Intelligent Design

Viruses Devolve

Spread the love

The main thesis of Behe’s new book, Darwin Devolves, surrounds what Behe calls “poison-pill” mutations, which gives an organism a quick fix, but which can run the risk of being rendered incapable of utilizing future needed adaptations. IOW, breaking and blunting genes to adapt to new environments become changes that get locked in due to NS’ tendency to root out anything but what is the ‘fittest’ in any environment–and this can include even beneficial mutations being rooted out due to beneficial mutations being so rare and showing up way too late to modify the adapted organism.

So, today at Phys.Org there is a PR (press release) about a study involving viruses. It turns out that even at the level of viruses, the First Rule of Adaptative Evolution applies: a broken gene ends up being beneficial to the virus, allowing it to replicate itself when it has been rendered almost unable to do so by the host’s immune system.

From the PR:

But the researchers continued to culture the B1-free strain for multiple generations in the lab, then sequenced its entire genetic code to gauge how it evolved. They found that, over just a few days, the B1-free strain responded by deleting a single base pair – a fundamental component of DNA – while leaving nearly 200,000 others untouched. The seemingly miniscule loss corresponded with a 10-fold increase in the strain’s otherwise stunted replication.

As usual, the experimenters are “surprised”:

“We were expecting that the virus may adapt another gene to compensate,” said Wiebe, associate professor of veterinary medicine and biomedical sciences. “What we found instead is that the virus adapted by inactivating another gene. It was as if, upon cutting one wire, the best way to fix the problem was to cut another wire.

Just think, if they had read Behe’s new book, they would not have been surprised at all.

Update:

In his book, Behe uses evidence showing that “devolution” occurs in bacteria and in eukaryotes. Now we can add viruses to the lot. I think this only adds to and strengthens his argument for his First Rule.

61 Replies to “Viruses Devolve

  1. 1
    MatSpirit says:

    News: “The main thesis of Behe’s new book, Darwin Devolves, surrounds what Behe calls “poison-pill” mutations, which gives an organism a quick fix, but which can render it susceptible to future needed adaptations.”

    You might want to read that a couple times. Hint: Is it really bad to be rendered susceptible to future needed adaptations? I’d have thought that was good.

    Also, losing a single base pair out of 200,000 sounds more like fine tuning a gene’s respomse than breaking it. After all, it did increase reproduction 10-fold. In what universe is a ten-fold increase “breaking”?

    I think Behe and friends have written themselves into a corner and are grasping at straws for support.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    “In what universe is a ten-fold increase “breaking”?”

    Perhaps Matspirit needs to read,

    ““We were expecting that the virus may adapt another gene to compensate,” said Wiebe, associate professor of veterinary medicine and biomedical sciences. “What we found instead is that the virus adapted by inactivating another gene. It was as if, upon cutting one wire, the best way to fix the problem was to cut another wire.”

    But then again that was right in the OP. Can’t blame him for missing 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/

  3. 3
    PaV says:

    MatSpirit:

    Thanks for the heads up on that sentence. I’ve made a fix.

    As to the one base pair deletion, the authors suggest that was all that was needed to incapacatate the gene. A base pair deletion can result in a frame-shift and render the gene indecipherable.

    That said, you seem to miss the point that indeed, “incapacitating” a gene is definitely rendering a gene “broken”: however, that doesn’t mean there can’t be “beneficial” effects. You’ll just have to read Behe’s Darwin Devolves to understand the argument.

    Behe says that if you are desparate to improve gas mileage, you might take out the seats, take out the windows, and do whatever else you can do to cut down on weight and drag. While your car may have a higher “fitness” value when it comes to mileage, you have undoubtedly “damaged” the car.

    N.B. (Edit by PaV) Behe explains this is this response to Lenski that came out today.

  4. 4
    PeterA says:

    The bottom line is that at the end of the day bacteria remain bacteria and birds remain birds

  5. 5
    tjguy says:

    @1 Matspirit

    The problem Mat, is that if evolution only breaks things, where did they come from to begin with? Call it fine tuning if you want, but where did the stuff come from that is now being fine tuned? For sure, it didn’t come from the fine tuning process itself. Darwinism claims to be the process that creates stuff, but when we look at what is really happening, we don’t see stuff being created. Mostly we see things being broken. And you can’t get from the original cell of the first life to humans by “fine tuning” things and breaking things.

  6. 6
    PeterA says:

    Tjguy,

    Exactly.

  7. 7
    ET says:

    Dr. Behe takes down Jerry Coyne over on ENV- Bullet Points for Jerry Coyne

    Jerry may not have read the book…

  8. 8
    MatSpirit says:

    PaV,

    Sorry for the botched identification.

    Who says the B12 gene was deactivated? The press release says, “The loss occurred in a gene, B12, whose purpose is largely unknown. In fact, when other researchers previously deactivated just the B12 gene, leaving B1 and all others intact, they found no effect on the vaccinia virus.” In other words, the B12 gene doesn’t seem to have a function, but deleting one base pair in B12 increased reproduction ten times. That is fine tuning!

    I guess you could also say that the virus “adapt[ed] another gene to compensate” where the “other gene” was good ol’ B12. The old version of B12 had no observable effect on reproduction, the newly mutated version increases reproduction ten fold.

    I must confess that when I heard what Behe’s new book was about, I thought he’d authored a real clanger this time. Behe’s main point seems to be that all or most of evolution proceeds by breaking existing genes. (And he even invented a brand new “Law” stating this, a Dembski – sized bit of hubris.) I haven’t read his book yet, and having spent good money on “Darwin’s Black Box” and “The Edge of Evolution”, I’m not biting a third time, but perhaps you can tell us what evidence he provides to support this new “Law”.

    Tjguy says, “… when we look at what is really happening, we don’t see stuff being created.” This is partially true. We do occasionally see base pairs or even whole strings of pre-existing base pairs inserted, but a lot of mutations delete base pairs, and these deletions often incapacitate a gene. And strangely enough, this often greatly improves the organism! By ten times in this case. But when you look at how this happens, it usually turns out that the modified gene throttled some natural action, such as pumping fluids out of a bacteria, and removing this throttling pumps out enough of the antibiotic or whatever was killing the bacteria so the poor thing can start reproducing again. It may not reproduce as fast as the old bacteria did in an antibiotic free environment, but this new environment does have antibiotics in it and slow reproduction beats dead every time.

    The reason I though Behe has authored a clanger is because it’s well known that it is millions of times easier to break a piece of DNA than it is to engineer a new piece and that means that all you’re likely to see in the lab over a human life time is an occasional addition of a base pair or extra copying of a piece of existing DNA. Converting a gene to a new use or making a new gene from a stray chunk of DNA has to be done a tiny piece at a time and that takes a lot longer. You aren’t likely to ever see it live. You have to compare DNA amongst many organisms, especially ancestral organisms, to “see” it happen.

    Behe should know this. Does he say anything about it in the book?

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    I’m about half through reading Behe’s new book.
    Behe is simply brilliant, following the data where it leads. He makes a major point that breaking a certain gene can most definitely make an organism more fit and natural selection will do its part. But there’s a rub. As the organism becomes better and better adapted to it’s environment, it also becomes less able to adapt should the environment eventually change. Once the formerly functional gene is broken, there’s no going back. Over the long term, better adaptation results in reduced capacity for further adaptation and the organism more easily goes extinct. My example would be that after a cave fish loses its sight, it will never gain it back no matter how many random mutations it goes through. Behe’s arguments depend a lot on bacteria studies due to their massively high reproductive rate and their highly optimized (and small) genome. He believes that “devolution” is effective for evolutionary fine tuning an organism down to the family level (genus and species), but no lower than that.
    It’s a good read and he knows his stuff.
    -Q

    Edit by PaV: Nice post, Q!

  10. 10
    PaV says:

    MatSpirit:

    As to the B12 gene, the PR also has the authors of the paper saying this:

    But by showing that B1 is masking at least one and probably several of B12’s potential functions, the new study reinforces just how much remains unknown about why, when and how genes regulate one another, Wiebe said. Untangling the connections among those networks could require researchers to continue adapting, as well.

    It’s not that the B12 gene has no function, but that it’s “masked” by the B1 gene.

    As to “adaptation” of the B12 gene, it was done by ‘deletion’: that is, no information was added, but subtracted. The gene was “blunted,” let us say.

    As to the examples that Behe provides—which includes Lenski’s LTEE and others, let me ask you this question: how many examples must Behe provide in order to convince you? Five, ten, a hundred, a thousand ……

    For actual examples, besides his new book, the best place to look would be the Quarterly Review of Biology (?) article he wrote several years back.

    Yes, putative “evolution” of a new gene would take a long time; however, given all of the different species that exist in our world right now, certainly it should be observed somewhere. With new, efficient and inexpensive sequencing techniques, the answer to the question I pose will be answered over the next ten or twenty years.

    Meanwhile, it doesn’t look good for Darwinism/neo-Darwinism right now. Everywhere scientists look, more complexity is found. And the answer is: random mutation and natural selection? I don’t think so.

  11. 11
    PeterA says:

    PaV @ 10:

    “it doesn’t look good for Darwinism/neo-Darwinism right now. Everywhere scientists look, more complexity is found.”

    exactly!

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    “When one starts to treat Darwinism as a hypothesis about the biochemical level of life rather than an assumption, it takes about 10 minutes to conclude it’s radically inadequate.”
    Michael Behe – podcast
    https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/intelligentdesign/episodes/2019-03-13T15_56_13-07_00

  13. 13
    MatSpirit says:

    PaV,

    How does one gene “mask” another?  By doing it’s job. 

    In other words, whatever B12 “did”, B1 did the same thing.  This is why B12 could be knocked out with no observable consequences for the virus.  Then the virus deleted a single base-pair in B12 and the new B12 increased reproduction ten fold.

    PaV: ” let me ask you this question: how many examples must Behe provide in order to convince you? Five, ten, a hundred, a thousand ……”

    Hmmm, what to do if Behe continues to present gene breakages discovered in the last few decades and use them as proof that all or most evolution proceeds by breaking genes while ignoring the many ways genes are slowly built?

    I guess I’ll continue to believe that Behe has gotten himself into a corner and is grasping at straws.  He can’t even come up with any new ideas.  The ICR and like groups were saying evolution proceeds from breaking genes back in the ’80s.

    PaV: “Meanwhile, it doesn’t look good for Darwinism/neo-Darwinism right now. Everywhere scientists look, more complexity is found. And the answer is: random mutation and natural selection? I don’t think so.”

    People have been predicting the Fall of Evolution since Darwin was still alive.  Any day now…

  14. 14
    MatSpirit says:

    Tjguy: “The problem Mat, is that if evolution only breaks things, where did they come from to begin with? Call it fine tuning if you want, but where did the stuff come from that is now being fine tuned? ”

    The stuff came from mutations – duplicating sections of DNA, moving sections of DNA around the genome (including copying them right into existing genes), deleting individual base pairs, inserting new base pairs, invasion by endoviruses, hybridization, and many other processes.

    Of course, ID followers don’t generally believe that mutations can do that, probably because of what they’re told by other ID thinkers. I’ll try to explain more clearly.

    Think of it this way: You have some organism that is functional. Let’s say a bacteria. It eats, it grows and most importantly it reproduces faster than the world destroys it. It uses its DNA to direct its activities which is how we know the DNA is functional. It goes to some lengths to accurately copy this known good DNA when it reproduces. If it passes on an accurate copy of its known functional DNA to its offspring, then that offspring has about the same chances of successfully reproducing as the original. And there are now two of them. And in another half hour or so, there are four of them, then eight, then sixteen, etc. It’s a characteristic of life that it will tend to increase its numbers exponentially until something stops it, like running out of food. This exponential increase in numbers is the engine that powers evolution.

    So, you start out with one functional organism and pretty soon you’ve got millions of then. But what happens if the DNA is copied inaccurately? Now you have a new organism whose DNA is NOT known to be good. Will it work? You just don’t know because the DNA is not identical to the known good parental DNA, it was changed during copying.

    How do you find out if the new DNA pattern will make the mutant cell operate as well as its parent? Well, there’s any automatic way to test it: You let the new cell try to run itself with its mutant DNA! You let the cell try to eat, grow and reproduce using its brand new DNA. If it’s successful and copies itself as well as its parent, then the numbers of new cells will increase and its lineage will become established.

    If it multiplies faster than its parent, its descendants will tend to crowd its parents out and it may drive them to extinction. If it multiplies slower than its parents, they will crowd the new line of cells out and they will eventually become extinct. The parental cell line will continue, as before.

    This process is commonly referred to as “natural selection”.

    Note a few things:

    First, its all automatic. Natural selection happens automatically and requires no extra effort beyond the parents mistake in copying its DNA.

    Second, only small changes to the DNA are likely to be improvements. The exact pattern of the DNA is fairly important if you want it to function. Change one or two base pairs and it might work, blast out 30 or 40 base pairs and you’ll probably adversely affect some function. There are a lot more ways to do something badly than well.

    Third: Failed mutations are free. If the single mutant cell doesn’t survive, the millions of parental cells, with their known good DNA, continue the line.

    Fourth: [Special to Doctor Dembski] Making small changes to DNA solves the search problem that has bedeviled you. The virus we’ve been discussing has about 200,000 base pairs. We’re changing one. That means the other 199,999 base pairs are known to be good! The only question is if the single new base-pair will gum up the works. It’s like if you had one gene that affects your eyes and one gene that affects your heart and one gene that affects your liver and you change one gene that affects your nose. You may wind up with a deformed nose, but your eyes, heart and liver are going to be controlled by known good genes. On the other hand, if you change them all, your eyes, heart, liver and nose are all at risk.

    I might also point out that Doctor Dembski seems to think that evolution is always searching for a target. This target is a DNA string that will operate a cell so that it can eat, grow and reproduce. Well, if the parental cell is producing healthy offspring, THEN IT IS ALREADY IN THE TARGET ZONE. In other words, life is not searching for anything. It is already in the target zone, it has DNA that is working, and it goes to considerable effort to copy this DNA accurately to its offspring so that they too will be in the target zone. If they fail to accurately copy their DNA, then their offspring will try to operate with the new code and how well they operate will tell us if they are in a new part of the target zone or out of it.

    I hope this makes evolution a little clearer than the ID picture.

  15. 15
    PaV says:

    MatSpirit:

    I suppose “MatSpirit” translates to “material spirit,” making you a materialist. If so, then we know your starting point on all of this.

    With that said, let me address something:

    In other words, whatever B12 “did”, B1 did the same thing. This is why B12 could be knocked out with no observable consequences for the virus. Then the virus deleted a single base-pair in B12 and the new B12 increased reproduction ten fold.

