Darwin predicted for it.

    i.e. Disparity (large differences) preceding diversity (small differences) is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion but is also found after it as well. In fact it is a defining characteristic of the overall fossil record.

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.,,,
    Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8

    In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin’s Dilemma? – JonathanM – May 2012
    Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....59171.html

    “The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line.”
    Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97.

    As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
    “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”

    Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
    “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.”

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
    Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    Bechly: In the Fossil Record, “Abrupt Appearances Are the Rule” – February 20, 2018,
    Excerpt: , you might think that the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years is a singularity, a freak of nature: the sudden appearance of phyla, major categories of life,,,, Yet Dr. Bechly points out that the problem posed by the Cambrian event is not singular but in fact has been repeated numerous times in the long history of life — sudden explosions, abrupt appearances, followed by diversification. Each should multiply the distress of Darwin’s defenders, if they are honest with themselves about it.
    In a chapter co-authored with philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in the recent book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (pg. 340-352), Bechly details 19 such “explosions.” As he observes, in the fossil record, “Abrupt appearances are the rule.” Each such event poses the same challenge to Darwinian thinking that the Cambrian explosion does.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/bechly-in-the-fossil-record-abrupt-appearances-are-the-rule/

    As to Seversky’s claim that, “Theism makes no predictions whatsoever about the existence let alone the frequency of fossils, transitional or otherwise, in the geological record.”

    That claim is simply false. The Bible is very clear about species reproducing “according to their kinds” and species not morphing into completely different species as is predicted in Darwin’s theory,

    Genesis 1
    11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.,,,
    And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
    24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

  54. 54
    bornagain77 says:

    In réponse to this:

    11. Naturalism/Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth – Man (our genus ‘modern homo’ as distinct from the highly controversial ‘early homo’) is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. (Tattersall; Luskin)–

    In response to that, Seversky claims, “It is estimated that new species are being discovered by science at the rate of 15000 – 20000 per year. The rate of speciation can vary hugely, new species of large animals taking hundreds of thousands of years to appear while new bacteria or viruses can emerge in just a few years. One study cataloged some 1400 human pathogens of which 87 were characterized as “novel” (now including COVID-19). If evolution occurs, there is no reason to think it has stopped now.”

    Hmmm, Seversky claims that new species of bacteria can emerge in just a few years? i.e. “new species of large animals taking hundreds of thousands of years to appear while new bacteria or viruses can emerge in just a few years.

    Seversky’s claim is either blatantly dishonest or woefully ignorant. Perhaps both.

    First off, if new species of large animals supposedly take hundreds of thousands of years to appear then that pretty much ruins any hope of ever having any direct observational evidence of them speciating. And yet if new species of bacteria can appear in just a few years then we ought to have direct observational evidence of speciation occurring within bacteria. Yet, we don’t have any evidence of bacteria evolving into new species.

    As Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, stated, ‘Bacteria are ideal for this kind of study, But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another,’

    Scant search for the Maker – 2001
    Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
    – Alan H. Linton – emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.
    http://www.timeshighereducatio.....ode=159282

    Darwinists simply have no evidence that bacteria can evolve into a new species in a few years.

    Richard Lenski, in his ‘”Long Term Evolution Experiment”, claimed that novel citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli in his experiment was “a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event”.

    Yet Scott Minnich came along and proved that the citrate adaptation in e-coli was as easy to achieve as falling off a log. In other words, the citrate adaptation in e-coli was ‘preprogrammed’ within the e-coli and was not “a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event” as Lenski had claimed.

    As Scott Minnich explained, “This (citrate adaptation) was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations.”,,,
    “We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.”

    Rapid Evolution of Citrate Utilization by Escherichia coli by Direct Selection Requires citT and dctA. – Minnich – Feb. 2016
    The isolation of aerobic citrate-utilizing Escherichia coli (Cit(+)) in long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) has been termed a rare, innovative, presumptive speciation event. We hypothesized that direct selection would rapidly yield the same class of E. coli Cit(+) mutants and follow the same genetic trajectory: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. This hypothesis was tested,,,
    Potentiation/actualization mutations occurred within as few as 12 generations, and refinement mutations occurred within 100 generations.,,,
    E. coli cannot use citrate aerobically. Long-term evolution experiments (LTEE) performed by Blount et al. (Z. D. Blount, J. E. Barrick, C. J. Davidson, and R. E. Lenski, Nature 489:513-518, 2012, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11514 ) found a single aerobic, citrate-utilizing E. coli strain after 33,000 generations (15 years). This was interpreted as a speciation event. Here we show why it probably was not a speciation event. Using similar media, 46 independent citrate-utilizing mutants were isolated in as few as 12 to 100 generations. Genomic DNA sequencing revealed an amplification of the citT and dctA loci and DNA rearrangements to capture a promoter to express CitT, aerobically. These are members of the same class of mutations identified by the LTEE. We conclude that the rarity of the LTEE mutant was an artifact of the experimental conditions and not a unique evolutionary event. No new genetic information (novel gene function) evolved.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26833416

    Re-interpreting Long-Term Evolution Experiments: A Conversation with Dr. Scott Minnich – March 2017 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rpNPzQAMck

    In fact, all of the supposedly beneficial mutations that have ever occurred in Lenski’s infamous ‘Long Term Evolution Experiment’ with e-coli can be classified as ‘modification-of-function’ or ‘loss-of-function’ mutations

    Richard Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiments with E. coli and the Origin of New Biological Information – September 2011
    Excerpt: The results of future work aside, so far, during the course of the longest, most open-ended, and most extensive laboratory investigation of bacterial evolution, a number of adaptive mutations have been identified that endow the bacterial strain with greater fitness compared to that of the ancestral strain in the particular growth medium. The goal of Lenski’s research was not to analyze adaptive mutations in terms of gain or loss of function, as is the focus here, but rather to address other longstanding evolutionary questions. Nonetheless, all of the mutations identified to date can readily be classified as either modification-of-function or loss-of-FCT.
    (Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution’,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4) (December, 2010).)
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....51051.html

    In fact, Lenski’s e-coli are found to be less fit than the original e-coli that Lenski started off with

    Lenski’s e-coli – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
    Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....n-bacteria

    What Lenski tried to claim for his e-coli is very similar to what Darwinists try to claim for anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Many times Darwinists will try to claim that antibiotic resistant bacteria are proof that Bacteria are evolving into a brand new species, Yet there is always a ‘fitness cost’ associated with the bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance that show that the bacteria are losing abilities not gaining them.

    The following video, at the 2:15 minute mark, shows that there is always a ‘fitness cost’ associated with bacteria gaining antibiotic resistance.

    Investigating Evolution: Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Peboq0AqA

    Here is a more recent video on the subject:

    Antibiotic Resistance & Bacterial Evolution: What’s the Real Story? (Long Story Short, Ep. 3) – November 2020 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlmgFFBBopM

  55. 55
    bornagain77 says:

    As Casey Luskin states, ‘(an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.’

    Thank Goodness the NCSE Is Wrong: Fitness Costs Are Important to Evolutionary Microbiology – Casey Luskin – March 8, 2010
    Excerpt: it (an antibiotic resistant bacterium) reproduces slower than it did before it was changed. This effect is widely recognized, and is called the fitness cost of antibiotic resistance. It is the existence of these costs and other examples of the limits of evolution that call into question the neo-Darwinian story of macroevolution.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....s_wro.html

    Helping an Internet Debater Defend Intelligent Design – Casey Luskin – May 3, 2014
    Excerpt: ,,, antibiotic resistant bacteria tend to “revert” to their prior forms after the antibacterial drug is removed. This is due to a “fitness cost,” which suggests that mutations that allow antibiotic resistance are breaking down the normal, efficient operations of a bacterial cell, and are less “advantageous.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....85171.html

    In other words, it turns out that instead of creating anything new, antibiotic resistant bacteria always degrade or modify some preexisting molecular abilities in order to gain antibiotic resistance. This following site provides a list of some of the degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria

    List Of Degraded Molecular Abilities Of Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria:
    Table 1 excerpt:
    Actinonin – Loss of enzyme activity
    Ampicillin – SOS response halting cell division
    Azithromycin – Loss of a regulatory protein
    Chloramphenicol – Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
    Ciprofloxacin – Loss of a porin or loss of a regulatory protein
    Erythromycin – Reduced affinity to 23S rRNA or loss of a regulatory protein
    Fluoroquinolones – Loss of affinity to gyrase
    Imioenem – Reduced formation of a porin
    Kanamycin – Reduced formation of a transport protein
    Nalidixic Acid – Loss or inactivation of a regulatory protein
    Rifampin – Loss of affinity to RNA polymerase
    Streptomycin – Reduced affinity to 16S rRNA or reduction of transport activity
    Tetracycline – Reduced formation of a porin or a regulatory protein
    Zittermicin A – Loss of proton motive force
    http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

    In 2016, in a blatant act of dishonesty, Darwinists made a video of bacteria rapidly adapting to higher and higher doses of antibiotics and tried to claim that they have captured ‘evolution in action’

    Stunning Videos of Evolution in Action – Sept. 8, 2016
    The MEGA-plate allows scientists to watch bacteria adapting to antibiotics before their eyes.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/09/stunning-videos-of-evolution-in-action/499136/

    Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne went so far as to claim that the video was a ‘creationist’s nightmare’

    The creationist’s nightmare: evolution in action – Jerry Coyne – Sept. 9 2016
    Excerpt: Over at the Atlantic, Ed Yong shows and describes some stunning videos of “evolution in action”: in this case bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics. It’s a clever way to visualize the accumulation of mutations over time as bacteria evolve to survive increasingly large doses of antibiotics,,
    https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/evolution-in-action/

    Yet, far from being a ‘creationist’s nightmare’, the fact of the matter is that no new information was generated in the rapid adaptations of the bacteria. As the following article explains, ” If anything gives us nightmares, it’s not this.,,,
    Why? Because no newly evolved complex information has been demonstrated.”

    Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria May Be a Health Nightmare, but Not an Evolutionary One – September 9, 2016
    Excerpt: If anything gives us nightmares, it’s not this.,,,
    Why? Because no newly evolved complex information has been demonstrated.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/antibiotic-resi/

    And as Michael Behe explained, the “Antibiotic-resistant bacteria demonstrate evolution by breaking stuff,, what we have here is devolution, not evolution, the opposite of what needs to be explained”

    Michael Behe: Is That MEGA-Plate Antibiotic Resistance Video Evidence for Evolution, or Devolution? – September 13, 2016 (with podcast)
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria demonstrate evolution by breaking stuff — not by building it and certainly not by creating complex new biological information. On the contrary, information is lost. In other words, says Behe, what we have here is devolution, not evolution, the opposite of what needs to be explained by Darwinian theory.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/michael_behe_is/

  56. 56
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, the fact that antibiotic resistance was being gained so rapidly in the video should have been a solid clue for the Darwinists that the adaptations to antibiotics are not being generated by random Darwinian processes, as they assume they are, but that antibiotic resistance is already ‘programmed’ into bacteria.

    And indeed, contrary to Darwinian thought, it is now found that antibiotic resistance, instead of being an ability that is new for bacteria, is an ability that is ancient. An ability that bacteria have had all along.

    Antibiotic resistance is ancient – September 2011
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....E-20110922

    A Tale of Two Falsifications of Evolution – September 2011
    Excerpt: “Scientists were surprised at how fast bacteria developed resistance to the miracle antibiotic drugs when they were developed less than a century ago. Now scientists at McMaster University have found that resistance has been around for at least 30,000 years.”
    http://crev.info/content/11090....._evolution

    In fact, one researcher, who found antibiotic resistance in four million year old bacteria, remarked ‘that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria and could be billions of years old.’

    (Ancient) Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics – April 2012
    Excerpt: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria cut off from the outside world for more than four million years have been found in a deep cave. The discovery is surprising because drug resistance is widely believed to be the result of too much treatment.,,, “Our study shows that antibiotic resistance is hard-wired into bacteria. It could be billions of years old, but we have only been trying to understand it for the last 70 years,” said Dr Gerry Wright, from McMaster University in Canada, who has analysed the microbes.
    http://www.scotsman.com/news/h.....1-2229183#

    Scientists unlock a ‘microbial Pompeii’ – February 23, 2014
    Excerpt: “…The researchers discovered that the ancient human oral microbiome already contained the basic genetic machinery for antibiotic resistance more than eight centuries before the invention of the first therapeutic antibiotics in the 1940s…”
    http://phys.org/news/2014-02-s.....mpeii.html

    As well, instead of antibiotic resistant genes being something new, as Darwinists assume they are, it is now found that ‘those vexing (antibiotic resistance) genes turn up everywhere in nature that scientists look for them’,,,

    Antibiotic resistance genes are essentially everywhere – May 8, 2014
    Excerpt: The largest metagenomic search for antibiotic resistance genes in the DNA sequences of microbial communities from around the globe has found that bacteria carrying those vexing genes turn up everywhere in nature that scientists look for them,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....121347.htm

    Thus, directly contrary to Seversky’s claim that bacteria can evolve into new species within a few years, we simply have no direct observational evidence that speculation has ever occurred in bacteria. What we have with bacteria are limited adaptations that deviate from the mean just a little bit, adaptations that come at a ‘fitness cost’, and with bacteria reverting back to their mean when given the first chance to do so.

    “What is the use of their unceasing mutations if they do not change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.”
    Pierre-Paul Grasse’, a renowned French evolutionist.

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    To make this problem for Darwinists all that much worse, ancient bacteria spores recovered from amber crystals and salt crystals, which are tens to hundreds of millions of years old, have been ‘revived’,,,

    Ancient Bacteria – 2008
    Excerpt: “Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki discovered the bacteria preserved within the abdomens of insects encased in pieces of amber. In the last 4 years, they have revived more than 1,000 types of bacteria and microorganisms — some dating back as far as 135 million years ago, during the age of the dinosaurs.,,, In October 2000, another research group used many of the techniques developed by Cano’s lab to revive 250-million-year-old bacteria from spores trapped in salt crystals. With this additional evidence, it now seems that the “impossible” is true.”
    http://www.physicsforums.com/s.....p?t=281961

    “After the onslaught of publicity and worldwide attention (and scrutiny) after the publication of our discovery in Science, there have been, as expected, a considerable number of challenges to our claims, but in this case, the scientific method has smiled on us. There have been at least three independent verifications of the isolation of a living microorganism from amber.”
    – R. Cano
    http://www.asmscience.org/cont.....128.chap37

    ,,, And these ancient ‘revived’ bacteria have been compared to their living descendants of today,,,

    Revival and identification of bacterial spores in 25- to 40-million-year-old Dominican amber – 19 May 1995
    Excerpt: Dr. Cano and his former graduate student Dr. Monica K. Borucki said that they had found slight but significant differences between the DNA of the ancient, 25-40 million year old amber-sealed Bacillus sphaericus and that of its modern counterpart,
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/...../5213/1060

    ,,, To the disbelieving shock of Darwinists, “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.”

    The Paradox of the “Ancient” (250 Million Year Old) Bacterium Which Contains “Modern” Protein-Coding Genes: Heather Maughan*, C. William Birky Jr., Wayne L. Nicholson, William D. Rosenzweig§ and Russell H. Vreeland ; – 2002
    “Almost without exception, bacteria isolated from ancient material have proven to closely resemble modern bacteria at both morphological and molecular levels.”
    http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/...../19/9/1637

    Evolutionists were so disbelieving at this stunning lack of change, (far less change than was expected from the neo-Darwinian view), that they insisted the stunning similarity was due to modern contamination in Vreeland’s experiment. Yet the following study laid that objection to rest by finding some ancient DNA sequences that were completely unique:

    World’s Oldest Known DNA Discovered (419 million years old) – Dec. 2009
    Excerpt: But the DNA was so similar to that of modern microbes that many scientists believed the samples had been contaminated. Not so this time around. A team of researchers led by Jong Soo Park of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada, found six segments of identical DNA that have never been seen before by science. “We went back and collected DNA sequences from all known halophilic bacteria and compared them to what we had,” Russell Vreeland of West Chester University in Pennsylvania said. “These six pieces were unique”,,,
    http://news.discovery.com/eart.....vered.html

    I wrote an e-mail to Dr. Cano and asked him if he had performed a ‘fitness test’ on the ancient bacteria he had revived to see if they were more fit than their modern day descendants. He wrote back and said that he had done such a test and that ‘we surmised that the putative “ancient”,,, isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates” than the modern strain

    “We performed such a (fitness) test, a long time ago, using a panel of substrates (the old gram positive biolog panel) on B. sphaericus. From the results we surmised that the putative “ancient” B. sphaericus isolate was capable of utilizing a broader scope of substrates. Additionally, we looked at the fatty acid profile and here, again, the profiles were similar but more diverse in the (ancient) amber isolate.”
    RJ Cano and MK Borucki – Fitness test which compared ancient amber sealed bacteria to its modern day descendants

    Moreover, the ancient yeast that Dr. Cano had also isolated was also found to be more resilient than modern day yeast in terms of making beer:

    Amber Ale: Brewing Beer From 45-Million-Year-Old Yeast – July 20, 2009
    Excerpt: Cano,,,brought back to life something that had been trapped in amber for more than 25 million years.,,, Cano identified it as a bacterial spore,,,
    Ambergene’s board of directors decided to confirm Cano’s claims of reanimation.
    “I was very skeptical,” says Chip Lambert, a microbiologist tapped by Ambergene to try to duplicate Cano’s results. The company provided him with amber and all of Cano’s sterilization and extraction protocols. Lambert doubled all of the cleaning processes and added some of his own. He was still able to duplicate Cano’s discovery.,,,
    In April 1995, during his amber-cracking spree, Cano made another important discovery. A piece of fossilized resin from Burma yielded,, brewer’s or baker’s yeast.
    Normally, Hackett ends the primary fermentation process by “crashing the tank”—lowering the temperature to shock the yeast into dormancy. But that didn’t work on Cano’s yeast. “It was just sitting on the bottom and nibbling on the sugar like a couch potato,” Hackett says. A strain that had survived 45 million years in suspended animation was not about to go quietly.
    https://www.wired.com/2009/07/ff-primordial-yeast/

    Thus, these ancient bacteria are actually more resilient than their modern day descendents. Exactly the opposite finding one would have expected from a Darwinian perspective.

  58. 58
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, in terms of morphology, billion year old bacteria “surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” and the similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,”

    Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?
    Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial counterparts. “They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species,” Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. “This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times,” says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;
    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/.....a014909330

    Here are a few more references that drive this point home:

    AMBER: THE LOOKING GLASS INTO THE PAST:
    Excerpt: These (fossilized bacteria) cells are actually very similar to present day cyanobacteria. This is not only true for an isolated case but many living genera of cyanobacteria can be linked to fossil cyanobacteria. The detail noted in the fossils of this group gives indication of extreme conservation of morphology, more extreme than in other organisms.
    http://bcb705.blogspot.com/200.....st_23.html

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

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

    Besides bacteria drastically failing to provide any observation evidence for Darwinian evolution, nor do Darwinists have any observational evidence for speciation anywhere else that they may look.