    You seem to know more than the experimenters. They don’t mention this correlation.

    People have been predicting the Fall of Evolution since Darwin was still alive. Any day now…

    I remember hearing of “Darwin’s Bulldog.” Now we have the NCSE. We have an imposed orthodoxy, something that religion could only hope for.

    Darwinism is a religion. In your case, it’s probably ‘materialism.’ This is what you believe.

    If they fail to accurately copy their DNA, then their offspring will try to operate with the new code and how well they operate will tell us if they are in a new part of the target zone or out of it.

    The deletion of one base pair had significant impact. Can you get from one species to another one base pair at a time?

    When we see organisms in a struggle for existence, their “solution” is usually one base pair change or two. And these base pair changes “damage” the genes–at the biochemical level, though this “damage” is tolerable because it provides relief from a less tolerable situation. How can such a mechanism lead to ever greater complexity and organization?

    Have any idea?

  16. 16
    MatSpirit says:

    PaV: “I suppose “MatSpirit” translates to “material spirit,” making you a materialist. If so, then we know your starting point on all of this.”

    I do think that every thing in this universe is material, but I don’t claim omniscience.  A few years ago we thought there were four forces, then we discovered evidence of a fifth.  I’m pretty sure there’s plenty more to learn, but I think the odds of finding a cosmic intelligence are vanishly minute. 

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there were some kind of other universe or universes outside of ours, if only because this universe apparently came from somewhere, but I don’t expect to find any cosmic intelligences out there.  Maybe some material intellects, like ours (or better), using whatever kind of material they have in a different universe, but nothing close to a god.

    PaV: ” With that said, let me address something:

    In other words, whatever B12 “did”, B1 did the same thing. This is why B12 could be knocked out with no observable consequences for the virus. Then the virus deleted a single base-pair in B12 and the new B12 increased reproduction ten fold.

    You seem to know more than the experimenters. They don’t mention this correlation.”

    It’s all in the original article linked to in the OP:

    “Almost as surprising: The loss occurred in a gene, B12, whose purpose is largely unknown. In fact, when other researchers previously deactivated just the B12 gene, leaving B1 and all others intact, they found no effect on the vaccinia virus.

    Wiebe and Olson said the findings indicate that when B1 is absent—but only then—B12 actually helps inhibit replication by alerting the host’s immune system.

    “That’s sparked a lot of confused looks in people,” Wiebe said.”

    I’ll bet it did.  We have a gene, B12 that doesn’t seem to do anything in an intact virus.  People have deleted it with no observable change to the virus.  In fact, if B1 is deleted, B12 helps to kill the cell.  Yet when a virus missing the B1 gene deletes one particular base-pair in B12,   “The seemingly miniscule loss corresponded with a 10-fold increase in the strain’s otherwise stunted replication.”

    Evolution in action.

    PaV: ” Darwinism is a religion. In your case, it’s probably ‘materialism.’ This is what you believe.”

    Well, I do believe that the universe exists and I’m a part of it, but that’s more a philosophy than a religion.  It’s interesting how religeous people often diss something by calling it a religion.

    PaV: ” The deletion of one base pair had significant impact. Can you get from one species to another one base pair at a time?”

    What do you have in mind?  To have single base pair resolution, we’d need lots of sequenced genomes, probably thousands of them, and many of the organisms are extinct.  If you’ll accept a much coarser resolution, we can look for intermediate fossils like tiktaalik.  We can also look at the genomic data we already have and see if the DNA follows a heredivtary pattern.  I’m sure there are lots of other ways of checking.  Who’s paying and how much have they got to spend?

    PaV: ” When we see organisms in a struggle for existence, their “solution” is usually one base pair change or two. And these base pair changes “damage” the genes–at the biochemical level, though this “damage” is tolerable because it provides relief from a less tolerable situation. How can such a mechanism lead to ever greater complexity and organization?”

    But the B12 gene was IMPROVED!  Read the PhysOrg article again.  The experimenters knocked out the B1 gene.  This almost stopped reproduction.  The B12 gene was a c tually alerting the host cell to the presence of an invader.  Then the virus deleted a single base-pair in B12 and reproduction increased ten times!  That’s a giant improvement!  The mutant B12 stopped trying to kill the virus and made it reproduce ten times faster.  That’s a big win!

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    MatSpirit

    “I do think that every thing in this universe is material”

    Translated: “I *believe* that everything in this universe is material.”

    Do you believe that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows? 🙂

    Andrew

  18. 18
    PaV says:

    MatSpirit:

    You “believe” in materialism–that is, you “believe” that there is no “cosmic intelligence.” However wrong that may be, it is a belief. It functions as a religion since it guides your thinking in the normal course of life and surely affects your understanding of what is morally good and morally wrong. So, face the facts: you’re a believer. The opposite of religion is not “no-religion,” it is “anti-religion”: the choice to believe in a different set of first principles.

    As to your responses, you’re missing the mark. I’ll leave it to readers to figure that out.

    As to Tiktaalik, how do you know which direction life was taking at that moment? That is, how do you know that Tiktaalik is not a land reptile becoming aquatic—a la land mammals becoming aquatic, rather than a fish on its way to becoming a land reptile?

    But, you ‘believe’ that Tiktaalik cements in place the Darwinian view of things. OTOH, if I find a watch mechanism on the moon, it is a reasonable assumption that it was fabricated. Reason tells me this; not religion. The only true religion at work when it comes to evolution is that of Darwinism, and orthodoxy that is ruthlessly enforced—lest it be exposed as a fraud.

  19. 19
    MatSpirit says:

    PaV,

    As René Descartes showed back in the seventeenth century, the only things anybody can really know is that they exist and maybe some elementary logical and mathematical relationships. After all, we might all be asleep while an evil demon toys with our minds. In fact, he could be fooling us about logic and math too. But, “cogito, ergo sum”,  “je pense, donc je suis” and “I think, therefore I am”. That ol’ demon can’t fool us about the existence of our minds.

    For everything else, we can only rely on evidence and hope for the best. There happens to be quite a lot of evidence for a material world. The evidence for a Godly world is much spottier and less convincing. Significantly, the most convincing evidence is supposed to be unavailable until you’re dead, which sounds pretty suspicious to me.

    So face the facts, we’re all believers, but the material world has tons of evidence for it while the evidence for a Godly world is both sparse and highly suspicious. (Would you sell your house to someone who promises to pay you for it as soon as you die? What if he offers you a really great price?)

    You’re still calling secular beliefs religion. Philosophies and world views also guide you through your life and you don’t have to die to benefit from them.

    PaV: “As to your responses, you’re missing the mark. I’ll leave it to readers to figure that out.”

    Oh please don’t leave me in the dark! If I’m missing something important, please tell me what it is so I can correct my errors!

    Tiktaalik is one of hundreds of thousands of fossils whose ages, skeletons and locations are found to accord with evolutionary theory. In Tiktaalik’s case, people found fossils of fish whose fins were much stronger and leg-like than other fish’s. To quote Wikipedia,

    “Unearthed in Arctic Canada, Tiktaalik is technically a fish, complete with scales and gills – but it has the flattened head of a crocodile and unusual fins. Its fins have thin ray bones for paddling like most fishes’, but they also have sturdy interior bones that would have allowed Tiktaalik to prop itself up in shallow water and use its limbs for support as most four-legged animals do.”

    There’s lots more information that you might find interesting in that article. I’m surprised the enforcers of evolutionary orthodoxy haven’t forced you to read it yet.

    If you found a watch on the moon (or on a heath, for that matter), you would be entirely correct to assume it was fabricated since watches don’t reproduce. This, you will remember, is necessary for evolution to occur.

    However, if you find a rabbit on a heath, you would observe that it was manufactured by another rabbit, one who wasn’t intelligent enough to design anything more complex than a hole in the ground. That rabbit in turn was manufactured by another rabbit and another and another — until you suddenly realize that the rabbits doing the reproducing aren’t quite exactly like the original rabbit on the heath.

    If you kept tracing your rabbit’s ancestors, you would see the reproducers look less and less like rabbits until they finally looked like whatever animal rabbits are descended from. And if you followed those animals back far enough, you would eventually get to some single-celled something.

    I know you might not believe this, but before you deny it out of hand, why don’t you ask Behe about it. I think he would agree with me because Behe is on record as believing in Darwinian evolution and common descent. He just maintains that an Intelligent Designer atarted the whole evolution ball rolling by loading the original CSI and also guided the transition from ape to human.

    P.S. For a very interesting article written by Sean B. Carroll that answers your questions on which way Tiktaalik was evolving and how its discoverer, Neal Shubin decided where to look and what age rocks to look in from other fossils, look at http://m.nautil.us/issue/33/at.....a-fishapod

  20. 20
    vividbleau says:

    MatSpirit
    Forgive me but all I could think of while reading your post at 14 was this classic by Berlinski. Every time I read it I can’t stop laughing.

    I imagine this story being told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe.

    His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that “the Ulysses,” mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from “the Quixote.”

    I raise my eyebrows.

    Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer.

    “The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden,” he says. “They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo.”

    Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket.

    “As you know,” he continues, “the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576.”

    I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed.

    “Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor’s Los Hombres d’Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza’s remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal’s The Red and the Black and Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy’s The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined.”

    I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. “Is it your understanding, then,” I ask, “that every novel in the West was created in this way?”

    “Of course,” replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: “Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote.”

    Vivid

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    When someone who goes by the handle of MatSpirit cites René Descartes in order to try to support his materialistic view of reality, you know it is not going to end well for him.

    Rene Descartes’ main argument was to point out that immaterial mind must necessarily be primary and that the material world must necessarily be secondary. Everything we can possibly know and/or say about the material world first starts with the fact that we have conscious immaterial minds. The fact that we have immaterial minds is the foundational prerequisite of all possible prerequisites for science to even be possible for us in the first place. As Planck, Schrodinger and Wigner stated,

    “No, I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
    Max Planck (1858–1947), the main founder of quantum theory, The Observer, London, January 25, 1931

    “Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.”
    Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden. p. 334.

    “The principal argument against materialism is not that illustrated in the last two sections: that it is incompatible with quantum theory. The principal argument is that thought processes and consciousness are the primary concepts, that our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness and that the consciousness, therefore, cannot be denied. On the contrary, logically, the external world could be denied—though it is not very practical to do so. In the words of Niels Bohr, “The word consciousness, applied to ourselves as well as to others, is indispensable when dealing with the human situation.” In view of all this, one may well wonder how materialism, the doctrine that “life could be explained by sophisticated combinations of physical and chemical laws,” could so long be accepted by the majority of scientists.”
    – Eugene Wigner, Remarks on the Mind-Body Question, pp 167-177.

    And indeed MatSpirit even conceded Descartes’ primary point of “That ol’ demon can’t fool us about the existence of our minds”, but in the very next breath MatSpirit states that “For everything else, we can only rely on evidence and hope for the best. There happens to be quite a lot of evidence for a material world.”

    Huh?? What?? The direct contradiction in MatSpirit’s logic is breathtaking! First off, materialism denies the very existence of our immaterial minds. Indeed, instead of holding that the material world is potentially illusory, as Descartes’s held in his argument, materialism holds, in direct contradiction to Descartes’s argument, that our immaterial minds are illusory.

    Ross Douthat Is On Another Erroneous Rampage Against Secularism – Jerry Coyne – December 26, 2013
    Excerpt: “many (but not all) of us accept the notion that our sense of self is a neuronal illusion.”
    Jerry Coyne – Professor of Evolutionary Biology – Atheist
    per new republic

    At the 23:33 minute mark of the following video, Richard Dawkins agrees with materialistic philosophers who say that:
    “consciousness is an illusion”
    A few minutes later Rowan Williams asks Dawkins ”If consciousness is an illusion…what isn’t?”.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN4cfh1Fac&t=22m57s

    “There is no self in, around, or as part of anyone’s body. There can’t be. So there really isn’t any enduring self that ever could wake up morning after morning worrying about why it should bother getting out of bed. The self is just another illusion, like the illusion that thought is about stuff or that we carry around plans and purposes that give meaning to what our body does. Every morning’s introspectively fantasized self is a new one, remarkably similar to the one that consciousness ceased fantasizing when we fell sleep sometime the night before. Whatever purpose yesterday’s self thought it contrived to set the alarm last night, today’s newly fictionalized self is not identical to yesterday’s. It’s on its own, having to deal with the whole problem of why to bother getting out of bed all over again.”
    – A.Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, ch.10

    The Consciousness Deniers – Galen Strawson – March 13, 2018
    Excerpt: What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience.,,,
    Who are the Deniers?,,, Few have been fully explicit in their denial, but among those who have been, we find Brian Farrell, Paul Feyerabend, Richard Rorty, and the generally admirable Daniel Dennett.,,,
    http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2.....s-deniers/

    “that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.”
    Francis Crick – “The Astonishing Hypothesis” 1994

    The Brain: The Mystery of Consciousness
    By STEVEN PINKER – Monday, Jan. 29, 2007
    Part II THE ILLUSION OF CONTROL
    Another startling conclusion from the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there’s an executive “I” that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion.
    http://www.academia.edu/279485.....sciousness

    “(Daniel) Dennett concludes, ‘nobody is conscious … we are all zombies’.”
    J.W. SCHOOLER & C.A. SCHREIBER – Experience, Meta-consciousness, and the Paradox of Introspection – 2004

    “We have so much confidence in our materialist assumptions (which are assumptions, not facts) that something like free will is denied in principle. Maybe it doesn’t exist, but I don’t really know that. Either way, it doesn’t matter because if free will and consciousness are just an illusion, they are the most seamless illusions ever created. Film maker James Cameron wishes he had special effects that good.”
    Matthew D. Lieberman – neuroscientist – materialist – UCLA professor

    Thus, even though MatSpirit concedes that “That ol’ demon can’t fool us about the existence of our minds”, none-the-less MatSpirit apparently fully embraces the demon of philosophical materialism which directly denies the existence of his mind. So which is it? Does Matspirit agree with Descartes that mind must be primary or does he agree with materialism that denies the existence of his mind?

    Mat Spirit also holds that “There happens to be quite a lot of evidence for a material world.”

    Yet MatSpirit has less than zero evidence that conscious mind is somehow ’emergent’ from some material basis:

    “Nobody has the slightest idea how anything material could be conscious. Nobody even knows what it would be like to have the slightest idea about how anything material could be conscious. So much for the philosophy of consciousness.”
    – Jerry Fodor – Rutgers University philosopher
    [2] Fodor, J. A., Can there be a science of mind? Times Literary Supplement. July 3, 1992, pp5-7.

    “Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature.”
    Roger Wolcott Sperry – Nobel neurophysiologist
    As quoted in Genius Talk : Conversations with Nobel Scientists and Other Luminaries (1995) by Denis Brian

    “We have at present not even the vaguest idea how to connect the physio-chemical processes with the state of mind.”
    – Eugene Wigner – Nobel prize-winner – Quantum Symmetries

    “Science’s biggest mystery is the nature of consciousness. It is not that we possess bad or imperfect theories of human awareness; we simply have no such theories at all. About all we know about consciousness is that it has something to do with the head, rather than the foot.”
    Nick Herbert – Contemporary physicist

    “No experiment has ever demonstrated the genesis of consciousness from matter. One might as well believe that rabbits emerge from magicians’ hats. Yet this vaporous possibility, this neuro-mythology, has enchanted generations of gullible scientists, in spite of the fact that there is not a shred of direct evidence to support it.”
    – Larry Dossey – Physician and author

    In fact, not only does MatSpirit not have any evidence that consciousness can somehow be emergent from a material basis, Donald Hoffman has demonstrated, through numerous computer simulations, that if Darwinian evolution, and the materialistic presuppositions therein, were actually true, then, sans Descartes, ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory.

    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/

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “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 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

    Apparently Descartes’s demon that is fooling our minds about what we are actually seeing is none other than Darwinian evolution itself! 🙂

    Moreover, contrary to what the atheistic materialist is forced to believe because of the mathematics of population genetics, reliable observation is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method.

    Steps of the Scientific Method
    Observation/Research
    Hypothesis
    Prediction
    Experimentation
    Conclusion
    http://www.sciencemadesimple.c.....ethod.html

    Thus, since the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution denies ‘reliable observation’, which is a necessary cornerstone of the scientific method itself, then clearly Darwinian evolution can never be based upon the scientific method itself and is therefore falsified once again in its claim to be a scientific theory.

    Moreover, completely contrary to what Hoffman found for Darwinian theory, it turns out that accurate perception, i.e. conscious observation, far from being unreliable and illusory, is experimentally found to be far more integral to reality, i.e. far more reliable of reality, than the mathematics of population genetics predicted. In the following experiment, it was found that “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

    Apparently science itself could care less if atheistic materialists are forced to believe, because of the mathematics of population genetics, that their observations of reality are illusory!

    As Richard Feynman stated: “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.”

    The Scientific Method – Richard Feynman – video
    Quote: “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.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

    I think that Descartes would be very pleased to see his argument for the primacy of mind confirmed in over the top fashion by quantum mechanics.

    Besides out immaterial minds and conscious observation becoming illusory and unreliable if materialism and/or Darwinian evolution were actually true, many other things become illusory too. Things that normal people resolutely hold to be concrete and real.

    Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist 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 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. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is 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).
    Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,,
    – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark
    https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387

    Thus, 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, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists 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 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;

  22. 22
    ET says:

    MatSpirit:

    If you kept tracing your rabbit’s ancestors, you would see the reproducers look less and less like rabbits until they finally looked like whatever animal rabbits are descended from. And if you followed those animals back far enough, you would eventually get to some single-celled something.

    That is the untestable propaganda, anyway. We are more concerned with science than propaganda, though.

    What makes a rabbit a rabbit? That is still an unanswerable question. And until we know that answer we have no way to test the claim a rabbit was ever something else.

  23. 23
    MatSpirit says:

    Vivid,

    Good to see you again! Berlinski is an interesting example of an ID Professional. He’s a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, though I’m not sure if he’s paid for his services. Paid or not, his beliefs should be in the mainstream of ID thought.

    So how does Berlinski believe evolution is claimed to work? Well, in the example you’ve so kindly provided, he apparently believes that if you take a single copy of “the Quixote” (I assume he means what we usually call “Don Quixote) and copy it repeatedly, making occasional errors to the copies, you will eventually produce every book ever written in every language they were written in. Wow!

    What happened to the natural selection I mentioned in Msg 14? It’s important, you know. “Variation and Natural Selection” was Darwin’s terse description of how evolution works. Berlinski remembered the Variation – his scribes are making errors, but where’s the Natural Selection? Every copy should somehow be checked to make sure it’s a viable book and thrown away if it isn’t. Berlinski doesn’t even mention the very heart of evolution! And he’s a senior fellow of an organization who’s main activity is denying evolution and convincing the world that it’s impossible!

    Is it possible that everybody at the Discovery Institute is this ignorant of the most important part of the theory they’re fighting? Well, if so it would explain a lot of the really weird theories that ID produces.

    As an ID supporter, what’s your view on Natural Selection? Is it hidden somewhere in Berlinski’s story and I just missed it? Do you think it’s so unimportant you can just leave it out of the evolutionary process?

  24. 24
    vividbleau says:

    MatSpirit
    “As an ID supporter, what’s your view on Natural Selection?”

    Mutations are errors in the copying process and natural selection is a trial. Darwinian evolution is nothing but a trial and error process.

    “Is it hidden somewhere in Berlinski’s story and I just missed it?”

    The copier is doing the selecting.

    Vivid

  25. 25
    vividbleau says:

    MS
    “Is it possible that everybody at the Discovery Institute is this ignorant of the most important part of the theory they’re fighting?”
    No offense but Berlinski would mop the floor with you, just saying.

    Vivid

  26. 26
    MatSpirit says:

    Me: “If you kept tracing your rabbit’s ancestors, you would see the reproducers look less and less like rabbits until they finally looked like whatever animal rabbits are descended from. And if you followed those animals back far enough, you would eventually get to some single-celled something.

    ET: “That is the untestable propaganda, anyway. We are more concerned with science than propaganda, though.”

    So are we. Here’s a link to a 55 million year old rabbit. Note the long tail and short ears.
    https://www.amnh.org/our-research/science-news/2006/earliest-rabbit-fossil-found-suggests-modern-mammal-group-emerged-as-dinosaurs-faced-extinction

  27. 27
    MatSpirit says:

    Vividbleau: Mutations are errors in the copying process and natural selection is a trial. Darwinian evolution is nothing but a trial and error process.”

    Natural selection is much more powerful than trial and error. If a mutation is beneficial, Natural Selection will make it increase in numbers and it may even replace the original DNA. It can also be joined by other mutations, such as one of Behe’s CC events. That means that two mutations don’t have to happen at the same time.

    V: “The copier is doing the selecting.”

    No, they’re just copying and making errors. There’s not a word in there about testing. It’s as if Berlinski didn’t think testing was important.

    Vivid: “No offense but Berlinski would mop the floor with you, just saying.”

    He might. I certainly can’t hold a candle to him for literary allusions. However, I’m fairly familiar with Berlinski, going back to his book, “A Tour of the Calculus” twenty years ago. I think that was before the Discovery Institute. Since then I’ve read a fair amount of his ID work, seen him in a few videos and read what may be the worse detective novel ever written, “A Clean Sweep: An Aaron Asherfeld Mystery”.

    In short, I’m pretty familiar with his work and frankly, when it comes to evolution, I don’t think he knows what he’s talking about. Your Library of Babel story just confirms it.

  28. 28
    vividbleau says:

    MS
    And here I was thinking over these many years that I was the only one who bought “ Tour of The Calculus “ it was from a bookstore in Coronado CA. My kids thought I was crazy LOL. Since we share reading interests and discusing the power of RMNS you should read Charle Mackays “ Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds”

    Vivid

  29. 29
    bornagain77 says:

    MatSpirit claims that

    “If you kept tracing your rabbit’s ancestors, you would see the reproducers look less and less like rabbits until they finally looked like whatever animal rabbits are descended from. And if you followed those animals back far enough, you would eventually get to some single-celled something.”

    And yet the first mammals appear in the fossil record with quote unquote a “spark” of rapid diversification reminiscent of the Cambrian explosion.

    What Sparked the Mammal Explosion? – September 3, 2015 – David F. Coppedge
    If you think tiny shrew-like mammals scurried afoot below dinosaurs right before they went extinct, you’ve got the wrong picture.
    A paper in Current Biology has a curious headline: “Mammalian evolution: A Jurassic spark.” Despite the pun, the title implies something dramatic happened when the first mammals appear in the fossil record—a “spark” of rapid diversification reminiscent of the Cambrian explosion.
    “Mammals first appear in the fossil record at about the same time as the earliest dinosaurs (?220 million years ago), and so the first two-thirds of mammalian evolutionary history thus occurred during the Mesozoic ‘Age of Dinosaurs’. Mesozoic mammals were long portrayed as tiny, shrew-like creatures, unable to diversify due to severe competition and predation from dinosaurs and other reptiles. However, discoveries in the past two decades have greatly expanded the known diversity of Mesozoic mammals, revealing the existence of specialised gliders, climbers and burrowers, semi-aquatic forms and even badger-sized carnivores that ate small dinosaurs. Evidence of extensive ecological differences has been found even between closely-related species, and quantitative analyses of the skulls and skeletons of Mesozoic mammals suggest a diverse range of diets and locomotor modes. Although the ecological and functional diversity of Mesozoic mammals has received increasing attention, the tempo of their adaptive radiation has seldom been quantified. In a new paper in Current Biology, Close and colleagues now show that, during the Mesozoic, mammals evolved very rapidly during the early and middle Jurassic (?201–164 million years ago), with the average rate of change during this period being twice as fast compared to the remainder of the Mesozoic.”
    “This period of rapid evolution also broadly coincides with peaks in morphological disparity (as measured by the average morphological difference between contemporaneous species) and lineage diversity (as measured by the number of contemporaneous branches on the evolutionary tree). Together with previous studies which have highlighted the ecomorphological diversity of Jurassic mammals, these results demonstrate that mammals underwent a sustained and extensive adaptive radiation during the Jurassic, when dinosaurs also underwent a major increase in diversity and disparity.”
    Why is this not portrayed in museum dioramas of dinosaur habitats? Lee and Beck describe how the old (incorrect) picture of Jurassic mammals proceeded from biased sampling of morphological characters and phylogenetic techniques that incorrectly portrayed temporal modes of evolution. In short: mammals appeared abruptly and rapidly inhabited all kinds of habitats. True, the largest weighed about a kilogram in the Jurassic (up to 10 kilos in the Cretaceous), but the variety of adaptations calls for excessive amounts of mutation and selection for the time available. And you know evolutionists are in trouble when they pull out their magic wand, convergent evolution —
    “The Jurassic radiation of small mammals also underscores the prevalence of convergent evolution. Phylogenetic analyses of modern mammals have highlighted how similar ecomorphs (e.g. ant-eating forms, gliders, specialised burrowers and carnivores) evolved multiple times during the Cenozoic. Ongoing studies of their fossil relatives are revealing that many of these ecomorphs also evolved repeatedly, and relatively rapidly, during the Age of Dinosaurs. Early mammals, despite living in the shadows of the dinosaurs, were diverse and successful.”
    Close et al. describe the mammal radiation as an “intense burst” of evolution. They use the word “rapid” three times.
    “Contrary to the traditional view that Mesozoic mammals were exclusively small, generalized insectivores, discoveries in the last two decades, especially from China, have demonstrated that they were adapted for diverse feeding and locomotor ecologies. These finds extend the early mammal repertoire to include digging, climbing, gliding, and swimming and show that some non-therian lineages achieved surprisingly large body sizes (up to approximately 1 kg”
    Given these revelations, what else about the fossil record are they not telling us?
    https://crev.info/2015/09/what-sparked-the-mammal-explosion/

    There was no mention of a common ancestor to all these diverse mammals, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor of all mammals. Much, much, less was there any mention of the ‘single-celled something’ that MatSpirit alluded to.

    Earliest-known arboreal and subterranean ancestral mammals discovered – February 12, 2015
    Excerpt: The fossils of two interrelated ancestral mammals, newly discovered in China, suggest that the wide-ranging ecological diversity of modern mammals had a precedent more than 160 million years ago.,,,
    “We consistently find with every new fossil that the earliest mammals were just as diverse in both feeding and locomotor adaptations as modern mammals,”
    Agilodocodon, which lived roughly 165 million years ago, had hands and feet with curved horny claws and limb proportions that are typical for mammals that live in trees or bushes. It is adapted for feeding on the gum or sap of trees, with spade-like front teeth to gnaw into bark. This adaptation is similar to the teeth of some modern New World monkeys.,,,
    Agilodocodon also had well-developed, flexible elbows and wrist and ankle joints that allowed for much greater mobility, all characteristics of climbing mammals.
    “The finger and limb bone dimensions of Agilodocodon match up with those of modern tree-dwellers,,,
    Docofossor, which lived around 160 million years ago, had a skeletal structure and body proportions strikingly similar to the modern day African golden mole. It had shovel-like fingers for digging, short and wide upper molars typical of mammals that forage underground, and a sprawling posture indicative of subterranean movement.,,,
    Early mammals were once thought to have limited ecological opportunities to diversify during the dinosaur-dominated Mesozoic era. However, Agilodocodon, Docofossor and numerous other fossils — including Castorocauda, a swimming, fish-eating mammaliaform described by Luo and colleagues in 2006 — provide strong evidence that ancestral mammals adapted to wide-ranging environments despite competition from dinosaurs.
    Luo said. “These new fossils help demonstrate that early mammals did indeed have a wide range of ecological diversity. It appears dinosaurs did not dominate the Mesozoic landscape as much as previously thought.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....141447.htm

    Moreover, this sudden and ‘explosive’, i.e. non-Darwinian, pattern seen for mammals is ubiquitous throughout the fossil record. In fact, “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.”,,,

    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

    Basically MarSpirit, in his desire to find any substantiating evidence whatsoever in the fossil record for his atheistic Darwinian worldview, has, whether he is even aware of it or not, substituted imaginary story telling for hard science.

    No less than the editor of ‘Nature’, Henry Gee, agrees that “to take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”

    “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way… To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
    – Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 1999, pg. 113 & 117

    In fact, no less that Stephen Jay Gould also admitted that when Darwinists “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.”

    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

    Let that last line sink in “Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.”

    As ET stated, “That is the untestable propaganda, anyway. We are more concerned with science than propaganda, though.”

    And when it comes to hard, i.e. “testable”. science, it is found that Darwinian evolution does not even qualify as a hard science in the first place but is more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscientific religion for atheists,

    “On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin’s theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?”
    – David Berlinski, “A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics,” Commentary, July 8, 2003

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ

    Perhaps MatSpirit simply prefers imagination to hard science? As was mentioned in post 21,

    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, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists 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 than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/viruses-devolve/#comment-674387

    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;

  30. 30
    ET says:

    MatSpirit:

    Here’s a link to a 55 million year old rabbit. Note the long tail and short ears.