    Blink and You’ll Miss It: Jerry Coyne Turns His Attention to the “Engine of Evolution” (Lenski, Lynch, Hall, Antibiotic resistance, Insecticide resistance) – Jonathan M. – December 7, 2012
    Excerpt: Coyne fails to address any of the challenges to his view that evolutionary mechanisms are able to accomplish what he requires of them, such as the rarity and isolation of stable protein folds in sequence space (Axe, 2010a; Axe, 2004; Gauger and Axe, 2011), or the mathematical limits of complex adaptation (Axe, 2010b),
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....67161.html

    Natural Selection and Evolution’s Smoking Gun, – American Scientist – 1997
    Excerpt: “A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution’s smoking gun,”…
    “Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade. (but we don’t)”,,,
    (“the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”)
    Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/27.....b_contents ?

    Alleged Instances of Observed Speciation — Evolution’s Smoking Gun Is Still Missing – William A. Dembski and Jonathan Wells July 1, 2016
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02965.html

    “Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species.”
    Kevin Kelly from his book, “Out of Control”

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

  59. 59
    bornagain77 says:

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

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

    Here is part 2 of a podcast with Casey Luskin exposing the Talk Origin’s speciation FAQ as a blatant ‘literature bluff’??

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

    In the following article, Darwinists go 0 for 13 in trying to provide proof for evolution

    Evolving Icons of Evolution – March 13, 2017
    https://www.evolutionnews.org/2017/03/evolving-icons-of-evolution/

    Moreover, the main problem for Darwinists is not the fact that they have never demonstrated the origination of a new species in the first place,,, instead the main problem for Darwinists is that they, with their reductive materialistic framework, lack the wherewithal to even define what a species truly is in the first place,

    Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas
    The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage
    Excerpt: In Aristotelian and Thomistic thought, each particular organism belongs to a certain universal class of things. Each individual shares a particular nature—or essence—and acts according to its nature. Squirrels act squirrelly and cats catty. We know with certainty that a squirrel is a squirrel because a crucial feature of human reason is its ability to abstract the universal nature from our sense experience of particular organisms.
    Think about it: How is it that we are able to recognize different organisms as belonging to the same group? The Aristotelian provides a good answer: It is because species really exist—not as an abstraction in the sky, but they exist nonetheless. We recognize the squirrel’s form, which it shares with other members of its species, even though the particular matter of each squirrel differs. So each organism, each unified whole, consists of a material and immaterial part (form).,,,
    Denial of True Species
    Enter Darwinism. Recall that Darwin sought to explain the origin of “species.” Yet as he pondered his theory, he realized that it destroyed species as a reality altogether. For Darwinism suggests that any matter can potentially morph into any other arrangement of matter without the aid of an organizing principle. He thought cells were like simple blobs of Jell-O, easily re-arrangeable. For Darwin, there is no immaterial, immutable form. In The Origin of Species he writes:
    “I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
    Statements like this should make card-carrying Thomists shudder.,,,
    The first conflict between Darwinism and Thomism, then, is the denial of true species or essences. For the Thomist, this denial is a grave error, because the essence of the individual (the species in the Aristotelian sense) is the true object of our knowledge. As philosopher Benjamin Wiker observes in Moral Darwinism, Darwin reduced species to “mere epiphenomena of matter in motion.” What we call a “dog,” in other words, is really just an arbitrary snapshot of the way things look at present. If we take the Darwinian view, Wiker suggests, there is no species “dog” but only a collection of individuals, connected in a long chain of changing shapes, which happen to resemble each other today but will not tomorrow.
    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

    To this day, Darwinists still have no clue how the rigidly define a species, In 2019 a Darwinist honestly admitted that “The most important concept in all of biology, (i.e. species), is a complete mystery”

    What is a species? The most important concept in all of biology is a complete mystery – July 16, 2019
    Excerpt: Enough of species?
    This is only the tip of a deep and confusing iceberg. There is absolutely no agreement among biologists about how we should understand the species. One 2006 article on the subject listed 26 separate definitions of species, all with their advocates and detractors. Even this list is incomplete.
    The mystery surrounding species is well-known in biology, and commonly referred to as “the species problem”. Frustration with the idea of a species goes back at least as far as Darwin.,,,
    some contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology have,,, suggested that biology would be much better off if it didn’t think about life in terms of species at all.,,,
    https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-species-the-most-important-concept-in-all-of-biology-is-a-complete-mystery-119200

    As should be needless to say, the inability for a supposedly scientific theory, i.e. Darwinian evolution, a supposedly scientific theory that seeks to explain the “Origin of Species”, to clearly define what a species actually is in the first place, is a crystal clear indication that that supposedly scientific theory cannot possibly be the proper scientific explanation for the “Origin of Species”!

    The failure to define what a species even is, scientifically speaking, is simply completely embarrassing for Darwinists.

    It is as if a mathematician tried to do math with no clear definition of what the number 1 actually meant.

    With its inherent denial of ‘true species’, ‘Alice in Wonderland’ turns out to be more of a rigorous scientific theory than Darwinian. evolution can ever possibly be.

    Verse:

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    Since my claim had to do with the fairly recent, and abrupt, appearance of humans in the fossil record, and since Seversky did not even touch on that, but instead tried to falsely claim that we had observational evidence for speciation with Bacteria, I will list a few notes that support my primary claim that humans appeared relatively recently, and suddenly, in the fossil record, and that refute the claim from Darwinists that there are a series of transitional fossils that link us to some hypothetical ape-like common ancestor with apes and/or chimps

    “We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
    Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a)

    Neo-Darwinism and the Big Bang of Man’s Origin – Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – February 25, 2020
    Excerpt: “There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place, from the backs of cereal packets to the advertisement for expensive scientific equipment. On the left of the picture there’s an ape — …. On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”
    – Bernard Wood, Bernard Wood, Professor of Human Origins at George Washington University,
    “Who are we?” New Scientist 176 2366: 44-47. 26 October 2002:,,,
    A Big Bang at Man’s Origin?
    To repeat the key points quoted above (from Darwinists themselves), we may emphasize that
    1. “differences exist on an unusual scale”
    2. “Homo sapiens appears […] distinctive and unprecedented”
    3. “There is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became what we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
    4. “…we evidently came by our unusual anatomical structure and capacities very recently.”
    5. “…a convincing hypothesis for the origin of Homo remains elusive”
    6. “[W]e should not expect to find a series of intermediate fossil forms with decreasingly divergent big toes and, at the same time, a decreasing number of apelike features and an increasing number of modern human features.”
    7. “No gradual series of changes in earlier australopithecine populations clearly leads to the new species [Homo sapiens], and no australopithecine species is obviously transitional.”
    8. “…early H. sapiens was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary [as well as coexisting] australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior.”
    9. “Our interpretation is that the changes are sudden and interrelated,” “a genetic revolution.”,,,
    “…a rather minor structural innovation at the DNA level” appears to be, for all that can be known at present, a rather unsatisfactory proposal for a comparable origin of some 696 new features (out of 1065) which distinguish man from chimpanzees, 711 from orang, 680 from gorilla, 948 from Gibbon (Hylobathes), presupposing a similar magnitude of different anatomical and other features (“distinctive and unprecedented”) from his supposed animal ancestor, “our closest extinct kin,” not to speak of 15.6% differences on the DNA level between man and his alleged closest cousin, the chimpanzee, which means, in actual numbers, more than 450 million bp differences of the some 3 billion bp constituting the genomes overall.28,,,
    Almost any larger science museum around the globe presents a series of connecting links between extinct apes and humans such as Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Australopithecus afarensis (“Lucy”), Ardipithecus ramidus, Orrorin tugensis and others. For a brief overview on such assumed links see Lönnig (2019).38 I include there a series of references to papers and books that do not simply presuppose evolution and neo-Darwinism as the final truth on the origin of species without any scientific alternative (as is common practice nowadays). Instead, these works critically discuss the relevant details, showing in depth the untenability of the evolutionary scenarios usually given to these would-be links generally put forward as indisputable scientific facts….
    98.5 Percent Human/Chimp DNA Identity?
    Although long disproved, the assertion that human and chimp DNA display approximately 98.5 percent identity is still forwarded in many papers and books. The present state of the art has been clearly articulated by Richard Buggs, Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. He asks, “What does the data say today in 2018, and how can it be described to the public in an adequate manner?” Key answer: “The total percentage of the human genome that I can know for sure has one-to-one orthology with the chimp genome is 84.4 percent” (“our minimum lower bound”)39, i.e., more than 450 million differences (15 percent of 3 billion bp = 450 million).
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/neo-darwinism-and-the-big-bang-of-mans-origin/
    Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, (retired) Senior Scientist (Biology), Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Emeritus, Cologne, Germany.