    It may be a lagomorph or it may be a hybrid. But my point remains- we do not even know what makes a rabbit a rabbit

  31. 31
    PaV says:

    The evidence for a Godly world is much spottier and less convincing.

    Where does intelligence come from? What is consciousness–that is, if you’re having a conversation with a two-year-old boy or girl, then are they “conscious” of what is going on? [No, intelligence allows such a conversation, but “consciousness” is layerd upon reason and intelligence. Where does it come from?] What about beauty? What about love? [Does love exist? Are you willing to deny it exists? Well, then is “love” a “material” substance? Where do you stand on all of this?] And is ‘love’ greater, or less than, a coconut, e.g.?

    When I was five, I experienced my ‘existence.’ I understood that I existed, independent of all else. Is this experience “material”? It was more ‘real’ to me than everything external to me.

    So face the facts, we’re all believers, but the material world has tons of evidence for it while the evidence for a Godly world is both sparse and highly suspicious.

    Why don’t you study documented miracles?

    Your position is that it’s far easier to believe in a ‘material’ world than it is to believe in a ‘spiritual’ world. To which I would say, the only thing easier than believing in a ‘material’ world is denying evidences of the supernatural. It’s very easy. Lots of people do it.

    But the question is not really do you believe in the material world, but whether or not you believe there is no God, because evolutionist’s argument is that the only acceptable hypthesis is that some incarnated intelligence can act—a position that can only be maintained by denying God’s existence. So, if you deny the existence of God, what is your evidence [if we’re going to talk about evidence]?

    . . . please tell me what it is so I can correct my errors!

    I’ve been at this blogsite for over fourteen years. Discussion with most, if not almost all, evolutionary biologists is like trying to get a religious fundamentalist to convert—a big waste of time. Their minds and hearts are closed. I’m not going to waste time pointing out errors. I’ve tired of all that. Perhaps others are not tired of it. But they know what I’m talking about. That’s sufficient.

    I’m surprised the enforcers of evolutionary orthodoxy haven’t forced you to read it yet.

    Dear MatSpirit: Tiktaalik was discussed right here thirteen years ago when the discovery was made. Nothing new since. Same problems persist.

    If you found a watch on the moon (or on a heath, for that matter), you would be entirely correct to assume it was fabricated since watches don’t reproduce. This, you will remember, is necessary for evolution to occur.

    However, building a watch that ‘reproduces’ itself requires more intelligence than simply making a watch that works. So, biological forms bespeak a much greater intelligence behind them than a mere watch would. This is just basic common sense.

    P.S. For a very interesting article written by Sean B. Carroll that answers your questions on which way Tiktaalik was evolving and how its discoverer, Neal Shubin decided where to look and what age rocks to look in from other fossils, . . .

    As I mentioned, this was discussed here years ago; I was part of that discussion. At the time I said something along these lines: evolutionary biologists always find what they’re looking for! Hoaxes have ensued because of this, though I wouldn’t put Tiktaalik in that category. But I would refer you to Henry Gee’s book, In Search of Deep Time.

    By the way, the article you linked to ends this way:

    “When people call Tiktaalik ‘the missing link,’ it implies there is a single fossil that tells us about the transition from water to land. Tiktaalik gains meaning when it’s compared with other fossils in the series. So it’s not ‘the’ missing link. I would probably call it ‘a’ missing link. It’s also no longer missing—it’s a found link. The missing links are the ones I want to find this summer.”

    My point is exactly the one that Neil Shubin is making: if you have a ‘series,’ then we know which direction ‘evolution’ took; but, without it, it’s still a bit of a guess. Again, how can we rule out the possibility of a reptile returning to the sea as an explanation?

  32. 32
    bornagain77 says:

    Faced with Uncooperative Data, Evolutionary Icthyologists Reverse the Predictions of Common Descent – Casey Luskin – December 30, 2014
    Excerpt: Neil Shubin and his team are at it again, suggesting that Tiktaalik was a fish with a “wrist.”,,,
    ,,,it was never established that fish with wrists or fish with digits existed in the first place. In fact, the Science Daily article acknowledges that living fish have no analogues to the bones of tetrapod limbs:
    “Initial attempts to confirm the link based on shape comparisons of fin and limb bones were unsuccessful.”,,,
    Ironically, the description of bones in living fish is also a very good description of the fin of Tiktaalik. See my post from 2008, “An ‘Ulnare’ and an ‘Intermedium’ a Wrist Do Not Make: A Response to Carl Zimmer.”
    Tiktaalik had no wrist, and in fact, there are no known living or fossil fish that have anything like a wrist or digits.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92401.html

    The Evolution of the Darwin Fish – February 17, 2018 – David F. Coppedge
    Excerpt: Darwinians believe that fish crawled out onto land—their fins becoming pentadactyl limbs—then returned back to the sea multiple times in the form of ichthyosaurs, pinnipeds and whales.,,,
    After Darwin, various ‘transitional’ fish with bony fins were subsequently proposed and deposed (see sign, above), but Darwinians didn’t become excited until Neil Shubin’s Tiktaalik fossil (6 April 2006), though some disagreed (4 December 2008).,,,
    Subsequently, though, tetrapod tracks were found a full 10 million Darwin Years earlier (6 January 2010), undermining Shubin’s claim to have found a transitional form.
    Darwinians are still hunting.,,,
    https://crev.info/2018/02/evolution-darwin-fish/

    Mudskippers. The Strangest Creature ever to Defy Evolution – December 14, 2016
    Excerpt: No fossil evidence exists for their putative evolution from some pre-mudskipper organism. Scientists are not even able to satisfactorily classify modern mudskippers into a family, leaving their evolution to pure speculation. They were once included in the Oxudercinae subfamily, within the family Gobiidae (gobies), but recent molecular studies do not support this classification. Darwinists are now stymied about their phylogeny, and can only speculate concerning from what and how they could have evolved. A major problem for evolution is that the first mudskipper in the fossil record is morphologically a modern mudskipper.
    Long assumed to be a transitional animal between a swimming fish and a tetrapod (four footed) animal, a recent study by Kutschera and Elliott (2013, p. 1) concluded that, although some walking fishes such as mudskippers “shed light on the gradual evolutionary transition of ancient fishes to early tetrapods … they are not the ancestors of tetrapods, because extant organisms cannot be progenitors of other living beings.” As Polgar, et al. note, more study is required to detail the evolution of the mudskipper (2014, p. 179).
    Many experts have hypothesized that fish fins evolved into terrestrial limbs, a theory that also does not fit the facts (Clack, 2012, p. 136). For example, the earliest tetrapods were not pentadactyl (having five fingers and toes) as are modern tetrapods, and the fossil evidence does not support the fin to limb evolution (Clack, 2012, pp. 136-137).
    Summary
    In short, the mudskipper is not a fish that evolved legs or an amphibian that evolved to look like a fish, but a graceful well designed swimmer in water that gets along so well out of water that they spend most of their life on land and thrive in large areas of the world. We have no evidence of fish-fin to tetrapod limb evolution, and the mudskipper does not help to explain the major missing links that can bridge the two structures. Like the duck-billed platypus, the mudskipper contains a unique mosaic of features found on many different animals. And this situation is bad news for evolutionists.
    http://www.create.ab.ca/mudski.....evolution/

    This following article has a excellent summary of the ‘less than forthright’ manner in which Darwinists handle anyone who dares to tell of falsifications to their imaginary evidence for ‘transitional’ fossils:

    Evolutionary Biologists Are Unaware of Their Own Arguments: Reappraising Nature’s Prized “Gem,” Tiktaalik – Casey Luskin – September 2010
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....38261.html

  33. 33
    MatSpirit says:

    ET: “we do not even know what makes a rabbit a rabbit.”

    Rabbits are made of the same things we are, arranged differently to make a rabbit.

    New rabbits are assembled by their mothers. If you want to know more about how this works, study embryology.

    If you’re wondering how rabbits came to be, study paleontology and evolution.

  34. 34
    MatSpirit says:

    I found Mackay when I was in my teens or early twenties, probably from a reference by Martin Gardner. I see it’s available for free now at many places, including https://web.archive.org/web/20040623130633/http://www.litrix.com/madraven/madne001.htm

    I recommend it to all.

  35. 35
    MatSpirit says:

    PaV: Where does intelligence come from? What is consciousness–that is, if you’re having a conversation with a two-year-old boy or girl, then are they “conscious” of what is going on? [No, intelligence allows such a conversation, but “consciousness” is layerd upon reason and intelligence. Where does it come from?] What about beauty? What about love? [Does love exist? Are you willing to deny it exists? Well, then is “love” a “material” substance? Where do you stand on all of this?] And is ‘love’ greater, or less than, a coconut, e.g.?

    It’s interesting that only conservative Christians (and I suppose conservative Muslims and other religious conservatives) refuse to admit that the brain produces our minds and other mentality. I suppose it’s because you can’t take your brain to heaven, so how is your mind going to go? Non-conservatives seem to have no problems here. I suppose they just trust an omniscient and all powerful God to take care of that problem. Frankly, when I see how energetically conservatives hunt down heresy and read of Mother Theresa’s crushing doubts (as well as the magnitude of what they have to believe) I often question conservative faith.

    Does love exist? Of course. Is it material? Yes, it’s caused by the material actions of your material neurons plus a whopping dose of strong drugs. Uppers, mostly. Just watch a couple of young lovers. They can stay up all night spooning.

    Do you think animals are conscious? What about chimps? Or chimps who use sign language?

    PaV: Why don’t you study documented miracles?

    Got any? Please, no flying saints. And from the last hundred years, please. Oh, and evidence, not stories written down by true believers.

    PaV: But the question is not really do you believe in the material world, but whether or not you believe there is no God, because evolutionist’s argument is that the only acceptable hypthesis is that some incarnated intelligence can act—a position that can only be maintained by denying God’s existence. So, if you deny the existence of God, what is your evidence [if we’re going to talk about evidence]?

    I think you got something wrong. Evolution does not say that only some intelligence can act, it says that no intelligence is needed. I love your demand that I prove the non-existence of God. Do you think you have a similar duty to show the non-existence of Odin or Thor? I think not. If you want me to believe in your god, show me evidence. The burden of proof is always on those claiming the supernatural exists.

    PaV: I’ve been at this blogsite for over fourteen years.

    I’ve been here a long time, too. I remember when Dave from Texas was running the blog and even a time when Dembski himself was still here. He soon got tired of getting clobbered in debate and turned it over to Dave, who was much more adroit with the ban-hammer. Funnier too.

    PaV: Discussion with most, if not almost all, evolutionary biologists is like trying to get a religious fundamentalist to convert—a big waste of time. Their minds and hearts are closed.

    Not really, everybody here’s just firing blanks.

    PaV: I’m not going to waste time pointing out errors.

    If you had any errors to point out, you’d be delighted to.

    PaV: I’ve tired of all that. Perhaps others are not tired of it. But they know what I’m talking about. That’s sufficient.

    They share the ID delusion.

    PaV: However, building a watch that ‘reproduces’ itself requires more intelligence than simply making a watch that works. So, biological forms bespeak a much greater intelligence behind them than a mere watch would. This is just basic common sense.

    But evolution only works on organisms that are already reproducing. It’s built in and requires no intelligence to add on. In fact, if a line of organisms STOPS reproducing, that’s it for evolution. The line goes extinct.

    PaV: My point is exactly the one that Neil Shubin is making: if you have a ‘series,’ then we know which direction ‘evolution’ took; but, without it, it’s still a bit of a guess. Again, how can we rule out the possibility of a reptile returning to the sea as an explanation?

    This is why it’s so hard to argue with a YEC or ID fan. All the knowledge is against their beliefs, so they’re very careful not to learn anything that will scupper their beliefs.

    Question: WERE THERE ANY REPTILES THEN? NO! Tiktaalik was the first quadruped. Remember the fins with bones in them? After quadrupeds, amphibians developed and reptiles developed out of amphibians.

  36. 36
    ET says:

    MatSpirit:

    Rabbits are made of the same things we are, arranged differently to make a rabbit.
    New rabbits are assembled by their mothers. If you want to know more about how this works, study embryology.
    If you’re wondering how rabbits came to be, study paleontology and evolution.

    LoL! Evolution can’t even produce eukaryotes. And no, we have no idea what makes a rabbit a rabbit beyond that a baby rabbit is born after a successful mating of a male and female conejo.

  37. 37
    ET says:

    MatSpirit:

    Tiktaalik was the first quadruped.

    No, it wasn’t even a tetrapod. It was still a fish that lived in water. And seeing that you don’t have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes you definitely cannot account for fish. (endosymbiosis doesn’t help)

  38. 38
    bornagain77 says:

    ET:
    “we do not even know what makes a rabbit a rabbit.”
    MatSpirit:
    “Rabbits are made of the same things we are, arranged differently to make a rabbit.”

    So according to MatSpirit’s materialistic “logic”, Rabbits and Humans are both just material particles albeit differently arranged material particles. An answer that missed ET fundamental point so drastically would be comical if MatSpirit were not so naively sincere in his belief that the only difference between rabbits and humans is ONLY a difference in arrangement of material particles.

    If reductive materialism were actually true, the ability to define what a species truly is, i.e. to answer the question of what makes a rabbit truly a rabbit and what makes a human truly a human?” becomes impossible:

    Darwin, Design & Thomas Aquinas
    The Mythical Conflict Between Thomism & Intelligent Design by Logan Paul Gage
    Excerpt: First, the problem of essences. G. K. Chesterton once quipped that “evolution . . . does not especially deny the existence of God; what it does deny is the existence of man.” It might appear shocking, but in this one remark the ever-perspicacious Chesterton summarized a serious conflict between classical Christian philosophy and Darwinism.
    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).,,,
    One way to see this form-matter dichotomy is as Aristotle’s solution to the ancient tension between change and permanence debated so vigorously in the pre-Socratic era. Heraclitus argued that reality is change. Everything constantly changes—like fire, which never stays the same from moment to moment. Philosophers like Parmenides (and Zeno of “Zeno’s paradoxes” fame) argued exactly the opposite; there is no change. Despite appearances, reality is permanent. How else could we have knowledge? If reality constantly changes, how can we know it? What is to be known?
    Aristotle solved this dilemma by postulating that while matter is constantly in flux—even now some somatic cells are leaving my body while others arrive—an organism’s form is stable. It is a fixed reality, and for this reason is a steady object of our knowledge. Organisms have an essence that can be grasped intellectually.

    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.

    What About Man?
    Now we see Chesterton’s point. Man, the universal, does not really exist. According to the late Stanley Jaki, Chesterton detested Darwinism because “it abolishes forms and all that goes with them, including that deepest kind of ontological form which is the immortal human soul.” And if one does not believe in universals, there can be, by extension, no human nature—only a collection of somewhat similar individuals.,,,
    Implications for Bioethics
    This is not a mere abstract point. This dilemma is playing itself out in contemporary debates in bioethics. With whom are bioethicists like Leon Kass (neo-Aristotelian and former chairman of the President’s Council on Bioethics) sparring today if not with thoroughgoing Darwinians like Princeton’s Peter Singer, who denies that humans, qua humans, have intrinsic dignity? Singer even calls those who prefer humans to other animals “speciesist,” which in his warped vocabulary is akin to racism.,,,
    If one must choose between saving an intelligent, fully developed pig or a Down syndrome baby, Singer thinks we should opt for the pig.,,,
    https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-06-037-f

    Immaterial abstract concepts, such as, ‘human nature’, ‘rabbit nature’, ‘dog nature’, ‘cat nature’, simply cannot be grounded within the Darwinian worldview.

    Thus humorously, not only have Darwinists never experimentally demonstrated the ‘origin of species’, Darwinists can’t even define what a species truly is in the first place! I would call that a fairly dramatic failing for a theory that purports to be the “be all/end all” scientific explanation for the origin of species.

    Moreover, as bad as it is for Darwin’s theory to not be able to account for the concept of species, it gets much worse for the Darwinist.

    Not only does Darwin’s theory fail to account for what a species truly is, the ‘bottom up’ reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution is also found to be grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic “form” and/or shape.

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    Moreover, the failure of the reductive materialism to be able to explain the basic form of any particular organism occurs at a very low level. Much lower than mutations to DNA itself.

    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Thus, since the reductive materialistic explanations of neo-Darwinism are grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality.

    Shoot, the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinism cannot even provide a coherent foundation for the abstract immaterial concepts of personhood and mathematics:

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict?
    By M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    ,,, As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents.
    In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    Thus, besides Darwinian evolution already being shown to be mathematically impossible (by Sanford, Dembski, Marks, Axe, Behe, Durston etc.. etc..), Darwinian evolution is further falsified by mathematics as being a scientific theory since Darwinism denies the very reality of one the thing it most needs, i.e. mathematics, in order to be considered scientific in the first place.

    Darwinian Evolution vs Mathematics – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3gyx70BHvA

    Besides the abstract concepts of species, of biological form, of personhood, and of mathematics, there are many other abstract things, (things that everybody, including Darwinists, take for granted as being real), that become illusory and therefore ‘non-real’ within their reductive materialistic Darwinian worldview. As Dr. Egnor states in the following article, “Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts…. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.”

    The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals – Michael Egnor – November 5, 2015
    Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals.
    Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different — ontologically different — from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,,
    ,,, It is in our ability to think abstractly that we differ from apes. It is a radical difference — an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference.
    We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2/

    Thus, the Darwinian worldview is a severely impoverished and bankrupt worldview that lacks the intellectual funds that are necessary to explain everything that is truly unique and important about human life. Indeed, it denies everything that is immaterial. Immaterial things that give humans the unique attributes and abilities that are associated with being ‘made in the image of God’.

    2 Corinthians 4:18
    So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

  39. 39
    PaV says:

    MatSpirit:

    I don’t recognize this moniker. What was your previous moniker if you go that far back?

    Does love exist? Of course. Is it material? Yes, it’s caused by the material actions of your material neurons plus a whopping dose of strong drugs. Uppers, mostly. Just watch a couple of young lovers. They can stay up all night spooning.

    Do you think animals are conscious? What about chimps? Or chimps who use sign language?

    Your foolishness is on display.

    What evidence do you have that chimps are conscious? Do you have any? Or are you simply asserting this?

    I’ve had experiences of reality that have had nothing to do with my physical body. Now, should I deny this because your materialist viewpoint denies this? Can you remember going to the market with your mother when you were two years old when she asked you if you wanted an ice cream cone and you told her, “Yes”? Were you conscious then? Would you like to answer the question?

    PaV: Why don’t you study documented miracles?

    MS: Got any? Please, no flying saints. And from the last hundred years, please. Oh, and evidence, not stories written down by true believers.

    Please explain the image on the Shroud of Turin. Explain it. Describe how it came into being. Explain the liquefaction of St. Januarius’ Blood. The putative explanations given are risible.

    PaV: However, building a watch that ‘reproduces’ itself requires more intelligence than simply making a watch that works. So, biological forms bespeak a much greater intelligence behind them than a mere watch would. This is just basic common sense.

    But evolution only works on organisms that are already reproducing. It’s built in and requires no intelligence to add on. In fact, if a line of organisms STOPS reproducing, that’s it for evolution. The line goes extinct.

    You’ve avoided the point I’ve made. I don’t mention evolution. I make a simple assertion: to make a watch that can reproduce itself takes more intelligence than simply making a watch. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

    Please don’t skirt it as you did the last time.

    P.S. [Edit] As to Tiktaalik, perhaps you should read this article. You’re big on reading, right?

  40. 40
    PaV says:

    MatSpirit:

    Indeed, materialism, a viewpoint that entirely rejects the notion of God’s existence, is a ‘belief.’ The newest Templeton Prize winner had this to say:

    The annual Templeton Prize, which recognizes outstanding contributions to “affirming life’s spiritual dimension,” was awarded Tuesday to Brazilian Marcelo Gleiser — a theoretical physicist dedicated to demonstrating science and religion are not enemies.

    A physics and astronomy professor whose specializations include cosmology, 60-year-old Gleiser was born in Rio de Janeiro, and has been in the United States since 1986.

    An agnostic, he doesn’t believe in God — but refuses to write off the possibility of God’s existence completely.

    “Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method,” Gleiser told AFP Monday from Dartmouth College, the New Hampshire university where he has taught since 1991.

    Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against.”

    “I’ll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited,” he added.

  41. 41
    MatSpirit says:

    PaV,

    What Shroud of Turin do you want me to comment on?   The one that Bishop Pierre d’Arcis wrote a memorandum to Pope Clement VII about in 1390 reporting that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed?

    Or the Shroud of Turin that was submitted for independent carbon dating tests to the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, all of whom concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD?

    PaV: What evidence do you have that chimps are conscious? Do you have any? Or are you simply asserting this?

    Well, let’s start with the obvious things.  First, they sleep, at which time everybody agrees they are not conscious, then they wake up and start moving through the trees, eating, watching out for danger and engaging in a ton of social interactions with each other, including, for males, power politics involving complex short term and long term alliances.  If a human did all that, we would call him conscious.

    They also pass the mirror test where they recognize themselves in a mirror and rub off any paint or other smuges they see on their face.  Male chimps are known to let the troop know where they intend to forage tomorrow (in other words, they plan ahead).  Oh yeah, some people taught sign language to chimps and the chimps liked to talk with each other.  And with humans.

    Even more interestingly, some of the chimp mothers taught sign language to their offspring, who then carried on conversations, etc.  Read anything by Frans de Waal for much more .

    Liquefaction of St. Januarius’ Blood:  Lets open that reliquary and sample the brownish-red contents.  Actual direct tests like that did wanders for the Shroud.

    You’re conflating simple consciousness with a philosophical realization of your place in the world.

    I’ll spell my point out:  You don’t need to expend any intelligence designing a rabbit reproducer.  EVERY living thing comes with one.  It’s the most basic thing about being alive.  It’s also the engine that runs evolution.  It’s how a fortunate mutation increases in numbers.

    Tiktaalik:  I read that article back when Casey still worked at the Discovery Instutute.  You say that Evolution is dying when YECism is moribund and the Discovery Institute is laying off its stars.

    Templeton Prize winner:  “Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against.”

    A belief is your best estimate of something.  My best estimate of the odds against anything remotely like the Christian God existing are much larger then anything Dembski ever calculated against the non-intelligent creation of a hundred base-pair length of DNA, so I’m comfortable with my belief that there is no God.

    Do you have any idea how much your man got for such a weak and misleading statement?  I’ve heard it’s over a million.  Sort of makes you sorry for the Templetons.  They have money to burn, but they still can’t get any traction.

  42. 42
    bornagain77 says:

    MatSpirit asks:

    What Shroud of Turin do you want me to comment on? The one that Bishop Pierre d’Arcis wrote a memorandum to Pope Clement VII about in 1390 reporting that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed?
    Or the Shroud of Turin that was submitted for independent carbon dating tests to the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, all of whom concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD?

    Yet the Memorandum of Piere d’Arcis in particular, that atheists often cite as evidence against the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, has several holes in it.

    The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part 4: To Little Lirey
    The Memorandum of Piere d’Arcis appears to make a strong case against the Shroud’s authenticity and has formed the cornerstone for skeptical historical judgement, especially during the 20th century. However, there are fatal problems with its claims.
    Some researchers have concluded that Bishop d’Arcis misunderstood the Shroud’s nature and origins and drew erroneous conclusions based on garbled rumors. First, d’Arcis’ complaints about the evil intents of Lirey’s deans seem misdirected, as it is clear that the de Charny family, who enjoyed a well deserved good public reputation, was always in charge of and behind the Shroud’s expositions. More importantly, where did the bishop obtain his information about Henri de Poitiers and the painter who supposedly produced the relic? It was not from any known documentation; d’Arcis was a competent lawyer before his clerical appointment and surely would have referenced any files from 30 years earlier (Wilson 2010: 228-29). If Bishop Henri de Poitiers had discovered a fraud and opposed the relic’s showings during the 1350’s, he left no known record for d’Arcis to cite. Instead, after reviewing de Charny’s papers related to the new Lirey church’s activities, Henri’s sole surviving document, dated May 28, 1356, praises de Charny’s devotion adding
    And ourselves wishing to develop as much as possible a cult of this nature, we praise, ratify, and approve the said letters in all their parts … we give our assent, our authority, and our decision … (Bonnet-Eymard 1991: 18).
    If anyone at this time was charging fraud, it was unlikely to be in the next year either, as in June of 1357 twelve bishops granted indulgences to pilgrims visiting the church. Pope Clement was confronted with conflicting correspondence from both Geoffrey II and Bishop d’Arcis and finally decided early in the next year on somewhat of a compromise: de Charny could exhibit the Shroud without elaborate ceremonials and declaring it not Christ’s true shroud but “a copy and representation” of it (Geoffrey’s “official” position, anyway), and Bishop d’Arcis could not interfere with those expositions or face excommunication (Fossati 1983: 25).
    Finally, was there an artist who in the middle 14th century created perhaps the greatest fraud of all time? Three additional lines of inquiry argue against it. Beginning a hundred years after the Shroud’s first appearance in the West many dozens of painted copies were made, most still visible today, but all “look crude and almost ludicrously amateur by comparison to the original” (Wilson and Miller 1986: 13). And where else in late medieval art can this unknown artistic genius’ masterpieces be seen? Second and more decisively, what does modern scientific inquiry say about the Shroud being a painting? In 1978 a team of more than thirty mostly American scientists, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), spent about 120 hours pulling various technical data from the Shroud and then devoted years to its analyses. In October, 1981 they met the press and announced, with only one dissenting voice,
    No pigments, paints, dyes or stains [could be found and that both physics and chemistry tests] preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image … We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist (Schwortz online at http://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm).
    When the numerous unusual, perhaps unique image properties became apparent to participating scientists John Heller and Alan Adler, they identified about ten near insurmountable difficulties an artist would face trying to create the Shroud’s image (Heller 1983: 202-204). STURP published their findings in a variety of professional scientific journals (see Schwortz at http://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm), still available today, which made the Shroud “the most intensely studied artifact in human history” (Heller 1983: back dust cover). Last, if there never were an artist who created the image, researchers have taken another look at the Latin in d’Arcis’ famous Memorandum and made a key observation. The Latin phase so casually translated “it was proved by the artist who had painted it” could also be rendered “the artist who had copied it.” French researcher Brother Hillary de Cremiers recognizes that the Latin depingere (to paint) is ambiguous but that the verbal construction throughout this section of the Memorandum makes the best sense if an artist making a copy gave his opinion that the image was “made by human hand” (de Cremiers 1991: 41-42). This might also help to explain some indications that a hidden shroud, thought by many to be the actual pre-1349 shroud but obviously a painted copy, was supposedly found in Besançon’s St. Stephens about 1377; later it became famous throughout France until it was destroyed during the French Revolution. Could it have been a copy made by Bishop de Poitiers’ confessed artist as a replacement for Jeanne deVergy’s secret transfer of the original to Lirey (Scavone 1993: 213)?
    http://www.biblearchaeology.or.....px#Article

    Moreover, we now have fairly extensive and reliable historical evidence that places the origin of the Shroud well before the middle ages of Europe:

    The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part One: To Edessa
    http://www.biblearchaeology.or.....dessa.aspx

    The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part Two: To the Great City
    http://www.biblearchaeology.or.....-City.aspx

    The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part Three: The Shroud of Constantinople
    http://www.biblearchaeology.or.....nople.aspx

    The Shroud of Turin’s Earlier History: Part 4: To Little Lirey
    http://www.biblearchaeology.or.....px#Article

    Dr. Schneider Five Part Series – Part 3: History (of the Shroud) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI-0v-p18IA

    Below is a summary of scientific and historical evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as the ancient burial cloth of the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
    by J. Michael Fischer, adapted from the original article by John C. Iannone
    https://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    As to the Carbon Dating in particular:

    The carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2005 by none other than Raymond Rogers, the lead chemist on the STURP team. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1988 carbon testing has been accepted across the board as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned.

    Shroud of Turin – Carbon 14 Test Proven False –
    – Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford – video
    (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE

    Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers
    per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California)
    Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
    http://www.ntskeptics.org/issu.....oudold.htm

    Rogers passed away shortly after publishing that paper, but his work was ultimately verified by scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory:

    Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review
    Excerpt: Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today.
    http://shroudofturin.wordpress.....s-of-time/

    This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report which confirms the Rogers’ paper:

    “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
    Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case……. LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired.
    – Robert Villarreal – Los Alamos National Laboratory
    http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/

    Further test have also now dated the Shroud within the first century time frame:

    Turin Shroud ‘is not a medieval forgery’ – 28 Mar 2013
    Excerpt: Experiments conducted by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy have dated the shroud to ancient times, a few centuries before and after the life of Christ.,,,
    The analysis is published in a new book, “Il Mistero della Sindone” or The Mystery of the Shroud, by Giulio Fanti, a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University,,,
    Scientists, including Prof Fanti, used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyse fibres from the shroud,,,
    The tests dated the age of the shroud to between 300 BC and 400AD.,,,
    Scientists have never been able to explain how the image of a man’s body, complete with nail wounds to his wrists and feet, pinpricks from thorns around his forehead and a spear wound to his chest, could have formed on the cloth. Mr Fanti said the imprint was caused by a blast of “exceptional radiation”, although he stopped short of describing it as a miracle.
    He said his tests backed up earlier results which claimed to have found on the shroud traces of dust and pollen which could only have come from the Holy Land.,,,
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new.....rgery.html

    Giulio Fanti and the Turin Shroud – load bearing test, infared test, Shroud dated to time of Christ – 34:00 minute mark – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4c4812XA9A

  44. 44
    bornagain77 says:

    As the following article states, “Six out of seven independent dating methods,,, indicate that this linen Sheet is datable to a period including the first century after Christ.”