    Contested Bones: Is There Any Solid Fossil Evidence for Ape-to-Man Evolution? – Dr. John Sanford and Chris Rupe
    Excerpt: We have spent four years carefully examining the scientific literature on this subject. We have discovered that within this field (paleoanthropology), virtually all the famous hominin types have either been discredited or are still being hotly contested. Within this field, not one of the hominin types have been definitively established as being in the lineage from ape to man. This includes the famous fossils that have been nicknamed Lucy, Ardi, Sediba, Habilis, Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal. Well-respected people in the field openly admit that their field is in a state of disarray. It is very clear that the general public has been deceived regarding the credibility and significance of the reputed hominin fossils.
    We will show that the actual fossil evidence is actually most consistent with the following three points. 1) The hominin bones reveal only two basic types; ape bones (Ardi and Lucy), and human bones (Naledi, Hobbit, Erectus, and Neaderthal). 2) The ape bones and the human bones have been repeatedly found together in the same strata – therefore both lived at the same basic timeframe (the humans were apparently hunting and eating the apes). 3) Because the hominin bones were often found in mixed bone beds (with bones of many animal species in the same site), numerous hominin types represent chimeras (mixtures) of ape and human bones (i.e., Sediba, Habilis).
    We will also present evidence that the anomalous hominin bones that are of the human (Homo) type most likely represent isolated human populations that experienced severe inbreeding and subsequent genetic degeneration. This best explains why these Homo bones display aberrant morphologies, reduced body size, and reduced brain volume.
    We conclude that the hominin bones do not reveal a continuous upward progression from ape to man, but rather reveal a clear separation between the human type and the ape type. The best evidence for any type of intermediate “ape-men” derived from bones collected from mixed bone beds (containing bones of both apes and men), which led to the assembly of chimeric skeletons. Therefore, the hominin fossils do not prove human evolution at all.,,,
    We suggest that the field of paleoanthropology has been seriously distorted by a very strong ideological agenda and by very ambitious personalities.
    https://ses.edu/contested-bones-is-there-any-solid-fossil-evidence-for-ape-to-man-evolution/

    Here is a video playlist of Dr. Giem reviewing John Sanford’s book “Contested Bones”. (All major fossil claims from Darwinists are covered)

    “Contested Bones” reviewed by Dr. Paul Giem – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

    Moreover, humans are far more anatomically, (and genetically), distinct from apes than Darwinists try to portray to the general public

    Why Keith Blanchard really doesn’t understand evolution – August 9, 2014
    Excerpt: The anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, which are quite extensive, are conveniently summarized in a handout prepared by Anthropology Professor Claud A. Ramblett the University of Texas, entitled, Primate Anatomy. Anyone who thinks that a series of random stepwise mutations, culled by the non-random but unguided process of natural selection, can account for the anatomical differences between humans and chimpanzees, should read this article very carefully. What it reveals is that an entire ensuite of changes, relating to the skull, teeth, vertebrae, thorax, shoulder, arms, hands, pelvis, legs and feet, not to mention the rate of skeletal maturation and method of locomotion, would have been required, in order to transform the common ancestor of humans and chimps into creatures like ourselves. Given the sheer diversity of changes that would have been required, it is surely reasonable to ask whether an unguided process, such as Darwinian macroevolution, could have accomplished this feat over a period of a few million years.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....evolution/

    “We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing: there is no semi-bipedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays only occasionally.
    The extraordinary originality of our species is not common in the living world. Most species belong to groups of similar ones.,,”
    – Juan Arsuaga (paleoanthropologist) – The Neanderthals Necklace – 2002 – page 3-4

    February 2020 – anatomical and genetic dissimilarities between apes and humans far greater than what Darwinists present to the general public:
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-texas-m-last-week-theistic-evolutionist-joshua-swamidass-vs-id-proponent-michael-behe/#comment-693556
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-texas-m-last-week-theistic-evolutionist-joshua-swamidass-vs-id-proponent-michael-behe/#comment-693590

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    Here are a few more notes that support the sudden appearance of humans in the fossil record

    Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence – Casey Luskin – June 2011
    Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10]
    per evolution news

    Human Origins, and the Real Reasons for Evolutionary Skepticism – Jonathan M. – December 9, 2012
    Excerpt: “Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives. However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to external validation. To rectify this, we applied internal methods to equivalent evidence from two groups of extant higher primates for whom reliable molecular phylogenies are available, the hominoids and paionins. We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable.”
    per evolution news

    No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests – Oct. 21, 2013
    Excerpt: The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,,
    They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match.
    “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.
    – per science daily

  62. 62
    bornagain77 says:

    In regards to this,

    12. Naturalism/Materialism predicted that the separation of human intelligence from animal intelligence ‘is one of degree and not of kind’(C. Darwin). Theism predicted that we are made in the ‘image of God’- Despite an ‘explosion of research’ in this area over the last four decades, human beings alone are found to ‘mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities.’ (Tattersall; Schwartz). Moreover, both biological life and the universe itself are found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    To that Seversky responds thusly, “Imago dei is a Christian not just a theistic concept and its meaning is conveniently vague. Does it mean that God is a bipedal humanoid with a head, two arms, two legs, genitals, etc? Does it mean we resemble Him psychologically so He is also capable of rage, jealousy, vindictiveness? That, at least, would be consistent with some of His behavior as described in the Bible. “Information” appears to have become the modern-day equivalent of the “luminiferous aether”. Treating it as some fundamental ‘stuff’ of which everything else is made is a misconception which commits the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.

    Well first off in regards to Seversky false claim that information is being reified

    reify
    to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea)

    Information is NOT just some abstract idea that has no ‘concrete’ effect on the material world.

    In other words, contrary to what Seversky wants to believe in his reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, Information IS physical and it is neither imaginary and abstract, nor is it ’emergent’ from a material basis.

    Landauer held information to be physical because it always took energy to erase it from a computer. (Landauer’s principle)

    In fact Landauer said that Roger Penrose’s contention that information has an existence independent of matter and energy was a quote unquote ‘quaint notion’.

    Information is a Physical Entity – Rolf Landauer
    Excerpt: Information is inevitably inscribed in a physical medium. It is not an abstract entity. It can be denoted by a hole in a punched card, by the orientation of a nuclear spin, or by the pulses transmitted by a neuron. The quaint notion that information has an existence independent of its physical manifestation is still seriously advocated [6],,,
    [6] R. Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989.
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/v.....8;type=pdf

    “Those devices (computers) can yield only approximations to a structure (of information) that has a deep and “computer independent” existence of its own.” –
    Roger Penrose – The Emperor’s New Mind – Pg 147

    Likewise Norbert Weiner also held that “Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. “

    “The mechanical brain does not secrete thought “as the liver does bile,” as the earlier materialists claimed, nor does it put it out in the form of energy, as the muscle puts out its activity. Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day. “
    – Weiner

    Yet contrary to what Landauer and other materialists may believe, there is much evidence that now establishes the physical reality of immaterial information which is independent of matter and energy.

    As Vaccaro explained in the following article,“Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.”

    Scientists show how to erase information without using energy – January 2011
    Excerpt: Until now, scientists have thought that the process of erasing information requires energy. But a new study shows that, theoretically, information can be erased without using any energy at all.,,, “Landauer said that information is physical because it takes energy to erase it. We are saying that the reason it (information) is physical has a broader context than that.”, Vaccaro explained.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    And in the following 2010 experiment, Japanese scientists were finally able to experimentally realize the ‘Maxwell demon’ thought experiment and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.”

    Maxwell’s demon demonstration (knowledge of a particle’s position) turns information into energy – November 2010
    Excerpt: Scientists in Japan are the first to have succeeded in converting information into free energy in an experiment that verifies the “Maxwell demon” thought experiment devised in 1867.,,, In Maxwell’s thought experiment the demon creates a temperature difference simply from information about the gas molecule temperatures and without transferring any energy directly to them.,,, Until now, demonstrating the conversion of information to energy has been elusive, but University of Tokyo physicist Masaki Sano and colleagues have succeeded in demonstrating it in a nano-scale experiment. In a paper published in Nature Physics they describe how they coaxed a Brownian particle to travel upwards on a “spiral-staircase-like” potential energy created by an electric field solely on the basis of information on its location. As the particle traveled up the staircase it gained energy from moving to an area of higher potential, and the team was able to measure precisely how much energy had been converted from information.
    http://www.physorg.com/news/20.....nergy.html

    As Christopher Jarzynski, who was instrumental in formulating the ‘equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information’, stated, “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,”

    Demonic device converts information to energy – 2010
    Excerpt: “This is a beautiful experimental demonstration that information has a thermodynamic content,” says Christopher Jarzynski, a statistical chemist at the University of Maryland in College Park. In 1997, Jarzynski formulated an equation to define the amount of energy that could theoretically be converted from a unit of information2; the work by Sano and his team has now confirmed this equation. “This tells us something new about how the laws of thermodynamics work on the microscopic scale,” says Jarzynski.
    http://www.scientificamerican......rts-inform

    In short, and as the following review article states, “information, entropy, and energy should (now) be treated on equal footings.”

    Information: From Maxwell’s demon to Landauer’s eraser – Lutz and Ciliberto – Oct. 25, 2015 – Physics Today
    Excerpt: The above examples of gedanken-turned-real experiments provide a firm empirical foundation for the physics of information and tangible evidence of the intimate connection between information and energy. They have been followed by additional experiments and simulations along similar lines.12 (See, for example, Physics Today, August 2014, page 60.) Collectively, that body of experimental work further demonstrates the equivalence of information and thermodynamic entropies at thermal equilibrium.,,,
    (2008) Sagawa and Ueda’s (theoretical) result extends the second law to explicitly incorporate information; it shows that information, entropy, and energy should be treated on equal footings.
    http://www.johnboccio.com/rese.....mation.pdf
    J. Parrondo, J. Horowitz, and T. Sagawa. Thermodynamics of information.
    Nature Physics, 11:131-139, 2015.

    The Maxwell demon thought experiment has also now even been extended to build a refrigerator that is powered purely by information.