    Why is the Turin Shroud Authentic? – Giulio Fanti* – November 2018
    Conclusion excerpt: If, as discussed above, by authenticity of the Shroud is meant a funerary sheet, of very ancient manufacture, of about 2000 years ago, that wrapped the corpse of a man hard tortured and dead on a cross, all the scientific clues considered seem favorable to this hypothesis.
    Six [8, 10-14] out of seven independent dating methods (and [9] has been widely criticized) indicate that this linen Sheet is datable to a period including the first century after Christ. The most important Relic of Christianity wrapped a corpse. The blood traces correspond to those of a tortured man. The body image cannot be explained, but the most reliable hypotheses refer to an intense and probably very brief burst of energy. The corpse, endowed with considerable corpse rigidity, remained wrapped in the Shroud for a short period, not exceeding forty hours. All these clues therefore confirm the authenticity of the Shroud [27]
    https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555707.pdf

    Moreover, the repeated ‘voluntary forgetfulness’ of established facts and the repeated ‘distortion of scientific evidence’ by leading critics of the authenticity of the Shroud are gone over in the following paper, and contrary to what the critics would prefer, actually, due to the dishonest and shallow tactics that the critics of the Shroud have had to resort to, actually bolsters the claim that the Shroud is authentic.

    Why is the Turin Shroud Not Fake? – Giulio Fanti* – December 04, 2018
    Excerpt page 5:
    a. As reported above, some important arguments in favor of authenticity are forgotten in an apparently voluntary way. For example the scientific fact [6,19,20,25] that the Shroud wrapped the corpse of a severely tortured man, scourged, crowned with thorns and crucified according to Roman techniques is forgotten when a painting technique to explain the body image of the Shroud is supposed. Other recent results are also forgotten, such as the numismatic dating of the Shroud through the Byzantine coins [25], which sees it already in 692 AD, while someone keeps on stating that the Shroud did not exist before 1300 AD.
    b. The reality of scientific experiments are distorted and the global result is forgotten at the expense of a particular detail useful for the present goal. For example the work [22] detected the presence of pigments of various colors on the Shroud, probably due to the contamination with other paintings, but only the red pigments have been mentioned in a paper [13] to sustain a particular thesis.
    c. Statements relative to a distorted reality can be found when for example we read that pollen grains detected by a researcher on the Shroud have not been seen afterwards [13]. In fact, the same kind of pollen grains [29] together with other particles coming from powders vacuumed from the Shroud have been recently detected thus confirming more dated results.
    d. Not correct statements are still frequent like that asserting that the sample of Shroud used in 1988 for
    radiocarbon dating had been perfectly cleaned or that the pollutant should weigh about 80% of the total weight of the fabric to reach the age in which Jesus Christ lived in Palestine.,,,
    https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555715.pdf

    As well, seeing is believing

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

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    So basically, we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photographer was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about.

    My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please prey tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of at least the basic principles of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention mastery of laser holography? Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments the he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical genius!

    Where is the evidence that your unknown super-genius even existed? As the following article states, ” it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

    Verse, article and video

    John 20:3-8
    So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

    The Shroud of Turin – Evidence it is authentic
    Excerpt: In June 2002, the Shroud was sent to a team of experts for restoration. One of them was Swiss textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She was surprised to find a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment. The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is quite similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 BC and 73 AD. This kind of stitch has never been found in Medieval Europe.
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    Shroud Of Turin – 2000 Years Old (Matches Masada Cloth) – video (21:20 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/cpaZcVagTFk?t=1294

  45. 45
    PaV says:

    MatSpirit:
    As to which Shroud of Turin I want you to focus on, it’s the one clearly laid out by BA77. I’ll quote from him:

    Why is the Turin Shroud Authentic? – Giulio Fanti* – November 2018
    Conclusion excerpt: If, as discussed above, by authenticity of the Shroud is meant a funerary sheet, of very ancient manufacture, of about 2000 years ago, that wrapped the corpse of a man hard tortured and dead on a cross, all the scientific clues considered seem favorable to this hypothesis.
    Six [8, 10-14] out of seven independent dating methods (and [9] has been widely criticized) indicate that this linen Sheet is datable to a period including the first century after Christ. The most important Relic of Christianity wrapped a corpse. The blood traces correspond to those of a tortured man. The body image cannot be explained, but the most reliable hypotheses refer to an intense and probably very brief burst of energy. The corpse, endowed with considerable corpse rigidity, remained wrapped in the Shroud for a short period, not exceeding forty hours. All these clues therefore confirm the authenticity of the Shroud [27]
    https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555707.pdf

    In your discussion of consciousness, for the second time, you’ve omitted any discussion of a two-year-old boy. Why this omission? Is it because it refutes your basic premise and you want to hide from it? Stand up and be a man!

    As to the liquefaction of St. Januarius’ Blood, your irreverence for what is sacred is on display.

    There are plenty of things out there in the universe that CANNOT be directly tested, but which can be not only observed, but given a reasonable explanation. What reasonable explanation can you give for this liquefaction–which can take place several times a year, even in normally cold months?

    Are you afraid to be honest with yourself? And when are you going to identify the moniker you used to use here?

    I’ll spell my point out: You don’t need to expend any intelligence designing a rabbit reproducer. EVERY living thing comes with one. It’s the most basic thing about being alive. It’s also the engine that runs evolution. It’s how a fortunate mutation increases in numbers.

    What is the source of this “reproducibility”? You rely on “reproducibility,” and, yet, by your own reckoning (that is, simple “reproducibility” can overcome any kind of improbability in random fashion) ‘randomness’ cannot account for the beginning’s of this capability. You’ve painted yourself into a logical ‘corner.’

    You’re conflating simple consciousness with a philosophical realization of your place in the world.

    What does this even mean? How can you possibly have a “philosophical realization of your place in the world” if simple consciousness doesn’t already exist? Thank you for your tautology–Darwinists are very good at this.

    Tiktaalik: I read that article back when Casey still worked at the Discovery Instutute. You say that Evolution is dying when YECism is moribund and the Discovery Institute is laying off its stars.

    Apparently reading doesn’t help you make headway on these things. My original point stands. Changing the discussion to where YEC now finds itself (I’m Catholic, so, this is of no interest to me) or that, according to you, the Discovery Institute is “laying off its stars” (I’m not sure what this means) is no more than a diversionary tactic.

    Templeton Prize winner: “Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against.”

    A belief is your best estimate of something. My best estimate of the odds against anything remotely like the Christian God existing are much larger then anything Dembski ever calculated against the non-intelligent creation of a hundred base-pair length of DNA, so I’m comfortable with my belief that there is no God.

    Not only did Dembski, a ‘believer’, calculate these odds, so did an ‘atheist,’ Sir Fred Hoyle. He used the fact that cytochrome c is necessary for cell division in animals (here we go again with your favorite: “reproducibility”) to demonstrate that the odds of a 100 a.a. protein is 22^100 to 1. Those are some odds. Would you like to comment on Hoyle’s methodology?

    And, please, what “odds” can you calculate that God doesn’t exist—or is simply a theological argument given quite often by Darwinists? Hoyle makes sense. His argument is unassailable. Where do your “odds” come from?

    Do you have any idea how much your man got for such a weak and misleading statement? I’ve heard it’s over a million. Sort of makes you sorry for the Templetons. They have money to burn, but they still can’t get any traction.

    So now you’re left with impugning the Templeton Prize winner—another Darwinian tactic, which has nothing to do with science, but politics.

  46. 46
    bornagain77 says:

    of related note is this video from Robert Villarreal, friend of the late Raymond Rodgers (lead chemist on STURP). Villarreal is a scientist at the Los Alamos laboratory:

    Shroud Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlFTVv2l0L4

  47. 47
    PaV says:

    BA77:

    Thank you for all of the citations and links you’ve provided. You’ve assembled quite an arsenal.

  48. 48
  49. 49
    bornagain77 says:

    Thanks Hazel. I saw that experiment a few weeks ago. It is perfectly consistent with the recent closing of the free will loop-hole. And is yet another falsification of ‘realism’, i.e. the notion that a material reality exist ‘out there’ independent of mind and/or Mind with a capital M. Though the experiment is somewhat limited in how it may effect our ‘shared experimental results’ in the present world, the implications are none-the-less huge. It confirms the Christian Theist’s contention that each of us individually directly participates with God, via our free will, in choosing which reality ultimately gets presented to each of us. As Anton Zeilinger succinctly put the situation in the following video, (where he touched upon the Kochen-Speckter Theorem), “what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”

    “The Kochen-Speckter Theorem talks about properties of one system only. So we know that we cannot assume – to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in a measurement exist prior to measurement. Not always. I mean in a certain cases. So in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure. Which is a very, very, deep message about the nature of reality and our part in the whole universe. We are not just passive observers.”
    – Anton Zeilinger – Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism – video (7:45 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/4C5pq7W5yRM?t=461

    i.e. The present experiment you referenced Hazel, which verified “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment, solidifies what was already known via the Kochen-Speckter Theorem and/or contextuality, along with what was already known with the recent closing of the free will loop hole in quantum mechanics by Zeilinger and company..

    Again the implications for bringing the free will of each individual human into the foundational laws of the universe are huge.

    First off, as I have mentioned several times before, it undermines the Darwinian worldview from within.

    As Steven Weinberg, an atheist, puts it in the following article, “In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,”

    The Trouble with Quantum Mechanics – Steven Weinberg – 2017
    Excerpt: Today there are two widely followed approaches to quantum mechanics, the “realist” and “instrumentalist” approaches, which view the origin of probability in measurement in two very different ways.9
    ,,, In the instrumentalist approach,,, humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else. It is not that we object to thinking about humans. Rather, we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure, such as the spin in one or another direction. Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,,
    http://quantum.phys.unm.edu/46.....inberg.pdf

    In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level”. Yet Hazel, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, and as the present experiment that you yourself referenced further verifies, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave. As your referenced article itself stated, “measurement results,, must be understood relative to the observer who performed the measurement”.

    Moreover, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loop hole by Zeilinger and company), provides a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the quote unquote ‘Theory of Everything”

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673179

    Luke 22:42
    “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

    Besides the empirical verification of ‘free will’ and/or Agent causality within quantum theory bringing that rather startling solution to the much sought after ‘theory of everything’, there, to put it mildly, is also a fairly drastic implication for individual people being “brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” as well.

    Although free will is often thought of as allowing someone to choose between a veritable infinity of options, in a theistic view of reality that veritable infinity of options all boils down to just two options. Eternal life, (infinity if you will), with God, or Eternal life, (infinity again if you will), without God. C.S. Lewis states the situation as such:

    “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell.”
    – C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

    In support of C.S. Lewis’s contention that “Without that self-choice there could be no Hell”, I only have to point to the people who are fanatically ‘pro-choice’ as far as abortion in concerned, demanding the unrestricted right to choose death for their unborn baby no matter what stage of development the baby may be at. Shoot, infanticide itself, unthinkable just a few short years ago, is now being demanded by many on the ‘pro-choice’ side.

    Moreover, exactly as would be a priorily expected on the Christian view of reality, and via two of our most precisely tested theories in science, we find two very different eternities in reality. An ‘infinitely destructive’ eternity associated with General Relativity and a extremely orderly eternity associated with Special Relativity:

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Again, the implications for individual humans, to put it mildly, are fairly drastic,

    Bill Wiese (Man Who Went To Hell) – 23 Minutes in Hell (8 Minute Version)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqufixPt2w0

    “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

    i.e. you are literally choosing between eternal life with God or eternal death separated from God:

    Verse:

    Deuteronomy 30:19-20
    This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    Because of such dire consequences for our eternal souls, I can only plead for atheists to seriously reconsider their choice to reject God, and to now choose life, even eternal life with God, instead of eternal death separated from God.

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    John 5:24
    Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

  50. 50
    MatSpirit says:

    PaV, I had a long msg written to you when I was suddenly logged out half way through it. The problem may be on my end, since this laptop is rather flaky. I’ll save this message and see if it makes it.

  51. 51
    MatSpirit says:

    Ok, that one made it. Here’s a very condensed recap:

    I don’t know why you think I’m afraid to say I was conscious well before two years of age, but I was and so is every normal human. I don’t know what happened to you at five, but from your description it sounds like you discovered something like you were a distinct piece of the universe and you could think. Congratulations.

    I seldom posted here and I though up a new logon and ID every time I got a new computer or my old one crashed. I did get banned once when Barry was carrying on about how things could not be A and ~A and I asked if that also applied to quantum superposition. I think MatSpirit is cute and accurate and the password is easily remembered.

    St. Januarius and his blood. How COULD it possibly be faked? The “Januarius” article on Wikipedia suggests,
    “Various suggestions for the content’s composition have been advanced, such as a material that is photosensitive, hygroscopic, or has a low melting point. However, these explanations run into technical difficulties, such as the variability of the phenomenon and its lack of correlation to ambient temperature.

    A recent hypothesis by Garlaschelli & al. is that the vial contains a thixotropic gel. In such a substance viscosity increases if left unstirred and decreases if stirred or moved. Researchers have proposed specifically a suspension of hydrated iron oxide, FeO(OH), which reproduces the color and behavior of the ‘blood’ in the ampoule. The suspension can be prepared from simple chemicals that would have been easily available locally since antiquity.” They go on to say, “[Giuseppe Geraci, a professor in the Department of Molecular Biology at Naples’s Frederick II University], further reproduced the phenomenon with his own blood stored in the same conditions as the Camaldoli relic. He stated that, “There is no univocal scientific fact that explains why these changes take place. It is not enough to attribute to the movement the ability to dissolve the blood, the liquid contained in the Treasure case changes state for reasons still to be identified.” He ultimately argued that “there’s blood, no miracle”.

    PaV: What is the source of this “reproducibility”? You rely on “reproducibility,” and, yet, by your own reckoning (that is, simple “reproducibility” can overcome any kind of improbability in random fashion) ‘randomness’ cannot account for the beginning’s of this capability. You’ve painted yourself into a logical ‘corner.’