    New Scientist astounds: Information is physical – May 13, 2016
    Excerpt: Recently came the most startling demonstration yet: a tiny machine powered purely by information, which chilled metal through the power of its knowledge. This seemingly magical device could put us on the road to new, more efficient nanoscale machines, a better understanding of the workings of life, and a more complete picture of perhaps our most fundamental theory of the physical world.
    – per uncommon descent

    Here are a few more notes along that line:

    Matter, energy… knowledge: – May 11, 2016
    Running a brain-twisting thought experiment for real shows that information is a physical thing – so can we now harness the most elusive entity in the cosmos?
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23030730-200-demon-no-more-physics-most-elusive-entity-gives-up-its-secret/

    Information engine operates with nearly perfect efficiency – Lisa Zyga – January 19, 2018
    Excerpt: Physicists have experimentally demonstrated an information engine—a device that converts information into work—with an efficiency that exceeds the conventional second law of thermodynamics. Instead, the engine’s efficiency is bounded by a recently proposed generalized second law of thermodynamics, and it is the first information engine to approach this new bound.,,,
    The generalized second law of thermodynamics states that the work extracted from an information engine is limited by the sum of two components: the first is the free energy difference between the final and initial states (this is the sole limit placed on conventional engines by the conventional second law), and the other is the amount of available information (this part sets an upper bound on the extra work that can be extracted from information).
    To achieve the maximum efficiency set by the generalized second law, the researchers in the new study designed and implemented an information engine made of a particle trapped by light at room temperature. Random thermal fluctuations cause the tiny particle to move slightly due to Brownian motion, and a photodiode tracks the particle’s changing position with a spatial accuracy of 1 nanometer. If the particle moves more than a certain distance away from its starting point in a certain direction, the light trap quickly shifts in the direction of the particle. This process repeats, so that over time the engine transports the particle in a desired direction simply by extracting work from the information it obtains from the system’s random thermal fluctuations (the free energy component here is zero, so it does not contribute to the work extracted).
    One of the most important features of this system is its nearly instantaneous feedback response: the trap shifts in just a fraction of a millisecond, giving the particle no time to move further and dissipate energy. As a result, almost none of the energy gained by the shift is lost to heat, but rather nearly all of it is converted into work. By avoiding practically any information loss, the information-to-energy conversion of this process reaches approximately 98.5% of the bound set by the generalized second law. The results lend support for this bound, and illustrate the possibility of extracting the maximum amount of work possible from information
    .https://phys.org/news/2018-01-efficiency.html

    What is information? – animated video (May 2016)
    Quote: “If information is not (physically) real then neither are we”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AvIOzVJMCM

  63. 63
    bornagain77 says:

    And here are a few notes that link together information, thermodynamics and an observer.

    As the following article states, “when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. ”

    Quantum knowledge cools computers: New understanding of entropy – June 1, 2011
    Excerpt: The new study revisits Landauer’s principle for cases when the values of the bits to be deleted may be known. When the memory content is known, it should be possible to delete the bits in such a manner that it is theoretically possible to re-create them. It has previously been shown that such reversible deletion would generate no heat. In the new paper, the researchers go a step further. They show that when the bits to be deleted are quantum-mechanically entangled with the state of an observer, then the observer could even withdraw heat from the system while deleting the bits. Entanglement links the observer’s state to that of the computer in such a way that they know more about the memory than is possible in classical physics.,,,
    In measuring entropy, one should bear in mind that an object does not have a certain amount of entropy per se, instead an object’s entropy is always dependent on the observer. Applied to the example of deleting data, this means that if two individuals delete data in a memory and one has more knowledge of this data, she perceives the memory to have lower entropy and can then delete the memory using less energy.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....134300.htm

    And as the following article states, “James Clerk Maxwell (said), “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”,,,
    quantum information theory,,, describes the spread of information through quantum systems.,,,
    Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    The Quantum Thermodynamics Revolution – May 2017
    Excerpt: the 19th-century physicist James Clerk Maxwell put it, “The idea of dissipation of energy depends on the extent of our knowledge.”
    In recent years, a revolutionary understanding of thermodynamics has emerged that explains this subjectivity using quantum information theory — “a toddler among physical theories,” as del Rio and co-authors put it, that describes the spread of information through quantum systems. Just as thermodynamics initially grew out of trying to improve steam engines, today’s thermodynamicists are mulling over the workings of quantum machines. Shrinking technology — a single-ion engine and three-atom fridge were both experimentally realized for the first time within the past year — is forcing them to extend thermodynamics to the quantum realm, where notions like temperature and work lose their usual meanings, and the classical laws don’t necessarily apply.
    They’ve found new, quantum versions of the laws that scale up to the originals. Rewriting the theory from the bottom up has led experts to recast its basic concepts in terms of its subjective nature, and to unravel the deep and often surprising relationship between energy and information — the abstract 1s and 0s by which physical states are distinguished and knowledge is measured.,,,
    Renato Renner, a professor at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, described this as a radical shift in perspective. Fifteen years ago, “we thought of entropy as a property of a thermodynamic system,” he said. “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-thermodynamics-revolution/

    To repeat that last statement, “Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.”,,,

    That statement is simply fascinating, and for anybody involved in the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate, that statement should send chills down their scientific spine.

    Entropy is considered to be very foundational to every action that we may observe in the universe,

    In fact, Eddington said that entropy holds “the supreme position among the laws of Nature.”

    “The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
    Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

    And as the following article states, “It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,, Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,”

    Shining Light on Dark Energy – October 21, 2012
    Excerpt: It (Entropy) explains time; it explains every possible action in the universe;,,
    Even gravity, Vedral argued, can be expressed as a consequence of the law of entropy. ,,,
    The principles of thermodynamics are at their roots all to do with information theory. Information theory is simply an embodiment of how we interact with the universe —,,,
    https://crev.info/2012/10/shining-light-on-dark-energy/

    So for the researchers to now experimentally verify that ““Now in (quantum) information theory, we wouldn’t say entropy is a property of a system, but a property of an observer who describes a system.” is to bring information, and the observer, into any foundational definition of reality to we may conceive of.

    Thus, contrary to whatever Seversky wants to believe in his reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution, Information IS now experimentally proven to be a ‘physical’ entity in that it is now shown to have causal effects on the material realm at the most fundamental level of reality, and it is therefore certainly not merely imaginary and abstract, nor is it simply ’emergent’ from a material basis, but immaterial information is indeed now experimentally shown to have a tangible physical effect upon the material realm at the most foundational level of physical reality of entropy itself.

    And thus Information, directly contrary to what Seversky claimed, is definitely not being ‘reified’ when quantum physicists say that information is the primary ‘stuff’ from which everything else is made.

    When quantum physicists say that information is the fundamental stuff from which everything else is made, they are simply following their experimental research where it leads them. And it leads them to the conclusion that information is the fundamental ‘stuff’ of the physical universe.

    Quotes and verse

    “I, like other searchers, attempt formulation after formulation of the central issues and here present a wider overview, taking for working hypothesis the most effective one that has survived this winnowing: It from Bit. Otherwise put, every it — every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes or no questions, binary choices, bits.
    It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that what we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
    – John Wheeler
    https://www.brainpickings.org/2016/09/02/it-from-bit-wheeler/

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe?
    Excerpt: “In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.”
    Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum mechanics
    http://www.metanexus.net/archi.....linger.pdf?

    “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    (48:35 minute mark)
    “In the beginning was the Word”
    John 1:1 (49:54 minute mark)
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT
    https://youtu.be/s3ZPWW5NOrw?t=2984

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

  64. 64
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky objected to the concept of being made in the ‘image of God’, yet the entire concept of being made in ‘the image of God’ lay at the foundation of modern science itself.

    The Christian founders of modern science held that God created this universe, and that therefore there was a rational order behind this universe, and that we therefore, being made in the ‘image of God’, could dare grasp and understand the rationality with which God had created this universe.

    As Paul Davies explained,

    “All the early scientists, like Newton, were religious in one way or another. They saw their science as a means of uncovering traces of God’s handiwork in the universe. What we now call the laws of physics they regarded as God’s abstract creation: thoughts, so to speak, in the mind of God. So in doing science, they supposed, one might be able to glimpse the mind of God – an exhilarating and audacious claim.”
    – Paul Davies

    Perhaps the clearest example of how the Christian founders of modern science thought about the universe, and their role in it, is the following quote by Kepler which he made shortly after discovering the mathematical laws of planetary motion.

    “O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!”
    Johannes Kepler – In book five of The Harmonies of the World (1619)

    Kepler also stated that,

    “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Likewise Galileo stated that,

    “Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe.”
    – Galileo Galilei

    And this is not just some archaic Christian belief that is relegated to medieval Christian Europe. To this day the applicability of mathematics to the universe is considered a ‘miracle’.

    In fact, both Eugene Wigner, (who’s insights into quantum mechanics continue to drive breakthroughs in quantum mechanics), and Albert Einstein, (who formulated General Relativity), are on record as to regarding the applicability of mathematics to the universe to be a ‘miracle’. (Einstein even went so far as to chastise ‘professional atheists’ in the process of calling it a ‘miracle’).

    The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960
    Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,
    It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,,
    The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning.
    http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc.....igner.html

    On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952
    Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
    There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.”
    -Albert Einstein
    http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine

    And our ability to do mathematics is simply inexplicable in a Darwinian view of things.

    As Berlinski noted, “”Why should a limited and finite organ such as the human brain have the power to see into the heart of matter or mathematics? These are subjects that have nothing to do with the Darwinian business of scrabbling up the greasy pole of life. It is as if the liver, in addition to producing bile, were to demonstrate a unexpected ability to play the violin.”

    “Why should a limited and finite organ such as the human brain have the power to see into the heart of matter or mathematics? These are subjects that have nothing to do with the Darwinian business of scrabbling up the greasy pole of life. It is as if the liver, in addition to producing bile, were to demonstrate a unexpected ability to play the violin. This is a question that Darwinian biology has not yet answered.”
    – David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – page 16

    And as Alfred Wallace, co-discoverer of Natural Selection, noted, “The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”

    “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.,,,
    ,,, for those who have eyes to see and minds accustomed to reflect, in the minutest cells, in the blood, in the whole earth, and throughout the stellar universe–our own little universe, as one may call it–there is intelligent and conscious direction; in a word, there is Mind.” ,,,
    (Wallace) shook his head and smiled amiably upon the hotheadedness of Darwinians. “The scales on the wings of a moth,” he said quietly, “have no explanation in Evolution. They belong to Beauty, and Beauty is a spiritual mystery. Even Huxley was puzzled by the beauty of his environment. What is the origin of Beauty? Evolution cannot explain.”
    — Alfred Russell Wallace, New Thoughts on Evolution, – 1910

    To this day Darwinists still have no clue how man gained his unique mathematical and linguistic abilities.

    In 2014, a group of leading Darwinian experts, in this area of language research, authored a paper in which they honestly stated that they have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    The late best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession from leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Here is a general outline of his main argument;

    “Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.”
    —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech

    In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, sharks, etc.., nevertheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and also to, more specifically, infuse immaterial information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also merely for our pleasure.

    What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates.

    I guess a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was God.

    And that just so happens to be precisely the proof that is claimed within Christianity.

    Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis

    The evidence for the Shroud’s authenticity keeps growing stronger. (Timeline of facts) – November 08, 2019
    What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know – Myra Adams and Russ Breault
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html

    Verses & Music

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    Passion – Come As You Are (Live) ft. Crowder
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE6QXWFL6jY

  65. 65
    Seversky says:

    I’m flattered. 37,972 words in 27 posts to answer my one post responding to your oft-posted list of the alleged prediction failures of naturalism/materialism. Is this a record?

  66. 66
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Seversky, it does sound a bit like “I think thou dost protest too much”. 🙂

  67. 67
    bornagain77 says:

    To revisit this comment by Seversky where he denigrated regarding information as fundamental,

    “Information” appears to have become the modern-day equivalent of the “luminiferous aether”. Treating it as some fundamental ‘stuff’ of which everything else is made is a misconception which commits the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness.

    To be clear with what Seversky is talking about,

    reify – definition
    to consider or represent (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing : to give definite content and form to (a concept or idea)

    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.

    Shoot, prior to measurement in quantum mechanics, atoms are shown to not even exist at all.

    As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment that was done with atoms demonstrated, “”It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” and as the researcher added, “”Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,”

    Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness – May 27, 2015
    Excerpt: The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.
    Physicists at The Australian National University (ANU) have conducted John Wheeler’s delayed-choice thought experiment, which involves a moving object that is given the choice to act like a particle or a wave. Wheeler’s experiment then asks – at which point does the object decide?
    Common sense says the object is either wave-like or particle-like, independent of how we measure it. But quantum physics predicts that whether you observe wave like behavior (interference) or particle behavior (no interference) depends only on how it is actually measured at the end of its journey. This is exactly what the ANU team found.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said Associate Professor Andrew Truscott from the ANU Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    Despite the apparent weirdness, the results confirm the validity of quantum theory, which,, has enabled the development of many technologies such as LEDs, lasers and computer chips.
    The ANU team not only succeeded in building the experiment, which seemed nearly impossible when it was proposed in 1978, but reversed Wheeler’s original concept of light beams being bounced by mirrors, and instead used atoms scattered by laser light.
    “Quantum physics’ predictions about interference seem odd enough when applied to light, which seems more like a wave, but to have done the experiment with atoms, which are complicated things that have mass and interact with electric fields and so on, adds to the weirdness,” said Roman Khakimov, PhD student at the Research School of Physics and Engineering.
    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-q.....dness.html

    And as Anton Zeilinger stated in the following interview, “there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is. (and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don’t know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is). This “nonexistence” is an objective feature of reality.,,,”

    Anton Zeilinger interviewed about Quantum Mechanics – video – 2018
    (The essence of Quantum Physics for a general audience)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82XCvgnpmA
    40 sec: Every object has to be in a definite place is not true anymore.,,,
    The thought that a particle can be at two places at the same time is (also) not good language.
    The good language is that there are situations where it is completely undefined where the particle is. (and it is not just us (we ourselves) that don’t know where the particle is, the particle itself does not know where it is). This “nonexistence” is an objective feature of reality.,,,
    5:10 min:,,, superposition is not limited to small systems,,,

    Now this ‘nonexistence’ of a particle being an objective feature of reality certainly sounds pretty doggone abstract, non-concrete’, and ethereal to me.

    But where is the atom prior to measurement?

    Well, according to quantum mechanics, prior to measurement the atom is mathematically defined as existing in an infinite dimensional Hilbert space which takes an infinite amount of information to describe properly.

    Now that mathematical description of the atom prior to measurement certainly sounds very much like the atom, though not existing in the physical realm, is existing in the omnipresent and omniscient Mind of God prior to measurement.

    But even putting that fascinating fact about atoms not existing prior to measurement to one side, and if we dive down into atom itself, after measurement, when it can be said that the atom has a definite location in the universe, then the atom still has very much a ‘non-concrete’, abstract, and ethereal quality to it.

    As Bernardo Kastrup states in the following article, “as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: according to the Greek atomists, if we kept on dividing things into ever-smaller bits, at the end there would remain solid, indivisible particles called atoms, imagined to be so concrete as to have even particular shapes. Yet, as our understanding of physics progressed, we’ve realized that atoms themselves can be further divided into smaller bits, and those into yet smaller ones, and so on, until what is left lacks shape and solidity altogether. At the bottom of the chain of physical reduction there are only elusive, phantasmal entities we label as “energy” and “fields”—abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,
    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/

    Although Seversky, as a reductive materialist, may be clinging to a 19th and early 20th century construct of atoms, in which atoms were thought to be concrete little billiard balls, that billiard ball construct of atoms has now long been known to be false conception of atoms.

    Instead of a billiard ball model of atoms, we now have a far more ethereal quantum cloud model of atoms, as you can see on this timeline that depicts how our models of atoms have changed over time:

    History of the Atom – timeline image
    http://wsc11sci.wikispaces.com.....istory.png

    As well in this modern picture of atoms, you can see for yourself that atoms are far more ethereal and ‘non-concrete’ than was originally depicted in our early billiard ball model of atoms:

    Depiction of a ‘non-particle’ atom,
    http://researcher.watson.ibm.c...../stm15.jpg

    As well, in the following video, at the 24:31 minute mark, you can see close up pictures of atoms that clearly get this ‘ethereal’, i.e. non-concrete’, point about atoms across.

    Discovering Science: Uncertain Principles – video – 24:31 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/iu6kqO4L0KQ?t=1471

    Moreover, Dr Granville Sewell, who is professor of mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso, and who has studied the Schroedinger equation in detail, states that ‘If the elementary particles interacted by bouncing off each other like tiny balls obeying classical Newtonian laws, chemistry would be dead.,,,’

    The Fundamental Equation of Chemistry Is Itself Fine-Tuned – Granville Sewell – January 13, 2015
    Excerpt: the fundamental equation of chemistry, the Schroedinger equation, is itself critical for life.,,,
    For example, the figure at the top of this post is a contour surface plot of the probability distribution for one energy state of an electron orbiting two protons, from Fitzgerald and Sewell 2000, which was obtained by solving the Schroedinger equation using my PDE solver, PDE2D.,,,
    If the elementary particles interacted by bouncing off each other like tiny balls obeying classical Newtonian laws, chemistry would be dead.,,,
    Are we to assume that in all these other universes there are still electromagnetic and nuclear forces, electrons, protons, and neutrons, and the behavior of the particles is still governed by the Schroedinger equation; but the forces, masses and charges, and Planck’s constant, have different values, generated by some cosmic random number generator?,,,
    The fundamental equation of chemistry appears to itself be fine-tuned.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92661.html

    And as Werner Heisenberg himself stated, “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.”

    “The ontology of materialism rested upon the illusion that the kind of existence, the direct ‘actuality’ of the world around us, can be extrapolated into the atomic range. This extrapolation, however, is impossible…Atoms are not things.”
    – Werner Heisenberg (1962). “Physics and philosophy: the revolution in modern science”, Harpercollins College Div.)

    And as Werner Heisenberg himself further stated, “I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”

    “I think that modern physics has definitely decided in favor of Plato. In fact the smallest units of matter are not physical objects in the ordinary sense; they are forms, ideas which can be expressed unambiguously only in mathematical language.”
    Werner Heisenberg – Das Naturgesetz und die Struktur der Materie (1967), as translated in Natural Law and the Structure of Matter (1981), p. 34

    This ‘non-concrete’, abstract, and ethereal, nature of atoms puts the die-hard materialist, (such as Seversky), in quite the conundrum because, as Bernardo Kastrup further explains in his article, to make sense of this non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God!

    Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind
    So-called “information realism” has some surprising implications
    By Bernardo Kastrup – March 25, 2019
    Excerpt: “To make sense of this conundrum,,, we must stick to what is most immediately present to us: solidity and concreteness are qualities of our experience. The world measured, modeled and ultimately predicted by physics is the world of perceptions, a category of mentation. The phantasms and abstractions reside merely in our descriptions of the behavior of that world, not in the world itself.,,,
    Where we get lost and confused is in imagining that what we are describing is a non-mental reality underlying our perceptions, as opposed to the perceptions themselves. We then try to find the solidity and concreteness of the perceived world in that postulated underlying reality. However, a non-mental world is inevitably abstract. And since solidity and concreteness are felt qualities of experience—what else?—we cannot find them there. The problem we face is thus merely an artifact of thought, something we conjure up out of thin air because of our theoretical habits and prejudices.,,,
    As I elaborate extensively in my new book, The Idea of the World, none of this implies solipsism. The mental universe exists in mind but not in your personal mind alone. Instead, it is a transpersonal field of mentation that presents itself to us as physicality—with its concreteness, solidity and definiteness—once our personal mental processes interact with it through observation. This mental universe is what physics is leading us to, not the hand-waving word games of information realism.
    – ibid

    Or to put the situation that quantum mechanics has presented to us much more simply, and as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”

    The mental Universe – Richard Conn Henry
    The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
    Excerpt: “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
    – Richard Conn Henry is a Professor in the Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
    http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

    Thus in conclusion, Seversky tried to disparage the fact that many prominent quantum physicists today hold immaterial information to be the foundational ‘stuff’ of the universe from which everything else is made by calling it “the fallacy of reification or misplaced concreteness”.