    Reproducibility cannot do everything, but it does power evolution. It’s the engine that makes more copies of favorable mutations and powers natural selection. What do you mean, randomness cannot account for the first replicator? What was the first replicator? How did it work? Are you like the YECs who demand that it was a fully modern cell? It’s much more likely to have been a small molecule, small enough to form by chance. It’s hard to say without a sample, but we’ll probably grow multiple small examples in a test tube in the next 50 years. Maybe sooner. Of course, I can just imagine the complaints we’ll get about that, especially from UD.

    PaV: “[Sir Fred Hoyle] used the fact that cytochrome c is necessary for cell division in animals (here we go again with your favorite: “reproducibility”) to demonstrate that the odds of a 100 a.a. protein is 22^100 to 1. Those are some odds. Would you like to comment on Hoyle’s methodology?”

    Yes. Those are the odds of a 100 a.a. protein forming at random in one try. Nobody but YECs and other creationists think cytochrome c formed that way. But they do think that the first living thing was a modern type cell using cytochrome c to copy its DNA. Which the first living thing almost certainly didn’t have, anyway. Hoyle was a smart man, but he should have known better. But then, the Universe doesn’t appear to be in a steady state, plagues don’t seem to really descend on us from outer space and the Natural History Museum in London did not fake its copy of Archeopterix. (Lee Spetner was in on that one, too. Read the Archeopterix article on Wiki.)

    PaV: And, please, what “odds” can you calculate that God doesn’t exist—or is simply a theological argument given quite often by Darwinists? Hoyle makes sense. His argument is unassailable. Where do your “odds” come from?

    First, the universe seems to run just fine without God. Isaac Asimov once said that Franklin’s invention of the lightning rod was the first win of science over religion. When its usefulness was understood, just about every building in America was soon topped with a lightning rod – except churches, who though they were an affront to God. Soon, churches, with their towering steeples, were just about the only buildings being struck by lightning. After a while the churches quietly started putting up lightning rods.

    Second, God is represented as all knowing. In particular, he’s supposed to be able to carry on a conversation in ancient Hebrew. This requires understanding the meaning of thousands of words. At a very conservative five bits per word and a thousand words, I’ll let you calculate the odds. It’s 2 ^ 5000. My calculator overloads. I know, the Church Fathers argued that God is totally simple. They were wrong.

    Third, God is remarkably shy. I believe Donald Trump exists. You’d have real trouble finding evidence that he doesn’t. The God who alegedly used to speak from burning bushes or appear as a whirlwind of fire would be fantastic, but you couldn’t argue that he didn’t exist. God should show himself unambiguously once in a while. Like in the old days.

    PaV: So now you’re left with impugning the Templeton Prize winner—another Darwinian tactic, which has nothing to do with science, but politics.

    So you’re not going to argue against my charge that he made a weak and misleading statement for the prize?

  52. 52
    MatSpirit says:

    PaV: As to which Shroud of Turin I want you to focus on, it’s the one clearly laid out by BA77. I’ll quote from him:

    Bornagain77 is why they invented the scroll wheel. I’ll illustrate why using your quotation from him:

    “Why is the Turin Shroud Authentic? – Giulio Fanti* – November 2018”

    “Six [8, 10-14] out of seven independent dating methods (and [9] has been widely criticized) indicate that this linen Sheet is datable to a period including the first century after Christ.”

    https://juniperpublishers.com/gjaa/pdf/GJAA.MS.ID.555707.pdf

    What do you get from that address? Why, it’s a .pdf file from Juniper Publishers. Gee, I never heard of them. Lets Google Juniper Publishers. Ah, the fourth hit is, “List of Predatory Publishers” And there’s Juniper Publishers. This is BA77 territory, all right. But there’s no information on them.

    But the sixth hit is, “Flaky Academic Journals: Juniper Publishers and the Journal of Forensic Science and Criminal Investigations. Different “Journal”, but let’s see if they say anything about Juniper Publishers. Oh yeah.

    “Google Maps indicates that the address as of 10/10/16 is an apartment house in Thousand Oaks, California. This is a change from the initial addresses in 2015. Those were a mail forwarding front and an apartment house in Dubai, which led Beall to suspect that “thirty-six science journals are being published by one man out of a flat in Dubai.” Yes, this is looking like a BA77 quality citation.

    Here’s more: Juniper says, “Juniper publishers have been established with the aim of spreading quality scientific information to the research community throughout the universe. We … strive to offer the best in class … thus matching up with the rapidity of the twenty-first century.” And they’ll publish all this for only $1049 per research article from a “high income country.”

    Did you see that? They only charge a thousand bucks to publish your article!

    They go on: “From the guidelines for authors: “Juniper reviewers are requested to provide authentic, positive review comments and critics for the respective manuscript.” Also, “One can intimate us your pinion of accepting or declining the invitation. If you are not able to accept the invitation you can suggest any of your colleagues, so that respective editor may invite that person to review and you may not transfer your invitation.” So they’re looking for really rough and tough reviewers to say, “Yes!” to publishing your very important article for only a thousand dollars and if they feel they can’t say, “Yes”, can they perhaps suggest someone who will?

    Well, what of it! Maybe you’re a ground breaking investigator, with a thousand bucks in his pocket, whose research is going to overturn the whole field of whatever, but you can’t get published because the Darwinist journals are “discriminating” against you, where “discriminating” is defined as “couldn’t find a Yes Man” to approve it. Juniper to the rescue!

    So let’s look at the “journal article” that BA77 thinks is so authoritative.

    It’s from, “Global Journal of Archaeology & Anthropology (GJAA)” and the thousand dollar article is, “Why is the Turin Shroud Authentic?” and it’s by Giulio Fanti. Sure enough, there’s the section you quote:

    ” Six [8, 10-14] out of seven independent dating methods (and
    [9] has been widely criticized) indicate that this linen Sheet is
    datable to a period including the first century after Christ.”

    Wow! Six out of seven INDEPENDENT dating methods say it dates to the first century. And the one dating method that doesn’t “has been widely criticized”. Let’s look at those references.

    8. Fanti G, Malfi P (2015) The Shroud of Turin – First century After Christ!
    Pan Stanford Publishing Pte. Singapore, India.
    10. Baraldi P, Tinti A (2015) Molecular Spectroscopy as an alternative for
    dating Textiles. MATEC Web of Conferences p. 36.
    11. Fanti G, Baraldi P, BassoR, Tinti A (2013) Non-destructive dating of
    ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy. Vibrational
    Spectroscopy.
    12. Fanti G, Malfi P, Crosilla F (2015) Mechanical and opto-chemical dating
    of Turin Shroud, MATEC Web of Conferences p. 36.
    13. Riani M (2012) Regression analysis with partially labeled regressors:
    carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Statistical Computing
    Stat Comput.
    14. Rogers R (2005) Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of
    turin. Thermochemical Acta 425: 189-194.

    Wait a minute! Three of the seven citations are for G. Fanti, the author of this piece. These are NOT independent! What about citation number 9? The one “Which has been widely criticized.” That’s:

    9. Damon PE, Donahue DJ, Gore BH, Hatheway AL, Jull AJT, et al. (1989)
    Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature, 337: 611-615

    The carbon dating test that was really really INDEPENDENTLY administered by three of the leading universities in the western world, all of which dated the cloth to 1260–1390 AD, which is the same time that Bishop d’Arcis was writing to Pope Clement VII that the cloth was a forgery and its maker had confessed. Yes, it has been “widely criticized”. From every Shroud crank in Christendom.

    There’s more, but I’ve wasted enough time on this. Your quote is an absolutely typical example of one type of BA77 quote, citing a bunch of quacks and slighting any authorative evidence that disagrees with his beliefs. (i.e. It’s “been widely criticized” – by cranks.) The other type of BA77 citation is where he goes hog wild on a crankish interpretation of some actual scientific paper that he misunderstands. Especially anything with the word quantum in it.

    Also, if you disagree with him in any way, you get a slew of insults and name calling. Lately the messages have tended to come four at a time, too, which puts a lot of stress on the scroll wheel.

    There’s nothing immoral about this, of course. (Except for the threats, insults and name calling.) I’ve never seen him tell an outright lie, but a man with a mind so … flexible as his doesn’t need to lie. True cranks really believe everything they say. It even used to be fun to read some of his stuff and just marvel at it, but the incessant repetition has taken the fun out of that. He’s also gotten increasing arrogant and insulting over the years and lately he’s even gotten threatening, inviting people to come down to his basement for a lesson.

    All in all, that’s why the scroll wheel was invented. Luckily, he’s your problem. Good luck.

    Meanwhile, I wasted a couple of hours last night writing this message and more hours tonight writing the last one and let’s face it, you’re going to shrug it all off. Plus, BA77 is going to go several colors of ape when he reads this and I don’t want to melt down that poor scroll wheel, so I’m bringing my part in this conversation to an end. Good luck with BA. It’s been interesting talking to you.

  53. 53
    bornagain77 says:

    MatSpirit after stating his disdain for me,,,

    Bornagain77 is why they invented the scroll wheel.

    Goes on to state that Juniper Publishers is on the “List of Predatory Publishers”. And sure enough it is on a list of several hundred “possibly predatory publishers”. ,

    List of Predatory Publishers
    This is a list of publishers that may be engaging in predatory practices.
    https://predatoryjournals.com/publishers/

    Thus it seems that predatory publishing is indeed a huge problem. But even if Fanti published in a ‘predatory journal’ that still does not say anything about the integrity of the references that Fanti listed which overturned the carbon dating of the Shroud.

    And to MatSpirit’s credit he does go on to list the references that Fanti cited in the article in the ‘possibly predatory publisher’,

    8. Fanti G, Malfi P (2015) The Shroud of Turin – First century After Christ!
    Pan Stanford Publishing Pte. Singapore, India.
    9. Damon PE, Donahue DJ, Gore BH, Hatheway AL, Jull AJT, et al. (1989)
    Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature, 337: 611-615.
    10. Baraldi P, Tinti A (2015) Molecular Spectroscopy as an alternative for
    dating Textiles. MATEC Web of Conferences p. 36.
    11. Fanti G, Baraldi P, BassoR, Tinti A (2013) Non-destructive dating of
    ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy. Vibrational
    Spectroscopy.
    12. Fanti G, Malfi P, Crosilla F (2015) Mechanical and opto-chemical dating
    of Turin Shroud, MATEC Web of Conferences p. 36.
    13. Riani M (2012) Regression analysis with partially labeled regressors:
    carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Statistical Computing
    Stat Comput.
    14. Rogers R (2005) Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of
    turin. Thermochemical Acta 425: 189-194.

    After ‘fairly’ listing the citations which overturn the carbon dating, MatSpirit goes on to state,

    Wait a minute! Three of the seven citations are for G. Fanti, the author of this piece. These are NOT independent! What about citation number 9? The one “Which has been widely criticized.” That’s:

    9. Damon PE, Donahue DJ, Gore BH, Hatheway AL, Jull AJT, et al. (1989)
    Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature, 337: 611-615

    The carbon dating test that was really really INDEPENDENTLY administered by three of the leading universities in the western world, all of which dated the cloth to 1260–1390 AD, which is the same time that Bishop d’Arcis was writing to Pope Clement VII that the cloth was a forgery and its maker had confessed. Yes, it has been “widely criticized”. From every Shroud crank in Christendom.

    Perhaps MatSpirit should not be so quick to scroll past my posts? In post 42 it was shown that, besides the Memorandum of Piere d’Arcis having several holes in it, that we now have fairly extensive and reliable historical evidence that places the origin of the Shroud well before the middle ages of Europe.

    Then as was mentioned in post 43, the carbon dating was initially overturned by none other than the late Raymond Rodgers himself, who was lead Chemist on STURP, and who can hardly be considered a “Shroud crank in Christendom” since he defended the carbon dating for several decades from the ‘lunatic fringe’ element.

    The carbon dating question has been thoroughly addressed and refuted by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford in 2000. Their research, with textile experts, showing the carbon testing was done with a piece of the Shroud which was subject to expert medieval reweaving in the 1500’s had much historical, and photographic, evidence behind it. Their historical, and photographic, evidence was then scientifically confirmed by chemical analysis in 2005 by none other than Raymond Rogers, the lead chemist on the STURP team. Thus, the fact that a false age was shown by the 1988 carbon testing has been accepted across the board as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned.

    Shroud of Turin – Carbon 14 Test Proven False –
    – Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford – video
    (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE

    Why The Carbon 14 Samples Are Invalid, Raymond Rogers
    per: Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 pages 189-194, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California)
    Excerpt: Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud. The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
    http://www.ntskeptics.org/issu.....oudold.htm

    Rogers passed away shortly after publishing that paper, but his work was ultimately verified by scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory:

    Carbon Dating Of The Turin Shroud Completely Overturned by Scientific Peer Review
    Excerpt: Rogers also asked John Brown, a materials forensic expert from Georgia Tech to confirm his finding using different methods. Brown did so. He also concluded that the shroud had been mended with newer material. Since then, a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos has also confirmed Rogers work, also with different methods and procedures. Much of this new information has been recently published in Chemistry Today.
    http://shroudofturin.wordpress.....s-of-time/

    This following is the Los Alamos National Laboratory report which confirms the Rogers’ paper:

    “Analytical Results on Thread Samples Taken from the Raes Sampling Area (Corner) of the Shroud Cloth” (Aug 2008)
    Excerpt: The age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case……. LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired.
    – Robert Villarreal – Los Alamos National Laboratory
    http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/

    Of related note is this video from Robert Villarreal, friend of the late Raymond Rodgers (lead chemist on STURP), overturning the carbon dating. Villarreal is a scientist at the Los Alamos laboratory:

    Shroud Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlFTVv2l0L4

    Thus, despite MatSpirits’ ‘promising’ start in fairly listing all the citations overturning the carbon dating of the Shroud in the article from the ‘predatory journal’, it is found that MatSpirit, none-the-less, did not actually judge the citations that he himself listed fairly. Indeed he did not even mention Raymond Rodgers citation at 14 save to hand wave it off along with the rest of the citations from the others that he found unpalatable, (particularly Fanti). He then doubled down on his unshakable faith in citation number 9, the original carbon dating of the shroud which he listed. Needless to say, this is NOT an unbiased reading of the empirical evidence on MatSpirits’ part but is, like his scrolling past my posts which he finds extremely unpalatable, evidence that he much too quickly dismisses evidence that, IMHO, unquestionably refutes his position.

    MatSpirit tried to brush off Fanti’s work in particular with, “Three of the seven citations are for G. Fanti, the author of this piece. These are NOT independent!”