    Yet, in irony of ironies, it turns out that the only ‘misplaced concreteness’ in the situation has been with Seversky’s own materialistic conception of atoms. There simply is nothing concrete about atoms to which Seversky can base his concept of ‘concreteness’ . Atoms, the further down we dive into them, simply dissolve into a realm of pure abstractions. As far as science is concerned, and to repeat what Heisenberg stated, “Atoms are not things.”

    Verse:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

  68. 68
    bornagain77 says:

    corrected link:

    History of the Atom – timeline image
    http://thehistoryoftheatom.weebly.com

  69. 69
    William J Murray says:

    BA77,

    It’s comments of yours like at #67 that leave me wondering why you seem to have such a resistance to MRT. I mean, it’s all right there – you (as usual) so eloquently sum the evidence up. Information is an abstract entity that can only exist as information in mind, and that’s exactly what science has demonstrated all of our experiences of a physical world to be comprised of; selected (observed) and processed information. Not “coming from” or “instantiated in” a supposed material world; just information itself.

    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.

    Thus, MRT. I don’t know how more obvious it can be be made, or what further evidence would make it more conclusive. The logic and the evidence point to the same thing, whether one uses deductive, inductive or abductive reasoning: existence is necessarily, entirely, and now provably mental in nature. There’s just no way around it.

  70. 70
    William J Murray says:

    I mean, what is going on with some NDEs, like the one Pam Reynolds had? How is an immaterial consciousness observing the same “external” world as physically instantiated people with supposedly physical senses and brains?

    The science has shown that whatever is going on, our sensory organs and our brains are not comprised of “matter.” So, sensory information cannot be said to be instantiated in the ‘matter” of our sensory organs and brain. Many NDE’s drive this point home; whatever is happening is not, cannot be the result of information being transmitted and translated via physical processes and mediums, because there is nothing there for it to be instantiated on or transferred through. There is literally nothing material, nothing locally “real” there to allow this kind of thing to happen.

    The only thing that makes sense is that the NDE experiencer and the physical people in the situation are directly accessing and processing the same information as matching mental experiences, with their consciousnesses.

  71. 71
    bornagain77 says:

    In regards to this claim,

    13. Naturalism/Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made – ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a “biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.”. –

    To that claim Seversky responds thusly, “Nat/mat still predicts that much of our DNA is ‘junk’. How else do you explain that the humble onion has a much larger genome than that of human beings? The ENCODE researchers were heavily criticized for overstating their case and using a far too elastic understanding of “function”.
    Theism said nothing at all about the existence of DNA, let alone how much of it night be ‘junk’”

    Well first off, and directly contrary to what Seversky claimed about Theism saying nothing about the existence of DNA, Christianity specifically ‘predicted’ that life, (and even the entire universe), are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.
    Moreover, the Christian claim that life is ‘information theoretic’ in its foundational basis is not hidden somewhere in some obscure verse of the Bible but is found front and center at the very beginning of the creation account of John.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Whereas, on the other hand, reductive materialism is actually the worldview that certainly did not say anything about the existence of DNA. Nor did reductive materialism even remotely expect it.

    Shoot, up until a few years ago, many atheists on UD, (some 50 to 60 years after the discovery of DNA), would still trying to claim that their use of the word ‘information’ was ‘just a metaphor’ and that life, at its foundational basis, was really just ‘complicated chemistry’.

    Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life – Hubert P. Yockey, 2005 ?Excerpt: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”
    http://www.cambridge.org/catal.....038;ss=exc

    Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life – Hubert P. Yockey, 2005
    “The belief of mechanist-reductionists that the chemical processes in living matter do not differ in principle from those in dead matter is incorrect. There is no trace of messages determining the results of chemical reactions in inanimate matter. If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” (Let me provide the unstated conclusion:) But they don’t.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-353336

    “And at this point, strangely enough, the discovery of DNA, which is so widely thought to prove that life is mere chemistry, provides the missing link for proving the contrary. That the formation of a DNA molecule is embodied in the morphology of the corresponding offspring, assures us of the fact that this morphology is not the product of a chemical equilibration, but is designed by other than chemical forces.”
    Michael Polanyi, “Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry,” Chemical and Engineering News 45 (August 1967): 66, 55-66

    As late as 2015, Stephen Meyer was still being forced to defend against the false claim from Atheistic materialists that information in the cell was ‘just a metaphor’. As Dr. Meyer stated in the following article defending ‘the fact that life is information theoretic in its foundational basis, “Describing the gene expression system as an information processing system is not to employ a metaphor.”

    Denying the Signature: Functional Information Is the Fact to Be Explained – Stephen C. Meyer – November 19, 2015
    Excerpt: As my colleague Casey Luskin has established, no serious biologist post-Watson and Crick has denied that DNA and RNA contain functional information expressed in a digital form — information that directs the construction of functional proteins (and editing of RNA molecules). Thus, contra Bishop and O’Connor, my characterization of DNA and RNA as molecules that store functional or specified information is not even remotely controversial within mainstream biology.
    Nor is my judgment controversial that the gene expression system (the system by which proteins are synthesized in accord with the information stored on the DNA molecule) constitutes an information processing system. That is what the network of proteins and RNA molecules involved in the gene-expression system do: They process (that is copy, translate, and express) the information stored within the DNA molecule. The information processing systems present in the cell may well be much more precise than those that human computer engineers have designed, but that does not mean that describing the gene expression system as an information processing system is inaccurate. Describing the gene expression system as an information processing system is not to employ a metaphor. It is to describe what the system does — again, to process (or express) genetic information. ,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....01021.html

    Thus, not only did Seversky’s materialistic worldview not predict DNA, but Seversky’s materialistic worldview, decades after DNA was discovered, was actually denying the reality of the information in DNA and was still trying to call it a ‘metaphor’.,,, i.e. Their denial of the reality of information in biology was in fact a clear example of being in complete ‘science denial’ of the facts, which is something that Darwinists often try to accuse Christians of being in.

    Moreover, Seversky is correct to say that Darwinian materialism still predicts junk DNA. In fact, they are forced to predict Junk DNA because of the mathematics of population genetics.

    The slow, painful death of junk DNA – Robert W. Carter – 2009
    Background
    Based on the work of J.B.S. Haldane5 and others, who showed that natural selection cannot possibly select for millions of new mutations over the course of human evolution, Kimura6 developed the idea of “neutral evolution”. If “Haldane’s Dilemma”7 were correct, then the majority of DNA must be non-functional. It should be free to mutate over time without needing to be shaped by natural selection. In this way, natural selection could act on the important bits and neutral evolution could act randomly on the rest. Since natural selection will not act on neutral traits, which do not affect survival or reproduction, neutral evolution can proceed through random drift without any inherent “cost of selection”.8 The term “junk DNA” originated with Ohno,9 who based his idea squarely on the idea of neutral evolution. To Ohno and other scientists of his time, the vast spaces (introns)between protein-coding genes were (exons) just useless DNA whose only function was to separate genes along a chromosome. Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation. It was invented to solve a theoretical evolutionary dilemma. Without it, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties.
    Junk DNA necessary for evolution
    Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function, but it is something that is required by evolutionary theory. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work. Without junk DNA, evolutionary theory cannot currently explain how everything works
    mathematically.
    https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j23_3/j23_3_12-13.pdf

    In fact, due to the mathematics of population genetics, Darwinists are, (unbelievably), forced to predict that upwards to 90% of DNA must be junk:

    Revisiting the genetic load argument with Dan Graur – Larry Moran – July 14, 2017
    Excerpt: I’ve discussed genetic load several times on this blog (e.g. Genetic Load, Neutral Theory, and Junk DNA) but a recent paper by Dan Graur provides a good opportunity to explain it once more. The basic idea of Genetic Load is that a population can only tolerate a finite number of deleterious mutations before going extinct. The theory is sound but many of the variables are not known with precision.,,,
    Let’s look at the first line in this table. The deleterious mutation rate is calculated using the lowest possible mutation rate and the smallest percentage of deleterious mutations (4%). Under these conditions, the human population could survive with a fertility value of 1.8 as long as less than 25% of the genome is functional (i.e. 75% junk) (red circle). That’s the UPPER LIMIT on the functional fraction of the human genome.
    But that limit is quite unreasonable. It’s more reasonable to assume about 100 new mutations per generation with about 10% deleterious. Using these assumptions, only 10% of the genome could be functional with a fertility value of 1.8 (green circle).
    Whatever the exact percentage of junk DNA it’s clear that the available data and population genetics point to a genome that’s mostly junk DNA.
    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2.....-with.html

    Of note, I hold Moran’s 10% estimate for deleterious mutations, that he used in his calculation in the preceding paper, to be far too conservative, and thus the percentage of junk DNA (if Darwinian evolution were actually true) , and according to his own calculation, should actually be much higher (much worse) than his 90% estimate,,,

    As John Sanford stated in his book ‘Genetic Entropy’

    “Moreover, there is strong theoretical reasons for believing there is no truly neutral nucleotide positions. By its very existence, a nucleotide position takes up space, affects spacing between other sites, and affects such things as regional nucleotide composition, DNA folding, and nucleosome building. If a nucleotide carries absolutely no (useful) information, it is, by definition, slightly deleterious, as it slows cell replication and wastes energy.,, Therefore, there is no way to change any given site without some biological effect, no matter how subtle.”
    – John Sanford – Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of The Genome – pg. 21 – Inventor of the ‘Gene Gun’

  72. 72
    bornagain77 says:

    As John Sanford further outlined in his book ‘Genetic Entropy’ and in the following paper, the unselectable ‘near neutral’ mutations, which Dr Moran classified as being ‘perfectly neutral’ in his calculation, should, in reality, all be classified as slightly deleterious mutations that will build up over time instead of being classified as perfectly neutral.,,,