    Yet, regardless of MatSpirits’ all too quick knee jerk reaction to dismiss anything that does not agree with his a-priori philosophical bias towards atheistic materialism, Giulio Fanti is a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, and he is thus more than qualified to conduct experiments on the age of the Shroud using the exact methods that he has used to determine its true age.

    Here is a video of Giulio Fanti describing the specific scientific tests that he used to determine the age of the Shroud. I’ll leave to the unbiased readers to decide for themselves. Personally, I find his work overturning the carbon dating to be very much above board and reliable.

    Giulio Fanti and the Turin Shroud – load bearing test, infared test, Shroud dated to time of Christ – 34:00 minute mark – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4c4812XA9A

  54. 54
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, MatSpirit, in his hast to scroll past my posts, which he apparently finds to be beneath his dignity to even read, also did not address what I consider to be the main evidence establishing the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, i.e. The ‘eye-witness’ evidence of ‘seeing is believing’

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

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    So basically, we have a clothe with a photographic negative image on it that was made well before photographer was even invented. Moreover, the photographic negative image has a 3-Dimensional holographic nature to its image that was somehow encoded within the photographic negative well before holography was even known about.

    My question to atheists is this, if you truly believe some mad genius forger in the middle ages made this image, then please prey tell why did this mad genius save all his genius for this supposed forgery alone and not for, say, inventing photography itself since he surely would have required mastery of at least the basic principles of photography to pull off the forgery? Not to mention mastery of laser holography? Moreover, why did this hypothetical mad super-genius destroy all of his scientific instruments the he would have had to invent in order to make the image? Leonardo da Vinci would not have been worthy to tie the shoe laces of such a hypothetical genius!

    Where is the evidence that your unknown super-genius even existed? As the following article states, ” it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”

    Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016
    Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.
    ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.
    Comment
    The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.
    http://westvirginianews.blogsp.....in-is.html

    Also see post 49:

    Moreover, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loop hole by Zeilinger and company), provides a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the quote unquote ‘Theory of Everything”

    (February 19, 2019) To support Isabel Piczek’s claim that the Shroud of Turin does indeed reveal a true ‘event horizon’, the following study states that ‘The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image.’,,,
    Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with, the shroud also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics was dealt with. In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/experiment-quantum-particles-can-violate-the-mathematical-pigeonhole-principle/#comment-673179

    Luke 22:42
    “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

    Of supplemental note:

    The Shroud of Turin – Evidence it is authentic
    Excerpt: In June 2002, the Shroud was sent to a team of experts for restoration. One of them was Swiss textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg. She was surprised to find a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment. The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is quite similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 BC and 73 AD. This kind of stitch has never been found in Medieval Europe.
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    Shroud Of Turin – 2000 Years Old (Matches Masada Cloth) – video (21:20 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/cpaZcVagTFk?t=1294

    John 20:3-8
    So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus’ head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed.

    Thus in conclusion, clearly MatSpirit has not judged the scientific evidence overturning the carbon dating of the Shroud fairly but has let his a-priori bias towards atheistic materialism severely cloud his judgement in evaluating the evidence that was presented to him. Which is very sad since Christ’s victory over death is, without question, the most momentous event for mankind in all of recorded history.

    1 Corinthians 15:55
    “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”

    Since each of us must pass through the threshhold of death into eternity, Christ’s victory over death is GREAT NEWS for each of us. Recognizing the significance and importance of the claim to each of us individually, It is beyond me how anyone could be so unfairly biased in his evaluation of the evidence for this claim as MatSpirit has demonstrated himself to be in his evaluation of the evidence.

  55. 55
    Ed George says:

    MS

    Bornagain77 is why they invented the scroll wheel. I’ll illustrate why using your quotation from him:

    BA77 must have shares in a scroll wheel manufacturer. 🙂

  56. 56
    Brother Brian says:

    MS@52, Thank you for making me laugh. It was well worth the read. And the bit about predatory journals was spot on.

  57. 57
    bornagain77 says:

    Since none of the atheistic trolls who came to pat MatSpirit on the back for, basically, putting forth an ad hominem attack against Fanti are actually addressing the meat of the issue of carbon dating, just as MatSpirit did not address the meat of the issue of carbon dating, I will take that as concession on all of their parts that they have no real argument against the evidence presented by Fanti overturning the carbon dating of the Shroud.

    The argument from these atheistic trolls that the evidence in Fanti’s paper does not stand on its own merits just because it was published in a ‘predatory journal’ carries the same weight as someone trying to argue that a $100 bill found in a garbage can has no value since it was found in a trash can. The value of the evidence cited by Fanti stands on its own merits just as the value of a $100 stands on its own merits. Their argument for dismissing Fanti’s evidence, before it is even evaluated, is ludicrous.

  58. 58
    Brother Brian says:

    BA77

    The argument from these atheistic trolls that the evidence in Fanti’s paper does not stand on its own merits just because it was published in a ‘predatory journal’ carries the same weight as someone trying to argue that a $100 bill found in a garbage can has no value since it was found in a trash can.

    I don’t look through the trash for the same reason that I don’t look through predatory journals. Both ventures may produce the odd piece that has some value but it generally isn’t worth wading through all of the filth to get to it.

  59. 59
    ET says:

    MatSpirit:

    My best estimate of the odds against anything remotely like the Christian God existing are much larger then anything Dembski ever calculated against the non-intelligent creation of a hundred base-pair length of DNA, so I’m comfortable with my belief that there is no God.

    There isn’t any calculation against the non-intelligent creation of the solar system, including the earth/ moon system. There isn’t any calculation against the non-intelligent creation of life on earth. There aren’t any odds for such a thing as neither are even feasible.

    And it is guaranteed that your alleged “best estimate” is just pulled from your arse.

    How daft do you have to be to think that minds arose from the mindless via blind, mindless and purposeless processes?

  60. 60
    bornagain77 says:

    BB, I did not go ‘wading through all of the filth to get to it’. I happened across a reference to it while perusing this site:

    Scientific Papers and Articles (on the Shroud of Turin)
    https://www.shroud.com/papers.htm

    Moreover, the question is not where the paper was found, or how it was found, but if the paper, like my hypothetical $100 bill, cashes out.

    And indeed the papers listed by Fanti stand on their own merit. For prime example, the late Raymond Rodgers, the lead chemist for STURP, published his study (cite number 14 in Fanti’s paper) in Thermochimica Acta (a well respected journal) in 2004 well before Fanti even published his paper

    Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin – Raymond N. Rogers – 2004
    Abstract
    In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between A.D. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.
    Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.,,,
    The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years.
    http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

    And to reiterate, Rogers passed away shortly after publishing that paper, but his work overturning the carbon dating of the shroud was ultimately verified by scientists from the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    Analytical Results On Thread Samples Taken From The Raes Sampling Area (Corner) Of The Shroud Cloth by Robert Villarreal with Barrie Schwortz and M. Sue Benford.
    The results of the FTIR analysis on all three threads taken from the Raes sampling area (adjacent to the C-14 sampling corner) led to identification of the fibers as cotton and definitely not linen (flax). Note, that all age dating analyses were conducted on samples taken from this same area. Apparently, the age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case. What was true for the part was most certainly not true for the whole. This finding is supported by the spectroscopic data provided in this presentation.
    http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/a17.htm

    Again here are the videos that go through how of all this work overturning the Shroud carbon dating came about,,

    Shroud of Turin – Carbon 14 Test Proven False –
    – Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford – video
    (with Raymond Rogers, lead chemist from the STURP project)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxDdx6vxthE

    Shroud Carbon Dating Overturned By Scientific Peer Review – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlFTVv2l0L4

    Thus the carbon dating of the Shroud was overturned long before Fanti came along. Fanti basically, using non-destructive techniques for dating the shroud, just narrowed the age for the shroud down much closer to the first century than Rodgers was able to do, via chemistry alone, with his limited sample of a few threads.

    And again, here is a video of Giulio Fanti describing the specific scientific tests that he used to determine the age of the Shroud. I’ll leave to it the unbiased readers to decide for themselves. Personally, I find his work overturning the carbon dating to be very much above board and reliable.

    Giulio Fanti and the Turin Shroud – load bearing test, infared test, Shroud dated to time of Christ – 34:00 minute mark – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4c4812XA9A

    And here is an overview of Fanti’s tests that narrowed the age of the Shroud down to the first century: (Of note, Giulio Fanti is a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University)

    NEW TESTS DATE THE SHROUD
    New experiments date the Shroud of Turin to the 1st century AD. They comprise three tests; two chemical and one mechanical. The chemical tests were done with Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy, examining the relationship between age and a spectral property of ancient flax textiles. The mechanical test measured several micro-mechanical characteristics of flax fibers, such as tensile strength. The results were compared to similar tests on samples of cloth from between 3250 BC and 2000 AD whose dates are accurately known.
    FTIR identifies chemical bonds in a molecule by producing an infrared absorption spectrum. The spectra produce a profile of the sample, a distinctive molecular fingerprint that can be used to identify its components.
    Raman Spectroscopy uses the light scattered off of a sample as opposed to the light absorbed by a sample. It is a very sensitive method of identifying specific chemicals.
    The tests on fibers from the Shroud of Turin produced the following dates: FTIR = 300 BC + 400 years; Raman spectroscopy = 200 BC + 500 years; and multi-parametric mechanical = 400 AD + 400 years. All the dates have a 95% certainty. The average of all three dates is 33 BC + 250 years (the collective uncertainty is less than the individual test uncertainties). The average date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross in 30 AD, and is far older than the medieval dates obtained with the flawed Carbon-14 sample in 1988. The range of uncertainty for each test is high because the number of sample cloths used for comparison was low; 8 for FTIR, 11 for Raman, and 12 for the mechanical test. The scientists note that “future calibrations based on a greater number of samples and coupled with ad hoc cleaning procedures could significantly improve its accuracy, though it is not easy to find ancient samples adequate for the test.”
    They used tiny fibers extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana, who gave them to Fanti. Riggi passed away in 2008, but he had been involved in the intensive scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin by the STURP group in 1978, and on April 21, 1988 was the man who cut from the Shroud the thin 7 x 1 cm sliver of linen that was used for carbon dating.
    These tests were carried out in University of Padua laboratories by professors from various Italian universities, led by Giulio Fanti, Italian professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s engineering faculty. He co-authored reports of the findings in 1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, July 2013, “Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy” by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61-70; 2) a paper titled “A new cyclic-loads machine for the measurement of micro-mechanical properties of single flax fibers coming from the Turin Shroud” by Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi for the XXI AIMETA (Italian Association of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics) congress in 2013, and 3) the 2013 book “Il Mistero della Sindone” (The Mystery of the Shroud), written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta in Italian.
    https://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    And here is Fanti’s list of papers again

    8. Fanti G, Malfi P (2015) The Shroud of Turin – First century After Christ!
    Pan Stanford Publishing Pte. Singapore, India.
    9. Damon PE, Donahue DJ, Gore BH, Hatheway AL, Jull AJT, et al. (1989)
    Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature, 337: 611-615.
    10. Baraldi P, Tinti A (2015) Molecular Spectroscopy as an alternative for
    dating Textiles. MATEC Web of Conferences p. 36.
    11. Fanti G, Baraldi P, BassoR, Tinti A (2013) Non-destructive dating of
    ancient flax textiles by means of vibrational spectroscopy. Vibrational
    Spectroscopy.
    12. Fanti G, Malfi P, Crosilla F (2015) Mechanical and opto-chemical dating
    of Turin Shroud, MATEC Web of Conferences p. 36.
    13. Riani M (2012) Regression analysis with partially labeled regressors:
    carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Statistical Computing
    Stat Comput.
    14. Rogers R (2005) Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of
    turin. Thermochemical Acta 425: 189-194.

    Let’s see if they cash out.

    Number 8 is a book published by Pan Stanford Publishing Pte. As far as I can tell it looks reputable.

    Number 9 is the original carbon dating published Nature, no comment needed as to their solid reputation, in spite of their overt atheistic bias

    Number 10 is published by MATEC Web of Conferences which, as far as I can tell, is reputable

    Number 11 is published by Vibrational Spectroscopy – Elsevier, again reputable.

    Number 12 is also published by MATEC Web of Conferences

    Number 13 is published by the Journal of Statistical Computing, again from what I can tell, is reputable.

    And Number 14 which I have already mentioned is of course published by Thermochemical Acta, and again from what I can tell, is reputable.

    Thus Fanti’s paper, much like my hypothetical $100 dollar bill found laying in the trash can, does indeed cash out.

  61. 61
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, it is not as if the carbon dating was ever accepted across the board in the first place. It was one out of place piece of evidence that contradicted many other lines of evidence that argued very strongly for the Shroud’s antiquity and authenticity. There have been severe questions about the ‘out of place’ carbon dating ever since it was first announced:

    8 Reasons Why The Shroud Of Turin Might Be The Burial Cloth Of Jesus
    By Brian Chilton – April 25, 2017
    1) The 1988 carbon-dating test was flawed
    2) The blood on the Shroud is authentic
    3) The image on the Shroud is not a painting
    4. The pollen on the Shroud is found exclusively in the Jerusalem area
    5. The wounds of the man on the Shroud match the details of Jesus’s crucifixion
    6. The points of the face match those of the earliest portraits of Jesus
    7. The identical position and type of blood on the face of the Shroud with that of the Sudarium of Oviedo.
    8. ,,, high-powered ultraviolet radiation used to make the image on the Shroud.
    http://reasonsforjesus.com/8-r.....-of-jesus/

    Thus in conclusion, you may not like the fact that Fanti published in a ‘predatory journal’, neither do I for that matter, but still, regardless of where the “$100 bill” was found, it still cashes out and refutes the flawed carbon dating of the shroud.

    If you were truly concerned with scientific evidence, you would accept the overwhelming evidence that the Shroud is authentic. Again, seeing is believing,

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

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    But who am I kidding, you guys can’t even accept the fact that God created your very own ‘beyond belief’ brain ,,,

    Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth – November 2010
    Excerpt: They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith, a professor of molecular and cellular physiology and senior author of the paper describing the study: …One synapse, by itself, is more like a microprocessor–with both memory-storage and information-processing elements–than a mere on/off switch. In fact, one synapse may contain on the order of 1,000 molecular-scale switches. A single human brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth.
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-2708.....2-247.html

    ,,, so. if you can’t even accept that your very own ‘beyond belief’ brain was intelligently designed by God, much less will you guys ever be willing to accept the fact that God raised Christ from the dead so as to provide a propitiation for our sins.

    Matthew 13:15
    For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

Leave a Reply