    Can Purifying Natural Selection Preserve Biological Information? – May 2013 –
    Paul Gibson, John R. Baumgardner, Wesley H. Brewer, John C. Sanford
    In conclusion, numerical simulation shows that realistic levels of biological noise result in a high selection threshold. This results in the ongoing accumulation of low-impact deleterious mutations, with deleterious mutation count per individual increasing linearly over time. Even in very long experiments (more than 100,000 generations), slightly deleterious alleles accumulate steadily, causing eventual extinction. These findings provide independent validation of previous analytical and simulation studies [2–13]. Previous concerns about the problem of accumulation of nearly neutral mutations are strongly supported by our analysis. Indeed, when numerical simulations incorporate realistic levels of biological noise, our analyses indicate that the problem is much more severe than has been acknowledged, and that the large majority of deleterious mutations become invisible to the selection process.,,,
    http://www.worldscientific.com.....08728_0010

    Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy by Dr John Sanford – 7 March 2013
    Excerpt: For deleterious mutations, Kimura and most other population geneticists agree the distribution is essentially exponential. Figure 3c in my book (based upon Kimura) shows an exponential-type distribution of deleterious mutations, with most deleterious mutations being ‘nearly-neutral’ and hence un-selectable (effectively neutral). But, as I point out, Kimura’s picture is not complete, because degeneration is all about the ratio of good to bad mutations. Kimura does not show the beneficial distribution, which is essential to the question of net gain versus net loss! When I show the beneficial distribution (while Kimura did not do this, I suspect he would have drawn it much as I did), anyone can see the problem: the vast majority of beneficial mutations will be un-selectable (Figure 3d). Scott does not appear to contest my representation of the mutational effect distribution, which is the main issue here. Scott should easily be able to see that most mutations fall within the ‘no-selection zone’ and that almost all of them are deleterious. So even with strong selection, this entire zone can only undergo degeneration. Outside this zone, the substantially bad mutations will be selected away, and an occasional rare high-impact beneficial will be amplified (which can explain isolated events such as antibiotic resistance).
    http://creation.com/genetic-entropy
    Kimura’s Distribution
    http://dl0.creation.com/articl.....-white.jpg
    Correct Distribution
    http://dl0.creation.com/articl.....-white.jpg

    Design, Information and The Word of God – Dr. Andy McIntosh (59:27 minute mark) – video
    https://youtu.be/YMs1iY6yM9M?t=3567

    In the following article, Dr Sanford states, “It is almost universally acknowledged that beneficial mutations are rare compared to deleterious mutations.,, It appears that beneficial mutations may be too rare to actually allow the accurate measurement of how rare they are.”

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

    Even the rare beneficial mutations that we know about should, in reality be classified as deleterious mutations.

    As Michael Behe stated in the following paper,, we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent

    “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010
    Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain.
    http://behe.uncommondescent.co.....evolution/

    This extreme rarity of beneficial mutations extends to studies of mutations in humans,,, In the following paper, Dr. Sanford states,,,,, “Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all.”, and ” Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare!”

    Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy – Dr John Sanford – 7 March 2013
    Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.].
    African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare!
    http://creation.com/genetic-entropy

    Thus, Moran’s own estimate for deleterious to beneficial mutations was seriously off and therefore, according to his own calculations from population genetics, the genome, if Darwinian evolution were actually true, would be predicted to 100% junk DNA from the mathematics of population genetics.

    I have a question for Darwinists, con you build anything useful with 0% functionality?

  73. 73
    bornagain77 says:

    Thus, even though Moran, (and Graur), used unrealistically optimistic estimates for deleterious to beneficial mutations in his calculation, Moran was still only able to calculate that 10% of the genome may be functional. Moreover, these leading Darwinists insisted that most of the genome must be junk in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence to the contrary from ENCODE, and from other sources

    Why Are Biologists Lashing Out Against Empirically Verified Research Results? – Casey Luskin – July 13, 2015
    Excerpt: no publication shook this (ID vs Darwin) debate so much as a 2012 Nature paper that finally put junk DNA to rest–or so it seemed. This bombshell paper presented the results of the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) Project, a years-long research consortium involving over 400 international scientists studying noncoding DNA in the human genome. Along with 30 other groundbreaking papers, the lead ENCODE article found that the “vast majority” of the human genome shows biochemical function: “These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions.”3
    Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s lead analyst, explained in Discover Magazine that since ENCODE studied 147 types of cells, and the human body has a few thousand cell types, “it’s likely that 80 percent will go to 100 percent.”4 Another senior ENCODE researcher noted that “almost every nucleotide is associated with a function.”5 A headline in Science declared, “ENCODE project writes eulogy for junk DNA.”6,,,
    Evolutionists Strike Back
    Darwin defenders weren’t going to take ENCODE’s data sitting down.,,,
    How could they possibly oppose such empirically based conclusions? The same way they always defend their theory: by assuming an evolutionary viewpoint is correct and reinterpreting the data in light of their paradigm–and by personally attacking, (i.e. ad hominem), those who challenge their position.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....97561.html

    New Book on “Junk DNA” Surveys the Functions of Non-Coding DNA – April 29, 2015
    Excerpt: Carey,, goes on to explain how today we now believe that, far from being irrelevant, it’s the “junk DNA” that is running the whole show:
    “The other shock from the sequencing of the human genome was the realisation that the extraordinary complexities of human anatomy, physiology, intelligence and behaviour cannot be explained by referring to the classical model of genes. In terms of numbers of genes that code for proteins, humans contain pretty much the same quantity (around 20,000) as simple microscopic worms. Even more remarkably, most of the genes in the worms have directly equivalent genes in humans.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....95611.html

    ,,, and Dan Graur and Larry Moran also held DNA to be mostly junk in spite of the fact that DNA is now known to be, by far, the most efficient information storage device known to man,,,

    Information Storage in DNA by Wyss Institute – video
    https://vimeo.com/47615970
    Quote from preceding video:
    “The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA.”
    Sriram Kosuri PhD. – Wyss Institute

    Demonstrating, Once Again, the Fantastic Information-Storage Capacity of DNA – January 29, 2013
    Excerpt: researchers led by molecular biologists Nick Goldman and Ewan Birney of the European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) in Hinxton, UK, report online today in Nature that they’ve improved the DNA encoding scheme to raise that storage density to a staggering 2.2 petabytes per gram, three times the previous effort.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....68641.html

    Storing information in DNA – Test-tube data – Jan 26th 2013
    Excerpt: Dr Goldman’s new scheme is significant in several ways. He and his team have managed to set a record (739.3 kilobytes) for the amount of unique information encoded. But it has been designed to do far more than that. It should, think the researchers, be easily capable of swallowing the roughly 3 zettabytes (a zettabyte is one billion trillion or 10²¹ bytes) of digital data thought presently to exist in the world and still have room for plenty more.
    http://www.economist.com/news/.....d-magnetic

    Scientists Have Stored a Movie, a Computer OS, and an Amazon Gift Card in a Single Speck of DNA
    “The highest-density data-storage device ever created.”
    – PETER DOCKRILL – 7 MAR 2017
    Excerpt: In turn, Erlich and fellow researcher Dina Zielinski from the New York Genome Centre now say their own coding strategy is 100 times more efficient than the 2012 standard, and capable of recording 215 petabytes of data on a single gram of DNA.
    For context, just 1 petabyte is equivalent to 13.3 years’ worth of high-definition video, so if you feel like glancing disdainfully at the external hard drive on your computer desk right now, we won’t judge.
    http://www.sciencealert.com/sc.....eck-of-dna

    Thus Darwinists such as Dan Graur, Larry Moran, (and apparently Seversky), are still claiming that the vast majority of DNA is junk in spite of the fact that there are now very strong empirical reasons for believing DNA to virtually 100% functional. i.e. Darwinists are, apparently, still very much in ‘science denial’ when it comes to the importance of information in DNA.

  74. 74
    bornagain77 says:

    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/2.....ellig.html

    Inferring Widespread Functionality for Virtually 100% of the Genome
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-565266

  75. 75
    Concealed Citizen says:

    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.

  76. 76
    Concealed Citizen says:

    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. 😉

  77. 77
    bornagain77 says:

    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/pm.....MC4573302/

    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.

  78. 78
    bornagain77 says:

    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/.....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

  79. 79
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    @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. :))))

  80. 80
    bornagain77 says:

    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/.....tml?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/2.....02783.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/2.....95451.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/exis.....t-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/bl.....de-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

  81. 81
    bornagain77 says:

    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-conten.....704889.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 morning

  82. 82
    Seversky says:

    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?

  83. 83
    Seversky says:

    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.

  84. 84
    Seversky says:

    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.

  85. 85
    Seversky says:

    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.

  86. 86
    Seversky says:

    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.

  87. 87
    Seversky says:

    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?

  88. 88
    Bob O'H says:

    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?

  89. 89
    bornagain77 says:

    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

  90. 90
    bornagain77 says:

    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/.....em-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

  91. 91
    bornagain77 says:

    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/2.....62031.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.wee.....35.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/452.....f-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.....gri-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-b.....tml#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/v.....8;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.

  92. 92
    bornagain77 says:

    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/re.....161952.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).

  93. 93
    bornagain77 says:

    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.quantumconsciousnes.....Flies.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/re.....145342.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

  94. 94
    William J Murray says:

    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.

  95. 95
    Lieutenant Commander Data says:

    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.

  96. 96
    bornagain77 says:

    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/.....-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/ar.....l-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

  97. 97
    bornagain77 says:

    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/high.....uences.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/20.....tally.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

  98. 98
    Concealed Citizen says:

    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.)

  99. 99
    Concealed Citizen says:

    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. 😀
    Rock on!

  100. 100
    Concealed Citizen says:

    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 😀

    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.

  101. 101

    .
    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.

  102. 102

    .
    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.

  103. 103
    kairosfocus says:

    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. KF

Leave a Reply